Eclipse Community Forums: TMF (Xtext) » Use object as type instead of String

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » TMF (Xtext) » Use object as type instead of String

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Use object as type instead of String [message #1779350]

Fri, 05 January 2018 16:43

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Hello,

my grammar looks like:

Eq:
	'eq' value=STRING | NUMBER |NULL;

NUMBER:
	'-'? INT ('.' INT)?;

terminal NULL:
	'null';

Currently the interface Eq constains a method `String getValue`, how can i change this to`Object getValue`?

[Updated on: Fri, 05 January 2018 17:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779359 is a reply to message #1779350]

Fri, 05 January 2018 17:25

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

can you please give some more context. if (at all) the type would be EObject? or do you mean java.lang.Object? if yes what do you want to fill it with?

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779361 is a reply to message #1779359]

Fri, 05 January 2018 17:38

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

The EObject is ok as well.
Currently the value is always a String (at the modell class), but it can be null or 112 or 11.2. or "A".
The issue is I do not know the original value anymore.

Small example with null:

	@Test
	public void parseNull() {
		final String value = null;
		String expression = "eq"+ value;
                //parsing...
		Eq eq;
		assertThat(eq.getValue()).isEqualTo(value);
	}

JUnit result said: Expected null Actual: "null"

Thanks for your help

[Updated on: Fri, 05 January 2018 17:39]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779367 is a reply to message #1779361]

Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

that sounds like a parse error?!?

the question is your semantic?

wouldnt it be better to have a StringLiteral, a NumberLiteral, and Null as separate types?

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779371 is a reply to message #1779367]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:06

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

that sounds like a parse error?!?

Why should this be a parse error?

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

the question is your semantic?

The semantic is like:

eq(attribute, "a") or eq(attribute, 1) or eq(attribute, null)

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

wouldnt it be better to have a StringLiteral, a NumberLiteral, and Null as separate types?

Do you mean something like this:

Instead of

Eq:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING | INT | NULL')';

this:

Eq:
	EqString | EqInt ...
EqString:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING')';
EqInt:
       'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=INT')';

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779372 is a reply to message #1779367]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:07

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

that sounds like a parse error?!?

Why should this be a parse error?

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

the question is your semantic?

The semantic is like:

eq(attribute, "a") or eq(attribute, 1) or eq(attribute, null)

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

wouldnt it be better to have a StringLiteral, a NumberLiteral, and Null as separate types?

Do you mean something like this:

Instead of

Eq:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING | INT | NULL')';

this:

Eq:
	EqString | EqInt ...
EqString:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING')';
EqInt:
       'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=INT')';

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779373 is a reply to message #1779367]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:07

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

that sounds like a parse error?!?

Why should this be a parse error?

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

the question is your semantic?

The semantic is like:

eq(attribute, "a") or eq(attribute, 1) or eq(attribute, null)

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

wouldnt it be better to have a StringLiteral, a NumberLiteral, and Null as separate types?

Do you mean something like this:

Instead of

Eq:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING | INT | NULL')';

this:

Eq:
	EqString | EqInt ...
EqString:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING')';
EqInt:
       'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=INT')';

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779374 is a reply to message #1779373]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:08

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

so eq is (field, value) ?

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779375 is a reply to message #1779367]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:08

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

that sounds like a parse error?!?

Why should this be a parse error?

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

the question is your semantic?

The semantic is like:

eq(attribute, "a") or eq(attribute, 1) or eq(attribute, null)

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:51

wouldnt it be better to have a StringLiteral, a NumberLiteral, and Null as separate types?

Do you mean something like this:

Instead of

Eq:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING | INT | NULL')';

this:

Eq:
	EqString | EqInt ...
EqString:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=STRING')';
EqInt:
       'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=INT')';

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779376 is a reply to message #1779375]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:11

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

i mean something like

value=ValueExpression

ValueExpression: StringLiteral | IntLiteral | NullLiteral;

StringLiteral: value=STRING
IntLiteral: value=INT
NullLiteral: {NullLiteral} "NULL";

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779377 is a reply to message #1779376]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:23

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 18:11

i mean something like

I have already done that, I have abbreviated this only for the example.
Sorry for the confusion:

This are my type rules

Eq:
	'eq' '(' attribute=FIELD_VALUE ',' value=Literal ')';

Literal:
	(StringOrNumberLiteral | BOOLEAN | NULL);

StringOrNumberLiteral:
	STRING | NUMBER;

NUMBER:
	'-'? INT ('.' INT)?;

terminal BOOLEAN returns ecore::EBoolean:
	'true' | 'false';

terminal NULL:
	'null';

terminal FIELD_VALUE:
	('A'..'Z' | 'a'..'z') ('A'..'Z' | 'a'..'z' | '0'..'9' | '.' | '_' | '-')*;

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779378 is a reply to message #1779377]

Fri, 05 January 2018 18:37

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

And Whats your actual question

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779390 is a reply to message #1779378]

Fri, 05 January 2018 22:08

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 18:37

And Whats your actual question

The question is why looks the Eq like this

class Eq
String getValue()

insteadOf

class Eq
EObject getValue()

I have the same issue for the In operator

class In
List<Strings> getValues()

How should i validate the datatype, if all values are strings?
How can I check if it was a 1 or "1"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779393 is a reply to message #1779390]

Fri, 05 January 2018 22:46

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

As I said. Make the literals eobjects
By using assignments
Then you can instanceof

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779399 is a reply to message #1779393]

Sat, 06 January 2018 10:23

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 22:46

As I said. Make the literals eobjects
By using assignments
Then you can instanceof

Ahh sorry didn't see the assignments. I will try that.
Thanks

Edit: Works :)

[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2018 06:57]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779458 is a reply to message #1779359]

Mon, 08 January 2018 10:18

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Fri, 05 January 2018 17:25

if (at all) the type would be EObject? or do you mean java.lang.Object? if yes what do you want to fill it with?

1 more question, sorry. Now the value of Literal(s) are EObjects. Is it possible to replace it with java.lang.Object?

Model code:

 EObject getValue();

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779461 is a reply to message #1779458]

Mon, 08 January 2018 10:23

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

why do you want to?

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779462 is a reply to message #1779461]

Mon, 08 January 2018 10:24

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

and how does the grammar look like. maybe you did something wrong

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779466 is a reply to message #1779461]

Mon, 08 January 2018 10:39

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Mon, 08 January 2018 10:23

why do you want to?

Because a EObject is a interface and a Object is easier to use:
This will not compile if the list contains EObjects

assertThat(inFilter.getValues()).contains("a", "b");

I found this solution, but this no good idea, becuase the conversion is not working anymore

Literal returns ecore::EJavaObject:
	StringOrNumberLiteral | BOOLEAN | NULL;

StringOrNumberLiteral returns ecore::EJavaObject:
	(STRING | NUMBER);

[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2018 11:58]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779472 is a reply to message #1779462]

Mon, 08 January 2018 12:17

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Mon, 08 January 2018 10:24

and how does the grammar look like. maybe you did something wrong

Currently looks like, but iam not happy with it.

That's way too many classes. That's why an object would be my favorite. Is that not possible?

Literal returns ecore::EObject:
	(StringOrNumberLiteral | BooleanValue | NullValue);
	
StringOrNumberLiteral returns ecore::EObject:
	(StringLiteral | NumberValue);
	
StringLiteral returns ecore::EObject:
	StringValue;
	
StringValue:
	value = STRING;

NumberValue:
	value = DOUBLE;
	
BooleanValue:
	value = BOOLEAN;
	
NullValue:
	value = NULL;

[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2018 12:35]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779475 is a reply to message #1779472]

Mon, 08 January 2018 12:48

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

no i meant

Literal:
(StringOrNumberLiteral | BooleanValue | NullValue);

StringOrNumberLiteral:
(StringLiteral | NumberValue);

StringLiteral:
value = STRING;

NumberValue:
value = DOUBLE;

BooleanValue:
value = BOOLEAN;

NullValue:
value = NULL;

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779477 is a reply to message #1779475]

Mon, 08 January 2018 12:54

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Yes but then i have a Literal Class and a lot of sub classes.
Is that unavoidable?

i would prefer something like

value=(STRING | INT)

Object getValue()

[Updated on: Mon, 08 January 2018 13:00]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779480 is a reply to message #1779477]

Mon, 08 January 2018 13:10

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

import "http://www.eclipse.org/emf/2002/Ecore" as ecore

Model:
greetings+=Greeting*;

Greeting:
'Hello' name=WhyTypesIfYouCanHaveObject '!';

// TODO implement value converter
WhyTypesIfYouCanHaveObject returns ecore::EJavaObject:
INT | STRING
;

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779481 is a reply to message #1779480]

Mon, 08 January 2018 13:19

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Okay understand will try to solve it better with types.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Use object as type instead of String [message #1779482 is a reply to message #1779475]

Mon, 08 January 2018 14:00

Dennis Melzer

Messages: 48
Registered: December 2014

Member

Christian Dietrich wrote on Mon, 08 January 2018 12:48

no i meant

Literal:
(StringOrNumberLiteral | BooleanValue | NullValue);

StringOrNumberLiteral:
(StringLiteral | NumberValue);

StringLiteral:
value = STRING;

NumberValue:
value = DOUBLE;

BooleanValue:
value = BOOLEAN;

NullValue:
value = NULL;

Mhm ok this works, but with this solution i have a lots of cast, because the Literal class has no getValue(). Just the subclasses has a getValue

		StringLiteral literal = (StringLiteral) eq.getLiteral();
		assertThat(literal.getValue()).isEqualTo("4711");

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Unit Test with @Traced
Next Topic:	Deploying xtext features

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Thu Apr 18 18:06:09 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter