in php i wrote my own debug function which have two arguments: text and a level of message. However i could be also you the php functions for triggering errors. But to debug in development i use sometimes like this:
debug($xmlobject->asXML(),MY_CONSTANT);
now i want to know whether it is a lack of performance in non debug executing because the arguments are calculated indepent whether they will be used inside function? and how to do that right that is only calculated if i need?
Thanks for your help,
Robert
If you write the following portion of code :
debug($xmlobject->asXML(),MY_CONSTANT);
Then, no matter what the debug() function does, $xmlobject->asXML() will be called and executed.
If you do not want that expression to be evaluated, you must not call it; I see two possible solutions :
Remove the useless-in-production calls to the debug() function, not leaving any debugging code in your source files,
Or make sure they are only executed when needed.
In the second case, a possibility would be to define a constant to configure whether or not you are in debug-mode, and, then, only call debug() when needed :
if (DEBUG) {
debug($xmlobject->asXML(),MY_CONSTANT);
}
Of course, the makes writting debbuging-code a bit harder... and there is a bit of performance-impact (but far smaller than executing the actual code for nothing).
The arguments are sended by value, ergo the method ->asXML() is executed always.
Related
You may wonder why I would want to do this. I'm trying to debug PHP performance on an embedded system. Don't have access to any kind of tools on the device.
I was thinking if I could just do a simple microseconds calculation on every call, it would work.
Is there a way to do it? Essentially wrap all of my functions (not built in php).
This wouldn't be for production of course.
You can use declare(ticks=1000); to run an callback, like:
// you can use this:
declare(ticks=1);
// A function called on each tick event
function tick_handler()
{
debug_backtrace();//get function name
microtime();//get time
}
http://www.php.net/declare
you only have to get the right number e.g. 1000 for your tests cycles
I work in a php project with multiple independent developers and recently we had case where a function getmicrotime() was twice defined.
all worked fine, because they were defined in different files that were not both included in a single call ... until some refactory.
in the standardcase php would just output a fatal error, but here the output was blocked. (because a thirdparty website called a website ...) so we did not get the output, just the information that nothing worked anymore.
To the point:
Is there any method, external script, etc to check if functions with the same name are defined twice in the project?
i thought about reg. expr search, but ofcourse class methods can have the same name like a::meth1 and b:meth1 .... so its not that easy.
i am talking about a project with ~100.000 lines of ugly code ... so manual checking is not possible
Thanks in advance.
Consider static code analysis. I would suggest Sonar + PHP plugin: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/PHP+Plugin
Here is the life example how it works:
http://nemo.sonarqube.org/dashboard/index/net.php.pear.phpcodesniffer
You can always write a simple script (i.e. perl or python) which will find all duplicates. The algorithm would be simple...
Is there a short solution to avoid the execution of the "exit" language construct? Otherwise I'll have to execute my function with another PHP-request.
Sample: main.php
echo 'hello world';
doSomething();
updateSomething();
Sample: doSomething.php
function doSomething()
{
$a = 1+1;
exit;
}
Sample: updateSomething.php
function updateSomething()
{
$b = 3+5;
exit;
}
But the second function will never be executed ...is there a simple solution? I've found two existing topics, without a real solution. But maybe there is smart trick for my example?
It's not a real example, in my case the functions represents some complex methods, which are called with ajax reqests without a return statement. Because the method are from a external library, I can't modify the code. And I want to call two methods of this library in one single script, if it's possible :)
And ... I know what return is doing, but in my case I can't modify the code, because it's not my code - it's code from an existing software and I just want to call these existing methods in a custom script. But I can just call one of the methods because of the exit-function in every method and it would be great to call them multiple times.
It's not possible to skip or disable an "exit" command.
If you want to do something before the script stops, you can use shutdown-functions or object-destructors ... but I don't think that's something you're up to, is it?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.exit.php
Simple. Remove exit; from the functions.
exit() will terminate execution from the script. You probably want to use return which returns back to the calling code.
The year is 2020 and a way to do what question author wanted to now exists - you can install uopz extension from PECL (version 5.0.2 or above), and use uopz_allow_exit() function to disable exit()'s, like this:
echo 'hello world';
uopz_allow_exit( false );
doSomething();
updateSomething();
uopz_allow_exit( true );
Note, however, that you will need to add this config option into your php.ini file:
uopz.exit = 1
If you dont, then all exit() calls will be disabled by default everywhere unless explicitly enabled by uopz_allow_exit().
It is also worth noting that this config option appeared only in version 6.0.1, which, for me at least, failed to install on PHP 7.0, and worked only on 7.2
Oh, and according to the documentation this extension is supposed to be used for unit testing, not production. Then again, nothing in it says that using this extension in production is discouraged, so it's your call.
From the manual:
Terminates execution of the script.
exit (alias of die) is the final thing the script does. Switch to an alternative use
function doSomething()
{
$a = 1+1;
return true;
}
In order to localize strings used within my javascript, I want scan all my js files for such strings.
I am using a t() function to request string translations as follows:
t("Hello world");
or with dynamic portions:
t("Hello #user", {"#user": "d_inevitable"});
I want to detect all calls to the t() function and thus gather the strings contained in the first argument in a php "build" script, but skipping the following:
function foo(t) {
t("This is not the real t, do not localize this!");
}
function bar() {
var t = function(){}; //not the real t either...
}
function zoo() {
function t() {
//This also isn't the real t() function.
}
}
t("Translate this string, because this is the real t() in its global scope");
So the simple rule here is that the t function being invokes must be in global scope in order for the first argument to qualify as a translation string.
As a rule, dynamic runtime data as first argument is not allowed. The first argument to t() must always be a "constant" literal string.
I think php codesniffer will help me do it, however all the documentation I could find on it is about enforcing code standard (or detecting violations of it). I need lower level access to its js lexer.
My question is:
Would the php codesniffer's js lexer be able to help me solve my problem?
If so how do I access that lexer?
Are there any other php libs that could help me find the calls to t()?
Please do not suggest stand-alone regular expressions as they cannot possibly solve my problem in full.
Thank you in advance.
What you are describing is basically a coding standard. Certainly, ensuring strings are localised correctly is part of many project standards. So I think PHPCS is the right tool for you, but you will need to write a custom sniff for it because nothing exists to do exactly what you are after.
The best thing to do is probably clone the PHPCS Git repo from Github and then create a new directory under CodeSniffer/Standards to contain your custom sniff. Let's say you call it MyStandard. Make sure you create a Sniffs directory under it and then a subdirectory to house your new sniff. Take a look at the other standards in there to see how they work. You'll also find it easier to copy an existing ruleset.xml file from another standard and just change the cotent to suit you. if you don't want to include any other sniffs from anywhere (you just want to run this one check over your code) then you can just specify a name and description and leave the rest blank.
There is a basic tutorial that covers that.
Inside your sniff, you'll obviously want it to check JS files only, so make sure you specify that in the supportedTokenizers member var (also in the docs). This will ensure PHP and CSS files are always ignored.
When you get down to the actual checking, you'll have full low-level access to the parsed and tokenised content of your file. There are a lot of helper functions to check things like if the code inside other scopes, or to help you move backwards and forwards through the stack looking for bits of code you need.
TIP: run PHPCS using the -v option to see the token output on your file. It should help you see the structure more easily.
If you want to really do things properly, you can even create a nice unit test for your sniff to make sure it keeps running over time.
After all this, you'd check your code like this:
phpcs --standard=MyStandard /path/to/code
And you can use a lot of integrations that exist for PHPCS inside code editors.
You might decide to add a new more sniffs to the standard to check other things, which you can then do easily using your ruleset.xml file or by writing more custom sniff classes.
I hope that helps a bit. If you do decide to write your own sniff and need help, just let me know.
The next weirdness I'm seeing with PHPUnit:
class DummyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function testDummy() {
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert1');
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert2');
}
public function testDummy2() {
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert3');
}
}
As soon as the first assertion fails in a test, the rest of the test is ignored.
So (with a simple call of phpunit DummyTest.php):
The above code will display 2 tests,
2 assertions, 2 failures. What?
If I make all the tests pass, then
I'll get OK (2 tests, 3 assertions).
Good.
If I only make all the tests pass
except for assert2, I get 2 tests, 3
assertions, 1 failure. Good.
I don't get it, but PHPUnit's been around for ages, surely it has to be me?
Not only are the counts not what I'd expect, only the error message for the first failed assert in the code above is displayed.
(BTW, I'm analyzing the xml format generated by PHPUnit for CI rather than testing real code, hence the practice of multiple assertions in the one test.)
First off: That is expected behavior.
Every test method will stop executing once an assertion fails.
For an example where the opposite will be very annoying*:
class DummyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function testDummy() {
$foo = get_me_my_foo();
$this->assertInstanceOf("MyObject", $foo);
$this->assertTrue($foo->doStuff());
}
}
if phpunit wouldn't stop after the first assertion you'd get an E_FATAL (call to a non member function) and the whole PHP process would die.
So to formulate nice assertions and small tests it's more practical that way.
For another example:
When "asserting that an array has a size of X, then asserting that it contains a,b and c" you don't care about the fact that it doesn't contain those values if the size is 0.
If a test fails you usually just need the message "why it failed" and then, while fixing it, you'll automatically make sure the other assertions also pass.
On an additional note there are also people arguing that you should only have One Asssertion per Test case while I don't practice (and I'm not sure if i like it) I wanted to note it ;)
Welcome to unit testing. Each test function should test one element or process (process being a series of actions that a user might take). (This is a unit, and why it is called "unit testing.") The only time you should have multiple assertions in a test function is if part of the test is dependent on the previous part being successful.
I use this for Selenium testing web pages. So, I might want to assert that I am in the right place every time I navigate to a new page. For instance, if I go to a web page, then login, then change my profile, I would assert that I got to the right place when I logged in, because the test would no longer make sense if my login failed. This prevents me from getting additional error messages, when only one problem was actually encountered.
On the other side, if I have two separate processes to test, I would not test one, then continue on to test the other in the same function, because an error in the first process would mask any problems in the second. Instead, I would write one test function for each process. (And, if one process depended on the success of the other, for instance, post something to a page, then remove the post, I would use the #depends annotation to prevent the second test from running if the first fails.)
In short, if your first assert failing does not make the second one impossible to test, then they should be in separate functions. (Yes, this might result in redundant code. When unit testing, forget all that you have learned about eliminating redundant code. That, or make non-test functions and call them from the test functions. This can make unit tests harder to read, and thus harder to update when changes are made to the subject of the tests though.)
I realize that this question is 2 years old, however the only answer was not very clear about why. I hope that this helps others understand unit testing better.