DDevelopment & Design

Sorting strings in Oracle by national rules

  • byModulo
  • February 18, 2011
  • 1 minute read

Sometimes we need to sort a list by rules of a national letter order, e.g. in Polish the national charactes are mostly place between original the Latin ones: … b, c, ć, d, e, ę, f … In other languages, it can be even more sophisticated, like in Spanish, where ll is located after lz, so a single character replacement wouldn’t work.

If we sort the following way:

SELECT * FROM TABLE (SYS.ODCIVARCHAR2LIST(‘cde’, ‘ća’, ‘dx’, ‘ca’)) ORDER BY COLUMN_VALUE;

We’ll get: ca, cde, dx, ća and that’s wrong. To sort the list correctly, we can specify a language rule: NLSSORT(COLUMN_VALUE,’NLS_LANG=pl’):

SELECT * FROM TABLE (SYS.ODCIVARCHAR2LIST(‘cde’, ‘ća’, ‘dx’, ‘ca’)) RDER BY NLSSORT(COLUMN_VALUE,’NLS_LANG=pl’);

Finally we’ll get the correct result: ca, cde, ća, dx.

— Previous article

GWT / GXT compilation slow and freezes my Windows ?

Next article —

After WarJUG

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Thought static method can’t be easy to mock, stub nor track? Wrong!

No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from Specification.  The global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)No matter why, no matter is it a good idea. Sometimes one just wants to check or it's necessary to be done. Mock a static method, woot? Impossibru!

In pure Java world it is still a struggle. But Groovy allows you to do that really simple. Well, not groovy alone, but with a great support of Spock.

Lets move on straight to the example. To catch some context we have an abstract for the example needs. A marketing project with a set of offers. One to many.

import spock.lang.Specification

class OfferFacadeSpec extends Specification {

    OfferFacade facade = new OfferFacade()

    def setup() {
        GroovyMock(Project, global: true)
    }

    def 'delegates an add offer call to the domain with proper params'() {
        given:
            Map params = [projId: projectId, name: offerName]

        when:
            Offer returnedOffer = facade.add(params)

        then:
            1 * Project.addOffer(projectId, _) >> { projId, offer -> offer }
            returnedOffer.name == params.name

        where:
            projectId | offerName
            1         | 'an Offer'
            15        | 'whasup!?'
            123       | 'doskonała oferta - kup teraz!'
    }
}
So we test a facade responsible for handling "add offer to the project" call triggered  somewhere in a GUI.
We want to ensure that static method Project.addOffer(long, Offer) will receive correct params when java.util.Map with user form input comes to the facade.add(params).
This is unit test, so how Project.addOffer() works is out of scope. Thus we want to stub it.

The most important is a GroovyMock(Project, global: true) statement.
What it does is modifing Project class to behave like a Spock's mock. 
GroovyMock() itself is a method inherited from Specification.  The global flag is necessary to enable mocking static methods.
However when one comes to the need of mocking static method, author of Spock Framework advice to consider redesigning of implementation. It's not a bad advice, I must say.

Another important thing are assertions at then: block. First one checks an interaction, if the Project.addOffer() method was called exactly once, with a 1st argument equal to the projectId and some other param (we don't have an object instance yet to assert anything about it).
Right shit operator leads us to the stub which replaces original method implementation by such statement.
As a good stub it does nothing. The original method definition has return type Offer. The stub needs to do the same. So an offer passed as the 2nd argument is just returned.
Thanks to this we can assert about name property if it's equal with the value from params. If no return was designed the name could be checked inside the stub Closure, prefixed with an assert keyword.

Worth of  mentioning is that if you want to track interactions of original static method implementation without replacing it, then you should try using GroovySpy instead of GroovyMock.

Unfortunately static methods declared at Java object can't be treated in such ways. Though regular mocks and whole goodness of Spock can be used to test pure Java code, which is awesome anyway :)
DDevelopment & Design

Inconsistent Dependency Injection to domains with Grails

I've encountered strange behavior with a domain class in my project: services that should be injected were null. I've became suspicious as why is that? Services are injected properly in other domain classes so why this one is different?

Constructors experiment

I've created an experiment. I've created empty LibraryService that should be injected and Book domain class like this:

class Book {
    def libraryService

    String author
    String title
    int pageCount

    Book() {
        println("Finished constructor Book()")
    }

    Book(String author) {
        this()
        this.@author = author
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author)")
    }

    Book(String author, String title) {
        super()
        this.@author = author
        this.@title = title
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)")
    }

    Book(String author, String title, int pageCount) {
        this.@author = author
        this.@title = title
        this.@pageCount = pageCount
        println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)")
    }

    void logInjectedService() {
        println("    Service libraryService is injected? -> $libraryService")
    }
}
class LibraryService {
    def serviceMethod() {
    }
}

Book has 4 explicit constructors. I want to check which constructor is injecting dependecies. This is my method that constructs Book objects and I called it in controller: 

class BookController {
    def index() {
        constructAndExamineBooks()
    }

    static constructAndExamineBooks() {
        println("Started constructAndExamineBooks")
        Book book1 = new Book().logInjectedService()
        Book book2 = new Book("foo").logInjectedService()
        Book book3 = new Book("foo", 'bar').logInjectedService()
        Book book4 = new Book("foo", 'bar', 100).logInjectedService()
        Book book5 = new Book(author: "foo", title: 'bar')
        println("Finished constructor Book(Map params)")
        book5.logInjectedService()
    }
}

Analysis

Output looks like this:

Started constructAndExamineBooks
Finished constructor Book()
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(String author)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(Map params)
    Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2

What do we see?

  1. ✔

    Empty constructor injects dependencies.

  2. ✔

    Constructor that invokes empty constructor explicitly injects dependencies.

  3. ✘

    Constructor that invokes parent's constructor explicitly does not inject dependencies.

  4. ✘

    Constructor without any explicit call declared does not call empty constructor thus it does not inject dependencies.

  5. ✔

    Constructor provied by Grails with a map as a parameter invokes empty constructor and injects dependencies.

Conclusion

Always explicitily invoke empty constructor in your Grail domain classes to ensure Dependency Injection! I didn't know until today either!