On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:43 PM Peter McNeil <pe...@mcneils.net> wrote:
> G'day David
>
> On 25/4/20 6:17 am, David Karr wrote:
> > Lately my only Groovy work is scripted pipelines in Jenkins, version
> > 2.89.4 .
> >
> > I'm working with an api that is somewhat dumb in one respect. The
> > method we call takes ~25 parameters. We send them as named
> > parameters. One of the parameters is of boolean type. What we've
> > discovered from testing is that if we send a value as either "true" or
> > "false", it acts as if we sent "true". If we construct the call
> > without that parameter entirely, it acts as if we sent "false".
>
> The function could be making a truthyness mistake or you could be. e.g.
> if you called the function with "false" instead of false
>
> groovy> def foo(Map args) {
> groovy> println "b1 = ${args.b1}"
> groovy> println "b2 = ${args.b2}"
> groovy> println "b3 = ${args.b3}"
> groovy> if (args.b1) {
> groovy> println "b1 tests true"
> groovy> } else {
> groovy> println "b1 tests false"
> groovy> }
> groovy> }
> groovy> foo(b2: true, b1: "false", b3: false)
>
> b1 = false
> b2 = true
> b3 = false
> b1 tests true
>
The former is more likely true. I've already carefully verified that the
parameter I'm passing is truly a boolean by printing the class name of the
parameter.
>
> > I tried making it send null, but that just causes it to fail at
> > runtime. We presently have an "if" for that one flag, with two calls
> > to the method, one taking 25 parameters, the other taking 24. It is
> > really obnoxious.
> you could clean up (DRY up) the code by adding the params to a map then
> just removing the parameter if that's the only way to make it work.
> >
> > Obviously, the proper fix is to change their api so that it works
> > correctly. The reality is, that's not going to happen any time soon
> > in geological terms.
> >
> > Is there a concise groovy syntax we could use that would optionally
> > include or exclude a single parameter to the method?
>
> yes:
>
> Map args = [p1: true, p2: false, p3: true ...]
>
> if(!p4) args.remove("p4")
>
> foo(args)
>
I assume this only works if I can redefine the implementation of the
method. I don't even have access to the class files, much less have any
control over the implementation.
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
>
>
> --
> web: http://nerderg.com, twitter: http://twitter.com/pmcneil
>
