I'm not totally surprised casting the joinpoint didn't work, I just hoped
:) I think we can probably get that to work. On the face of it your
proposal sounds reasonable for binding args. However, I still find it very
ugly that you can't just get the parameters that met the pointcut
constraints and get rid of all that code that retests whether they are
annotated, which is why I pointed to
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=233718
aspect X {
// Note this advice will match and run multiple times - once for each
param
void around(String paramToScrub): call(* *(..,@Scrubbed (String),..)) &&
args(paramToScrub) { return proceed(scrubString(paramToScrub));
}
// More optimal perhaps, less nesting, probably easier to implement
void around(org.aspectj.lang.MatchedArg[] args): call(* *(..@Scrubbed
(String),..)) && args(matchedArgs) {
for (MatchedArg arg:args)
arg.setValue(scrubString(arg.getValue());
return proceed(args);
}
}
Andy
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 18:44, Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bug 233718 is not really what I was concerned about.
>
> Casting thisJoinPoint to ProceedingJoinPoint was an idea I also had
> before, but the subsequent proceed(args) call returns null. If you run
> this aspect in native syntax against the sample classes in my SO
> answer...
>
> package de.scrum_master.aspect;
>
> import java.lang.annotation.Annotation;
> import java.lang.reflect.Method;
>
> import org.aspectj.lang.ProceedingJoinPoint;
> import org.aspectj.lang.SoftException;
> import org.aspectj.lang.reflect.MethodSignature;
>
> import de.scrum_master.app.Scrubbed;
>
> public aspect StringScrubberAspect {
> Object around() : call(public * *(.., @de.scrum_master.app.Scrubbed
> (String), ..)) {
> Method method = ((MethodSignature)
> thisJoinPoint.getSignature()).getMethod();
> Object[] args = thisJoinPoint.getArgs();
> Annotation[][] parameterAnnotations = method.getParameterAnnotations();
> for (int argIndex = 0; argIndex < args.length; argIndex++) {
> for (Annotation paramAnnotation : parameterAnnotations[argIndex]) {
> if (paramAnnotation instanceof Scrubbed)
> args[argIndex] = scrubString((String) args[argIndex]);
> }
> }
> try {
> System.out.println(thisJoinPoint instanceof ProceedingJoinPoint);
> Object result = ((ProceedingJoinPoint) thisJoinPoint).proceed(args);
> System.out.println(result);
> return result;
> } catch (Throwable t) {
> throw new SoftException(t);
> }
> }
>
> private String scrubString(String string) {
> return string.replaceAll("[Ee]", "#");
> }
> }
>
> ... the console log will be:
>
> true
> null
> true
> null
>
> How about extending 'args()' functionality in order to allow binding to
> an Object[] parameter which does not occur anywhere in the pointcut
> literal, automatically binding the equivalent of JoinPoint.getArgs() to
> it and thus allowing to proceed with the same bound parameter in both
> native and @AspectJ syntax? That would be kind of elegant, probably
> manageable from the perspective of pointcut parsing because there is no
> really new syntax, and the functionality to proceed with an Object[] is
> already in the code base, which is why it works in @AspectJ syntax.
>
> --
> Alexander Kriegisch
> https://scrum-master.de
>
>
> Andy Clement schrieb am 05.09.2020 02:05 (GMT +07:00):
>
> > I feel like there are some bugs that talk around this topic, but I
> > can't quite find the one I'm thinking of. I found
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=233718 and it was
> > interesting to read what I was writing 12 years ago :) I feel like i
> > prototyped an improved arg matching system but I hit something
> > seriously complex before finishing, and wrote about it in bugzilla
> > somewhere...
> >
> > I don't think you are missing anything. Mixing the syntaxes should be
> > ok I think. Can you cast thisJoinPoint to a ProceedingJoinPoint in
> > AspectJ syntax around advice and use it? I can't quite remember.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 22:41, Alexander Kriegisch wrote:
> >
> >> Check this out:
> >> https://stackoverflow.com/a/63735393/1082681
> >>
> >> Is there anything I have overlooked? If so, how would I do that in
> >> native syntax? If not, would it be hard to implement?
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
