Anything that is still stubbed can be annotated with @NotImplemented, which will add the corresponding note to the JavaDocs.
On Feb 12, 2017 17:08, "Greg Woolsey" <greg.wool...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to inspect it, and point me to the utilities, I > hadn't found them yet. I'll incorporate them and run all the tests > including my new ones. > > Are folks OK with this as part of 3.16? I'd like that. There are some new > methods on some interfaces, so if there are custom implementations of > things like Sheet, they would need changes. Returning null or false should > be fine though, as the only callers are the new evaluator classes, and > anyone using those would need the new API methods anyway. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 5:22 PM Javen O'Neal <javenon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I haven't read through all your changes on GitHub yet, but all the > > changes so far look good. I have a few other suggestions to > > deduplicate some code using SheetUtil and FormulaShifter, but those > > changes can be made at a later date if needed. > > > > You should be able to use git-svn to push your changes. Read through > > and improve our git documentation [1] if necessary. > > > > [1] https://poi.apache.org/guidelines.html#Approach+3+-+the+git+way > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Well, I couldn't stand the incomplete support, so now this supports > > > evaluating rules for all the different types, including range > aggregates > > > like "greater than 2 standard deviations" and "top 10". Still doesn't > > > provide help assigning partitioning buckets for icon sets and colors, > but > > > everything else is working. > > > > > > I filed a big bug with Vaadin, listing 5 core design problems I've > found > > > with their Conditional Formatting implementation, and offering my > > > replacement for their code that uses the new POI evaluator instead. > They > > > bit, and are interested, but I won't make my first commit some behemoth > > > that hasn't received any feedback. I know there are conventions and > > ideas > > > I've missed :) > > > > > > I need both sets of changes for my day job, so I'm all-in on doing it > > > right in both directions and facilitating the conversations. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:50 PM Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Now this fork also contains ConditionalSpreadsheetEvaluator, and > related > > >> code. The unit test is essentially a stub, but tests one basic style > > for > > >> proof of concept. > > >> > > >> I've actually implemented a version of Vaadin Spreadsheet that uses > this > > >> new code to see how it performs, and I'm quite happy with both the > > improved > > >> performance (~50% faster than theirs) and feature coverage/accuracy. > > I've > > >> found 5 major bugs so far in what they did, most likely the result of > > the > > >> complexity of the document structure and the fact that several key > > pieces > > >> of information where still buried in the implementation classes, and > > hadn't > > >> been surfaced yet to the SS interfaces. I've done that in this branch > > also. > > >> > > >> My code here is my own, I didn't like anything I saw elsewhere enough > to > > >> copy it :) > > >> > > >> Evaluation currently doesn't support range-based conditions, such as > > >> TOP_10, DUPLICATE, etc. Those don't seem like they'd be that bad to > > do, if > > >> someone wants to take a stab at them. I don't need them (yet), so > they > > >> just evaluate to "false" with a TODO comment for now. > > >> > > >> Likewise, there is no code to report which partition bucket a cell > falls > > >> into when the condition type is one of the partitioned styles, 2,3 or > 4 > > >> value buckets, gradient fill, etc. The fact that the rule matches > > (based > > >> on range) is available, the caller would need to evaluate the rule > type > > and > > >> see what lies beneath. > > >> > > >> I assume interested parties will take a look as they have time and > > >> inclination. I'm sure there are areas to discuss, beyond where to put > > the > > >> curly braces :) I left some comments as to alternate strategies for > > some > > >> areas, where I opted for less change to existing classes as a starting > > >> point, even if it means a switch...case here or there when a new > method > > >> could be added to an Enum class instead. > > >> > > >> Hopefully the new methods on the SS interfaces are deemed minor - the > > >> values were already there in most cases, at least on one side or the > > other > > >> (HSSF/XSSF), with a static default to use for the other one per MS > > >> documentation. > > >> > > >> Greg > > >> > > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:38 PM Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Oh, the primary class is o.a.p.ss.formula.DataValidationEvaluator > > >> > > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:37 PM Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> My GitHub branch now contains Data Validation code and unit tests. > The > > >> test file DataValidationEvaluations.xlsx contains a large set of > > validation > > >> examples, including one formula example that applies to a range of > cells > > >> and uses a relative formula. The evaluation code has corresponding > > logic > > >> to offset the relative formula Ptgs from the top left of the region. > > >> > > >> Every test is labeled in the file with column A as a description, > > column B > > >> as the cell with validation, and column C the expected result, TRUE = > > >> valid, FALSE = invalid. > > >> > > >> The unit test compares the POI validation result with the expected > > column, > > >> failing on boolean mismatches. > > >> > > >> Have not had time to run all tests yet, but this should only be code > > >> additions, not modifications. I'll run them soon. > > >> > > >> I'm sure there are code style discussions to be had - for example I > > >> implemented some things as inner classes for now, but we may want them > > >> top-level instead. > > >> > > >> Comments welcome, this is early code but is built on top of the SS > > >> interfaces, so should be stable for HSSF and XSSF. > > >> > > >> Greg > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:55 AM Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Also, I just found this sample workbook > > >> < > > http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/F/16F701E9-63BA- > 48D3-8B48-096F9288F443/AF010235700_en-us_cfsamples_af010235700.xlsx> > > in > > >> the Excel online support docs. If I have time to turn that into a > unit > > >> test, it's about as complete as we could want. Some parts are lost > > saving > > >> as HSSF, but we can then test that we evaluate what remains the same > > way as > > >> newer Excel when opening a legacy formatted file. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:38 AM Greg Woolsey <greg.wool...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks, that makes sense wrt custom implementations of > FormulaEvaluator > > - > > >> I hadn't thought about anyone rolling their own, but it's an > interface, > > so > > >> quite possible. Too bad we can't require Java 8 yet and use default > > >> methods. > > >> > > >> I can work with the new *Evaluator class idea. And the HSSF > limitations > > >> will just mean more unit tests :) I have Excel 2016 available so I > can > > >> create test workbooks, save them as both XLSX and XLS, and compare > > >> evaluations. I can then write unit tests based on them that expect > the > > >> results seen in Excel. That should give us reference points for > > confidence > > >> in our replication of their logic, especially around rule > priority/order > > >> and XLS HSSF files. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:05 PM Nick Burch <apa...@gagravarr.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Greg Woolsey wrote: > > >> > As noted in one of the method JavaDocs, we also need to expose and > > make > > >> use > > >> > of the ConditionalFormattingRule "priority" attribute. That's key > to > > >> > matching the right rule when more than one rule applies to a cell. > > Only > > >> > the first match in priority order is applied. > > >> > > >> Your slight challenge is that not all Conditional Formatting rules > have > > a > > >> priority... XLSX ones do, and newer XLS ones based on CFRule12Record > > (sid > > >> = 0x087A) do, but the older XLS ones (CFRuleRecord / 0x01B1) don't. > I'm > > >> not sure what Excel does for those, but my hunch (based on our API) is > > >> that it uses their order as a priority. > > >> > > >> > > >> > I've created a fork in GitHub for this, and committed a stab at > > >> > high-level API methods that could be added to the FormulaEvaluator > > >> > interface: > > >> > > > >> > > https://github.com/WoozyG/poi/commit/d44fee7bd03ed450af589467ec90e2 > 581b9f2b16$ > > >> > > >> FormulaEvaluator is an interface, which we have 4 implementations of > in > > >> our codebabse, and I'd guess that other complex users of POI will have > > >> dozens more. I'm not sure, therefore, that we want to be putting all > of > > >> the CF and DV logic methods on there, especially as it'll be common to > > all > > >> implementations > > >> > > >> The HSSF classes for CF all use org.apache.poi.ss.formula.Formula > which > > is > > >> PTG based. The HSSF classes for DV seem to store the raw PTGs. > > >> > > >> If we added two new SS usermodel classes, eg > > >> ConditionalFormattingEvaluator and DataValidationEvaluator, these > could > > be > > >> classes (not interfaces) with your proposed new methods on. They could > > >> hold the logic (once) for all formats (as it's basically the same on > > all) > > >> for priority, checking etc > > >> > > >> Doing that would also mean that "our" new classes could call out to > our > > >> existing low-level ones to evaluate formulas. That would mean we > > wouldn't > > >> have to make a breaking change to the FormulaEvaluator interface too > > >> > > >> Might that work for you? > > >> > > >> > No implementations have been done yet, and the Vaadin comments > > indicate > > >> > HSSF doesn't parse conditional formatting properly or something, and > > >> can't > > >> > be evaluated correctly currently. I don't know exactly what they > > found > > >> > wrong, and it's rather annoying they didn't file any bugs. > > >> > > >> I think that comment is out of date, from before the CF work in 3.13 > > >> > > >> Nick > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > > > > >
