poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Javen O'Neal" <javenon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Evaluating expressions outside a cell value context
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:32:45 GMT
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.woolsey@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 <javenoneal@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.woolsey@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.woolsey@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.woolsey@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.woolsey@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.woolsey@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.woolsey@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 <apache@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-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message