5

Abstract class:

public abstract class FilterCriterionAbstract 
{   
    protected Object leftComparableElement;
    protected Object rightComparableElement;

    public FilterCriterionAbstract()
    {

    } 

    public FilterCriterionAbstract(Object leftComparableElement, Object rightComparableElement) 
    {   
            this.leftComparableElement = leftComparableElement;
            this.rightComparableElement = rightComparableElement;
    }

    abstract Boolean eval();
}

Concrete class:

public with sharing class FilterCriterionEquals extends FilterCriterionAbstract
{
    public Boolean eval()
    {
        return leftComparableElement == rightComparableElement;
    }
}

Test class:

@isTest
private class FilterCriteriaTest {

    static testMethod void myUnitTest() {

        Integer i = 1;
        Integer i2 = 2;

        SL_FilterCriterionAbstract c = new SL_FilterCriterionEquals((Object)i, (Object)i2);  

        //System.assert(c.eval());       
    }


}

Without default constructor in abstract class I am getting following exception:

line 1, column 27: Parent class has no 0-argument constructor for implicit construction

With default constructor (as in my example):

Save error: Constructor not defined: [FilterCriterionEquals].<Constructor>(Object, Object)  FilterCriteriaTest.cls  .../src/classes line 30 Force.com save problem

Could someone explaine to me that behaviour, please ?

  • This is no the only issue for abstract classes. The same problem is with base classes (virtual) – Vlad Apr 17 '13 at 15:19
1

Your concrete class needs a constructor that calls the correct base class constructor, e.g.

public with sharing class FilterCriterionEquals extends FilterCriterionAbstract
{
    public FilterCriterionEquals(Object lhs, Object rhs) {
        super(lhs, rhs);
    }

    public Boolean eval()
    {
        return leftComparableElement == rightComparableElement;
    }
}
| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Thanks. I've already implemented that way. Doesn't this approach violate DRY principle ? – Vlad Apr 17 '13 at 15:55
  • 1
    for classes that only add behavour it does tend to seem like a lot of boiler plate code, but if your classes have additional state, that needs initializing somewhere, this is a common issue in java/c#/apex and a lot of other OO languages. – superfell Apr 17 '13 at 16:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.