#file:Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
data class Element<T>(
val key: String,
val valueOne: T,
val valueTwo: T,
val comparator: Comparator<T>,
val comparatorValue: CompareResult
)
enum class CompareResult(
val value: Int
) {
LESS(-1),
EQUAL(0),
GREATER_THAN(1)
}
fun <T> matchesComparison(list:Collection<Element<T>>): Pair<Boolean, List<String>> {
val failedComparisons = mutableListOf<String>()
for (element in list) {
val compareValue = element.comparator.compare(element.valueOne, element.valueTwo)
if (element.comparatorValue.value != compareValue) {
failedComparisons.add(element.key)
}
}
return Pair(failedComparisons.isEmpty(), failedComparisons)
}
val stringComparator = Comparator.comparing(String::toString)
val intComparator = Comparator.comparing(Int::toInt)
val elementsToCompare = listOf(
Element("number", 1, 2, intComparator, CompareResult.LESS),
Element("first name", "a", "a", stringComparator, CompareResult.EQUAL),
Element("last name", "a", "b", stringComparator, CompareResult.EQUAL)
)
matchesComparison(elementsToCompare).second.joinToString(", ","Failed elements: \"","\"")
I often get faced with comparing two different object properties with the same values.
As an example object A has props number,firstname,lastname. What i want to do is create a list have and have a function which goes over these Elements and returns which props have failed the comparison. I've managed to use generics for both the object and the matchesComparison function which returns the failed comparisons. The problem begins when i want to pass this list which is of type Collection<Element<out Any>> to this function is i get a type missmatch. instead of using unchecked casts to force the Comparator to be of type Any i would like to do this
val stringComparator = Comparator.comparing(String::toString)
val intComparator = Comparator.comparing(Int::toInt)
The result value that of the script above should be Failed elements: "last name"
I tried changing the signature of the function to out any but then the comparator.compare method has both params as of type Nothing. I really want to avoid unsing unchecked casts.
matchesComparison() doesn't need to be generic in this case. It doesn't really care what is the type of the whole input collection, so we can simply use * here.
Then we have another problem. The compiler isn't smart enough to notice that while we perform operations on a single element, all its properties are of matching types. As a result, it doesn't allow to use element.comparator on element.valueOne and element.valueTwo. To fix this problem, we simply need to create a separate function which works on a single Element, so it understand the type for all properties is the same:
fun matchesComparison(list:Collection<Element<*>>): Pair<Boolean, List<String>> {
fun <T> Element<T>.matches() = comparatorValue.value == comparator.compare(valueOne, valueTwo)
val failedComparisons = mutableListOf<String>()
for (element in list) {
if (!element.matches()) {
failedComparisons.add(element.key)
}
}
return Pair(failedComparisons.isEmpty(), failedComparisons)
}
Also, I believe such matches() function should be actually a member function of Element. It seems strange that while Element is pretty independent and it contains everything that is needed to perform a comparison, it still requires to use external code for this. If it would have a matches() function then we wouldn't need to care about its T. matches() would work with any Element.
Related
I am trying to filter a list based on a condition that a property inside the list is an enum type. But I get an error on the filter function. Can anyone tell me how to resolve this error and why it is happening?
Type inference failed. The value of the type parameter T should be mentioned in input types (argument types, receiver type or expected type). Try to specify it explicitly.
My code is below:
data class Person(
val name: String,
val ageInDays: Int,
val currentStatus: List<Status>,
)
data class Status(
val name: String,
val activity: Activity
)
enum class Activity {
COOK,
CLEAN,
SLEEP,
}
fun main() {
var build = listOf(
Person("abc", 3655, listOf(
Status("abcProc1", Activity.COOK),
Status("abcProc2", Activity.CLEAN),
Status("abcProc2", Activity.SLEEP),
)
),
Person("ghi", 500, listOf(
Status("ghiProc", Activity.COOK),
Status("ghiProc", Activity.SLEEP),
)
),
Person("def", 1000,listOf(
Status("defProc", Activity.SLEEP)
)
)
)
println(build.filter { it.currentStatus.contains(Activity.CLEAN) })
}
currentStatus is a List<Status>. The only type of object that could be in the list is a Status (or subtype thereof). So it doesn't make sense to call contains on the list with an argument that is not a Status. An Activity is not a subtype of Status.
Assuming you want to filter your list of Status to only include instances of Status for which the activity property is Activity.CLEAN, you would do it like:
build.filter { it.currentStatus.any { status -> status.activity == Activity.CLEAN } }
or slightly less efficient but possibly clearer logic:
build.filter { it.currentStatus.map(Status::activity).contains(Activity.CLEAN) }
I want to make it so that I keep my code dry and create 3 (or more, or less) buttons with somewhat the same structure. So I create a list of objects to loop over and put the data inside the object to use in several places in the AppButton.
I might think a bit too Pythonic, because that's my main language and I only recently started using Kotlin. What I normally do in Python:
app_buttons = [
dict(
text="....",
icon="....",
uri_string="....",
),
...
]
I've tried something similar in Kotlin with mapOf:
val appButtons = arrayOf(
mapOf(
"title" to getString(R.string.app_btn_example1),
"icon" to R.drawable.ic_some_icon_1_64,
"uriString" to "myapp://example1",
),
...
)
and then loop over them and getting from the map:
for (entry in appButtons) {
buttons.add(
AppButton(
entry.get("text"),
entry.get("icon"),
) {
val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, Uri.parse(entry.get("uriString"))).apply {
val name = getString(R.string.saved_account_key)
putExtra(name, sharedPref.getString(name, null))
}
startActivity(intent)
}
)
}
But then I get Type mismatch. Required String. Found {Comparable & java.io.Serializable}?. I don't know what types to put where...
Ok different approach, using setOf and destructuring:
val appButtons = arrayOf(
setOf(
getString(R.string.app_btn_example1),
R.drawable.ic_some_icon_1_64,
"myapp://example1",
),
...
)
for ((text, icon, uriString) in appButtons) {
buttons.add(
AppButton(
text,
icon
) {
...
}
)
}
But now I get the following:
Destructuring declaration initializer of type Set<{Comparable<*> & java.io.Serializable}> must have a 'component1()' function
Destructuring declaration initializer of type Set<{Comparable<*> & java.io.Serializable}> must have a 'component2()' function
Destructuring declaration initializer of type Set<{Comparable<*> & java.io.Serializable}> must have a 'component3()' function
How do I make this work? How do I create a basic list of objects and loop over them with the correct types? It feels so simple in Python. I'm clearly missing something.
Rather than using maps, you should create a data class. For example:
data class ButtonModel(
val title: String,
val icon: Int,
val uriString: String,
)
You can then create the array like this:
val appButtons = arrayOf(
ButtonModel(
title = getString(R.string.app_btn_example1),
icon = R.drawable.ic_some_icon_1_64,
uriString = "myapp://example1",
),
...
)
Or without the parameter labels if you prefer:
val appButtons = arrayOf(
ButtonModel(
getString(R.string.app_btn_example1),
R.drawable.ic_some_icon_1_64,
"myapp://example1",
),
...
)
Then, rather than getting them with get or [], you can just use the dot syntax:
buttons.add(
AppButton(
entry.text,
entry.icon,
) {
val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, Uri.parse(entry.uriString)).apply {
val name = getString(R.string.saved_account_key)
putExtra(name, sharedPref.getString(name, null))
}
startActivity(intent)
}
)
Sorry for the poor title but it is rather hard to describe my use case in a short sentence.
Context
I have the following model:
typealias Identifier = String
data class Data(val identifier: Identifier,
val data1: String,
val data2: String)
And I have three main data structures in my use case:
A Set of Identifiers that exist and are valid in a given context. Example:
val existentIdentifiers = setOf("A-1", "A-2", "B-1", "B-2", "C-1")
A Map that contains a List of Data objects per Identifier. Example:
val dataPerIdentifier: Map<Identifier, List<Data>> = mapOf(
"A-1" to listOf(Data("A-1", "Data-1-A", "Data-2-A"), Data("A-1", "Data-1-A", "Data-2-A")),
"B-1" to listOf(Data("B-1", "Data-1-B", "Data-2-B")),
"C-1" to listOf(Data("C-1", "Data-1-C", "Data-2-C"))
)
A List of Lists that group together the Identifiers that should share the same List<Data> (each List includes always 2 Identifiers). Example
val identifiersWithSameData = listOf(listOf("A-1", "A-2"), listOf("B-1", "B-2"))
Problem / Use Case
The problem that I am trying to tackle stems from the fact that dataPerIdentifier might not contain all identifiersWithSameData given that existentIdentifiers contains such missing Identifiers. I need to add those missing Identifier to dataPerIdentifier, copying the List<Data> already in there.
Example
Given the data in the Context section:
A-1=[Data(identifier=A-1, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A),
Data(identifier=A-1, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A)],
B-1=[Data(identifier=B-1, data1=Data-1-B, data2=Data-2-B)],
C-1=[Data(identifier=C-1, data1=Data-1-C, data2=Data-2-C)]
The desired outcome is to update dataPerIdentifier so that it includes:
A-1=[Data(identifier=A-1, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A),
Data(identifier=A-1, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A)],
B-1=[Data(identifier=B-1, data1=Data-1-B, data2=Data-2-B)],
C-1=[Data(identifier=C-1, data1=Data-1-C, data2=Data-2-C)],
A-2=[Data(identifier=A-2, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A),
Data(identifier=A-2, data1=Data-1-A, data2=Data-2-A)]
The reason is that existentIdentifiers contains A-2 that is missing in the initial dataPerIdentifier Map. B-2 is also missing in the initial dataPerIdentifier Map but existentIdentifiers does not contain it, so it is ignored.
Possible solution
I have already a working code (handleDataForMultipleIdentifiers() method is the one doing the heavy lifting), but it does not feel to be the cleanest or easiest to read:
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val existentIdentifiers = setOf("A-1", "A-2", "B-1", "C-1")
val dataPerIdentifier: Map<Identifier, List<Data>> = mapOf(
"A-1" to listOf(Data("A-1", "Data-1-A", "Data-2-A"), Data("A-1", "Data-1-A", "Data-2-A")),
"B-1" to listOf(Data("B-1", "Data-1-B", "Data-2-B")),
"C-1" to listOf(Data("C-1", "Data-1-C", "Data-2-C"))
)
val identifiersWithSameData = listOf(listOf("A-1", "A-2"), listOf("B-1", "B-2"))
print("Original Data")
println(dataPerIdentifier)
print("Target Data")
println(dataPerIdentifier.handleDataForMultipleIdentifiers(identifiersWithSameData, existentIdentifiers))
}
fun Map<Identifier, List<Data>>.handleDataForMultipleIdentifiers(identifiersWithSameData: List<List<Identifier>>, existentIdentifiers: Set<Identifier>)
: Map<Identifier, List<Data>> {
val additionalDataPerIdentifier = identifiersWithSameData
.mapNotNull { identifiersList ->
val identifiersWithData = identifiersList.find { it in this.keys }
identifiersWithData?.let { it to identifiersList.minus(it).filter { it in existentIdentifiers } }
}.flatMap { (existentIdentifier, additionalIdentifiers) ->
val existentIdentifierData = this[existentIdentifier].orEmpty()
additionalIdentifiers.associateWith { identifier -> existentIdentifierData.map { it.copy(identifier = identifier) } }.entries
}.associate { it.key to it.value }
return this + additionalDataPerIdentifier
}
typealias Identifier = String
data class Data(val identifier: Identifier,
val data1: String,
val data2: String)
So my question is: how can I do this in a simpler way?
If identifiersWithSameData always contains 2 identifiers per item then it should not really be a list of lists, but rather a list of pairs or dedicated data classes. And if you convert this data structure into a map like this:
val identifiersWithSameData = mapOf("A-1" to "A-2", "A-2" to "A-1", "B-1" to "B-2", "B-2" to "B-1")
The the whole solution is pretty simple:
existentIdentifiers.associateWith {
dataPerIdentifier[it] ?: dataPerIdentifier[identifiersWithSameData[it]!!]!!
}
I'm not sure about both !!, for example I don't know if it is guaranteed that identifier existing in existentIdentifiers exists in identifiersWithSameData as well. You may need to tune this solution a little.
I have an array of customers, each customer has properties id, uuid and subCustomer and other properties that I am not interested in. I would like to do one iteration, where I would create 3 arrays where one would hold ids, other uuids and third subcustomers only.
I have tried to achieve this by using fold function like this:
customers.fold(
mapOf(
"ids" to listOf<String>(),
"uuids" to listOf<UUID>(),
"subCustomers" to listOf<String>()
))
{ acc, customer ->
acc["ids"]?.plus(customer["id"])
acc["uuids"]?.plus(customer["uuid"])
acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(customer["subCustomer"])
}
With this code I get an error in editor:
Type mismatch.
Required:
Map<String, List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>>
Found:
List<Any?>?
I have tried this as well:
customers.fold(
mapOf(
"ids" to listOf<String>(),
"uuids" to listOf<UUID>(),
"subCustomers" to listOf<String>()
))
{ acc, customer ->
mapOf(
"ids" to acc["ids"]?.plus(customer["id"]),
"uuids" to acc["uuids"]?.plus(customer["uuid"]),
"subCustomers" to acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(customer["subCustomer"])
)
}
But, I get this errors:
Type mismatch.
Required:
List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>
Found:
List<Any?>?
Type mismatch.
Required:
Map<String, List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>>
Found:
Map<String, List<Any?>?>
Write two data classes for your data. One for your customers, and one for the three lists that you want:
data class Customer(
val id: String,
val uuid: UUID,
val subCustomer: String,
)
data class CustomerDataLists(
val ids: MutableList<String> = mutableListOf(),
val uuids: MutableList<UUID> = mutableListOf(),
val subCustomers: MutableList<String> = mutableListOf(),
)
Then, just use a simple for loop to add the data in:
val dataLists = CustomerDataLists()
for (customer in customers) {
dataLists.ids.add(customer.id)
dataLists.uuids.add(customer.uuid)
dataLists.subCustomers.add(customer.subCustomer)
}
// now dataLists is filled with customers' data
#Sweeper's answer is nice. I believe in any case it's worth using data classes instead of maps for this kind of use case.
Since you don't really have any interactions between the 3 lists in the fold, you could also build those lists independently (but it's 3 iterations of course here):
data class Customer(
val id: String,
val uuid: UUID,
val subCustomer: String,
)
data class AggregatedCustomers(
val ids: List<String>,
val uuids: List<UUID>,
val subCustomers: List<String>,
)
val customers: List<Customer> = TODO("get that list from somewhere")
val aggregated = AggregatedCustomers(
ids = customers.map { it.id }
uuids = customers.map { it.uuid }
subCustomers = customers.map { it.subCustomer }
)
This answer contiains 3 parts:
A better way to solve such problem;
Why the original code doesn't work;
Other problems need to pay attention.
1. A better way to solve such problem
Let's assume that the Consumer mentioned looks like this:
data class Customer(
val id: String,
val uuid: UUID,
val subCustomer: String,
)
It's really not necessary to use function fold in such occasion. For loop or extension function forEach is merely enough:
val customers: List<Customer> = listOf(
Customer("1", UUID.randomUUID(), "sub-1"),
Customer("2", UUID.randomUUID(), "sub-2"),
Customer("3", UUID.randomUUID(), "sub-3"),
)
val ids = mutableListOf<String>() // pay attention. use `mutableListOf` instead of `listOf()`
val uuids = mutableListOf<UUID>()
val subConsumers = mutableListOf<String>()
customers.forEach {
ids += it.id
uuids += it.uuid
subConsumers += it.subCustomer
}
2. Why the original code doesn't work
The proposed two pieces of code are in the same pattern:
customers.fold(
mapOf(
"ids" to listOf<String>(),
"uuids" to listOf<UUID>(),
"subCustomers" to listOf<String>()
)
) { acc, customer ->
// ... do something with acc and customer
}
We should first make it clear that the last statement in the fold scope is the expression to be accumulated. It's like an acc_n <combine> customer -> acc_(n+1), for each customer in customers each time, where <combine> is where we write our logic. So the first proposed piece of code doesn't work because you might not be aware that something should be returned while writing:
customers.fold(...){ acc, customer ->
acc["ids"]?.plus(customer.id)
acc["uuids"]?.plus(customer.uuid)
acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(customer.subCustomer)
}
In fact, the last statement acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(...) is an expression with type List<Any>?, kotlin regard it as your "acc_(n+1)", but you propose mapOf("ids" to ...) as acc_0, which has type Map<String, ...>: not the same type as List<Any>?. And that's why you got the first error:
Type mismatch.
Required:
Map<String, List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>>
Found:
List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>?
We'll talk about generic types later.
Let's move on the second piece of code. A map is proposed as the last expression in the scope of fold, which is also a map:
customers.fold(...) { acc, customer ->
mapOf(
"ids" to acc["ids"]?.plus(customer.id),
"uuids" to acc["uuids"]?.plus(customer.uuid),
"subCustomers" to acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(customer.subCustomer)
)
}
The simpliest way to eliminate error is using !! expression (not suggested!):
customers.fold(...) { acc, customer ->
mapOf(
"ids" to acc["ids"]?.plus(customer.id)!!,
"uuids" to acc["uuids"]?.plus(customer.uuid)!!,
"subCustomers" to acc["subCustomers"]?.plus(customer.subCustomer)!!
)
}
The reason is that kotlin cannot assert acc["ids"] is not null, that's why you use ?. for a null-safe method invoke. However such invoke make the return type nullable:
val cus: Customer? = Customer("1", UUID.randomUUID(), "sub-1") // cus has type Customer? : nullable
val id1: String = cus?.id // [compile error] Type mismatch. [Required: String] [Found: String?]
val id2: String? = cus?.id // OK
val id3: String = cus?.id!! // If `cus?.id` is null, throw NPE.
You've declare acc_0 (in bracket after fold) in type Map<String, List<T>> implicitly (we will talk about T later). Just know that T is not a nullable type), but a map with type Map<String, List<T>?> was found as acc_(n+1). Types mismatch and the error was shown:
Type mismatch.
Required:
List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>
Found:
List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>?
3. Other problem need to pay attention
An important problem is: What's the type of acc_0?
// acc_0:
mapOf(
"ids" to listOf<String>(),
"uuids" to listOf<UUID>(),
"subCustomers" to listOf<String>()
)
Of course type of each expression on the left of to is String, and List<T> is the type of each expression on the right of it. so it must be Map<String, List<T>>. What about T? Kotlin try to find the nearest ancessor of String and UUID, and find them both implements Comparable<?> and Serializable, so that's what you see in the error. That's the type of T:
Required:
List<{Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}>
This may lead to some unwanted experience:
val map = mapOf(
"listA" to mutableListOf("233"),
"listB" to mutableListOf(UUID.randomUUID())
)
val listA = map["A"]!! // MutableList<out {Comparable{String & UUID}> & java.io.Serializable}!>
// generic type "collapse" into `Nothing` for no type can implement both Comparable<String> and Comparable<UUID>
listA.add(Any()) // Type mismatch. [Required: Nothing] [Found: Any]
So try not to put lists with different generic type into one map.
Another problem is, when you try to invoke acc["ids"]?.plus(customer.id), you are actually invoking such method (from kotlin _Collections.kt)
public operator fun <T> Collection<T>.plus(element: T): List<T> {
val result = ArrayList<T>(size + 1)
result.addAll(this)
result.add(element)
return result
}
A new list is created each time you invoke the method! Try use mutableListOf() in replace of listOf() for collections that you want to make changes, and use "+=" (or ?.plusAsign() as null-safe version) operator instead. This may leads to some other problem with the original code (which is too complex to explain why), but for the code in part 1: A better way to solve such problem, the += is actually invoking:
public inline operator fun <T> MutableCollection<in T>.plusAssign(element: T) {
this.add(element)
}
which just add value to list without create new ones.
I have a list of objects with an optional id as String and I want to make a map out of it.
I want to have the keys of my map as non nullable: so something like this:
data class Foo(
val id: String? = null
val someStuff: String? = null,
)
val foo = listOf(Foo("id1"), Foo())
val bar = foo.filterNot { it.id == null }.associateBy { it.id }
Here bar type is Map<String?, Foo> but not Map<String, Foo>
My workaround is to add a non null asserted call: !!, but it doesn't seem clean.
Is there an easy and safe way to do this?
This looks like something that contracts could help with, but currently a contract expression can't access properties of the class in use.
As a workaround, you could define a 2nd class that has a non-null id, like so
data class Foo(
val id: String? = null,
val someStuff: String? = null
)
data class Foo2(
val id: String,
val someStuff: String? = null
)
val foo = listOf(Foo("id1"), Foo())
val bar = foo
.mapNotNull { if (it.id != null) Foo2(it.id, it.someStuff) else null }
.associateBy { it.id }
There's a six-year-old open feature request for Map.filterNotNullKeys() and a four-year old open feature request for Map.associateByNotNull().
In my opinion, the associateBy { it.id!! } would be cleanest for readability. But you could do it like this:
val bar = foo.mapNotNull { it.id?.run { it.id to it } }.toMap()
As for your actual question, that logic is way too many steps for the compiler to infer. Your last function call to associateBy sees a nullable, so it infers a nullable. For the compiler to figure this out, it would have to step back and see that the List that you call associateBy on happens to have filtered out certain objects in a way that happens to ensure that a certain nullable property won't be null within this specific list, and it's the same property that you are associating with. Now imagine it has to do this for every call to any generic function, and the various lambdas involved could potentially have multiple lines of code. Compile times would skyrocket.