I have something like this in Kotlin, repeated in several places (and please bear in mind that I'm relatively new to the language and I'm still figuring out what's the best/ more idiomatic way to do things):
class SomeClass {
fun someMethod(c: Context) {
val id: String? = c.someValue?.someId
if(id == null) {
return someResult("some message")
}
doSomething(id)
}
}
I would like to find an idiomatic way of extracting
if(id == null) {
return someResult("some message")
}
and still be able to use the value of id without having to help the compiler determining its value is not null. How can I do this idiomatically in Kotlin?
You can use kotlin elvis operator it works the same as if(id == null) {...} :
class SomeClass {
fun someMethod(c: Context) {
val id: String = c.someValue?.someId ?: return someResult("some message")
doSomething(id)
}
}
Related
Essentially this is in the title. I have a value that could be null. If it is, I just want to exit with a message. If it's not null, then there's a whole slew of work I need to do with this value.
I've found similar, but not quite this exact situation. And it's the subtle difference that's driving me nuts. Here is my code in java:
if (value == null) {
print("error!");
return;
}
print(value);
doFunStuff(value);
etc(value);
All those methods using value require it to be non-null.
But I'm having a difficult time figuring this out in kotlin. With everything I try, the compiler still insists that value is still nullable and refuses to use it in the functions.
What is the kotlin way of doing this very common code flow?
If your methods truly have non-null parameters, the Kotlin compiler should be smart enough to do a smart cast to Object from Object?.
fun yourMethod(value: Object?) {
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value) // Smart cast happens here
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
fun print(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun doFunStuff(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun etc(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
But you can also force the conversion by using the !! operator (though in this case the compiler will tell you it's not necessary):
fun yourMethod(value: Object?) {
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
val nonNullValue = value!!
print(nonNullValue)
doFunStuff(nonNullValue)
etc(nonNullValue)
}
fun print(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun doFunStuff(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
fun etc(value: Object) {
// Implementation
}
If your value is a local variable or a function parameter, you won't have this problem, because the compiler will smart-cast it to not-null.
So, I'm assuming value in this case is a member property.
Option 1 is to copy it to a local variable to use in the function:
val value = value
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
Option 2 is to use the let or also scope functions to do the same thing, but this might not be a good option here because so much code would become nested. This is more useful when you're only calling one or two functions with the object, in which case, you wouldn't even have to name it (just call it it).
value.let { value ->
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
If your entire function works with this one property, you can avoid the nesting problem like this, if you don't mind it returning something besides Unit:
fun foo() = value.also { value ->
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value)
doFunStuff(value)
etc(value)
}
Option 3 is to assert non-null every time you use it, but this is very ugly. This is only safe if you know the property is only ever accessed from the same thread this function is ever called on.
if (value == null) {
print("error!")
return
}
print(value!!)
doFunStuff(value!!)
etc(value!!)
Expanding on #Mehul's answer, this would only run the code in the let if the value was not null. If null, you could run the outside process and return from it.
value?.let { nonNullValue ->
print(nonNullValue);
doFunStuff(nonNullValue);
etc(nonNullValue);
}?: run { print("error!") ; return }
That said, since you are no longer needing the return to abort the function if null, you could simply do this and further clean it up replacing the lambda.
value?.let {
print(it);
doFunStuff(it);
etc(it);
}?: print("error!")
Well, have you already tried something like this and this is not what you expect?
value?.let { nonNullValue ->
print(nonNullValue);
doFunStuff(nonNullValue);
etc(nonNullValue);
}
basically the code inside let block will run only if the value isn't null.
Looking for a natural Kotlin way to let startTime be initialized only in a particular place and exactly once.
The following naive implementation have two problems:
it is not thread safe
it does not express the fact "the variable was or will be assigned exactly once in the lifetime of an Item instance"
class Item {
var startTime: Instant?
fun start(){
if (startTime == null){
startTime = Instant.now()
}
// do stuff
}
}
I believe some kind of a delegate could be applicable here. In other words this code needs something similar to a lazy variable, but without initialization on first read, instead it happens only after explicit call of "touching" method. Maybe the Wrap calls could give an idea of possible implementation.
class Wrap<T>(
supp: () -> T
){
private var value: T? = null
private val lock = ReentrantLock()
fun get(){
return value
}
fun touch(){
lock.lock()
try{
if (value == null){
value = supp()
} else {
throw IllegalStateExecption("Duplicate init")
}
} finally{
lock.unlock()
}
}
}
How about combining AtomicReference.compareAndSet with a custom backing field?
You can use a private setter and make sure that the only place the class sets the value is from the start() method.
class Item(val value: Int) {
private val _startTime = AtomicReference(Instant.EPOCH)
var startTime: Instant?
get() = _startTime.get().takeIf { it != Instant.EPOCH }
private set(value) = check(_startTime.compareAndSet(Instant.EPOCH, value)) { "Duplicate set" }
fun start() {
startTime = Instant.now()
}
override fun toString() = "$value: $startTime"
}
fun main() = runBlocking {
val item1 = Item(1)
val item2 = Item(2)
println(Instant.now())
launch { println(item1); item1.start(); println(item1) }
launch { println(item1) }
delay(1000)
println(item2)
item2.start()
println(item2)
println(item2)
item2.start()
}
Example output:
2021-07-14T08:20:27.546821Z
1: null
1: 2021-07-14T08:20:27.607365Z
1: 2021-07-14T08:20:27.607365Z
2: null
2: 2021-07-14T08:20:28.584114Z
2: 2021-07-14T08:20:28.584114Z
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Duplicate set
I think your Wrap class is a good starting point to implement this. I would definitely make it a property delegate and touch() could be much simplified:
fun touch() {
synchronized(this) {
check(value == null) { "Duplicate init" }
value = supp()
}
}
Then you can remove lock. But generally, this is a good approach.
If you would like to reuse lazy util from stdlib then you can do this by wrapping it with another object which does not read its value until asked:
class ManualLazy<T : Any>(private val lazy: Lazy<T>) {
operator fun getValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>): T? {
return if (lazy.isInitialized()) lazy.value else null
}
fun touch() {
lazy.value
}
}
class Item {
private val _startTime = ManualLazy(lazy { Instant.now() })
val startTime: Instant? by _startTime
fun start(){
_startTime.touch()
}
}
Of course, depending on your needs you can implement it in a much different way, using a similar technique.
This may be considered exploiting or hacking lazy util. I agree and I think Wrap approach is a better one.
I have a piece of code as below (simplified to explain the issue). From the rawData, I would like to filter out those that doesn't have a converter type provided in converter, and then for the remaining, convert the data to listitem
data class RawData(val type: String, val data: Data)
interface Converter {
fun convert(data: Data): ListItem
}
fun transform(): List<ListItem> {
val providerTypeMap = modelViewProvider.associateBy({it.type}, {it})
return rawDataList.filter {
converter[it.type] != null
}.map {
converter[it.type]?.create(it.data) ?: object: ListItem {}
}
}
Note: I want the return type as List<ListItem> and not List<ListItem?>. In order to do that, I need to have this line
converter[it.type]?.create(it.data) ?: object: ListItem {}
Which to me the ? and ?: is pretty ugly since we know by then, we already filter and only keep that converter[it.type] != null
Is there a way for me to get rid of the ? and ?: ListItem{} in my code?
There is a solution:
return rawDataList.mapNotNull {
converter[it.type]?.create(it.data)
}
But i don't know in which Kotlin's version mapNotNull() method appeared. If you haven't it you can use construction map {}.filterNotNull() or write your own mapNotNull extension method.
I have a repository class like this:
interface TodosRepository : CrudRepository<Todo, Long> {
fun findByUid(uid: String): Todo?
}
and a method that can mark this todo as done:
fun markAsDone(uid: String): ResponseEntity<String> {
var todo = todosRepository.findByUid(uid)
if(todo == null){
return ResponseEntity("Not found", HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND)
}
todo.status = 1
todosRepository.save(todo)
return ResponseEntity.ok("Saved")
}
IntelliJ ask me to replace the todo == null with an elvis operator:
fun markAsDone(uid: String): ResponseEntity<String> {
var todo: Todo? = todosRepository.findByUid(uid) ?: return ResponseEntity("Not found", HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND)
todo.status = 1
todosRepository.save(todo)
but then, it asks me to use the null check when setting the status to 1 with todo?.status = 1
the thing is that I think it shouldn't ask me, because at that point, I'm pretty sure that todo is not null anymore.
Is there any workaround or I maybe misunderstood something on Kotlin?
I believe you could make the variable non-nullable to fix this. Probably also a val.
val todo: Todo = todosRepository.findByUid(uid) ?: return ResponseEntity("Not found", HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND)
Edit: omitting the return type should also work to infer the non-nullable Todo type.
The automatic change that IntelliJ suggested would've worked smoothly if you didn't have an explicit type; it seems like it chose to keep it unmodified instead of changing it to non-nullable, which somewhat defeats the purpose of the hint.
val todo = todosRepository.findByUid(uid) ?: return ResponseEntity("Not found", HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND)
Should I use double =, or triple =?
if(a === null) {
//do something
}
or
if(a == null) {
//do something
}
Similarly for 'not equals':
if(a !== null) {
//do something
}
or
if(a != null) {
//do something
}
A structural equality a == b is translated to
a?.equals(b) ?: (b === null)
Therefore when comparing to null, the structural equality a == null is translated to a referential equality a === null.
According to the docs, there is no point in optimizing your code, so you can use a == null and a != null
Note that if the variable is a mutable property, you won't be able to smart cast it to its non-nullable type inside the if statement (because the value might have been modified by another thread) and you'd have to use the safe call operator with let instead.
Safe call operator ?.
a?.let {
// not null do something
println(it)
println("not null")
}
You can use it in combination with the Elvis operator.
Elvis operator ?: (I'm guessing because the interrogation mark looks like Elvis' hair)
a ?: println("null")
And if you want to run a block of code
a ?: run {
println("null")
println("The King has left the building")
}
Combining the two
a?.let {
println("not null")
println("Wop-bop-a-loom-a-boom-bam-boom")
} ?: run {
println("null")
println("When things go null, don't go with them")
}
Kotlin ways of handling null
Secure Access Operation
val dialog : Dialog? = Dialog()
dialog?.dismiss() // if the dialog will be null,the dismiss call will be omitted
Let function
user?.let {
//Work with non-null user
handleNonNullUser(user)
}
Early exit
fun handleUser(user : User?) {
user ?: return //exit the function if user is null
//Now the compiler knows user is non-null
}
Immutable shadows
var user : User? = null
fun handleUser() {
val user = user ?: return //Return if null, otherwise create immutable shadow
//Work with a local, non-null variable named user
}
Default value
fun getUserName(): String {
//If our nullable reference is not null, use it, otherwise use non-null value
return userName ?: "Anonymous"
}
Use val instead of var
val is read-only, var is mutable. It’s recommended to use as many read-only properties as you can, they are thread-safe.
Use lateinit
Sometimes you can’t use immutable properties. For example, it happens on Android when some property is initialized in onCreate() call. For these situations, Kotlin has a language feature called lateinit.
private lateinit var mAdapter: RecyclerAdapter<Transaction>
override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
mAdapter = RecyclerAdapter(R.layout.item_transaction)
}
fun updateTransactions() {
mAdapter.notifyDataSetChanged()
}
Both approaches generate the same bytecode so you can choose whatever you prefer.
Addition to #Benito Bertoli,
the combination is actually unlike if-else
"test" ?. let {
println ( "1. it=$it" )
} ?: let {
println ( "2. it is null!" )
}
The result is:
1. it=test
But if:
"test" ?. let {
println ( "1. it=$it" )
null // finally returns null
} ?: let {
println ( "2. it is null!" )
}
The result is:
1. it=test
2. it is null!
Also, if use elvis first:
null ?: let {
println ( "1. it is null!" )
} ?. let {
println ( "2. it=$it" )
}
The result is:
1. it is null!
2. it=kotlin.Unit
Check useful methods out, it could be useful:
/**
* Performs [R] when [T] is not null. Block [R] will have context of [T]
*/
inline fun <T : Any, R> ifNotNull(input: T?, callback: (T) -> R): R? {
return input?.let(callback)
}
/**
* Checking if [T] is not `null` and if its function completes or satisfies to some condition.
*/
inline fun <T: Any> T?.isNotNullAndSatisfies(check: T.() -> Boolean?): Boolean{
return ifNotNull(this) { it.run(check) } ?: false
}
Below is possible example how to use those functions:
var s: String? = null
// ...
if (s.isNotNullAndSatisfies{ isEmpty() }{
// do something
}
I want to respond to answers of #Benito Bertoli and #BingLi224 and provide imho correct solution.
Problem is with using let, because result of let is it's last expression. You just want to pass the same thing as is passed into it, so also is a better solution. At the same time, after using elvis operator, let is impossible to use, because there is no object to call extension function to so I am using run (functional version). More on that in the scope functions official documentation
Another downside of this compared to using if/when is not being able to use this as an expression so I wouldn't recommend using it :-)
Final code:
"test"?.also {
println("1. it=$it")
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null!")
}
"test"?.also {
println("1. it=$it")
null
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null!")
}
null?.also {
println("1. it is null!")
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null")
}
null?.also {
println("1. it is null!")
null
} ?: run {
println("2. it is null")
}
And output:
1. it=test
1. it=test
2. it is null
2. it is null