I'm pretty new to Kotlin and trying to create a sort of bitset enum where ints correspond to state and I can toggle individual states by toggling individual bits. But I'm stuck on where an object can have no state.
https://pl.kotl.in/L_fTBahVN
import java.util.*
fun main() {
var d = Door(100, EnumSet.noneOf(Status))
}
enum class Status(intValue: Int) {
OPEN(1),
CLOSED(1 shl 1),
CRACKED(1 shl 2),
BROKEN(1 shl 3)
}
class Door(val id: Int, val status: EnumSet<Status>) {}
This code fails with the error Classifier 'Status' does not have a companion object, and thus must be initialized here
I was reading another question where they said to use Status.class inside the EnumSet.noneOf, but that throws even more errors.
Use
EnumSet.noneOf(Status::class.java)
Status::class is similar to Status.class in Java, but gets a Kotlin kotlin.reflect.KClass instead. To get the Java java.lang.Class that EnumSet.noneOf takes, you access the java property.
Related
I have a simple data class being returned from a REST endpoint.
data class SummarizedReturn(
val NET_CASH_FLOW: BigDecimal,
val ROI_PERCENTAGE: BigDecimal
)
When it is returned, the object looks like this:
{
summarizedReturn: {
net_CASH_FLOW: -194703.12028723184,
roi_PERCENTAGE: -35,
}
}
This is not what I need. I need all letters to be capitalized. So I added the JsonProperty annotation
data class SummarizedReturn(
#JsonProperty("NET_CASH_FLOW")
val NET_CASH_FLOW: BigDecimal,
#JsonProperty("ROI_PERCENTAGE")
val ROI_PERCENTAGE: BigDecimal,
)
This did not change anything. I still get the result the same as above.
I then changed the property names and kept the annotation
data class SummarizedReturn(
#JsonProperty("NET_CASH_FLOW")
val netCashFlow: BigDecimal,
#JsonProperty("ROI_PERCENTAGE")
val roiPercentage: BigDecimal,
)
and that returned what I wanted.
{
summarizedReturn: {
NET_CASH_FLOW: -194703.12028723184,
ROI_PERCENTAGE: -35,
}
}
Why did the annotation not work on the initial version of the class? How can I keep my property names all capitalized and have the Jackson value to be the same?
There is an issue with interoperability of Java annotations in Kotlin code. You can register Jackson's Kotlin module to get rid of this problems:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.module.kotlin.jacksonObjectMapper
fun main() {
val mapper = jacksonObjectMapper() // <= shortcut to ObjectMapper().registerKotlinModule()
println(mapper.writeValueAsString(SummarizedReturn(
BigDecimal("-194703.12028723184"),
BigDecimal("-35"))))
}
Output:
{"NET_CASH_FLOW":-194703.12028723184,"ROI_PERCENTAGE":-35}
This will also require you to add com.fasterxml.jackson.module:jackson-module-kotlin to your dependencies.
PS: Alternatively you can solve it by using slightly different target:
#JsonPropery => #get:JsonPropery (or field:#JsonPropery in case this data class will also be used for deserialization)
Why can Kotlin's code directly call the top level function from “kotlin.collections”, without import the package. such as below function listOf:
data class Person1(val name: String, val age: Int)
class DataClassExecutor {
... ...
fun test(arg: String?): String? {
val persons = listOf(
Person1("Lucy", age = 26),
Person1("Lily", age = 29))
... ...
}
}
Please refer this page: https://kotlinlang.org/spec/packages-and-imports.html. It says:
There are some packages which have all their entities implicitly
imported into any Kotlin file, meaning one can access such entity
without explicitly using import directives.
The List includes kotlin.collections.
This is similar to how in Java, java.lang is implicitly imported. In Java one does not need to say java.lang.System.out.println, just System.out.println is enough.
I'm not sure if this is a limitation, a bug or just bad use of GSON. I need to have a hierarchy of Kotlin objects (parent with various subtypes) and I need to deserialize them with GSON. The deserialized object has correct subtype but its field enumField is actually null.
First I thought this is because the field is passed to the "super" constructor but then I found out that "super" works well for string, just enum is broken.
See this example:
import com.google.gson.Gson
import com.google.gson.GsonBuilder
import com.google.gson.typeadapters.RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory
open class Parent(val stringField: String,
val enumField: EnumField) {
enum class EnumField {
SUBTYPE1,
SUBTYPE2,
SUBTYPE3
}
}
class Subtype1() : Parent("s1", EnumField.SUBTYPE1)
class Subtype2(stringField: String) : Parent(stringField, EnumField.SUBTYPE2)
class Subtype3(stringField: String, type: EnumField) : Parent(stringField, type)
val subtypeRAF = RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory.of(Parent::class.java, "enumField")
.registerSubtype(Subtype1::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE1.name)
.registerSubtype(Subtype2::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE2.name)
.registerSubtype(Subtype3::class.java, Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE3.name)
fun main() {
val gson = GsonBuilder()
.registerTypeAdapterFactory(subtypeRAF)
.create()
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype1()) // this works (but not suitable)
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype2("s2")) // broken
serializeAndDeserialize(gson, Subtype3("s3", Parent.EnumField.SUBTYPE3)) // broken
}
private fun serializeAndDeserialize(gson: Gson, obj: Parent) {
println("-----------------------------------------")
val json = gson.toJson(obj)
println(json)
val obj = gson.fromJson(json, Parent::class.java)
println("stringField=${obj.stringField}, enumField=${obj.enumField}")
}
Any ideas how to achieve to deserialization of enumField?
(deps: com.google.code.gson:gson:2.8.5, org.danilopianini:gson-extras:0.2.1)
P.S.: Note that I have to use RuntimeAdapterFactory because I have subtypes with different set of fields (I did not do it in the example so it is easier to understand).
Gson requires constructors without arguments to work properly (see deep-dive into Gson code below). Gson constructs raw objects and then use reflection to populate fields with values.
So if you just add some argument-less dummy constructors to your classes that miss them, like this:
class Subtype1() : Parent("s1", EnumField.SUBTYPE1)
class Subtype2(stringField: String) : Parent(stringField, EnumField.SUBTYPE2) {
constructor() : this("")
}
class Subtype3(stringField: String, type: EnumField) : Parent(stringField, type) {
constructor() : this("", EnumField.SUBTYPE3)
}
you will get the expected output:
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s1","enumField":"SUBTYPE1"}
stringField=s1, enumField=SUBTYPE1
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s2","enumField":"SUBTYPE2"}
stringField=s2, enumField=SUBTYPE2
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s3","enumField":"SUBTYPE3"}
stringField=s3, enumField=SUBTYPE3
Gson deep-dive
If you want to investigate the internals of Gson, a tip is to add an init { } block to Subtype1 since it works and then set a breakpoint there. After it is hit you can move up the call stack, step through code, set more breakpoints etc, to reveal the details of how Gson constructs objects.
By using this method, you can find the Gson internal class com.google.gson.internal.ConstructorConstructor and its method newDefaultConstructor(Class<? super T>) that has code like this (I have simplified for brevity):
final Constructor<? super T> constructor = rawType.getDeclaredConstructor(); // rawType is e.g. 'class Subtype3'
Object[] args = null;
return (T) constructor.newInstance(args);
i.e. it tries to construct an object via a constructor without arguments. In your case for Subtype2 and Subtype3, the code will result in a caught exception:
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) { // java.lang.NoSuchMethodException: Subtype3.<init>()
return null; // set breakpoint here to see
}
i.e. your original code fails since Gson can't find constructors without arguments for Subtype2 and Subtype3.
In simple cases, the problem with missing argument-less constructors is worked around with the newUnsafeAllocator(Type, final Class<? super T>)-method in ConstructorConstructor, but with RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory that does not work correctly.
I may be missing something in what you're trying to achieve, but is it necessary to use the RuntimeTypeAdapterFactory? If we take out the line where we register that in the Gson builder, so that it reads
val gson = GsonBuilder()
.create()
Then the output returns the enum we would expect, which looks to be serialising / deserialising correctly. I.e. the output is:
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s1","enumField":"SUBTYPE1"}
stringField=s1, enumField=SUBTYPE1
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s2","enumField":"SUBTYPE2"}
stringField=s2, enumField=SUBTYPE2
-----------------------------------------
{"stringField":"s3","enumField":"SUBTYPE3"}
stringField=s3, enumField=SUBTYPE3
It also may be an idea to implement Serializable in Parent. i.e.
open class Parent(val stringField: String, val enumField: EnumField) : Serializable {
enum class EnumField {
SUBTYPE1,
SUBTYPE2,
SUBTYPE3
}
}
Try adding #SerializedName annotation to each enum.
enum class EnumField {
#SerializedName("subtype1")
SUBTYPE1,
#SerializedName("subtype2")
SUBTYPE2,
#SerializedName("subtype3")
SUBTYPE3
}
I am trying to understand concept of inline classes - they are a simple object wrapper of single property that is being inlined during runtime.
That means, that the actual initialization of the class is not happening at runtime
I was trying to write simple test which directly will show my above explanation during JUnit test as below:
companion object {
private const val NAME = "JACK"
}
inline class NameInlineClass(val value: String)
#Test
fun unwrapping() {
val nameInlineClass = NameInlineClass(NAME)
val name = nameInlineClass
assertEquals(name, NAME)
}
This test fails unfortunately which leads me to the question why during assertEquals() the actual unwrapped String value is not being compared, but the actual inline class (which should be unwrapped during runtime)?
What you probably wanted to do was val name = nameInlineClass.value, but I'll try to explain the error.
See Representation from docs (includes code sample):
In generated code, the Kotlin compiler keeps a wrapper for each inline
class. Inline class instances can be represented at runtime either as
wrappers or as the underlying type. This is similar to how Int can be
represented either as a primitive int or as the wrapper Integer.
That means as long as you don't reference the wrapping object or its type explicitly, value will not be boxed. We can check it by inspecting bytecode (decompiled back to Java for readability):
// kotlin source
fun unwrapping() {
val nameInlineClass = NameInlineClass(NAME)
val name = nameInlineClass // this line gets dropped by compiler by the way
assertEquals(name, NAME)
}
// java representation of bytecode
public final void unwrapping() {
String nameInlineClass = NameInlineClass.constructor-impl("JACK");
Assert.assertEquals(NameInlineClass.box-impl(nameInlineClass), "JACK");
}
I won't paste entire generated NameInlineClass body, but constructor-impl is static method that only checks for null of value, and box-impl creates the wrapper object.
You can see nameInlineClass is indeed a String - that means inline works and no extra object was allocated.
Only when you reference nameInlineClass instead of nameInlineClass.value compiler determines that this object needs representation and "boxes" the value with wrapper NameInlineClass class.
Let's say I am writing a library and have a class that looks something like this (contrived example, but shows self reference:
import java.util.logging.Logger
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
companion object {
private val LOG = Logger.getLogger(MyClass::class.java.canonicalName)
}
constructor() : this(1337)
fun addTo(num: Int): Int {
LOG.fine { "Adding num $num to $myNum" }
return myNum + num
}
fun doubleAdd(num: Int): Int = 2 * addTo(num)
}
Now, I have decided that I want to deprecate this class and have my consumers move on to to better things, so I give them a warning.
#Deprecated("Don't use!", level = DeprecationLevel.WARNING)
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
// ...
}
Now, after some more time I'd like to increase the strictness with my deprecation. I still want the library to be binary compatible, so I do not remove the code I see that there is the DeprecationLevel.ERROR available, so I try to use it.
#Deprecated("Don't use!", level = DeprecationLevel.ERROR)
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
// ...
}
Except now, when I try to compile my own project, I get compiler errors:
e: /path/to/project/src/main/kotlin/MyClass.kt: (7, 44): Using 'MyClass' is an error. Don't use!
e: /path/to/project/src/main/kotlin/MyClass.kt: (10, 23): Using 'MyClass' is an error. Don't use!
This is on both the MyClass reference and the this primary constructor reference.
What is the point of DeprecationLevel.ERROR? If I am using it wrong, what is the intended use, and how do I use it?
NOTE: This whole example was done with Kotlin 1.2.21
It does exactly what is described in the documentation: DeprecationLevel
ERROR means usage of that code generates an error in the compiler. This is when you know using the code is going to cause problems and you'd rather crash the compilation, even if that code compiled fine previously.
There is also the HIDDEN deprecation level which does what you describe. It 'hides' the annotated element from the compiler but leaves it in the binary output. This will still cause a compilation error in your project because it is meant for binary compatibility, not newly compiled code.