I'm new to Go and still learning about optional struct fields.
I'm looking at the Gorm manual page where it gives an example of using pointers to indicate nullable fields (here)
If I strip down the example given so that it contains only a mandatory field and an optional field I'm left with something like this:
https://play.golang.com/p/lOLGWNVvq1l :
package main
import "fmt"
type User struct {
Name string
Email *string
}
func main() {
user := User{Name: "Example"}
// cannot use "example#example.com" (untyped string constant) as *string value in assignment
user.Email = "example#example.com"
// invalid operation: user.Email == "example#example.com" (mismatched types *string and untyped string)
if user.Email == "example#example.com" {
fmt.Println("foo")
}
}
How would I perform operations on a record that I've just retrieved from the database?
I need to be able to check if a nullable field is set to some value. I also can't assign a value to it.
One approach that I've thought of is to use some sort of wrapping function to try and make things safer, like at https://play.golang.com/p/4YlpPwaXMkm where I have:
func UnwrapString(x *string) string {
if x != nil {
return *x
}
return ""
}
func WrapString(x string) *string {
return &x
}
func main() {
user := User{Name: "Example"}
// can safely set an optional value that is currently null
if UnwrapString(user.Email) == "example#example.com" {
fmt.Println("hello world")
}
// can safely set a value if the existing Email is null
user.Email = WrapString("example#example.com")
// only safe because the value is set
if *user.Email == "example#example.com" {
fmt.Println("hello world")
}
}
Working with nullable fields in Gorm seems like such a basic and common thing that I don't expect to have to DIY. What's the idiomatic Gorm way to do this?
An idiomatic way to check if a field is non-nil, and if so, compare the value:
if user.Email != nil && *user.Email == "example#example.com" {
fmt.Println("foo")
}
The reason this works, even if user.Email is nil (and you get no nil-pointer dereference panic), is because Go has short circuit evaluation, meaning if the first comparison falls through in this AND statement, the second won't be evaluated, because there is no way this AND statement will ever be true if the first value is already false.
To do inline pointer assignments, the function you wrote is what I would do as well:
func StrPtr(s string) *string {
return &s
}
And you could then do:
user.Email = StrPtr("example#example.com")
Related
I a very new to Kotlin and working on a simple method that sorts and joins a list to string
private fun generateKey(params: Array<Any>): String {
val genericCollection = if (params.isNotEmpty() && params[0] is Collection<*>) params[0] as Collection<*>
else throw Exception("no params provided for keyGenerator")
return genericCollection.sortedBy { it }.joinToString(separator = "_")
}
but I got this compilation error:
Type parameter bound for R in
inline fun > Iterable.sortedBy ( crossinline
selector: (T) → R? ) : List
is not satisfied: inferred type Any is not a subtype of
Comparable
Any idea how to fix this?
The problem is that you try sort this collection via it. But it can be an instance of any type.
Any however isn't something what can be compared (Any doesn't implement Comparable interface).
So, when you use sortedBy method you have to provide something what can be compared. For example:
return genericCollection.sortedBy { it.hashCode() }.joinToString(separator = "_")
hashCode() returns Int and Int can be easily compared.
In fact until you use <*> as generic type you won't be able to find something better to compare collection.
Guess, you must understand, what exactly you expect from param[0]. In this case, it must be some keyGenerator params. Pretty sure, these params could be String or Numeric type. All you need is to map them by casting to appropriate class. Foe example, String class:
private fun generateKey(params: Array<Any>): String {
val genericCollection = if (params.isNotEmpty() && params[0] is Collection<*>) params[0] as Collection<*>
else throw Exception("no params provided for keyGenerator")
return genericCollection.map { it as String }.sortedBy { it }.joinToString(separator = "_")
}
I'm studying kotlin, but I'm very disappointed, I can not compare two Strings.
What is the right way to compare.
btn_login.setOnClickListener {
val login = input_email.text.trim()
val pass = input_password.text.trim()
if( login.equals( pass ) ){
startActivity<MainActivity>()
}
if (login?.equals(other = pass)){
startActivity<MainActivity>()
}
if (login == pass){
startActivity<MainActivity>()
}
}
According to documentation for structual equality use ==. It is translated to a?.equals(b) ?: (b === null).
In you case convert login and pass from SpannableStringBuilder to String.
val login = input_email.text.trim().toString()
Here is the example for matching the two strings using kotlin.
If you are using == (double equals) for matching the string then it's compare the address & return maximum time wrong result as per java documentation so use equals for the same
If you want to use equal ignore case then pass the true in the equals method of String
if (s1.equals(s2,true))
other wise you can just use this without boolean like
if (s1.equals(s2,false)) or if (s1.equals(s2))
compleate code is below
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val s1 = "abc"
val s2 = "Abc"
if (s1.equals(s2,true))
{
println("Equal")
}
else
{
println("Not Equal")
}
}
Covert both the SpannableStringBuilder to string with toString, this should work.
val login = input_email.text.trim().toString()
val pass = input_password.text.trim().toString()
if (login == pass){
startActivity<MainActivity>()
}
1. == :
if ( string1 == string2 ){...}
2. equals :
Indicates whether some other object is "equal to" this one.
Implementations must fulfil the following requirements:
Reflexive: for any non-null reference value x, x.equals(x) should
return true.
Symmetric: for any non-null reference values x and y, x.equals(y)
should return true if and only if y.equals(x) returns true.
Transitive: for any non-null reference values x, y, and z, if
x.equals(y) returns true and y.equals(z) returns true, then
x.equals(z) should return true
Consistent: for any non-null reference values x and y, multiple
invocations of x.equals(y) consistently return true or consistently
return false, provided no information used in equals comparisons on
the objects is modified.
/** * Returns `true` if this string is equal to [other], optionally ignoring character case. * * #param ignoreCase `true` to ignore character case when comparing strings. By default `false`. */
public fun String?.equals(other: String?, ignoreCase: Boolean = false): Boolean
3. compareTo :
public override fun compareTo(other: String): Int
Compares this object with the specified object for order. Returns zero
if this object is equal to the specified other object, a negative
number if it's less than other, or a positive number if it's greater
than other.
public fun String.compareTo(other: String, ignoreCase: Boolean = false): Int
Compares two strings lexicographically, optionally ignoring case
differences
i know this is way too late, but as a newbie learning Kotlin, i had the same doubts.
then i came across this wonderful article that articulates the various string comparison types in Kotlin and the differences between them all.
in short both == and .equals() can be used to compare the value of 2 strings in kotlin.
hopefully that helps
With case checking
String a=.....
String b=.....
if(a==b){
}
IgnoreCase
if(a.equals(b,false))
KOTLIN:
if (editText1.text.toString() == editText2.text.toString() ) {
println("Should work now! The same value")
}
Try the following solution, see if it helps:
val passStr: String = textView.text.toString()
if( loginStr.compareTo(passStr, false) ){
startActivity<MainActivity>()
}
Try this surely will work.
val style = buildString { karthik}
val style2 = buildString { karthik }
var result = style.equals(style2)
if(result){//Do something}
If I create an array, then fill it, Kotlin believes that there may be nulls in the array, and forces me to account for this
val strings = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000)
strings.fill("hello")
val upper = strings.map { it!!.toUpperCase() } // requires it!!
val lower = upper.map { it.toLowerCase() } // doesn't require !!
Creating a filled array doesn't have this problem
val strings = Array(10000, {"string"})
val upper = strings.map { it.toUpperCase() } // doesn't require !!
How can I tell the compiler that the result of strings.fill("hello") is an array of NonNull?
A rule of thumb: if in doubts, specify the types explicitly (there is a special refactoring for that):
val strings1: Array<String?> = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000)
val strings2: Array<String> = Array(10000, {"string"})
So you see that strings1 contains nullable items, while strings2 does not. That and only that determines how to work with these arrays:
// You can simply use nullability in you code:
strings2[0] = strings1[0]?.toUpperCase ?: "KOTLIN"
//Or you can ALWAYS cast the type, if you are confident:
val casted = strings1 as Array<String>
//But to be sure I'd transform the items of the array:
val asserted = strings1.map{it!!}
val defaults = strings1.map{it ?: "DEFAULT"}
Why the filled array works fine
The filled array infers the type of the array during the call from the lambda used as the second argument:
val strings = Array(10000, {"string"})
produces Array<String>
val strings = Array(10000, { it -> if (it % 2 == 0) "string" else null })
produces Array<String?>
Therefore changing the declaration to the left of the = that doesn't match the lambda does not do anything to help. If there is a conflict, there is an error.
How to make the arrayOfNulls work
For the arrayOfNulls problem, they type you specify to the call arrayOfNulls<String> is used in the function signature as generic type T and the function arrayOfNulls returns Array<T?> which means nullable. Nothing in your code changes that type. The fill method only sets values into the existing array.
To convert this nullable-element array to non-nullable-element list, use:
val nullableStrings = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000).apply { fill("hello") }
val strings = nullableStrings.filterNotNull()
val upper = strings.map { it.toUpperCase() } // no !! needed
Which is fine because your map call converts to a list anyway, so why not convert beforehand. Now depending on the size of the array this could be performant or not, the copy might be fast if in CPU cache. If it is large and no performant, you can make this lazy:
val nullableStrings = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000).apply { fill("hello") }
val strings = nullableStrings.asSequence().filterNotNull()
val upper = strings.map { it.toUpperCase() } // no !! needed
Or you can stay with arrays by doing a copy, but really this makes no sense because you undo it with the map:
val nullableStrings = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000).apply { fill("hello") }
val strings: Array<String> = Array(nullableStrings.size, { idx -> nullableStrings[idx]!! })
Arrays really are not that common in Java or Kotlin code (JetBrains studied the statistics) unless the code is doing really low level optimization. It could be better to use lists.
Given that you might end up with lists anyway, maybe start there too and give up the array.
val nullableStrings = listOf("a","b",null,"c",null,"d")
val strings = nullableStrings.filterNotNull()
But, if you can't stop the quest to use arrays, and really must cast one without a copy...
You can always write a function that does two things: First, check that all values are not null, and if so then return the array that is cast as not null. This is a bit hacky, but is safe only because the difference is nullability.
First, create an extension function on Array<T?>:
fun <T: Any> Array<T?>.asNotNull(): Array<T> {
if (this.any { it == null }) {
throw IllegalStateException("Cannot cast an array that contains null")
}
#Suppress("CAST_NEVER_SUCCEEDS")
return this as Array<T>
}
Then use this function new function to do the conversion (element checked as not null cast):
val nullableStrings = arrayOfNulls<String>(10000).apply { fill("hello") }
val strings = nullableStrings.asNotNull() // magic!
val upperStrings = strings.map { it.toUpperCase() } // no error
But I feel dirty even talking about this last option.
There is no way to tell this to the compiler. The type of the variable is determined when it is declared. In this case, the variable is declared as an array that can contain nulls.
The fill() method does not declare a new variable, it only modifies the contents of an existing one, so it cannot cause the variable type to change.
Go types like Int64 and String cannot store null values,
so I found I could use sql.NullInt64 and sql.NullString for this.
But when I use these in a Struct,
and generate JSON from the Struct with the json package,
then the format is different to when I use regular Int64 and String types.
The JSON has an additional level because the sql.Null*** is also a Struct.
Is there a good workaround for this,
or should I not use NULLs in my SQL database?
Types like sql.NullInt64 do not implement any special handling for JSON marshaling or unmarshaling, so the default rules apply. Since the type is a struct, it gets marshalled as an object with its fields as attributes.
One way to work around this is to create your own type that implements the json.Marshaller / json.Unmarshaler interfaces. By embedding the sql.NullInt64 type, we get the SQL methods for free. Something like this:
type JsonNullInt64 struct {
sql.NullInt64
}
func (v JsonNullInt64) MarshalJSON() ([]byte, error) {
if v.Valid {
return json.Marshal(v.Int64)
} else {
return json.Marshal(nil)
}
}
func (v *JsonNullInt64) UnmarshalJSON(data []byte) error {
// Unmarshalling into a pointer will let us detect null
var x *int64
if err := json.Unmarshal(data, &x); err != nil {
return err
}
if x != nil {
v.Valid = true
v.Int64 = *x
} else {
v.Valid = false
}
return nil
}
If you use this type in place of sql.NullInt64, it should be encoded as you expect.
You can test this example here: http://play.golang.org/p/zFESxLcd-c
If you use the null.v3 package, you won't need to implement any of the marshal or unmarshal methods. It's a superset of the sql.Null structs and is probably what you want.
package main
import "gopkg.in/guregu/null.v3"
type Person struct {
Name string `json:"id"`
Age int `json:"age"`
NickName null.String `json:"nickname"` // Optional
}
If you'd like to see a full Golang webserver that uses sqlite, nulls, and json you can consult this gist.
I have an object that returns a value if successful and false (or nil) if it failed.
i want to assign that value to a variable
if(var1 = [object foo])
{
//if the [object foo] returned a variable, goes here
}
else
{
//[object foo] returned FALSE (or nil), go here
}
can an If statement detected if an assignment was valid?
This is all right but will generate a warning, since this is a common typo (= instead of ==). To silence that warning add another set of parentheses like this:
if ((var = [object foo])) ...
Since this easily can lead to misunderstandings a lot of people will advise against doing this. For a simple if statement this is much clearer to do the assignment first:
var = [object for];
if (var) ...
In while loops this is more useful, but also considered harmful by many people.
Not sure I understand your question, but let me try and explain a few situations you can check
1) Property contains value
if ([object foo])
{
// If foo has a value associated to it that is not nil/false/zero
}
else
{
// If foo equals nil, false or zero
}
2) Assignment to a variable was successful
if ((bar = [object myMethod]))
{
// If myMethod returns any non-nil value
}
else
{
// If myMethod returns nil
}
3) Previous assignment of a variable was successful
bar = [object myMethod];
if (bar)
{
// If bar has a value associated to it that is not nil/false/zero
}
else
{
// If bar equals nil, false or zero
}
use == instead of = in the if statement.
before the if statement, you may have var1 = [object foo]
see comparison operators
If you mean by valid that the variable contains an expected result, you can just perform another if on the variable against the expected result, or null to check it.