I just cannot override hashCode() function on value class.
minimal example (I know that in this example there is no need to override it...)
#JvmInline
value class Identifier(val value: String){
override fun hashCode(): Int = this.value.hashCode()
}
I get error: Member with the name 'hashCode' is reserved for future releases
Edit: Is there any way to specify own hashCode() function?
As of right now, you cannot override the equals or hashCode method of value classes. The language specification explicitly disallows this:
Value classes must adhere to the following limitations:
[...]
They must not override equals and hashCode member functions of kotlin.Any
[...]
This is because the developers of Kotlin are planning to add a strongly typed equals method that you can override.
From the inline classes proposal:
Methods from Any (toString, hashCode, equals) can be useful for a user-defined inline classes and therefore should be customizable. Methods toString and hashCode can be overridden as usual methods from Any. For method equals we're going to introduce new operator that represents "typed" equals to avoid boxing for inline classes:
#JvmInline
value class Identifier(val value: String){
override fun hashCode(): Int = ...
operator fun equals(other: Identifier): Boolean = ...
}
This is so that when you use == on value classes with a custom equals, you don't have to box them every time as you are passing it to the Any? parameter on the Any.equals method. The compiler would also automatically generate an equals(Any?) implementation from your equals(Identifier) implementation.
But they haven't implemented this feature yet. This is why they don't let you implement hashCode - because if you do, you would most likely also need to implement equals(Any?) (it is rarely useful/correct to just implement hashCode), but that means your code would break in future versions of Kotlin! In future versions, you would need to implement equals(Identifier), not equals(Any?).
So you can only wait until this feature gets added. Until then, you cannot have hashCode and equals that does not delegate to the wrapped value.
Related
I am still learning kotlin, and I am curious how is it possible that mockk is able to return some object T wrapped in Result<T>. For better understanding let analyse below example:
We have such method definition
fun save(toSave : Entity): Result<Entity>
when we mock such method using returnArguments like it is done below:
every { mocked.save(any()) } returnsArgument 0
Then method returns Result<Entity>, but logic says that Entity should be returned.
Looking into declaration of returnsArgument there is casting to generic type which in our case is Result<Entity>, but when I tried to do it in plain I had casting exception.
I assume some magic happens inside, but what magic is responsible for such thing?
Would it be done with any wrapping object or it is specific only to Result?
Result<T> is a value class and mockk has a value class support.
After many internal steps returnsArgument will wrap the argument n with the specified value class and will return it.
Would it be done with any wrapping object or it is specific only to Result?
All value classes are supported, not just Result<T>.
// supported
#JvmInline
value class ValueWrapper<out T> (val something: Any?)
// not supported
class SomeWrapper<out T> (val something: Any?)
Hope it helps.
I'm exploring the Substitution principal and from what I've understood about the principal is that a sub type of any super type should be passable into a function/class. Using this idea in a new section of code that I'm writing, I wanted to implement a abstract interface for a Filter like so
interface Filter {
fun filter(): Boolean
}
I would then imagine that this creates the contract for all classes that inherit this interface that they must implement the function filter and return a boolean output. Now my interpretation of this is that the input doesn't need to be specified. I would like it that way as I want a filter interface that guarantee the implementation of a filter method with a guarantee of a return type boolean. Does this concept even exists in Kotlin? I would then expect to implement this interface like so
class LocationFilter {
companion object : Filter {
override fun filter(coord1: Coordinate, coord2: Coordinate): Boolean {
TODO("Some business logic here")
}
}
}
But in reality this doesn't work. I could remove remove the filter method from the interface but that just defeats the point of the whole exercise. I have tried using varargs but again that's not resolving the issue as each override must implement varargs which is just not helpful. I know this may seem redundant, but is there a possibility to have the type of abstraction that I'm asking for? Or am I missing a point of an Interface?
Let's think about it a little. The main point of abstraction is that we can use Filter no matter what is the implementation. We don't need to know implementations, we only need to know interfaces. But how could we use Filter if we don't know what data has to be provided to filter? We would need to use LocationFilter directly which also defeats the point of creating an interface.
Your problem isn't really related to Kotlin, but to OOP in general. In most languages it is solved by generics/templates/parameterized types. It means that an interface/class is parameterized by another type. You use it in Kotlin like this:
interface Filter<in T> {
fun filter(value: T): Boolean
}
object LocationFilter : Filter<Coordinate> {
override fun filter(value: Coordinate): Boolean {
TODO()
}
}
fun acquireCoordinateFilter(): Filter<Coordinate> = LocationFilter
fun main() {
val coord: Coordinate = TODO()
val filter: Filter<Coordinate> = acquireCoordinateFilter()
val result = filter.filter(coord)
}
Filter is parameterized, meaning that we can have a filter for filtering strings (type is: Filter<String>), for filtering integers (Filter<Int>) or for filtering coordinates (Filter<Coordinate>). Then we can't use e.g. Filter<String> to filter integers.
Note that the code in main() does not use LocationFilter directly, it only knows how to acquire Filter<Coordinate>, but the specific implementation is abstracted from it.
Also note there is already a very similar interface in Java stdlib. It is called Predicate.
my interpretation of this is that the input doesn't need to be specified.
Where did you get that interpretation from?
You can see that it can't be correct, by looking at how the method would be called. You should be able to write code that works for any instance of Filter — and that can only happen if the number and type of argument(s) is specified in the interface. To use your example:
val f: Filter = someMethodReturningAFilterInstance()
val result = f.filter(coord1, coord2)
could only work if all implementations used two Coordinate parameters. If some used one String param, and others used nothing at all, then how would you call it safely?
There are a few workarounds you could use.
If every implementation takes the same number of parameters, then you could make the interface generic, with type parameter(s), e.g.:
interface Filter<T1, T2> {
fun filter(t1: T1, t2: T2): Boolean
}
Then it's up to the implementation to specify which types are needed. However, the calling code either needs to know the types of the particular implementation, or needs to be generic itself, or the interface needs to provide type bounds with in variance.
Or if you need a variable number of parameters, you could bundle them up into a single object and pass that. However, you'd probably need an interface for that type, in order to handle the different numbers and types of parameters, and/or make that type a type parameter on Filter — all of which smells pretty bad.
Ultimately, I suspect you need to think about how your interface is going to be used, and in particular how its method is going to be called. If you're only ever going to call it when the caller knows the implementation type, then there's probably no point trying to specify that method in the interface (and maybe no point having the interface at all). Or if you'll want to handle Filter instances without knowing their concrete type, then look at how you'll want to make those calls.
The whole this is wrong!
First, OOP is a declarative concept, but in your example the type Filter is just a procedure wrapped in an object. And this is completely wrong.
Why do you need this type Filter? I assume you need to get a collection filtered, so why not create a new object that accepts an existing collection and represents it filtered.
class Filtered<T>(private val origin: Iterable<T>) : Iterable<T> {
override fun iterator(): Iterator<T> {
TODO("Filter the original iterable and return it")
}
}
Then in your code, anywhere you can pass an Iterable and you want it to be filtered, you simply wrap this original iterable (any List, Array or Collection) with the class Filtered like so
acceptCollection(Filtered(listOf(1, 2, 3, 4)))
You can also pass a second argument into the Filtered and call it, for example, predicate, which is a lambda that accepts an element of the iterable and returns Boolean.
class Filtered<T>(private val origin: Iterable<T>, private val predicate: (T) -> Boolean) : Iterable<T> {
override fun iterator(): Iterator<T> {
TODO("Filter the original iterable and return it")
}
}
Then use it like:
val oddOnly = Filtered(
listOf(1, 2, 3, 4),
{ it % 2 == 1 }
)
I was looking into co- and contravariance in several programming languages' collection libraries, and stumbled over Kotlin's Set interface.
It is documented as
interface Set<out E> : Collection<E>
which means it is covariant – only "producing" E objects, following the Kotlin documentation, not consuming them.
And Set<String> becomes a subtype of Set<Any>.
Yet, it has those two methods:
abstract fun contains(element: E): Boolean
abstract fun containsAll(elements: Collection<E>): Boolean
So when I create a class implementing Set<String>, I have to implement (beside others) contains(String). But later someone can use my class as a Set<Any> and call set.contains(5).
I actually tried this:
class StringSet : Set<String> {
override val size = 2
override fun contains(element: String): Boolean {
println("--- StringSet.contains($element)")
return element == "Hallo" || element == "World"
}
override fun containsAll(elements: Collection<String>) : Boolean =
elements.all({it -> contains(it)})
override fun isEmpty() = false
override fun iterator() = listOf("Hallo", "World").iterator()
}
fun main() {
val sset : Set<String> = StringSet()
println(sset.contains("Hallo"))
println(sset.contains("xxx"))
//// compiler error:
// println(set.contains(5))
val aset : Set<Any> = sset
println(aset.contains("Hallo"))
println(aset.contains("xxx"))
// this compiles (and returns false), but the method is not actually called
println(aset.contains(5))
}
(Run online)
So it turns out that Set<String> is not a "real" subtype of Set<Any>, as the set.contains(5) works with the second but not the first.
Actually calling the contains method even works at runtime – just my implementation will never be called, and it just prints false.
Looking into the source code of the interface, it turns out that the two methods are actually declared as
abstract fun contains(element: #UnsafeVariance E): Boolean
abstract fun containsAll(elements: Collection<#UnsafeVariance E>): Boolean
What is going on here?
Is there some special compiler magic for Set?
Why is this not documented anywhere?
Declaration-site covariance in the form of the out modifier misses a useful use case of making sure that an instance passed as an argument is generally sensible to pass here. The contains functions are a good example.
In the particular case of Set.contains, the #UnsafeVariance annotation is used to ensure that the function accepts an instance of E, as passing an element that is not E into contains makes no sense – all proper implementation of Set will always return false. The implementations of Set are not supposed to store the element passed to contains and thus should never return it from any other function with the return type E. So a properly implemented Set won't violate the variance restrictions at runtime.
The #UnsafeVariance annotation actually suppresses the compiler variance conflicts, like using an out-projected type parameter in an in-position.
Its motiviation is best described in this blog post:
#UnsafeVariance annotation
Sometimes we need to suppress declaration-site variance checks in our classes. For example, to make Set.contains typesafe while keeping read-only sets co-variant, we had to do it:
interface Set<out E> : Collection<E> {
fun contains(element: #UnsafeVariance E): Boolean
}
This puts some responsibility on the implementor of contains, because with this check suppressed the actual type of element may be anything at all at runtime, but it’s sometimes necessary to achieve convenient signatures. See more on the type-safety of collections below.
So, we introduced the #UnsafeVariance annotation on types for this purpose. It’s been deliberately made long and stands out to warn agains abusing it.
The rest of the blog post also explicitly mentions that the signature of contains using #UnsafeVariance improves type-safety.
The alternative to introducing #UnsafeVariance was to keep contains accepting Any, but this option lacks the type check on contains calls that would detect erroneous calls with elements that can't be present in the set due to not being instances of E.
coming across a sample with a class and a function and trying to understand the koltin syntax there,
what does this IMeta by dataItem do? looked at https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/classes.html#classes and dont see how to use by in the derived class
why the reified is required in the inline fun <reified T> getDataItem()? If someone could give a sample to explain the reified?
class DerivedStreamItem(private val dataItem: IMeta, private val dataType: String?) :
IMeta by dataItem {
override fun getType(): String = dataType ?: dataItem.getType()
fun getData(): DerivedData? = getDataItem()
private inline fun <reified T> getDataItem(): T? = if (dataItem is T) dataItem else null
}
for the reference, copied the related defines here:
interface IMeta {
fun getType() : String
fun getUUIDId() : String
fun getDataId(): String?
}
class DerivedData : IMeta {
override fun getType(): String {
return "" // stub
}
override fun getUUIDId(): String {
return "" // stub
}
override fun getDataId(): String? {
return "" // stub
}
}
why the reified is required in the inline fun <reified T> getDataItem()? If someone could give a sample to explain the reified?
There is some good documentation on reified type parameters, but I'll try to boil it down a bit.
The reified keyword in Kotlin is used to get around the fact that the JVM uses type erasure for generic. That means at runtime whenever you refer to a generic type, the JVM has no idea what the actual type is. It is a compile-time thing only. So that T in your example... the JVM has no idea what it means (without reification, which I'll explain).
You'll notice in your example that you are also using the inline keyword. That tells Kotlin that rather than call a function when you reference it, to just insert the body of the function inline. This can be more efficient in certain situations. So, if Kotlin is already going to be copying the body of our function at compile time, why not just copy the class that T represents as well? This is where reified is used. This tells Kotlin to refer to the actual concrete type of T, and only works with inline functions.
If you were to remove the reified keyword from your example, you would get an error: "Cannot check for instance of erased type: T". By reifying this, Kotlin knows what actual type T is, letting us do this comparison (and the resulting smart cast) safely.
(Since you are asking two questions, I'm going to answer them separately)
The by keyword in Kolin is used for delegation. There are two kinds of delegation:
1) Implementation by Delegation (sometimes called Class Delegation)
This allows you to implement an interface and delegate calls to that interface to a concrete object. This is helpful if you want to extend an interface but not implement every single part of it. For example, we can extend List by delegating to it, and allowing our caller to give us an implementation of List
class ExtendedList(someList: List) : List by someList {
// Override anything from List that you need
// All other calls that would resolve to the List interface are
// delegated to someList
}
2) Property Delegation
This allows you to do similar work, but with properties. My favorite example is lazy, which lets you lazily define a property. Nothing is created until you reference the property, and the result is cached for quicker access in the future.
From the Kotlin documentation:
val lazyValue: String by lazy {
println("computed!")
"Hello"
}
I'm playing with reflection and I came out with this problem. When using bound class reference via the ::class syntax, I get a covariant KClass type:
fun <T> foo(entry: T) {
with(entry::class) {
this // is instance of KClass<out T>
}
}
As I could learn from the docs, this will return the exact type of the object, in case it is instance of a subtype of T, hence the variance modifier.
However this prevents retrieving properties declared in the T class and getting their value (which is what I'm trying to do)
fun <T> foo(entry: T) {
with(entry::class) {
for (prop in memberProperties) {
val v = prop.get(entry) //compile error: I can't consume T
}
}
}
I found that a solution is using javaClass.kotlin extension function on the object reference, to get instead the invariant type:
fun <T> foo(entry: T) {
with(entry.javaClass.kotlin) {
this // is instance of KClass<T>
}
}
This way, I get both the exact type at runtime and the possibility to consume the type.
Interestingly, if I use a supertype instead of a generic, with the latter method I still get access to the correct type, without the need of variance:
class Derived: Base()
fun foo(entry: Base) {
with(entry.javaClass.kotlin) {
println(this == Derived::class)
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val derived = Derived()
foo(derived) // prints 'true'
}
If I got it correct, ::class is equal to calling the java getClass, which returns a variant type with a wildcard, while javaClass is a getClass with a cast to the specific type.
Still, I don't get why would I ever need a covariant KClass, when it limits me to only produce the type, given that there are other ways to access the exact class at runtime and use it freely, and I wonder if the more immediate ::class should return an invariant type by design.
The reason for covariance in bound ::class references is, the actual runtime type of an object the expression is evaluated to might differ from the declared or inferred type of the expression.
Example:
open class Base
class Derived : Base()
fun someBase(): Base = Derived()
val kClass = someBase()::class
The expression someBase() is typed as Base, but at runtime it's a Derived object that it gets evaluated to.
Typing someBase()::class as invariant KClass<Base> is simply incorrect, in fact, the actuall result of evaluating this expression is KClass<Derived>.
To solve this possible inconsistency (that would lead to broken type-safety), all bound class references are covariant: someBase()::class is KClass<out Base>, meaning that at runtime someBase() might be a subtype of Base, and therefore this might be a class token of a subtype of Base.
This is, of course, not the case with unbound class references: when you take Base::class, you know for sure that it's the class token of Base and not of some of its subtypes, so it's invariant KClass<Base>.