I have something like this :
import kotlin.reflect.KClass
class Quantity<T> {
/* ... */
}
class Field<T : Any> {
val type: KClass<T> get() = TODO("This is initialized, don't worry about implentation details, just know that fields know their type.")
fun initValue(value: T) {
/* Do something very useful */
}
/* Other methods */
class Template<T : Any> {
fun initFieldWithValue(value: T): Field<T> {
return Field<T>().apply {
this.initValue(value)
}
}
}
}
class ComponentClass(
val fieldsTemplates: Map<String, Field.Template<*>>
) {
inner class Instance(field: Map<String, Field<*>>)
fun new(fieldValues: Map<String, Quantity<*>>): Instance {
val fields = mutableMapOf<String, Field<*>>()
for ((fieldName, template) in fieldsTemplates) {
fields[fieldName] = fieldsTemplates
.getValue(fieldName)
.initFieldWithValue(fieldValues.getValue(fieldName) /* Here a type error */)
}
return Instance(fields)
}
}
As you might guess, this is intended to work as a 'runtime way' of creating classes that own fields (Field<T> class), each one possessing a typed value (represented by a Quantity<T>).
The problem is that this code won't compile due to the fact that the quantity retrieved from fieldValues when creating the different fields of the future Instance in the new method isn't guaranteed to be of the required type for the field it is stuffed into.
The problem is that I would need a check since filling a Field<Quantity<String>> with a Quantity<Int> is obviously not a good idea, but because of the type erasure I cannot ensure that the quantities passed in are of the good type.
Any idea ? One more thought : Fields know what their type is thanks to their type attribute, but unfortunately I can't do the same for the Quantity class...
Your initFieldWithValue function is enforcing the type of the parameter to match the type known by the Template/Field. But inside your new function, your Template is a Template<*> since you retrieve it from a collection where the values are of this type.
The point of generics is to enforce compile time checks so casting can be done safely and automatically under the hood. This is only useful when your type is known at compile time. In this case, the type is not known at compile time, so the generics are preventing your code from compiling. This is what generics are supposed to do: prevent code from compiling if the compiler cannot check that they types match.
If you want this code to compile, you should change initFieldWithValue so it doesn't enforce generics. You can instead manually check the type and throw an error or exit early if it's incorrect. It will be up to your code elsewhere to ensure you aren't mixing and matching types.
Here's an example of a version that would work. The type check it does requires the Kotlin reflection library. If you're targeting JVM only, you can use the Java Class.isAssignableFrom method instead to do this check.
class Template<T : Any> {
val type: KClass<T> get() = TODO()
/**
* #throws IllegalStateException if [value] is not of the same type
* as this Template's [type].
*/
fun initFieldWithValue(value: Any): Field<T> {
if (!value::class.isSubclassOf(type)) {
error("Invalid value type for Field type of $type")
}
return Field<T>().apply {
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST") // we manually checked it above
initValue(value as T)
}
}
}
Related
I am relatively new Kotlin and Generics kind of give me a headache. I have the following architecture made out of:
A few data classes
A generic interface to process data
Implementations of that processing interface for each data type
A generic processing job class containing the data to be processed and it's appropriate processor
A global (singleton) processor which implements the processing interface, takes processing jobs and just delegates the processing to the job processor. It doesn't care about the data itself at all.
The simplified code looks like this
class DataOne
class DataTwo
interface DataProcessor<in T> {
fun process(o: T)
}
class DataOneProcessor: DataProcessor<DataOne> {
override fun process(o: DataOne) = println("Processing DataOne")
}
class DataTwoProcessor: DataProcessor<DataTwo> {
override fun process(o: DataTwo) = println("Processing DataTwo")
}
class ProcessingJob<T>(val data: T, val processor: DataProcessor<T>)
object GlobalProcessor: DataProcessor<ProcessingJob<Any>> {
override fun process(job: ProcessingJob<Any>) = job.processor.process(job.data)
}
fun main() {
GlobalProcessor.process(ProcessingJob(DataOne(), DataOneProcessor()))
}
In the main function I get a compiler error
Type mismatch.
Required: ProcessingJob<Any>
Found: ProcessingJob<DataOne>
I understand why this happens: A DataProcessor of DataOne, viewed as a DataProcessor of Any could be asked to process DataTwos and for type safety this is not allowed.
Can you give me any suggestions on how/what to change to make it compile and achieve the required result? Thanks for your time!
There are two problems here.
First, Any isn't actually the top-level type. Any implies not null, but T is unconstrained, which means it can be a nullable type. In this case you can use *, or you could also specify the type as Any?.
Change the signature of the GlobalProcessor to this:
object GlobalProcessor: DataProcessor<ProcessingJob<*>> {
override fun process(job: ProcessingJob<*>): ...
The second problem is that the implementation of process can't take advantage of the generic information from the job in order to know that the job.processor and the job.data are compatible. It just sees two objects of unknown type. To let it know they share a compatible type, you need to capture that type as a type variable. We can't add a generic type parameter to the existing method, because it has to match the signature of the interface method, but we can add a new private method that introduces the generic parameter.
Here's the GlobalProcessor with both the required changes.
object GlobalProcessor: DataProcessor<ProcessingJob<*>> {
override fun process(job: ProcessingJob<*>) = processGeneric(job)
private fun <T> processGeneric(job: ProcessingJob<T>) = job.processor.process(job.data)
}
I have a Java class that is out of my control, defined as:
public #interface ValueSource {
String[] strings() default {}
}
I am trying to use this class from a Kotlin file I control, like so:
class Thing {
#ValueSource(string = ["non-null", null])
fun performAction(value: String?) {
// Do stuff
}
}
I get a compiler error
Kotlin: Type inference failed. Expected type mismatch: inferred type is Array<String?> but Array<String> was expected.
I understand why the inferred type is Array<String?>, but why is the expected type not the same? Why is Kotlin interpreting the Java generic as String! rather than String?? And finally, is there a way to suppress the error?
Kotlin 1.2.61
This isn't a Kotlin issue - this code isn't valid either, because Java simply doesn't allow null values in annotation parameters:
public class Thing {
#ValueSource(strings = {"non-null", null}) // Error: Attribute value must be constant
void performAction(String value) {
// Do stuff
}
}
See this article and this question for more discussion on this.
I am not sure if 'hard-failing' is the right word, but here is the problem I am facing. And it's taken me quite some time to reproduce this to the smallest possible example, so here it goes:
class BaseParameterizedType<T>
fun <U: BaseParameterizedType<*>> getSpecific(clazz: KClass<in U>) : U {
TODO()
}
fun example(arg: KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>>)) {
getSpecific(arg.innerType)
}
Ok, so the code above fails at the 'TODO', but if it wasn't there and if the function returned normally, then it definitely fails with a null pointer exception. I tried hard to figure out what was going wrong, so I turned to the decompiled Java code (from the kotlin bytecode):
public static final void example(#NotNull KClass arg) {
Intrinsics.checkParameterIsNotNull(arg, "arg");
getSpecific(arg.getInnerType());
throw null; // <-- The problem
}
If I change the function signature of getSpecific(clz: KClass<in U>) : U to any of these forms:
getSpecific(clz: KClass<out U>) : U
getSpecific(clz: KClass<U>) : U
getSpecific(clz: KClass<in U>) : BaseParameterizedType<*>
or even the function to example(arg: KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>) or example(arg: KClass<BaseParameterizedType<*>>), then the generated code is:
public static final void example(#NotNull KClass arg) {
Intrinsics.checkParameterIsNotNull(arg, "arg");
getSpecific(arg.getInnerType());
}
Now, let's say at the call-site, I change it to:
getSpecific(BaseParameterizedType::class)
then this also DOES NOT generate the throw null clause. So, I'm guessing this has something to do with kotlin assuming that this cast will always fail or that there is indeterminate information available to make the inference?
So, we know that arg.innerType is KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>> and we use it at a site accepting KClass<in BaseParameterizedType<*>>, so why isn't U inferred to BaseParamterizedType<*>>. That is literally the only type that will ever match.
At the same time, I think just generating a throw null statement is unbelievably difficult to debug. The stacktrace would just point to the line where there is getSpecific and good luck figuring out where the null pointer exception came from.
This is a known issue regarding the the type inference corner case handling when the inferred type is Nothing (and it is in your case):
The inference behaves in this way because of a coercion attempt for the projections KClass<in U> and KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>>.
Basically, an out-projected type at the same time means in Nothing (because the actual type argument can be any of the subtypes, and nothing can be safely passed in). So, to match KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>> with KClass<in U> the compiler chooses U := Nothing, implying that the function call returns Nothing as well.
Remark: a Foo<out Any> projection cannot match Foo<in T> with T := Any, because the actual type argument of the value passed for Foo<out Any> can be, for example, Int. Then, if Foo<T> accepts T in some of its functions, allowing the aforementioned match will also allow you to pass Any instances to where Foo<Int> does not expect them. Actually, in Nothing becomes the only way to match them, because of the unknown nature of the out-projected type.
After that, for a Nothing-returning function call, the compiler inserts that throw null bytecode to make sure the execution does not proceed (evaluating a Nothing-typed expression is supposed to never finish correctly).
See the issues: KT-20849, KT-18789
Just as #hotkey mentioned, out means in Nothing and Nothing will throw null.So I do some tests like this:
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
tryToReturnNothing()
}
fun tryToReturnNothing(): Nothing{
TODO()
}
Generate ->
public static final void main(#NotNull String[] args) {
Intrinsics.checkParameterIsNotNull(args, "args");
tryToReturnNothing();
throw null; // here
}
#NotNull
public static final Void tryToReturnNothing() {
throw (Throwable)(new NotImplementedError((String)null, 1, (DefaultConstructorMarker)null));
}
Considering the type of null is Nothing?, we can return Nothing? instead of Nothing. So I change U into U?, and then the throw null clause disappear:
fun <U: BaseParameterizedType<*>> getSpecific(clazz: KClass<in U>) : U? { // see here: change U to U?
TODO()
}
fun example(arg: KClass<out BaseParameterizedType<*>>) {
getSpecific(arg)
}
Generate ->
#Nullable
public static final BaseParameterizedType getSpecific(#NotNull KClass clazz) {
Intrinsics.checkParameterIsNotNull(clazz, "clazz");
throw (Throwable)(new NotImplementedError((String)null, 1, (DefaultConstructorMarker)null));
}
public static final void example(#NotNull KClass arg) {
Intrinsics.checkParameterIsNotNull(arg, "arg");
getSpecific(arg);
}
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>.
In a method I would like to receive KMutableProperty as parameter and assign a value to it.
Another question is what is the correct way of passing a parameter into such a method.
Basically I would like to have something like that:
class MyBinder {
...
fun bind(property: KMutableProperty<Int>): Unit {
property.set(internalIntValue)
}
}
And then call it in another class
myBinder.bind(this::intProperty)
Kotlin 1.0 does not allow the this::intProperty syntax, but this is being worked currently and will be available soon as a part of the early access preview of 1.1 (issue, KEEP proposal).
With this in mind, I'd consider doing what you're describing in another way, for example making bind accept a lambda which sets the property:
class MyBinder {
fun bind(setProperty: (Int) -> Unit) {
setProperty(internalIntValue)
}
}
...
myBinder.bind { intProperty = it }
Anyway, to answer your question about setting the value of KMutableProperty: to set the value of some property or, technically speaking, to invoke the property setter, you should know its arity, or the number of parameters that property (and its getter/setter) accepts. Properties declared in a file do not accept any parameters, member properties and extension properties require one parameter (the receiver instance), while member properties which are also extensions take two parameters. These kinds of properties are represented by the following subtypes of KMutableProperty respectively: KMutableProperty0, KMutableProperty1, KMutableProperty2 -- the number means the arity and their generic type parameters mean the types of receivers. Each of these property types has a set method with the corresponding parameters. Some examples:
fun setValue(property: KMutableProperty0<Int>, value: Int) {
property.set(value)
}
fun setValue(property: KMutableProperty1<SomeType, Int>, instance: SomeType, value: Int) {
property.set(instance, value)
}
Note that there's no set (or get) method in the abstract KMutableProperty interface precisely because it's impossible to declare it, not knowing the number of required receiver parameters.
Additionally to Alexander's answer, you can try something like this:
import kotlin.reflect.KMutableProperty
class Binder {
val internalIntValue = 10
fun bind(self: Any, aProperty: KMutableProperty<Int>) {
aProperty.setter.call(self, internalIntValue)
}
}
class Foo {
var bar = 1
fun changeBar() {
Binder().bind(this, Foo::bar)
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val foo = Foo()
assert(1 == foo.bar)
foo.changeBar()
assert(10 == foo.bar)
}
A more robust/safe way to do the same thing:
fun <T> bind(self: T, aProperty: KMutableProperty1<T, Int>) {
aProperty.set(self, internalIntValue)
}
My thanks to Alexander. His answer gave me the previous idea.