I'm trying to access the delegate of the property (id) of a class (FooImpl). The problem is, this class implements an interface (Foo), and the property in question overrides a property of this interface. The delegate only exists in the class (not that it could exist in the interface).
The problem is that using the :: operator on a variable of type Foo always returns the property of Foo, not that of the actual instance. The problem in code:
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty0
import kotlin.reflect.jvm.isAccessible
interface Foo {
val id: Int
}
class FooImpl(
id: Int,
) : Foo {
override val id: Int by lazy { id }
}
val <T> KProperty<T>.hasDelegate: Boolean
get() = apply { isAccessible = true }.let { (it as KProperty0<T>).getDelegate() != null }
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = FooImpl(1)
println("foo::id.hasDelegate = ${foo::id.hasDelegate}")
println("(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate = ${(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate}")
}
This prints:
foo::id.hasDelegate = false
(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate = true
But this requires compile-time knowledge of the correct implementation. What I'm looking for is accessing the correct propert without having to specify FooImpl there.
The information is present at runtime because the least (!) intrusive workaround I have found so far is adding fun idProp(): KProperty0<*> to Foo and override fun idProp() = ::id to FooImpl and accessing the property using that.
Is there any better way than that?
I came up with this, but I don't know if there's a better way. The problem to work around is that getDelegate() has to return an actual instance of the delegate, so you need an instance of the class to be able to retrieve a delegate instance. It would really be nice if there was a hasDelegate property built in. Your version of hasDelegate will crash from the cast on unbound KProperty1's, which is all we have to work with when the specific class is unknown.
So to retrieve the delegate instance, we need to do search the class instance's member properties by name, which gives us a KProperty with covariant class type of the super-class type. Since it's covariant, we can call a consuming function like getDelegate() without casting to the invariant type. I think this logically should be safe, since we are passing an instance that we know has the matching type for the ::class that we retrieved the property with.
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
fun <T: Any> KProperty1<T, *>.isDelegated(instance: T): Boolean =
(instance::class.memberProperties.first { it.name == name } as KProperty1<T, *>).run {
isAccessible = true
getDelegate(instance) != null
}
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = Foo2()
println("foo::id.hasDelegate = ${Foo::id.isDelegated(foo)}")
}
The problem here is that the owner of the property is resolved on compile time, not on runtime. When you do foo::id then foo (so FooImpl) become its bound receiver, but owner is still resolved to Foo. To fix this we wound need to "cast" property to another owner. Unfortunately, I didn't find a straightforward way to do this.
One solution I found is to use foo::class instead of foo::id as it resolves KClass on runtime, not on compile time. Then I came up with almost exactly the same code as #Tenfour04.
But if you don't mind using Kotlin internals that are public and not protected with any annotation, you can use much cleaner solution:
val KProperty0<*>.hasDelegate: Boolean
get() = apply { isAccessible = true }.getDelegate() != null
fun KProperty0<*>.castToRuntimeType(): KProperty0<*> {
require(this is PropertyReference0)
return PropertyReference0Impl(boundReceiver, boundReceiver::class.java, name, signature, 0)
}
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = FooImpl(1)
println(foo::id.castToRuntimeType().hasDelegate) // true
}
We basically create a new instance of KProperty, copying all its data, but changing the owner to the same type as its bound receiver. As a result, we "cast" it to the runtime type. This is much simpler and it is also cleaner because we separated property casting and checking for a delegate.
Unfortunately, I think Kotlin reflection API is still missing a lot of features. There should be hasDelegate() function, so we don't have to provide receivers, which is not really needed to check if property is delegated. It should be possible to cast KProperty to another type. It should be possible to create bound properties with some API call. But first of all, it should be possible to do something like: Foo::id(foo), so create KProperty of the runtime type of foo. And so on.
Related
I have an immutable object:
class Foo(
val name: String,
val things: List<Thing>
)
A third party lib creates the Foo object with some 'null' Thing objects.
I am creating a new object:
val foo = thirdPartyGetFoo()
val filteredFoo = Foo(foo.name, foo.things.filterNotNull())
That works, however AndroidStudio greys out the filterNotNull function call and presents a warning:
Useless call on collection type: The inspection reports filter-like
calls on already filtered collections.
Is this the right way to filter that list? Should I ignore the warning or is there a better way?
You do not specify what library creates the object with nulls. Some deserialization libraries can use static factory methods which you could configure, and then have the factory method strip the null. For example, if this were Jackson you would simply:
class Foo(val name: String, val things: List<Thing>) {
companion object {
#JsonCreator
#JvmName("createFromNullable")
fun create(name: String, things: List<Thing?>) = Foo(name, things.filterNotNull())
fun create(name: String, things: List<Thing>) = Foo(name, things)
}
}
Then...
val goodFoo = jacksonObjectMapper().readValue<Foo>(someJsonWithNulls)
Maybe your library has options that are similar?
If not, and you don't have 100 of these things with this problem, I would probably create a temporary class to hold the results and convert that to the final class:
open class FooNullable(val name: String, open val things: List<Thing?>) {
open fun withoutNulls(): Foo = Foo(name, things.filterNotNull())
}
class Foo(name: String, override val things: List<Thing>) : FooNullable(name, things) {
override fun withoutNulls(): Foo = this
}
Then you can deserialize into FooNullable and just call withoutNulls() to get the other flavor that is clean. And if you accidentally call it on one without nulls already, it just does nothing.
val goodFoo = Foo("", emptyList<Thing>())
val alsoGoodFoo = goodFoo.withoutNulls() // NOOP does nothing
val badFoo = thirdPartyGetFoo()
val betterFoo = badFoo.withoutNulls() // clean up the instance
val safeFoo = thirdPartyGetFoo().withoutNulls() // all at once!
Not the cleanest, but does work. The downsides is this second step, although it looks like you were already planning on doing that anyway. But this model is safer than what you proposed since you KNOW which type of object you have and therefore you continue to be typesafe and have the compiler helping you avoid a mistake.
You don't have to use inheritance as in the above example, I was just trying to unify the API in case there was a reason to have either version in hand and know which is which, and also act upon them in a similar way.
In Kotlin, we have val that is final and can't be change. e.g.
val something = "Something"
If a value that is is initialized later, we use lateinit var.
lateinit var something: String
But this is var instead of val. I wanted to set something once (not in constructor), and have it as final. How could I achieve this?
Reading into the conventions of Kotlin, a late-initialized variable which is final is impossible.
Consider its use case:
Normally, properties declared as having a non-null type must be initialized in the constructor. However, fairly often this is not convenient. For example, properties can be initialized through dependency injection, or in the setup method of a unit test. In this case, you cannot supply a non-null initializer in the constructor, but you still want to avoid null checks when referencing the property inside the body of a class.
lateinit var is providing relative sanity when dealing with a variable that may not have yet been initialized, such as the case with injected fields (like Spring and #Autowired). Then, speaking strictly in the context of dependency injection, if you don't have a way to concretely instantiate the variable at compile time, then you cannot leave it as a final field.
From a Java to Kotlin world, having a late initialized variable come in as final would look as paradoxical as this from Spring:
#Autowired
private final Interface something;
What do you think the behavior should be when you attempt to set it again? Do you expect this to be enforced at compile time? Should it cause a crash at runtime or just do nothing?
If you expect it to happen at compile time, I'm pretty sure it's not possible for a compiler to catch something like that.
If you want some other behavior, you can make it a private variable with a public set method that does whatever you want if it's been already set.
Or you could encapsulate it in an instance of a custom class that does whatever behavior you want.
You can use following delegate class:
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty
class WriteOnce<T> {
private var holder = holdValue<T>()
private var value by holder
operator fun getValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>): T {
if (!holder.hasValue) {
throw IllegalStateException("Property must be initialized before use")
}
return value
}
operator fun setValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>, value: T) {
if (holder.hasValue) {
throw RuntimeException("Write-once property already has a value")
}
this.value = value
}
}
fun <T> holdValue() = ValueHolder<T>()
class ValueHolder<T> {
var value: T? = null
var hasValue: Boolean = false
private set
operator fun setValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>, value: T) {
this.value = value
hasValue = true
}
operator fun getValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>): T {
return this.value!!
}
}
Usage:
var example by WriteOnce<String>()
If you try to write a to the variable a second time it will produce a RuntimeException:
java.lang.RuntimeException: Write-once property already has a value
Not having any value also produces an exception, similar to as if you were using lateinit:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Property must be initialized before use
Which means this is val and lateinit combined because you can set the value at any time, only once ever.
The downside to this implementation is that this is not checked at compile time, meaning that you will only ever see errors in runtime. If that's acceptable in your use case, it certainly would be a good solution for what you're looking for.
For me this is more of a way to make sure that a variable is only every assigned once by code I control – something I can catch during testing as well as in production as a way to improve security by preventing foreign code from changing a variable.
It is possible you can use You can create a custom delegate for the property that is a combination of the existing notNull delegate and your own idea of set once. Read more about property delegates for information on how to create a custom one that can do whatever you want, including the use case you want here. You would then not use lateinit but instead this delegate.
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.
It's easy to write extension methods in Kotlin:
class A { }
class B {
fun A.newFunction() { ... }
}
But is there some way to create extension variable? Like:
class B {
var A.someCounter: Int = 0
}
You can create an extension property with overridden getter and setter:
var A.someProperty: Int
get() = /* return something */
set(value) { /* do something */ }
But you cannot create an extension property with a backing field because you cannot add a field to an existing class.
No - the documentation explains this:
Extensions do not actually modify classes they extend. By defining an extension, you do not insert new members into a class, but merely make new functions callable with the dot-notation on instances of this class.
and
Note that, since extensions do not actually insert members into classes, there’s no efficient way for an extension property to have a backing field. This is why initializers are not allowed for extension properties. Their behavior can only be defined by explicitly providing getters/setters.
Thinking about extension functions/properties as just syntactic sugar for calling a static function and passing in a value hopefully makes this clear.
However, if you really, really want to do something like this...
As stated above regarding efficiency, an additional backing field added directly to the class is the best way to store data non-derivable from existing non-private members from the class. However, if you don't control the implementation of the class and are dead-set on creating a new property that can store new data, it can be done in a way that is not abysmally inefficient by using separate external tables. Use a separate map that keys on object instances of this class with values that map directly to the value you want to add then define an extension getter and/or setter for this property which uses your external table to store the data associated with each instance.
val externalMap = mutableMapOf<ExistingClass, Int>()
var ExistingClass.newExtensionProperty : Int
get() = externalMap[this] ?: 0
set(value:Int) { externalMap[this] = value }
The additional map lookups will cost you - and you need to consider memory leaks, or using appropriately GC-aware types, but it does work.
There's no way to add extension properties with backing fields to classes, because extensions do not actually modify a class.
You can only define an extension property with custom getter (and setter for var) or a delegated property.
However, if you need to define an extension property which would behave as if it had a backing field, delegated properties come in handy.
The idea is to create a property delegate that would store the object-to-value mapping:
using the identity, not equals()/hashCode(), to actually store values for each object, like IdentityHashMap does;
not preventing the key objects from being garbage collected (using weak references), like WeakHashMap does.
Unfortunately, there is no WeakIdentityHashMap in JDK, so you have to implement your own (or take a complete implementation).
Then, based on this mapping you can create a delegate class satisfying the property delegates requirements. Here's an example non-thread-safe implementation:
class FieldProperty<R, T : Any>(
val initializer: (R) -> T = { throw IllegalStateException("Not initialized.") }
) {
private val map = WeakIdentityHashMap<R, T>()
operator fun getValue(thisRef: R, property: KProperty<*>): T =
map[thisRef] ?: setValue(thisRef, property, initializer(thisRef))
operator fun setValue(thisRef: R, property: KProperty<*>, value: T): T {
map[thisRef] = value
return value
}
}
Usage example:
var Int.tag: String by FieldProperty { "$it" }
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val x = 0
println(x.tag) // 0
val z = 1
println(z.tag) // 1
x.tag = "my tag"
z.tag = x.tag
println(z.tag) // my tag
}
When defined inside a class, the mapping can be stored independently for instances of the class or in a shared delegate object:
private val bATag = FieldProperty<Int, String> { "$it" }
class B() {
var A.someCounter: Int by FieldProperty { 0 } // independent for each instance of B
var A.tag: String by bATag // shared between the instances, but usable only inside B
}
Also, please note that identity is not guaranteed for Java's primitive types due to boxing.
And I suspect the performance of this solution to be significantly worse than that of regular fields, most probably close to normal Map, but that needs further testing.
For nullable properties support and thread-safe implementation please refer to here.
You can't add a field, but you can add a property, that delegates to other properties/methods of the object to implement its accessor(s). For example suppose you want to add a secondsSinceEpoch property to the java.util.Date class, you can write
var Date.secondsSinceEpoch: Long
get() = this.time / 1000
set(value) {
this.time = value * 1000
}
If you are extending View you can do it quite easily like this...
This is example how I create some my custom class Event property in EditText class extension:
Define id for key :
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<resources>
<item name="EditTextEventOnClearTagKey" type="id" />
</resources>
Define one reusable extension like this:
fun <T : Any> View.tagProperty(#IdRes key: Int, onCreate: () -> T): T {
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
var value = getTag(key) as? T
if (value.isNull) {
value = onCreate()
setTag(key, value)
}
return value!!
}
Use it in wherever View extension you need:
val EditText.eventClear get() = tagProperty(R.id.EditTextEventOnClearTagKey) { event<Unit>() }