Which kotlin language feature is this - kotlin

I'm learning about the kotlin DSL, specifically with Teamcity and I see an initialization pattern I don't really understand yet
Kotlin playgound link
Here is the code
package org.arhan.kotlin
fun main() {
val project = project {
configuration {
step {
name = "step 1"
command = "hi"
}
customstep {
name = "flang"
anotherCommand = "derp"
command = "1111"
}
}
}
println(project.configurations[0].steps[1].command)
}
fun project(block: Project.() -> Unit): Project {
return Project().apply(block)
}
fun Project.configuration(block: Configuration.() -> Unit): Configuration {
val configuration = Configuration().apply(block)
configurations.add(configuration)
return configuration
}
fun Configuration.step(block: Step.() -> Unit): Step {
val step = Step().apply(block)
steps.add(step)
return step
}
class Project {
var configurations = mutableListOf<Configuration>()
fun build(block: Configuration.() -> Unit) = Configuration().apply(block)
}
class Configuration {
var steps = mutableListOf<Step>()
}
open class Step {
final lateinit var name: String
var command: String = ""
}
open class CustomStep(): Step(){
var anotherCommand: String = ""
constructor(init: CustomStep.() -> Unit): this(){
// what does this do?
init()
}
}
fun Configuration.customstep(block: CustomStep.() -> Unit): Step {
// how is this constructor initialized
val step = CustomStep(block)
steps.add(step)
return step
}
Specifically the question is about how the CustomStep class is initialized. It take's in a lambda with CustomStep as the reciever (is this the correct terminology?).
And then I call init() in the constructor, which initializes the newly created CustomStep based on the block that was passed in.
I'm not sure how that initialization works. Or rather, which specific Kotlin language feature is being used here.
And how is this different if instead I wrote it the following way?
open class CustomStep(): Step(){
var anotherCommand: String = ""
// no constructor
}
fun Configuration.customstep(block: CustomStep.() -> Unit): Step {
// use apply vs. passing in the block
val step = CustomStep().apply(block)
steps.add(step)
return step
}
Thank you

The init() is referring to the parameter init: CustomStep.() -> Unit:
constructor(init: CustomStep.() -> Unit): this(){
// vvvv ^^^^
init()
}
You are simply calling what you passed in, on this. init needs a CustomStep as receiver after all. As with most situations when calling something on this, this can be omitted, which is what happens here. In the case of customStep, you passed in block.
val step = CustomStep(block)
block is this bit from main:
{
name = "flang"
anotherCommand = "derp"
command = "1111"
}
Your alternative of CustomStep().apply(block) is the same too. Calling the secondary constructor that you declared will first call the parameterless primary constructor, as you have declared as : this(), and is required. This is the same as CustomStep(). Then both versions call block on this.

Related

Issue IDE warning if annotated member is not surrounded with a particular block

I have a data structure which has members that are not thread safe and the caller needs to lock the resource for reading and writing as appropriate. Here's a minimal code sample:
class ExampleResource : LockableProjectItem {
override val readWriteLock: ReadWriteLock = ReentrantReadWriteLock()
#RequiresReadLock
val nonThreadSafeMember: String = ""
}
interface LockableProjectItem {
val readWriteLock: ReadWriteLock
}
fun <T : LockableProjectItem, Out> T.readLock(block: T.() -> Out): Out {
try {
readWriteLock.readLock().lock()
return block(this)
} finally {
readWriteLock.readLock().unlock()
}
}
fun <T : LockableProjectItem, Out> T.writeLock(block: T.() -> Out): Out {
try {
readWriteLock.writeLock().lock()
return block(this)
} finally {
readWriteLock.writeLock().unlock()
}
}
annotation class RequiresReadLock
A call ExampleResource.nonThreadSafeMember might then look like this:
val resource = ExampleResource()
val readResult = resource.readLock { nonThreadSafeMember }
To make sure that the caller is aware that the resource needs to be locked, I would like the IDE to issue a warning for any members that are annotated with #RequiresReadLock and are not surrounded with a readLock block. Is there any way to do this in IntelliJ without writing a custom plugin for the IDE?
I think this is sort of a hack, but using context receivers might work. I don't think they are intended to be used in this way though.
You can declare a dummy object to act as the context receiver, and add that as a context receiver to the property:
object ReadLock
class ExampleResource : LockableProjectItem {
override val readWriteLock: ReadWriteLock = ReentrantReadWriteLock()
// properties with context receivers cannot have a backing field, so we need to explicitly declare this
private val nonThreadSafeMemberField: String = ""
context(ReadLock)
val nonThreadSafeMember: String
get() = nonThreadSafeMemberField
}
Then in readLock, you pass the object:
fun <T : LockableProjectItem, Out> T.readLock(block: context(ReadLock) T.() -> Out): Out {
try {
readWriteLock.readLock().lock()
return block(ReadLock, this)
} finally {
readWriteLock.readLock().unlock()
}
}
Notes:
This will give you an error if you try to access nonThreadSafeMember without the context receiver:
val resource = ExampleResource()
val readResult = resource.nonThreadSafeMember //error
You can still access nonThreadSafeMember without acquiring a read lock by doing e.g.
with(ReadLock) { // with(ReadLock) doesn't acquire the lock, just gets the context receiver
resource.nonThreadSafeMember // no error
}
But it's way harder to accidentally write something like this, which I think is what you are trying to prevent.
If you call another function inside readLock, and you want to access nonThreadSafeMember inside that function, you should mark that function with context(ReadLock) too. e.g.
fun main() {
val resource = ExampleResource()
val readResult = resource.readLock {
foo(this)
}
}
context(ReadLock)
fun foo(x: ExampleResource) {
x.nonThreadSafeMember
}
The context receiver is propagated through.

Kotlin compiler reports unused expression in constructor for builder taking vararg lambdas

We have a relatively simple builder pattern we use for test data generator in Kotlin.
The builders follow the pattern:
class ThingBuilder private constructor(
var param1: Int = 1,
var param2: Boolean = true
) {
private constructor(vararg inits: ThingBuilder.(ThingBuilder) -> Unit) : this() {
inits.forEach { it(this) }
}
fun build(): Thing {
return Thing(
param1,
param2
)
}
companion object {
fun asDefaultCase(init: ThingBuilder.(ThingBuilder) -> Unit = {}): ThingBuilder {
return ThingBuilder(init)
}
fun asSomethingElseCase(init: ThingBuilder.(ThingBuilder) -> Unit = {}): ThingBuilder {
return ThingBuilder({ b -> b.param2 = false }, init)
}
}
}
Here the Kotlin compiler reports a warning:
The expression is unused
which references the line:
inits.forEach { it(this) }
I've tried turning that into an Array<T> rather than varags but same warning occurs.
What would be the more correct way to make this structure where the consumers can pass in lambdas to configure the builder data?
(for reference, the code works correctly and the loop functions as expected)
This seems to be a rather old bug KT-21282 False positive UNUSED_EXPRESSION compiler warning with object and lambda with receiver / extension function type.
The fix is simple - just specify the explicit receiver and do this.it(this). I also don't see why you would need to pass this as both the receiver and the formal parameter to the block. I would just do this instead:
private constructor(vararg inits: ThingBuilder.() -> Unit) : this() {
inits.forEach { this.it() }
}
or:
private constructor(vararg inits: ThingBuilder.() -> Unit) : this() {
inits.forEach { it(this) }
}
Then you don't even need to write the b parameter in asSomethingElseCase:
fun asSomethingElseCase(init: ThingBuilder.() -> Unit = {}): ThingBuilder {
return ThingBuilder({ param2 = false }, init)
}

rxjava, how to inspect the result of a Single

using kotlin, having code
fun fetchRemoteDataApi(): Single<RemoteDataResponse> = networkApi.getData()
// it is just a retrofit
#GET(".../api/getData")
fun getData() : Single<RemoteDataResponse>
fun mergeApiWithDb(): Completable = fetchRemoteDataApi()
.zipWith(localDao.getAll())
.flatMapCompletable { (remoteData, localData) ->
doMerge(remoteData, localData) //<== return a Completable
}
the code flow:
val mergeApiDbCall = mergeApiWithDb().onErrorComplete().cache() //<=== would like do some inspection at this level
PublishSubject.create<Unit>().toFlowable(BackpressureStrategy.LATEST)
.compose(Transformers.flowableIO())
.switchMap {
//merge DB with api, or local default value first then listen to DB change
mergeApiDbCall.andThen(listAllTopics())
.concatMapSingle { topics -> remoteTopicUsers.map { topics to it } }
}
.flatMapCompletable { (topics, user) ->
// do something return Completable
}
.subscribe({
...
}, { throwable ->
...
})
and when making the call
val mergeApiDbCall = mergeApiWithDb().onErrorComplete().cache()
the question is if would like to inspect on the Singles<RemoteDataResponse> returned from fetchRemoteDataApi() (i.e. using Log.i(...) to printout the content of RemoteDataResponse, etc.), either in got error or success case, how to do it?
/// the functions
fun listAllTopics(): Flowable<List<String>> = localRepoDao.getAllTopics()
// which a DAO:
#Query("SELECT topic FROM RemoteDataTable WHERE read = 1")
fun getAllTopics(): Flowable<List<String>>
///
private val remoteTopicUsers: Single<List<User>>
get() {
return Single.create {
networkApi.getTopicUsers(object : ICallback.IGetTopicUsersCallback {
override fun onSuccess(result: List<User>) = it.onSuccess(result)
override fun onError(errorCode: Int, errorMsg: String?) = it.onError(Exception(errorCode, errorMsg))
})
}
}
You cannot extract information about elements from the Completable. Though you can use doOnComplete() on Completable, it will not provide you any information about the element.
You can inspect elements if you call doOnSuccess() on your Single, so you need to incorporate this call earlier in your code. To inspect errors you can use doOnError() on both Completable or Single.

Single-function listeners using lambda

With all the well-known single-function listeners we can use a simpler lambda notation
view.setOnClickListener { do() }
instead of the original, longer Java way of
view.setOnClickListener(object : View.OnClickListener {
override fun onClick(v: View?) {
do()
}
})
But what exactly makes this work? I tried to do the same with my own listener:
private var listener: OnCopyPasteClickListener? = null
interface OnCopyPasteClickListener {
fun onPasteClick(text: String)
}
fun setOnCopyPasteClickListener(onCopyPasteClickListener: OnCopyPasteClickListener) {
listener = onCopyPasteClickListener
}
and while the long approach works just fine:
copypaste.setOnCopyPasteClickListener(object : CopyPasteMenu.OnCopyPasteClickListener {
override fun onPasteClick(text: String) {
do(text)
}
})
I can't make it accept the short one:
copypaste.setOnCopyPasteClickListener {
do(it)
}
The IDE gives a type mismatch error.
Actually, if you have only one function to be invoked, I recommend you use Kotlin Callback.
typealias OnDoWorkListener = ((String) -> Unit)
class Work {
var doWork: OnDoWorkListener? = null
fun doSomething() {
doWork?.invoke("Message Here")
}
}
And in your function, you just set the callback to it
fun main() {
val work = Work()
work.doWork = {
Log.d("WORK", "This gets called from the `work` object. Message: $it")
}
work.doSomething();
}
We can also use function to set the listener as well.
class Work {
var doWork: OnDoWorkListener? = null
fun doSomething() {
doWork?.invoke("Message Here")
}
fun setOnWorkListener(listener: OnDoWorkListener) {
doWork = listener
}
}
fun main() {
val work = Work()
work.setOnWorkListener {
Log.d("WORK", "This gets called from the `work` object. Message: $it")
}
work.doSomething()
}
Higher order functions make this work:
Kotlin functions are first-class, which means that they can be stored
in variables and data structures, passed as arguments to and returned
from other higher-order functions. You can operate with functions in
any way that is possible for other non-function values.
From the same page:
Passing a lambda to the last parameter
In Kotlin, there is a convention that if the last parameter of a
function accepts a function, a lambda expression that is passed as the
corresponding argument can be placed outside the parentheses:
val product = items.fold(1) { acc, e -> acc * e }
If the lambda is the only argument to that call, the parentheses can
be omitted entirely:
run { println("...") }
Knowing this, a possible update on your class would look like:
class CopyPaste {
private var listener: (String) -> Unit = {}
fun setOnCopyPasteClickListener(onCopyPasteClickListener: (String) -> Unit) {
listener = onCopyPasteClickListener
}
fun doCopyPaste(value: String) {
listener.invoke(value)
}
}
fun main() {
val copyPaste = CopyPaste()
copyPaste.setOnCopyPasteClickListener { println(it) }
copyPaste.doCopyPaste("ClipboardContent!")
}
The class CopyPaste stores the listener, which is a function that takes a String parameter and does not return anything. Its function setOnCopyPasteClickListener accepts a function with the same signature as the listener property and at the end doCopyPaste accepts a String parameter and passes it to the stored function.
Actually, just after I posted, I searched for more thoughts and found this thread: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-7770 This is indeed a debated limitation as it currently only applies to Java, not Kotlin itself. There is also a suggestion there that gives almost the required simplicity:
interface OnCopyPasteClickListener {
fun onPasteClick(text: String)
companion object {
inline operator fun invoke(crossinline op: (text: String) -> Unit) =
object : OnCopyPasteClickListener {
override fun onPasteClick(text: String) = op(text)
}
}
}
and then, thanks to this overloaded operator, it can be called as:
copypaste.setOnCopyPasteClickListener(CopyPasteMenu.OnCopyPasteClickListener { text ->
do(text)
})
But as the suggested answers offer a more idiomatic solution, I'll accept one of those, I only wanted to include this approach here for reference.

Is there a less ugly way to return function in Kotlin?

This declaration works, but is not the most beautiful code. Is there a way to return functions less ugly? I tried (s: String) -> writer.println(s) but this didn't work.
val writeStuff: (PrintWriter) -> (String) -> Unit = {
val writer = it
val f: (String) -> Unit = {
writer.println(it)
}
f
}
PrintWriter("test").use { writeStuff(it)("TEST") }
EDIT: a bit more concrete example:
val writeStuff: (PrintWriter) -> (String) -> Unit = { writer ->
{ writer.println(it) }
}
val sendStuff: (Any) -> (String) -> Unit = { sender ->
{ sender.equals(it) }
}
#Test fun test1() {
val li = listOf("a", "b", "c")
val process: List<(String) -> Unit> =
listOf(writeStuff(PrintWriter("a")), sendStuff(Object()))
process.map { li.map(it) }
}
First, you can simplify your code using lambda syntax with explicit parameter and inlining val f:
val writeStuff: (PrintWriter) -> (String) -> Unit = { writer ->
{ writer.println(it) }
}
But since Kotlin supports local function declarations, you can even make writeStuff a local fun instead of a val.
This would lead to the following code:
fun writeStuff(writer: PrintWriter): (String) -> Unit {
return { writer.println(it) }
}
Or, using the single expression syntax,
fun writeStuff(writer: PrintWriter): (String) -> Unit = { writer.println(it) }
The usage, however, will be the same:
PrintWriter("...").use { writeStuff(it)("...") }
I stumbled across this question while trying to figure out how to return a Function (the java interface) in Kotlin. While this doesn't directly answer the question, hopefully it'll help someone else who has the same query:
override fun myFun(param1: Object): Function<in Object, out String?> {
if (!param1.meetsCriteria())
return Function { obj -> null }
return Function { obj ->
"success"
}
}
In this case, I was overriding a method in a java interface that required me to return a Function instance. (Note that since the param is not used in my particular implementation above, I could remove it and just have the return result. eg return Function { null })
Edit: After some research, it turns out Kotlin covers this subject with their discussion on "SAM (single abstract method) conversions" here and here, though it may not be the most intuitive thing to look up when figuring out how to return Functions.