I have a class :
data class Stam(#SerializedName("blabla") val blabla: String = "")
I want to do gson.fromJson("{\"blabla\":null}", Stam::class.java)
However, it will fail because blabla is not nullable.
I want to make it so if gson failed to deserialize some variable, it will take the default value I give it.
How to achieve that?
I don't think it is possible with GSON, this is one of the reasons why kotlinx.serialization library was created. With this library it is fairly easy:
#Serializable
data class Stam(#SerialName("blabla") val blabla: String = "") //actually, #SerialName may be omitted if it is equal to field name
Json { coerceInputValues = true }.decodeFromString<Stam>("{\"blabla\":null}")
I wouldn't say it is not possible in Gson, but Gson is definitely not the best choice:
Gson has no mention on Kotlin, its runtime and specifics, so one is better to use a more convenient and Kotlin-aware tool. Typical questions here are: how to detect a data class (if it really matters, can be easily done in Kotlin), how to detect non-null parameters and fields in runtime, etc.
Data classes in Kotlin seem to provide a default constructor resolvable by Gson therefore Gson can invoke it (despite it can instantiate classes instances without constructors using unsafe mechanics) delegating to the "full-featured" constructor with the default arguments. The trick here is removing null-valued properties from input JSON so Gson would keep "default-argumented" fields unaffected.
I do Java but I do believe the following code can be converted easily (if you believe Gson is still a right choice):
final class StripNullTypeAdapterFactory
implements TypeAdapterFactory {
// The rule to check whether this type adapter should be applied.
// Externalizing the rule makes it much more flexible.
private final Predicate<? super TypeToken<?>> isClassSupported;
private StripNullTypeAdapterFactory(final Predicate<? super TypeToken<?>> isClassSupported) {
this.isClassSupported = isClassSupported;
}
static TypeAdapterFactory create(final Predicate<? super TypeToken<?>> isClassSupported) {
return new StripNullTypeAdapterFactory(isClassSupported);
}
#Override
#Nullable
public <T> TypeAdapter<T> create(final Gson gson, final TypeToken<T> typeToken) {
if ( !isClassSupported.test(typeToken) ) {
return null;
}
// If the type is supported by the rule, get the type "real" delegate
final TypeAdapter<T> delegate = gson.getDelegateAdapter(this, typeToken);
return new StripNullTypeAdapter<>(delegate);
}
private static final class StripNullTypeAdapter<T>
extends TypeAdapter<T> {
private final TypeAdapter<T> delegate;
private StripNullTypeAdapter(final TypeAdapter<T> delegate) {
this.delegate = delegate;
}
#Override
public void write(final JsonWriter out, final T value)
throws IOException {
delegate.write(out, value);
}
#Override
public T read(final JsonReader in) {
// Another disadvantage in using Gson:
// the null-stripped object must be buffered into memory regardless how big it is.
// So it may generate really big memory footprints.
final JsonObject buffer = JsonParser.parseReader(in).getAsJsonObject();
// Strip null properties from the object
for ( final Iterator<Map.Entry<String, JsonElement>> i = buffer.entrySet().iterator(); i.hasNext(); ) {
final Map.Entry<String, JsonElement> property = i.next();
if ( property.getValue().isJsonNull() ) {
i.remove();
}
}
// Now there is no null values so Gson would only use properties appearing in the buffer
return delegate.fromJsonTree(buffer);
}
}
}
Test:
public final class StripNullTypeAdapterFactoryTest {
private static final Collection<Class<?>> supportedClasses = ImmutableSet.of(Stam.class);
private static final Gson gson = new GsonBuilder()
.disableHtmlEscaping()
// I don't know how easy detecting data classes and non-null parameters is
// but since the rule is externalized, let's just lookup it
// in the "known classes" registry
.registerTypeAdapterFactory(StripNullTypeAdapterFactory.create(typeToken -> supportedClasses.contains(typeToken.getRawType())))
.create();
#Test
public void test() {
final Stam stam = gson.fromJson("{\"blabla\":null}", Stam.class);
// The test is "green" since
Assertions.assertEquals("", stam.getBlabla());
}
}
I still think Gson is not the best choice here.
Related
I want to make Jackson work with enums not by name and not by ordinal, but with a custom property I added called "stringId".
I wanted to support this with all Enums in the system so I made an interface called StringIdEnum which the FooEnum will implement.
I'm using Kotlin so I created a property in the interface called stringId which I override in each enum value.
Now I want to make Jackson serialize and deserialize using this stringId field, from what I seen I have several options:
Use #JsonProperty annotation on each enum value and make sure it is aligned with the stringId property.
I see two issues with this approach. one it's a lot of annotation to add (we have many enum classes across the system). two I need to make sure the annotation value and the property value should be always the same which can cause issues in the future.
I tried to use the READ_ENUMS_USING_TO_STRING feature, but because I'm using an interface I can't override the toString in the interface class (I can override it in every enum class but that again seems like a lot of redundant code)
Implement a custom serializer/deserializer.
The serializer is pretty straightforward, however, I had trouble with the deserializer.
I wanted to register the deserializer on the StringIdEnum interface, but I had an issue getting all the runtime enum values for the actual FooType enum.
StringIdEnum:
interface StringIdEnum {
val stringId: String
}
enum class FooType(override val stringId: String) : StringIdEnum {
FOO("FOO"),
GOO("GOO");
}
Managed to get it working:
#JsonSerialize(using = StringIdEnumSerializer::class)
#JsonDeserialize(using = StringIdEnumDeserializer::class)
interface StringIdEnum: DbEnum {
val stringId: String
}
class StringIdEnumSerializer: StdSerializer<StringIdEnum>(StringIdEnum::class.java) {
override fun serialize(value: StringIdEnum, gen: JsonGenerator, provider: SerializerProvider) {
gen.writeString(value.stringId)
}
}
class StringIdEnumDeserializer : JsonDeserializer<Enum<*>>(), ContextualDeserializer {
private lateinit var type: JavaType
override fun deserialize(p: JsonParser, ctxt: DeserializationContext): Enum<*> {
val t = p.text
val enumConstants = (type.rawClass as Class<Enum<*>>).enumConstants
return enumConstants.single { (it as StringIdEnum).stringId == t }
}
override fun createContextual(ctxt: DeserializationContext?, property: BeanProperty?): JsonDeserializer<*> {
val wrapperType: JavaType = property!!.type
val stringIdEnumDeserializer = StringIdEnumDeserializer()
stringIdEnumDeserializer.type = wrapperType
return stringIdEnumDeserializer
}
}
So what I want to achieve is that to have the top-level variable set some time later in the main function, but I don't want to make it a lateinit var which certainly breaks the Extension variable functionality.
For instance this code doesn't work since extension variables don't support lateinit modifier:
lateinit var Dispatchers.Konvironment: MainCoroutineDispatcher
private set
fun main() {
...
Dispatchers.Konvironment = ArbitraryMainDispatcher(Thread.currentThread()) { queue.add(it) }
...
}
So what I finally came up with is to use a dummy variable and implement the getter of the val variable.
val Dispatchers.Konvironment: MainCoroutineDispatcher
get() = dispatcher
private lateinit var dispatcher: MainCoroutineDispatcher
fun main() {
...
dispatcher = ArbitraryMainDispatcher(Thread.currentThread()) { queue.add(it) }
...
}
But it is certainly not clean way to do that. It looks ugly (ish) creating multiple variable in the top-level structure is not very clean architecture.
So is there any possible clean workarounds? Sort of like lazy initialization, by some delegates or something.
Well, partially answering your question:
var Dispatchers.Konvironment: MainCoroutineDispatcher
get() = dispatcher
private set(value) {
dispatcher = value
}
private lateinit var dispatcher: MainCoroutineDispatcher
fun main() {
...
Dispatchers.Konvironment = ArbitraryMainDispatcher(Thread.currentThread()) { queue.add(it) }
...
}
will give you the desired way of assigning the value. There is no way to get rid of this additional lazyinit variable, though.
Extensions are nothing more than just some Kotlin syntax sugar for static methods which take an instance of the extended class as one of the arguments, and perform some action. If you're familiar with Java then, for example, these extensions:
// Extensions.kt
fun Foo.extendedAction() {
println(this)
}
var Foo.extendedBar: Bar
get() = this.bar
set(value) {
this.bar = value
}
are under the hood these methods in Java:
public class ExtensionsKt {
public static final void extendedAction(Foo foo) {
System.out.println(foo);
}
public static final Bar getExtendedBar(Foo foo) {
return foo.getBar();
}
public static final Bar setExtendedBar(Foo foo, Bar bar) {
foo.setBar(bar);
}
}
The conclusion which maybe drawn from the above is that extensions don't actually add anything to the extended classes' signatures, they simply decorate them with additional functionality. Or, as put in the docs:
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 variables of this type.
So you can see, unless dispatcher somehow already exists within Dispatchers, you can't do what you want without providing an external, "backing" variable which value can be actually referenced by the extension.
I have a simple class used for JSON serialization. For this purpose, the external interface uses Strings, but the internal representation is different.
public class TheClass {
private final ComplexInfo info;
public TheClass(String info) {
this.info = new ComplexInfo(info);
}
public String getInfo() {
return this.info.getAsString();
}
// ...more stuff which uses the ComplexInfo...
}
I have this working in Kotlin (not sure if there's a better way). But the non-val/var constructor prevents me from using data.
/*data*/ class TheClass(info: String) {
private val _info = ComplexInfo(info)
val info: String
get() = _info.getAsString()
// ...more stuff which uses the ComplexInfo...
}
How do I get this working as a data class?
You can use a combination of a private ComplexInfo property declared in the primary constructor and a secondary constructor that accepts a String.
Optionally, make the primary constructor private.
Example:
data class TheClass private constructor(private val complexInfo: ComplexInfo) {
constructor(infoString: String) : this(ComplexInfo(infoString))
val info: String get() = complexInfo.getAsString()
}
Note that it's the complexInfo property that is used in the data class generated members implementations.
I am familiar with Java, but I am having difficulty working with Kotlin.
To illustrate my question, here is some Java Code. If the getter finds the field to be NULL, it initializes the field, before returning the field.
package test;
public class InitFieldJava {
private final static String SECRET = "secret";
private String mySecret;
public String getMySecret() {
if(mySecret == null) initMySecret();
return mySecret;
}
private void initMySecret() {
System.out.println("Initializing Secret ....");
mySecret = SECRET;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
InitFieldJava field = new InitFieldJava();
System.out.println(field.getMySecret());
}
}
Can I do something like the above in Kotlin. My attempt in Kotlin looks like this:
package test
class InitFieldKotlin {
private val SECRET = "secret"
private var mySecret: String? = null
get() {
if (mySecret == null) initMySecret() //Infinite Recursion!!!
return mySecret
}
private fun initMySecret() {
println("Initializing Secret ....")
mySecret = SECRET
}
companion object {
#JvmStatic
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val field = InitFieldKotlin()
println(field.mySecret)
}
}
}
My problem is that this results in infinite recursion:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
at test.InitFieldKotlin.getMySecret(InitFieldKotlin.kt:7)
at test.InitFieldKotlin.getMySecret(InitFieldKotlin.kt:7)
at test.InitFieldKotlin.getMySecret(InitFieldKotlin.kt:7)
at test.InitFieldKotlin.getMySecret(InitFieldKotlin.kt:7)
I’d appreciate knowing what I’m doing wrong.
Try to use field keyword inside get():
private var mySecret: String? = null
get() {
if (field == null) initMySecret()
return field
}
Generally speaking, field allows to access your value directly without calling get, almost in the same way as in your Java example. More information can be found in documentation.
The problem you're facing is that when you call your property this way, the getter will be called again. And when you call getter, another getter is called, and so on until an StackOverflow.
You can fix this as shown by #Google, and using field inside the getter, instead of the property name:
if (field == null)initMySecret()
This way you won't access the property using its getter.
But more importantly: why don't you use a lazy initialization? If the variable is final, and it seems to be, you could use a lazy val
This way, the field won't be nullable anymore, so you won't have to safe-call it. And you'll not use boilerplate code, Kotlin can do this lazy initialization for you!
val mySecret: String by lazy {
println("Initializing Secret. This print will be executed only once!")
"SECRETE" //This value will be returned on further calls
}
More examples on Lazy can be seen at Kotlin Docs
I have this abstract class in java:
abstract class AbsApiTestCase<T> {
T mApi;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
mApi = instanceApi((Class<T>) (
(ParameterizedType) getClass().getGenericSuperclass())
.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
static <T> T instanceApi(Class<T> clazz) throws Exception {
return new Retrofit.Builder()
.baseUrl(clazz.getField("BASE_URL").get(null).toString())
.addConverterFactory(GsonConverterFactory.create(
new GsonBuilder().setDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss").create()))
.addCallAdapterFactory(RxJavaCallAdapterFactory.create())
.client(getClient())
.build().create(clazz);
}
// some code
}
And api looks like this:
public interface GithubApi {
String BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/";
// some code
}
It can be used like this:
public class GithubApiTest extends AbsApiTestCase<GithubApi> {
// some code
}
But when I convert my code to kotlin, the static field BASE_URL looks like this:
interface GithubApi {
companion object {
val BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
}
// some code
}
And BASE_URL cannot be accessed like above. I found there is a #JvmField annotation but Android studio says JvmField cannot be applied to a property defined in companion object of interface.
Is there a way to access this "static field"?
How about making BASE_URL a compile-time constant?
interface GithubApi {
companion object {
const val BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
}
}
At byte-code level BASE_URL is a static field of the GithubApi interface.
public interface GithubApi {
public static final GithubApi$Companion Companion;
public static final java.lang.String BASE_URL;
static {};
Code:
0: new #26 // class GithubApi$Companion
3: dup
4: aconst_null
5: invokespecial #30 // Method GithubApi$Companion."<init>":(Lkotlin/jvm/internal/DefaultConstructorMarker;)V
8: putstatic #32 // Field Companion:LGithubApi$Companion;
11: return
}
The #JvmStatic annotation will make the property's backing field a static one. That is, if the annotation is applied to a property within a companion object, then a new static field will be created in the enclosing class.
Note that Kotlin really has no notion of static, and that this annotation is merely for accessibility accross JVM languages.
I see four basic options for that:
1) Extract the property into an object (companion or not):
object GithubApiUrls {
val BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
}
2) Make a package-level property:
package myProgram
val BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
3) Use a class, not an interface, if you need inheritance (no idea what for, TBH):
open class GithubApi {
val BASE_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
}
4) Replace the field with a method in the interface (can be overridden):
interface GithubApi {
fun BaseUrl() = "https://api.github.com/"
}
Wouldn't suggest putting constants in interfaces at all. It introduces too much complexity without real value gain.
Try decoupling class that holds the constant from the actual class that implements the interface.
public class AllUrls {
public static final String GITHUB_URL = "https://api.github.com/";
}
That will become
object AllUrls {
val GITHUB_URL = "https://api.github.com/"
}
And to use it
static <T> T instanceApi(Class<T> clazz) throws Exception {
return new Retrofit.Builder()
.baseUrl(AllUrls.INSTANCE.getGITHUB_URL())
.addConverterFactory(GsonConverterFactory.create(
new GsonBuilder().setDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss").create()))
.addCallAdapterFactory(RxJavaCallAdapterFactory.create())
.client(getClient())
.build().create(clazz);
}