I'm having problems with the jvm compiler.
I'm trying to write a factory method for classes. The factory method has an init() block that helps to define behaviour for the new object. While this method compiles for JVM, I encounter a problem when running it:
java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Parameter specified as non-null is null: method type.ProblematicKt.nullable, parameter $this$nullable
Apparently, the object isn't yet defined when I attempt to run the problematicInit() block. How do I fix this?
Seems to be a JVM problem. It seems to work for Javascript compilations. My understanding was that getProblematic would be hoisted, but what's inside the scope would be deferred until it's run designed to be run later - after the factory method is completed.
interface ProblematicBuilderScope {
fun problematicInit(getX: () -> ProblematicInterface)
}
fun getProblematic() = X
class Problematic(...): ProblematicInterface
// Factory method with init() block
val X = Problematic.factory(...) {
problematicInit{ getProblematic() }
}
fun factory(init: ProblematicBuilderScope.() -> Unit): Problematic {
val newObject = Problematic(...)
val scope = ProblematicBuilderScope(newObject)
scope.init()
return newObject
}
here is a cleaner simpler way to achieve the same builder implementation
interface ProblematicInterface
class Problematic(): ProblematicInterface
fun buildProblematic(init: Problematic.() -> Unit): Problematic {
val newObject = Problematic()
init(newObject)
return newObject
}
val x = buildProblematic {
// this object type inside this clouse is Problematic
}
Related
I am trying to create a dynamic service based on the data class model defined by user and they registerDataModels() method appDataModule() it should automatically create all based method in the router service. When I try to achive using generics in those method I am getting a compiler error. Is there any other better way to dynamically create route methods like by defining the datamodel by developer and then service should be automatically created?
org.jetbrains.kotlin.backend.common.BackendException: Backend Internal error: Exception during IR lowering
File being compiled: */api/AppConfigService.kt
The root cause java.lang.RuntimeException was thrown at: org.jetbrains.kotlin.backend.jvm.codegen.FunctionCodegen.generate(FunctionCodegen.kt:47)
File is unknown
The root cause java.lang.AssertionError was thrown at: org.jetbrains.kotlin.codegen.coroutines.CoroutineTransformerMethodVisitor.spillVariables(CoroutineTransformerMethodVisitor.kt:636)
fun Application.registerDataModels() {
appDataModule<M1>()
appDataModule<M2>()
appDataModule<M3>()
}
inline fun <reified T: DBModel> Application.appDataModule() {
routing {
createAppData<T>()
updateAppData<T>()
deleteAppData<T>()
}
}
inline fun <reified T: DBModel> Route.createAppData() {
put("/api/data/${getName<T>()}/create") {
authenticated {
create<T>{}
}
}
}
inline fun <reified T: DBModel> Route.updateAppData() {
put("/api/data/${getName<T>()}/update") {
authenticated {
update<T>{}
}
}
}
inline fun <reified T: DBModel> Route.deleteAppData() {
put("/api/data/${getName<T>()}/delete") {
authenticated {
delete<T>{}
}
}
}
Note: This answer assumed that code would be loaded at runtime, which seems not to be the case, and is therefore not completely matching OP's question.
You are using inline functions with reified.
To make a long story short, inline functions are compiled and 'copied' to the location where they are being used, already with a fixed (thats what reified does) class. So when you use an inline function
inline fun <reified T> foo(t: T): T { ... }
and you call it like this:
val myVal = foo("test").uppercase()
then at compile time of that calling line of code, the type of T is known to be String and the target line is compiled accordingly, so you know at runtime which type T is within your function.
It is (for this one calling line) as if that function was like this to begin with:
fun foo(t: String): String { ... }
Because you want to compile these classes dynamically, however, this process fails, because the class obviously does not exist yet. This is simply due to the nature of reified. If you can somehow remove it, it might work.
I agree that the error message of the compiler could be more telling here. Maybe you can raise a task on kotlin's issue tracking platform?: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issues/kt?_gl=1*5r6x4d*_ga*MTQyMDYxMjc2MS4xNjMzMzQwMzk5*_ga_9J976DJZ68*MTY2OTM1NjM1MS4yMS4xLjE2NjkzNTYzNTcuMC4wLjA.&_ga=2.265829455.1332696793.1669356352-1420612761.1633340399
Let's say I have an object which helps me to deserialize other objects from storage:
val books: MutableList<Book> = deserializer.getBookList()
val persons: MutableList<Person> = deserializer.getPersonList()
The methods getBookList and getPersonList are extension functions I have written. Their logic is allmost the same so I thought I may can combine them into one method. My problem is the generic return type. The methods look like this:
fun DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<Book> {
val list = mutableListOf<Book>()
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item = Book()
item.readExternal(this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
Is there some Kotlin magic (maybe with inline functions) which I can use to detect the List type and generify this methods? I think the problem would be val item = T() which will not work for generic types, right? Or is this possible with inline functions?
You cannot call the constructor of a generic type, because the compiler can't guarantee that it has a constructor (the type could be from an interface). What you can do to get around this though, is to pass a "creator"-function as a parameter to your function. Like this:
fun <T> DataInput.getList(createT: () -> T): MutableList<T> {
val list = mutableListOf<T>()
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item = createT()
/* Unless readExternal is an extension on Any, this function
* either needs to be passed as a parameter as well,
* or you need add an upper bound to your type parameter
* with <T : SomeInterfaceWithReadExternal>
*/
item.readExternal(this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
Now you can call the function like this:
val books: MutableList<Book> = deserializer.getList(::Book)
val persons: MutableList<Person> = deserializer.getList(::Person)
Note:
As marstran mentioned in a comment, this requires the class to have a zero-arg constructor to work, or it will throw an exception at runtime. The compiler will not warn you if the constructor doesn't exist, so if you pick this way, make sure you actually pass a class with a zero-arg constructor.
You can't initialize generic types, in Kotlin or Java. At least not in the "traditional" way. You can't do this:
val item = T()
In Java, you'd pass a Class<T> and get the constructor. Very basic example of that:
public <T> void x(Class<T> cls){
cls.getConstructor().newInstance(); // Obviously you'd do something with the return value, but this is just a dummy example
}
You could do the same in Kotlin, but Kotlin has a reified keyword that makes it slightly easier. This requires an inline function, which means you'd change your function to:
inline fun <reified T> DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<T> { // Notice the `<reified T>`
val list = mutableListOf<T>() // Use T here
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
// This is where the initialization happens; you get the constructor, and create a new instance.
// Also works with arguments, if you have any, but you used an empty one so I assume yours is empty
val item = T::class.java.getConstructor().newInstance()!!
item.readExternal(this) // However, this is tricky. See my notes below this code block
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
However, readExternal isn't present in Any, which will present problems. The only exception is if you have an extension function for either Any or a generic type with that name and input.
If it's specific to some classes, then you can't do it like this, unless you have a shared parent. For an instance:
class Book(){
fun readExternal(input: DataInput) { /*Foo bar */}
}
class Person(){
fun readExternal(input: DataInput) { /*Foo bar */}
}
Would not work. There's no shared parent except Any, and Any doesn't have readExternal. The method is manually defined in each of them.
You could create a shared parent, as an interface or abstract class (assuming there isn't one already), and use <reified T : TheSharedParent>, and you would have access to it.
You could of course use reflection, but it's slightly harder, and adds some exceptions you need to handle. I don't recommend doing this; I'd personally use a superclass.
inline fun <reified T> DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<T> {
val list = mutableListOf<T>()
val size = this.readInt()
val method = try {
T::class.java.getMethod("readExternal", DataInput::class.java)
}catch(e: NoSuchMethodException){
throw RuntimeException()
}catch(e: SecurityException){
throw RuntimeException()// This could be done better; but error handling is up to you, so I'm just making a basic example
// The catch clauses are pretty self-explanatory; if something happens when trying to get the method itself,
// These two catch them
}
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item: T = T::class.java.getConstructor().newInstance()!!
method.invoke(item, this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
I have a function with a prototype similar to:
class objectToMock {
fun myFunc(stringArg: String, booleanArg: Boolean = false, functionArg: (String) -> Any = { 0 }): String
}
I'd like to be able to stub myFunc but can't figure out how to. Something like
#Mock
lateinit var mockedObject: ObjectToMock
#Before
fun setup() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this)
`when`(mockedObject.myFunc(anyString(), anyBoolean(), any())).thenReturn("")
}
Using any() and notNull() both lead to java.lang.IllegalStateException: any() must not be null
The solution here is to use anyOrNull from https://github.com/nhaarman/mockito-kotlin, or implement that helper yourself.
Mockito often returns null when calling methods like any(), eq() etcetera. Passing these instances to methods that are not properly mocked, can cause NullPointerExceptions
see: https://github.com/nhaarman/mockito-kotlin/wiki/Parameter-specified-as-non-null-is-null
you can add
mockedObject = ObjectToMock()
#Before It is the place to initialize.
#Test It is the place to test.you can call mockedObject.myFunc()
A previous question shows how to put a static initializer inside a class using its companion object. I'm trying to find a way to add a static initializer at the package level, but it seems packages have no companion object.
// compiler error: Modifier 'companion' is not applicable inside 'file'
companion object { init { println("Loaded!") } }
fun main(args: Array<String>) { println("run!") }
I've tried other variations that might've made sense (init on its own, static), and I know as a workaround I can use a throwaway val as in
val static_init = {
println("ugly workaround")
}()
but is there a clean, official way to achieve the same result?
Edit: As #mfulton26's answer mentions, there is no such thing as a package-level function really in the JVM. Behind the scenes, the kotlin compiler is wrapping any free functions, including main in a class. I'm trying to add a static initializer to that class -- the class being generated by kotlin for the free functions declared in the file.
Currently there is no way to add code to the static constructor generated for Kotlin file classes, only top-level property initializers are getting there. This sounds like a feature request, so now there is an issue to track this: KT-13486 Package-level 'init' blocks
Another workaround is to place initialization in top-level private/internal object and reference that object in those functions that depend on the effect of that initialization. Objects are initialized lazily, when they are referenced first time.
fun dependsOnState(arg: Int) = State.run {
arg + value
}
private object State {
val value: Int
init {
value = 42
println("State was initialized")
}
}
As you mentioned, you need a property with something that would run on initialisation:
val x = run {
println("The package class has loaded")
}
I got around it by using a Backing Property on the top-level, under the Kotlin file. Kotlin Docs: Backing Properties
private var _table: Map<String, Int>? = null
public val table: Map<String, Int>
get() {
if (_table == null) {
_table = HashMap() // Type parameters are inferred
// .... some other initialising code here
}
return _table ?: throw AssertionError("Set to null by another thread")
}
I'm trying to keep this minimal, but let me know if I'm being too minimal.
Suppose you have a class hierarchy like this, designed for generating HTML (inspired by the Kotlin tutorial; semi-pseudocode follows):
class Tag {
protected val children = arrayListOf<Tag>()
operator fun String.unaryPlus() = children.add(Text(this))
}
class TagWithChildren : Tag() {
fun head(init: Head.() -> Unit) = initializeTag(Head(), init)
fun script(init: Script.() -> Unit) = initializeTag(Script(), init)
fun <T : Tag> initializeTag(tag: T, init: T.() -> Unit): T {
tag.init()
children.add(tag)
return tag
}
}
class Head : TagWithChildren()
class Script : Tag()
class Text(val str: Text) : Tag()
Notice that Head has head and script methods while Script doesn't.
Now you can construct a template that looks like this:
head {
script {
+"alert('hi');"
}
}
Which works great! However, if the block passed to script tries to call methods that aren't available on Script, it can call the method on Head instead. For example,
head {
script {
script {
+"alert('hi');"
}
}
}
not only isn't a compile error, it's actually equivalent to
head {
script {
}
script {
+"alert('hi');"
}
}
which is super confusing, from a template author's perspective.
Is there any way to prevent method lookups from traveling up the scope like that? I only want it to look at the innermost scope.
UPDATE 11/24/2016:
Kotlin 1.1-M03 has introduced scope control, which I believe solves exactly this problem. https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2016/11/kotlin-1-1-m03-is-here/
The current behavior is intentional. Code in a lambda has access to receivers of all enclosing scopes. It is possible that a future version of Kotlin will add a modifier that will restrict a lambda with receiver to calling methods on that receiver only and not the enclosing scopes, but in the current version there's no way to change that behavior.
As a workaround, I can have it fail at runtime if I change the classes to look like this:
open class Tag {
operator fun String.unaryPlus()
// pulled up from TagWithChildren, call protected method
fun head(init: Head.() -> Unit) = addChild(Head())
fun script(init: Script.() -> Unit) = addChild(Head())
// throws in Tag
open protected fun addChild(t: Tag) = throw IllegalArgumentException()
}
class TagWithChildren : Tag() {
// overridden to not throw in subclass
protected override fun addChild(t: Tag) = children.add(t)
}
This way, every Tag has the builder methods (solving the scoping problem), but actually calling them may result in a runtime failure.