I want to serialize FAIL object via Jackson:
interface OptionalResult<out ResultType : Any> {
val data: ResultType?
object FAIL : OptionalResult<Nothing> {
override val data: Nothing? = null
}
}
What I get is {} but I expect to receive {"data": null}.
How can I fix my object?
By the way, the following object is serialized properly:
object FAIL : OptionalResult<Int> {
override val data: Int? = null
}
Technical problem is that Jackson determines that indicator that would normally indicate existence of a property (public or annotated setter) will be filtered out, as getter is seen as public void getData() that returns nothing.
Filtering is done at low level processing, along with removal of static methods, methods that are neither annotated nor follow naming convention and so on.
It might be possible to improve upon this detection since there is actual difference between void and Void (similar to primitive/Wrapper difference).
But this is the first time such usage has been reported.
One thing that you could try which may (or might not) help: add #JsonProperty for val data. It could help if filtering is only done for non-annotated accessors.
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)
}
This SO post outlines how to test if a lateinit var has been initialized. However, in the example, the lateinit var is conveniently located within the same class.
How do you do the same thing from outside the class? This is the situation I have:
Foo.kt
class Foo {
lateinit var foo: String
}
Bar.kt
class Bar {
fun doSomething() {
val foo = Foo().foo
if (::foo.isInitialized) { // Unsupported [reference to variables aren't supported yet]
Log.i("TAG", "do something")
}
}
}
What's the workaround for this?
If this was going to work, you'd need to do
val foo = Foo()
if (foo::foo.isInitialized)
//...
The way you're doing it, you're trying to get a property reference of your local variable, which isn't a property. That's why the error says "reference to variables aren't supported yet" rather than "backing field not accessible at this point". Also, you'd be accessing the getter of the lateinit property when assigning the local variable, so it would fail if it weren't initialized yet.
But it doesn't work because of compiler limitations. You could simply add a getter
val fooReady: Boolean get() = ::foo.isInitialized
But I would say the design has very poor encapsulation if outside classes need to check whether a particular public property is initialized yet. In my opinion, any use of isInitialized is a code smell to begin with. If you need to guard calls to the getter with isInitialized, you might as well make the property nullable instead. Then you can use the familiar idioms of null checks instead of resorting to reflection, and it will work in a familiar way even for external classes that access it.
If object of another class has to make a decision based on whether or not the property is initialised, then having this property initialised - or answering whether or not it has already been initialised - is a public business capacity of your object and therefore I would recommend you to simply make it a part of your public API via public fun isFooInitialised(): Boolean function that utilises the fact that the object itself can inspect the state of its lateinit properties.
Having a room Dao as below,
#Dao
public abstract class AccountDao {
#Query("SELECT * FROM Account LIMIT 0,1")
public abstract Account readAccount();
}
is there any differences between get() and by lazy in the sample below?
open val account: LiveData<Account>
get() = accountDao.readAccount()
open val account: LiveData<Account> by lazy { accountDao.readAccount() }
The difference is in how many times the function body (accountDao.readAccount()) will be executed.
The lazy delegate will execute the lambda one single time the first time it is accessed and remember the result. If it is called again, that cached result is returned.
On the other hand, defining the getter (get()) will execute the function body every time, returning a new result every time.
For example, let's suppose we have a class called Foo with both a getter and a lazy value:
class Foo {
val getterVal: String
get() = System.nanoTime().toString()
val lazyVal: String by lazy { System.nanoTime().toString() }
}
And then use it:
fun main() {
with(Foo()) {
repeat(2) {
println("Getter: $getterVal")
println("Lazy: $lazyVal")
}
}
}
For me, this prints:
Getter: 1288398235509938
Lazy: 1288398235835179
Getter: 1288398235900254
Lazy: 1288398235835179
And we can see that the getter returns a newly calculated value each time, and the lazy version returns the same cached value.
In addition to Todd's answer:
Yes, there is a difference for LiveData objects as well. Every call of accountDao.readAccount() will result in a different LiveData object. And it does matter, despite the fact that all of the returned LiveData will get updated on every change in the Account entity. Let me explain on these examples:
by lazy
As Todd mentioned, the block inside the lazy delegate will be executed once, at the first time that the account property is accessed, the result will be cached and returned on every next access. So in this case a single one LiveData<Account> object is created. The bytecode generated by Kotlin to achieve this is equivalent to this in Java:
public class Activity {
private Lazy account$delegate
public LiveData<Account> getAccount() {
return account$delegate.getValue();
}
}
get()
By creating a custom account property's getter and calling accountDao.readAccount() inside, you will end up with different LiveData<Account> objects on every access of the account property. Once more, bytecode generated for this case in Kotlin in Java is more or less this:
public class Activity {
public LiveData<Account> getAccount() {
return accountDao.readAccount();
}
}
So you can see, using a lazy property results in generating a backing field for this property, while using a custom getter creates a wrapper method for the accountDao.readAccount() call.
It's up to your needs which approach you should use. I'd say that if you have to obtain the LiveData only once, you should go with get(), because a backing field is needless in that case. However if you're going to access the LiveData in multiple places in your code, maybe a better approach would be to use by lazy and create it just once.
I would like to semantically constrain a map to only accept "data" class object types as the value in kotlin like so:
class Test(
val test : Int
)
data class Test2 (
val test : Int
)
fun test(map : Map<String, /* compile error on Test, but accept Test2 or any other data class */>) {
}
I'm mainly trying to do this so that I can keep everything in the map cloneable, but when I do this:
fun <T: Cloneable> test(map : Map<String, T>) {
// test clone
map.map { it.key.uuid to it.value.clone() } .toMap() // error on .clone() Cannot access 'clone': it is protected in 'Cloneable'
}
but I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public? Essentially I'm looking for a compile time guarantee that all data is copyable in that method invocation, (is a primitive type, a data class that I can call .copy() on, or any object that has implemented Cloneable). Is my only option reflection and runtime assertions?
I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public?
No, it's simply a marker interface, which tells the protected Object.clone() method not to throw a CloneNotSupportedException. In practice, classes that implement Cloneable will usually override clone() and make it public, but that's not necessary. And of course that's no help when you don't know the exact type!
The cloning mechanism was an early part of Java, and not very well-designed. (Effective Java calls it “a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated”.) But it's still used, so we're stuck with it…
(See also these related answers.)
I don't know whether this is the best way or not, but how about you to use property like below.
SomeClass::class.isData
Kdoc says
true if this class is a data class.
If I am modeling my value objects using Kotlin data classes what is the best way to handle validation. Seems like the init block is the only logical place since it executes after the primary constructor.
data class EmailAddress(val address: String) {
init {
if (address.isEmpty() || !address.matches(Regex("^[a-zA-Z0-9]+#[a-zA-Z0-9]+(.[a-zA-Z]{2,})$"))) {
throw IllegalArgumentException("${address} is not a valid email address")
}
}
}
Using JSR-303 Example
The downside to this is it requires load time weaving
#Configurable
data class EmailAddress(#Email val address: String) {
#Autowired
lateinit var validator: Validator
init {
validator.validate(this)
}
}
It seems unreasonable to me to have object creation validation anywhere else but in the class constructor. This is the place responsible for the creation, so that is the place where the rules which define what is and isn't a valid instance should be. From a maintenance perspective it also makes sense to me as it would be the place where I would look for such rules if I had to guess.
I did make a comment, but I thought I would share my approach to validation instead.
First, I think it is a mistake to perform validation on instantiation. This will make the boundary between deserialization and handing over to your controllers messy. Also, to me, if you are sticking to a clean architecture, validation is part of your core logic, and you should ensure with tests on your core logic that it is happening.
So, to let me tackle this how I wish, I first define my own core validation api. Pure kotlin. No frameworks or libraries. Keep it clean.
interface Validatable {
/**
* #throws [ValidationErrorException]
*/
fun validate()
}
class ValidationErrorException(
val errors: List<ValidationError>
) : Exception() {
/***
* Convenience method for getting a data object from the Exception.
*/
fun toValidationErrors() = ValidationErrors(errors)
}
/**
* Data object to represent the data of an Exception. Convenient for serialization.
*/
data class ValidationErrors(
val errors : List<ValidationError>
)
data class ValidationError(
val path: String,
val message: String
)
Then I have a framework specific implementations. For example a javax.validation.Validation implementation:
open class ValidatableJavax : Validatable {
companion object {
val validator = Validation.buildDefaultValidatorFactory().validator!!
}
override fun validate() {
val violations = validator.validate(this)
val errors = violations.map {
ValidationError(it.propertyPath.toString(), it.message)
}.toMutableList()
if (errors.isNotEmpty()) {
throw ValidationErrorException(errors = errors)
}
}
}
The only problem with this, is that the javax annotations don't play so well with kotlin data objects - but here is an example of a class with validation:
import javax.validation.constraints.Positive
class MyObject(
myNumber: BigDecimal
) : ValidatableJavax() {
#get:Positive(message = "Must be positive")
val myNumber: BigDecimal = myNumber
}
Actually, it looks like that validation is not a responsibility of data classes. data tells for itself — it's used for data storage.
So if you would like to validate data class, it will make perfect sense to set #get: validation on arguments of the constructor and validate outside of data class in class, responsible for construction.
Your second option is not to use data class, just use simple class and implement whole logic in the constructor passing validator there
Also, if you use Spring Framework — you can make this class Bean with prototype scope, but chances are it will be absolutely uncomfortable to work with such kind of spaghetti-code :)
I disagree with your following statement :
Seems like the init block is the only logical place since it executes after the primary constructor.
Validation should not be done at construction time, because sometimes, you need to have intermediate steps before getting a valid object, and it does not work well with Spring MVC for example.
Maybe use a specific interface (like suggested in previous answer) with a method dedicated to executing validation.
For the validation framework, I personnaly use valiktor, as I found it a lot less cumbersome that JSR-303