I have looked around for a similar question, but cannot find a solution.
I have a couple of instances to the same type of object. As a simple example, a Pen object. This class contains size (Int) and color (String) properties. I need to mock a function (such as calculatePrice) that takes in this type of object. I would like it to return a result based on one of the properties.
every { calculatePrice(pen : Pen) } returns 3
every { calculatePrice(pen2 : Pen) } returns 4
Because this call is nested within another function, I cannot guarantee that the address of the object is the same, so I am attempting to get around this by checking a property value, such as pen.size. If there is a way to make sure the value of the object is the same, not the reference, that would solve my problem too.
Using Mockito, I would use argThat(pen -> pen.size() == 2)
Any recommendations would be much appreciated.
match should work, see https://mockk.io/#matchers
For example:
every { calculatePrice( match { it.size == 2 } ) } returns 3
Related
I'm currently using Reflection to inspect an element at runtime using the class.memberProperties function. The type of properties is collection<KProperty1<I, *>> so I run through each of the KProperty objects to find the one that I want by checking if the name is equal to "nameIWant", though I would much rather be able to get the instance of the property from the KProperty by using the .get() method on the property, so that then I could do a check such as:
if (property.get(receiver) is ClassIWant) {
//Do something
}
My code looks like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
run {
if (property.name.equals("nameIWant")) {
}
}
}
So far I've been trying to use the .get() method on the KProperty1 type but it takes an argument receiver of type Nothing. I'm not able to work out what I need to pass in order to call the .get() method and get the particular instance of the property. I've also checked the documentation here: https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.reflect/-k-property1/index.html but it hasn't really helped at all.
justPassingBy is right. but the more simple way is to use:
myObj.javaClass.kotlin.memberProperties.foreach { property ->
property.get(myObj)
}
If you want to get the value of the property, cast the class into invariant type.
instance::class.memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<out Instance, *>
(instance::class as KClass<Instance>).memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<Instance, *>
If your KClass<Instance> is KClass<*>, use Any as Instance.
Why did the KProperty.call take Nothing as receiver?
Because instance::class returns KClass<out Instance>, which propagates the covariant type argument down to the property, which it becomes KProperty<out Instance, *>, which narrows down the possible method receiver to any subtype of Instance, but because we do not know which, we can not safely supply any instance of Instance, as show by the rules of variance, which here limit the generic type argument to Nothing, which means it is impossible to call the method at all.
Why is ::class designed to be covariant?
To guarantee safety. This has been an issue of great debates as it seems somewhat illogical.
If you want to know the type of the value that the property can return, use
property.returnType
It returns a KType, wich is Kotlin's version of Java's Type, which is a more generic concept of a Class (which is one of the implementations of Type).
If you need to 'convert' the KType to a KClass, you need to do the same as if you needed to convert Type to a Class, which is get the raw type of the type. Raw type is type stripped of the any generic information, yes, an erased type. The way to do this is (seemingly) more complicated (involves handling each possible KType/Type implementation) and I recommend checking for answer to this problem separately.
You will be able to reuse Java implementation (that you will surely find on your own) using:
kType.javaType.covertJavaTypeToJavaClass().kotlin // returns KClass<*>
Corrections in your question. I recommend using the proper terms if you wish to receive proper answers:
* I in your question is type of the method receiver, not the value of the property
* collection is not a type, Collection is
* property is ClassIWantis ambiguous as property.type is type of the value in the property and property::class is simply the property implementation, is is also an instanceof check, but in reflection, you need to use KClass.isSubclassOf, or what is known in Java as type.isAssignableFrom (watch the call order), which then makes your condition to be ClassIWant.isSuperclassOf(property.type.getRawType())
* instance of the property properties have values, not instances. Only classes have instances. Instances are values and values are instances (of some class), but you must still say instance representing the value of the property
You can create a KType for your ClassIWant and then check the property's returnType. It will be something like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
val desiredType = ClassIWant::class.createType()
properties.forEach { property ->
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && property.returnType == desiredType) {
//todo
}
}
btw you can cast your property variable to correct type and use get
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
val value = (property as KProperty1<Payload, *>).get(request.payload)
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && value is ClassIWant) {
//todo
}
}
prop.getter.call(obj) as String?
Kotlin provides Array.isArrayOf() for checking if an array is of a certain type.
It's used like this
if(object.isArrayOf<String>())
And defined like this
/**
* Checks if array can contain element of type [T].
*/
#Suppress("REIFIED_TYPE_PARAMETER_NO_INLINE")
public fun <reified T : Any> Array<*>.isArrayOf(): Boolean =
T::class.java.isAssignableFrom(this::class.java.componentType)
But it's only for Array. I need to check ArrayList.
I thought to change the signature like so.
#Suppress("REIFIED_TYPE_PARAMETER_NO_INLINE")
public fun <reified T : Any> ArrayList<*>.isArrayListOf(): Boolean =
T::class.java.isAssignableFrom(this::class.java.componentType)
but class.java.componentType is specific to Array
How can I check what type of ArrayList I have?
I should clarify, I only care if its one of 3 types, so I don't need a completely open-ended way of checking.
If you want to check the type of a list you can do:
when (list.firstOrNull()) {
is String -> { /*do something*/ }
is Int -> { /*do another thing*/ }
else -> { /*do something else*/ }
}
And if you need to use the list of a certain type you can use:
list.filterInstance</*the type you need*/>()
Hope this works for you.
You can't. Arrays are the only generic type for which this is possible (because they aren't really generic in the same sense, Kotlin just hides it).
The only thing you can do is look at its contents, but of course
that won't work for empty lists;
if a list contains e.g. a String, it could be ArrayList<String>, ArrayList<CharSequence>, ArrayList<Any>, etc.
For this purpose:
I need to direct it into the appropriate Bundle method. bundle.putStringArrayList(), bundle.putIntegerArrayList(), ect
neither should be a problem, I believe.
If the list is of one type then you can convert the list to array using: toTypedArray() and after you can then check the type using: isArrayOf
But this would be inefficient since you are converting the list to array, better if you can just directly guess or retrieved the first item of the list.
I'm interested in defining a function that given a class variable, generates and a new instance of the class object with a randomly selected member attribute mutated.
Context: Consider an instance, circle1, of some class, Circle, has attributes color and radius. These attributes are assigned values of red and 5, respectively. The function in question, mutate, must accept circle1 as an argument, but reject non-class arguments.
For other data types, templates provide an answer in this context. That is, templates may be used to specify generic instances of functions that can accept arguments of multiple types.
How can a generic function that accepts (and returns) an instance of any class be defined using templates?
In general, if you need to restrict what a template can take, you use template constraints. e.g.
import std.traits : isIntegral;
auto foo(T)(T t)
if(isIntegeral!T)
{
...
}
or
import std.functional : binaryFun;
auto foo(alias pred, T, U)(T t, U u)
if(is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(t, u.bar())) == bool)
{
...
}
As long the condition can be checked at compile time, you can test pretty much anything. And it can be used for function overloading as well (e.g. std.algorithm.searching.find has quite a few overloads all of which are differentiated by template constraint). The built-in __traits, the eponymous templates in std.traits, and is expressions provide quite a few tools for testing stuff at compile time and then using that information in template constraints or static if conditions.
If you specifically want to test whether something is a class, then use an is expression with == class. e.g.
auto foo(T)(T t)
if(is(T == class))
{
...
}
In general though, you'll probably want to use more specific conditions such as __traits(compiles, MyType result = t.foo(22)) or is(typeof(t.foo(22)) == MyType). So, you could have something like
auto mutate(T)(T t)
if(is(T == class) &&
__traits(compiles, t.color = red) &&
__traits(compiles, t.radius = 5))
{
...
}
If the condition is something that you want to reuse, then it can make sense to create an eponymous template - which is what's done in Phobos in places like std.range.primitives and std.range.traits. For instance, to test for an input range, std.range.primitives.isInputRange looks something like
template isInputRange(R)
{
enum bool isInputRange = is(typeof(
{
R r = R.init; // can define a range object
if (r.empty) {} // can test for empty
r.popFront(); // can invoke popFront()
auto h = r.front; // can get the front of the range
}));
}
Then code that requires an input range can use that. So, lots of functions in Phobos have stuff like
auto foo(R)(R range)
if(isInputRange!R)
{
...
}
A more concrete example would be this overload of find:
InputRange find(alias pred = "a == b", InputRange, Element)
(InputRange haystack, Element needle)
if(isInputRange!InputRange &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool))
{
...
}
Ali Çehreli's book, Programming in D, has several relevant chapters, including:
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/templates.html
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/cond_comp.html
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/is_expr.html
http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/templates_more.html
Tagged as homework.
I'm having trouble in the object oriented world while trying to implement a class.
I'm implenting various functions to take action on lists, that I'm using to mock a set.
I'm not too worried about my logic on how to find union, for example, but really just the structure.
For eg:
abstract class parentSet[T] protected () {
def union(other:parentSet[T]):parentSet[T]
}
Now I want a new class extending parentSet:
class childSet[T] private (l: List[T]) extends parentSet[T] {
def this() = this(List())
private val elems = l
val toList = List[T] => new List(l)
def union(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (other contains i) {}
else {l :: i}
}
return l
}
}
Upon compiling, I receive errors such that type childSet isn't found in def union, nor is type T to keep it parametric. Also, I assume my toList isn't correct as it complains that it isn't a member of the object; to name a few.
Where in my syntax am I wrong?
EDIT
Now I've got that figured out:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
var w = other.toList
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {w = i::w}
}
return new childSet(w)
}
Now, I'm trying to do the same operations with map, and this is what I'm working on/with:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):MapSet[T] = {
var a = Map[T,Unit]
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {a = a + (i->())}
}
return new MapSet(elems + (a->()))
}
I still want to use toList to make it easily traversable, but I'm still getting type errors while messing with maps..
This code has a few problems:
It seems that you are not realizing that List[T] is an immutable type, meaning you cannot change its value once created. So if you have a List[T] and you call the :: method to prepend a value, the function returns a new list and leaves your existing one unchanged. Scala has mutable collections such as ListBuffer which may behave more like you expect. So when you return l, you're actually returning the original list.
Also, you have the order wrong in using ::. It should go i :: l, since :: is a right-binding function (because it ends with a :).
Lastly, in your union method you are doing (other contains i). Maybe it's just the Scala syntax that's confusing you, but this is the same as doing (other.contains(i)) and clearly contains is not a defined method of parentSet. It is a method on the List[T] type, but you're not calling contains on a list.
You tagged this as homework so I'm not going to fix your code, but I think you should
Look at some examples of correct Scala code involving lists, try here for starters
Play around in the Scala REPL and try creating and working with some lists, so you get a feel for how immutable collections work.
To answer your direct question, even though childSet is inheriting parentSet the original method specify parentSet as the return type and not childSet. You can either only use parentSet as the type OR you could specify the return type to be anything that inherits parentSet.
I am designing a class that stores (caches) a set of data. I want to lookup a value, if the class contains the value then use it and modify a property of the class. I am concerned about the design of the public interface.
Here is how the class is going to be used:
ClassItem *pClassItem = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (pClassItem)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
pClassItem->SetAttribute(something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However I don't want to have to expose ClassItem to this client (ClassItem is an implementation detail of MyClass).
To get round that the following could be considered:
bool found = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
myClass.ModifyAttribute(value, something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However this is inefficient as Modify will have to do the lookup again. This would suggest a lookupAndModify type of method:
bool found = myClass.LookupAndModify(value, something);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
But rolling LookupAndModify into one method seems like very poor design. It also only modifies if value is found and so the name is not only cumbersome but misleading as well.
Is there another better design that gets round this issue? Any design patterns for this (I couldn't find anything through google)?
Actually std::set<>::insert() does precisely this. If the value exists, it returns the iterator pointing to the existing item. Otherwise, the iterator where the insertion was made is returned.
It is likely that you are using a similar data structure for fast lookups anyway, so a clean public interface (calling site) will be:
myClass.SetAttribute(value, something)
which always does the right thing. MyClass handles the internal plumbing and clients don't worry about whether the value exists.
Two things.
The first solution is close.
Don't however, return ClassItem *. Return an "opaque object". An integer index or other hash code that's opaque (meaningless) to the client, but usable by the myClass instance.
Then lookup returns an index, which modify can subsequently use.
void *index = myClass.lookup( value );
if( index ) {
myClass.modify( index, value );
}
else {
myClass.add( value );
}
After writing the "primitive" Lookup, Modify and Add, then write your own composite operations built around these primitives.
Write a LookupAndModify, TryModify, AddIfNotExists and other methods built from your lower-level pieces.
This assumes that you're setting value to the same "something" in both the Modify and Add cases:
if (!myClass.AddIfNotExists(value, something)) {
// use myClass
}
Otherwise:
if (myClass.TryModify(value, something)) {
// use myClass
} else {
myClass.Add(value, otherSomething);
}