I am totally new to Android and Kotlin and I was looking into Android Annotations.
I managed to decode a JSON response using the following code:
class ExampleModel {
#JvmField
final var id: Int = 0
lateinit var title: String
var description: String? = null
var author: Author? = null
}
#Rest(
rootUrl = "...",
converters = [MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter::class]
)
interface ExampleClient {
#Get("/promotions")
fun getModels(): List<ExampleModel>
}
Now it does work but there are a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
Is it possible to use data classes? I tried but I kept getting an error from MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter saying that there was no constructor available.
Is it somehow possible to just ignore extra keys that might appear in the JSON? Let's say that I am not interested in the author data for now, is there a way to just remove its declaration without having the decoding fail with "unexpected key"?
Consider that I usually work with Swift so if you could point me to the "Codable" equivalent in Kotlin I would really appreciate it.
Cheers
Kotlin Data classes don't have default constructor which is usually required by json deserialization libraries. Any data class require at least one constructor argument, but you can work around it. Define default values, you can use null. For example:
data class Pojo(val name: String? = null, val age: Int? = null)
Such code will allow to use Pojo() constructor. It should work, but it's better to use json deserializer that is more kotlin native or generate data classes with AutoValue.
Jackson that you're using here allows to ignore fields with #JsonIgnoreProperties.
If you're learning Android, don't start from Android Annotations if you don't have to. It's not very popular or modern solution. I used it in few projects back in the day, those were very difficult to maintain or to introduce new developers. Look into android architecture components and jetpack - google made few nice code labs. Also for json pick Moshi or Gson.
Related
I have some data transfer class which I want to share between platforms. There is only one difference. The implementations have different annotations on different platforms. What is the best way to do it? I know the only one way.
In the commonsMain:
expect class ErrorMessage (message: String = "") : DataTransferObject {
var message: String
}
In jvmMain:
#SomeJvmAnnotation
actual class ErrorMessage actual constructor (actual var message: String) : DataTransferObject
But if I implement every class this way than there is no profit from KMM. This way I need to implement every class n + 1 times where n is a number of platforms. Is there a simpler way to apply different annotations?
May be there is a way not to put expect on class.
Not the greatest solution, but you can use actual and expect to define your platform-specific annotations.
I used it to ignore unit tests only on the JS runtime.
commonMain
/**
* Ignore a test when running the test on a JavaScript test runtime.
*/
#Target( AnnotationTarget.CLASS, AnnotationTarget.FUNCTION )
expect annotation class JsIgnore()
jsMain
actual typealias JsIgnore = kotlin.test.Ignore
jvmMain
// Nothing to do. This should only ignore tests on the JavaScript test runtime.
actual annotation class JsIgnore
I guess whether or not this is appropriate for you will really depend on the specific annotations you need for each platform, and to which degree they semantically overlap.
I learned java and python in high school and I became very comfortable with python. I have recently started to learn kotlin, mainly for fun (the keyword for defining a function is fun so it has to be a fun language, right), but I have a little problem.
Let's suppose I have a hierarchy of classes for Chess pieces:
abstract class Piece {
...
}
class Rook : Piece() {
...
}
class Bishop : Piece() {
...
}
.
.
.
I am taking input from the user to generate the board, so if the user types r, I need to create a Rook object, if he types b, I need to create a Bishop etc.
In python, I'd probably use a dictionary that maps the input string to the corresponding class, so I can create an object of the correct type:
class Piece:
...
class Rook(Piece):
...
class Bishop(Piece):
...
.
.
.
input_map = {
'r': Rook,
'b': Bishop,
...
}
s = input_map[input()]() # use user input as key and create a piece of the correct type
I was really amazed by this pattern when I discovered it. In java, I had to use a switch case or a bunch of if else if to achieve the same result, which is not the end of the world, especially if I abstract it into a separate function, but it's not as nice as the python approach.
I want to do the same thing in kotlin, and I was wondering if there is a similar pattern for kotlin since it's a modern language like python (I know, I know, python isn't new, but I think it's very modern). I tried to look online, but it seems like I can't store a class (class, not an object) in a variable or a map like I can in python.
Am I wrong about it? Can I use a similar pattern in kotlin or do I have to fall back to the when statement (or expression)?
If I am not mistaken, a similar pattern could be achieved in java using reflection. I never got to learn reflection in java deeply, but I know it's a way to use classes dynamically, what I can do for free in python. I also heard that in java, reflection should be used as a last resort because it's inefficient and it's considered "black magic" if you understand my meaning. Does it mean that I need to use reflection to achieve that result in kotlin? And if so, is it recommended to use reflection in kotlin, and is it efficient?
I'd like to know how I can approach this problem, and I accept multiple answers and additional solutions I didn't come up with. Thanks in advance.
This can be done without reflection.
You can map the input characters to the constructors:
val pieceConstructorsByKeyChar = mapOf(
'r' to ::Rook,
'b' to ::Bishop,
// etc.
)
Getting values from a map gives you a nullable, since it's possible the key you supply isn't in the map. Maybe this is fine, if when you use this you might be passing a character the player typed that might not be supported. Then you would probably handle null by telling the player to try again:
val piece: Piece? = pieceConstructorsByKeyChar[keyPressed]?.invoke()
Or if you do the look-up after you've already checked that it's a valid key-stroke, you can use !! safely:
val piece: Piece = pieceConstructorsByKeyChar[keyPressed]!!()
Yes you can use similiar approach with Kotlin. Kotlin has many features and supports reflection. Let me write an example about your problem.
Firstly create your classes that will be generate by user input.
abstract class Piece
class Rook : Piece()
class Bishop : Piece()
Create your class map
val inputMap = mapOf(
"r" to Rook::class.java,
"b" to Bishop::class.java
)
Create an instance what you want using newInstance function. If your input map doesn't contains key you gave then it will return null.
val rook = inputMap["r"]?.newInstance()
val bishop = inputMap["b"]?.newInstance()
// null
val king = inputMap["k"]?.newInstance()
Also you can write your custom extensions to create new objects.
fun <T> Map<String, Class<out T>>.newInstance(key: String) = this[key]?.newInstance()
// Create an instance with extension function
inputMap.newInstance("r")
I asked a question at How to design a complex class which incude some classes to make expansion easily in future in Kotlin? about how to design a complex class which incude some classes to make expansion easily in future in Kotlin.
A expert named s1m0nw1 give me a great answer as the following code.
But I don't know why he want to change MutableList to List at https://stackoverflow.com/posts/47960036/revisions , I can get the correct result when I use MutableList. Could you tell me?
The code
interface DeviceDef
data class BluetoothDef(val Status: Boolean = false) : DeviceDef
data class WiFiDef(val Name: String, val Status: Boolean = false) : DeviceDef
data class ScreenDef(val Name: String, val size: Long) : DeviceDef
class MDetail(val _id: Long, val devices: List<DeviceDef>) {
inline fun <reified T> getDevice(): T {
return devices.filterIsInstance(T::class.java).first()
}
}
Added
I think that mutableListOf<DeviceDef> is better than ListOf<DeviceDef> in order to extend in future.
I can use aMutableList.add() function to extend when I append new element of mutableListOf<DeviceDef>.
If I use ListOf<DeviceDef>, I have to construct it with listOf(mBluetoothDef1, mWiFiDef1, //mOther), it's not good. Right?
var aMutableList= mutableListOf<DeviceDef>()
var mBluetoothDef1= BluetoothDef(true)
var mWiFiDef1= WiFiHelper(this).getWiFiDefFromSystem()
aMutableList.add(mBluetoothDef1)
aMutableList.add(mWiFiDef1)
// aMutableList.add(mOther) //This is extension
var aMDetail1= MDetail(myID, aMutableList)
Sorry for not giving an explanation in the first place. The differences are explained in the docs.:
Unlike many languages, Kotlin distinguishes between mutable and immutable collections (lists, sets, maps, etc). Precise control over exactly when collections can be edited is useful for eliminating bugs, and for designing good APIs.
It is important to understand up front the difference between a read-only view of a mutable collection, and an actually immutable collection. Both are easy to create, but the type system doesn't express the difference, so keeping track of that (if it's relevant) is up to you.
The Kotlin List<out T> type is an interface that provides read-only operations like size, get and so on. Like in Java, it inherits from Collection<T> and that in turn inherits from Iterable<T>. Methods that change the list are added by the MutableList<T> interface. [...]
The List interface provides a read-only view so that you cannot e.g add new elements to the list which has many advantages for instance in multithreaded environments. There may be situations in which you will use MutableList instead.
I also recommend the following discussion:
Kotlin and Immutable Collections?
EDIT (added content):
You can do this is a one-liner without any add invocation:
val list = listOf(mBluetoothDef1, mWiFiDef1)
I'd like to mark some Room entity's properties as internal. E.g.
#Entity(tableName = "users")
class User {
// ...
#ColumnInfo(name = "admin_id")
internal var adminId: String? = null
}
However, this produce compile errors like:
Error:(10, 1) error: Cannot find getter for field.
The only way how to make this works seems to use lateinit modifier, though, it can't be used for nullable neither primitive fields.
I've tried a "hack": a private field with internal getter/setter, but that doesn't work either.
The compiled generated version obviously adds some suffix to the generated methods (setAdminId$sdk_debug) that doesn't work with room. The "lateinited" field's setters/getters have this suffix too, but the field stay itself public.
Is there any way how to make columns internal?
It seems its getting supported in latest Room 2.5.0-alpha01
Old answer: I didn't solve this and I have to define new set of entities and mapper between them.
The internal names get mangled by Kotlin, so I made it work by just making sure the correct name is used with #JvmName:
#Entity(tableName = "users")
class User {
// ...
#ColumnInfo(name = "admin_id")
#get:JvmName("adminId")
internal var adminId: String? = null
}
Note: This might make it easier to accidentally use this from Java then.
i am a Java Android Developer and i'm approaching to Kotlin
I have defined the following class:
open class Player : RealmObject() {
...
}
And i defined the following two extensions, one for the generic RealmObject class and one for the specific Player class:
fun RealmObject.store() {
Realm.getDefaultInstance().use { realm ->
realm.beginTransaction()
realm.copyToRealmOrUpdate(this)
realm.commitTransaction()
}
}
fun Player.store(){
this.loggedAt = Date()
(this as RealmObject).store()
}
What i want is if i call .store() on any RealmObject object, the RelamObject.store() extension will be called BUT if i call .store() on a Player instance the extension that will be called will be Player.store().
(No problem for now)
I don't want to copy paste the same code, i love to write less reuse more.
So i need that internally the Player.store() will call the generic RealmObject.store()
I got it. The code i wrote up there is actually working as expected :D
What i am asking is (just because i wrote that just by personally intuition):
Is this the good way?! Or there is some better way?
Thank you
Your approach seems to be perfectly correct, because it does exactly what is needed. Kotlin resolves the extension calls based on the static (inferred or declared) type of the receiver expression, and the cast (this as RealmObject) makes the static expression type RealmObject.
Another valid way to do this, which I'm not sure is better, is to use a callable reference to the other extension:
fun Player.store(){
this.loggedAt = Date()
(RealmObject::store)(this)
}