In my Ktor REST API, I receive JSON. This is conveniently deserialised for me into simple data classes by kotlinx.serialization. Before I can proceed using this data I have to apply some validation. Then I can pass it on to to other parts of the code.
I would like a clear separation between deserialised but unvalidated data, the validation itself, and validated code.
For example, I have something to the effect of:
#Serializable
data class Input(val something: Int)
fun Input.validate() {
if(something < 5) { throw WhateverException("invalid") }
}
But there's a few issues with this: When receiving an instance of Input anywhere, I can't be sure it's been validated already, so to be safe I'll call validate() again.
So, to avoid this I would like for validate() to return some version of Input that tells me the data is valid, and so that I can have method signatures in my codebase that accept validated data only.
I know I can copy the class Input to a private one called ValidatedInput and have validate() return that, but that looks like code duplication. (I will end up having dozens of classes like Input.) Also that will prevent be from having an interface specifying Input to have the validate method and have it return something like Validated<Input>
How do I design my classes and methods to clearly express this separation, and without repeating code?
If you want to make sure that Input is validated, you have to somehow put it in the type system. Since Validated<Input> is a no-go for you (I would prefer doing it this way), maybe you could turn it around by giving Input some kind of validation token as a type parameter?
For example like this:
data class Input<out Validation>(val something: Int)
sealed class Validation
object Validated : Validation()
object NotValidated : Validation()
fun Input<NotValidated>.validate(): Input<Validated> {
return if(something < 5) { throw RuntimeException("invalid") }
else Input<Validated>(something)
}
Doing it the other way (Validated<Input>) is a bit more flexible in my opinion. It also doesn't mix any code about validation into the Input class (like the validation token would). So, for example, you could do something like this:
sealed class Validated<T>
class Valid<T>(val value: T) : Validated<T>()
class Invalid<T>(val error: Exception): Validated<T>()
fun Input.validate(): Validated<Input> {
return if(something < 5) Invalid(RuntimeException("invalid"))
else Valid(this)
}
fun performAction(input: Valid<Input>) {
TODO("Do something with the valid Input")
}
fun main() {
val validated = Input(5).validate()
val result = when(validated) {
is Valid -> performAction(validated)
is Invalid -> throw validated.error
}
println(result)
}
You can move validation to Input initialization:
#Serializable
data class Input(val something: Int) {
init {
validate()
}
}
If you do it all Input instances will be valid.
Related
I want to retrieve single object from Room database, so i have this method in Dao
// in Dao
#Query("SELECT * FROM table_foo ORDER BY RANDOM()")
fun getSingleFoo(): Flow<FooEntity>
That object then will be mapped into others model, let say PlainFoo.
// in Repository
fun getRandomFoo(): Flow<PlainFoo> = dao.getSingleFoo()
.map(FooEntity::asExternalModel)
But in the first launch of this app, the table is empty. It makes the dao function return null and trigger NPE when being mapped. I try to wrap it inside a sealed interface like this.
// Result.kt as wrapper
sealed interface Result<out T> {
data class Success<T>(val data: T) : Result<T>
data class Error(val exception: Throwable? = null) : Result<Nothing>
}
fun <T> Flow<T>.asResult(): Flow<Result<T>> = this
.map<T, Result<T>> {
Result.Success(it)
}
.catch {
emit(Result.Error(it))
}
And then i call this method in the presentation layer like this.
// in ViewModel
val randomFoo = fooRepository.getRandomFoo().asResult()
// in activity, log only for checking
lifecycleScope.launch {
viewModel.randomFoo.collect {
Timber.tag("RandomFooFlow").d("$it")
}
}
It catches the error, which look like this.
Error(exception=java.lang.NullPointerException: Parameter specified as non-null is null: method kotlin.jvm.internal.Intrinsics.checkNotNullParameter, parameter <this>)
But when new data is inserted, it does not get updated unless i reopen the app (which means new Flow is being collected, not the old one). So it seems that the flow is cancelled.
Is there any way to handle this without making my Dao return a
nullable object?
Note: if the data is already populated when opening the app, the flow is able to keep consuming new value).
Instead of dealing with exceptions, I would suggest to return nullable types from your Dao. You can then also update your mapper function to handle the type nullability. You won't need to wrap it into any Result class, just a simple null check on the UI end would suffice.
// Dao
#Query("SELECT * FROM table_foo ORDER BY RANDOM()")
fun getSingleFoo(): Flow<FooEntity?>
// Repo
fun getRandomFoo(): Flow<PlainFoo?> = dao.getSingleFoo().map { it?.asExternalModel() }
Could you please call repository getRandomFoo() method from inside coroutine in view model ? And also you need to call response with data observe like LiveData or StateFlow. By the way, you can wrap your result with wrap inside repository. In code example, I do not care about it because your error is not related with mapping.
View Model
private val _stateFlow = MutableStateFlow()
val stateFlow:StateFlow
fun getRandom(){
fooRepository.getRandomFoo().onEach{
if(it is Result.Success){
stateFlow.value = it
}
}.launchIn(viewModelScope)
}
Fragment or activity
viewLifecycleOwner.lifecycle.repeatOnLifecycle{
stateFlow.collect{
// Listen data for your UI
}
}
Let's say I have the following class constructor:
class Car(val brand: Brand,val modelName: String, val version: Int){}
If for example, I want the version number to always start with 1. Is there a way to manipulate it in the class body to achieve this ?
Meaning:
val firstdigit:Int = abs(version).ToString().Substring(0,1)
And then parse it to Int. But how to replace the original first digit after that?
I'm just learning Kotlin and I got a bit stuck with this
Is this what you had in mind?
class Car(val brand: Brand, val modelName: String) {
val version = getNextVersion()
companion object {
private var nextVersion = 0
private fun getNextVersion(): Int {
nextVersion++
if (nextVersion.toString()[0] != '1') {
nextVersion = (10.0.pow(ceil(log10(nextVersion.toDouble())))).toInt()
}
return nextVersion
}
}
}
You already said in the comments that you want the number to increment per instance, so the caller shouldn't be providing that number in the first place really! But just generally, here's two approaches to sanitising your input parameters:
1) Make it the caller's responsibility to provide valid data
init {
require(version.toString().first() == '1') { "Needs to start with 1 thanks" }
}
require throws an IllegalArgumentException if it fails, which is the standard exception for "the value of this argument is invalid". Should the class be responsible for taking bad data and trying to "fix" it, or should the caller be handling that - and maybe not constructing an instance at all if it doesn't have valid data?
2. create a newInstance function that uses valid data, and keep the constructor private
class Thing private constructor(val number: Int){
companion object {
fun newInstance(num: Int): Thing {
return Thing(abs(num))
}
}
}
fun main() {
Thing.newInstance(-2).let { println(it.number)}
}
If it makes sense for the class itself to sanitise the input parameters, you can delegate construction to a function that takes care of that, and prevent things from calling the constructor directly with potentially bad data.
This can cause issues with e.g. serialisation libraries (which want to call the constructor directly) but in that case you could leave the constructor public, and just advise callers to call newInstance instead. Not ideal, but it's an option!
I have the following code setup;
abstract class GenericQuestionEditor() {
protected abstract var data: GenericQuestionData
}
but then when I create EditorSimple() it throws an error when I try to set data to DataSimple(), why?
class EditorSimple(): GenericQuestionEditor() {
override var data = DataSimple()
}
my GenericQeustionData and DataSimple() are setup like this;
abstract class GenericQuestionData {}
class DataSimple: GenericQuestionData() {}
it doesn't complain if I create this function in GenericQuestionEditor()
fun test() {
data = DataSimple()
}
Why do I get an error on data in EditorSimple()? It should recognize it as a subtype and it should be allowed as I understand.
I feel like the answer is found in the kotlin documentation but i'm not sure how to configure it in this case since they are not passed values or part of a collection.
You need to specify the type explicitly:
class EditorSimple(): GenericQuestionEditor() {
override var data: GenericQuestionData = DataSimple()
}
Without the type annotation, the type of data would be inferred to be DataSimple, which doesn't match the type of its super class' data. Even though the types are related, you can't override writable a property with a subtype. Imagine if I did:
class SomeOtherData: GenericQuestionData()
val editor: GenericQuestionEditor = EditorSimple()
editor.data = SomeOtherData() // data is of type GenericQuestionData, so I should be able to do this
But, editor actually has a EditorSimple, which can only store DataSimple objects in data!
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
I have received a JavaScript object in response to a remote HTTP request. I have a kotlin model (trait) that defines the various fields I expect on the object (the nullable ones are optional).
First, I want to do an is check to make sure my object is in fact of the expected type. I initially tried payload is MyModel but that doesn't work due to the way the is operator is written in kotlin.js.
Second, I want to cast to MyModel so I can get auto-complete, etc. on the object while I work with it. Normally, the is alone would be enough but since that doesn't work I need something for this problem as well.
I would like to avoid manually populating my object from a dynamic. I wouldn't mind doing this so much if I could use by Delegates.mapVal(...) but that requires a Map<String, Any?> and I don't know how to get my dynamic/Any? payload into a Map<String, Any?>.
1) We don't have structure check for is in performance reasons.
I don't sure that we need generic solution for this, but anyway I created issue about it, feel free to vote or star it to get updates.
2) is enough if you use smart cast, like:
if (payload is MyModel) {
// call MyModel members on payload
}
But don't forget about (1) :)
3) You can write something like:
class MapDynamic<out V>(val d: dynamic) {
public fun get(thisRef: Any, desc: PropertyMetadata): V {
return d[desc.name]
}
}
class Foo(data: dynamic) {
val field: Int by MapDynamic(data)
}
fun main(args : Array<String>) {
val f = Foo(object { val field = 123 })
println(f.field)
}
But it looks too verbose, but You can add additional logic for e.g. when data don't have requested field. And if You don't need custom logic I think cast is enough.
For the second part, the cast, you can do:
fun responseHandler(payload: dynamic) {
val myModel = payload as MyModel
}
or
fun responseHandler(payload: dynamic) {
val myModel: MyModel = payload
}
This will throw an NPE if payload is null, but it won't actually validate that the payload matches MyModel. In particular, you may end up with null fields/properties that shouldn't be if the payload was missing those fields/properties.