Question is simple:
In Kotlin, when I instantiate a fragments arguments with a Bundle(), the system still needs the arguments object to be reassured with !!. The arguments should be definitely not null by now, right? So why is that needed?
Here is the code:
private fun openPinCodeFragment(mode: PinView.Mode) {
currentFragment = PinCodeFragment()
currentFragment?.run {
arguments = Bundle()
arguments!!.putSerializable(MODE, mode)
}
openFragment(currentFragment)
}
If I remove the !! then:
You're setting the value of a variable which was defined outside of this scope (the declaration of arguments is not visible in your code).
No matter what you assign, it could have been changed by the time code execution reaches the next line to a null value by another Thread, that's why you have to use the !! here. I'd suggest defining arguments either in local scope with val or making it non-nullable in its definition.
This happens because arguments is of Bundle? type, this means that it can be either Bundle or null.
Instead of using an if to check whether it is null, like you would to in Java, the operators !! and ? were introduced.
For example if you want your code to be correct without using !! you could add:
if (arguments != null) {
arguments.putSerializable(MODE, mode)
}
Using these operators you have the following flexibility:
!! - you tell the compiler that the value cannot be null, it will throw error otherwise;
? - you don't care that much, if it is not null then it will access method and might return result, otherwise the result of such call is null and no action is made.
Related
I'm trying to create two almost-same methods that handle nullable and non-nullable arguments slightly differently:
fun parse(type: Any) : MyObject {
return handleParse(type)
}
fun parse(type: Any?) : MyObject? {
if (type == null)
return null
return handleParse(type)
}
But I get this error in Android Studio:
Platform declaration clash: The following declarations have the same JVM signature
The goal is that it automatically handles nullable and non-nullable values in Kotlin, without me using !! every time I call it on nullable terms.
I've already tried adding the #JvmName("-name") annotation as mentioned in this answer but that doesn't work either. Obviously, I can change the method name to something else as well, but that is just circling around and avoiding the issue altogether.
Hoping there's an easy way to do this or at least a sensible workaround. Would also appreciate the reasoning behind the way things currently work, and why I should or shouldn't do this.
Reason why this doesn't work is simple, Java doesn't have null-safe types, meaning that both methods look completely same to Java, and Kotlin aims to provide as much interoperability with Java as possible.
But if you think a bit more about that there is simply no reason for such feature, as you can see your 2nd method already handles everything properly, with addition of 1 if case, which even if this feature exist would have to exist because compiler would need to know whether value in null or not in other to know which method to call anyway.
Common approach that I have seen so far is adding NotNull suffix to your method, for example in your case it would be parseNotNull in case where you don't allow nullable types, this way even when calling code from Java it is clear that parameter shouldn't be null.
There are some ways to fulfill a null-checking in Kotlin:
1.
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar)
}
2.
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
3.
myVar?.run {
foo(this)
}
What are the difference between these ways?
Are there any reasons (performance, best practice, code style etc.) why I should prefer on way over the other?
!! is to tell the compiler that I am sure the value of the variable is not null, and if it is null throw a null pointer exception (NPE) where as ?. is to tell the compiler that I am not sure if the value of the variable is null or not, if it is null do not throw any null pointer.
Another way of using a nullable property is safe call operator ?.
This calls the method if the property is not null or returns null if that property is null without throwing an NPE (null pointer exception).
nullableVariable?.someMethodCall()
All three code are behave same null check in operation-wise.
?. is used for chain operations.
bob?.department?.head?.name // if any of the properties in it is null it returns null
To perform a chain operation only for non-null values, you can use the safe call operator together with let
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
the above code is good for code style and performance
more details refer Null Safety
The ways 2 and 3 are more idiomatic for Kotlin. Both functions are quite similar. There is little difference with argument passing.
For example, we have a nullable variable:
var canBeNull: String? = null
When you working with T.run you work with extension function calling and you pass this in the closure.
canBeNull?.run {
println(length) // `this` could be omitted
}
When you call T.let you can use it like lambda argument it.
canBeNull?.let {
myString -> println(myString.length) // You could convert `it` to some other name
}
A good article about Kotlin standard functions.
All three are roughly equivalent.
The if case is more like most other languages, and so many developers may find it easier to read.
However, one difference is that the if case will read the value of myVar twice: once for the check, and again when passing it to foo(). That makes a difference, because if myVar is a property (i.e. something that could potentially be changed by another thread), then the compiler will warn that it could have been set to null after the check. If that's a problem (e.g. because foo() expects a non-null parameter), then you'll need to use one of the other cases.
For that reason, the let case has become fairly common practice in Kotlin. (The run case does just about the same thing, but for some reason isn't as popular for this sort of thing. I don't know why.)
Another way around it is to assign myVar to a temporary value, test that, and then use that. That's also more like other languages, but it's more verbose; many people prefer the conciseness of the let case — especially when myVar is actually a complicated expression.
The examples in your question don't show the true reason to decide.
First of all, since you're not using the return value of foo, you should use neither let nor run. Your choice is between also and apply.
Second, since you already have the result you want to null-check in a variable, the difference fades. This is a better motivating example:
complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())?.also {
results.add(it)
}
as opposed to
val result = complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())
if (result != null) {
results.add(result)
}
The second example declares an identifier, result, which is now available to the rest of the lexical scope, even though you're done with it in just one line.
The first example, on the other hand, keeps everything self-contained and when you go on reading the rest of the code, you are 100% confident that you don't have to keep in mind the meaning of result.
Kotlin have new features with NullPoint-Exception as Compare to Java.
Basically When we do Coding in Java , then we have to Check with !! in every Flied.
But in Kotlin, it is Easy way to Implement First
as Like,
Suppose, in Kotlin
var response:Json?=Null
response:Json?.let {
this part will handle automatic if response is Not Null....then this Block start Executing }?.run {
This is Nullable But, where we Can put Warring } So, I am Suggest you Guys to Start Work in Kotlin with this Features Provided by Kotlin.
(Flied)?.let { Not Null Value Comes Under }?.run{ Null Value Code }
This will Handle to NullPoint Exception or Protect You App for Crash
What you want to achieve
What you want to achieve is that the Kotlin compiler does a smart cast on the variable you are working with.
In all of your three examples, the compiler can do that.
Example:
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar) // smart cast: the compiler knows, that myVar can never be null here
}
The choice
Which one of the options to use, is really a matter of style. What you should not do is mix it up to often. Use one and stick to it.
You don't need to worry about performance since let and run are inlined (see inline function). This means that their code (body) is copied to the call site at compile time so there is no runtime overhead.
I'm new to Kotlin and there's a common pattern that I'm not sure how to deal with most correctly. Take this code, for example, which doesn't compile:
git_repo?.add().addFilepattern()
add() is a call in the JGit library which is purely Java, so its return type is AddCommand!.
I have two options:
git_repo?.add()!!.addFilepattern("test.txt")
and
git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt")
Both work fine and given that
I don't know the intricacies of the library implementation,
the documentation of the JGit library doesn't specify whether add() can return null, and
within this context I'd typically expect add() to not return a null
Which version is more idiomatically correct to write in Kotlin? It seems that this would be a fairly common issue to deal with since basically every non-Kotlin library would introduce this issue.
I would use the ?. safe operator and then put your own exception at the end after an ?: Elvis operator. This way you get a message that is meaningful. Using just !! isn't a very helpful message to someone down the road who has no idea what the intricacies were either.
val cmd = gitRepo.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt") ?: throw IllegalStateException("assert: gitRepo.add() returned an unexpected null")
cmd.doSomething() // never is null guaranteed
If the value is every null you will have a custom error.
assert: gitRepo.add() returned an unexpected null
And after this line, you will not have to null check because the result of the expression is guaranteed never to be null.
If you inspect the code of the other library and ensure it would never ever be null no matter what, then a !! is appropriate. But if not sure, do one better with the custom message.
Note I dropped the first ?. from your example because I'm assuming git_repo itself is not nullable. Plus I renamed it not to have an underscore which isn't normal Kotlin naming convention.
If you are sure that git_repo will always return a value!! is fine in that case.
It is ugly but !! will always be there when you use Java libraries, and you can't avoid it.
The only reason i would use git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt"), would be if you are returning a value, and you want the value to be nullable so that your calling method can handle the nullable.
fun nullableMethod(): string? {
return git_repo?.add()?.addFilepattern("test.txt")
}
fun callingMethod() {
if(this.nullableMethod() != null) {
}
//Else
}
If you are guaranteed it is never going to null, use !!
I'm taking my first steps with kotlin.
I am migrating some my existing java code to kotlin.
I have the folllowing line:
storyDate.ifPresent(article::setPublishDate);
Where storyDate is an Optional and article has a method setPublishDate(Date) method.
How would I migrate this line to kotlin?
The auto migrator at https://try.kotlinlang.org is
storyDate.ifPresent(Consumer<Date>({ article.setPublishDate() }))
But this line doesn't compile with the kotlin compiler.
I strongly prefer using extension functions and extension fields, so I've written smth like
val <T> Optional<T>.value: T?
get() = orElse(null)
And then you can use it anywhere (after import) like
myOptional.value?.let {
// handle here
}
It’s rather uncommon to use Optional in Kotlin. If you can make storyDate work as an ordinary unwrapped type, such constructs can often be expressed with a simple let call:
storyDate?.let {
article.setPublishDate(it)
//probably property access works as well:
article.publishDate = it
}
How it works: The safe call ?. will invoke let only if storyDate is not null, otherwise the whole expression evaluates to, again, null. When the variable is not null, let is called with a simple lambda where storyDate is accessible by it (or you can rename it to whatever you like).
Side note:
If storyDate really must be Optional, you can still use the depicted construct by unwrapping it like this:
storyDate.orElse(null)?.let {}
storyDate.ifPresent { Article.setPublishDate(it) }
or
storyDate.ifPresent(Article::setPublishDate)
will work.
In the first example, it denotes the value in the optional instance, which is the Date in the optional storyDate.
I assumed that Article is a class, which has the setPublishDate(Date) static method, because class names are always capitalized.
But if article is an instance, not a class, and it has non-static method, then the following will work.
// article = Article(/* some Article-typed object */)
storyDate.ifPresent { article.setPublishDate(it) }
it has the same meaning as the above one, i.e., the actual Date value in Optional.
I'm trying to handle CompletableFuture exceptions in Kotlin, but I'm not able to figure out how to supply the appropriate parameters. So, for example, I have:
CompletableFuture.runAsync { "sr" }
.exceptionally{e -> {}}
but then the compiler complains Cannot infer type parameter T.
How do I fix this?
Quite a tricky case which becomes tricky because of some Kotlin magic :)
The direct solution to your problem would be the following code:
CompletableFuture.runAsync {"sr"}
.exceptionally({e -> null})
The detailed explanation goes here:
The runAsync method accepts a Runnable which means after execution it will return Void. The function passed to exceptionally method must match the generic parameter of the CompletableFuture so in this particular case, you need to help a compiler by returning null explicitly.
So the following will compile without problems:
CompletableFuture.runAsync {"sr"}
.exceptionally({null})
CompletableFuture.runAsync {}
.exceptionally({null})
In the first case, the "sr" String will simply be ignored and not returned since the runAsync accepts a Runnable.
You probably wanted to do something like:
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync {"sr"}
.exceptionally({"sr_exceptional"})
or:
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync {"sr"}
.exceptionally({e -> "sr_exceptional"})