I am developing a simple Android app, that will display an icon of a vehicle and the user can click on the icon to display the vehicle information. I want to load the data dynamically when I build the app i.e. the data will come from an external source including the picture for the icon.
I am new to Kotlin and not sure what to search for to understand a suitable solution. What is the correct way to define the data, is it best to create an class as below then create an array of the class (not sure if this is possible)
public class VehicleSpec()
{
var OEM: String? = null
var ModelName: String? = null
var EngineSize: String? = null
}
Or would be better to create a multiple dimension array and then link the data to the cells?
var VehicleSpec = arrayOf(20,20)
VehicleSpec[0][0] = Null //OEM
VehicleSpec[0][1] = Null //ModelName
VehicleSpec[0][2] = Null //EngineSize
What is the best way to set up the data storage, is there any good references to understand how this should be setup?
What is the correct way to define the data, is it best to create an class as below then create an array of the class
Using an array for the properties of an object is not making the full use of the type safety you have in Kotlin (and even Java for that matter).
If what you want to express is multiple properties of an object, then you should use a class to define those properties. This is especially true if the properties have different types.
There is no performance difference between an array and a class, because you'll get a reference to the heap in both cases. You could save on performance only if you convert your multi-dimensional array approach to a single-dimension array with smart indexing. Most of the time, you should not consider this option unless you are handling a lot of data and if you know that performance is an issue at this specific level.
(not sure if this is possible)
Defining lists/arrays of classes is definitely possible.
Usually, for classes that are only used as data containers, you should prefer data classes, because they give you useful methods for free, and these methods totally make sense for simple "data bags" like in your case (equals, hashcode, component access, etc.).
data class Vehicle(
val OEM: String,
val ModelName: String,
val EngineSize: String
)
Also, I suggest using val instead of var as much as possible. Immutability is more idiomatic in Kotlin.
Last but not least, prefer non-null values to null values if you know a value must always be present. If there are valid cases where the value is absent, you should use null instead of a placeholder value like empty string or -1.
First at all, using the "class aprocah" makes it easy for you to understand and give you the full benefits of the language itself... so dont dry to save data in an array .. let the compiler handle those stuff.
Secondly i suggest you have maybe two types (and use data classes ;-) )
data class VehicleListEntry(
val id: Long,
val name: String
)
and
data class VehicleSpec(
val id: Long,
val oem: String = "",
val modelName: String = "",
val engineSize: String = ""
)
from my perspective try to avoid null values whenever possible.
So if you have strings - which you are display only - use empty strings instead of null.
and now have a Model to store your data
class VehicleModel() {
private val specs: MutableMap<Long, VehicleSpec> = mutableMapOf()
private var entries: List<VehicleListEntry> = listOf()
fun getSpec(id: Long) = specs[id]
fun addSpec(spec: VehicleSpec) = specs[spec.id] = spec
fun getEntries(): List<VehicleListEntry> = entries
fun setEntries(data: List<VehicleListEntry>) {
entries = data.toMutableList()
}
}
You could also use a data class for your model which looks like
data class VehicleModel(
val specs: MutableMap<Long, VehicleSpec> = mutableMapOf(),
var entries: List<VehicleListEntry> = listOf()
)
And last but not least a controller for getting stuff together
class VehicleController() {
private val model = VehicleModel()
init{
// TODO get the entries list together
}
fun getEntries() = model.entries
fun getSpec(id: Long) : VehicleSpec? {
// TODO load the data from external source (or check the model first)
// TODO store the data into the model
// TODO return result
}
}
Related
Say I have a data class
data class MyClass(val crop: Rect, val name: String)
But I want to make a copy of the Rect passed in since I don't want the value to be modified later. I don't want to the caller to call
MyClass(Rect(inCrop), "name")
in the code. How can I do this in my data class?
Thanks.
One workaround I can think of is:
data class MyClass(private var privateCrop: Rect, val name: String) {
val crop get() = privateCrop
init {
privateCrop = Rect(privateCrop)
}
}
You make crop private and make it a var (privateCrop), then you add a public getter for it. Now you can copy it in an init block.
But I gotta admit, this is rather ugly. The better solution here I think is to change Rect to be immutable, but if Rect isn't in your control, then I guess it can't be helped. You might also consider using a regular class.
You may not want to alter data class's like this. As per another solution's answer, you may find other peculiarities with this solution. The solution given by #Sweeper, also does not include providing a defensive copy, which you may want to do to avoid access to modifying the internal property field.
To quote:
After spending almost a full year of writing Kotlin daily I've found that attempting to override data classes like this is a bad practice. There are 3 valid approaches to this, and after I present them, I'll explain why the approach other answers have suggested is bad.
Have your business logic that creates the data class alter the value to be 0 or greater before calling the constructor with the bad value. This is probably the best approach for most cases.
Don't use a data class. Use a regular class and have your IDE generate the equals and hashCode methods for you (or don't, if you don't need them). Yes, you'll have to re-generate it if any of the properties are changed on the object, but you are left with total control of the object.
class Test(value: Int) {
val value: Int = value
get() = if (field < 0) 0 else field
override fun equals(other: Any?): Boolean {
if (this === other) return true
if (other !is Test) return false
return true
}
override fun hashCode(): Int {
return javaClass.hashCode()
}
}
Create an additional safe property on the object that does what you want instead of having a private value that's effectively overriden.
I have two Enums,
enum class EnumKey
enum class EnumValue
and I already have a mapping from EnumKey to EnumValue.
fun EnumKey.toEnumValue(): EnumValue =
when(this) {
EnumA.KEY1 -> EnumValue.VALUE1
EnumA.KEY2 -> EnumValue.VALUE2
...
...
EnumA.KEY1000 -> EnumValue.VALUE1000
}
Now I need to have an another mapping from EnumValue to EnumKey.
Is using a Map and its reversed map created by associateBy the best way to do it? Or is there any other better ways?
Thanks!
If the enum values are somehow connected by name and they're as large as in your example, then I would advise using something like EnumValue.values().filter { it.name.contains(...) } or using regex.
If they aren't and the connection needs to be stated explicitly then I would use an object (so it's a singleton like the enums themselves) and have this mapping hidden there:
object EnumsMapping {
private val mapping = mapOf(
EnumKey.A to EnumValue.X,
EnumKey.B to EnumValue.Y,
EnumKey.C to EnumValue.Z,
)
....
and next, have the associated values available by functions in this object like:
fun getEnumValue(enumKey: EnumKey) = mapping[enumKey]
and
fun getEnumKey(enumValue: EnumValue) = mapping.filterValues { it == enumValue }.keys.single()
If it's often used or the enums are huge, and you're troubled by the performance of filtering the values every time, then you can create the association in the second way, just like you've proposed:
private val mapping2 = mapping.toList()
.associate { it.second to it.first }
and then have the second function just access this new mapping.
Writing the extension functions like you've provided, but using this object, will result in cleaner code and having the raw association still in one place.
I have an immutable object:
class Foo(
val name: String,
val things: List<Thing>
)
A third party lib creates the Foo object with some 'null' Thing objects.
I am creating a new object:
val foo = thirdPartyGetFoo()
val filteredFoo = Foo(foo.name, foo.things.filterNotNull())
That works, however AndroidStudio greys out the filterNotNull function call and presents a warning:
Useless call on collection type: The inspection reports filter-like
calls on already filtered collections.
Is this the right way to filter that list? Should I ignore the warning or is there a better way?
You do not specify what library creates the object with nulls. Some deserialization libraries can use static factory methods which you could configure, and then have the factory method strip the null. For example, if this were Jackson you would simply:
class Foo(val name: String, val things: List<Thing>) {
companion object {
#JsonCreator
#JvmName("createFromNullable")
fun create(name: String, things: List<Thing?>) = Foo(name, things.filterNotNull())
fun create(name: String, things: List<Thing>) = Foo(name, things)
}
}
Then...
val goodFoo = jacksonObjectMapper().readValue<Foo>(someJsonWithNulls)
Maybe your library has options that are similar?
If not, and you don't have 100 of these things with this problem, I would probably create a temporary class to hold the results and convert that to the final class:
open class FooNullable(val name: String, open val things: List<Thing?>) {
open fun withoutNulls(): Foo = Foo(name, things.filterNotNull())
}
class Foo(name: String, override val things: List<Thing>) : FooNullable(name, things) {
override fun withoutNulls(): Foo = this
}
Then you can deserialize into FooNullable and just call withoutNulls() to get the other flavor that is clean. And if you accidentally call it on one without nulls already, it just does nothing.
val goodFoo = Foo("", emptyList<Thing>())
val alsoGoodFoo = goodFoo.withoutNulls() // NOOP does nothing
val badFoo = thirdPartyGetFoo()
val betterFoo = badFoo.withoutNulls() // clean up the instance
val safeFoo = thirdPartyGetFoo().withoutNulls() // all at once!
Not the cleanest, but does work. The downsides is this second step, although it looks like you were already planning on doing that anyway. But this model is safer than what you proposed since you KNOW which type of object you have and therefore you continue to be typesafe and have the compiler helping you avoid a mistake.
You don't have to use inheritance as in the above example, I was just trying to unify the API in case there was a reason to have either version in hand and know which is which, and also act upon them in a similar way.
I have a data class like this
data class Person(val id: Long = BaseDataContract.BaseData.UNDEFINED_ID.toLong(),
.....
val personConsents: ArrayList<PersonConsent> = ArrayList<PersonConsent>())
I have two copies of the object:
person = originalPerson.copy()
Then I change the elements of personConsents for the object person - I add/delete/edit them.
But by some reason I see that the same changes are happening in originalPerson object which I don't want to be. originalPerson is not supposed to be changed at all.
Suspect there is something with ArrayList references, but need your advice what i can do? At the end I need to compare two objects likefun dataChanged(): Boolean = originalPerson != person bu it doesn't work when ArrayList is changing.
I found a simple solution. I use my own clone function which creates a new object for ArrayList and fill it by copied elements.
fun getPersonClone(person: Person): Person {
val personConsents: ArrayList<PersonConsent> = ArrayList<PersonConsent>()
person.personConsents.forEach { personConsents.add(it.copy()) }
return Person(person.id, ......., personConsents)
}
So,this link here, will help you understand that the copy method in Kotlin, does not do a deep copy, it only does a shallow one. This is specially seen with non-primitive data types such as the ArrayList one you're using.
If you must use a method to copy the data class directly, what you can do is serialize it, and then de-serialize it.
I've done something like this below, using Gson.
Using the Data Class
data class Person(var name: String? = null,val cars : ArrayList<String> = ArrayList() )
The main method
fun main (args: Array<String>) {
var original =Person("Jon", arrayListOf("Honda City","VW Vento"))
var clone =Gson().fromJson(Gson().toJson(original), Person::class.java)
original.cars.add("VW Polo")
original.name = "Henry"
print(clone.cars) // Prints [Honda City, VW Vento]
}
This approach seems really hacky, and I'd encourage anything better.
The Kotlin copy method is a shallow copy. So your copy ends up referencing the exact same array as the original object.
I would say the simplest way to fix this is to implement the copy method yourself (no need to create an extra custom clone method):
data class Person(val id: Long = BaseDataContract.BaseData.UNDEFINED_ID.toLong(), val personConsents: ArrayList<PersonConsent> = ArrayList<PersonConsent>()) {
fun copy() = Person(this.id, ArrayList(this.personConsents))
}
I have a Kotlin data class that I am constructing with many immutable properties, which are being fetched from separate SQL queries. If I want to construct the data class using the builder pattern, how do I do this without making those properties mutable?
For example, instead of constructing via
var data = MyData(val1, val2, val3)
I want to use
builder.someVal(val1)
// compute val2
builder.someOtherVal(val2)
// ...
var data = builder.build()
while still using Kotlin's data class feature and immutable properties.
I agree with the data copy block in Grzegorz answer, but it's essentially the same syntax as creating data classes with constructors. If you want to use that method and keep everything legible, you'll likely be computing everything beforehand and passing the values all together in the end.
To have something more like a builder, you may consider the following:
Let's say your data class is
data class Data(val text: String, val number: Int, val time: Long)
You can create a mutable builder version like so, with a build method to create the data class:
class Builder {
var text = "hello"
var number = 2
var time = System.currentTimeMillis()
internal fun build()
= Data(text, number, time)
}
Along with a builder method like so:
fun createData(action: Builder.() -> Unit): Data {
val builder = Builder()
builder.action()
return builder.build()
}
Action is a function from which you can modify the values directly, and createData will build it into a data class for you directly afterwards.
This way, you can create a data class with:
val data: Data = createData {
//execute stuff here
text = "new text"
//calculate number
number = -1
//calculate time
time = 222L
}
There are no setter methods per say, but you can directly assign the mutable variables with your new values and call other methods within the builder.
You can also make use of kotlin's get and set by specifying your own functions for each variable so it can do more than set the field.
There's also no need for returning the current builder class, as you always have access to its variables.
Addition note: If you care, createData can be shortened to this:
fun createData(action: Builder.() -> Unit): Data = with(Builder()) { action(); build() }.
"With a new builder, apply our action and build"
I don't think Kotlin has native builders. You can always compute all values and create the object at the end.
If you still want to use a builder you will have to implement it by yourself. Check this question
There is no need for creating custom builders in Kotlin - in order to achieve builder-like semantics, you can leverage copy method - it's perfect for situations where you want to get object's copy with a small alteration.
data class MyData(val val1: String? = null, val val2: String? = null, val val3: String? = null)
val temp = MyData()
.copy(val1 = "1")
.copy(val2 = "2")
.copy(val3 = "3")
Or:
val empty = MyData()
val with1 = empty.copy(val1 = "1")
val with2 = with1.copy(val2 = "2")
val with3 = with2.copy(val3 = "3")
Since you want everything to be immutable, copying must happen at every stage.
Also, it's fine to have mutable properties in the builder as long as the result produced by it is immutable.
It's possible to mechanize the creation of the builder classes with annotation processors.
I just created ephemient/builder-generator to demonstrate this.
Note that currently, kapt works fine for generated Java code, but there are some issues with generated Kotlin code (see KT-14070). For these purposes this isn't an issue, as long as the nullability annotations are copied through from the original Kotlin classes to the generated Java builders (so that Kotlin code using the generated Java code sees nullable/non-nullable types instead of just platform types).