How to use DeprecationLevel.ERROR - kotlin

Let's say I am writing a library and have a class that looks something like this (contrived example, but shows self reference:
import java.util.logging.Logger
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
companion object {
private val LOG = Logger.getLogger(MyClass::class.java.canonicalName)
}
constructor() : this(1337)
fun addTo(num: Int): Int {
LOG.fine { "Adding num $num to $myNum" }
return myNum + num
}
fun doubleAdd(num: Int): Int = 2 * addTo(num)
}
Now, I have decided that I want to deprecate this class and have my consumers move on to to better things, so I give them a warning.
#Deprecated("Don't use!", level = DeprecationLevel.WARNING)
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
// ...
}
Now, after some more time I'd like to increase the strictness with my deprecation. I still want the library to be binary compatible, so I do not remove the code I see that there is the DeprecationLevel.ERROR available, so I try to use it.
#Deprecated("Don't use!", level = DeprecationLevel.ERROR)
class MyClass(private val myNum: Int) {
// ...
}
Except now, when I try to compile my own project, I get compiler errors:
e: /path/to/project/src/main/kotlin/MyClass.kt: (7, 44): Using 'MyClass' is an error. Don't use!
e: /path/to/project/src/main/kotlin/MyClass.kt: (10, 23): Using 'MyClass' is an error. Don't use!
This is on both the MyClass reference and the this primary constructor reference.
What is the point of DeprecationLevel.ERROR? If I am using it wrong, what is the intended use, and how do I use it?
NOTE: This whole example was done with Kotlin 1.2.21

It does exactly what is described in the documentation: DeprecationLevel
ERROR means usage of that code generates an error in the compiler. This is when you know using the code is going to cause problems and you'd rather crash the compilation, even if that code compiled fine previously.
There is also the HIDDEN deprecation level which does what you describe. It 'hides' the annotated element from the compiler but leaves it in the binary output. This will still cause a compilation error in your project because it is meant for binary compatibility, not newly compiled code.

Related

Kotlin compile error "unresolved reference" only when compiling from command line

I have the Kotlin code:
import com.google.gson.Gson
import java.io.File
class System {
/*
Save current game state to file
*/
internal fun saveGameState(game: Game) {
val gameState = game.getGameState()
val gson = Gson()
val jsonString = gson.toJson(gameState)
val pathname = FILENAME_SAVED_GAME
File(pathname).writeText(jsonString)
}
private fun loadGameState(): Game {
val jsonString = File(FILENAME_SAVED_GAME).readText(Charsets.UTF_8)
val gson = Gson()
val gameState: GameState = gson.fromJson(jsonString, GameState::class.java)
File(FILENAME_SAVED_GAME).delete()
return Game(gameState)
}
...
}
When I run it from within IntelliJIDEA, it compiles and runs fine, including using this class to save state and restore state.
When I compile it from the command line, I use this command:
kotlinc *.kt -include-runtime -d GizmosK.jar
and I this error message:
System.kt:1:12: error: unresolved reference: google
import com.google.gson.Gson
^
System.kt:11:20: error: unresolved reference: Gson
val gson = Gson()
^
System.kt:19:20: error: unresolved reference: Gson
val gson = Gson()
^
I've successfully used this command many times before, but possibly not since adding this System class, which is the only one that imports anything from outside my project.
I've searched, and found this question which appears very similar to my problem, but I have a few concerns.
First, I don't know if this solution applies to my situation since my code is pure Kotlin and not Android.
Second, I don't know how to generalize their solution and make it apply to my situation. Like, I know I probably have to replace something with google.gson or com.google.gson or com.google.gson.Gson in there somewhere, but I don't know where, since there are three things there that look like package names. Do I need all three? I also don't know if expressions like package_name are literal strings I should enter verbatim or if I should replace those words with the actual package name.
Third, I've never had to specify flovar/flavor nor resource_package before in a command line, and I don't want to introduce new variables, if at all possible.
BTW, I'm compiling from the command line to generate a .jar file to distribute so anyone can run it from the command line without sharing my code or requiring they install IntelliJ IDEA.

Kotlin Polymorphism Confusion

I was following a tutorial for learning kotlin and ran into this example.
open class AquariumPlant(val color: String, private val size: Int)
class GreenLeafyPlant(size: Int) : AquariumPlant("green", size)
fun AquariumPlant.print() = println("AquariumPlant")
fun GreenLeafyPlant.print() = println("GreenLeafyPlant")
val plant = GreenLeafyPlant(size = 10)
plant.print()
println("\n")
val aquariumPlant: AquariumPlant = plant
aquariumPlant.print() // what will it print?
Well this apparently prints "Aquarium Plant" instead of "GreenLeafyPlant". I was a bit confused by this so I tested this out with this little snippet of code.
open class Aquarium {
open fun printSize() {
println("hello")
}
}
class TowerTank: Aquarium() {
override fun printSize() {
println("rawr")
}
}
fun main() {
towerTank = TowerTank()
(towerTank as Aquarium).printSize()
}
So this prints "rawr" and not "hello". My question is why doesn't it print "hello"? Aren't these two examples contradicting themselves? How does the function extensions create this difference in behaviour? Sorry if this may seem like a dumb question, I'm new to Kotlin as you can probably tell.
To understand this we need to understand how extensions work. Extensions don't magically add new members to existing classes. This is technically impossible both in Java and Kotlin. Instead, they work as good old static utility functions in Java. Accessing them as members is just a syntactic sugar.
First example is really similar to these functions:
fun print(plant: AquariumPlant) = println("AquariumPlant")
fun print(plant: GreenLeafyPlant) = println("GreenLeafyPlant")
To make it even more clear, we can rename these functions:
fun printAquariumPlant(plant: AquariumPlant) = println("AquariumPlant")
fun printGreenLeafyPlant(plant: GreenLeafyPlant) = println("GreenLeafyPlant")
Now, it is pretty clear that if we have object like this:
val aquariumPlant: AquariumPlant = GreenLeafyPlant(size = 10)
Then we can only invoke printAquariumPlant() function with it and it will print AquariumPlant, not GreenLeafyPlant. Despite the fact aquariumPlant is actually a GreenLeafyPlant object.
If we move one step back and rename them again to just print, nothing will really change. aquariumPlant variable is of type AquariumPlant (even if it contains GreenLeafyPlant object), so the compiler chooses print(AquariumPlant) function.
This is why we say extensions are resolved statically. Compiler decides which function to call at compile time. Virtual functions are resolved at runtime, taking into consideration the real type of the object.

How does Generic work if generic is Int in Kotlin?

I tried to make abstract class for testing because I found weird problem for using generics
abstract class Test<T> {
open fun hello(vararg data: T) {
print("Default function")
}
}
This very simple abstract class has one opened method with vararg keyword. Problem can be reproduced by making another class which extends Test class.
class Hello : Test<Int>() {
//Problem 1
override fun hello(vararg data: Int) {
super.hello(*data) //Problem 2
println("Override function")
}
}
About first problem, Kotlin says method doesn't override anything even though this method surely overrides something. Weirdly, this error happens randomly, so I can't tell exact way to reproduce this bug
This error got removed when I add some codes (like really simple code such as println(), etc), but when you compile, it causes same error again.
About second problem, super.hello(*data) causes problem because this requires Array<out Int>, but found parameter is IntArray. I think Kotlin is considering IntArray and Array<*> as different class, but it shouldn't act like this...
I'm using Kotlin 1.4.10 which seems the latest version according to this site.
I'm posting this to check if these 2 problems are bug or if I did something incorrectly because when I change generic to String, all problems get removed.
Are there any mistakes I made in these sample codes above?
Known issue: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-9495
As a workaround, you can use the boxed java.lang.Integer.
class Hello : Test<Integer>() {
override fun hello(vararg data: Integer) {
super.hello(*data)
println("Override function")
}
}

Alias an Annotation that takes an argument

I'm trying to convert my Android library to a Kotlin multiplatform library.
One of the things I want to preserve are all the android specific annotations for Android Lint. I was able to convert most of them by doing simple things like
#MustBeDocumented
#Retention(AnnotationRetention.BINARY)
#Target(
AnnotationTarget.FUNCTION,
AnnotationTarget.PROPERTY_GETTER,
AnnotationTarget.PROPERTY_SETTER,
AnnotationTarget.CONSTRUCTOR,
AnnotationTarget.ANNOTATION_CLASS,
AnnotationTarget.CLASS,
AnnotationTarget.VALUE_PARAMETER
)
expect annotation class MainThread()
actual typealias MainThread = androidx.annotation.MainThread
This did not work with RestrictTo because it takes an argument.
The android RestrictTo annotation looks like
#Retention(CLASS)
#Target({ANNOTATION_TYPE,TYPE,METHOD,CONSTRUCTOR,FIELD,PACKAGE})
public #interface RestrictTo {
/**
* The scope to which usage should be restricted.
*/
Scope[] value();
enum Scope {
}
}
I cannot seem to make the compiler happy with the type for value.
If I make the expect look like
#Target(
AnnotationTarget.FUNCTION,
AnnotationTarget.PROPERTY_GETTER,
AnnotationTarget.PROPERTY_SETTER,
AnnotationTarget.FIELD,
AnnotationTarget.CONSTRUCTOR,
AnnotationTarget.ANNOTATION_CLASS,
AnnotationTarget.CLASS
)
#MustBeDocumented
#Retention(AnnotationRetention.BINARY)
expect annotation class RestrictTo(vararg val value: RestrictScope)
I get a compile error
public expect final val value: Array<out RestrictScope /* = RestrictTo.Scope */>
The following declaration is incompatible because return type is different:
public final val value: Array<RestrictTo.Scope>
If I change the value from a vararg to an Array I get this error.
public constructor RestrictTo(value: Array<RestrictScope /* = RestrictTo.Scope */>)
The following declaration is incompatible because parameter types are different:
public constructor RestrictTo(vararg value: RestrictTo.Scope)
Is there anyway to make the types work for both the constructor and the values method?
This is a bug - https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-20900
Feel free to upvote the issue.

Mock auto-generated setter in Kotlin with Mockito

Let's say I have the following interface:
internal interface IRegisters {
var i: Short
var pc: Int
var sp: Int
}
Now, when I compile that interface, the public fields are replaced by getters and setters. I suppose that the final result is not exactly this, but let's assume it is for simplicity sake:
internal interface IRegisters {
fun getI(): Short
fun setI(value: Short)
fun getPc(): Int
fun setPc(value: Int)
fun getSp(): Int
fun setSp(value: Int)
}
My problem is: with Mockito, I can mock the getter part the following way:
Mockito.`when`(registersMock.sp).thenReturn(16)
Which I suppose is replaced behind the scenes at some point in the compiling process for something like this:
Mockito.`when`(registersMock.getSp()).thenReturn(16)
I verified that this is in fact correct replacing the .thenReturn part for a .thenAnswer. The invocation.method while calling to the answer method of the answer was, indeed, getSp.
My question is: how do I mock (if it is even possible) the set counterpart?
I have tried this:
Mockito.`when`(registersMock.sp = ArgumentMatchers.anyInt()).then...
But it tells me that assignments are not expressions, and only expressions are allowed in this context. And, because the setSp(value: Int) doesn't exist yet, I can't do the following either:
Mockito.`when`(registersMock.setSp(ArgumentMatchers.anyInt())).then...
...as it gives a unresolved reference error (which is reasonable, as the behavior is consistent if I try the getSp() counterpart).
This is specially infuriating because I can verify the setSp method using the = assignment the following way:
Mockito.verify(
registersMock,
times(1)
).sp = 0x300
Thanks in advance.
took a while, but I found something working. The trick was to swap the whenever and the doAnswer.
For example I can extract the passed-in Int when the setter is called.
working solution:
source code:
interface IRegisters {
var sp: Int
}
mock in tests:
val mockIRegister = mock<IRegister>()
var lastSp: Int? = null
doAnswer { invocation ->
lastSp = invocation.getArgument(0) as? Int
}
.whenever(mockIRegister)
.sp = anyInt()