I get an overall idea of what is each of these, I wrote piece of code however that I don't quite understand why it works.The thing is callExtensionOnString expects extension function as its parameter, however it doesn't complain if reference to printString is passed.
Is String.() -> Unit just another name for (String) -> Unit type or is it Kotlin compiler that takes some kind of shortcut to fit higher order in extension function?
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
callExtensionOnString(::printString)
}
fun callExtensionOnString(extensionFun: String.() -> Unit) {
"testString".extensionFun()
}
fun printString(str: String) {
println(str)
}
Then there is second thing that seems unclear to me. printString reference is passed once to callExtensionOnString and then again to run function which basically requires String.() -> Unit extension function. Is there difference between these two so that second time :: prefix is omitted?
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
runFunctionOnString(::printString)
}
fun runFunctionOnString(higherOrderFun: (String) -> Unit) {
"testString".run(higherOrderFun)
}
fun printString(str: String) {
println(str)
}
Concerning your first question, these 2 are equivalent:
"testString".extensionFun()
extensionFun("testString")
That's why passing printString method doesn't cause a compilation error.
Concerning the second question, the difference is that highOrderFun is already a reference to a function, while printString is not a function reference (but you can obtain it with the :: operator)
Related
I started playing with the new context receivers feature. I intend to use that as a "localized dependency injection" to pass client context around. Currently, I have this (ClientProvider is a fun interface):
fun <T> withClient(client: Client, block: ClientProvider.() -> T) =
ClientProvider { client }.block()
This works pretty well in the production code, e.g. I can do
class MyService {
context(ClientProvider)
fun methodUsingClient() {}
}
However, an issue arises when I want to mockk this code in tests. Currently, I have
val myService: MyService = mockk { every { methodUsingClient() } just runs }
This obviously doesn't work because the ClientProvider context is missing. I would like to fix that by composing mockk and withClient. I imagine it could look like this
inline fun <reified T : Any> mockkWithClient(noinline block: context(T) ClientProvider.() -> Unit) =
mockk<T> { withClient(mockk(), block) }
This indeed works at the call site, i.e., the compiler seems to be happy with
val myService: MyService = mockkWithClient { every { methodUsingClient() } just runs }
but the function itself doesn't compile - the compiler complains about the block parameter:
Type mismatch.
Required:
ClientProvider.() → TypeVariable(T)
Found:
context(T) ClientProvider.() → Unit
Intuitively, I would expect that the extra T context wouldn't harm the block usage inside withClient but apparently, it does.
Is there any way how I can define mockkWithClient so it can be used as outlined above?
I got a useful answer to my other, more generally formulated question, and based on that I was able to solve this problem as well (the key point I was missing is that I have to manually pass the receivers to the block):
inline fun <reified T : Any> mockkWithClient(noinline block: context(ClientProvider) T.() -> Unit) =
withMockClient<T> { mockk { block(this#withMockClient, this#mockk) } }
fun <T> withMockClient(block: ClientProvider.() -> T) =
ClientProvider { mockk() }.block()
The intended usage is then as expected:
mockkWithClient { every { methodUsingClient() }
Note, however, the very specific type of block: it's context(ClientProvider) T.() -> Unit. If I read the documentation correctly I should be also able to write context(ClientProvider, T) () -> Unit but that doesn't compile with the message Subtyping relation between context receivers is prohibited. The root cause of this is still unknown to me but my original problem is solved, nevertheless.
Looking at this code in kotlinx.coroutines, I noticed something strange:
/**
* Returns a flow containing the results of applying the given [transform] function to each value of the original flow.
*/
public inline fun <T, R> Flow<T>.map(crossinline transform: suspend (value: T) -> R): Flow<R> = transform { value ->
return#transform emit(transform(value))
}
In the first line, the transform used is clearly this.transform (defined here). Shouldn't the transform declared in the method parameter have been used instead, as it is in the second line?
To test this, I wrote a small class which tries to mimc this behaviour:
// flow.kt
class Flow(val name: String) {
public fun transform (transform: (Any) -> Unit): Flow {
return Flow("transformed")
}
public fun emit(value: Any) {
// do nothing
}
public fun map(transform: (Any) -> Unit): Flow = transform { value ->
return#transform(emit(transform(value)))
}
}
And I get the kind of warning I was expecting when I run kotlinc flow.kt:
flow.kt:12:54: error: type mismatch: inferred type is Unit but Flow was expected
public fun map(transform: (Any) -> Unit): Flow = transform { value ->
^
flow.kt:12:66: error: cannot infer a type for this parameter. Please specify it explicitly.
public fun map(transform: (Any) -> Unit): Flow = transform { value ->
^
(Kotlin version as returned by kotlinc -version is "kotlinc-jvm 1.6.10 (JRE 17.0.1+1)")
So why is it that the code defined in kotlinx.coroutines works? If I understand Kotlin's name shadowing rules correctly it shouldn't have.
In kotlinx.couroutines, the transform parameter takes an argument of type T. Hence, this.transform is used when transform is called with a (Any) -> Unit argument.
In your example, the transform parameter takes an argument of type Any. A (Any) -> Unit is an Any and hence the parameter is being used instead of this.transform. Replacing Any with a type parameter will make your code compile too.
I am trying to declare two suspend methods with list of String and PublishRequest Object as parameter. But the IDE is giving error with this.
The error is either make one of the function internal or remove suspend. But i want to use coroutines inside both of them.
override suspend fun publish(publishRequests: List<PublishRequest>) {
///code
}
suspend fun publish(events: List<String>) {
///code
}
The PublishRequest Data class is internal. The issues is only coming when we add the publish(events: List) method. The code is working fine the publish(publishRequests: List)
Can you explain why it is happening ?
The problem you are facing is related to type erasure.
The types List<PublishRequest> and List<String> are erased to List<*>, as consequence, you would have a JVM signature clash.
To solve your problem you have two different solutions.
Change their names and avoid a signature clash:
suspend fun publishRequests(publishRequests: List<PublishRequest>) {}
suspend fun publishEvents(events: List<String>) {}
Use a single function with a reified type and handle the different type classes inside that function:
suspend inline fun <reified T> publish(objects: List<T>) {
when {
PublishRequest::class.java.isAssignableFrom(T::class.java) -> // it's a list of PublishRequest
T::class == String::class -> // it's a list of String
}
}
I'm trying to write a Kotlin function which returns a lambda taking a parameter. I'm attempting to use code like the following to do this:
fun <T> makeFunc() : (T.() -> Unit) {
return { t: T ->
print("Foo")
}
}
Note: In the actual program, the function is more complex and uses t.
Kotlin rejects this as invalid, giving an 'Expected no parameters' error at t: T.
However, assigning this lambda to a variable first is not rejected and works fine:
fun <T> makeFunc() : (T.() -> Unit) {
val x = { t: T ->
print("Foo")
}
return x
}
These two snippets seem identical, so why is this the case? Are curly braces after a return statement interpreted as something other than a lambda?
Additionally, IntelliJ tells me that the variable's value can be inlined, whereas this appears to cause the error.
There is a curious moment in the design of functional types and lambda expressions in Kotlin.
In fact, the behavior can be described in these two statements:
Named values of functional types are interchangeable between the ordinary functional type like (A, B) -> C and the corresponding type of function with the first parameter turned into receiver A.(B) -> C. These types are assignable from each other.
So, when you declare a variable that is typed as (T) -> Unit, you can pass it or use it where T.() -> Unit is expected, and vice versa.
Lambda expressions, however, cannot be used in such free manner.
When a function with receiver T.() -> Unit is expected, you cannot place a lambda with a parameter of T in that position, the lambda should exactly match the signature, a receiver and the first parameter cannot be converted into each other:
Shape of a function literal argument or a function expression must exactly match the extension-ness of the corresponding parameter. You can't pass an extension function literal or an extension function expression where a function is expected and vice versa. If you really want to do that, change the shape, assign literal to a variable or use the as operator.
(from the document linked above)
This rule makes lambdas easier to read: they always match the expected type. For instance, there's no ambiguity between a lambda with receiver and a lambda with implicit it that is simply unused.
Compare:
fun foo(bar: (A) -> B) = Unit
fun baz(qux: A.() -> B) = Unit
val f: (A) -> B = { TODO() }
val g: A.() -> B = { TODO() }
foo(f) // OK
foo(g) // OK
baz(f) // OK
baz(g) // OK
// But:
foo { a: A -> println(a); TODO() } // OK
foo { println(this#foo); TODO() } // Error
baz { println(this#baz); TODO() } // OK
baz { a: A -> println(a); TODO() } // Error
Basically, it's the IDE diagnostic that is wrong here. Please report it as a bug to the Kotlin issue tracker.
You are defining a function type () -> Unit on receiver T, there really isn't a parameter to that function, see "()". The error makes sense. Since you define the function type with T as its receiver, you can refer to T by this:
fun <T> makeFunc(): (T.() -> Unit) {
return {
print(this)
}
}
I need to be able to tell the generic type of kotlin collection at runtime. How can I do it?
val list1 = listOf("my", "list")
val list2 = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val list3 = listOf<Double>()
/* ... */
when(list.genericType()) {
is String -> handleString(list)
is Int -> handleInt(list)
is Double -> handleDouble(list)
}
Kotlin generics share Java's characteristic of being erased at compile time, so, at run time, those lists no longer carry the necessary information to do what you're asking. The exception to this is if you write an inline function, using reified types. For example this would work:
inline fun <reified T> handleList(l: List<T>) {
when (T::class) {
Int::class -> handleInt(l)
Double::class -> handleDouble(l)
String::class -> handleString(l)
}
}
fun main() {
handleList(mutableListOf(1,2,3))
}
Inline functions get expanded at every call site, though, and mess with your stack traces, so you should use them sparingly.
Depending on what you're trying to achieve, though, there's some alternatives. You can achieve something similar at the element level with sealed classes:
sealed class ElementType {
class DoubleElement(val x: Double) : ElementType()
class StringElement(val s: String) : ElementType()
class IntElement(val i: Int) : ElementType()
}
fun handleList(l: List<ElementType>) {
l.forEach {
when (it) {
is ElementType.DoubleElement -> handleDouble(it.x)
is ElementType.StringElement -> handleString(it.s)
is ElementType.IntElement -> handleInt(it.i)
}
}
}
You can use inline functions with reified type parameters to do that:
inline fun <reified T : Any> classOfList(list: List<T>) = T::class
(runnable demo, including how to check the type in a when statement)
This solution is limited to the cases where the actual type argument for T is known at compile time, because inline functions are transformed at compile time, and the compiler substitutes their reified type parameters with the real type at each call site.
On JVM, the type arguments of generic classes are erased at runtime, and there is basically no way to retrieve them from an arbitrary List<T> (e.g. a list passed into a non-inline function as List<T> -- T is not known at compile-time for each call and is erased at runtime)
If you need more control over the reified type parameter inside the function, you might find this Q&A useful.