Implementing properties declared in interfaces in Kotlin - kotlin

I'm new to Kotlin, so I have this interface.
interface User {
var nickName : String
}
Now I want to create a class PrivateUser that implements this interface. I have also to implement the abstract member nickName.
Via constructor it's very simple
class PrivateUser(override var nickName: String) : User
However when I try to implement member inside the class Idea generates me this code
class Button: User {
override var nickName: String
get() = TODO("not implemented")
set(value) {}
}
It's confusing to me how to implement it further.

Properties must be initialized in Kotlin. When you declare the property in the constructor, it gets initialized with whatever you pass in. If you declare it in the body, you need to define it yourself, either with a default value, or parsed from other properties.
Some examples:
class Button : User {
override var nickname = "Fred"
}
class Button(val firstName: String, val lastName: String) : User {
override var nickname = "${firstname[0]}$lastname"
}
The code generated by IDEA is useful if you want a non-default getter and/or setter, or if you want a property without a backing field (it's getter and setter calculate on the fly when accessed).
More examples:
class Button : User {
override var nickname = "Fred"
get() = if (field.isEmpty()) "N/A" else field
set(value) {
// No Tommy
field = if (value == "Tommy") "" else value
}
}
class Button(val number: Int) : User {
var id = "$number"
private set
override var nickname: String
get() {
val parts = id.split('-')
return if (parts.size > 1) parts[0] else ""
}
set(value) {
field = if (value.isEmpty()) "$number" else "$value-$number"
}
}

Related

How to address a getter from inside the class in Kotlin

Consider following Kotlin-Code:
class Foo(input: Int) {
private var someField: Int = input
get() = -field
set(value) {
field = -value
}
fun bar() {
println(someField)
}
}
fun main() {
Foo(1).bar()
}
This prints -1 in the console which means that inside method bar() someField references the attribute and not the corresponding getter. Is there a way that allows me to use the get()-method as if I was referencing this field from outside?
Perhaps you could track the "raw" value separately from the negative value? Something like this:
class Foo(input: Int) {
private var _someField: Int = input
var someField: Int
get() = -_someField
set(value) {
_someField = -value
}
fun bar() {
println(someField)
}
}
Now the class internals can reference _someField to deal directly with the raw value, while outside clients can only "see" someField.

what is default value type of kotlin class constructor parameter?

class Greeter(name: String) {
fun greet() {
println("Hello, $name")
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
Greeter(args[0]).greet()
}
for above program I got this error
Unresolved reference: name
but when I add var or val
class Greeter(var name: String) {
or
class Greeter(val name: String) {
then program works fine, so why I need to add var or val to name, what is default type for constructor parameter val or var and why program gives me error when I not mention var or val
To use your value in the constructor like class Greeter(name: String), you can use init{}
class Greeter(name: String) {
var string:name = ""
init{
this.name = name
}
fun greet() {
println("Hello, $name")
}
}
or If you use val or var in the constructor it is more like class level variable and can be accessed anywhere inside the class
class Greeter(var name:String){
fun greet() {
println("Hello, $name")
}
}
The variable name can be used directly in the class then.
We can also give default values for the variables in both cases.
Adding val or var makes the parameter a property and can be accessed in the whole class.
Without this, it is only accessible inside init{}
The question is not making any sense, But the problem you are facing does make sense. In your case, the approach you are using is,
Wrong-Way:
// here name is just a dependency/value which will be used by the Greeter
// but since it is not assigned to any class members,
// it will not be accessible for member methods
class Greeter(name: String) {
fun greet(){} // can not access the 'name' value
}
Right-Way:
// here name is passed as a parameter but it is also made a class member
// with the same name, this class member will immutable as it is declared as 'val'
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun greet(){} // can access the 'name' value
}
You can also replace val with var to make the name a mutable class member.

Kotlin: Override setter

I have an abstract class containing the following property
var items: List<I> = listOf()
set(value) {
field = value
onDataChanged()
}
In my extending class i now want to override the setter of items to do additional stuff before the above setter code is called. Is this possible, if yes, how?
You have to declare your field as open in your parent class
open var items: List<I> = listOf()
set(value) {
field = value
onDataChanged()
}
And in your child class you override it as:
override var items: List<Int>
get() = super.items
set(value) {
super.items = value
//Your code
}
In this way, you are actually creating a property without a backing field and you are just accessing to the real parent's items field.

How can I set the JsName for a property's backing field in Kotlin?

I played about with Kotlin's unsupported JavaScript backend in 1.0.x and am now trying to migrate my toy project to 1.1.x. It's the barest bones of a single-page web app interfacing with PouchDB. To add data to PouchDB you need JavaScript objects with specific properties _id and _rev. They also need to not have any other properties beginning with _ because they're reserved by PouchDB.
Now, if I create a class like this, I can send instances to PouchDB.
class PouchDoc(
var _id: String
) {
var _rev: String? = null
}
However, if I do anything to make the properties virtual -- have them override an interface, or make the class open and create a subclass which overrides them -- the _id field name becomes mangled to something like _id_mmz446$_0 and so PouchDB rejects the object. If I apply #JsName("_id") to the property, that only affects the generated getter and setter -- it still leaves the backing field with a mangled name.
Also, for any virtual properties whose names don't begin with _, PouchDB will accept the object but it only stores the backing fields with their mangled names, not the nicely-named properties.
For now I can work around things by making them not virtual, I think. But I was thinking of sharing interfaces between PouchDoc and non-PouchDoc classes in Kotlin, and it seems I can't do that.
Any idea how I could make this work, or does it need a Kotlin language change?
I think your problem should be covered by https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-8127
Also, I've created some other related issues:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-17682
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-17683
And right now You can use one of next solutions, IMO third is most lightweight.
interface PouchDoc1 {
var id: String
var _id: String
get() = id
set(v) { id = v}
var rev: String?
var _rev: String?
get() = rev
set(v) { rev = v}
}
class Impl1 : PouchDoc1 {
override var id = "id0"
override var rev: String? = "rev0"
}
interface PouchDoc2 {
var id: String
get() = this.asDynamic()["_id"]
set(v) { this.asDynamic()["_id"] = v}
var rev: String?
get() = this.asDynamic()["_rev"]
set(v) { this.asDynamic()["_rev"] = v}
}
class Impl2 : PouchDoc2 {
init {
id = "id1"
rev = "rev1"
}
}
external interface PouchDoc3 { // marker interface
}
var PouchDoc3.id: String
get() = this.asDynamic()["_id"]
set(v) { this.asDynamic()["_id"] = v}
var PouchDoc3.rev: String?
get() = this.asDynamic()["_rev"]
set(v) { this.asDynamic()["_rev"] = v}
class Impl3 : PouchDoc3 {
init {
id = "id1"
rev = "rev1"
}
}
fun keys(a: Any) = js("Object").getOwnPropertyNames(a)
fun printKeys(a: Any) {
println(a::class.simpleName)
println(" instance keys: " + keys(a).toString())
println("__proto__ keys: " + keys(a.asDynamic().__proto__).toString())
println()
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
printKeys(Impl1())
printKeys(Impl2())
printKeys(Impl3())
}
I got a good answer from one of the JetBrains guys, Alexey Andreev, over on the JetBrains forum at https://discuss.kotlinlang.org/t/controlling-the-jsname-of-fields-for-pouchdb-interop/2531/. Before I describe that, I'll mention a further failed attempt at refining #bashor's answer.
Property delegates
I thought that #bashor's answer was crying out to use property delegates but I couldn't get that to work without infinite recursion.
class JSMapDelegate<T>(
val jsobject: dynamic
) {
operator fun getValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>): T {
return jsobject[property.name]
}
operator fun setValue(thisRef: Any?, property: KProperty<*>, value: T) {
jsobject[property.name] = value
}
}
external interface PouchDoc4 {
var _id: String
var _rev: String
}
class Impl4() : PouchDoc4 {
override var _id: String by JSMapDelegate<String>(this)
override var _rev: String by JSMapDelegate<String>(this)
constructor(_id: String) : this() {
this._id = _id
}
}
The call within the delegate to jsobject[property.name] = value calls the set function for the property, which calls the delegate again ...
(Also, it turns out you can't put a delegate on a property in an interface, even though you can define a getter/setter pair which work just like a delegate, as #bashor's PouchDoc2 example shows.)
Using an external class
Alexey's answer on the Kotlin forums basically says, "You're mixing the business (with behaviour) and persistence (data only) layers: the right answer would be to explicitly serialise to/from JS but we don't provide that yet; as a workaround, use an external class." The point, I think, is that external classes don't turn into JavaScript which defines property getters/setters, because Kotlin doesn't let you define behaviour for external classes. Given that steer, I got the following to work, which does what I want.
external interface PouchDoc5 {
var _id: String
var _rev: String
}
external class Impl5 : PouchDoc5 {
override var _id: String
override var _rev: String
}
fun <T> create(): T = js("{ return {}; }")
fun Impl5(_id: String): Impl5 {
return create<Impl5>().apply {
this._id = _id
}
}
The output of keys for this is
null
instance keys: _id
__proto__ keys: toSource,toString,toLocaleString,valueOf,watch,unwatch,hasOwnProperty,isPrototypeOf,propertyIsEnumerable,__defineGetter__,__defineSetter__,__lookupGetter__,__lookupSetter__,__proto__,constructor
Creating external classes
Three notes about creating instances of external classes. First, Alexey said to write
fun <T> create(): T = js("{}")
but for me (with Kotlin 1.1) that turns into
function jsobject() {
}
whose return value is undefined. I think this might be a bug, because the official doc recommends the shorter form, too.
Second, you can't do this
fun Impl5(_id: String): Impl5 {
return (js("{}") as Impl5).apply {
this._id = _id
}
}
because that explicitly inserts a type-check for Impl5, which throws ReferenceError: Impl5 is not defined (in Firefox, at least). The generic function approach skips the type-check. I'm guessing that's not a bug, since Alexey recommended it, but it seems odd, so I'll ask him.
Lastly, you can mark create as inline, though you'll need to suppress a warning :-)

Ignore setter and set property directly

I have a class that writes a user to SharedPreferences every time it is set:
class UserManager #Inject constructor(
val prefs: SharedPreferences,
val jsonAdapter: JsonAdapter<User>
) {
companion object {
val USER = "user"
}
var user: User = User()
set(value) {
field = value
prefs.edit().putString(USER, jsonAdapter.toJson(user)).apply()
}
init {
val userString = prefs.getString(USER, null)
if (userString != null) {
user = jsonAdapter.fromJson(userString)
}
}
}
Problem: If the user is set in the init block, it calls the setter and writes the user that we just got from the shared prefs... to the shared prefs.
Question 1: How can I directly set the property from the init block?
Question 2: Why do I have to initialize the User when I define a custom setter, but can omit the initialization when the default setter is used?
You need to directily initiliaze the property with the correct value. You can do this using the run function from the stdlib:
class UserManager #Inject constructor(
val prefs: SharedPreferences,
val jsonAdapter: JsonAdapter<User>
) {
companion object {
val USER = "user"
}
var user: User = run {
val userString = prefs.getString(USER, null)
if (userString != null) {
jsonAdapter.fromJson(userString)
} else {
User()
}
}
set(value) {
field = value
prefs.edit().putString(USER, jsonAdapter.toJson(user)).apply()
}
}
Shorter syntax proposed by Ilya Ryzhenkov on the Kotlin Slack:
var user: User = prefs.getString(USER, null)?.let { jsonAdapter.fromJson(it) } ?: User()
set(value) {
field = value
prefs.edit().putString(USER, jsonAdapter.toJson(user)).apply()
}
I believe the best solution is to use the 'backing property' concept described here: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/properties.html#backing-properties
private var _table: Map<String, Int>? = null
public val table: Map<String, Int>
get() {
if (_table == null)
_table = HashMap() // Type parameters are inferred
return _table ?: throw AssertionError("Set to null by another thread")
}
Then initialize the backing property in the constructor and do <backingproperty> = value instead of field = value as well as point the getter to the backing property.
Take a look at by map delegate, seems like this is the pattern you want:
class User(val map: MutableMap<String, Any?>) {
var name: String by map
var age: Int by map
}
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/delegated-properties.html#storing-properties-in-a-map