How to obtain all subclasses of a given sealed class? - kotlin

Recently we upgraded one of our enum class to sealed class with objects as sub-classes so we can make another tier of abstraction to simplify code. However we can no longer get all possible subclasses through Enum.values() function, which is bad because we heavily rely on that functionality. Is there a way to retrieve such information with reflection or any other tool?
PS: Adding them to a array manually is unacceptable. There are currently 45 of them, and there are plans to add more.
This is how our sealed class looks like:
sealed class State
object StateA: State()
object StateB: State()
object StateC: State()
....// 42 more
If there is an values collection, it will be in this shape:
val VALUES = setOf(StateA, StateB, StateC, StateC, StateD, StateE,
StateF, StateG, StateH, StateI, StateJ, StateK, StateL, ......
Naturally no one wants to maintain such a monster.

In Kotlin 1.3+ you can use sealedSubclasses.
In prior versions, if you nest the subclasses in your base class then you can use nestedClasses:
Base::class.nestedClasses
If you nest other classes within your base class then you'll need to add filtering. e.g.:
Base::class.nestedClasses.filter { it.isFinal && it.isSubclassOf(Base::class) }
Note that this gives you the subclasses and not the instances of those subclasses (unlike Enum.values()).
With your particular example, if all of your nested classes in State are your object states then you can use the following to get all of the instances (like Enum.values()):
State::class.nestedClasses.map { it.objectInstance as State }
And if you want to get really fancy you can even extend Enum<E: Enum<E>> and create your own class hierarchy from it to your concrete objects using reflection. e.g.:
sealed class State(name: String, ordinal: Int) : Enum<State>(name, ordinal) {
companion object {
#JvmStatic private val map = State::class.nestedClasses
.filter { klass -> klass.isSubclassOf(State::class) }
.map { klass -> klass.objectInstance }
.filterIsInstance<State>()
.associateBy { value -> value.name }
#JvmStatic fun valueOf(value: String) = requireNotNull(map[value]) {
"No enum constant ${State::class.java.name}.$value"
}
#JvmStatic fun values() = map.values.toTypedArray()
}
abstract class VanillaState(name: String, ordinal: Int) : State(name, ordinal)
abstract class ChocolateState(name: String, ordinal: Int) : State(name, ordinal)
object StateA : VanillaState("StateA", 0)
object StateB : VanillaState("StateB", 1)
object StateC : ChocolateState("StateC", 2)
}
This makes it so that you can call the following just like with any other Enum:
State.valueOf("StateB")
State.values()
enumValueOf<State>("StateC")
enumValues<State>()
UPDATE
Extending Enum directly is no longer supported in Kotlin. See
Disallow to explicitly extend Enum class : KT-7773.

With Kotlin 1.3+ you can use reflection to list all sealed sub-classes without having to use nested classes: https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.reflect/-k-class/sealed-subclasses.html
I asked for some feature to achieve the same without reflection: https://discuss.kotlinlang.org/t/list-of-sealed-class-objects/10087

Full example:
sealed class State{
companion object {
fun find(state: State) =
State::class.sealedSubclasses
.map { it.objectInstance as State}
.firstOrNull { it == state }
.let {
when (it) {
null -> UNKNOWN
else -> it
}
}
}
object StateA: State()
object StateB: State()
object StateC: State()
object UNKNOWN: State()
}

A wise choice is using ServiceLoader in kotlin. and then write some providers to get a common class, enum, object or data class instance. for example:
val provides = ServiceLoader.load(YourSealedClassProvider.class).iterator();
val subInstances = providers.flatMap{it.get()};
fun YourSealedClassProvider.get():List<SealedClass>{/*todo*/};
the hierarchy as below:
Provider SealedClass
^ ^
| |
-------------- --------------
| | | |
EnumProvider ObjectProvider ObjectClass EnumClass
| |-------------------^ ^
| <uses> |
|-------------------------------------------|
<uses>
Another option, is more complicated, but it can meet your needs since sealed classes in the same package. let me tell you how to archive in this way:
get the URL of your sealed class, e.g: ClassLoader.getResource("com/xxx/app/YourSealedClass.class")
scan all jar entry/directory files in parent of sealed class URL, e.g: jar://**/com/xxx/app or file://**/com/xxx/app, and then find out all the "com/xxx/app/*.class" files/entries.
load filtered classes by using ClassLoader.loadClass(eachClassName)
check the loaded class whether is a subclass of your sealed class
decide how to get the subclass instance, e.g: Enum.values(), object.INSTANCE.
return all of instances of the founded sealed classes

If you want use it at child class try this.
open class BaseSealedClass(val value: String, val name: Int) {
companion object {
inline fun<reified T:BaseSealedClass> valueOf(value: String): T? {
return T::class.nestedClasses
.filter { clazz -> clazz.isSubclassOf(T::class) }
.map { clazz -> clazz.objectInstance }
.filterIsInstance<T>()
.associateBy { it.value }[value]
}
inline fun<reified T:BaseSealedClass> values():List<T> =
T::class.nestedClasses
.filter { clazz -> clazz.isSubclassOf(T::class) }
.map { clazz -> clazz.objectInstance }
.filterIsInstance<T>()
}
}
#Stable
sealed class Theme(value: String, name: Int): BaseSealedClass(value, name) {
object Auto: Theme(value = "auto", name = R.string.setting_general_theme_auto)
object Light: Theme(value= "light", name = R.string.setting_general_theme_light)
object Dark: Theme(value= "dark", name = R.string.setting_general_theme_dark)
companion object {
fun valueOf(value: String): Theme? = BaseSealedClass.valueOf(value)
fun values():List<Theme> = BaseSealedClass.values()
}
}

For a solution without reflection this is a library that supports generating a list of types to sealed classes at compile time:
https://github.com/livefront/sealed-enum
The example in the docs
sealed class Alpha {
object Beta : Alpha()
object Gamma : Alpha()
#GenSealedEnum
companion object
}
will generate the following object:
object AlphaSealedEnum : SealedEnum<Alpha> {
override val values: List<Alpha> = listOf(
Alpha.Beta,
Alpha.Gamma
)
override fun ordinalOf(obj: Alpha): Int = when (obj) {
Alpha.Beta -> 0
Alpha.Gamma -> 1
}
override fun nameOf(obj: AlphaSealedEnum): String = when (obj) {
Alpha.Beta -> "Alpha_Beta"
Alpha.Gamma -> "Alpha_Gamma"
}
override fun valueOf(name: String): AlphaSealedEnum = when (name) {
"Alpha_Beta" -> Alpha.Beta
"Alpha_Gamma" -> Alpha.Gamma
else -> throw IllegalArgumentException("""No sealed enum constant $name""")
}
}

The short version is
State::class.sealedSubclasses.mapNotNull { it.objectInstance }

Related

How to change return type based on a function input which is a class name?

I have multiple data classes and each class has a corresponding class containing more info. I want to write a function in which I should be able to pass an identifier (table name corresponding to the data class). Based on this identifier, object of the corresponding class should be made, the value changed and this object should be returned as output of the function. I have written a simplified version of it on playground but I am unable to get it to work. Any help is appreciated.
class someClass(
)
class objectForSomeClass(
var value: String
)
class someOtherClass(
)
class objectForSomeOtherClass(
var value: String
)
class doSomething() {
companion object {
val classMap = mapOf(
"someClass" to objectForSomeClass::class,
"someOtherClass" to objectForSomeOtherClass::class,
)
}
// Create a map of class name to a new object based on the class name input
fun dummyFun(className: String, valueInput: String): Map<String, kotlin.Any> {
var returnObject = mutableListOf<Pair<String, kotlin.Any>>()
when(className) {
"SOME_CLASS" -> {
returnObject = mutableListOf<Pair<String, justDoIt.classMap["someClass"]()>>()
}
"SOME_OTHER_CLASS" -> {
returnObject = Map<String, justDoIt.classMap["someOtherClass"]()>
}
}
returnObject[className].value = valueInput
return returnObject
}
}
fun main() {
var obj = doSomething()
var t = obj.dummyFun("SOME_CLASS", "Value to be inserted")
// do something with t
}
Not knowing more about your classes (the ones in your code are not data classes – a data class in Kotlin is a specific type of class) I still think a lot could be simplified down to maybe even this:
fun createObject(className: String, value: String): Any? {
return when (className) {
"SomeClass" -> ObjectForSomeClass(value)
"SomeOtherClass" -> ObjectForSomeOtherClass(value)
// ...
else -> null
}
}
Additionally:
The classMap is not necessary, you can hard-code the cases in the when clause as in my example. There is also no need for reflection, which you would need to create instances from SomeType::class.
With getting rid of classMap you also do not need the companion object holding it anymore, and then you are left with one function for creating instances of your classes, and this function does not have to be in a class. You might put it into a singleton class called object in Kotlin (https://kotlinlang.org/docs/object-declarations.html#object-expressions)
Data classes in Kotlin: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/data-classes.html
You could maybe also replace each class someClass & class objectForSomeClass pair with a class someClass with a companion object.

Generics in Objects

I have a question about sealed class, generics and object.
Let's say I would like to model something like 3 finite cases with a sealed class something like this:
sealed class ChangeState<S> {
fun reduceState(state: S): S
}
data class SetState<S>(val newState: S) : ChangeState<S>() {
override fun reduce(state: S): S = newState
}
object NoStateChange : ChangeState<Nothing>() { // What do I specify here for ChangeState? Nothing?
override fun reduce(state: Nothing): Nothing {
throw Exception("This should never be called")
}
}
The goal is to provide a convenient way to define NoStateChange in a generic way that it can be used as following:
fun foo(i : Int) : ChangeState<Int> {
return if (i==0)
NoStateChange // Won't compile because return type is ChangeState<Nothing> but expected ChangeState<Int>
else
SetState(i)
}
Is there a way to do that with object and Generics somehow?
As pointed out by #Tenfour04 the issue is that out is needed but reduceState() would require in as well. However, reduceState() can be refactored out of the class hierarchy and moved to an extension function like that:
sealed class ChangeState<out S>
data class SetState<S>(val newState: S) : ChangeState<S>()
object NoStateChange : ChangeState<Nothing>()
fun <S> ChangeState<S>.reduce(state: S): S {
return when (val change = this) {
is SetState -> change.newState
is NoStateChange -> state
}
}

Kotlin: common interface on Enum class with static method to map from String

Suppose I have many enum classes like the following:
enum class Hero(val alias: String) {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
companion object {
fun fromAlias(value: String): Hero? = Hero.values().find { it.alias.equals(value, true) }
}
}
enum class Villain(val alias: String) {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
companion object {
fun fromAlias(value: String): Villain? = Villain.values().find { it.alias.equals(value, true) }
}
}
I'd like to be able to create a generic interface to handle the fromAlias method in such a way that I can still call it using Hero.fromAlias("Bruce Wayne"). So my enum classes would be simplified to something like:
enum class Hero(override val alias: String): AliasedEnum<Hero> {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
}
enum class Villain(override val alias: String): AliasedEnum<Villain> {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
}
I attempted to incorporate the answer from Kotlin define interface for enum class values method, but couldn't see a way to access the enum values() from the companion object in the interface. Is there a clean way to do what I am wanting?
You can quite easily do this by using the fact that companion object objects can extend other classes.
Pretty much any solution will require two different parts, since you need:
A common interface that provides any data required for the function, so it is available regardless of the actual implementation.
A way to attach the shared function to the companion object for <Class>.function access. This can either be an abstract class with the required implementation or a marker class with the implementation as an extension function.
In the end the "cleanest" solution would probably be this:
// Attaching point for the extension function which provides the answer
interface EnumCompanion<T : Enum<T>>
// Marker interface to provide the common data
interface WithAlias {
val alias: String
}
inline fun <reified T> EnumCompanion<T>.fromAlias(
value: String
): T? where T : Enum<T>, T : WithAlias {
return enumValues<T>().find { it.alias == value }
}
// Define the enums and attach the helper to their companion object
enum class Hero(override val alias: String) : WithAlias {
SUPERMAN("Clark Kent"),
BATMAN("Bruce Wayne");
companion object : EnumCompanion<Hero>
}
enum class Villain(override val alias: String) : WithAlias {
TWO_FACE("Harvey Dent"),
RIDDLER("Edward Nigma");
companion object : EnumCompanion<Villain>
}
fun main() {
println(Hero.fromAlias("Bruce Wayne"))
println(Villain.fromAlias("Edward Nigma"))
}

Reference outside the sealed class in Kotlin?

I'm trying to create a class that uses its own state to operate on the state of an external object that it holds a reference to. The external object can be of class A or B, which are similar, but not controlled by the author. So a sealed class is created to access their common attributes, per this earlier answer from #SimY4.
// *** DOES NOT COMPILE ***
class A { // foreign class whose structure is not modifiable
val prop get()= "some string made the Class-A way"
}
class B { // foreign class whose structure is not modifiable
val prop get()= "some string made the Class-B way"
}
data class ABTool (val obj:AB, val i:Int, val j:Int) {
// class that manipulates i and j and uses them to do
// things with AB's "common" attributes through the sealed class AB
sealed class AB { // substitute for a common interface
abstract val prop: String
abstract val addmagic: String
data class BoxA(val o:A) : AB() {
override val prop get()= o.prop
override val addmagic get() = prop + this#???.magic // HOW TO REFERENCE?
}
data class BoxB(val o:B) : AB() {
override val prop get()= o.prop
override val addmagic get() = this#???.magic + prop // HOW TO REFERENCE?
}
}
val magic get()= "magic: ${i*j}"
}
The problem now is that I've figured out I can't operate on the external object in the way I want, because a sealed class can't refer to its outer class members. Is there a better way to make this work, even if using a different approach (other than sealed class), while:
not changing foreign classes A or B;
respecting that A and B (and many others in the real case) are similar, so I'm trying to write one tool that calculates and adds magic to A and B with the same code base; and
noting that although the ABTool tools are the same, the way they are applied to add magic is slightly different in A vs. B, just as the to access the conceptually common elements of A and B may be different.
Any thoughts on this or a similar workaround? Maybe a more functional approach that I haven't conceived yet?
If ABTool being a sealed class is something you can give up, then here's a solution:
Replace sealed with inner abstract at the ABTool declaration;
Mark BoxA and BoxB as inner as well;
data class ABTool(val obj: AB, val i: Int, val j: Int) {
inner abstract class AB {
abstract val prop: String
abstract val addmagic: String
inner class BoxA(val o: A) : AB() {
override val prop get() = o.prop
override val addmagic get() = prop + magic
}
inner class BoxB(val o: B) : AB() {
override val prop get() = o.prop
override val addmagic get() = magic + prop
}
}
val magic get() = "magic: ${i * j}"
}
(alternatively, instead of marking AB as inner, move BoxA and BoxB out of it to the scope of ABTool)
An alternative would be to add an ABTool field to AB:
sealed class AB(val tool: ABTool) {
abstract val prop: String
abstract val addmagic: String
data class BoxA(val o:A, tool: ABTool) : AB(tool) {
override val prop get()= o.prop
override val addmagic get() = prop + tool.magic
}
data class BoxB(val o:B, tool: ABTool) : AB(tool) {
override val prop get()= o.prop
override val addmagic get() = tool.magic + prop
}
}
and pass this when creating it from ABTool. That's just what inner really does, after all.
In this specific case the field happens to be unused in AB itself and so you can remove it from there and make it val in BoxA and BoxB.

How to specify "own type" as return type in Kotlin

Is there a way to specify the return type of a function to be the type of the called object?
e.g.
trait Foo {
fun bar(): <??> /* what to put here? */ {
return this
}
}
class FooClassA : Foo {
fun a() {}
}
class FooClassB : Foo {
fun b() {}
}
// this is the desired effect:
val a = FooClassA().bar() // should be of type FooClassA
a.a() // so this would work
val b = FooClassB().bar() // should be of type FooClassB
b.b() // so this would work
In effect, this would be roughly equivalent to instancetype in Objective-C or Self in Swift.
There's no language feature supporting this, but you can always use recursive generics (which is the pattern many libraries use):
// Define a recursive generic parameter Me
trait Foo<Me: Foo<Me>> {
fun bar(): Me {
// Here we have to cast, because the compiler does not know that Me is the same as this class
return this as Me
}
}
// In subclasses, pass itself to the superclass as an argument:
class FooClassA : Foo<FooClassA> {
fun a() {}
}
class FooClassB : Foo<FooClassB> {
fun b() {}
}
You can return something's own type with extension functions.
interface ExampleInterface
// Everything that implements ExampleInterface will have this method.
fun <T : ExampleInterface> T.doSomething(): T {
return this
}
class ClassA : ExampleInterface {
fun classASpecificMethod() {}
}
class ClassB : ExampleInterface {
fun classBSpecificMethod() {}
}
fun example() {
// doSomething() returns ClassA!
ClassA().doSomething().classASpecificMethod()
// doSomething() returns ClassB!
ClassB().doSomething().classBSpecificMethod()
}
You can use an extension method to achieve the "returns same type" effect. Here's a quick example that shows a base type with multiple type parameters and an extension method that takes a function which operates on an instance of said type:
public abstract class BuilderBase<A, B> {}
public fun <B : BuilderBase<*, *>> B.doIt(): B {
// Do something
return this
}
public class MyBuilder : BuilderBase<Int,String>() {}
public fun demo() {
val b : MyBuilder = MyBuilder().doIt()
}
Since extension methods are resolved statically (at least as of M12), you may need to have the extension delegate the actual implementation to its this should you need type-specific behaviors.
Recursive Type Bound
The pattern you have shown in the question is known as recursive type bound in the JVM world. A recursive type is one that includes a function that uses that type itself as a type for its parameter or its return value. In your example, you are using the same type for the return value by saying return this.
Example
Let's understand this with a simple and real example. We'll replace trait from your example with interface because trait is now deprecated in Kotlin. In this example, the interface VitaminSource returns different implementations of the sources of different vitamins.
In the following interface, you can see that its type parameter has itself as an upper bound. This is why it's known as recursive type bound:
VitaminSource.kt
interface VitaminSource<T: VitaminSource<T>> {
fun getSource(): T {
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
return this as T
}
}
We suppress the UNCHECKED_CAST warning because the compiler can't possibly know whether we passed the same class name as a type argument.
Then we extend the interface with concrete implementations:
Carrot.kt
class Carrot : VitaminSource<Carrot> {
fun getVitaminA() = println("Vitamin A")
}
Banana.kt
class Banana : VitaminSource<Banana> {
fun getVitaminB() = println("Vitamin B")
}
While extending the classes, you must make sure to pass the same class to the interface otherwise you'll get ClassCastException at runtime:
class Banana : VitaminSource<Banana> // OK
class Banana : VitaminSource<Carrot> // No compiler error but exception at runtime
Test.kt
fun main() {
val carrot = Carrot().getSource()
carrot.getVitaminA()
val banana = Banana().getSource()
banana.getVitaminB()
}
That's it! Hope that helps.
Depending on the exact use case, scope functions can be a good alternative. For the builder pattern apply seems to be most useful because the context object is this and the result of the scope function is this as well.
Consider this example for a builder of List with a specialized builder subclass:
open class ListBuilder<E> {
// Return type does not matter, could also use Unit and not return anything
// But might be good to avoid that to not force users to use scope functions
fun add(element: E): ListBuilder<E> {
...
return this
}
fun buildList(): List<E> {
...
}
}
class EnhancedListBuilder<E>: ListBuilder<E>() {
fun addTwice(element: E): EnhancedListBuilder<E> {
addNTimes(element, 2)
return this
}
fun addNTimes(element: E, times: Int): EnhancedListBuilder<E> {
repeat(times) {
add(element)
}
return this
}
}
// Usage of builder:
val list = EnhancedListBuilder<String>().apply {
add("a") // Note: This would return only ListBuilder
addTwice("b")
addNTimes("c", 3)
}.buildList()
However, this only works if all methods have this as result. If one of the methods actually creates a new instance, then that instance would be discarded.
This is based on this answer to a similar question.
You can do it also via extension functions.
class Foo
fun <T: Foo>T.someFun(): T {
return this
}
Foo().someFun().someFun()