val fr = javax.swing.JFileChooser()
val fw = fr.fileSystemView
val documentsPath = fw.getDefaultDirectory().toString()
println(documentsPath)
I tried this code but IDEA said "Use property access syntax"..
Is there a better way?
"Use property access syntax" is an inspection that "reports calls to java get and set methods that can be replaced with use of Kotlin synthetic properties."
i.e. You can replace fw.getDefaultDirectory() with fw.defaultDirectory.
Related
FYI: I'm currently using Mockk-1.12.4 and Kotlin-1.6
I've got an extension method that returns an object of type T:
fun <T> Entity.selectReferenceAsSingleObject(referenceName: String): T {
return this.selectReferencesByName(referenceName).single().asObjet() as T
}
This is defined as top level function in an Extentions.kt file (so not a class). I'm wanting to mock this with MockK by using mockkStatic
mockkStatic(Entity::selectReferenceAsOptionalSingleObject)
However I'm getting the error:
Not enough information to infer type variable T
because it cannot work out what type I should be mocking. I've tried adding my type parameter in a bunch of places
mockkStatic<KFunction<MyType>>(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic<MyType>(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic(Entity<KFunction<MyType>>::selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic(Entity<MyType>::selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic(Entity::<KFunction<MyType>>selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic(Entity::<MyType>selectReferenceAsSingleObject)
mockkStatic(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject<KFunction<MyType>>)
mockkStatic(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject<MyType>)
mockkStatic(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject as KFunction<MyType>)
mockkStatic(Entity::selectReferenceAsSingleObject as MyType)
But nothing works and it either tells me the same error or tells me that type arguments are not allowed there. I'm not sure what I need to do to fix my syntax as IntelliJ isn't giving me any hints so I feel kind of stuck. Any help would be appreciated.
Try this:
mockkStatic("your.package.YourFileExtensionKt")
you can also give the file a nice name:
#file:JvmName("Extension")
would look like this:
mockkStatic("your.package.Extension")
anyway for the test to work you must use a mock in the extended class, in this case Entity, it would look like this:
#Test
fun test() {
val entity : Entity = mockk(relaxed = true)
every { entity.selectReferenceAsSingleObject<Any>(any()) } returns "whatever"
val result = entity.selectReferenceAsSingleObject<Any>("test")
assertEquals("whatever", result)
}
Is it possible to create extension of final classes like String? Like in swift it is possible to add additional methods inside a extension of final class.
For an example - I would like to create a method in String extension which will tell me String have valid length for password.
val password : String = mEdtPassword!!.getText().toString()
// how to define haveValidLength method in extension
val isValid : Boolean = password.haveValidLength()
Note - That example is just for a sake to understand usability of extension, not a real scenario.
yes, you can. Kotin extension method provides the ability to extend a class with new functionality without having to inherit from the class or use any type of design pattern such as Decorator.
Below is an extension method for a String:
// v--- the extension method receiver type
fun String.at(value: Int) = this[value]
And the extension method code generated as Java below:
public static char at(String receiver, int value){
return receiver.charAt(value);
}
So an extension method in Kotlin is using delegation rather than inheritance.
Then you can calling an extension method like as its member function as below:
println("bar".at(1))//println 'a'
You also can write an extension method for the existing extension function, for example:
fun String.substring(value: Int): String = TODO()
// v--- throws exception rather than return "ar"
"bar".substring(1)
But you can't write an extension method for the existing member function, for example:
operator fun String.get(value: Int): Char = TODO()
// v--- return 'a' rather than throws an Exception
val second = "bar"[1]
Trying to add more detail, this answer might be helpful for someone.
Yes we can add additional methods to final classes like String. For an example I would like to add one method in String which will tell me that my String have valid number of characters for password or not.
So what I have to do is, I have ti create a below function which can be written in same class or at different separate class file.
fun String.hasValidPassword() : Boolean {
// Even no need to send string from outside, use 'this' for reference of a String
return !TextUtils.isEmpty(this) && this.length > 6
}
And now from anywhere call
val isValid : Boolean = password.haveValidLength()
Suggestion
If your application just has a single password validation, then there is no problem.
However, I don't suggest you write such a extension method hasValidPassword if the application has more than one validation. since the extension method is satically, you can't change your hasValidPassword in runtime. So if you want to change the validation in runtime, you should using a function instead, for example:
class PasswordRepository(private val validate:(String)->Boolean){
fun save(value:String){
if(validate(value)){
//TODO persist the password
}
}
}
val permitAll = PasswordRepository {true}
val denyAll = PasswordRepository {false}
permitAll.save("it will be persisted")
denyAll.save("it will not be persisted")
In other words, the extension method above violates Single Responsibility Principle, it does validation & string operations.
You can do that with extension functions in Kotlin. With extensions, you are able to add extra functionality to a class that you do or do not have access to; for example a legacy code base. In the example given in the Kotlin docs here, swap was added to MutableList<Int> which doesn't have swap originally. A this keyword is used that refers to the object that the swap functionality will operate on. In the example below, this refers to testList
val testList = mutableListOf(1, 2, 3)
testList.swap(0, 2)
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).
I am trying to deserialize a Json string into an object of type OperationResult<String> using Jackson with Kotlin.
I need to construct a type object like so:
val mapper : ObjectMapper = ObjectMapper();
val type : JavaType = mapper.getTypeFactory()
.constructParametricType(*/ class of OperationResult */,,
/* class of String */);
val result : OperationResult<String> = mapper.readValue(
responseString, type);
I've tried the following but they do not work.
val type : JavaType = mapper.getTypeFactory()
.constructParametricType(
javaClass<OperationResult>,
javaClass<String>); // Unresolved javaClass<T>
val type : JavaType = mapper.getTypeFactory()
.constructParametricType(
OperationResult::class,
String::class);
How do I get a java class from the type names?
You need to obtain instance of Class not KClass. To get it you simply use ::class.java instead of ::class.
val type : JavaType = mapper.typeFactory.constructParametricType(OperationResult::class.java, String::class.java)
Kotlin has a few things that become a concern when using Jackson, GSON or other libraries that instantiate Kotlin objects. One, is how do you get the Class, TypeToken, TypeReference or other specialized class that some libraries want to know about. The other is how can they construct classes that do not always have default constructors, or are immutable.
For Jackson, a module was built specifically to cover these cases. It is mentioned in #miensol's answer. He shows an example similar to:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.module.kotlin.* // added for clarity
val operationalResult: OperationalResult<Long> = mapper.readValue(""{"result":"5"}""")
This is actually calling an inline extension function added to ObjectMapper by the Kotlin module, and it uses the inferred type of the result grabbing the reified generics (available to inline functions) to do whatever is needed to tell Jackson about the data type. It creates a Jackson TypeReference behind the scenes for you and passes it along to Jackson. This is the source of the function:
inline fun <reified T: Any> ObjectMapper.readValue(content: String): T = readValue(content, object: TypeReference<T>() {})
You can easily code the same, but the module has a larger number of these helpers to do this work for you. In addition it handles being able to call non-default constructors and static factory methods for you as well. And in Jackson 2.8.+ it also can deal more intelligently with nullability and default method parameters (allowing the values to be missing in the JSON and therefore using the default value). Without the module, you will soon find new errors.
As for your use of mapper.typeFactory.constructParametricType you should use TypeReference instead, it is much easier and follows the same pattern as above.
val myTypeRef = object: TypeReference<SomeOtherClass>() {}
This code creates an anonymous instance of a class (via an object expression) that has a super type of TypeRefrence with your generic class specified. Java reflection can then query this information.
Be careful using Class directly because it erases generic type information, so using SomeOtherClass::class or SomeOtherClass::class.java all lose the generics and should be avoided for things that require knowledge of them.
So even if you can get away with some things without using the Jackson-Kotlin module, you'll soon run into a lot of pain later. Instead of having to mangle your Kotlin this module removes these types of errors and lets you do things more in the "Kotlin way."
The following works as expected:
val type = mapper.typeFactory.constructParametricType(OperationalResult::class.java, String::class.java)
val operationalResult = mapper.readValue<OperationalResult<String>>("""{"result":"stack"}""", type)
println(operationalResult.result) // -> stack
A simpler alternative to deserialize generic types using com.fasterxml.jackson.core.type.TypeReference:
val operationalResult = mapper.readValue<OperationalResult<Double>>("""{"result":"5.5"}""",
object : TypeReference<OperationalResult<Double>>() {})
println(operationalResult.result) // -> 5.5
And with the aid of jackson-kotlin-module you can even write:
val operationalResult = mapper.readValue<OperationalResult<Long>>("""{"result":"5"}""")
println(operationalResult.result)
I have something like this in the code
var barCode: BarCode? = null
now getBarCode() is defined in the interface - then I get the error that this might be an accidental override. unfortunately this does not work:
var barCode: BarCode? = null
override get
I could do something like this:
private var barCode: BarCode? = null
override fun getBarCode(): BarCode? = barCode
fun setBarCode(barCode: BarCode) {
this.barCode = barCode
}
but this looks like way to many likes and verbosity for kotlin - there must be a shorter way - especially as this pattern will repeat multiple times in this class
As of Kotlin 1.0, there is no shorter way: a method getBarCode() in a Java interface needs to be implemented by a method named getBarCode() in Kotlin, not by a property named barCode.
There's an issue requesting to make it possible to override Java methods with properties; you can vote for it to get notifications of updates.