I want to send some object to function for check it and set him some data.
For example:
i have 4 properties (with int type) of self class (inherit from NSObject class). And i want to change their data in one function. I must send dress of this properties into function, check it to compare with this dresses of this properties: self.opt1, self.opt2, self.opt3, self.opt4, and set them some values.
I try to create function:
- (void)setupMultiplierForObject:(id)object
but i don't know how i can check object argument to comparison self.opt1 (object to object, not their values).
What if must set into if (<here>) {} construction?
I fix-it with next construction:
[self setupMultiplierForObject:&((*self).time1)];
- (void)setupMultiplierForObject:(int*)object {
if (object == &((*self).time1)) {
// Doing something with self.time1, because we know that ended object - is self.time1
}
}
Related
I have looked around for a similar question, but cannot find a solution.
I have a couple of instances to the same type of object. As a simple example, a Pen object. This class contains size (Int) and color (String) properties. I need to mock a function (such as calculatePrice) that takes in this type of object. I would like it to return a result based on one of the properties.
every { calculatePrice(pen : Pen) } returns 3
every { calculatePrice(pen2 : Pen) } returns 4
Because this call is nested within another function, I cannot guarantee that the address of the object is the same, so I am attempting to get around this by checking a property value, such as pen.size. If there is a way to make sure the value of the object is the same, not the reference, that would solve my problem too.
Using Mockito, I would use argThat(pen -> pen.size() == 2)
Any recommendations would be much appreciated.
match should work, see https://mockk.io/#matchers
For example:
every { calculatePrice( match { it.size == 2 } ) } returns 3
I've been very worried about this kind of implementation
var stringRepresentation: String
get() = this.toString()
set(value) {
setDataFromString(value) // parses the string and assigns values to other properties
}
For me, it takes the assurance of who is assigning the value, because the outsider does not expect this behavior in the class, just want to set a value to that field.
In this case, I'd rather call one function to assign the value and another to call what needs to be called. Or just call a function with a good name that changes the value and does what it needs.
Is this kind of implementation dangerous and doesn't it break the encapsulation rules?
Thanks
The implementation for the usecase seems unusual and dangerous, because when calling a setter on a field I would never expect the behaviour of:
assigns values to other properties
I would recommend to create separate functions.
1) Your field is a function anyways:
fun stringRepresentation() = this.toString()
2) Setting other properties:
parseAndSetOther(value: String) {
/* parses the string and assigns values to other properties */
}
2.1) Maybe you could keep the object immutable and return a new - modified object:
parseAndSetOther(value: String) : MyClass {
/* parses the string and assigns values to other properties */
return this.copy(value = "new value", ...)
}
I'm currently using Reflection to inspect an element at runtime using the class.memberProperties function. The type of properties is collection<KProperty1<I, *>> so I run through each of the KProperty objects to find the one that I want by checking if the name is equal to "nameIWant", though I would much rather be able to get the instance of the property from the KProperty by using the .get() method on the property, so that then I could do a check such as:
if (property.get(receiver) is ClassIWant) {
//Do something
}
My code looks like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
run {
if (property.name.equals("nameIWant")) {
}
}
}
So far I've been trying to use the .get() method on the KProperty1 type but it takes an argument receiver of type Nothing. I'm not able to work out what I need to pass in order to call the .get() method and get the particular instance of the property. I've also checked the documentation here: https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.reflect/-k-property1/index.html but it hasn't really helped at all.
justPassingBy is right. but the more simple way is to use:
myObj.javaClass.kotlin.memberProperties.foreach { property ->
property.get(myObj)
}
If you want to get the value of the property, cast the class into invariant type.
instance::class.memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<out Instance, *>
(instance::class as KClass<Instance>).memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<Instance, *>
If your KClass<Instance> is KClass<*>, use Any as Instance.
Why did the KProperty.call take Nothing as receiver?
Because instance::class returns KClass<out Instance>, which propagates the covariant type argument down to the property, which it becomes KProperty<out Instance, *>, which narrows down the possible method receiver to any subtype of Instance, but because we do not know which, we can not safely supply any instance of Instance, as show by the rules of variance, which here limit the generic type argument to Nothing, which means it is impossible to call the method at all.
Why is ::class designed to be covariant?
To guarantee safety. This has been an issue of great debates as it seems somewhat illogical.
If you want to know the type of the value that the property can return, use
property.returnType
It returns a KType, wich is Kotlin's version of Java's Type, which is a more generic concept of a Class (which is one of the implementations of Type).
If you need to 'convert' the KType to a KClass, you need to do the same as if you needed to convert Type to a Class, which is get the raw type of the type. Raw type is type stripped of the any generic information, yes, an erased type. The way to do this is (seemingly) more complicated (involves handling each possible KType/Type implementation) and I recommend checking for answer to this problem separately.
You will be able to reuse Java implementation (that you will surely find on your own) using:
kType.javaType.covertJavaTypeToJavaClass().kotlin // returns KClass<*>
Corrections in your question. I recommend using the proper terms if you wish to receive proper answers:
* I in your question is type of the method receiver, not the value of the property
* collection is not a type, Collection is
* property is ClassIWantis ambiguous as property.type is type of the value in the property and property::class is simply the property implementation, is is also an instanceof check, but in reflection, you need to use KClass.isSubclassOf, or what is known in Java as type.isAssignableFrom (watch the call order), which then makes your condition to be ClassIWant.isSuperclassOf(property.type.getRawType())
* instance of the property properties have values, not instances. Only classes have instances. Instances are values and values are instances (of some class), but you must still say instance representing the value of the property
You can create a KType for your ClassIWant and then check the property's returnType. It will be something like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
val desiredType = ClassIWant::class.createType()
properties.forEach { property ->
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && property.returnType == desiredType) {
//todo
}
}
btw you can cast your property variable to correct type and use get
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
val value = (property as KProperty1<Payload, *>).get(request.payload)
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && value is ClassIWant) {
//todo
}
}
prop.getter.call(obj) as String?
I have noticed a situation where there is a class (say: ClassA) with variable declarations and various methods. And in another class (say: Class B), there is a method(MethodofClassB()) with the return type of the method as ClassA.
so it is like:
Class A
{
variable i,j;
public int MethodA()
{
//some operation
}
}
Class B
{
variable x,y;
public static A MethodB()
{
//some operation
return obj;
}
}
1) I understand that MethodB() return an object of ClassA. Waty would be the use(the intention) of returning the object of ClassA
2) What is the reason for defining MethodB() as Public static. what would happen if static was not used for MethodB()
3)What would the returned objct look like. I mean if my method returned an integer, it would return some numerical value say '123' . If a method returns an object of a class, what would be in the returrned value.
please help me understand this with a small example
1) I understand that MethodB() return an object of ClassA. Waty would be the use(the intention) of returning the object of ClassA
Depends on what the method does, which isn't illustrated in this example. If the result of the operation is an instance of A then it stands to reason that it would return an instance of A, whatever A is.
For example, if A is a Car and B is a CarFactory then the method is likely producing a new Car. So it would return a Car that's been produced.
2) What is the reason for defining MethodB() as Public static. what would happen if static was not used for MethodB()
public allows it to be accessed by other objects. static means it's not associated with a particular instance of B. Both are subjective based, again, on the purpose of the method (which isn't defined in the example). Being static, it can be called as such:
var newInstance = B.MethodB();
If it wasn't static then an instance of B would be required:
var objectB = new B();
var newInstance = objectB.MethodB();
There are more and more implications here, including things like memory/resource usage and thread safety. All stemming from the purpose and business logic meaning of what B is and what MethodB does.
3)What would the returned objct look like. I mean if my method returned an integer, it would return some numerical value say '123' . If a method returns an object of a class, what would be in the returrned value.
It would be an instance of A. Similar to creating an instance here:
var objectA = new A();
This method also creates (or in some way gets) an instance:
var objectA = B.MethodB();
Without knowing more about what A is, what its constructor does, and what MethodB does, these two operations are otherwise the same.
First, your code is incorrect. There is no "ClassA" class. The class name is A, so the return type should be A not ClassA.
Second, the standard Java coding standards say to start methods and variables with lower case letters. So, your example should have been:
Class A
{
A anA;
B aB;
public int methodA()
{
//some operation
}
}
Class B
{
SomeType x, y;
public static A methodB()
{
//some operation
return obj;
}
}
David's answer shortly before mine is technically correct on points 1 and 2, although he also uses your mistake of calling the A type ClassA. His code for his answer to point 3, though, is incorrect and misleading. I would change his wording to this:
`3)What would the returned objct look like. I mean if my method returned an
integer, it would return some numerical value say '123' . If a method returns
an object of a class, what would be in the returrned value`.
It would be an instance of class A. Similar to creating an instance here:
A objectA = new A();
This method also creates (or in some way gets) an instance:
A objectA = B.methodB();
Without knowing more about what class A is, what its constructor does, and what methodB does, these two operations are otherwise the same.
I am designing a class that stores (caches) a set of data. I want to lookup a value, if the class contains the value then use it and modify a property of the class. I am concerned about the design of the public interface.
Here is how the class is going to be used:
ClassItem *pClassItem = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (pClassItem)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
pClassItem->SetAttribute(something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However I don't want to have to expose ClassItem to this client (ClassItem is an implementation detail of MyClass).
To get round that the following could be considered:
bool found = myClass.Lookup(value);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class so modify and use it
myClass.ModifyAttribute(value, something);
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
However this is inefficient as Modify will have to do the lookup again. This would suggest a lookupAndModify type of method:
bool found = myClass.LookupAndModify(value, something);
if (found)
{ // item is found in class
... // use myClass
}
else
{ // value doesn't exist in the class so add it
myClass.Add(value, something);
}
But rolling LookupAndModify into one method seems like very poor design. It also only modifies if value is found and so the name is not only cumbersome but misleading as well.
Is there another better design that gets round this issue? Any design patterns for this (I couldn't find anything through google)?
Actually std::set<>::insert() does precisely this. If the value exists, it returns the iterator pointing to the existing item. Otherwise, the iterator where the insertion was made is returned.
It is likely that you are using a similar data structure for fast lookups anyway, so a clean public interface (calling site) will be:
myClass.SetAttribute(value, something)
which always does the right thing. MyClass handles the internal plumbing and clients don't worry about whether the value exists.
Two things.
The first solution is close.
Don't however, return ClassItem *. Return an "opaque object". An integer index or other hash code that's opaque (meaningless) to the client, but usable by the myClass instance.
Then lookup returns an index, which modify can subsequently use.
void *index = myClass.lookup( value );
if( index ) {
myClass.modify( index, value );
}
else {
myClass.add( value );
}
After writing the "primitive" Lookup, Modify and Add, then write your own composite operations built around these primitives.
Write a LookupAndModify, TryModify, AddIfNotExists and other methods built from your lower-level pieces.
This assumes that you're setting value to the same "something" in both the Modify and Add cases:
if (!myClass.AddIfNotExists(value, something)) {
// use myClass
}
Otherwise:
if (myClass.TryModify(value, something)) {
// use myClass
} else {
myClass.Add(value, otherSomething);
}