I have a data class defined as below
package com.mypackage.model
object Model {
data class News(val photo: String, val title: String, val description: String)
}
When I compile it using Proguard (i.e. release build), the data I received and store in the model all becomes null. They are still there i.e. ArrayList listOfNews does have the expected retrieved size. However all their content is null.
Debug build this is okay. To solve this, I use this proguard rules, and it resolve the problem.
-keep class com.mypackage.model.** { *; }
Is this expected? i.e. all Data Class should be pro-guarded?
as far as I can tell, that behavior is expected. It might be related to them being serializable or so. I also have to add the model classes to proguard.
Related
I want to write a task that takes a directory from , does something with the files in it and writes the result into some other directory to.
I've been led to believe this was the way to define such a task (kotlin dsl):
package my.app
abstract class FooBarTask : DefaultTask() {
#get:InputDirectory
abstract val from: Property<Directory>
#get:OutputDirectory
abstract val to: Property<Directory>
#TaskAction
fun doSomething() {
println("Hakuna Matata")
}
}
now how do I set the from and to value in a groovy-based build.gradle?
def myTask = tasks.register('myTask', FooBarTask) {
from = layout.projectDirectory.dir("foo")
to = layout.buildDirectory.dir("bar")
}
this results in
Could not create task ':my-subproject:myTask'.
> Please use the ObjectFactory.directoryProperty() method to create a property of type Directory.
and it shouldn't.
How do you correctly define a directory property in a custom task?
Gradle has the specialized DirectoryProperty, that offers some additional functionality, compared to the plain Property<Directory> which is one of the implemented interfaces. So this specialized type should be used when declaring directory inputs/outputs.
I'm actually not a 100% sure what caused the error you saw.
I would like to semantically constrain a map to only accept "data" class object types as the value in kotlin like so:
class Test(
val test : Int
)
data class Test2 (
val test : Int
)
fun test(map : Map<String, /* compile error on Test, but accept Test2 or any other data class */>) {
}
I'm mainly trying to do this so that I can keep everything in the map cloneable, but when I do this:
fun <T: Cloneable> test(map : Map<String, T>) {
// test clone
map.map { it.key.uuid to it.value.clone() } .toMap() // error on .clone() Cannot access 'clone': it is protected in 'Cloneable'
}
but I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public? Essentially I'm looking for a compile time guarantee that all data is copyable in that method invocation, (is a primitive type, a data class that I can call .copy() on, or any object that has implemented Cloneable). Is my only option reflection and runtime assertions?
I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public?
No, it's simply a marker interface, which tells the protected Object.clone() method not to throw a CloneNotSupportedException. In practice, classes that implement Cloneable will usually override clone() and make it public, but that's not necessary. And of course that's no help when you don't know the exact type!
The cloning mechanism was an early part of Java, and not very well-designed. (Effective Java calls it “a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated”.) But it's still used, so we're stuck with it…
(See also these related answers.)
I don't know whether this is the best way or not, but how about you to use property like below.
SomeClass::class.isData
Kdoc says
true if this class is a data class.
If I am modeling my value objects using Kotlin data classes what is the best way to handle validation. Seems like the init block is the only logical place since it executes after the primary constructor.
data class EmailAddress(val address: String) {
init {
if (address.isEmpty() || !address.matches(Regex("^[a-zA-Z0-9]+#[a-zA-Z0-9]+(.[a-zA-Z]{2,})$"))) {
throw IllegalArgumentException("${address} is not a valid email address")
}
}
}
Using JSR-303 Example
The downside to this is it requires load time weaving
#Configurable
data class EmailAddress(#Email val address: String) {
#Autowired
lateinit var validator: Validator
init {
validator.validate(this)
}
}
It seems unreasonable to me to have object creation validation anywhere else but in the class constructor. This is the place responsible for the creation, so that is the place where the rules which define what is and isn't a valid instance should be. From a maintenance perspective it also makes sense to me as it would be the place where I would look for such rules if I had to guess.
I did make a comment, but I thought I would share my approach to validation instead.
First, I think it is a mistake to perform validation on instantiation. This will make the boundary between deserialization and handing over to your controllers messy. Also, to me, if you are sticking to a clean architecture, validation is part of your core logic, and you should ensure with tests on your core logic that it is happening.
So, to let me tackle this how I wish, I first define my own core validation api. Pure kotlin. No frameworks or libraries. Keep it clean.
interface Validatable {
/**
* #throws [ValidationErrorException]
*/
fun validate()
}
class ValidationErrorException(
val errors: List<ValidationError>
) : Exception() {
/***
* Convenience method for getting a data object from the Exception.
*/
fun toValidationErrors() = ValidationErrors(errors)
}
/**
* Data object to represent the data of an Exception. Convenient for serialization.
*/
data class ValidationErrors(
val errors : List<ValidationError>
)
data class ValidationError(
val path: String,
val message: String
)
Then I have a framework specific implementations. For example a javax.validation.Validation implementation:
open class ValidatableJavax : Validatable {
companion object {
val validator = Validation.buildDefaultValidatorFactory().validator!!
}
override fun validate() {
val violations = validator.validate(this)
val errors = violations.map {
ValidationError(it.propertyPath.toString(), it.message)
}.toMutableList()
if (errors.isNotEmpty()) {
throw ValidationErrorException(errors = errors)
}
}
}
The only problem with this, is that the javax annotations don't play so well with kotlin data objects - but here is an example of a class with validation:
import javax.validation.constraints.Positive
class MyObject(
myNumber: BigDecimal
) : ValidatableJavax() {
#get:Positive(message = "Must be positive")
val myNumber: BigDecimal = myNumber
}
Actually, it looks like that validation is not a responsibility of data classes. data tells for itself — it's used for data storage.
So if you would like to validate data class, it will make perfect sense to set #get: validation on arguments of the constructor and validate outside of data class in class, responsible for construction.
Your second option is not to use data class, just use simple class and implement whole logic in the constructor passing validator there
Also, if you use Spring Framework — you can make this class Bean with prototype scope, but chances are it will be absolutely uncomfortable to work with such kind of spaghetti-code :)
I disagree with your following statement :
Seems like the init block is the only logical place since it executes after the primary constructor.
Validation should not be done at construction time, because sometimes, you need to have intermediate steps before getting a valid object, and it does not work well with Spring MVC for example.
Maybe use a specific interface (like suggested in previous answer) with a method dedicated to executing validation.
For the validation framework, I personnaly use valiktor, as I found it a lot less cumbersome that JSR-303
Is it possible to add a new static method to the java.lang.Math class in Kotlin? Usually, such things are possible in Kotlin thanks to Kotlin Extensions.
I already tried doing the following in a file I made called Extensions.kt:
fun Math.Companion.clamp(value:Double,minValue:Double,maxValue:Double):Double
{
return Math.max(Math.min(value,maxValue),minValue)
}
but Math.Companion could not be resolved...
As of Kotlin 1.3, this is not possible. However, it's being considered for a future release!
To help this feature get implemented, go vote on this issue: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-11968
Because all proposals are basically in limbo right now, I wouldn't hold my breath that this will get in any time soon
I think this is not possible. Documentation says the following:
If a class has a companion object defined, you can also define extension functions and properties for the companion object.
The Math class is a Java class, not a Kotlin one and does not have a companion object in it. You can add a clamp method to the Double class instead.
As of Kotlin 1.2 it is still not possible.
As a workaround, to statically "extend" Environment class I am currently using:
Class EnvironmentExtensions {
companion object {
#JvmStatic
fun getSomething(): File {
...
return Environment.something()
}
}
}
It is not an ideal solution but IntelliJ/Android Studio code completion helps with the usage:
val something = EnvironmentExtensions.getSomething()
Is there a way to use Parceler with Kotlin data classes and constructor for serialization without using #ParcelProperty annotation for each field?
If I try and use library like this:
#Parcel
data class Valve #ParcelConstructor constructor(val size: Int)
I get Error:Parceler: No corresponding property found for constructor parameter arg0. But if I add #ParcelProperty("size") it works just fine.
Why is that?
Update:
There are other another way to use this library.
I could just remove #ParcelConstructor annotation, but then I will get error
Error:Parceler: No #ParcelConstructor annotated constructor and no default empty bean constructor found.
I think (haven't tested it) I also could make all constructor parameters optional and add #JvmOverloads but that has a side effect that I have to check all properties of the class if they are null or not.
Update 2:
This is what worked for me:
#Parcel
data class Valve(val size: Int? = null)
In short generated Java class must have default empty constructor. One way to achieve that is to do as above - all variables should have default values.
According to the docs, Parceler by default works with public fields. But a usual Kotlin data class (as in your example) is rather a "traditional getter/setter bean", since every Kotlin property is represented by a private field and a getter/[setter].
TL; DR: I think this will work:
#Parcel(Serialization.BEAN)
data class Valve(val size: Int = 10)
Note the default value, it allows Kotlin to automatically generate an additional empty constructor, which is required by the Java Been specification.
Another way would be to mark the constructor that we already have:
#Parcel(Serialization.BEAN)
data class Driver #ParcelConstructor constructor(val name: String)
The specific document: https://github.com/johncarl81/parceler#gettersetter-serialization
I know this question already has an answer, but for future viewers who are also struggling to get Parceler to work with kotlin data objects, I wrote a new annotation processor to generate the Parcelable boilerplate for Kotlin data classes. It's designed to massively reduce the boilerplate code in making your data classes Parcelable:
https://github.com/grandstaish/paperparcel
Usage:
Annotate your data class with #PaperParcel, implement PaperParcelable, and add a JVM static instance of the generated CREATOR e.g.:
#PaperParcel
data class Example(
val test: Int,
...
) : PaperParcelable {
companion object {
#JvmField val CREATOR = PaperParcelExample.CREATOR
}
}
Now your data class is Parcelable and can be passed directly to a Bundle or Intent
Edit: Update with latest API
Just add the default constructor:
#Parcel
data class Valve(val size: Int) {
constructor() : this(0)
}
if you use Kotlin 1.1.4 or above it's easier to use #Parcelize annotation
For doing this first add this to build.gradle
android {
//other codes
//for using latest experimental build of Android Extensions
androidExtensions {
experimental = true
}
}
Then change your class like this
#Parcelize
data class Valve(val size: Int? = null) : Parcelable