I am creating a string of data class for our API optimization like this
data class ex:
#MyAnnotation
data class Cast(
#Json(name = "cast_id")
val castId: Int,
val name: String,
#Json(name = "profile_path")
val profilePath: String?
)
wanted result:
{"cast_id":1, "name":1, "profile_path":1}
but currently able to generate it
"{"castId":1, "name":1, "profilePath":1}"
I want access #JSON (or #SerializedName) annotation and its value, how do I get it?
then Using Kotlin poet to create class with this string init.
class Person(name: String, age: Int, numThings: Option[Int] = Some(15))
I can use Scala reflection to obtain defaults on a case class like this:
val companionType: Type = classSymbol.companion.typeSignature
val companionObject = currentMirror.reflectModule(classSymbol.companion.asModule).instance
val companionMirror = currentMirror.reflect(companionObject)
val defaultValueAccessorMirror =
if (member.typeSignature.typeSymbol.isClass) {
val defaultValueAccessor = companionType.member(TermName("apply$default$" + (index + 1)))
if (defaultValueAccessor.isMethod) {
Some(companionMirror.reflectMethod(defaultValueAccessor.asMethod))
} else {
None
}
} else {
None
}
This obtains the method in the generated companion object that, when called, coughs up the default value. Sadly, a non-case class doesn't appear to have this facility.
How can I obtain the default value for Person.numThings in the example above using either Scala or Java reflection?
I think that it should be much easier to retrieve these default values through Java reflection, instead of this over-complicated Scala's reflect...
When compiled into a .class file, default parameter values are translated into static methods with specific suffixes in names. These values can be retrieved by invoking the respective method on the class reference.
So, for example, we have both a case and a non-case classes:
class Person(name: String, age: Int, numThings: Option[Int] = Some(15))
case class Item(id: Long, other: String = "unknown")
First we need to determine the ordinal indices of the params to retrieve defaults for. I do not know your use case, so let's suppose you know or calculated them. They will be 3 for Person and 2 for Item. Yes, they are not 0-based.
And this very short method retrieves the values:
private def extractDefaultConstructorParamValue(clazz: Class[_],
iParam: Int): Any = {
val methodName = "$lessinit$greater$default$" + iParam
clazz.getMethod(methodName).invoke(clazz)
}
Calling them with
val defParamNonCase = extractDefaultConstructorParamValue(classOf[Person], 3)
val defParamCase = extractDefaultConstructorParamValue(classOf[Item], 2)
println(defParamNonCase)
println(defParamCase)
outputs
Some(15)
unknown
I have the following Kotlin data class:
data class Filter #JvmOverloads constructor(
val key: String? = null,
val operation: String? = null,
val value: String? = null,
val group: String? = null,
val searchInTranslations: Boolean? = null)
I create an instance of this class in Java code. But I want to create an instance with all the fields except for the group field. How can I do it in Java?
I can't assign a default value to group because in some Java classes I do assign a value to this field, in other Java classes I need to omit this field from object creation.
Java doesn't support this, but you can make a simple trick.
Generate two constructors, one with the optional field group, one without it.
So from the classes you don't need to assign a value to that field, simply make a call to the second constructor:
public YourClass(String key, String operation, String value, bool search)
{
this (key, operation, value, null, search); //null for the groups
}
I can't figure out how should i deal with generics in kotlin.
I'm writing a history class for changes made on generic objects, which should get any type of class as parameter: after that, I would compare the old object values with the new object values, and if I found a difference, I'll write that in my data class.
I've succedeed doing that with java with bean.getClass().getMethods();, but I want to trying move to Kotlin.
class ChangeHistoryUtils<T> (val originalBean : T, username : String , var modifiedBean: T? = null) {
data class ChangeHistory(val username: String, val fieldName : String,
val oldValue : String , val newValue : String , val date : LocalDate = LocalDate.now())
fun compareBeans(){
//how to get all originalBean getters and its values?
}
}
I'm actually stuck here: how should obtain all the getters in my T object?
Let's guess i'll receive a class which with 10 getters, I want to call all these 10 getters in originalBean, and comparing its value with the ones in modifiedBean. If different, I will write it in my ChangeHistory
Thanks
You need to ensure that T itself is not a nullable type, i.e. use something like where T : Any on the class declaration, e.g.:
class ChangeHistoryUtils<T> (originalBean : T, username : String , modifiedBean: T? = null) where T : Any
If you do that you can afterwards just access the methods as you did in Java, e.g. if you just want to reuse the code you already have:
fun compareBeans(){
originalBean::class.java.methods // this is actually your originalBean.getClass().getMethods() !
// just print the methods for now...
.forEach(::println)
}
But as you are using Kotlin you may rather want to use the Kotlin approach then, e.g. just showing the properties, or similar:
originalBean::class.memberProperties
// again just printing them:
.forEach(::println)
You then need to add kotlin-reflect as dependency. You may also want to check the Kotlin reference regarding reflection.
In the work that I do on a day to day in Java, I use builders quite a lot for fluent interfaces, e.g.: new PizzaBuilder(Size.Large).onTopOf(Base.Cheesy).with(Ingredient.Ham).build();
With a quick-and-dirty Java approach, each method call mutates the builder instance and returns this. Immutably, it involves more typing, cloning the builder first before modifying it. The build method eventually does the heavy lifting over the builder state.
What's a nice way of achieving the same in Scala?
If I wanted to ensure that onTopOf(base:Base) was called only once, and then subsequently only with(ingredient:Ingredient) and build():Pizza could be called, a-la a directed builder, how would I go about approaching this?
Another alternative to the Builder pattern in Scala 2.8 is to use immutable case classes with default arguments and named parameters. Its a little different but the effect is smart defaults, all values specified and things only specified once with syntax checking...
The following uses Strings for the values for brevity/speed...
scala> case class Pizza(ingredients: Traversable[String], base: String = "Normal", topping: String = "Mozzarella")
defined class Pizza
scala> val p1 = Pizza(Seq("Ham", "Mushroom"))
p1: Pizza = Pizza(List(Ham, Mushroom),Normal,Mozzarella)
scala> val p2 = Pizza(Seq("Mushroom"), topping = "Edam")
p2: Pizza = Pizza(List(Mushroom),Normal,Edam)
scala> val p3 = Pizza(Seq("Ham", "Pineapple"), topping = "Edam", base = "Small")
p3: Pizza = Pizza(List(Ham, Pineapple),Small,Edam)
You can then also use existing immutable instances as kinda builders too...
scala> val lp2 = p3.copy(base = "Large")
lp2: Pizza = Pizza(List(Ham, Pineapple),Large,Edam)
You have three main alternatives here.
Use the same pattern as in Java, classes and all.
Use named and default arguments and a copy method. Case classes already provide this for you, but here's an example that is not a case class, just so you can understand it better.
object Size {
sealed abstract class Type
object Large extends Type
}
object Base {
sealed abstract class Type
object Cheesy extends Type
}
object Ingredient {
sealed abstract class Type
object Ham extends Type
}
class Pizza(size: Size.Type,
base: Base.Type,
ingredients: List[Ingredient.Type])
class PizzaBuilder(size: Size.Type,
base: Base.Type = null,
ingredients: List[Ingredient.Type] = Nil) {
// A generic copy method
def copy(size: Size.Type = this.size,
base: Base.Type = this.base,
ingredients: List[Ingredient.Type] = this.ingredients) =
new PizzaBuilder(size, base, ingredients)
// An onTopOf method based on copy
def onTopOf(base: Base.Type) = copy(base = base)
// A with method based on copy, with `` because with is a keyword in Scala
def `with`(ingredient: Ingredient.Type) = copy(ingredients = ingredient :: ingredients)
// A build method to create the Pizza
def build() = {
if (size == null || base == null || ingredients == Nil) error("Missing stuff")
else new Pizza(size, base, ingredients)
}
}
// Possible ways of using it:
new PizzaBuilder(Size.Large).onTopOf(Base.Cheesy).`with`(Ingredient.Ham).build();
// or
new PizzaBuilder(Size.Large).copy(base = Base.Cheesy).copy(ingredients = List(Ingredient.Ham)).build()
// or
new PizzaBuilder(size = Size.Large,
base = Base.Cheesy,
ingredients = Ingredient.Ham :: Nil).build()
// or even forgo the Builder altogether and just
// use named and default parameters on Pizza itself
Use a type safe builder pattern. The best introduction I know of is this blog, which also contains references to many other articles on the subject.
Basically, a type safe builder pattern guarantees at compile time that all required components are provided. One can even guarantee mutual exclusion of options or arity. The cost is the complexity of the builder code, but...
Case classes solve the problem as shown in previous answers, but the resulting api is difficult to use from java when You have scala collections in your objects. To provide a fluent api to java users try this:
case class SEEConfiguration(parameters : Set[Parameter],
plugins : Set[PlugIn])
case class Parameter(name: String, value:String)
case class PlugIn(id: String)
trait SEEConfigurationGrammar {
def withParameter(name: String, value:String) : SEEConfigurationGrammar
def withParameter(toAdd : Parameter) : SEEConfigurationGrammar
def withPlugin(toAdd : PlugIn) : SEEConfigurationGrammar
def build : SEEConfiguration
}
object SEEConfigurationBuilder {
def empty : SEEConfigurationGrammar = SEEConfigurationBuilder(Set.empty,Set.empty)
}
case class SEEConfigurationBuilder(
parameters : Set[Parameter],
plugins : Set[PlugIn]
) extends SEEConfigurationGrammar {
val config : SEEConfiguration = SEEConfiguration(parameters,plugins)
def withParameter(name: String, value:String) = withParameter(Parameter(name,value))
def withParameter(toAdd : Parameter) = new SEEConfigurationBuilder(parameters + toAdd, plugins)
def withPlugin(toAdd : PlugIn) = new SEEConfigurationBuilder(parameters , plugins + toAdd)
def build = config
}
Then in java code the api is really easy to use
SEEConfigurationGrammar builder = SEEConfigurationBuilder.empty();
SEEConfiguration configuration = builder
.withParameter(new Parameter("name","value"))
.withParameter("directGivenName","Value")
.withPlugin(new PlugIn("pluginid"))
.build();
It's the same exact pattern. Scala allows for mutation and side effects. That said, if you'd like to be more of a purest, have each method return a new instance of the object that you're constructing with the element(s) changed. You could even put the functions within the Object of a class so that there's a higher level of separation within your code.
class Pizza(size:SizeType, layers:List[Layers], toppings:List[Toppings]){
def Pizza(size:SizeType) = this(size, List[Layers](), List[Toppings]())
object Pizza{
def onTopOf( layer:Layer ) = new Pizza(size, layers :+ layer, toppings)
def withTopping( topping:Topping ) = new Pizza(size, layers, toppings :+ topping)
}
so that your code might look like
val myPizza = new Pizza(Large) onTopOf(MarinaraSauce) onTopOf(Cheese) withTopping(Ham) withTopping(Pineapple)
(Note: I've probably screwed up some syntax here.)
using Scala partial applies are feasible if you are building a smallish object that you don't need to pass over method signatures. If any of those assumptions don't apply, I recommend using a mutable builder to build an immutable object. With this being scala you could implement the builder pattern with a case class for the object to build with a companion as the builder.
Given that the end result is a constructed immutable object I don't see that it defeats any of the Scala principles.