We Keep Coding

Using Lombok's SuperBuilder with Hibernate Validator (jakarta.validation.x) annotation on a container type leads to "Type mismatch"

I have a class ActivitiesModel which uses Lombok's SuperBuilder.
import jakarta.validation.NotBlank;
// other imports and statements omitted for brevity.
#Data
#SuperBuilder
#NoArgsConstructor
public class ActivitiesModel {
public static final String ACTIVITIES_NOT_NULL_MESSAGE = "Activities cannot be null";
public static final String ACTIVITY_NOT_BLANK_MESSAGE = "Activity cannot be blank";
#NotNull(message = ACTIVITIES_NOT_NULL_MESSAGE)
private List<#NotBlank(message = ACTIVITY_NOT_BLANK_MESSAGE) String> activities;
}
I am using this builder to create an object of ActivitiesModel, and then validating it using Hibernate's Validator interface:
// Somewhere else in the application.
// Create an object using the builder method.
ActivitiesModel activitiesModel = ActivitiesModel.builder()
.activities(List.of("hello", "world")) // <----- Point A
.build();
// Validate the object using Hibernate's validator.
validator.validate(activitiesModel);
However, running this code gives me the following error:
java.lang.Error:
Unresolved compilation problem:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from List<String> to List<E>
The stack trace seems to be pointing at Point A.
I have tried the following approaches:
Replacing the #SuperBuilder with #Builder and #AllArgsConstructor.
Replacing the message attribute with a string literal instead of a static final variable, i.e:
private List<#NotBlank(message = "Activity cannot be blank") String> activities;
1st approach seems to fix this error, however, it's not something I can use as I need to extend the builder functionality to a subclass of ActivitiesModel. Also, this issue is also present in another abstract class, so the super builder functionality for parent classes is definitely required.
2nd approach also works in solving the error. However, going with it is a bit problematic because I then need to have the same message string in the validation test for this model class, which is something I would like to avoid as it duplicates the string.
Another thing to note is that this error only seems to occur in the presence of an annotation on the generic type parameter of the container, which is NotBlank in this case. It is not influenced by any annotations which are present directly on the field itself (NotNull in this case).
So, all in all, these are the questions that I would like to get some answers to:
Somehow, Lombok is able to figure out the types in case of a string literal but not in case of a static final String. Why is that?
Am I going about this totally wrong? The problem occurs because I'm trying to store the message string in a variable, and I'm trying to re-use the same variable at two places: the annotation's message attribute, and in the validation test for the model class. Should I not be checking for the presence of the message in my validation tests, but be checking for something else instead?

For anyone who comes across this later on, the research for this issue has led me to believe that comparing message strings in tests is not the way to go about writing validation test cases. Another downside to this approach is that you might have different validation messages for different locales. In that case, the message string itself might be a template e.g. my.message.key with its values in a ResourceBundle provided to Hibernate, i.e. files such as ValidationMessages.properties and ValidationMessages_de.properties.
In such a scenario, you could compare message for one locale in your validation test case, however, a better approach might be to check the annotation and the field for which the validation has failed. We can get both of these pieces of information via the ConstraintViolation and subsequently the ConstraintDescriptor types, provided by Hibernate. This way we can circumvent checking the message itself, but rely on the actual validation annotation which has failed.
As for the solution to this question, it seems it was a build cache issue. Cleaning maven's build cache results in this code working perfectly fine, but VSCode still seems to have an issue. For now, I will choose to ignore that.

How can I configure Jackson to serialize base classes first?

I have some JSON schemas which exist in a hierarchy: A extends B extends C. I am generating Java classes from these using jsonschema2pojo and they get generated into a matching class hierarchy.
Because of the way I am generating the classes, I don't have fine-grained control of which annotations can be applied to which fields (i.e. #JsonPropertyOrder)
When I serialize with Jackson, I get something like
{
"propertyOfA": "razz",
"propertyOfA": "jazz",
"propertyOfA": "baz",
"propertyOfB": "bar",
"propertyOfC": "foo"
}
Which is correct since property order has no meaning in JSON. However, my actual messages are very long - thousands of characters - and when browsing the logs it would be much more convenient if the more generic attributes (those from the base schema, schema C), of which there are only a few, came first in the message.
The individual property order within a schema/class doesn't bother me so much, but it would be nice if I could get Jackson to descend the hierarchy first and then backtrack.
{
"propertyOfC": "foo",
"propertyOfB": "bar",
"propertyOfA": "razz",
"propertyOfA": "jazz",
"propertyOfA": "baz"
}
I checked all of the Features and MapperFeatures and the only thing I found to influence the order was SORT_PROPERTIES_ALPHABETICALLY.
Is there anything else I can do at the ObjectMapper-level, or otherwise without changing the class, to influence this order?

You can apply mixin annotations on a class outside of its (generated) source file. E.g.
on a new file, define an interface:
#JsonPropertyOrder({"propertyOfC", "propertyOfB"})
public interface MixinA {
}
and register it with your ObjectMapper:
objectMapper.addMixIn(A.class, MixinA.class);
properties listed in this order annotation go first so you may skip properties of A.

Java validation of JSON payload: return errors as a tree

I have a webapp (Play framework 2.x, Java) that receives JSON payloads as input.
I have input payloads in different shapes like:
{
files: [{id: 1,name: null}}
requiredAttribute: null,
}
I want to output errors in this form, similar to the input:
{
files: [{name: "name can't be null"}}
requiredAttribute: "requiredAttribute can't be null",
}
I'd like to know how I can output errors in this form with Java without too much pain.
I know I'll loose the ability to output multiple errors per field and I'm fine with that.
I'm ok using any external library as long as it's easy to declare the constraints on the fields, so using something like Java validation and validation constraints annotations would be nice. But I wasn't able to find any support for this kind of stuff so far. Any idea how it could be done with Play or Java validation or Jackson?

Using bean validation, you can achieve this by calling validate() yourself and processing a collection of Set<ConstraintViolation<T>>.
You first need to get a Validator object. There may be ways to do this better, but one way is to use the factory (used this in the past, it worked with a Hibernate validator dependency on the class path):
Validator validator = Validation.buildDefaultValidatorFactory().getValidator();
Then use the validator to retrieve a set of constraint violations (Assuming a generic type T for a bean class with the relevant constraint annotations):
Set<ConstraintViolation<T>> constraintViolations = validator.validate(myBean);
Map<String, String> fieldErrors = new HashMap<>();
for (ConstraintViolation<T> violation : constraintViolations) {
String message = violation.getMessage();
String field = violation.getPropertyPath().toString();
fieldErrors.put(field, message);
}
Note that for nested bean classes, you'll get a dot-separated "path" for field names.

Creating JsonLd + Hydra based Generic Client API in java. Is there any projects exist for reference?

I am creating Client API in Java using :+ Apache Jena FrameWork+ Hydra(for Hypermedia driven) + my private vocab similar to Markus Lanther Event-API Vocab instead of schema.org(for Ontology/Vocabulary part)
Section 1 :
After looking this Markus Lanther EventDemo repo and hydra-java.I found that they are creating classes for each hydra:Class that can break client in future .For example :
A Person class (Person.java)
public class Person
{
String name;
};
But in future requirement name is also a class eg:
public class Name
{
String firstName;
String LastName;
};
So to fulfill this requirement I have to update Person class like this:
public class Person
{
Name name;
};
Question 1:
Is my understanding correct or not of this Section? If yes then what is the way to deal with this part ?
Section 2:
To avoid above problem I created a GenericResource class(GenericResource.java)
public class GenericResource
{
private Model model;
public void addProperty(String propertyName,Object propertyValue)
{
propertyName = "myvocab:"+propertyName;
//Because he will pass propertyName only eg: "name" and I will map it to "myvocab:name"
//Some logic to add propertyName and propertyValue to model
}
public GenericResource retriveProperty(String propertyName)
{
propertyName = "myvocab:"+propertyName;
//Some logic to query and retrieve propertyName data from this Object add it to new GenericResource Object and return
}
public GenericResouce performAction(String actionName,String postData)
{
//Some logic to make http call give response in return
}
}
But again I stuck in lots of problem :
Problem 1: It is not necessary that every propertyName is mapped to myvocab:propertyName. Some may be mapped to some other vocab eg: hydra:propertyName, schema:propertyName, rdfs:propertyName, newVocab:propertyName, etc.
Problem 2: How to validate whether this propertyName belongs to this class ?
Suggestion: Put type field/variable in GenericResource class.And then check supportedProperty in vocab corresponding to that class.To more clarity assume above Person class which is also defined in vocab and having supportedProperty : [name,age,etc] .So my GenericResource have type "Person" and at time of addProperty or some other operation , I will query through vocab for that property is in supportedProperty list or in supportedOperation list in case of performAction().
Is it correct way ? Any other suggestion will be most welcomed?

Question 1: Is my understanding correct or not of this Section? If yes
then what is the way to deal with this part ?
Yes, that seems to be correct. Just because hydra-java decided to creates classes doesn't mean you have to do the same in your implementation though. I would rather write a mapper and annotate an internal class that can then stay stable (you need to update the mapping instead). Your GenericResource approach also looks good btw.
Problem 1: It is not necessary that every propertyName is mapped to
myvocab:propertyName. Some may be mapped to some other vocab eg:
hydra:propertyName, schema:propertyName, rdfs:propertyName,
newVocab:propertyName, etc.
Why don't you store and access the properties with full URLs, i.e., including the vocab? You can of course implement some convenience methods to simplify the work with your vocab.
Problem 2: How to validate whether this propertyName belongs to this
class
Suggestion: Put type field/variable in GenericResource class
JSON-LD's #type in node objects (not in #value objects) corresponds to rdf:type. So simply add it as every other property.
And then check supportedProperty in vocab corresponding to that class.
Please keep in mind that supportedProperty only tells you which properties are known to be supported. It doesn't tell you which aren't. In other words, it is valid to have properties other than the ones listed as supportedProperty on an object/resource.

Ad Q1:
For the flexibility you want, the client has to be prepared for semantic and structural changes.
In HTML that is possible. The server can change the structure of an html form in the way outlined by you, by having a firstName and lastName field rather than just a name field. The client does not break, rather it adjusts its UI, following the new semantics. The trick is that the UI is generated, not fixed.
A client which tries to unmarshal the incoming message into a fixed representation, such as a Java bean, is out of luck, and I do not think there is any solution how you could deserialize into a Java bean and survive a change like yours.
If you do not try to deserialize, but stick to reading and processing the incoming message into a more flexible representation, then you can achieve the kind of evolvability you're after. The client must be able to handle the flexible representation accordingly. It could generate UIs rather than binding data to fixed markup, which means, it makes no assumptions about the semantics and structure of the data. If the client absolutely has to know what a data element means, then the server cannot change the related semantics, it can only add new items with the new semantics while keeping the old ones around.
If there were a way how a server could hand out a new structure with a code-on-demand adapter for existing clients, then the server would gain a lot of evolvability. But I am not aware of any such solutions yet.
Ad Q2:
If your goal is to read an incoming json-ld response into a Jena Model on the client side, please see https://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-input.html
Model model = ModelFactory.createDefaultModel() ;
String base = null;
model.read(inputStream, base, "JSON-LD");
Thus your client will not break in the sense that it cannot read the incoming response. I think that is what your GenericResource achieves, too. But you could use Jena directly on the client side. Basically, you would avoid unmarshalling into a fixed type.

Java annotations: pass value of annotation attribute to another annotation

I have interface Resource and several classes implementing it, for example Audio, Video... Further, I have created custom annotation MyAnnotation with Class type param:
#MyAnnotation(type = Audio.class)
class Audio {
...
}
#MyAnnotation(type = Video.class)
class Video{
...
}
In some other place in code I have to use Interface Resource as a returned type:
public class Operations<T extends Resource> {
....
#OtherAnnotation(type = Audio.class (if audio), type = Video.class (if video) )
T getResource();
....
}
The question is how to appropriatelly annotate annotation #OtherAnnotation depending of what kind of Resource type will be returned ?

What you are asking is for dynamic values for annotation attributes.
However annotations can only be set at compile time which is the reason why their values can only be compile time constants. You may only read them at runtime.
There was a similar question in which someone tried to generate the annotation value , it's answer explains why there is no way to dynamically generate a value used in annotation in a bit more detail. In that question there was an attempt to use a final class variable generated with a static method.
There are annotation processors which offer a bit more flexibility by handling placeholders. However i don't think this fits your case, as you want the dynamic values at runtime.
This answer refers to spring's use of the expression language for the Value annotation in which the placeholder (#Value("#{systemProperties.dbName})") gets overrided with the data from one of the property sources defined ( example in spring boot )
In any case, you will have to rethink your architecture a bit.