Related
This would mean that the class was initialized, but the variables were not set.
A sample Class:
public class User {
String id = null;
String name = null;
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
The actual class is huge that I prefer not to check if(xyz == null) for each of the variables.
Another non-reflective solution for Java 8, in the line of paxdiabo's answer but without using a series of if's, would be to stream all fields and check for nullness:
return Stream.of(id, name)
.allMatch(Objects::isNull);
This remains quite easy to maintain while avoiding the reflection hammer.
Try something like this:
public boolean checkNull() throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field f : getClass().getDeclaredFields())
if (f.get(this) != null)
return false;
return true;
}
Although it would probably be better to check each variable if at all feasible.
This can be done fairly easily using a Lombok generated equals and a static EMPTY object:
import lombok.Data;
public class EmptyCheck {
public static void main(String[] args) {
User user1 = new User();
User user2 = new User();
user2.setName("name");
System.out.println(user1.isEmpty()); // prints true
System.out.println(user2.isEmpty()); // prints false
}
#Data
public static class User {
private static final User EMPTY = new User();
private String id;
private String name;
private int age;
public boolean isEmpty() {
return this.equals(EMPTY);
}
}
}
Prerequisites:
Default constructor should not be implemented with custom behavior as that is used to create the EMPTY object
All fields of the class should have an implemented equals (built-in Java types are usually not a problem, in case of custom types you can use Lombok)
Advantages:
No reflection involved
As new fields added to the class, this does not require any maintenance as due to Lombok they will be automatically checked in the equals implementation
Unlike some other answers this works not just for null checks but also for primitive types which have a non-null default value (e.g. if field is int it checks for 0, in case of boolean for false, etc.)
If you want this for unit testing I just use the hasNoNullFieldsOrProperties() method from assertj
assertThat(myObj).hasNoNullFieldsOrProperties();
How about streams?
public boolean checkFieldsIsNull(Object instance, List<String> fieldNames) {
return fieldNames.stream().allMatch(field -> {
try {
return Objects.isNull(instance.getClass().getDeclaredField(field).get(instance));
} catch (IllegalAccessException | NoSuchFieldException e) {
return true;//You can throw RuntimeException if need.
}
});
}
"Best" is such a subjective term :-)
I would just use the method of checking each individual variable. If your class already has a lot of these, the increase in size is not going to be that much if you do something like:
public Boolean anyUnset() {
if ( id == null) return true;
if (name == null) return true;
return false;
}
Provided you keep everything in the same order, code changes (and automated checking with a script if you're paranoid) will be relatively painless.
Alternatively (assuming they're all strings), you could basically put these values into a map of some sort (eg, HashMap) and just keep a list of the key names for that list. That way, you could iterate through the list of keys, checking that the values are set correctly.
I think this is a solution that solves your problem easily: (return true if any of the parameters is not null)
public boolean isUserEmpty(){
boolean isEmpty;
isEmpty = isEmpty = Stream.of(id,
name)
.anyMatch(userParameter -> userParameter != null);
return isEmpty;}
Another solution to the same task is:(you can change it to if(isEmpty==0) checks if all the parameters are null.
public boolean isUserEmpty(){
long isEmpty;
isEmpty = Stream.of(id,
name)
.filter(userParameter -> userParameter != null).count();
return isEmpty > 0
}
The best way in my opinion is Reflection as others have recommended. Here's a sample that evaluates each local field for null. If it finds one that is not null, method will return false.
public class User {
String id = null;
String name = null;
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public boolean isNull() {
Field fields[] = this.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
for (Field f : fields) {
try {
Object value = f.get(this);
if (value != null) {
return false;
}
}
catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println(new User().isNull());
}
}
Field[] field = model.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
for(int j=0 ; j<field.length ; j++){
String name = field[j].getName();
name = name.substring(0,1).toUpperCase()+name.substring(1);
String type = field[j].getGenericType().toString();
if(type.equals("class java.lang.String")){
Method m = model.getClass().getMethod("get"+name);
String value = (String) m.invoke(model);
if(value == null){
... something to do...
}
}
Best for me is
Stream.of(getClass().getDeclaredMethods()).allMatch(Objects::isNull);
It can be used in a custom annotation + annotation processor to automagically define a boolean isNull() method on the annotated classes.
Based on Irkwz's answer, but a different approach:
public class SomeClass{
private String field1;
private String field2;
private ComplexField field3;
private String field4;
private Integer field15;
public boolean isNullAllFields() {
return Stream.of(this.getClass().getDeclaredFields()).anyMatch(element -> (element != null));
}
}
And the end of the day u invoke isNullAllFields method to figure out wheter the object fields are empty.
If you want to do the opposite i.e check if some/all members of class are non-non, the check this answer.
In order to make sure that certain members of the class are always non-null, we can use lombok #NonNull annotation on the individual fields of the class.
import lombok.Data;
import lombok.NonNull;
#Data
public class DataClass {
#NonNull
private String data1;
private int data2;
#NonNull
private String data3;
#NonNull
private String data4;
#NonNull
private String data5;
private String data6;
DataClass(String data1,...) {
// constructor
}
}
Easiest way is to convert the class to a map and get its keys and with stream check if any or all key's values are null or not, you can take input from user as well whether they want to check for specific set of keys only!
Below is the code to check whether any of the key's value has null, you can change stream config to all match or any match as per your requirement
Just replace isNullOrEmpty method i have used with proper null or empty check condition for that particular collection
public boolean checkIfAnyFieldIsNull(Object instance, Set<String> fields){
try {
Map<String, Object> instanceMap = new Gson().fromJson(new GsonBuilder().serializeNulls().create().toJson(instance), Map.class);
if(!isNullorEmpty(instanceMap)) {
fields = isNullorEmpty(fields) ? instanceMap.keySet() : fields;
return fields.stream().anyMatch(curField -> isNull(instanceMap.get(curField)));
}else{
return false;
}
}catch (Exception e){
return false;
}
}
}
Try this method once, its works for me!!
private fun checkIfAnyDataIsNull(model: YourModelCass): Boolean {
return Stream.of<Any>(
model.date,
model.merchantName,
model.payment,
).allMatch(Objects::isNull)
}
You can use the simple solution:
if(user.equals(new User()){
//your processing goes here
}
In my Java project, I have a need to work with a handful of strings (about 10-30 at a time). I want a data structure to hold them, with properties like so:
Can assign a unique name to each string
The unique names can be used in the code just as if they were variables, with support for IDE auto-complete, no calling getValue() or toString(), etc.
Can iterate over each value in the data structure
In practice, I'd want the code to look something like this:
MagicalDataStructure<String> mds = new MagicalDataStructure(
FirstString = "foo",
SecondString = "bar",
);
/*
This section would output:
foo
bar
*/
for (String value : mds) {
System.out.println(value);
}
/*
This section would output:
The first value is: foo
*/
System.out.println("The first value is: " + FirstString);
Things I've considered:
A class full of static finals. This satisfies #1 and #2, but I can't iterate over them -- at least not without resorting to dark-mojo reflection.
A dictionary. This satisfies #1 and #3, but the keys wouldn't be auto-completable, and there's additional syntax involved in accessing the values.
An enum. This also solves #1 and #3, but accessing the string value takes a little bit of extra code.
Is there a data structure, library, etc that will do what I want?
I would definitely favor a Map for this:
public enum PagePath {
PATH1,
PATH2,
// etc.
}
public static final Map<PagePath, String> ALL_PATHS;
static {
Map<PagePath, String> paths = new EnumMap<>(PagePath.class);
paths.put(PagePath.PATH1, "/html/div[0]/h1");
paths.put(PagePath.PATH2, "/html//form/input[id='firstname']");
// etc.
// Make sure no one breaks things by removing entries
// or by adding enum constants while forgetting to account
// for them in the above Map.
if (!paths.keySet().equals(EnumSet.allOf(PagePath.class))) {
throw new RuntimeException(
"Map does not have entries for all PagePath constants!");
}
ALL_PATHS = Collections.unmodifiableMap(paths);
}
Another possibility, as you’ve mentioned, is using String constants. You can place the initialization of those constants inside the initialization of the “all values” list, to make sure none of them are forgotten:
public static final String PATH1;
public static final String PATH2;
// etc.
public static final Collection<String> ALL_PATHS;
static {
ALL_PATHS = Collections.unmodifiableCollection(Arrays.asList(
PATH1 = "/html/div[0]/h1",
PATH2 = "/html//form/input[id='firstname']",
// etc.
));
}
If someone removes a constant, they’ll be forced to remove its initialization from the Arrays.asList call. If someone adds a constant, and keeps it consistent with the other constants’ declarations, they will be forced to add it to the ALL_PATHS List, since failing to do so would mean it never gets initialized, which compiler will catch.
If your strings are properties your may want to use RessourceBundle or Properties. This can be use to solve problem 1/3.
To solve problem 2, you may create Enum that are Keys to your HashMap so that you need to write hashMap.get(enum) that will auto-complete everything. This solution add words but benefit from auto-completion.
Can you just write a custom method to return the string values using enum?
public enum MagicalDataStructure {
FirstString("foo"),
SecondString("bar");
String value;
MagicalDataStructure(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static List<String> getMagicalStrings() {
List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>();
for (MagicalDataStructure item : MagicalDataStructure.values()) {
strings.add(item.value);
}
return strings;
}
}
And call the function wherever you need to iterate:
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (String magicalString: MagicalDataStructure.getMagicalStrings()) {
System.out.println(magicalString);
}
}
How about this :) The main idea here is the following we use the EnumMap as a base for our CustomEnumMap. My understanding is that you don't need put methods so our first task is to actually throw Unsupported Operation for them. The second step is to define the different enums with the values they are actually representing. The third step is achieved through a static method that converts any Enumeration into our CustomEnumMap. How the map is later used you can see for yourself.
There is one place for improvement though and it is the implementation of the static method. Unfortunately I am just learning java 8 lambdas so I was not able to implement it fast in a good way. But I will work on that and will give you the final implementation of this method later. Or is someone wants to help me out with it is welcome.
public static class CustomEnumMap<K extends Enum<K>,V> extends EnumMap<K, V> {
public CustomEnumMap(EnumMap<K, ? extends V> m) {
super(m);
}
#Override
public V put(K key, V value) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
#Override
public void putAll(Map<? extends K, ? extends V> m) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
public static enum EnumA {
FIRST("value1"),SECOND("value2"),THREE("value3");
private String value;
private EnumA(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String toString() {
return value;
}
}
public static enum EnumB {
FIRST("value1"),SECOND("value2");
private String value;
private EnumB(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String toString() {
return value;
}
}
public static <T extends Enum<T>> CustomEnumMap<T, String> toMap(T[] myenum) {
return new CustomEnumMap<T,String>(new EnumMap<T,String>( Arrays.stream(myenum).collect(Collectors.toMap(t->(T)t, t->t.toString()))));
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
CustomEnumMap<EnumA, String> enumA = toMap(EnumA.values());
CustomEnumMap<EnumA, String> enumB = toMap(EnumA.values());
for (String stringA : enumA.values()) {
System.out.print(stringA);
}
System.out.println("");
for (String stringB : enumB.values()) {
System.out.print(stringB);
}
}
Problem
I don't know the best way to model my data. I'm worried my current approach has gotten overly complex, and I want to correct it now before I base any more code off it.
Data to be Modeled
I have data sets that consist of 50+ different data items. Each item consists of:
a unique identifier int
a label String.
validation criteria (min, max, legal characters, etc...).
a value Float, Long, Integer, String, or Date.
The label and validation criteria for each item is the same in every data set. Only the values are dynamic. Order is not important.
Needed Usage Examples
Add data to the data set
dataSet.put(itemIdentifier, value);
Traverse and validate all non-null values in the data set
for (DataItem item : dataSet.values()) {
boolean valid = item.validate();
if (valid) {...}
}
Show the specified items in the given data sets
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
Implementation Attempt
My current implementation has an abstract Key class as the "key" to a map. Each type subclasses for its own validation needs. Then, inside the DataSet class, I have public static keys for each item.
abstract public class Key {
public int mId;
public String mLabel;
public Key(int id, String label) {...}
abstract public boolean validate(Object Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key {
private int mMin, mMax;
public Key(int id, String label, int min, int max) {...}
public boolean validate(Object Value) {...}
}
// one for each type
...
public class DataSet {
public static Key ITEM_A = new FloatKey(1, "item A", 0, 100);
public static Key ITEM_B = new DateKey(2, "item B", "January 1, 1990");
// ~50 more of these
private Map<Key, Object> mMap;
public void put(int itemId, Object value) {...}
public Set<Object> values() {...};
...
}
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat). I also find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set because I need to call subclass-only methods in some situations.
Edits for further clarification
Data items and their validation criteria will require occasional changes and so maintenance should be relatively easy / painless.
Although I could use the Key objects themselves as keys into the map, I will sometimes need to put these keys in a Bundle (part of the android API). I would rather use the label or id (in case labels are the same) to avoid making my Key class Parcelable.
What about this approach:
Create this interface:
interface Validable {
boolean isValid();
}
Then, all data items inherit the following class and implicitly the interface ::
abstract class DataItem implements Validable {
public DataItem(int id, String label, int min, int max) {
}
}
Configure each specific instance of DataItem via constructor parameters, passing the common and the distinct values:
class FloatItem extends DataItem {
public FloatItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Float value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
// set the Float value here
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
class DateItem extends DataItem {
public DateItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Date value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
The client code would assemble the objects like this::
List<Validable> items = Lists.<Validable>newArrayList(new FloatItem(0, "", 0, 0, Float.NaN),
new DateItem(0, "", 0, 0, new Date()));
(note the usage of Google Guava)
Calling code only needs to do this::
for (Validable validable : items) {
System.out.println(validable.isValid());
}
Please note that this approach requires you to first create 'target' objects, and then ask the question if they are valid. In other words, you are passing the valid-able parameters via constructor and then, you ask the object if it is valid. The object itself will answer the question using the validation criteria inside it...
I hope I understood your problem correctly.
I don't quite understand your goals with the design, so maybe not all of this is correct or directly useful to you, but it's some ideas to play with.
First I'd point out that there are lots of fields in the code you've shown that should be marked final. For example, Key.mId, Key.mLabel, FloatKey.mMin, FloatKey.mMax, all the DataSet.ITEM_X, and DataSet.mMap. Marking them final (1) conveys the intended behavior better, (2) prevents accidents where something like a Key's mId changes, and (3) might have marginal performance benefits.
I wonder why you need the numeric ID for each key/field? If they're required for interfacing with some external application or storage format which already defines those IDs, that makes sense, but if it's only for internal things like this method:
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
then that could be more meaningfully implemented using a list of String labels or Key objects, instead of the numeric IDs. Likewise, DataSet.put could possibly use the Key or label instead of the ID.
I find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set
Making Key generic can eliminate some casts. (Well, they will still be present in the bytecode, but not in the source because the compiler will take care of it.) E.g.,
abstract public class Key<T> {
...
abstract public boolean validate(T Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key<Float> {
...
public boolean validate(Float value) { ... }
}
In the validate method, you thus avoid the need to cast value.
Also, I'm guessing you currently have a method on class DataSet like this:
public Object get(int itemId) { ... }
If you use the Key instead of numeric ID to retrieve values, and make the method generic, you'll often be able to avoid the need for callers to cast the return value (though the cast is still present inside the get method):
public <T> T get(Key<T> key) { ... }
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat).
You could make a class for the value instead of the key. E.g.,
abstract public class Value<T> {
public final int id;
public final String label;
protected Value(int id, String label) {
this.id = id;
this.label = label;
}
abstract public T get();
abstract public void set(T value);
}
public class FloatValue extends Value<Float> {
private final float min, max;
private float value;
public FloatValue(int id, String label, float min, float max, float value) {
super(id, label);
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
set(value);
}
public Float get() { return value; }
public void set(Float value) {
if (value < min | value > max) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
this.value = value;
}
}
public class DataSet {
public final FloatValue itemA = new FloatValue(1, "item A", 0, 100, 0);
...
}
That solves the stated problem, and also eliminates the map lookup previously required on every get/set of a value. However it has the side effect of duplicating the storage for the labels and numeric IDs, as the Value classes are not static fields any more.
In this scenario, to access DataSet values by label (or ID?), you can use reflection to build a map. In class DataSet:
private final Map<String, Value<?>> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (Value.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
Value<?> v;
try {
v = (Value<?>)f.get(this);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | IllegalArgumentException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
labelMap.put(v.label, v);
}
}
}
There's a subtlety here: if you subclass DataSet to represent different types of data, then the Value fields of the subclasses will not have been initialized yet at the time DataSet's initializer builds the map. So if you create subclasses of DataSet, you might need a protected init() method to be called from subclass constructors, to tell it to (re)build the map, which is a bit ugly but it would work.
You can re-use this map to provide convenient iteration of a DataSet's values:
public Collection<Value<?>> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
A final idea: if you're using reflection anyway, it might be possible to use ordinary fields for the values, with annotation interfaces to implement their behavior.
import java.lang.annotation.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
public class DataSet {
#Label("item A") #ValidateFloat(min=0, max=100) public float itemA;
#Label("item B") public String itemB;
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface Label {
String value();
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface ValidateFloat {
float min();
float max();
}
public final class Value {
public final String label;
private final Field field;
protected Value(String label, Field field) {
this.label = label;
this.field = field;
}
public Object get() {
try {
return field.get(DataSet.this);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void set(Object value) {
try {
field.set(DataSet.this, value);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void validate() {
Object value = get();
// Test for presence of each validation rule and implement its logic.
// Ugly but not sure how best to improve this...
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ValidateFloat.class)) {
float floatValue = (float)value;
ValidateFloat rule = field.getAnnotation(ValidateFloat.class);
if (floatValue < rule.min() || floatValue > rule.max()) {
//throw new Whatever();
}
}
//if (field.isAnnotationPresent(...)) {
// ...
//}
}
}
private final Map<String, Value> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (f.isAnnotationPresent(Label.class)) {
Value value = new Value(f.getAnnotation(Label.class).value(), f);
labelMap.put(value.label, value);
}
}
}
public Collection<Value> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
}
This approach has different tradeoffs. Code that knows exactly what field it wants can access it directly. E.g., dataSet.itemA instead of dataSet.get(DataSet.ITEM_A). Code that needs to iterate multiple fields does so via the Value wrapper (would Property be a better class name? Or Item?), which encapsulates the ugliness of the field reflection code.
I also put the validation logic into the annotations. If there are lots of fields with very simple numeric limits, that works well. If it's too complex for that you'd be better off with a DataSet.validate method that accesses the fields directly. E.g,
public void validate() {
if (itemC < 10 || itemC > itemD) ...
}
Okay, one more idea:
public class DataSet {
public float itemA;
public String itemB;
public static abstract class Value<T> {
public final String label;
protected Value(String label) {
this.label = label;
}
public abstract T get();
public abstract void set(T value);
}
public Value<?>[] values() {
return new Value[] {
new Value<Float>("itemA") {
public Float get() {
return itemA;
}
public void set(Float value) {
itemA = value;
}
},
new Value<String>("itemB") {
public String get() {
return itemB;
}
public void set(String value) {
itemB = value;
}
},
};
}
}
This is simple (no annotations or reflection) but it's repetitive. Since you have "50+" fields, the repetitiveness is probably not ideal as it's easy when copy-pasting to slip up at some point, forgetting to replace itemX = value with itemY = value, but if you only need to write it once it might be acceptable. Validation code could go either on the Value class or the DataSet class.
I have such enum class in java
public enum MockTypes
{
// Atlantis mocks
ATLANTIS_VERIFY("ATLANTIS", "verify"),
ATLANTIS_CREATE_RECORD("ATLANTIS", "createRecord"),
...
private String m_adaptor;
private String m_step;
private MockTypes( String adaptor, String step)
{
m_adaptor = adaptor;
m_step = step;
}
public String getAdaptor()
{
return m_adaptor;
}
public String getStep()
{
return m_step;
}
I have to implement method that returns enum value by adaptor and step parameter.
public MockTypes getMockTypeByName(String adaptor, String step)
but I have no idea how. Could someone help me?
public MockTypes getMockTypeByName(String adaptor, String step)
{
for(MockTypes m : MockTypes.values())
{
if(m.getAdaptor().equals(adaptor) &&
m.getStep().equals(step)) return m;
}
return null;
}
If you want a "constant-time" solution that doesn't involve looking up values, your best option is to initialize a constant Map in a static block in the MockType class.
If you're up for using Guava, it'll actually be relatively pleasant:
public enum MockType {
...
private static final ImmutableTable<String, String, MockType> LOOKUP_TABLE;
static {
ImmutableTable.Builder<String, String, MockType> builder =
ImmutableTable.builder();
for (MockType mockType : MockType.values()) {
builder.put(mockType.getAdaptor(), mockType.getStep(), mockType);
}
LOOKUP_TABLE = builder.build();
}
public static MockType getMockType(String adaptor, String step) {
return LOOKUP_TABLE.get(adaptor, step);
}
}
(Disclosure: I contribute to Guava.)
The alternative is going to be relatively similar -- construct a Map<String, Map<String, LookupType>> in a static block, and do lookups from there -- though it's going to require somewhat more work.
You can use enum's values() method to obtain a list of all the defined values. You can then loop through this list and find the values you're interested in that match the ones sent as parameters to the method.
I need to compare dozens of fields in two objects (instances of the same class), and do some logging and updating in case there are differences. Meta code could look something like this:
if (a.getfield1 != b.getfield1)
log(a.getfield1 is different than b.getfield1)
b.field1 = a.field1
if (a.getfield2!= b.getfield2)
log(a.getfield2 is different than b.getfield2)
b.field2 = a.field2
...
if (a.getfieldn!= b.getfieldn)
log(a.getfieldn is different than b.getfieldn)
b.fieldn = a.fieldn
The code with all the comparisons is very terse, and I would like to somehow make it more compact. It would be nice if I could have a method which would take as a parameter method calls to setter and getter, and call this for all fields, but unfortunately this is not possible with java.
I have come up with three options, each which their own drawbacks.
1. Use reflection API to find out getters and setters
Ugly and could cause run time errors in case names of fields change
2. Change fields to public and manipulate them directly without using getters and setters
Ugly as well and would expose implementation of the class to external world
3. Have the containing class (entity) do the comparison, update changed fields and return log message
Entity should not take part in business logic
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
EDIT: There are some fields in the class which must not be compared.
Use Annotations.
If you mark the fields that you need to compare (no matter if they are private, you still don't lose the encapsulation, and then get those fields and compare them. It could be as follows:
In the Class that need to be compared:
#ComparableField
private String field1;
#ComparableField
private String field2;
private String field_nocomparable;
And in the external class:
public <T> void compare(T t, T t2) throws IllegalArgumentException,
IllegalAccessException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
if (fields != null) {
for (Field field : fields) {
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ComparableField.class)) {
field.setAccessible(true);
if ( (field.get(t)).equals(field.get(t2)) )
System.out.println("equals");
field.setAccessible(false);
}
}
}
}
The code is not tested, but let me know if helps.
The JavaBeans API is intended to help with introspection. It has been around in one form or another since Java version 1.2 and has been pretty usable since version 1.4.
Demo code that compares a list of properties in two beans:
public static void compareBeans(PrintStream log,
Object bean1, Object bean2, String... propertyNames)
throws IntrospectionException,
IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
Set<String> names = new HashSet<String>(Arrays
.asList(propertyNames));
BeanInfo beanInfo = Introspector.getBeanInfo(bean1
.getClass());
for (PropertyDescriptor prop : beanInfo
.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
if (names.remove(prop.getName())) {
Method getter = prop.getReadMethod();
Object value1 = getter.invoke(bean1);
Object value2 = getter.invoke(bean2);
if (value1 == value2
|| (value1 != null && value1.equals(value2))) {
continue;
}
log.format("%s: %s is different than %s%n", prop
.getName(), "" + value1, "" + value2);
Method setter = prop.getWriteMethod();
setter.invoke(bean2, value2);
}
}
if (names.size() > 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("" + names);
}
}
Sample invocation:
compareBeans(System.out, bean1, bean2, "foo", "bar");
If you go the annotations route, consider dumping reflection and generating the comparison code with a compile-time annotation processor or some other code generator.
I would go for option 1, but I would use getClass().getDeclaredFields() to access the fields instead of using the names.
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass other) throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field field : getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() == String.class) {
Object thisValue = field.get(this);
Object otherValue = field.get(other);
// if necessary check for null
if (!thisValue.equals(otherValue)) {
log(field.getName() + ": " + thisValue + " <> " + otherValue);
field.set(other, thisValue);
}
}
}
}
There are some restrictions here (if I'm right):
The compare method has to be implemented in the same class (in my opinion it should - regardless of its implementation) not in an external one.
Just the fields from this class are used, not the one's from a superclass.
Handling of IllegalAccessException necessary (I just throw it in the example above).
This is probably not too nice either, but it's far less evil (IMHO) than either of the two alternatives you've proposed.
How about providing a single getter/setter pair that takes a numeric index field and then have getter/setter dereference the index field to the relevant member variable?
i.e.:
public class MyClass {
public void setMember(int index, String value) {
switch (index) {
...
}
}
public String getMember(int index) {
...
}
static public String getMemberName(int index) {
...
}
}
And then in your external class:
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass a, MyClass b) {
for (int i = 0; i < a.getMemberCount(); ++i) {
String sa = a.getMember();
String sb = b.getMember();
if (!sa.equals(sb)) {
Log.v("compare", a.getMemberName(i));
b.setMember(i, sa);
}
}
}
This at least allows you to keep all of the important logic in the class that's being examined.
While option 1 may be ugly, it will get the job done. Option 2 is even uglier, and opens your code to vulnerabilities you can't imagine. Even if you eventually rule out option 1, I pray you keep your existing code and not go for option 2.
Having said this, you can use reflection to get a list of the field names of the class, if you don't want to pass this as a static list to the method. Assuming you want to compare all fields, you can then dynamically create the comparisons, in a loop.
If this isn't the case, and the strings you compare are only some of the fields, you can examine the fields further and isolate only those that are of type String, and then proceed to compare.
Hope this helps,
Yuval =8-)
since
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
you could try this class:
public class BigEntity {
private final Map<String, String> data;
public LongEntity() {
data = new HashMap<String, String>();
}
public String getFIELD1() {
return data.get(FIELD1);
}
public String getFIELD2() {
return data.get(FIELD2);
}
/* blah blah */
public void cloneAndLogDiffs(BigEntity other) {
for (String field : fields) {
String a = this.get(field);
String b = other.get(field);
if (!a.equals(b)) {
System.out.println("diff " + field);
other.set(field, this.get(field));
}
}
}
private String get(String field) {
String value = data.get(field);
if (value == null) {
value = "";
}
return value;
}
private void set(String field, String value) {
data.put(field, value);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return data.toString();
}
magic code:
private static final String FIELD1 = "field1";
private static final String FIELD2 = "field2";
private static final String FIELD3 = "field3";
private static final String FIELD4 = "field4";
private static final String FIELDN = "fieldN";
private static final List<String> fields;
static {
fields = new LinkedList<String>();
for (Field field : LongEntity.class.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() != String.class) {
continue;
}
if (!Modifier.isStatic(field.getModifiers())) {
continue;
}
fields.add(field.getName().toLowerCase());
}
}
this class has several advantages:
reflects once, at class loading
it is very simply adding new fields, just add new static field (a better solution here
is using Annotations: in the case you care using reflection works also java 1.4)
you could refactor this class in an abstract class, all derived class just get both
data and cloneAndLogDiffs()
the external interface is typesafe (you could also easily impose immutability)
no setAccessible calls: this method is problematic sometimes
A broad thought:
Create a new class whose object takes the following parameters: the first class to compare, the second class to compare, and a lists of getter & setter method names for the objects, where only methods of interest are included.
You can query with reflection the object's class, and from that its available methods. Assuming each getter method in the parameter list is included in the available methods for the class, you should be able to call the method to get the value for comparison.
Roughly sketched out something like (apologies if it isn't super-perfect... not my primary language):
public class MyComparator
{
//NOTE: Class a is the one that will get the value if different
//NOTE: getters and setters arrays must correspond exactly in this example
public static void CompareMyStuff(Object a, Object b, String[] getters, String[] setters)
{
Class a_class = a.getClass();
Class b_class = b.getClass();
//the GetNamesFrom... static methods are defined elsewhere in this class
String[] a_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(a_class.getMethods());
String[] b_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(b_class.getMethods());
String[] a_field_names = GetNamesFromFields(a_class.getFields());
//for relative brevity...
Class[] empty_class_arr = new Class[] {};
Object[] empty_obj_arr = new Object[] {};
for (int i = 0; i < getters.length; i++)
{
String getter_name = getter[i];
String setter_name = setter[i];
//NOTE: the ArrayContainsString static method defined elsewhere...
//ensure all matches up well...
if (ArrayContainsString(a_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(b_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(a_field_names, setter_name)
{
//get the values from the getter methods
String val_a = a_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(a, empty_obj_arr);
String val_b = b_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(b, empty_obj_arr);
if (val_a != val_b)
{
//LOG HERE
//set the value
a_class.getField(setter_name).set(a, val_b);
}
}
else
{
//do something here - bad names for getters and/or setters
}
}
}
}
You say you presently have getters and setters for all these fields? Okay, then change the underlying data from a bunch of individual fields to an array. Change all the getters and setters to access the array. I'd create constant tags for the indexes rather than using numbers for long-term maintainability. Also create a parallel array of flags indicating which fields should be processed. Then create a generic getter/setter pair that use an index, as well as a getter for the compare flag. Something like this:
public class SomeClass
{
final static int NUM_VALUES=3;
final static int FOO=0, BAR=1, PLUGH=2;
String[] values=new String[NUM_VALUES];
static boolean[] wantCompared={true, false, true};
public String getFoo()
{
return values[FOO];
}
public void setFoo(String foo)
{
values[FOO]=foo;
}
... etc ...
public int getValueCount()
{
return NUM_VALUES;
}
public String getValue(int x)
{
return values[x];
}
public void setValue(int x, String value)
{
values[x]=value;
}
public boolean getWantCompared(int x)
{
return wantCompared[x];
}
}
public class CompareClass
{
public void compare(SomeClass sc1, SomeClass sc2)
{
int z=sc1.getValueCount();
for (int x=0;x<z;++x)
{
if (!sc1.getWantCompared[x])
continue;
String sc1Value=sc1.getValue(x);
String sc2Value=sc2.getValue(x);
if (!sc1Value.equals(sc2Value)
{
writeLog(x, sc1Value, sc2Value);
sc2.setValue(x, sc1Value);
}
}
}
}
I just wrote this off the top of my head, I haven't tested it, so their may be bugs in the code, but I think the concept should work.
As you already have getters and setters, any other code using this class should continue to work unchanged. If there is no other code using this class, then throw away the existing getters and setters and just do everything with the array.
I would also propose a similar solution to the one by Alnitak.
If the fields need to be iterated when comparing, why not dispense with the separate fields, and put the data into an array, a HashMap or something similar that is appropriate.
Then you can access them programmatically, compare them etc. If different fields need to be treated & compared in different ways, you could create approriate helper classes for the values, which implement an interface.
Then you could just do
valueMap.get("myobject").compareAndChange(valueMap.get("myotherobject")
or something along those lines...