We Keep Coding

Call Kotlin object with class delegation from Java as a static method

This may be a bit difficult to describe, so I'll try to give a concrete example of what I'm trying to do.
Suppose we have a Facade interface and class (in Java), like this:
interface FacadeInterface<T> {
void method(String from, String via);
}
class Facade<T> implements FacadeInterface<T> {
private Class<T> mClazz;
public Facade(Class<T> clazz) {
mClazz = clazz;
}
#Override
public void method(String from, String via) {
System.out.println("Method called from " + from + " via " + via);
}
}
In my applications, I need to have multiple singletons which hold an instance of the facade. The real facade has additional setup/config parameters but those are irrelevant here.
Before I started using kotlin, I would have a class which holds a static instance of the facade (not really a singleton, but in my case, it served a similar purpose) which proxied the calls to the facade, like this:
public class Singleton {
private static final FacadeInterface<String> sFacade = new Facade<>(String.class);
private Singleton() {
}
public static void method(String from, String via) {
sFacade.method(from, via);
}
}
Now, with Kotlin we have class delegates which allow me to write something like this:
object SingletonKt : FacadeInterface<String> by Facade(String::class.java)
This is great - no more boilerplate and I can call SingletonKt from Kotlin classes the same way I called the java Singleton:
Singleton.method("Kotlin", "Singleton")
SingletonKt.method("Kotlin", "SingletonKt")
But, a slight problem arises when I use SingletonKt from Java. Then I have to specify INSTANCE:
Singleton.method("Java", "Singleton");
SingletonKt.INSTANCE.method("Java", "SingletonKt");
I am aware of the #JvmStatic annotation, but the only place I can put it in the SingletonKt file without causing compile errors is right before FacadeInterface and it doesn't seem to do the trick.
Is there a way to set up this class delegate so that I can call it from Java as if it were a static method, without introducing the boilerplate of creating proxy methods for SingletonKt (which would defeat the purpose of the class delegate)?

It's sadly not possilble!
The Kotlin Delegation is a nice way to reduce boilerplate code. But it comes with the inability to actually access the delegate within the class body.
The second issue you're facing regarding #JvmStatic is actually more drastic to your cause than the first and also applies to you when implementing the delegation manually:
Override members cannot be '#JvmStatic' in object
So instead of exposing the method() through the INSTANCE only, you could delegate it to a staticMethod() on the object. This still differs from your intent, but comes close to it.
object SingletonKt : FacadeInterface<String> by Facade(String::class.java)
#JvmStatic fun staticMethod(from: String, via: String) = method(from, to)
}

I don't know if it is possible to have delegated methods as static methods inside an object in Kotlin.
However, as you are interested in creating singletons that proxy a class, you could use package-level constants in Kotlin:
val SingletonKt : FacadeInterface<String> = Facade(String::class.java)
Now, you can call SingletonKt.method just like you would in Java. Note that you need to use a static import in Java to be able to use the SingletonKt constant.
This also allows you to use features like lazy to only create the singleton (or, in this case, instance) when you need it.

Is adding too many stubbed methods a reason for adding special constructor just for tests? (over mocking)

I want to add unit tests for a method in class ClassToBeTested.execute(). ClassToBeTested is a business model class received from REST api. To call that method I have to:
create a class AAAclass (which must have 2 inner class mocked and stub 7 methods to put call the method I want to test)
put that mocked AAAclass in ClassToBeTested; ClassToBeTested depends on AAAclass
The AAAclass looks like:
public class AAAclass {
#SerializedName("BBBclass")
private BBBclass BBBclass;
public class BBBclass {
#SerializedName("CCCclass")
private CCCclass ccc;
public DDDclass getDDD() {
if (ccc != null) {
return ccc.getDDD();
}
return null;
}
}
private class CCCclass {
#SerializedName("DDDclass")
private DDDclass ddd;
public DDDclass getDDD() {
return ddd;
}
}
public class DDDclass {
}
}
I got the feeling that I'm doing sth wrong and it seems to be over mocking:
Don’t mock your model: Easier to read and you will may be add convenient constructor/factory methods to your production or test codebase.
So should I really add a special constructor just to use it in unit testing?

As was already mentioned it is hard to identify what are the objects and what is the context.
But it looks like the classes you'd mentioned are some DTOs but at the same time they have some business logic in their getters.
So first of all I would recommend you to extract the business logic to some other place (for instance some service). It should not be present in dto object.
Second. Why BBBclass, CCCclass and DDDclass are inner classes of AAAclass? Can't you make them static? Or event more can you extract them into separate classes? It is very important to decrease system complexity.
I think if you solve this issues you'll not need to mock such a complex object anymore.
At the same time remember if you're thinking of adding a constructor/method just for testability it is already a bad sign. It means that your system is becoming complex and abstractions don't work well. Try to rethink your abstractions.

Static Factory Methods Return Types [duplicate]

From Effective Java (Item 1: Consider static factory methods instead of constructors):
The class of the object returned by a static factory method need not even exist
at the time the class containing the method is written. Such flexible static factory
methods form the basis of service provider frameworks, such as the Java Database
Connectivity API (JDBC). A service provider framework is a system in which
multiple service providers implement a service, and the system makes the implementations
available to its clients, decoupling them from the implementations.
I specifically do not understand why the book is saying that The class of the object returned by a static factory method need not even exist at the time the class containing the method is written ? Can some one explain using JDBC as the example .

Consider something like the following:
public interface MyService {
void doSomething();
}
public class MyServiceFactory {
public static MyService getService() {
try {
(MyService) Class.forName(System.getProperty("MyServiceImplemetation")).newInstance();
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new Error(t);
}
}
}
With this code, your library doesn't need to know about the implementations of the service. Users of your library would have to set a system property containing the name of the implementation they want to use.
This is what is meant by the sentence you don't understand: the factory method will return an instance of some class (which name is stored in the system property "MyServiceImplementation"), but it has absolutely no idea what class it is. All it knows is that it implements MyService and that it must have a public, no-arg constructor (otherwise, the factory above will throw an Error).

the system makes the implementations available to its clients, decoupling them from the implementations
Just to put it in simpler way you don't add any dependencies of these JDBC vendors at compile time. Clients can add their own at runtime

Can we mock a method in service while testing the service itself?

I am working on a project where I am using MyBatis annotations as persistence framework. Therefore, I have to create an interface for the 'mapper' and compose the mapper in the service like :
class XYZServiceImpl{
public XYZMapper getXYZMapper(){
return SessionUtil.getSqlSession().getMapper(XYZMapper.class)
}
}
Now while unit testing the service with Mockito, I am trying to inject a mock for the mapper. But since I am injecting mock in an instance of XYZService, how can mock a method of the service itself, in this case getXYZMapper() is what I am trying to stub. Although I have got a solution of creating the instance XYZMapper in the service and not call on demand like the above code does something like :
Class XYZServiceImpl{
XYZMapper mapper;
public void useXYZMapper(){
mapper = SessionUtil.getSqlSession().getMapper(XYZMapper.class);
}
}
But that would bring a lot of code changes (ofcourse I can refactor) but is there a way to achieve without having to make code changes?
Also what would be a 'purist' way to have a mapper instance in the class is it the method 1 that is better than method 2 in terms of performance?
EDIT : Here XYZMapper is an interface. Something like :
public interface XYZMapper{
#Select("SELECT * FROM someclass WHERE id = #{id}")
public SomeClass getSomeClass(int id);
}
EDIT : I am facing a similar situation but with a variance that I have a service that I do want to test like XYZServiceImpl. Now it has a method getXYZDetails() which has a lot of business logic handled within the service. Now if getXYZDetails looks like the following :
public XYZDetails getXYZDetails(int id){
XYZDetails details = new XYZDetails();
details.set1Details(fetchSet1Details(id));
//Perform some business logic
details.set2Details(fetchSet2Details(id));
if(details.set2Details() != null){
for(int i = 0; i < details.set2Details().size(); i++){
flushTheseDetails(i);
}
}
.
.
}
Kindly notice that fetchSet1Details(), fetchSet2Details(), flushTheseDetails are public service, public and private service respectively.
I want to know of a method that can mock/stub these methods while testing getXYZDetails() thus enabling me to

There are several options you can use.
Inject dependency
This works only for simple methods like getXYZMapper when method only returns external dependency of you object. This may require to create new XYZServiceImpl instances if for example mapper is bound to connection which is opened per request.
Encapsulate method behavior in object
Another way to achieve similar result is to use a factory or service locator
like this:
public class XYZServiceImpl {
public XYZServiceImpl(XYZMapperFactory mapperFactory) {
this.mapperFactory = mapperFactory;
}
public XYZMapper getXYZMapper() {
return mapperFactory.getMapper();
}
}
This will allow you easily substitute factory in test with implementation which returns mock mapper.
The similar approach can be used for other methods fetchSet1Details, fetchSet2Details, flushTheseDetails that is moving them to other class or classes. If the method contains complex (and may be loosely related) logic it is a good candidate to be moved in separate class. Think about what these methods do. Usually you can move some essential and unrelated part of them to other class or classes and this makes mocking them much easier.
Subclass
This is not recommended but in legacy code sometimes is very helpful as a temporary solution.
In your test subclass you class under test and override methods you need:
#Test
public void someTest() {
XYZServiceImpl sut = new XYZServiceImpl() {
public XYZMapper getXYZMapper() {
return mapperMock;
}
public Whatever fetchSet1Details() {
return whateverYouNeedInTest;
}
}
sut.invokeMethodUnderTest();
}
The only thing you may need to do is to change access modifier of private method to package-private or protected so you can override them.
Spying
This method in also discouraged but you can use mockito spies:
XYZServiceImpl realService = new XYZServiceImpl();
XYZServiceImpl spy = Mockito.spy(realService);
when(spy.fetchSet1Details()).thenReturn(whaeveryouneed);
when(spy.getXYZMapper()).thenReturn(mockMapper);
spy.methodUnderTest();

I would suggest the "purist" way of doing this is to accept an XYZMapper instance in your constructor and store it in a local field.
In production use, you can pass an e.g. SQLXYZMapper, which will interact with your database. In test use, you can pass in a mocked object that you can verify interactions with.

Force Singleton Pattern on a Class implementing an Interface

I better explain the question with an example.
I have an Interface Model which can be used to access data.
There can be different implementations of Model which can represent the data in various format say XMl , txt format etc. Model is not concerned with the formats.
Lets say one such implementation is myxmlModel.
Now i want to force myxmlModel and every other implementation of Model to follow Singleton Pattern.The usual way is to make myxmlModels constructor private and provide a static factory method to return an instance of myModel class.But the problem is interface cannot have static method definitions and a result i cannot enforce a particular Factory method definition on all implementation of Model. So one implementation may end with providing getObject() and other may have getNewModel()..
One work around is to allow package access to myxmlModel's constructor and create a Factory class which creates the myxmlModel object and cache it for further use.
I was wondering if there is a better way to achieve the same functionality .

Make a factory that returns
instances of your interface, Model.
Make all concrete implementations of the model package-private classes
in the same package as your factory.
If your model is to be a singleton, and you are using java
5+, use enum instead of traditional
singleton, as it is safer.
public enum MyXMLModel{
INSTANCE();
//rest of class
};
EDIT:
Another possibility is to create delegate classes that do all the work and then use an enum to provide all of the Model Options.
for instance:
class MyXMLModelDelegate implements Model {
public void foo() { /*does foo*/}
...
}
class MyJSONModelDelegate implements Model {
public void foo() { /*does foo*/ }
...
}
public enum Models {
XML(new MyXMLModelDelgate()),
JSON(new MyJSONModelDelegate());
private Model delegate;
public Models(Model delegate) { this.delegate=delegate; }
public void foo() { delegate.foo(); }
}

You can use reflection. Something like this:
public interface Model {
class Singleton {
public static Model instance(Class<? extends Model> modelClass) {
try {
return (Model)modelClass.getField("instance").get(null);
} catch (blah-blah) {
blah-blah
}
}
}
public class XmlModel implements Model {
private static final Model instance = new XmlModel();
private XmlModel() {
}
}
usage:
Model.Singleton.instance(XmlModel.class)
Actually, I don't like this code much :). First, it uses reflection - very slow, second - there are possibilities of runtime errors in case of wrong definitions of classes.

Can you refactor the interface to be an abstract class? This will allow you to force a particular factory method down to all implementing classes.

I used to ask myself the same question. And I proposed the same answer ;-)
Now I normally drop the "forcing" behavior, I rely on documentation.
I found no case where the Singleton aspect was so compelling that it needed to be enforced by all means.
It is just a "best-practice" for the project.
I usually use Spring to instanciate such an object,
and it is the Spring configuration that makes it a Singleton.
Safe, and so easy ... plus additionnal Spring advantages (such as Proxying, substituing a different object once to make some tests etc...)

This is more an answer to your comment/clarification to kts's answer. Is it so, that the real problem is not using the Singleton pattern but instead defining an eclipse (equinox) extension point schema that allows contributing a singleton?
I think, this can't be done, because everytime you call IConfigurationElement.createExecutableExtension you create a new instance. This is quite incompatible with your singleton requirement. And therefore you need the public default constructor so that everybody can create instances.
Unless you can change the extension point definition so that plugins contribute a ModelFactory rather than a model, like
public interface ModelFactory {
public Model getModelInstance();
}
So the extension user will instantiate a ModelFactory and use it to obtain the singleton.
If I guessed wrong, leave a comment and I delete the answer ;)