I'm learning on Kotlin, and I'm in Coroutines.
I searched around the web, maybe the method i'm using is old? but i have async and launch(UI) aren't resolved...
my build.gradle:
plugins {
id 'com.android.application'
id 'kotlin-android'
id 'kotlin-android-extensions'
}
kotlin {
experimental {
coroutines 'enable'
}
}
...
dependencies {
implementation 'androidx.core:core-ktx:1.3.2'
implementation 'androidx.appcompat:appcompat:1.2.0'
implementation 'com.google.android.material:material:1.3.0'
implementation 'androidx.constraintlayout:constraintlayout:2.0.4'
implementation 'org.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-serialization'
implementation 'org.jetbrains.kotlinx:kotlinx-coroutines-core:1.3.8'
implementation 'org.jetbrains.kotlinx:kotlinx-coroutines-android:1.4.1'
implementation 'org.jetbrains.anko:anko-commons:0.10.1'
testImplementation 'junit:junit:4.+'
androidTestImplementation 'androidx.test.ext:junit:1.1.2'
androidTestImplementation 'androidx.test.espresso:espresso-core:3.3.0'
}
the code to get data from api (UPDATED)
//getting data from api
fun fetchCharacterData(): Deferred<CharachterGenerator.CharacterData> {
CoroutineScope(Main).launch {
async { val apiData = URL(CHARACTER_DATA_API).readText()
CharachterGenerator.fromApiData(apiData)
}
}
return <--- how to get this correct, what should I return?
}
I use launch in a button setOnClickListener
generateButton.setOnClickListener {
CoroutineScope(Main).launch {
characterData = fetchCharacterData().await()
displayCharacterData()
}
}
displayCharacterData()
}
please bare with me I'm still learning...
launch and async are member functions of CoroutineScope. You can’t make bare calls to them unless you’re calling them from within a class that implements CoroutineScope. You may have seen this in the Kotlin documentation, but most of their examples are used within a runBlocking lambda, which provides a scope as function receiver. On Android, you typically will use the CorotuineScopes provided to you, like lifecycleScope or viewModelScope.
Edit after your update:
A common pattern for a function that does something asynchronously and returns a result is not to return a Deferred, but to make it a suspend function that directly returns a result using withContext:
suspend fun fetchCharacterData() = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
val apiData = URL(CHARACTER_DATA_API).readText()
CharachterGenerator.fromApiData(apiData)
}
Then when you call it your code is very simple because you don’t have to worry about what dispatcher you are on:
generateButton.setOnClickListener {
lifecycleScope.launch {
characterData = fetchCharacterData()
displayCharacterData()
}
}
It is a mistake to use the CoroutineScope() constructor-like function to create a one-off scope that you aren’t storing in a property where you can manage its lifecycle. You should rarely need to create your own since Android provides lifecycleScope and viewModelScope for you and manages their life cycles on your behalf.
After moving around on several other documentations I managed to do it this way
calling the API using async:
fun fetchCharacterData(): Deferred<CharachterGenerator.CharacterData> {
return CoroutineScope(IO).async { val apiData = URL(CHARACTER_DATA_API).readText()
CharachterGenerator.fromApiData(apiData)
}
}
making the request and getting the result then send it to be displayed
generateButton.setOnClickListener {
CoroutineScope(Main).launch {
characterData = fetchCharacterData().await()
displayCharacterData()
}
}
Related
My query looks like (using JOOQ v 3.15):
override fun getCredentialsById(id: Long): Mono<UserCredentialsModel> {
return Mono.from {
dsl.select(
USER_CREDENTIALS.ID,
USER_CREDENTIALS.EMAIL,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PHONE,
USER_CREDENTIALS.LOGIN,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PASSWORD)
.from(USER_CREDENTIALS)
.where(USER_CREDENTIALS.ID.eq(id))
.and(USER_CREDENTIALS.IS_ACTIVE.eq(true))
.fetchInto(UserCredentialsModel::class.java)
}
}
JOOQ config:
#Bean
fun createContext(): DSLContext {
return DSL.using(connection)
}
where connection is io.r2dbc.spi.ConnectionFactory
and I`m getting an exception:
org.jooq.exception.DetachedException: Attempt to execute a blocking method (e.g. Query.execute() or ResultQuery.fetch()) when only an R2BDC ConnectionFactory was configured
How should I then fetch my query result into Kotlin data class (or Java JOOQ`s POJO) in reactive style?
When using jOOQ reactively, you should never call any blocking methods, such as ResultQuery.fetchOneInto(Class). That method is just a convenience method for ResultQuery.fetchOne() and then Record.into(Class). Nothing keeps you from calling Record.into(Class) yourself, neither in the blocking world, nor in the non-blocking world.
So, use your usual reactor library methods to map stream contents:
mono.map { r -> r.into(UserCredentialsModel::class.java) }
Or, in a complete example:
return Mono.from {
dsl.select(
USER_CREDENTIALS.ID,
USER_CREDENTIALS.EMAIL,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PHONE,
USER_CREDENTIALS.LOGIN,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PASSWORD)
.from(USER_CREDENTIALS)
.where(USER_CREDENTIALS.ID.eq(id))
.and(USER_CREDENTIALS.IS_ACTIVE.eq(true))
} .map { r -> r.into(UserCredentialsModel::class.java) }
Without testing I would say it should be
return Mono.from(
dsl.select(
USER_CREDENTIALS.ID,
USER_CREDENTIALS.EMAIL,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PHONE,
USER_CREDENTIALS.LOGIN,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PASSWORD)
.from(USER_CREDENTIALS)
.where(USER_CREDENTIALS.ID.eq(id))
.and(USER_CREDENTIALS.IS_ACTIVE.eq(true)));
You can try .toMono().subscribe()
dsl.select(
USER_CREDENTIALS.ID,
USER_CREDENTIALS.EMAIL,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PHONE,
USER_CREDENTIALS.LOGIN,
USER_CREDENTIALS.PASSWORD)
.from(USER_CREDENTIALS)
.where(USER_CREDENTIALS.ID.eq(id))
.and(USER_CREDENTIALS.IS_ACTIVE.eq(true))
.fetchInto(UserCredentialsModel::class.java)
.toMono().subscribe()
Just starting a new Gradle project.
This test passes:
def 'Launcher.main should call App.launch'(){
given:
GroovyMock(Application, global: true)
when:
Launcher.main()
then:
1 * Application.launch( App, null ) >> null
}
... until, to get another test using a (Java) Mock to work, I have to add these dependencies:
testImplementation 'net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.8'
testImplementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1'
(NB I assume these versions are OK for Groovy 3.+, which I'm now using ... both are the most up-to-date available at Maven Repo).
With these dependencies the above test fails:
java.lang.InstantiationError: javafx.application.Application
at org.objenesis.instantiator.sun.SunReflectionFactoryInstantiator.newInstance(SunReflectionFactoryInstantiator.java:48)
at org.objenesis.ObjenesisBase.newInstance(ObjenesisBase.java:73)
at org.objenesis.ObjenesisHelper.newInstance(ObjenesisHelper.java:44)
at org.spockframework.mock.runtime.MockInstantiator$ObjenesisInstantiator.instantiate(MockInstantiator.java:45)
at org.spockframework.mock.runtime.MockInstantiator.instantiate(MockInstantiator.java:31)
at org.spockframework.mock.runtime.GroovyMockFactory.create(GroovyMockFactory.java:57)
at org.spockframework.mock.runtime.CompositeMockFactory.create(CompositeMockFactory.java:42)
at org.spockframework.lang.SpecInternals.createMock(SpecInternals.java:47)
at org.spockframework.lang.SpecInternals.createMockImpl(SpecInternals.java:298)
at org.spockframework.lang.SpecInternals.createMockImpl(SpecInternals.java:288)
at org.spockframework.lang.SpecInternals.GroovyMockImpl(SpecInternals.java:215)
at core.AppSpec.Launcher.main should call App.launch(first_tests.groovy:30)
I confess that I have only the sketchiest notion of what "bytebuddy" and "objenesis" actually do, although I assume it is fiendishly clever. Edit: having just visited their respective home pages my notion is now slightly less sketchy, and yes, it is fiendishly clever.
If an orthodox solution to this is not available, is it by any chance possible to turn off the use of these dependencies for an individual feature (i.e. test)? Possibly using some annotation maybe?
Edit
This is an MCVE:
Specs: Java 11.0.5, OS Linux Mint 18.3.
build.gradle:
plugins {
id 'groovy'
id 'java'
id 'application'
id 'org.openjfx.javafxplugin' version '0.0.8'
}
repositories { mavenCentral() }
javafx {
version = "11.0.2"
modules = [ 'javafx.controls', 'javafx.fxml' ]
}
dependencies {
implementation 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy:3.+'
testImplementation 'junit:junit:4.12'
testImplementation 'org.spockframework:spock-core:2.0-M2-groovy-3.0'
testImplementation 'net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.8'
testImplementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1'
// in light of kriegaex's comments:
implementation group: 'cglib', name: 'cglib', version: '3.3.0'
}
test { useJUnitPlatform() }
application {
mainClassName = 'core.Launcher'
}
installDist{}
main.groovy:
class Launcher {
static void main(String[] args) {
Application.launch(App, null )
}
}
class App extends Application {
void start(Stage primaryStage) {
}
}
first_tests.groovy:
class AppSpec extends Specification {
def 'Launcher.main should call App.launch'(){
given:
GroovyMock(Application, global: true)
when:
Launcher.main()
then:
1 * Application.launch( App, null ) >> null
}
}
The reason why this project needs something to call the Application subclass is explained here: it's so that it is possible to do an installDist which bundles in JavaFX.
Don't we have to use a global GroovyMock?
If you want to check the interaction, yes. But actually you are testing the JavaFX launcher rather than your application. So I doubt that there is any benefit. I would focus on testing the App class instead. Also imagine for a moment that you would write the classes with main methods in Java instead of Groovy. Groovy mocks would not work when called from Java code, especially not global ones. Then you would end up testing via Powermockito from Spock, which would also work but still you would test the JavaFX launcher rather than your application.
Also isn't it slightly extreme to say any use of Groovy mocks is wrong?
I did not say that. I said: "probably something is wrong with your application design". The reason I said that is because the use of Groovy mocks and things like mocking static methods are test code smells. You can check the smell and then decide it is okay, which IMO in most cases it is not. Besides, instead of application design the problem can also be in the test itself, which in this case I would say it is. But that is arguable, so I am going to present a solution to you further below.
In this case technically the global Application mock is your only way if you do insist to test the JavaFX launcher because even a global mock on App would not work as the launcher uses reflection in order to call the App constructor and that is not intercepted by the mock framework.
you say that Spock spock-core:2.0-M2-groovy-3.0 is a "pre-release". I can't see anything on this page (...) which says that. How do you know?
You found out already by checking out the GitHub repository, but I was just seeing it in the unusual version number containing "M2" like "milestone 2" which is similar to "RC" (or "CR") for release candidates (or candidate releases).
As for the technical problem, you can either not declare Objenesis in your Gradle script because it is an optional dependency, then the test compiles and runs fine, as you already noticed yourself. But assuming you need optional dependencies like Objenesis, CGLIB (actually cglib-nodep), Bytebuddy and ASM for other tests in your suite, you can just tell Spock not to use Objenesis in this case. So assuming you have a Gradle build file like this:
plugins {
id 'groovy'
id 'java'
id 'application'
id 'org.openjfx.javafxplugin' version '0.0.8'
}
repositories { mavenCentral() }
javafx {
version = "11.0.2"
modules = ['javafx.controls', 'javafx.fxml']
}
dependencies {
implementation 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy:3.+'
testImplementation 'org.spockframework:spock-core:2.0-M2-groovy-3.0'
// Optional Spock dependencies, versions matching the ones listed at
// https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.spockframework/spock-core/2.0-M2-groovy-3.0
testImplementation 'net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.9.11'
testImplementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.0.1'
testImplementation 'cglib:cglib-nodep:3.2.10'
testImplementation 'org.ow2.asm:asm:7.1'
}
test { useJUnitPlatform() }
application {
mainClassName = 'de.scrum_master.app.Launcher'
}
installDist {}
My version of your MCVE would looks like this (sorry, I added my own package names and also imports because otherwise it is not really an MCVE):
package de.scrum_master.app
import javafx.application.Application
import javafx.scene.Scene
import javafx.scene.control.Label
import javafx.scene.layout.StackPane
import javafx.stage.Stage
class App extends Application {
#Override
void start(Stage stage) {
def javaVersion = System.getProperty("java.version")
def javafxVersion = System.getProperty("javafx.version")
Label l = new Label("Hello, JavaFX $javafxVersion, running on Java $javaVersion.")
Scene scene = new Scene(new StackPane(l), 640, 480)
stage.setScene(scene)
stage.show()
}
}
package de.scrum_master.app
import javafx.application.Application
class Launcher {
static void main(String[] args) {
Application.launch(App, null)
}
}
package de.scrum_master.app
import javafx.application.Application
import spock.lang.Specification
class AppSpec extends Specification {
def 'Launcher.main should call App.launch'() {
given:
GroovyMock(Application, global: true, useObjenesis: false)
when:
Launcher.main()
then:
1 * Application.launch(App, null)
}
}
The decisive detail here is the useObjenesis: false parameter.
Update: Just for reference, this is how you would do it with a launcher class implemented in Java using PowerMockito.
Attention, this solution needs the Sputnik runner from Spock 1.x which was removed in 2.x. So in Spock 2 this currently does not work because it is based on JUnit 5 and can no longer use #RunWith(PowerMockRunner) and #PowerMockRunnerDelegate(Sputnik) because PowerMock currently does not support JUnit 5. But I tested it with Spock 1.3-groovy-2.5 and Groovy 2.5.8.
package de.scrum_master.app
import javafx.application.Application
import org.junit.runner.RunWith
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunnerDelegate
import org.spockframework.runtime.Sputnik
import spock.lang.Specification
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.*
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner)
#PowerMockRunnerDelegate(Sputnik)
#PrepareForTest(Application)
class JavaAppSpec extends Specification {
def 'JavaLauncher.main should launch JavaApp'() {
given:
mockStatic(Application)
when:
JavaLauncher.main()
then:
verifyStatic(Application, times(1))
Application.launch(JavaApp)
}
}
The error I get is org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.UnfinishedStubbingException, with one of the possible reasons "you are stubbing the behaviour of another mock inside before 'thenReturn' instruction if completed".
val mockHttpHandlerContext = mock<HttpHandlerContext>().let {
whenever(it.request).thenReturn(mock<HttpRequest>().let {
whenever(it.queryParameters).thenReturn(mapOf(
"itype" to listOf("msisdn"),
"uid" to listOf(inputMsisdn)
))
it
})
whenever(it.scope()).thenReturn(ProcessingScope.of(Timings("test", 1000L)))
it
}
Is the only solution to get rid of nested mock creation? It would really make code harder to understand, maybe there is a known workaround?
The code snippet is Kotlin.
Judging by the naming, I assume you're using nhaarman/Mockito-Kotlin?
Mockito is stateful, you must create mocks sequentially, but there are some ways of flipping the order of evaluation. For example,
val mockHttpHandlerContext2 = mock<HttpHandlerContext>() {
mock<HttpRequest>() {
on { queryParameters }.thenReturn(mapOf(
"itype" to listOf("msisdn"),
"uid" to listOf(inputMsisdn)
))
}.let { on { request }.thenReturn(it) }
on { scope() }.thenReturn(ProcessingScope.of(Timings("test", 1000L)))
}
I'm taking advantage of the mock() overload with a KStubbing<T> receiver, but the important bit is creating the inner mock first before using .let to set it on the stub.
Another option would be to use .thenAnswer to defer creation of the inner mock until the time when stubbed method is called.
val mockHttpHandlerContext = mock<HttpHandlerContext>() {
on { request }.thenAnswer {
mock<HttpRequest>() {
on { queryParameters }.thenReturn(mapOf(
"itype" to listOf("msisdn"),
"uid" to listOf(inputMsisdn)
))
}
}
on { scope() }.thenReturn((ProcessingScope.of(Timings("test", 1000L)))
}
Note that this will create a new mock every time the stubbed method is called. It might not be desirable in some situations, such as if you want to perform verification on the inner mock.
I have created a class in Typescript that implements a simple stream (FRP). Now I want to extend it with client side functionality (streams of events). To illustrate my problem, here is some pseudo-code:
class Stream<T> {
map<U>(f: (value: T) => U): Stream<U> {
// Creates a new Stream instance that maps the values.
}
// Quite a few other functions that return new instances.
}
This class can be used both on the server and on the client. For the client side, I created a class that extends this one:
class ClientStream<T> extends Stream<T> {
watch(events: string, selector: string): Stream<Event> {
// Creates a new ClientStream instance
}
}
Now the ClientStream class knows about map but the Stream class doesn't know about watch. To circumvent this, functions call a factory method.
protected create<U>(.....): Stream<U> {
return new Stream<U>(.....)
}
The ClientStream class overrides this function to return ClientStream instances. However, the compiler complains that ClientStream.map returns a Stream, not a ClientStream. That can be 'solved' using a cast, but besides being ugly it prevents chaining.
Example code that exhibits this problem:
class Stream {
protected create(): Stream {
return new Stream()
}
map() {
return this.create()
}
}
class ClientStream extends Stream {
protected create(): ClientStream {
return new ClientStream()
}
watch() {
return this.create()
}
}
let s = new ClientStream().map().watch()
This does not compile because according to the compiler, the stream returned from map is not a ClientStream: error TS2339: Property 'watch' does not exist on type 'Stream'.
I don't really like this pattern, but I have no other solution that is more elegant. Things I've thought about:
Use composition (decorator). Not really an option given the number of methods I would have to proxy through. And I want to be able to add methods to Stream later without having to worry about ClientStream.
Mix Stream into ClientStream. More or less the same problem, ClientStream has to know the signatures of the functions that are going to be mixed in (or not? Please tell).
Merge these classes into one. This is a last resort, the watch function has no business being on the server.
Do you have a better (more elegant) solution? If you have an idea that gets closer to a more functional style, I'd be happy to hear about it. Thanks!
What you're trying to do is called F-bounded polymorphism.
In TypeScript this is done via the this keyword. Take a look at Typescript's documentation for polymorphic this types. If you follow the documentation, you should be able to implement what you want :-)
Actually, just make sure that you're returning this in your member methods and you should be fine!
I would like feedback on the best practices for defining plugin tasks that depend on external state (i.e. defined in the build.gradle that referenced the plugin). I'm using extension objects and closures to defer accessing those settings until they're needed and available. I'm also interested in sharing state between tasks, e.g. configuring the outputs of one task to be the inputs of another.
The code uses "project.afterEvaluate" to define the tasks when the required settings have been configured through the extension object. This seems more complex than should be needed. If I move the code out of the "afterEvaluate", it gets compileFlag == null which isn't the external setting. If the code is changed again to use the << or doLast syntax, then it will get the external flag... but then it fails to work with type:Exec and other similarly helpful types.
I feel that I'm fighting Gradle in some ways, which means I don't understand better how to work well with it. The following is a simplified pseudo-code of what I'm using. This works but I'm looking to see if this can be simplified, or indeed what the best practices are. Also, the exception shouldn't be thrown unless the tasks are being executed.
apply plugin: MyPlugin
class MyPluginExtension {
String compileFlag = null
}
class MyPlugin implements Plugin<Project> {
void apply(Project project) {
project.extensions.create("myPluginConfig", MyPluginExtension)
project.afterEvaluate {
// Closure delays getting and checking flag until strictly needed
def compileFlag = {
if (project.myPluginConfig.compileFlag == null) {
throw new InvalidUserDataException(
"Must set compileFlag: myPluginConfig { compileFlag = '-flag' }")
}
return project.myPluginConfig.compileFlag
}
// Inputs for translateTask
def javaInputs = {
project.files(project.fileTree(
dir: project.projectDir, includes: ['**/*.java']))
}
// This is the output of the first task and input to the second
def translatedOutputs = {
project.files(javaInputs().collect { file ->
return file.path.replace('src/', 'build/dir/')
})
}
// Translates all java files into 'translatedOutputs'
project.tasks.create(name: 'translateTask', type:Exec) {
inputs.files javaInputs()
outputs.files translatedOutputs()
executable '/bin/echo'
inputs.files.each { file ->
args file.path
}
}
// Compiles 'translatedOutputs' to binary
project.tasks.create(name: 'compileTask', type:Exec, dependsOn: 'translateTask') {
inputs.files translatedOutputs()
outputs.file project.file(project.buildDir.path + '/compiledBinary')
executable '/bin/echo'
args compileFlag()
translatedOutputs().each { file ->
args file.path
}
}
}
}
}
I'd look at this problem another way. It seems like what you want to put in your extension is really owned by each of your tasks. If you had something that was a "global" plugin configuration option, would it be treated as an input necessarily?
Another way of doing this would have been to use your own SourceSets and wire those into your custom tasks. That's not quite easy enough yet, IMO. We're still pulling together the JVM and native representations of sources.
I'd recommend extracting your Exec tasks as custom tasks with a #TaskAction that does the heavy lifting (even if it just calls project.exec {}). You can then annotate your inputs with #Input, #InputFiles, etc and your outputs with #OutputFiles, #OutputDirectory, etc. Those annotations will help auto-wire your dependencies and inputs/outputs (I think that's where some of the fighting is coming from).
Another thing that you're missing is if the compileFlag effects the final output, you'd want to detect changes to it and force a rebuild (but not a re-translate).
I simplified the body of the plugin class by using the Groovy .with method.
I'm not completely happy with this (I think the translatedFiles could be done differently), but I hope it shows you some of the best practices. I made this a working example (as long as you have a src/something.java) by implementing the translate as a copy/rename and the compile as something that just creates an 'executable' file (contents is just the list of the inputs). I've also left your extension class in place to demonstrate the "global" plug-in config. Also take a look at what happens with compileFlag is not set (I wish the error was a little better).
The translateTask isn't going to be incremental (although, I think you could probably figure out a way to do that). So you'd probably need to delete the output directory each time. I wouldn't mix other output into that directory if you want to keep that simple.
HTH
apply plugin: 'base'
apply plugin: MyPlugin
class MyTranslateTask extends DefaultTask {
#InputFiles FileCollection srcFiles
#OutputDirectory File translatedDir
#TaskAction
public void translate() {
// println "toolhome is ${project.myPluginConfig.toolHome}"
// translate java files by renaming them
project.copy {
includeEmptyDirs = false
from(srcFiles)
into(translatedDir)
rename '(.+).java', '$1.m'
}
}
}
class MyCompileTask extends DefaultTask {
#Input String compileFlag
#InputFiles FileCollection translatedFiles
#OutputDirectory File outputDir
#TaskAction
public void compile() {
// write inputs to the executable file
project.file("$outputDir/executable") << "${project.myPluginConfig.toolHome} $compileFlag ${translatedFiles.collect { it.path }}"
}
}
class MyPluginExtension {
File toolHome = new File("/some/sane/default")
}
class MyPlugin implements Plugin<Project> {
void apply(Project project) {
project.with {
extensions.create("myPluginConfig", MyPluginExtension)
tasks.create(name: 'translateTask', type: MyTranslateTask) {
description = "Translates all java files into translatedDir"
srcFiles = fileTree(dir: projectDir, includes: [ '**/*.java' ])
translatedDir = file("${buildDir}/dir")
}
tasks.create(name: 'compileTask', type: MyCompileTask) {
description = "Compiles translated files into outputDir"
translatedFiles = fileTree(tasks.translateTask.outputs.files.singleFile) {
includes [ '**/*.m' ]
builtBy tasks.translateTask
}
outputDir = file("${buildDir}/compiledBinary")
}
}
}
}
myPluginConfig {
toolHome = file("/some/custom/path")
}
compileTask {
compileFlag = '-flag'
}