I am building DSL and try to define a custom class CustomClass that you can use in expressions like
def result = customInstance >= 100 ? 'a' : 'b'
if (customInstance == 'hello') {...}
Groovy doesn't call == when your class defines equals and implements Comparable (defines compareTo) at the same time.
Instead Groovy calls compareToWithEqualityCheck which has a branching logic. And unless your custom DSL class is assignable from String or Number your custom compareTo won't be called for the example above.
You can't extend CustomClass with String.
I feel like I am missing something. Hope you can help me figure out how to implement a simple case like I showed above.
Here is a short answer first: You could extend GString for the CustomClass. Then its compareTo method will be called in both cases - when you check for equality and when you actually compare.
Edit: Considering the following cases, it will work for 1 and 2, but not for 3.
customInstance >= 100 // case 1
customInstance == 'hallo' // case 2
customInstance == 10 // case 3
Now I will explain what I understand from the implementation in Groovy's ScriptBytecodeAdapter and DefaultTypeTransformation.
For the == operator, in case Comparable is implemented (and there is no simple identity), it tries to use the interface method compareTo, hence the same logic that is used for other comparison operators. Only if Comparable is not implemented it tries to determine equality based on some smart type adjustments and as an ultima ratio falls back to calling the equals method. This happens in DefaultTypeTransformation.compareEqual#L603-L608
For all other comparison operators such as >=, Groovy delegates to the compareToWithEqualityCheck method. Now this method is called with the equalityCheckOnly flag set to false, while it is set to true for the first case when it the invocation originates from the == operator. Again there is some Groovy smartness happening based on the type of the left side if it is Number, Character, or String. If none applies it ends up calling the compareTo method in DefaultTypeTransformation.compareToWithEqualityCheck#L584-L586.
Now, this happens only if
!equalityCheckOnly || left.getClass().isAssignableFrom(right.getClass())
|| (right.getClass() != Object.class && right.getClass().isAssignableFrom(left.getClass())) //GROOVY-4046
|| (left instanceof GString && right instanceof String)
There are some restrictions for the case of equalityCheckOnly, hence when we come from the == operator. While I can not explain all of those I believe these are to prevent exceptions to be thrown under specific circumstances, such as the issue mentioned in the comment.
For brevity I omitted above that there are also cases that are handled upfront in the ScriptBytecodeAdapter and delegated to equals right away, if left and right hand side are both of the same type and one of Integer, Double or Long.
Related
I'm learning groovy to work on smartthings and found a relatively common command among the various examples and existing code (see below).
Reading the function of the && operator I would think the "&& cmd.previousMeterValue" is superfluous. Or is there some code shortcut I'm missing?
Thanks
John
if (cmd.previousMeterValue && cmd.previousMeterValue != cmd.meterValue) {
do something
}
Not knowing what type previousMeterValue has, this answer is somewhat generic.
Groovy follows common operator precedence, i.e. != is evaluated before &&.
To show it explicitly, the full expression is the same as:
(cmd.previousMeterValue) && (cmd.previousMeterValue != cmd.meterValue)
cmd.previousMeterValue is testing the value for the Groovy-Truth.
Depending on value type, the following might be applicable:
Non-null object references are coerced to true.
Non-zero numbers are true.
So if the value is null or 0, the expression is false.
If the first part of the expression evaluated to false, then the second part is skipped.
The logical && operator: if the left operand is false, it knows that the result will be false in any case, so it won’t evaluate the right operand. The right operand will be evaluated only if the left operand is true.
If the first part of the expression evaluated to true, then cmd.previousMeterValue != cmd.meterValue is evaluated, using the following rule:
In Groovy == translates to a.compareTo(b)==0, if they are Comparable, and a.equals(b) otherwise.
So if value is a number object, then it is evaluated as:
cmd.previousMeterValue.compareTo(cmd.meterValue) != 0
This means that BigDecimal values are compared by value, ignoring specific scale.
While studying the Groovy (2.4.4) syntax in the official documentation, I came across the special behavior concerning maps with GStrings as identifiers. As described in the documentation, GStrings are a bad idea as (hash)map identifiers, because the hashcodes of a non-evaluated GString-object differs from a regular String-object with the same representation as the evaluated GString.
Example:
def key = "id"
def m = ["${key}": "value for ${key}"]
println "id".hashCode() // prints "3355"
println "${key}".hashCode() // prints "3392", different hashcode
assert m["id"] == null // evaluates true
However, my intuitive expectation was that using the actual GString identifier to address a key in the map will in fact deliver the value - but it does not.
def key = "id"
def m = ["${key}": "value for ${key}"]
assert m["${key}"] == null // evaluates also true, not expected
That made me curious. So I had several suggestions concerning this issue and did some experiments.
(pls keep in my mind that I am new to Groovy and I was just brainstorming on the fly - continue to Suggestion #4 if you do not want to read how I tried to examine the cause of the issue)
Suggestion #1. hashcode for GString objects works/is implemented somewhat non-deterministic for whatever reason and delivers different results depending on the context or the actual object.
That turned out to be nonsense quite fast:
println "${key}".hashCode() // prints "3392"
// do sth else
println "${key}".hashCode() // still "3392"
Suggestion #2. The actual key in the map or the map item does not have the expected representation or hashcode.
I took a closer look at the item in the map, the key, and its hashcode.
println m // prints "[id:value for id]", as expected
m.each {
it -> println key.hashCode()
} // prints "3355" - hashcode of the String "id"
So the hashcode of the key inside the map is different from the GString hashcode. HA! or not. Though it is nice to know, it is actually not relevant because I still do know the actual hashcodes in the map index. I just rehashed a key that has been transformed to a string after being put into the index. So what else?
Suggestion #3. The equals-method of a GString has an unknown or non- implemented behavior.
No matter whether two hashcodes are equal, they may not represent the same object in a map. That depends on the implementation of the equals method for the class of the key-object. If the equals-method is, for instance, not implemented, two objects are not equal even if the hashcode is identical and therefore the desired map key cannot be adressed properly. So I tried:
def a = "${key}"
def b = "${key}"
assert a.equals(b) // returns true (unfortunate but expected)
So two representations of the same GString are equal by default.
I skip some others ideas I tried and continue with the last thing I tried just before I was going to write this post.
Suggestion #4. The syntax of access matters.
That was a real killer of understanding. I knew before: There are syntactically different ways two access map values. Each way has its restrictions, but I thought the results stay the same. Well, this came up:
def key = "id"
def m = ["${key}": "value for ${key}"]
assert m["id"] == null // as before
assert m["${key}"] == null // as before
assert m.get("${key}") == null // assertion fails, value returned
So if I use the get-method of a map, I get the actual value in the way I expected it to in the first place.
What is the explanation for this map access behavior concerning GStrings? (or what kind of rookie mistake is hidden here?)
Thanks for your patience.
EDIT: I am afraid that my actual question is not clearly stated, so here is the case in short and concise:
When I have a map with a GString as a key like this
def m = ["${key}": "value for ${key}"]
why does this return the value
println m.get("${key}")
but that does not
println m["${key}"]
?
You can look at this matter with a very different approach. A map is supposed to have immutable keys (at least for hashcode and equals), because the map implementation depends on this. GString is mutable, thus not really suited for map keys in general. There is also the problem of calling String#equals(GString). GString is a Groovy class, so we can influence the equals method to equal to a String just fine. But String is very different. That means calling equals on a String with a GString will always be false in the Java world, even if hashcode() would behave the same for String and GString. And now imagine a map with String keys and you ask the map for a value with a GString. It would always return null. On the other hand a map with GString keys queried with a String could return the "proper" value. This means there will always be a disconnection.
And because of this problem GString#hashCode() is not equal to String#hashCode() on purpose.
It is in no way non-deterministic, but a GString hashcode can change, if the participating objects change their toString representation:
def map = [:]
def gstring = "$map"
def hashCodeOld = gstring.hashCode()
assert hashCodeOld == gstring.hashCode()
map.foo = "bar"
assert hashCodeOld != gstring.hashCode()
Here the toString representation of map will change for Groovy and GString, thus the GString will produce a different hashcode
The Java way to compare two BigDecimals is to use the compareTo() method, and check if the result is -1, 0 or 1.
BigDecimal a = new BigDecimal("1.23")
BigDecimal b = new BigDecimal("3.45")
if (a.compareTo(b) > 0)) { }
I have seen that some people are using this format in grails:
if (a > b) { }
Does this work correctly? I.e. will it get the decimals correct, or is it converting to float or similar and comparing that?
How about using "==" vs using equals()?
What is the consequence of something like this:
BigDecimal a = new BigDecimal("1.00")
BigDecimal b = new BigDecimal("1")
assert (a==b)
It seems to work, but we have had it so engrained in Java not to do this kind of thing.
How about +=? e.g.
a+=b?
Would this be the same as
a = a.add(b)
Where does one find this kind of thing out? I have two groovy books, and unfortunately neither mention BigDecimal comparison or arithmetic, only the conversion/declaration.
Groovy allows overloading of operators. When a type implements certain methods then you can use a corresponding operator on that type.
For + the method to implement is plus, not add.
For greater than or less than comparisons, Groovy looks for a compareTo method on the object, and for == it looks for a method named equals. (If you want to compare references as if using == in Java, you have to use is.)
Here's a table of common math operators and the method used to overload them:
Operator Method
a + b a.plus(b)
a - b a.minus(b)
a * b a.multiply(b)
a / b a.divide(b)
a++ or ++a a.next()
a-- or --a a.previous()
a << b a.leftShift(b)
You can see that BigDecimal overloads some of these methods (you get operator overloading for plus, minus, multiply, and divide, but not for next, previous, or leftShift):
groovy:000> BigDecimal.methods*.name
===> [equals, hashCode, toString, intValue, longValue, floatValue, doubleValue,
byteValue, shortValue, add, add, subtract, subtract, multiply, multiply, divide,
divide, divide, divide, divide, divide, remainder, remainder, divideAndRemainde
r, divideAndRemainder, divideToIntegralValue, divideToIntegralValue, abs, abs, m
ax, min, negate, negate, plus, plus, byteValueExact, shortValueExact, intValueEx
act, longValueExact, toBigIntegerExact, toBigInteger, compareTo, precision, scal
e, signum, ulp, unscaledValue, pow, pow, movePointLeft, movePointRight, scaleByP
owerOfTen, setScale, setScale, setScale, stripTrailingZeros, toEngineeringString
, toPlainString, round, compareTo, getClass, notify, notifyAll, wait, wait, wait
, valueOf, valueOf, valueOf]
You get ==, >, <, >=, and <= based on how your object implements equals and compareTo.
So the operator is causing methods declared already in BigDecimal, or added to BigDecimal by groovy, to get called. It is definitely not doing any kind of conversion to a primitive type like float in order to be able to use the operators on primitives.
The table is taken from this developerworks article by Andrew Glover and Scott Davis, which has more details and includes example code.
Groovy does a wonderful job of managing numbers and to infinite precision. First thing you should know is that any number that has a dot in it is by default a BigDecimal -- the reason for the infinite precision. Here is an example of what this means exactly. Consider this snippet:
System.out.println(2.0 - 1.1);
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(2.0).subtract(new BigDecimal(1.1)));
System.out.println(new BigDecimal("2.0").subtract(new BigDecimal("1.1")));
// the above will give these:
0.8999999999999999
0.899999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375
0.9
This shows the endurance we have to go through to get something decent in Java. In Groovy, this is all you have to do:
println 2 - 1.1
to get your 0.9! Try this on the Groovy web console. Here, the second operand is a BigDecimal, so the entire calculation is in BigDecimal, and precision is what Groovy would strive for to finish off clean in this case.
But how? This is because almost every operator in Groovy is mapped onto method calls on objects under the hood, so a + b is a.plus(b), and a==b translates to a.compareTo(b). It is therefore safe to assume what you assumed and this is the Groovy way of doing things: write less, expressively, and Groovy will do the work for you. You can learn about all this in the Groovy-lang documentation page with examples all over.
The short answer is yes, it's safe to use == for BigDecimal comparison in Groovy.
From the Groovy documentation Behaviour of == section:
In Java == means equality of primitive types or identity for objects. In Groovy == translates to a.compareTo(b)==0, if they are Comparable, and a.equals(b) otherwise. To check for identity, there is is. E.g. a.is(b).
I have a question about using the new Objects.compare(o1, o2, Comparator) method - from my own testing of it, if both o1 and o2 are null then it returns 0, however, if one of them is null then it still throws a null pointer exception. I have found a lot of material on Objects.equals and some of the other Objects utility methods but not much at all on Objects.compare and when we are expected to use it / replace old code with it.
So here I could do this:
String s1 = "hi";
String s2 = "hi";
int x = Objects.compare(s1, s2, Comparator.naturalOrder());
System.out.println("x = " + x);
That works fine, returns 0, now this:
String s1 = null;
String s2 = null;
Also works fine and returns 0. However, this:
String s1 = "hi";
Strng s2 = null;
Throws a NullPointerException. I'm guessing the benefit of Objects.compare(o1,o2,Comparator) vs o1.compareTo(o2) is that it at least handles circumstances where both objects are null and when one of them is null it allows you to design a Comparator to handle it. I'm supposing, e.g.
int x = Objects.compare(s1, s2, Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.naturalOrder()));
Whereas with x.compareTo(y) there's no way to handle null unless you do so beforehand? So do the Java library developers now intend us to replace all calls to compareTo with Objects.compare, when we're concerned about nulls? e.g. would we do this in our Comparable implementations?
Side query 1: With regards to using nullsFirst if you use it then pass in a Comparator, which is chained using comparing, thenComparing, etc, does it apply to all of the inner comparators? e.g.
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(Song::getTitle)
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist)
.thenComparing(Song::getDuration)
)
Would that apply nullsFirst to everything inside or do you need to use nullsFirst individually on each of them? I think from testing that it only applies to the actual Song objects being null, not for the fields of title or artist being null, i.e. if they are null then a NullPointerException is still thrown. Anyway around that?
Side query 2: final question is that because I like the Comparator.comparing syntax, I'm proposing to start to write my compareTo implementions using it - I was struggling to think how to replace this traditional approach, e.g.
public int compareTo(Song other) {
int result = this.title.compareTo(other.title);
if (result == 0) {
result = this.artist.compareTo(other.artist);
if (result == 0) {
result = Integer.compare(this.duration, other.duration);
}
}
return result;
}
then I thought I could use Objects.compare(...) as follows:
public int compareTo(Song other) {
return Objects.compare(this, other, Comparator.nullsFirst(
Comparator.comparing(Song::getTitle)
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist)
.thenComparingInt(Song::getDuration)
));
}
I thought this version was more elegant - I am assuming it is working as I think it is, e.g. by passing this and other as the first 2 arguments then the comparator, it has the same effect as the traditional compareTo approach with if statements? Whilst I can see that the benefit of Objects.compare catching two nulls would never occur as if this was null then the compareTo method call would never be reached (either by handling the exception or it being thrown). But by using nullsFirst I suppose if the argument passed in, i.e. other, was null, then this would handle this safely?
Many thanks in advance for any help.
Objects.compare is not meant to provide a null safe comparison, since there is no default behavior that could be implemented. It just implements a shortcut of not invoking the Comparator’s method when both objects are identical. In other words, it does a==b? 0: c.compare(a, b), nothing more. So not breaking when both objects are null is just a side-effect. The encapsulated code might look trivial but the other methods in this class are of a similar category. Using small utility methods a lot might still result in a notable win.
By the way, it’s not a Java 8 method at all. It exists since Java 7.
Regarding your second question, Comparator.nullsFirst(…) decorates an existing Comparator and will enforce the rule for null values before delegating to the provided comparator as it is the purpose of this comparator to shield the existing one from ever seeing null values. It doesn’t matter whether the decorated comparator is a chained one or not. As long as it is what you called the “inner comparator”, as
you must not invoke thenComparing on the result of nullsFirst as that would imply calling the next comparator when both values are null.
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(a).thenComparing(b)) // perfect
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(a)).thenComparing(b) // ouch
Now to your third question, implementing a compareTo method using a nullsFirst comparator is violating the interface specification:
The implementor must ensure sgn(x.compareTo(y)) == -sgn(y.compareTo(x)) for all x and y. (This implies that x.compareTo(y) must throw an exception iff y.compareTo(x) throws an exception.)
This implies that passing null as argument should always result in a NullPointerException as swapping argument and receiver would throw as well, unconditionally.
Orders including a null policy should always be provided as separate Comparators.
Note that it would also be quite inefficient as you would create a new Comparator (multiple Comparators, to be precise) for every compareTo call. Now image sorting a rather large list of these objects…
What I normally do for your final question is to first create a static comparator reference within the class:
public static final Comparator<Song> COMP_DEFAULT
= nullsFirst(comparing(Song::getTitle, nullsFirst(naturalOrder()))
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist, nullsFirst(naturalOrder()))
.thenComparingInt(Song::getDuration));
And then refer to this comparator in compareTo
public int compareTo(Song other) {
return COMP_DEFAULT.compare(this, other);
}
This way you're not recreating your comparator for each compareTo call, null safety of Song is guaranteed as is the result of a.comparetTo(b) == b.compareTo(a).
We also ensure null safety of each property by using nullsFirst(naturalOrder()) for the passed in key comparator (second argument).
As the Comparator returned is immutable it can be made public which can be handy for bundling some alternate Comparators with the class that consumers may use.
According to the Groovy docs, the == is just a "clever" equals() as it also takes care of avoiding NullPointerException:
Java’s == is actually Groovy’s is() method, and Groovy’s == is a clever equals()!
[...]
But to do the usual equals() comparison, you should prefer Groovy’s ==, as it also takes care of avoiding NullPointerException, independently of whether the left or right is null or not.
So, the == and equals() should return the same value if the objects are not null. However, I'm getting unexpected results on executing the following script:
println "${'test'}" == 'test'
println "${'test'}".equals('test')
The output that I'm getting is:
true
false
Is this a known bug related to GStringImpl or something that I'm missing?
Nice question, the surprising thing about the code above is that
println "${'test'}".equals('test')
returns false. The other line of code returns the expected result, so let's forget about that.
Summary
"${'test'}".equals('test')
The object that equals is called on is of type GStringImpl whereas 'test' is of type String, so they are not considered equal.
But Why?
Obviously the GStringImpl implementation of equals could have been written such that when it is passed a String that contain the same characters as this, it returns true. Prima facie, this seems like a reasonable thing to do.
I'm guessing that the reason it wasn't written this way is because it would violate the equals contract, which states that:
It is symmetric: for any non-null reference values x and y, x.equals(y) should return true if and only if y.equals(x) returns true.
The implementation of String.equals(Object other) will always return false when passed a GSStringImpl, so if GStringImpl.equals(Object other) returns true when passed any String, it would be in violation of the symmetric requirement.
In groovy a == b checks first for a compareTo method and uses a.compareTo(b) == 0 if a compareTo method exists. Otherwise it will use equals.
Since Strings and GStrings implement Comparable there is a compareTo method available.
The following prints true, as expected:
println "${'test'}".compareTo('test') == 0
The behaviour of == is documented in the Groovy Language Documentation:
In Java == means equality of primitive types or identity for objects. In Groovy == means equality in all cases. It translates to a.compareTo(b) == 0, when evaluating equality for Comparable objects, and a.equals(b) otherwise. To check for identity (reference equality), use the is method: a.is(b). From Groovy 3, you can also use the === operator (or negated version): a === b (or c !== d).
The full list of operators are provided in the Groovy Language Documentation for operator overloading:
Operator
Method
+
a.plus(b)
-
a.minus(b)
*
a.multiply(b)
/
a.div(b)
%
a.mod(b)
**
a.power(b)
|
a.or(b)
&
a.and(b)
^
a.xor(b)
as
a.asType(b)
a()
a.call()
a[b]
a.getAt(b)
a[b] = c
a.putAt(b, c)
a in b
b.isCase(a)
<<
a.leftShift(b)
>>
a.rightShift(b)
>>>
a.rightShiftUnsigned(b)
++
a.next()
--
a.previous()
+a
a.positive()
-a
a.negative()
~a
a.bitwiseNegate()
Leaving this here as an additional answer, so it can be found easily for Groovy beginners.
I am explicitly transforming the GString to a normal String before comparing it.
println "${'test'}".equals("test");
println "${'test'}".toString().equals("test");
results in
false
true