I am building a automated swagger plugin. Here I run through annotated classes.
When we talk about the datatypes of String, Long, etc. is is enough for me use the simpleName method.
But when get to a Class of List, Set, Collection I need to know the generic type.
So how can I do this?
A example of code which do most of the job:
class Foo {
List<String> myString
}
class SomeUtilClass {
static String dataType(Class<?> c) {
return c.simpleName
}
static List<String> dataTypes(Class<?> c) {
return c.metaClass.properties.findAll {MetaProperty metaProperty ->
metaProperty?.field != null
}.collect {dataType(it.type)}
}
}
SomeUtilClass.dataTypes(Foo) // ["List"] but I want something like ["List<String>"]
I found the solution. I can look on the generic type from Cached fields.
See below example:
class SomeUtilClass {
static String dataType(Class<?> c) {
return c.simpleName
}
static List<String> dataTypes(Class<?> c) {
return c.metaClass.properties.findAll {MetaProperty metaProperty ->
metaProperty?.field != null
}.collect {findGenerics(it.type)}
}
static void findGenerics(CachedField t) {
t.field.genericType?.actualTypeArguments.collect {dataType(it)}
}
}
Related
ok - tried looking /reading and not sure i have an answer to this.
I have a Utility class which wraps a static ConcurrentLinkedQueue internally.
The utility class itself adds some static methods - i dont expect to call new to create an instance of the Utility.
I want to intercept the getProperty calls the utility class - and implement these internally in the class definition
I can achieve this by adding the following to the utility classes metaclass, before i use it
UnitOfMeasure.metaClass.static.propertyMissing = {name -> println "accessed prop called $name"}
println UnitOfMeasure.'Each'
however what i want to do is declare the interception in the class definition itself. i tried this in the class definition - but it never seems to get called
static def propertyMissing (receiver, String propName) {
println "prop $propName, saught"
}
i also tried
static def getProperty (String prop) { println "accessed $prop"}
but this isnt called either.
So other than adding to metaClass in my code/script before i use, how can declare the in the utility class that want to capture property accesses
the actual class i have looks like this at present
class UnitOfMeasure {
static ConcurrentLinkedQueue UoMList = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue(["Each", "Per Month", "Days", "Months", "Years", "Hours", "Minutes", "Seconds" ])
String uom
UnitOfMeasure () {
if (!UoMList.contains(this) )
UoMList << this
}
static list () {
UoMList.toArray()
}
static getAt (index) {
def value = null
if (index in 0..(UoMList.size() -1))
value = UoMList[index]
else if (index instanceof String) {
Closure matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(index.toUpperCase())}
def position = UoMList.findIndexOf (matchClosure)
if (position != -1)
value = UoMList[position]
}
value
}
static def propertyMissing (receiver, String propName) {
println "prop $propName, saught"
}
//expects either a String or your own closure, with String will do case insensitive find
static find (match) {
Closure matchClosure
if (match instanceof Closure)
matchClosure = match
if (match instanceof String) {
matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(match.toUpperCase())}
}
def inlist = UoMList.find (matchClosure)
}
static findWithIndex (match) {
Closure matchClosure
if (match instanceof Closure)
matchClosure = match
else if (match instanceof String) {
matchClosure = {it.toUpperCase().contains(match.toUpperCase())}
}
def position = UoMList.findIndexOf (matchClosure)
position != -1 ? [UoMList[position], position] : ["Not In List", -1]
}
}
i'd appreciate the secret of doing this for a static utility class rather than instance level property interception, and doing it in class declaration - not by adding to metaClass before i make the calls.
just so you can see the actual class, and script that calls - i've attached these below
my script thats calling the class looks like this
println UnitOfMeasure.list()
def (uom, position) = UnitOfMeasure.findWithIndex ("Day")
println "$uom at postition $position"
// works UnitOfMeasure.metaClass.static.propertyMissing = {name -> println "accessed prop called $name"}
println UnitOfMeasure[4]
println UnitOfMeasure.'Per'
which errors like this
[Each, Per Month, Days, Months, Years, Hours, Minutes, Seconds]
Days at postition 2
Years
Caught: groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: Per for class: com.softwood.portfolio.UnitOfMeasure
Possible solutions: uom
groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: Per for class: com.softwood.portfolio.UnitOfMeasure
Possible solutions: uom
at com.softwood.scripts.UoMTest.run(UoMTest.groovy:12)
Static version of propertyMissing method is called $static_propertyMissing:
static def $static_propertyMissing(String name) {
// do something
}
This method gets invoked by MetaClassImpl at line 1002:
protected static final String STATIC_METHOD_MISSING = "$static_methodMissing";
protected static final String STATIC_PROPERTY_MISSING = "$static_propertyMissing";
// ...
protected Object invokeStaticMissingProperty(Object instance, String propertyName, Object optionalValue, boolean isGetter) {
MetaClass mc = instance instanceof Class ? registry.getMetaClass((Class) instance) : this;
if (isGetter) {
MetaMethod propertyMissing = mc.getMetaMethod(STATIC_PROPERTY_MISSING, GETTER_MISSING_ARGS);
if (propertyMissing != null) {
return propertyMissing.invoke(instance, new Object[]{propertyName});
}
} else {
// .....
}
// ....
}
Example:
class Hello {
static def $static_propertyMissing(String name) {
println "Hello, $name!"
}
}
Hello.World
Output:
Hello, World!
In java we can write thead-safe singletons using double Checked Locking & volatile:
public class Singleton {
private static volatile Singleton instance;
public static Singleton getInstance(String arg) {
Singleton localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
instance = localInstance = new Singleton(arg);
}
}
}
return localInstance;
}
}
How we can write it in kotlin?
About object
object A {
object B {}
object C {}
init {
C.hashCode()
}
}
I used kotlin decompiler to get that
public final class A {
public static final A INSTANCE;
private A() {
INSTANCE = (A)this;
A.C.INSTANCE.hashCode();
}
static {
new A();
}
public static final class B {
public static final A.B INSTANCE;
private B() {
INSTANCE = (A.B)this;
}
static {
new A.B();
}
}
public static final class C {
public static final A.C INSTANCE;
private C() {
INSTANCE = (A.C)this;
}
static {
new A.C();
}
}
}
All of object have constructor invoke in static block. Based on it, we can think that it's not lazy.
Сlose to the right answer.
class Singleton {
companion object {
val instance: Singleton by lazy(LazyThreadSafetyMode.PUBLICATION) { Singleton() }
}
}
Decompiled:
public static final class Companion {
// $FF: synthetic field
private static final KProperty[] $$delegatedProperties = new KProperty[]{(KProperty)Reflection.property1(new PropertyReference1Impl(Reflection.getOrCreateKotlinClass(Singleton.Companion.class), "instance", "getInstance()Lru/example/project/tech/Singleton;"))};
#NotNull
public final Singleton getInstance() {
Lazy var1 = Singleton.instance$delegate;
KProperty var3 = $$delegatedProperties[0];
return (Singleton)var1.getValue();
}
private Companion() {
}
// $FF: synthetic method
public Companion(DefaultConstructorMarker $constructor_marker) {
this();
}
}
I hope Kotlin developers will make non reflection implementation in future...
Kotlin has an equivalent of your Java code, but more safe. Your double lock check is not recommended even for Java. In Java you should use an inner class on the static which is also explained in Initialization-on-demand holder idiom.
But that's Java. In Kotlin, simply use an object (and optionally a lazy delegate):
object Singletons {
val something: OfMyType by lazy() { ... }
val somethingLazyButLessSo: OtherType = OtherType()
val moreLazies: FancyType by lazy() { ... }
}
You can then access any member variable:
// Singletons is lazy instantiated now, then something is lazy instantiated after.
val thing = Singletons.something // This is Doubly Lazy!
// this one is already loaded due to previous line
val eager = Singletons.somethingLazyButLessSo
// and Singletons.moreLazies isn't loaded yet until first access...
Kotlin intentionally avoids the confusion people have with singletons in Java. And avoids the "wrong versions" of this pattern -- of which there are many. It instead provides the simpler and the safest form of singletons.
Given the use of lazy(), if you have other members each would individually be lazy. And since they are initialized in the lambda passed to lazy() you can do things that you were asking about for about customizing the constructor, and for each member property.
As a result you have lazy loading of Singletons object (on first access of instance), and then lazier loading of something (on first access of member), and complete flexibility in object construction.
See also:
lazy() function
Lazy thread safe mode options
Object declarations
As a side note, look at object registry type libraries for Kotlin that are similar to dependency injection, giving you singletons with injection options:
Injekt - I'm the author
Kodein - Very similar and good
Object declaration is exactly for this purpose:
object Singleton {
//singleton members
}
It is lazy and thread-safe, it initializes upon first call, much as Java's static initializers.
You can declare an object at top level or inside a class or another object.
For more info about working with objects from Java, please refer to this answer.
As to the parameter, if you want to achieve exactly the same semantics (first call to getInstance takes its argument to initialize the singleton, following calls just return the instance, dropping the arguments), I would suggest this construct:
private object SingletonInit { //invisible outside the file
lateinit var arg0: String
}
object Singleton {
val arg0: String = SingletonInit.arg0
}
fun Singleton(arg0: String): Singleton { //mimic a constructor, if you want
synchronized(SingletonInit) {
SingletonInit.arg0 = arg0
return Singleton
}
}
The main flaw of this solution is that it requires the singleton to be defined in a separate file to hide the object SingletonInit, and you cannot reference Singleton directly until it's initialized.
Also, see a similar question about providing arguments to a singleton.
I recently wrote an article on that topic.
TL;DR Here's the solution I came up to:
1) Create a SingletonHolder class. You only have to write it once:
open class SingletonHolder<out T, in A>(creator: (A) -> T) {
private var creator: ((A) -> T)? = creator
#Volatile private var instance: T? = null
fun getInstance(arg: A): T {
val i = instance
if (i != null) {
return i
}
return synchronized(this) {
val i2 = instance
if (i2 != null) {
i2
} else {
val created = creator!!(arg)
instance = created
creator = null
created
}
}
}
}
2) Use it like this in your singletons:
class MySingleton private constructor(arg: ArgumentType) {
init {
// Init using argument
}
companion object : SingletonHolder<MySingleton, ArgumentType>(::MySingleton)
}
The singleton initialization will be lazy and thread-safe.
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Entity {
...
double getMass() {
...
}
...
}
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Location {
...
Entity[] getContent() {
...
}
...
}
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
abstract class Container {...} //inherits, somehow, from both Location and Entity
#groovy.transform.TypeChecked
class Main {
void main() {
double x
Container c = new Chest() //Chest extends Container
Entity e = c
x = e.mass
Location l = c
x = l.content //Programmer error, should throw compile-time error
}
}
Essentially, is there a way to achieve this, without sacrificing any of the three properties outlines in main():
Direct access to fields, even virtual fields
Assigning to both super-classes
Typechecking (at compile-time)
I don't think you can do that with classes. Maybe you'd wanted traits (under discussion update: available in Groovy 2.3 and already rocking!) or, for a pure dynamic solution, #Mixin, which you'd back up with a good test suite.
My guess: #Delegate is your best friend here, but, as it stands, you can only store a Chest object in a Container type variable. So you'd need some interfaces.
Even if the superclass is not under your control, you can use groovy as operator to make it implement an interface.
First, i rewrote your classes to remove the abstract and add interfaces:
import groovy.transform.TypeChecked as TC
interface HasMass { double mass }
interface HasContent { Entity[] getContent() }
#TC class Entity implements HasMass { double mass }
#TC class Location {
Entity[] getContent() {
[new Entity(mass: 10.0), new Entity(mass: 20.0)] as Entity[]
}
}
Note i didn't added HasContent to Location, to show the usage of as.
Second, comes the Container and Chest. #Delegate is added and it auto-inherits the interfaces of the delegates:
#TC
abstract class Container {
#Delegate Location location = new Location()
#Delegate Entity entity = new Entity()
}
#TC class Chest extends Container { }
Last, it becomes type-checkable, as long as you stick to interfaces:
#TC class Mult {
static main(args) {
def x // use 'def' for flow-typing
Container c = new Chest() //Chest extends Container
HasMass e = c
x = e.mass
def l = c as HasContent
x = l.content //Programmer error, should throw compile-time error
assert c.content.collect { Entity it -> it.mass } == [10.0, 20.0]
}
}
I have simple Groovy category class which adds method to String instances:
final class SampleCategory {
static String withBraces(String self) {
"($self)"
}
}
I want to use this category in my unit tests (for example). It looks like this:
class MyTest {
#Test
void shouldDoThis() {
use (SampleCategory) {
assert 'this'.withBraces() == '(this)'
}
}
#Test
void shouldDoThat() {
use (SampleCategory) {
assert 'that'.withBraces() == '(that)'
}
}
}
What I'd like to achieve, however, is ability to specify that category SampleCategory is used in scope of each and every instance method of MyTest so I don't have to specify use(SampleCategory) { ... } in every method.
Is it possible?
You can use mixin to apply the category directly to String's metaClass. Assign null to the metaClass to reset it to groovy defaults. For example:
#Before void setUp() {
String.mixin(SampleCategory)
}
#After void tearDown() {
String.metaClass = null
}
#Test
void shouldDoThat() {
assert 'that'.withBraces() == '(that)'
}
Now you have the option to use extension modules instead of categories:
http://mrhaki.blogspot.se/2013/01/groovy-goodness-adding-extra-methods.html
On the plus side Intellij will recognize the extensions. I've just noticed that it doesn't even need to be a separate module as suggested by the link, just add META-INF/services/org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ExtensionModule to the project:
# File: src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ExtensionModule
moduleName = module
moduleVersion = 1.0
extensionClasses = SampleExtension
The extension class is pretty much defined like a normal category:
class SampleExtension {
static String withBraces(String self) {
"($self)"
}
}
Can be used like:
def "Sample extension"() {
expect: 'this'.withBraces() == '(this)'
}
If you are using Spock there is a #Use annotation that can be used on the specifications. The drawback with that is that Intellij will not recognize it.
Given a EF-Code First CTP5 entity layout like:
public class Person { ... }
which has a collection of:
public class Address { ... }
which has a single association of:
public class Mailbox { ... }
I want to do:
PersonQuery.Include(x => x.Addresses).Include("Addresses.Mailbox")
WITHOUT using a magic string. I want to do it using a lambda expression.
I am aware what I typed above will compile and will bring back all Persons matching the search criteria with their addresses and each addresses' mailbox eager loaded, but it's in a string which irritates me.
How do I do it without a string?
Thanks Stack!
For that you can use the Select method:
PersonQuery.Include(x => x.Addresses.Select(a => a.Mailbox));
You can find other examples in here and here.
For any one thats still looking for a solution to this, the Lambda includes is part of EF 4+ and it is in the System.Data.Entity namespace; examples here
http://romiller.com/2010/07/14/ef-ctp4-tips-tricks-include-with-lambda/
It is described in this post: http://www.thomaslevesque.com/2010/10/03/entity-framework-using-include-with-lambda-expressions/
Edit (By Asker for readability):
The part you are looking for is below:
public static class ObjectQueryExtensions
{
public static ObjectQuery<T> Include<T>(this ObjectQuery<T> query, Expression<Func<T, object>> selector)
{
string path = new PropertyPathVisitor().GetPropertyPath(selector);
return query.Include(path);
}
class PropertyPathVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
private Stack<string> _stack;
public string GetPropertyPath(Expression expression)
{
_stack = new Stack<string>();
Visit(expression);
return _stack
.Aggregate(
new StringBuilder(),
(sb, name) =>
(sb.Length > 0 ? sb.Append(".") : sb).Append(name))
.ToString();
}
protected override Expression VisitMember(MemberExpression expression)
{
if (_stack != null)
_stack.Push(expression.Member.Name);
return base.VisitMember(expression);
}
protected override Expression VisitMethodCall(MethodCallExpression expression)
{
if (IsLinqOperator(expression.Method))
{
for (int i = 1; i < expression.Arguments.Count; i++)
{
Visit(expression.Arguments[i]);
}
Visit(expression.Arguments[0]);
return expression;
}
return base.VisitMethodCall(expression);
}
private static bool IsLinqOperator(MethodInfo method)
{
if (method.DeclaringType != typeof(Queryable) && method.DeclaringType != typeof(Enumerable))
return false;
return Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(method, typeof(ExtensionAttribute)) != null;
}
}
}