class GroovyClass {
def aVariable
void setAVariable(aVariable)
{
this.aVariable = aVariable;
}
}
My understanding was that we don't need to specify the type of a variable in a groovy class. But Groovy compiler complains if I declare 'aVariable' , why isn't it considered as a typeless variable with default accessibility ? Should every variable be defined with a def in Groovy both local and class ? Why is it that the function definition doesn't have to begin with a def ? and when I'm passing in a variable to the setter, it doesn't need any def in there ?
That code works fine. What do you mean by "Groovy compiler complains"?
You can define that function with a def if you wanted, and it would return aVariable (as that is what the assignment operatop returns), however, it wouldnt be following the standard for Java Beans in that setters should return null
Given that however, I can run:
a = new GroovyClass()
a.aVariable = 3
And it works fine
Edit
Basically, it's all down to the Groovy parser. The parser expects some sort of list of 1..N keywords defining it's type or visibility, and then a name for the variable. So the following are all valid:
class OkA {
def aValue
}
class OkB {
private aValue
}
class OkC {
private String aValue
}
But you cannot just (with the current parser) say:
class BadA {
aValue
}
Thinking about it, there's no reason I can currently think of for this restriction (as you can declare vars without def in Groovy), but the restriction is there, so you need to type def when defining class attributes.
Related
I have set up a simple dummy class as follows, and used a static initialiser to update the metaClass:
class DynamicExtendableClass {
static String declaredStaticString = "declared static string"
static String getDeclaredMethodStaticString () {
"static method returning string"
}
static {
println "static initialiser - adding dynamic properties and methods to metaClass"
DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass.addedProperty = "added property to class metaClass"
DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass.getAddedMethod = { -> "added closure as method" }
DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass.static.getStaticAddedMethod = { -> "added closure as static method" }
}
}
I have a simple test case like this:
#Test
void testExtendedMetaClassStuff () {
DynamicExtendableClass testInstance = new DynamicExtendableClass()
assertEquals ("added property to class metaClass", testInstance.addedProperty)
assertEquals ("added closure as static method", testInstance.getStaticAddedMethod()) //calls getStaticAddedMethod - groovy trick
assertEquals ("added closure as method", testInstance.addedMethod) //works. calls getAddedMethod - groovy trick for getXxx as property
assertEquals ("added closure as static method", DynamicExtendableClass.staticAddedMethod ) //works class static class Closure
}
Which works only once you create a first instance of the class which forces a switch to ExpandoMetaClass for you.
If you don't do this first the default HandleMetaClassImpl doesn't work for this.
However to get this to work for static you have to create closure like getXxxx = {-> ...}, which if you call 'DynamicExtendableClass.staticAddedMethod' will sneakily invoke the closure for you.
However, there's not really a means to add a property capability here for '.static' as there is on the standard metaClass itself. All you can do is set a closure onto .static. Why is this?
The other problem is having to create an instance of the class first to force the switch to ExpandoMetaClass, is there not a simple way to force the metaClass change when declaring the class in the first class, before creating any instances ?
I want to add some static properties (later some methods maybe ) dynamically to a class, but all you can add is static closures, which is a little limiting on the scenario I had in mind.
PostScript
I managed to force a change of metaClass on class without having to create an instance, but it's a bit hard work:
#Test
void testMetaClassStatic () {
println DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass
MetaClassRegistry registry = GroovySystem.getMetaClassRegistry()
MetaClass origMC = registry.getMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
assert origMC.getClass() == HandleMetaClass //default implementation
ExpandoMetaClass emc = new ExpandoMetaClass (DynamicExtendableClass, true, true)
emc.static.getStaticAddedMethod = {-> "static hello from my emc"}
emc.initialize()
registry.removeMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
registry.setMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass, emc)
assert DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass.getClass() == ExpandoMetaClass
assert DynamicExtendableClass.staticAddedMethod == "static hello from my emc"
registry.removeMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
registry.setMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass, origMC)
}
But doing this breaks my previously working tests (not sure why) with:
Could not initialize class extensible.DynamicExtendableClass
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class extensible.DynamicExtendableClass
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:77)
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstanceWithCaller(Constructor.java:499)
at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:480)
at org.codehaus.groovy.reflection.CachedConstructor.invoke(CachedConstructor.java:73)
at org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.ConstructorSite$ConstructorSiteNoUnwrapNoCoerce.callConstructor(ConstructorSite.java:108)
at org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.CallSiteArray.defaultCallConstructor(CallSiteArray.java:59)
at org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.AbstractCallSite.callConstructor(AbstractCallSite.java:263)
at org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.callsite.AbstractCallSite.callConstructor(AbstractCallSite.java:268)
at extensible.DynamicExtendableClassTest.testExtendedMetaClassStuff(DynamicExtendableClassTest.groovy:22)
at ...
Another postscript
I did a little exploration with a debugger. 1st the metaClass.static returns a class of type ExpandoMetaClass.ExpandoMetaProperty which of itself isn't terribly useful. You can do a direct .#this$0 field access however which just points the same metaClass instance as the target class you start with.
Therefore ignoring this you can do a direct field grab on <yourClass>.metaClass.#expandoProperties (I tried to get this via reflection using:
PropertyValue expandoProperties = clazz.metaClass.getMetaPropertyValues().find{it.name == 'expandoProperties'}
List<MetaBeanProperty> MBprops2= properties.getValue()
Map m2 = MBprops.findAll{Modifier.isPublic(it.modifiers)}.collectEntries{[(it.name), it.getProperty(clazz)] }
but it doesn't get the same content as the direct field access does.
The direct field access returns a Map where the key is the string value of any added closures or properties added dynamically to the metaClass, and the value is a MetaBeanProperty reference.
On that MetaBeanProperty you can invoke the getProperty (object) using with the class metaClass or per instance metaClass - and it returns the value of that property (whether it's just a closure or a real property) for you. You can also test whether its static or not:
Map m4 = thisMc.#expandoProperties
MetaBeanProperty asm = m4['addedStaticMethod']
def val2 = asm.getProperty(clazz)
boolean isstatic = Modifier.isStatic(asm.modifiers)
Kind of brutal but it sort of works if you want to dynamically query the dynamic editions to the metaclass.
The problem of forcing the switch from default metaClass to the ExpandoMetaClass remains a problem. The best way seems to create a throw away class instance as this does the one time switch for you.
I tried to force this myself using the metaClass registry which you can do, but then the future create new instance for your class seems to stop working ie. doing somethings like this and putting the original back afterwords seems to break any future new <MyClass>() calls.
MetaClassRegistry registry = GroovySystem.getMetaClassRegistry()
MetaClass origMC = registry.getMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
assert origMC.getClass() == MetaClassImpl //default implementation
def constructors = MetaClassImpl.getConstructors()
ExpandoMetaClass emc = new ExpandoMetaClass (DynamicExtendableClass, true, true)
emc.static.getStaticAddedMethod = {-> "static hello from my emc"}
emc.constructor = { new DynamicExtendableClass() }
emc.initialize()
registry.removeMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
registry.setMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass, emc)
assert DynamicExtendableClass.metaClass.getClass() == ExpandoMetaClass
assert DynamicExtendableClass.staticAddedMethod == "static hello from my emc"
registry.removeMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass)
registry.setMetaClass(DynamicExtendableClass, origMC)
I have two immutable groovy classes that have a few shared values that I'm trying to abstract to a parent class. However when I create the following, the second test case always fails. Although everything compiles correctly and no error is thrown at runtime, when I assign the parent property int he constructor, it is never set, resulting in a null value. I havent found any documentation that forbids this, but I'm wondering is this even possible? I've tried a number of configuration of Annotations and class-types (e.g. removing abstract from the parent) but nothing seems to work short of just removing the #Immutable tag altogether.
abstract class TestParent {
String parentProperty1
}
#ToString(includeNames = true)
#Immutable
class TestChild extends TestParent {
String childProperty1
String childProperty2
}
class TestCase {
#Test
void TestOne() {
TestChild testChild = new TestChild(
childProperty1: "childOne",
childProperty2: "childTwo",
parentProperty1: "parentOne"
)
assert testChild
assert testChild.parentProperty1
}
}
Based on the code for the ImmutableASTTransformation, the Map-arg constructor added by the createConstructorMapCommon method does not include a call to super(args) in the method body.
which means that immutable classes are self contained by default
Now if you want to do it you need to use composition instead of inheritance and this is an example of how you can do it :
import groovy.transform.*
#TupleConstructor
class A {
String a
}
#Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[A])
class B {
#Delegate A base
String b
}
def b = new B(base: new A("a"), b: "b")
assert b.a
i hope this will help :)
Is there a way to access global variable, declared in the script, from the static method of the class, declared in the same script?
For example
def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println s
}
}
Because that way it fails with the error
You attempted to reference a variable in the binding or an instance variable from a static context
which is expected though.
There is a related discussion at this question:
Groovy scope - how to access script variable in a method
Related in that both questions refer to using a global variable within a class, but this question differs somewhat in that you are seeking to use a static method which alters how you pass the script instance or binding (2 choices).
Passing the Script's Instance
import groovy.transform.Field
#Field def s = "12345"
class MyClass {
static def method(si) {
return si.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(this) == "12345"
Passing the Script's binding
s = "12345" // NOTE: no 'def'
class MyClass {
static def method(b) {
return b.s
}
}
assert MyClass.method(binding) == "12345"
Well, the problem is that in Groovy there is no such thing as a global variable. What is loosely considered a global variable is actually a static property within some class.
For example, if you remove the println line so that the code compiles, you get something like this out of the compiler:
public class script1455567284805 extends groovy.lang.Script {
...
public java.lang.Object run() {
return java.lang.Object s = '12345'
}
...
}
public class MyClass implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject extends java.lang.Object {
...
public static java.lang.Object method() {
// This is where the println would have been.
return null
}
...
}
As you can see, an additional class is created and the the s variable is declared within the method run() of that class. This makes the variable inaccessible to your other class.
Note: Removing the def will not address this issue.
Solution
Your best bet is to place your "global variables" into a class, possibly as static properties, like this:
class Global {
static Object S = "12345"
}
class MyClass {
static def method() {
println Global.S
}
}
You included a variable type with the s variable (by using the def type). In a Groovy script, this is treated as a local variable - and local to the run() method that is generated - which is kind of like a main() class. As a result, the variable is not available in other methods or classes.
If you remove the def you will be able to make use of the s variable.
Here is the Groovy documentation that explains this further.
How can I create a delegate class in Groovy for a class which doesn't have a default constructor? I would like to decorate JUnit's ResultPrinter but am getting an error about the missing constructor.
I don't understand your issue. I just tried this with Java's Short — which also does not have a default constructor.
Everything worked as expected, except if you didn't initialize the delegated object, you get an NPE.
Is it possible you are using #Delegate incorrectly? Delegate doesn't decorate existing classes, it allows you to use an existing classes methods in your own class. It's like extend, but without the class inheritance.
Example code:
class Foo {
#Delegate Short num
String bar
String toString() { "$bar: $num" }
}
def f = new Foo(bar: 'bob', num: 34 as Short)
println f // OK
println f.doubleValue() // OK
f = new Foo()
println f.doubleValue() // NPE
(Alternatively, providing some useful information, such as the actual error and stacktrace, and example code, will get you more useful responses.)
Is there a way in Groovy that I can add code to a constructor when a class is instantiated? I have a Groovy class (but I can't modify the source of this particular one), but I was hoping there was a way to inject code (maybe via the metaclass) so my code gets run as part of the constructor (in this case there is only one, default constructor).
Thanks,
Jeff
You can override the constructor, but it's a little tricky, particularly if you're overriding the default constructor. You need to assign a closure to the class's metaClass.constructor, and the closure should return a new instance. The tricky part is that if you call the constructor you've overriden, you'll get into a recursive loop and generate a stack overflow. You need another way to get an instance of the class, such as a different constructor.
For testing, it's sometimes possible to get around this limitation. Usually, it's enough to first instantiate an object, then override the constructor to return the existing instance. Example:
class MyObject {
String something
MyObject() { something = "initialized" }
}
testInstance = new MyObject()
testInstance.something = "overriden"
MyObject.metaClass.constructor = { -> testInstance }
aNewObject = new MyObject()
assert aNewObject.is(testInstance)
assert aNewObject.something == "overriden"
It is possible to add new constructors or replace the old one. If you need the original constructor, you can use reflection for that:
MyObject.metaClass.constructor = { -> // for the no-arg ctor
// use reflection to get the original constructor
def constructor = MyObject.class.getConstructor()
// create the new instance
def instance = constructor.newInstance()
// ... do some further stuff with the instance ...
println "Created ${instance}"
instance
}
Note that you have to change this if you have parameters to your constructors, e.g:
// Note that the closure contains the signature of the constructor
MyObject.metaClass.constructor = { int year, String reason ->
def constructor = MyObject.class.getConstructor(Integer.TYPE, String.class)
def instance = constructor.newInstance(
2014, "Boy, am I really answering a question three years old?")
// ... do some further stuff with the instance ...
println "Created ${instance}"
instance
}
PS: Note that when you want to add constructors which are not yet existent, use the << operator instead: MyObject.metaClass.constructor << { /* as above */ }.
You can bypass the limitations in the solution proposed by storing the original constructor using standard Java reflection. For example, this is what I do initialize a class (basic injection) in a spock test:
def setupSpec() {
MockPlexusContainer mockPlexusContainer = new MockPlexusContainer()
def oldConstructor = MY_CLASS.constructors[0]
MY_CLASS.metaClass.constructor = { ->
def mojo = oldConstructor.newInstance()
mockPlexusContainer.initializeContext(mojo)
return mojo
}
}
This gets invoked only once, but eveytime someone calls a constructor I get a different instance avoiding cleaning values and ensuring thread safety.