I have a question about unexpected behaviour in a Coffeescript tree implementation, and wonder if anyone can help. I think the problem is to do with wrong "this" context, but I'm not sure where to put the fat arrow to resolve it. Perhaps someone who knows coffeescript better than I can explain the behaviour?
class Node
uuid: undefined
constructor: (#uuid) ->
class MultiNode extends Node
branches: {}
constructor: (args...) ->
super(args...)
print: (str = '') ->
console.log "#{str}Multiway<#{#uuid}>"
for value,node of #branches
if node?
node.print "#{str} "
class LeafNode extends Node
value: undefined
constructor: (#value, args...) ->
super(args...)
print: (str = '') ->
console.log "#{str}Leaf<#{#uuid}>: #{#value}"
tree = new MultiNode(1)
subtree1 = new MultiNode(2)
subtree1.branches["aa"] = new LeafNode("three",3)
subtree1.branches["ab"] = new LeafNode("four",4)
tree.branches["a"] = subtree1
subtree2 = new MultiNode(5)
subtree2.branches["ba"] = new LeafNode("six",6)
subtree2.branches["bb"] = new LeafNode("seven",7)
tree.branches["b"] = subtree2
tree.print()
This infinitely recurses, I think because the context of 'print' isn't set as I intend to
that of the subnode object. I'd appreciate any guidance.
D.
I think the problem is how you're defining branches:
class MultiNode extends Node
branches: {}
That attaches branches to the MultiNode class so all MultiNode instances share exactly the same #branches through their prototype. This will make a big mess of things for obvious reasons. Anything you define at the class level is part of the prototype and none of that will get copied to instances unless you do it yourself.
All you need to do is make sure that each MultiNode instance gets its own #branches:
class MultiNode extends Node
constructor: (args...) ->
#branches = { }
super(args...)
#...
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/vkacZ/
Rule of thumb:
Never define mutable values in the class/prototype in (Coffee|Java)Script, always define those per-instance in the constructor (unless of course you want to share...).
PS: You don't have to say:
if node?
node.print "#{str} "
You can just say this:
node?.print "#{str} "
Related
I have read Access property delegate in Kotlin which is about accessing a delegate from an instance. One can use KProperty::getDelegate since Kotlin 1.1, however this will return the instance of the delegate and therefore needs an instance of the class first.
Now I want to get the type of the delegate without having an instance of the class. Consider a library with a custom delegate type CustomDelegate that want's to get all properties of a class that are delegated to an instance of CustomDelegate:
class Example
{
var nonDelegatedProperty = "I don't care about this property"
var delegatedProperty1 by lazy { "I don't care about this too" }
var delegatedProperty2 by CustomDelegate("I care about this one")
}
How can I, given I have KClass<Example>, but not an instance of Example, get all properties delegated to CustomDelegate?
How can I, given I have KClass<Example>, but not an instance of
Example, get all properties delegated to CustomDelegate?
You can do it in two ways depending on your needs.
First of all, you have to include the kotlin-reflect dependency in your build.gradle file:
compile "org.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-reflect:1.1.51"
In my opinion, you should use the first solution if you can, because it's the most clear and optimized one. The second solution instead, can handle one case that the first solution can't.
First
You can loop an the declared properties and check if the type of the property or the type of the delegate is CustomDelegate.
// Loop on the properties of this class.
Example::class.declaredMemberProperties.filter { property ->
// If the type of field is CustomDelegate or the delegate is an instance of CustomDelegate,
// it will return true.
CustomDelegate::class.java == property.javaField?.type
}
There's only one problem with this solution, you will get also the fields with type CustomDelegate, so, given this example:
class Example {
var nonDelegatedProperty = "I don't care about this property"
val delegatedProperty1 by lazy { "I don't care about this too" }
val delegatedProperty2 by CustomDelegate("I care about this one")
val customDelegate = CustomDelegate("jdo")
}
You will get delegatedProperty2 and customDelegate. If you want to get only delegatedProperty2, I found an horrible solution that you can use if you need to manage this case.
Second
If you check the source code of KPropertyImpl, you can see how a delegation is implemented. So, you can do something like this:
// Loop on the properties of this class.
Example::class.declaredMemberProperties.filter { property ->
// You must check in all superclasses till you find the right method.
property::class.allSuperclasses.find {
val computeField = try {
// Find the protected method "computeDelegateField".
it.declaredFunctions.find { it.name == "computeDelegateField" } ?: return#find false
} catch (t: Throwable) {
// Catch KotlinReflectionInternalError.
return#find false
}
// Get the delegate or null if the delegate is not present.
val delegateField = computeField.call(property) as? Field
// If the delegate was null or the type is different from CustomDelegate, it will return false.
CustomDelegate::class.java == delegateField?.type
} != null
}
In this case, you will get only delegatedProperty2 as result.
It appears that class types in flow always refer to instances of that class and one uses typeof to refer to the actual class itself. So, if I want a variable to refer to a subclass (not an instance) of a base class, I can do:
class MyBaseClass {}
class MySubClass extends MyBaseClass {}
let a: $Subtype<MyBaseClass> = MySubClass; // fails
let b: $Subtype<MyBaseClass> = new MySubClass(); // works, but I don't want this.
let c: $Subtype<typeof MyBaseClass> = MySubClass; // works! Ok, we're good
However, I can't seem to do this with type parameters! For example, the following:
type GenericSubclass<T> = $Subtype<typeof T>;
// fails with `^ identifier `T`. Could not resolve name`
If I try the following Typescript trick (see Generic and typeof T in the parameters), it also fails:
type ValidSubclass<T> = { new(): T };
const c: ValidSubclass<BaseClass> = MySubClass;
// fails with: property `new`. Property not found in statics of MySubClass
Note that I tried new, __proto__ and constructor.
What gives? Is there a workaround?
typeof MyBaseClass
is
Class<MyBaseClass>
so you can do
type GenericSubclass<T> = $Subtype<Class<T>>;
I have a Kotlin class whose primary (and only) constructor is empty.
I have a reference to this class:
val kClass: KClass<MyClass> = MyClass::class
How do I create an instance of this class using reflection?
In Java I would do myClass.newInstance() but it seems in Kotlin I need to find the constructor first:
kClass.constructors.first().call()
I have seen mention of primaryConstructor in some bug reports but it's not showing up in my IDE.
In your case, Java reflection might be enough: you can use MyClass::class.java and create a new instance in the same way as you would with Java reflection (see #IngoKegel's answer).
But in case there's more than one constructor and you really need to get the primary one (not the default no-arg one), use the primaryConstructor extension function of a KClass<T>. It is a part of Kotlin reflection, which is not shipped within kotlin-stdlib.
To use it, you have to add kotlin-reflect as a dependency, e.g. a in Gradle project:
dependencies {
compile "org.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-reflect:$kotlin_version"
}
Assuming that there is ext.kotlin_version, otherwise replace $kotlin_version with the version you use.
Then you will be able to use primaryConstructor, for example:
fun <T : Any> construct(kClass: KClass<T>): T? {
val ctor = kClass.primaryConstructor
return if (ctor != null && ctor.parameters.isEmpty())
ctor.call() else
null
}
You can use the Java class to create new instance:
MyClass::class.java.newInstance()
For those checking this question now, since Kotlin 1.1 there's also createInstance() extension method on KClass
Much like the accepted answer, this function works only in case class has an empty constructor or constructor with all default arguments.
https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.reflect.full/create-instance.html
Expanding on Alexeys Answer, to include a primary constructor call with parameters:
/* Example class with no-args constructor */
class MyClass
/* Example class requiring parameters */
class MyClassWithParams(parameter1: String, parameter2: MyClass)
val myKClass: KClass<MyClass> = MyClass::class
val myKClassWithParameters: KClass<MyClassWithParams> = MyClassWithParams::class
/* We can create an object by calling createInstance when no constructor parameters are required as explained in other answers. */
val myObject: MyClass = myKClass.createInstance()
/* To create an object with parameters, we need to get the constructor first, and call it with the parameters instead, similarly to how we would do in Java. */
val myObjectWithParameters: MyClassWithParams? =
myKClassWithParameters.primaryConstructor?.call(
"StringParameter", myObject
)
I'm trying to generalize my hack from an answer to another question.
It should provide a way to reference a value which is not constructed yet inside its initializer (of course, not directly, but in lambdas and object expressions).
What I have at the moment:
class SelfReference<T>(val initializer: SelfReference<T>.() -> T) {
val self: T by lazy {
inner ?: throw IllegalStateException("Do not use `self` until initialized.")
}
private val inner = initializer()
}
fun <T> selfReference(initializer: SelfReference<T>.() -> T): T {
return SelfReference(initializer).self
}
It works, see this example:
class Holder(var x: Int = 0,
val action: () -> Unit)
val h: Holder = selfReference { Holder(0) { self.x++ } }
h.action()
h.action()
println(h.x) //2
But at this point the way in which initializer references the constructed value is self property.
And my question is: is there a way to rewrite SelfReference so that initializer is passed an argument (or a receiver) instead of using self property? This question can be reformulated to: is there a way to pass a lazily evaluated receiver/argument to a function or achieve this semantics some way?
What are the other ways to improve the code?
UPD: One possible way is to pass a function that returns self, thus it would be used as it() inside the initializer. Still looking for other ones.
The best I have managed to produce while still being completely generic is this:
class SelfReference<T>(val initializer: SelfReference<T>.() -> T) {
val self: T by lazy {
inner ?: throw IllegalStateException("Do not use `self` until initialized.")
}
private val inner = initializer()
operator fun invoke(): T = self
}
Adding the invoke operator lets you use it in the following way:
val h: Holder = selfReference { Holder(0) { this().x++ } }
This is the closest I got to make it look like something you would "normally" write.
Sadly I think it is not possible to get completely rid of a explicit access to the element. Since to do that you would need a lambda parameter of type T.() -> T but then you wouldn't be able to call that parameter without an instance of Tand being T a generic there is no clean and safe way to acquire this instance.
But maybe I'm wrong and this helps you think of a solution to the problem
is there a way to rewrite SelfReference so that initializer is passed an argument (or a receiver) instead of using self property? This question can be reformulated to: is there a way to pass a lazily evaluated receiver/argument to a function or achieve this semantics some way?
I'm not sure I completely understand your use case but this may be what you're looking for:
fun initHolder(x: Int = 0, holderAction: Holder.() -> Unit) : Holder {
var h: Holder? = null
h = Holder(x) { h!!.holderAction() }
return h
}
val h: Holder = initHolder(0) { x++ }
h.action()
h.action()
println(h.x) // 2
This works because holderAction is a lambda with a receiver (Holder.() -> Unit) giving the lambda access to the receiver's members.
This is a general solution since you may not be able to change the signature of the respective Holder constructor. It may be worth noting this solution does not require the class to be open, otherwise a similar approach could be done with a subclass using a secondary constructor.
I prefer this solution to creating a SelfReference class when there are only a few number of classes that need the change.
You may want to check for null instead of using !! in order to throw a helpful error. If Holder calls action in it's constructor or init block, you'll get a null pointer exception.
I'm pretty sure you can achieve the same results in a more readable and clear way using something like this:
fun <T> selfReferenced(initializer: () -> T) = initializer.invoke()
operator fun<T> T.getValue(any: Any?, property: KProperty<*>) = this
and later use
val valueName: ValueType by selfReferenced{
//here you can create and use the valueName object
}
Using as example your quoted question https://stackoverflow.com/a/35050722/2196460 you can do this:
val textToSpeech:TextToSpeech by selfReferenced {
TextToSpeech(
App.instance,
TextToSpeech.OnInitListener { status ->
if (status == TextToSpeech.SUCCESS) {
textToSpeech.setLanguage(Locale.UK)
}
})
}
Inside the selfReferenced block you can use the outer object with no restrictions. The only thing you should take care of, is declaring the type explicitly to avoid recursive type checking issues.
Trying to get my head around asmock to implement some unit testing in my project. I want to test my MainMediator and since there are objects that get created in my MainMediator onRegister call, I'm thinking that I should mock those objects.
Hopefully that's correct to begin with!
I have something like this
[Rule] public var includeMocks : IncludeMocksRule = new IncludeMocksRule([
IEventDispatcher, IMyService
]);
[Before]
public function setUp():void {
mockRepository = new MockRepository();
mainView = new MainView();
mainMediator = new MainMediator();
dispatcher = IEventDispatcher(mockRepository.createStub(IEventDispatcher, StubOptions.NONE));
myService = IMyService(mockRepository.createStub(IMyService, StubOptions.NONE));
mockRepository.stubEvents(dispatcher);
SetupResult.forCall(chatService.clientID)
.returnValue("");
mockRepository.replayAll();
mainMediator.eventDispatcher = dispatcher;
myService.eventDispatcher = dispatcher;
mainMediator.service = myService;
....
mainMediator.onRegister();
}
When I step through the test and stop at mockRepository.stubEvents(dispatcher). I can see errors in the myService class
Error: Previous method IMyService/clientID/get(); requires a return value or an exception to throw. clientID just happens to be my first property hence why it's being picked on.
I thought either that StubOptions.NONE would mean that no properties get stubbed or that my SetupResult.forCall(myService.clientID) would fix it but none did.
Answering to the question in the comment re: the eventDispatcher, I have:
MyService extends ServiceBase implements IMyService
where ServiceBase extends Actor
I found that I need the following in IMyService to get access to the eventDispatcher.
function get eventDispatcher():IEventDispatcher;
function set eventDispatcher(dispatcher:IEventDispatcher):void;
Not too sure if that is correct. Bit confused now.
Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong?
Thanks!
This is a common problem when mocking concrete classes, rather than interfaces: if the constructor calls another method (or property getter), it will return null because it hasn't been mocked yet.
There's not really anyway to workaround it, except to abstract your class through an interface and mock that.