"'Class.field=' isn't a valid override" when overriding a field with a more specific type - flutter

Question

abstract class Ainterface {
String? name;
List<Binterface?>? list;
}
abstract class Binterface {
String? age;
int? len;
}
class ObjA extends Ainterface {
String? name;
List<ObjB?>? list;
ObjA({this.name, this.list});
}
class ObjB extends Binterface {
String? age;
int? len;
ObjB({this.age, this.len});
}
I used objb as the type of each item in the list, but the editor gave an error 'obja. List =' ('void function (list < objb? >?)) isn't a valid override of 'Ainterface.list=' ('void Function(List<Binterface?>?)').
How I can solve this problem?

Answer 1

Fields (data members) in Dart implicitly provide getters and setters as part of the interface. Therefore when you write:
abstract class Ainterface {
List<Binterface?>? list;
}
The interface is implicitly:
abstract class Ainterface {
List<Binterface?>? get list;
set list(List<Binterface?>? value);
}
The problem is that your derived class wants to provide an interface:
class ObjA extends Ainterface {
List<ObjB?>? get list;
set list(List<ObjB?>? value);
}
Even though List<ObjB?>? is substitutable for List<Binterface?>?, the reverse is not true: List<Binterface?>? is not substitutable for List<ObjB?>?, and that's the direction that matters for the setter.
The list setter in ObjA is not a safe override of the corresponding setter from Ainterface because it would allow callers to violate its contract. Ainterface.list advertises that it allows being set to any instance of a Binterface, but ObjA.list expects only an instance of ObjB. As a concrete example, if the override were allowed, then the following code would compile without error:
class AnotherB extends Binterface {}
void main() {
Ainterface a = ObjA();
a.list = [AnotherB()]; // This error would not be caught at compile-time.
}
And now a.list contains a List<AnotherB> even though ObjA.list expects List<ObjB>, and you'd eventually get an error at runtime if you try to use a.list as a List<ObjB>.
If you can logically guarantee that the above scenario will never happen, then you can use the covariant keyword to relax static type-checking and allow the override:
abstract class Ainterface {
covariant List<Binterface?>? list;
}
but I re-emphasize that the above code removes some type-safety. By using the covariant keyword, you take responsibility for ensuring that you do not violate the contract in practice.
Alternatively:
Reconsider if your abstract base class needs to expose setters as part of its interface, and expose only getters if possible.
Make Ainterface a generic class parameterized on the concrete type of Binterface:
abstract class Ainterface<DerivedB extends Binterface> {
List<DerivedB?>? list;
}
class ObjA extends Ainterface<ObjB> {
List<ObjB?>? list;
}
I'll also point out that overriding fields is usually a bad idea, and you usually should be explicitly overriding getters and setters anyway.

Answer 2

In the Ainterface abstract class you declared that a list should be declared of type Binterface so any class extending that class should do that. so when you want to declare a class extending this class you should consider that. if you want to also declare a list from type ObjB you can do it after that. it will be like this:
class ObjA extends Ainterface {
String? name;
List<Binterface?>? list;
List<ObjB ?>? list2;
ObjA({this.name, this.list, this.list2});
}