I am looking to splat an object into a constructor that accepts all pairs in that object.
case class Cat(name: String)
case class PetPersian(name: String, price: Number)
val c1 = Cat(name = "Meowth")
val c2 = PetPersian(
c1, // this is what I am trying to reuse.
price = 10000
)
You can create a custom constructor in the companion object which will make the code work.
object PetPersian {
def apply(cat: Cat, price: Number): PetPersian = PetPersian(cat.name, price)
}
If there is a need to accept a number of different types in the constructor, declare a common trait for those types or use a typeclass.
If you want to make it work with any object with a name field it can be done using a structural type which has performance and other issues and is not recommended.
object PetPersian {
def apply(n: { def name: String }, price: Number): PetPersian = PetPersian(n.name, price)
}
Related
I have a class like this -
class Cache (
tableName: String,
TTL: Int) {
// Creates a cache
}
I have a companion object that returns different types of caches. It has functions that require a base table name and can construct the cache.
object Cache {
def getOpsCache(baseTableName: String): Cache = {
new Cache(s"baseTableName_ops", OpsTTL);
}
def getSnapshotCache(baseTableName: String): Cache = {
new Cache(s"baseTableName_snaps", SnapshotTTL);
}
def getMetadataCache(baseTableName: String): Cache = {
new Cache(s"baseTableName_metadata", MetadataTTL);
}
}
The object does a few more things and the Cache class has more parameters, which makes it useful to have a companion object to create different types of Caches. The baseTableName parameter is same for all of the caches. Is there a way in which I can pass this parameter only once and then just call the functions to get different types of caches ?
Alternative to this is to create a factory class and pass the baseTableName parameter to constructor and then call the functions. But I am wondering if it could be done in any way with the Companion object.
The simplest way is to put your factory in a case class:
case class CacheFactory(baseTableName: String) {
lazy val getOpsCache: Cache =
Cache(s"baseTableName_ops", OpsTTL)
lazy val getSnapshotCache =
Cache(s"baseTableName_snaps", SnapshotTTL)
lazy val getMetadataCache =
Cache(s"baseTableName_metadata", MetadataTTL)
}
As I like case classes I changed your Cache also to a case class:
case class Cache(tableName: String, TTL: Int)
As you can see I adjusted your Java code to correct Scala code.
If you want to put it in the companion object, you could use implicits, like:
object Cache {
def getOpsCache(implicit baseTableName: String): Cache =
Cache(s"baseTableName_ops", OpsTTL)
def getSnapshotCache(implicit baseTableName: String) =
Cache(s"baseTableName_snaps", SnapshotTTL)
def getMetadataCache(implicit baseTableName: String) =
Cache(s"baseTableName_metadata", MetadataTTL)
}
Then your client looks like:
implicit val baseTableName: String = "baseName"
cache.getSnapshotCache
cache.getMetadataCache
Consider creating algebraic data type like so
sealed abstract class Cache(tablePostfix: String, ttl: Int) {
val tableName = s"baseTableName_$tablePostfix"
}
case object OpsCache extends Cache("ops", 60)
case object SnapshotCache extends Cache("snaps", 120)
case object MetadataCache extends Cache("metadata", 180)
OpsCache.tableName // res0: String = baseTableName_ops
I reviewed some code from a colleague and I came across a case class which is by default immutable.
the below case class can be changed so my question is how is this possible since case classes are immutable but in this construct i can change the case class parameters?
case class RegisterCustomerRequest(`first-name`: String,
`last-name`: String,
`house-details`: String,
street: String,
zipcode: String,
city: String
extends WcRequestData {
def this(cardHolderData: CardHolderData,
registrationCode: RegistrationCode,
customerNumber: Long,
cardDesignImageId: String) =
this(`first-name` = cardHolderData.firstname,
`last-name` = cardHolderData.lastname,
street = cardHolderData.streetAndNumber,
zipcode = cardHolderData.zipCode,
city = cardHolderData.city,
# `house-details` =
s"${if (cardHolderData.employerName.contains("&"))
cardHolderData.employerName.replace("&" , " & ") else " /
"}${cardHolderData.employerName} ")#
}
why can I define a def this method which can change the values of parameters. What is this construct good for is this good coding style?
The case class RegisterCustomerRequest is still immutable however it has an auxiliary constructor def this which allows it to be constructed in a different way. For example, given
case class User(name: String)
case class Foo(name: String) {
def this(user: User) {
this(name = user.name)
}
}
we can construct Foo like so
Foo("picard")
or using the auxiliary constructor
new Foo(User("picard"))
In both cases the result is an immutable object. To confirm immutability try reassigning name after construction
(new Foo(User("picard"))).name = "worf" // Error: reassignment to val
As suggested by som-snytt, we can define apply method on companion object instead of auxiliary constructor like so
object Foo {
def apply(user: User): Foo = Foo(user.name)
}
which enables the following construction
Foo(User("picard"))
If I want to modify one single parameter in a constructor.
In the Scala case class, the apply method will be overridden twice. Unless apply applies ( no pun ) to auxiliary constructor.
Related to
Modifying case class constructor parameter before setting value
How to override apply in a case class companion
How one can modify one single input from a constructor ?
Criteria :
The class must hold immutable data. All data must be accessible.
Note it doesn't have to be case class.
Additionally , no need to use the apply method.
no extra unused parameters. In the example below, _fistName is still accessible but unused.
case class Person(
lastName: String,
_fistName: String, ... )
{ lazy val fistName = _fistName.toLowerCase }
Here are two simple approaches.
Using class:
class Person(first: String, last: String) {
val firstName = first.toLowerCase
val lastName = last.toLowerCase()
}
val person = new Person("Adam", "Smith")
println(person.firstName + " " + person.lastName) // adam smith
Using trait + object's apply():
trait Person {
val firstName: String
val lastName: String
}
object Person {
def apply(first: String, last: String) = new Person {
override val firstName: String = first.toLowerCase
override val lastName: String = last.toLowerCase
}
}
val person = Person("Adam", "Smith")
println(person.firstName + " " + person.lastName) // adam smith
Note that classes must be instantiated with new, while traits (created with apply()) don't.
Why no case classes? Well, they are designed to serve as ADTs (abstract data types). Basically, they are thought of as containers for some data without any logic. That's why they get apply() out-of-the-box. If you want to override it, then means your class doesn't have the semantics of a case class.
I can see that #prayag took the effort of trying to help you force it into a case class, but seriously, if it doesn't have to be one (and you said so in the question), then don't make it one.
The reference you had posted seems to have lot of answers as well.
Two simple ways I could think of
make it abstract case class and define companion object which would mutate the value you want
define the member of case class as var and mutate it.
eg. (using scalatest)
class CaseClassSpecs extends FunSpec {
describe("case class modify") {
it("APPROACH 1 : modifies abstract case class member") {
object Item {
def apply(itemId: String, itemName: String) :Item = new Item(itemId.toLowerCase, itemName) {}
}
abstract case class Item private (val itemId: String, itemName: String)
val item1 = Item("SKU-ONE", "Shirts")
assert(item1.itemId == "sku-one")
assert(item1.itemName == "Shirts")
}
it("APPROACH 2 : modifies case class member which is var") {
case class Item (var itemId: String, itemName: String) {
itemId = itemId.toLowerCase()
}
val item1 = Item("SKU-ONE", "Shirts")
assert(item1.itemId == "sku-one")
assert(item1.itemName == "Shirts")
}
}
}
Class parameters are not necessarily class members. You can have class parameters that do not become class members.
Method 1
class Foo(bar0: String) {
val bar = bar0.toLowerCase()
}
#main
def main(): Unit = {
println(Foo("AsDfGh").bar)
}
prints:
asdfgh
and the decompiled code is:
public class Foo {
private final String bar;
public Foo(final String bar0) {
this.bar = bar0.toLowerCase();
}
public String bar() {
return this.bar;
}
}
You see, bar0 is a "temporary" value, it does not become a field because it is not referenced.
So if you want to change a value, just do not use the original value in the methods.
Method 2
For case classes, it does not seem to work in 2022, but here is another trick:
case class Point (x: Double, y: Double)
class PolarPoint(r: Double, alpha: Double) extends Point(r*Math.cos(alpha), r*Math.sin(alpha))
Here r and alpha do not become members of PolarPoint.
If you don't need two types, you can make the 1st constructor protected:
case class Foo protected(x:Int)
class FooImpl(x0:Int) extends Foo(myFunc(x0))
You will reference objects as Foos but create FooImpls.
Method 3
Your class can have multiple parameter lists and implicits:
class Qux(x:String)(implicit val y:String = x.toLowerCase())
is converted to:
public class Qux {
private final String y;
public static String $lessinit$greater$default$2(String var0) {
return Qux$.MODULE$.$lessinit$greater$default$2(var0);
}
public Qux(final String x, final String y) {
this.y = y;
}
public String y() {
return this.y;
}
}
You see that here only y becomes a field.
I have defined a type in one class like the following:
type attributes = (Double, Date, Date)
Now I would like to use that type in another class. Is it somehow possible to return this type via a method or so?
EDIT: I wish to use this type to define the parameters and output of methods in other classes. I would like to have the definition of this type in just one class so that I am flexible if I want to change the type.
A possibility I just found is to use traits to define a type:
trait Attributes {
val time: Double
val departure: Date
val arrival: Date
}
That for example makes it possible for me to use that type later when defining a method in another class:
def log(attributes: Attributes): Unit = {
...
}
This is how I wanted to use the type later. However, creating a trait for that doesn't seem to be a nice solution as the trait will never be extended; it just defines a type. I would like to have the type defined in a class and then make use of that definition in another class. For example like this:
def log(attributes: SomeClass.Attributes): Unit = {
...
}
The syntax for that is like this:
class Example {
type attributes = (Double, Date, Date)
}
class AnotherClass {
def method(attrs: Example#attributes) = ???
}
You can also import the type, for example:
object Example { // changed this to an object instead of a class
type attributes = (Double, Date, Date)
}
class AnotherClass {
import Example.attributes
def method(attrs: attributes) = ???
}
Yes you can do it by explicitly mentioning the type
type attributes = (Double, String)
def myFunc(a: attributes): attributes = a
myFunc((12.67, "Test" ))
Result:
defined type alias attributes
myFunc: (a: (Double, String))(Double, String)
res0: (Double, String) = (12.67,Test)
I wish to use this type to define the parameters and output of methods in other classes. I would like to have the definition of this type in just one class so that I am flexible if I want to change the type... However, creating a trait for that doesn't seem to be a nice solution as the trait will never be extended; it just defines a type.
This is (part of) what case classes are for: case class Attributes(time: Double, departure: Date, arrival: Date). You can define it at top level instead of inside a class, unlike a type. If you do want to associate it with a class, I suggest putting it into the companion object instead:
class SomeClass { ... }
object SomeClass {
case class Attributes(time: Double, departure: Date, arrival: Date)
}
Put the type definition into an object:
object SomeClass {
type attributes = ...
}
class SomeClass {
...
}
def log(attributes: SomeClass.Attributes): Unit = {
...
}
Let's say I have a following case class:
case class Product(name: String, categoryId: Option[Long]/*, other fields....*/)
Here you can see that categoryId is optional.
Now let's say I have a following method in my DAO layer:
getCategoryProducts(): List[Product] = {
// query products that have categoryId defined
}
You see, that this method returns products, that are guaranteed to have categoryId defined with some value.
What I would like to do is something like this:
trait HasCategory {
def categoryId_!: Long
}
// and then specify in method signature
getCategoryProducts(): List[Product with HasCategory]
This will work, but then such a product will have two methods: categoryId_! and categoryId that smells bad.
Another way would be:
sealed trait Product {
def name: String
/*other fields*/
}
case class SimpleProduct(name: String, /*, other fields....*/) extends Product
case class ProductWithCategory(name: String, categoryId: Long/*, other fields....*/) extends Product
def getCategoryProducts: List[ProductWithCategory] = ...
This method helps to avoid duplicate methods categoryId and categoryId_!, but it requires you to create two case classes and a trait duplicating all the fields, which also smells.
My question: how can I use Scala type system to declare this specific case without these fields duplications ?
Not sure how much this will scale for your particular case, but one solution that comes to mind is to parameterize over the Option type using a higher-kinded generic type:
object Example {
import scala.language.higherKinds
type Id[A] = A
case class Product[C[_]](name: String, category: C[Long])
def productsWithoutCategories: List[Product[Option]] = ???
def productsWithCategories: List[Product[Id]] = ???
}
A way to do it is to use type classes -
import scala.language.implicitConversions
object Example {
sealed class CartId[T]
implicit object CartIdSomeWitness extends CartId[Some[Long]]
implicit object CartIdNoneWitness extends CartId[None.type]
implicit object CartIdPresentWitness extends CartId[Long]
case class Product[T: CartId](name: String, categoryId: T /*, other fields....*/)
val id: Long = 7
val withId = Product("dsds", id)
val withSomeId = Product("dsds", Some(id))
val withNoneId = Product("dsds", None)
val presentId: Long = withId.categoryId
val maybeId: Some[Long] = withSomeId.categoryId
val noneId: None.type = withNoneId.categoryId
val p = Product("sasa", true) //Error:(30, 18) could not find implicit value for evidence parameter of type com.novak.Program.CartId[Boolean]
}
This solution involves some code and dependent on implicits but does what you're trying to achieve.
Be aware that this solution is not completely sealed and can be 'hacked'. You can cheat and do something like -
val hack: Product[Boolean] = Product("a", true)(new CartId[Boolean])
val b: Boolean =hack.categoryId
For some more - advanced solutions which include
* Miles Sabin (#milessabin)’s Unboxed union types in Scala via the Curry-Howard isomorphism
* Scalaz / operator
http://eed3si9n.com/learning-scalaz/Coproducts.html