I have a problem understanding, and living with, the excessive use of bang operators in dart/flutter.
Consider this example:
if(model != null && model!.someValue != null) {
print(model!.someValue!);
}
The first condition check is verifying that the model is not null. In the second condition I have to put in a bang operator after model, else the compiler gives me an The property 'someValue' can't be unconditionally accessed because the receiver can be 'null' error. But why is this necessary? I´ve just checked the variable! And same goes for the print(model!.someValue!); line.
Another example where I have these classes:
class GeoPosition {
double lat = 0;
}
class Wrapper {
GeoPosition? position;
}
...
Wrapper wrapper = Wrapper();
wrapper.position = GeoPosition();
wrapper.position!.lat = 1;
Now why do I need to put this bang operator (or ? operator) after position? I´ve just created a new instance of GeoPosition in the Wrapper instance - position cannot be null.
My best guess is that the compiler cannot see or understand the current context of the class. But in Typescript the linter is smart enough to know when these operators are not necessary.
I know that I can create local variables from the properties that I am trying to access, but this would be just as ugly ;)
So why are ! and ? necessary in these (and many other) situations? And is there anything I can do about it?
This is what happens with nullable properties (hence the message you get). It is explained here: Understanding null safety: Working with nullable fields.
You should be able to work around this issue by declaring the field as late, as in
class Wrapper {
late GeoPosition position;
}
Wrapper wrapper = Wrapper();
wrapper.position = GeoPosition();
wrapper.position.lat = 1;
This will remove the need to add a bang to every access to position The compiler will add a non-null check at appropriate places. Of course, the program will fail if you don't assign a non-null value before accessing the field.
If explained in Late variables
Nullable properties of a class can still be null between two access.
For your first example you can extract the variable then check it:
var someValue = model?.someValue;
if(someValue != null) {
print(someValue); // not null
}
For your second example an elegant way will be the .. operator :
Wrapper wrapper = Wrapper();
wrapper. Position = GeoPosition()..lat = 1;
If you want the GeoPosition to be not null you have to make it not nullable:
class Wrapper {
GeoPosition position;
Wrapper(this.position);
}
You can set the position field final to be immutable.
Be careful with the late keyword, if you forget to init the field you've got a crash like the ! operator.
Is there a construct that communicates to the type checker a function's post-condition?
For example, in typescript it is possible to say
function assertIsNumber(value: any): asserts value is number {
if (typeof value !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError();
}
}
I would like to be able to do something like the following in dart:
class SomeClass {
int? value;
_checkPreconditions() {
if(value == null) {
throw MyPreconditionError()
}
// ...
}
somefunc() {
_checkPreconditions();
// here we know `value` is a non-null int.
final sum = value + 5;
}
}
I understand I could coerce the value to non-null sum = value! + 5, but I would prefer to allow the function to inform the type checker if possible.
It looks like the type system of Dart is not so powerful. The only thing that looks (from first glance) possible is to create a custom code analyzer package (or search for one that already exists).
Dart annotations don't actually do anything. They provide hints to tools such as the Dart analyzer (usually so that it can generate additional warnings), but they cannot change program behavior. Even if you could convince the analyzer to treat some variables as different types, you still wouldn't be able to compile and run your code.
Annotations can be used by code generation tools, so one possibility might be to generate a statement such as final value = this.value!; automatically. However, that would be a lot of trouble to go through (and would mean that code then would need to use this.value = 42; for assignments and would prevent your code from being analyzed directly).
Being introduced to BLoC, I create a simple class that alters the value of a bool variable:
class SignInBloc {
StreamController<bool> _isLoading = StreamController<bool>();
Stream<bool> get getIsLoading => _isLoading.stream;
set setIsLoading(bool isLoading) => _isLoading.sink.add(isLoading); // Here is my problem (set)
void dispose(){
_isLoading.close();
}
}
When I use the set keyword and then call for it in my UI screen: bloc.setIsLoading(false);
I get an exception:
Try correcting the name to the name of an existing method, or defining a method named 'setIsLoading'.
But when I take off the set keyword in my SignInBloc class, it works fine. I am confused, isn't it best to use this keyword rather than directly declaring my setter? and,
Why do I not get an error when I take it off?
Setters are meant to be used as if they were public fields of the class. You're just explicitly defining your own setter. Directly assign your intended value to the setter like so:
bloc.setIsLoading = false;
The only benefit of using set is being able to use this syntax.
When you take off set, it's being changed to a normal method where bloc.setIsLoading(false); would be the correct syntax.
I'd like to store instances of models in a common provider using their classes or interfaces as a keys and then pop them up by class references. I have written some code:
class Provider {
public function new() { }
public function set<T:Any>(instance:T, ?type:Class<T>) {
if (type == null)
type = Type.getClass(instance);
if (type != null && instance != null)
map.set(type, instance);
}
public function get<T:Any>(type:Class<T>):Null<T> {
return cast map.get(type);
}
var map = new Map<Class<Any>, Any>();
}
...alas, it's even doesn't compile.
Probably I have to use qualified class name as a key rather than class/interface reference? But I'd like to keep neat get function design that takes type as argument and returns object just of type taken, without additional type casting.
Is it possible or should I change my approach to this problem?
The issue of using Class<T> as a Map key come up every so often, here is a related discussion. The naive approach of Map<Class<T>, T> fails to compile with something like this:
Abstract haxe.ds.Map has no #:to function that accepts haxe.IMap<Class<Main.T>, Main.T>`
There's several different approaches to this problem:
One can use Type reflection to obtain the fully qualified name of a class instance, and then use that as a key in a Map<String, T>:
var map = new Map<String, Any>();
var name = Type.getClassName(Main);
map[name] = value;
For convenience, you would probably want to have a wrapper that does this for you, such as this ClassMap implementation.
A simpler solution is to simply "trick" Haxe into compiling it by using an empty structure type ({}) as the key type. This causes ObjectMap to be chosen as the underlying map implementation.
var map = new Map<{}, Any>();
map[Main] = value;
However, that allows you to use things as keys that are not of type Class<T>, such as:
map[{foo: "bar"}] = value;
The type safety issues of the previous approach can be remedied by using this ClassKey abstract:
#:coreType abstract ClassKey from Class<Dynamic> to {} {}
This still uses ObjectMap as the underlying map implementation due to the to {} implicit cast. However, using a structure as a key now fails at compile time:
var map = new Map<ClassKey, Any>();
map[{foo: "bar"}] = value; // No #:arrayAccess function accepts arguments [...]
Is it bad practice to change my getter method like version 2 in my class.
Version 1:
public String getMyValue(){
return this.myValue
}
Version 2:
public String getMyValue(){
if(this.myValue == null || this.myValue.isEmpty()){
this.myValue = "N/A";
}
return this.myValue;
}
I think it is actually quite a bad practice if your getter methods change the internal state of the object.
To achieve the same I would suggest just returning the "N/A".
Generally speaking this internal field might be used in other places (internally) for which you don't need to use the getter method. So in the end, the call to foo.getMyValue() could actually change the behaviour of foo.
Alternatively, the translation from null to "N/A" could be done in the setter, i.e. the internal value could be set to "N/A" if null is passed.
A general remark:
I would only add states such as "N/A" if they are expected by some API or other instance relying on your code. If that is not the case you should rely on the standard null types that are available to you in your programming language.
In my opinion, unless you are doing lazy-loading (which you are not in that case), getters should not change the value. So I would either:
Put the change in the setter
public void setMyValue(String value) {
if(value == null || value.isEmpty()){
this.myValue = "N/A";
} else {
this.myValue = value;
}
}
Or make the getter return a default value if value not set properly:
public String getMyValue() {
if(this.myvalue == null || this.myvalue.isEmpty()){
return "N/A";
}
return this.myValue;
}
In the case of lazy-loading, where I would say that changing your members in a getter is fine, you would do something like:
public String getMyValue() {
if (this.myvalue == null) {
this.myvalue = loadMyValue();
}
return this.myValue;
}
No. You're doing two things here. Getting and setting.
Yes. It's a bad practice.
Why?
When the value is set (in a constructor or setter method), it should be validated, not when a getter method is called. Creating a private validate* method for this is also a good idea.
private boolean validateThisValue(String a) {
return this.myValue != null && !this.myValue.isEmpty();
}
public void setThisValue(String a) {
if (validateThisValue(a)) {
this.myValue = a;
}
else {
// do something else
// in this example will be
this.myValue = "N/A";
}
}
And, in the getter method, never ever change the state of the object. I have worked on some projects, and the getter often must be made const: "this method cannot change internal state".
At least, if you do not want to complicate things, in the getter method, you should return "N/A" rather than change internal state and set myValue to "N/A".
I usually define a specific getter.
Never alter original getter:
public String getMyValue(){
return this.myValue
}
And create a specific getter:
public String getMyValueFormatted(){
if(this.myvalue == null || this.myvalue.isEmpty()){
return "N/A";
}else{
return this.myValue;
}
}
I think it's better to initialize this.myValue = "N/A". And subsequent calls to setMyValue should modify the this.myValue according to your business conditions.
The getMyValue shouldn't modify in any way this.myValue. If your needs are to return a certain value, you should return that value (like "N/A") and not alter this.myValue . Getters must not modify member's value.
I would change better the setter method so, if the value is null or empty, the N/A is assigned to the attribute. So, if you use the attribute in other methods inside the class (v.g. toString()) you will have the intended value there.
Alternatively, change the setter method to launch an exception when the value being set is not right, so the programmer is forced to improve its handling prior to setting the value.
Other than that, it is ok.
I do feel this is a bad practice unless and until you explain the reason why it is so necessary for you modify the object inside the getter method instead of doing it inside the setter method.
Do you feel this cannot be done for some reason? Could you please elaborate?
Do what ever you like. After all getters and setters are just another public methods. You could use any other names.
But if you use frameworks like Spring, you are bound to use those standard names and you should never put your custom codes inside them.
absolutely yes, it's a bad pratice.
Imagine you communicate accross network with a third party (remoting, COM, ...), this will increase the round-trip and then hit application performance.
A setter could modify as part of validation, but a getter should return the value and let the validation be done by the caller. If you do validate, then how should be documented.
This actually highly depends on the contract you want to enforce with your get()-method. According to design-by-contract conventions the caller has to make sure that the preconditions are met (which means doing a validation in a setter method often is actually bad design) and the callee (I do not know if that's the correct english term for that, i.e., the called one) makes sure that the post conditions are met.
If you define your contract so that the get()-method is not allowed to change the object then you are breaking your own contract. Think about implementing a method like
public isValid() {
return (this.myvalue == null || this.myvalue.isEmpty());
}
Advantage of this approach is that you do not have to check wether the return of your get() is "N/A" or something else. This also can be called before calling set() to validate that you do not insert illegal values into your object.
If you want to set a default value you should do that during initialization.
State changes in getters should be a hanging offence. It means that client code must be careful about the order in which it accesses getters and setters and to do this it must have knowledge of the implementation. You should be able to call the getters in any order and still get the same results. A related problem occurs when the setter modifies the incoming value depending on the current state of the object.
You can use some value holder for this purpose. Like Optional class in guava library.