How to use scala reflection API to get all contained classes - scala

I got this kind of class:
trait ThirdParty { def invoke = println("right") }
trait WeatherIcon { def invoke = println("wrong") }
class MyClass {
object objA extends ThirdParty
object objB extends WeatherIcon
}
How can I use the Scala reflection API to iterate through the contained objects and invoke a method if it is an instance of a ThirdParty class?

Based on what soc wrote, I got this:
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
val members = typeOf[MyClass].members.filter(_.typeSignature match {
case tpe if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] => true
case NullaryMethodType(tpe) if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] => true
case MethodType(Nil, tpe) if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] => true
case _ => false
})
Let me explain the pattern match. The type of a val or an object can be compared directly, but functions have a slightly different type. Here I'm matching against methods with no parameter lists, and methods with a zero-arity parameter list.
There are some differences here compared to soc's answer. First, I use members instead of declarations. That returns inherited members as well as those that are declared on MyClass itself.
Second, I check that it is a value member, as opposed to a type member. You can only invoke methods on values, so it looked a reasonable restriction, though maybe unnecessary. upd. The isValue method is no longer available in 2.10.0-RC1, so I removed the check.
Finally, I use <:< instead of checking each parent for equality.
Now, to the invocation. I'm going to change the code above since invocation depends on what kind of member you have, so we'd best do filtering and invocation at the same time. I'm going to change from members to nonPrivateMembers as well, assuming that's what is wanted. upd. nonPrivateMembers is no longer available in 2.10.0-RC1, use filter(!_.isPrivate) if necessary.
And I'll also avoid using typeOf, which won't work with mirrors on the REPL. upd. In 2.10.0-RC1 typeOf is working finely, but I'll keep the skeleton of the implementation unchanged.
All of the above is basically concerned with the structure of things: what the members of a type are, what kind of members they are, and so on. When you want to use this stuff, in you need mirrors.
Whenever you have a symbol or a type for something -- a class, method, obj, etc -- you act on that thing through a mirror. To act (reflectively) on an instance of an object, you need an instance mirror. To act on a method, you need a method mirror, and so on.
So let's try to build a functon to do what's requested:
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
def invoke[Target : TypeTag](obj: Any): Seq[Target] = {
val mirror = runtimeMirror(obj.getClass.getClassLoader)
val insMirror = mirror reflect obj
val originType = insMirror.symbol.typeSignature
val targetType = typeTag[Target].tpe
val members = originType.members
val result = members collect (member => member.typeSignature match {
case tpe if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] =>
if (member.isModule)
(insMirror reflectModule member.asModule).instance
else
(insMirror reflectField member.asTerm).get
case NullaryMethodType(tpe) if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] =>
(insMirror reflectMethod member.asMethod).apply()
case MethodType(Nil, tpe) if tpe <:< typeOf[ThirdParty] =>
(insMirror reflectMethod member.asMethod).apply()
})
result.map(_.asInstanceOf[Target]).toSeq
}
Note that nested modules cannot be recovered with Scala 2.10.0-M4 -- that should be possible with M5 or RC1. To test this code with M4, replace the module code with null.
Here's a sample:
scala> class MyClass {
object objA extends ThirdParty
object objB extends WeatherIcon
val aVal = new ThirdParty {}
val bVal = new WeatherIcon {}
def aDef = new ThirdParty {}
def bDef = new WeatherIcon {}
def anotherDef() = new ThirdParty {}
def yetAnotherDef() = new WeatherIcon {}
}
defined class MyClass
scala> invoke[ThirdParty](new MyClass)
res88: Seq[ThirdParty] = List(MyClass$$anon$5#c250cba, MyClass$$anon$3#54668d90, MyClass$$anon$1#18d8143a, null)

I can't offer a complete solution, but maybe this is a start:
import reflect.runtime.universe._
val myClassType = typeOf[MyClass] // Get the type of McClass
val thirdPartyType = typeOf[ThirdParty] // Get the type of ThirdParty
val methodToInvoke = newTermName("invoke")
val declsOfMyClass = myClassType.declarations // Get the declarations of MyClass
val subtypesOfThirdParty =
declsOfMyClass.filter(_.typeSignature.parents.contains(thirdPartyType))
val methodsToInvoke = // Now we have the methods.
subtypesOfThirdParty.map(tps => tps.typeSignature.member(methodToInvoke))
// TODO: Invoke!
I guess there is a much more straight-forward way than this.

Related

What's the best way to store different types in a collection

I have a generic class:
class GenericType[T] {
def func(t: T) = ???
}
I need to implement a function that takes a List[String] and outputs the corresponding GenericType[T]. For example, if a client passes in List("SomeType1", "SomeType2"), the function should return List(GenericType[SomeType1], GenericType[SomeType2]). Basically, there's a string that maps to a type.
I don't find a good way to represent the return type for such function. Seq[GenericType[_]] as the return type can be an option but it requires the client to cast it into corresponding subclasses to invoke func as the type info is lost.
Alternatively, a case class can be used but this is not flexible as I need to modify the case class every time a new subclass is added.
case class (s1: Option[GenericType[SomeType1]] = None, s2: Option[SomeType2] = None, ...)
I'm curious what's a good way to represent the return type?
The easiest is
def stringToGenericType(s: String): GenericType[_] = s match {
case "SomeType1" => new GenericType[SomeType1]
case "SomeType2" => new GenericType[SomeType2]
}
GenericType[_] (or GenericType[Any] if you make GenericType covariant: class GenericType[+T]) would be an honest return type. You can't know at compile time which specific GenericType[...] you return based on a runtime string. Anyway you can't avoid casting somewhere because you can't guarantee the type statically. Anyway this kind of programming can't be type-safe.
Since we're doing a choice based on a runtime string, compile-time techniques (macros, implicits, Shapeless) are off the table. (*)
Actually, currently you don't need even runtime reflection. Your class GenericType[T] and method func in it seem not to do anything at runtime differently depending on type T. GenericType[SomeType1] and GenericType[SomeType2] are just GenericType[_] at runtime. So even the following implementation is possible
def stringToGenericType(s: String): GenericType[_] = new GenericType[Any]
Another situation would be if you created instances of different classes
class GenericType1[T]
class GenericType2[T]
import scala.reflect.runtime
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
val runtimeMirror = runtime.currentMirror
def stringToGenericTypeX(s: String): Any = {
val classSymbol = runtimeMirror.staticClass(s)
val constructorSymbol = classSymbol.typeSignature.decl(termNames.CONSTRUCTOR).asMethod
runtimeMirror.reflectClass(classSymbol).reflectConstructor(constructorSymbol).apply()
}
or you called different methods
class GenericType[T] {
def func1(t: T) = ???
def func2(t: T) = ???
}
def callFuncX(methodName: String, t: Any) = {
val classSymbol = runtimeMirror.classSymbol(classOf[GenericType[_]])
val methodSymbol = classSymbol.typeSignature.decl(TermName(methodName)).asMethod
runtimeMirror.reflect(new GenericType[Any]).reflectMethod(methodSymbol).apply(t)
}
or something behaved at runtime differently depending on type T
class GenericType[T: ClassTag] {
def func(t: T) = println(classTag[T].runtimeClass)
}
import scala.tools.reflect.ToolBox
val toolbox = runtimeMirror.mkToolBox()
def stringToGenericType(s: String): GenericType[_] = {
toolbox.eval(q"new GenericType[${TypeName(s)}]").asInstanceOf[GenericType[_]]
}
(*) Well, actually the first pattern matching (as I wrote it) can be automated with a macro
// in a different subproject
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.blackbox
def stringToGenericType(s: String): GenericType[_] = macro stringToGenericTypeImpl
def stringToGenericTypeImpl(c: blackbox.Context)(s: c.Tree): c.Tree = {
import c.universe._
val cases = List("SomeType1", "SomeType2").map(str =>
cq"$str => new GenericType[${TypeName(str)}]"
)
q"$s match { case ..$cases }"
}
val s = "SomeTime1"
stringToGenericType(s)
// scalacOptions += "-Ymacro-debug-lite"
//s match {
// case "SomeType1" => new GenericType[SomeType1]()
// case "SomeType2" => new GenericType[SomeType2]()
//}

Runtime cost of implicit definitions in Scala's typeclass pattern

I am looking at this article, on how Typeclasses are simulated in Scala using implicits.
If I am not wrong, a new instance is constructed on runtime every time a typeclass method for a recursive instance declaration is used (Printer a => Printer (Option a)). Here is the code, every time print is used a new Printer instance is created on runtime. Is there anyway to reuse the instance once created for a specific type (Option[Int] in this case)?
trait Printer[T] {
def print(t: T): String
}
object Printer {
implicit val intPrinter: Printer[Int] = new Printer[Int] {
def print(i: Int) = s"$i: Int"
}
implicit def optionPrinter[V](implicit pv: Printer[V]): Printer[Option[V]] =
new Printer[Option[V]] {
println("New Option Printer")
def print(ov: Option[V]) = ov match {
case None => "None"
case Some(v) => s"Option[${pv.print(v)}]"
}
}
}
object Main {
def print[T](t: T)(implicit p: Printer[T]) = p.print(t)
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val res3 = print(Option(1))
val res4 = print(Option(2))
println(s"res3: ${res3}")
println(s"res4: ${res4}")
}
}
// New Option Printer
// New Option Printer
// res3: Option[1: Int]
// res4: Option[2: Int]
You are right. In your example an new instance is created with every call. However, there are several ways to deal with it. In my experience you end up with the following rule of thumb:
First of all, do not optimize prematurely, make sure the additional instance are actually a problem.
If you are sure it is performance relevant, you just cope by coding a lot of vals.
object Printer {
implicit val intPrinter: Printer[Int] = new Printer[Int] {
def print(i: Int) = s"$i: Int"
}
// make sure this is not visible, as you do not want to have productive code create new instances on demand
private[this] def optionPrinter[V](implicit pv: Printer[V]): Printer[Option[V]] =
new Printer[Option[V]] {
println("New Option Printer")
def print(ov: Option[V]) = ov match {
case None => "None"
case Some(v) => s"Option[${pv.print(v)}]"
}
}
implicit val intOptPrinter: Printer[Option[Int]] = optionPrinter[Int]
}
I think, a more advanced solution is possible using shapeless. However, imho, for that a deep understanding of type classes and type level programming is required.
You can also consider using Typelevel's Machinist project.
It provides macros to erase the runtime cost associated with implicit class extension methods.
https://github.com/typelevel/machinist

Generic REST client in Scala

I'm a bit new to Scala and I'm trying to write a generic client for a RESTful api I would like to use. I'm able to provide concrete Reads[T] and Writes[T] for the specific case classes I would like to instantiate my client for, however the compiler expects to find a Reads[T] and Writes[T] for any type, not just the types I'm using. Some code to illustrate (I've omitted irrelevant sections):
My generic client:
class RestModule[T](resource: String, config: Config) ... with JsonSupport{
...
def create(item: T): Future[T] = {
val appId = config.apiId
val path = f"/$apiVersion%s/applications/$appId%s/$resource"
Future {
val itemJson = Json.toJson(item)
itemJson.toString.getBytes
} flatMap {
post(path, _)
} flatMap { response =>
val status = response.status
val contentType = response.entity.contentType
status match {
case Created => contentType match {
case ContentTypes.`application/json` => {
Unmarshal(response.entity).to[T]
}
case _ => Future.failed(new IOException(f"Wrong Content Type: $contentType"))
}
case _ => Future.failed(new IOException(f"HTTP Error: $status"))
}
}
...
}
JsonSupprt Trait:
trait JsonSupport {
implicit val accountFormat = Json.format[Account]
}
I'm only ever instantiating as RestModule[Account]("accounts",config) but I get the error
Error:(36, 32) No Json serializer found for type T. Try to implement an implicit Writes or Format for this type.
val itemJson = Json.toJson(item)
^
Why does the compiler think it needs a Writes for type T when T can only ever be of type Account? Is there any way to work around this?
The reason why the compiler doesn't like what you're doing is to do with how implicit parameters are resolved and more crucially when they are resolved.
Consider the snippet,
Object MyFunc {
def test()(implicit s: String): String = s
}
The implicit parameter only gets resolved by the parameter when the function is called, and basically is expanded as,
MyFunc.test()(resolvedImplicit)
In your particular case you actually call the function requiring the implicit and hence it looks for an implicit of T at that point in time. Since it can't find one in scope it fails to compile.
In order to solve this issue, simply add the implicit parameter to the create method to tell the compiler to resolve it when you call create rather than toJson within create.
Furthermore we can use scala's implicit rules to get the behaviour that you want.
Let's take your trait Reads,
trait Reads[A] {
}
object MyFunc {
def create[A](a: A)(implicit reads: Reads[A]): Unit = ???
}
as we said befeore you can call it if the implicit is in scope. However, in this particular case where you have predefined reads we can actually put it in the companion object,
object Reads {
implicit val readsInt: Reads[Int] = ???
implicit val readsString: Reads[String] = ???
}
This way when create is called, the user doesn't need to import or define any implicit vals when A is Int or String because scala automatically looks in the companion object for any implicit definitions if it can't find one in the current scope.

Use cases of Covarient/Contravarient Annotations in Scala

In Scala, it's possible to specify whether a function or class is covarient or contravarient in the following manner
class Foo[+arg] // covarient
class Bar[-arg] // contravarient
What are the real world uses of this feature?
I know the compiler runs checks to make sure that the stated entity is actually covarient or otherwise, but what is the benefit of even adding such annotations?
The simplest case where your probably already using it without knowing it is the scala collections.
class A()
class B() extends A
case class Container[T](elem : T)
val listOfA:List[A] = List[B](new B(),new B())
val containerOfA:Container[A] = Container[B](new B()) // fails
Imagine you have the following hierarchy:
class A
class B extends A
Covariance. Covariant type can be used as return type:
class Foo[+arg] { // Covariant
def getArg(): arg = ???
}
def testCovariant(): Unit = {
val fooB = new Foo[B]
val foo: Foo[A] = fooB
// returns only objects of class derived from A
// so it is safe
val a: A = foo.getArg()
}
So you can use any of Foo[DerivedClass]where Foo[BaseClass] is used, because anywhere Foo[BaseClass].getArg is called BaseClass is expected as result and any DerivedClass can be returned and assigned to it.
Contravariance. Contravariant type can be used as method parameter type:
class Bar[-arg] { // Contravariant
def setArg(p: arg): Unit = ???
}
def testContravariant(): Unit = {
val barA = new Bar[A]
val bar: Bar[B] = barA
// can set B to bar which is actually Bar[A]
// but Bar[A].setArg(p: A) can accept any object
// of type derived from A
// so it is safe
bar.setArg(new B)
}
Again. You can use any of Bar[DerivedClass] where Bar[BaseClass] is used, because anywhere Bar[DerivedClass].setArg(p: DerivedClass) is called DerivedClass is expected as argument and any Bar[BaseClass] can be used in this context, because you can always pass DerivedClass to Bar[BaseClass].setArg(p: BaseClass).

Is it better to use vals or object when providing instances of a typeclass in Scala

The type class pattern in Scala involves defining a trait such as:
trait Show[T] {
def show(obj: T): String
}
Then you can define instantiations of this type class as such:
object Show {
implicit val string = new Show[String] {
def show(obj: String): String = obj
}
implicit object BooleanShow extends Show[Boolean] {
def show(obj: Boolean): String = obj.toString
}
}
The advantage of defining these instantiations for basic types in the companion object is that they are automatically in scope whenever the type class is concerned (roughly).
Functionally it would appear defining the instantiation as an implicit val or an implicit object does not change much.
Is there a difference? Is one way better than the other?
There is actually more than the type names between val and object.
You know, object in Scala is something like a singleton in Java.
Maybe you thought that both string and BooleanShow are in an object not a class so they have no difference, but that's not true.
They are val and object no matter what.
Try this in Scala REPL.
trait Show[T] {
def show(obj: T): String
}
object Show {
println("!! Show created")
implicit val string = new Show[String] {
println("!! string created")
def show(obj: String): String = obj
}
implicit object BooleanShow extends Show[Boolean] {
println("!!BooleanShow created")
def show(obj: Boolean): String = obj.toString
}
}
If only the definition is done, then no printlns are executed afterwards, since Show is a singleton in effect. It's not created yet.
Next, execute Show in Scala REPL.
scala> Show
!! Show created
!! string created
res0: Show.type = Show$#35afff3b
You see, printlns in Show and Show.string were called, but the one in Show.BooleanShow was not.
You can execute Show.BooleanShow next in Scala REPL.
scala> Show.BooleanShow
!!BooleanShow created
res1: Show.BooleanShow.type = Show$BooleanShow$#18e419c5
Show.BooleanShow was initialized at last. It is a singleton, so it is lazy.
Basically, your question is the same as val and object inside a scala class? except that your val and object are defined in an object, but the linked question tries to find differences val and object defined in a class and the method in val uses reflection (but yours uses overriding, so no reflection is involved). implicit basically does not make difference in what they are.
I think you already know the difference between class and object. Further information can be found in the linked question.
Since they say always to use explicit types for implicits, prefer val over object.
Compare Why can't Scala find my typeclass instance defined implicitly in the companion object, when the typeclass is not in a dedicated source file? where it makes a difference.
Make it lazy if necessary.
Elaboration:
scala> trait T
defined trait T
scala> object X { implicitly[T] ; object O extends T }
<console>:8: error: could not find implicit value for parameter e: T
object X { implicitly[T] ; object O extends T }
^
scala> object X { implicitly[T] ; implicit object O extends T }
<console>:8: error: could not find implicit value for parameter e: T
object X { implicitly[T] ; implicit object O extends T }
^
scala> object X { implicitly[O.type] ; implicit object O extends T }
defined object X
scala> object X { implicitly[T] ; implicit object O extends T ; implicit def y = O }
<console>:8: error: could not find implicit value for parameter e: T
object X { implicitly[T] ; implicit object O extends T ; implicit def y = O }
^
scala> object X { implicitly[T] ; implicit object O extends T ; implicit def y: T = O }
defined object X
The inferred type of O is the singleton type O.type.
With val x = new X { } you are creating an anonymous subclass of X, whereas with object x extends X you create a "proper" subclass. I would think that the overhead of an object is minimal, and as #applicius points out, it has proper name. Therefore I suggest to go for the object in this case.