Develop Reference

Is there a way to convert a string into literal code that you can use in Kotlin?

This might be a very silly question, but I am logging the methods that are triggered in my app as strings. When an issue is submitted, I would like to automatically input the text of the strings as parameters for methods. E.g:
For method:
fun assignPot(potType: PotType, ball: DomainBall, action: PotAction) {...}
I'd like to somehow call method:
assignPot(FOUL(2, BLUE(5), SWITCH))
From String:
"FOUL(2, BLUE(5), SWITCH)"
The only workaround I can think of is to split the string and create a when -> then function to get actual classes from strings, but I wondered if there's a more concise way for this.

This is not what you want to do. You should design your app in a way that prevents users from providing input similar to actual code.
However, you can achieve this. Complex parsings like this oftenly use regex-based approaches.
As you said, you should map your string part to class. If your PotType is enum, you can do something like
val re = Regex("[^A-Za-z\s]")
val reNumbers = Regex("[^0-9\s]")
// get classes
val classNames = originalString.replace(re, "").split(" ")
// get their constructor numerical arguments
val classArgs = originalString.replace(reNumbers, "").split(" ")
After that you can implement mapping with when expression. You probably will use some collection of Any type.
As you see, this sadly leads you to parsing code by code. Concise way to solve is to implement your own script compiler/interpreter and use it in your application :) That will later lead you to dealing with security breaches and so on.
If you are logging problematic method calls and want to repeat them immediately after issue is submitted, you probably want to programatically save the calls to lambdas and call them when you receive an issue log.

How to create interchangeable class types for android fake testing?

I'm trying to create a fake class for my repository to test a view model.
As far as I understood, the key element here is to create two classes with a common interface so both classes would contain the same methods.
The problem is I get a Type mismatch when trying to initialize an object.
I tried to do the same in a simplified manner:
class fakeClass1 : fakeInterface {
override fun getAllData(): String {
return ""
}}}
class fakeClass2 : fakeInterface {
override fun getAllData(): String {
return ""
}}
interface fakeInterface {
fun getAllData(): String}
val fakeClass: fakeClass1 = fakeClass2()
But that didn't work either.
What am I missing?

Ok, I figured it out.
I was wrong to think that those two classes should be interchangeable.
I solved it by making the ViewModel take the common interface in its constructor instead of the actual repository class. This allows the ViewModel to take any class which implement this interface as it's repository.

I think you worked it out, but just so you're clear (this is an important, fundamental thing!)
val fakeClass: fakeClass1 = fakeClass2()
This is defining a variable called fakeClass that refers to an object with the fakeClass1 type. Then you assign an object with the fakeClass2 type.
But a fakeClass2 is not a fakeClass1, neither is a superclass of the other, so you can't treat one as the other. Your example is simple, but imagine you added coolFunction() to fakeClass1 - they'd now happen to have different structures, and trying to call that method on an object that doesn't have it would cause a crash.
The only thing those classes have in common, is that they both have the fakeInterface type - they are fakeInterfaces, and that guarantees they implement the stuff in that interface (your getAllData function in this case). So if you treat them both as that type instead:
val fakeClass: fakeInterface = fakeClass2()
you can use either one, because they're both fakeInterfaces (similar to how Ints and Doubles are different but they're both Numbers). Because fakeClass is now a fakeInterface, you can only access the functions and properties that a fakeInterface has - you can't call coolFunction() even if you happened to pass in a fakeClass1, because fakeInterface doesn't have that.
(You could cast the variable to fakeClass1, basically saying "oh by the way this object is actually this type as well", but at that point the type system can't guarantee you're correct unless you're explicitly checking fakeClass is fakeClass1, and it'll warn you if that's the case)
The Java tutorials are pretty good and they'll give you an overview about how the types each form a kind of "contract" you work with

Where to do Arrow.io IO.runUnsafeSync() ? ViewModel or Activity/Fragment?

I'm trying to learn the Arrow library and improve my functional programming by transitioning some of my Android Kotlin code from more imperative style to functional style. I've been doing a type of MVI programming in the application to make testing simpler.
"Traditional" Method
ViewModel
My view model has a LiveData of the view's state plus a public method to pass user interactions from the view to the viewmodel so the view model can update state in whatever way is appropriate.
class MyViewModel: ViewModel() {
val state = MutableLiveData(MyViewState()) // MyViewState is a data class with relevant data
fun instruct(intent: MyIntent) { // MyIntent is a sealed class of data classes representing user interactions
return when(intent) {
is FirstIntent -> return viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) {
val result = myRoomRepository.suspendFunctionManipulatingDatabase(intent.myVal)
updateStateWithResult(result)
}.run { Unit }
is SecondIntent -> return updateStateWithResult(intent.myVal)
}
}
}
Activity
The Activity subscribes to the LiveData and, on changes to state, it runs a render function using the state. The activity also passes user interactions to the view model as intents (not to be confused with Android's Intent class).
class MyActivity: AppCompatActivity() {
private val viewModel = MyViewModel()
override fun onCreateView() {
viewModel.state.observe(this, Observer { render(it) })
myWidget.onClickObserver = {
viewModel.instruct(someIntent)
}
}
private fun render(state: MyViewState) { /* update view with state */ }
}
Arrow.IO Functional Programming
I'm having trouble finding examples that aren't way over my head using Arrow's IO monad to make impure functions with side effects obvious and unit-testable.
View Model
So far I have turned my view model into:
class MyViewModel: ViewModel() {
// ...
fun instruct(intent: MyIntent): IO<Unit> {
return when(intent) {
is FirstIntent -> IO.fx {
val (result) = effect { myRoomRepository.suspendFunctionManipulatingDatabase(intent.myVal) }
updateStateWithResult(result)
}
is SecondIntent -> IO { updateStateWithResult(intent.myVal) }
}
}
}
I do not know how I am supposed to make this IO stuff run in Dispatcher.IO like I've been doing with viewModelScope.launch. I can't find an example for how to do this with Arrow. The ones that make API calls all seem to be something other than Android apps, so there is no guidance about Android UI vs IO threads.
View model unit test
Now, because one benefit I'm seeing to this is that when I write my view model's unit tests, I can have a test. If I mock the repository in order to check whether suspendFunctionManipulatingDatabase is called with the expected parameter.
#Test
fun myTest() {
val result: IO<Unit> = viewModel.instruct(someIntent)
result.unsafeRunSync()
// verify suspendFunctionManipulatingDatabase argument was as expected
}
Activity
I do not know how to incorporate the above into my Activity.
class MyActivity: AppCompatActivity() {
private val viewModel = MyViewModel()
override fun onCreateView() {
viewModel.state.observe(this, Observer { render(it) })
myWidget.onClickObserver = {
viewModel.instruct(someIntent).unsafeRunSync() // Is this how I should do it?
}
}
// ...
}
My understanding is anything in an IO block does not run right away (i.e., it's lazy). You have to call attempt() or unsafeRunSync() to get the contents to be evaluated.
Calling viewModel.instruct from Activity means I need to create some scope and invoke in Dispatchers.IO right? Is this Bad(TM)? I was able to confine coroutines completely to the view model using the "traditional" method.
Where do I incorporate Dispatchers.IO to replicate what I did with viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO)?
Is this the way you're supposed to structure a unit test when using Arrow's IO?

That's a really good post to read indeed. I'd also recommend digging into this sample app I wrote that is using ArrowFx also.
https://github.com/JorgeCastilloPrz/ArrowAndroidSamples
Note how we build the complete program using fx and returning Kind at all levels in our architecture. That makes the code polymorphic to the type F, so you can run it using different runtime data types for F at will, depending on the environment. In this case we end up running it using IO at the edges. That's the activity in this case, but could also be the application class or a fragment. Think about this as what'd be the entry points to your apps. If we were talking about jvm programs the equivalent would be main(). This is just an example of how to write polymorphic programs, but you could use IO.fx instead and return IO everywhere, if you want to stay simpler.
Note how we use continueOn() in the data source inside the fx block to leave and come back to the main thread. Coroutine context changes are explicit in ArrowFx, so the computation jumps to the passed thread right after the continueOn until you deliberately switch again to a different one. That intentionally makes thread changes explicit.
You could inject those dispatchers to use different ones in tests. Hopefully I can provide examples of this soon in the repo, but you can probably imagine how this would look.
For the syntax on how to write tests note that your program will return Kind (if you go polymorphic) or IO, so you would unsafeRunSync it from tests (vs unsafeRunAsync or unsafeRunAsyncCancellable in production code since Android needs it to be asynchronous). That is because we want our test to be synchronous and also blocking (for the latter we need to inject the proper dispatchers).
Current caveats: The solution proposed in the repo still doesn't care of cancellation, lifecycle or surviving config changes. That's something I'd like to address soon. Using ViewModels with a hybrid style might have a chance. This is Android so I'd not fear hybrid styles if that brings better productivity. Another alternative I've got in mind would maybe be something a bit more functional. ViewModels end up retaining themselves using the retain config state existing APIs under the hood by using the ViewModelStore. That ultimately sounds like a simple cache that is definitely a side effect and could be implemented wrapped into IO. I want to give a thought to this.
I would definitely also recommend reading the complete ArrowFx docs for better understanding: https://arrow-kt.io/docs/fx/ I think it would be helpful.
For more thoughts on approaches using Functional Programming and Arrow to Android you can take a look to my blog https://jorgecastillo.dev/ my plan is to write deep content around this starting 2020, since there's a lot of people interested.
In the other hand, you can find me or any other Arrow team maintainers in the Kotlinlang JetBrains Slack, where we could have more detailed conversations or try to resolve any doubts you can have https://kotlinlang.slack.com/
As a final clarification: Functional Programming is just a paradigm that resolves generic concerns like asynchrony, threading, concurrency, dependency injection, error handling, etc. Those problems can be found on any program, regardless of the platform. Even within an Android app. That is why FP is an option as valid for mobile as any other one, but we are still into explorations to provide the best APIs to fulfill the usual Android needs in a more ergonomic way. We are in the process of exploration in this sense, and 2020 is going to be a very promising year.
Hopefully this helped! Your thoughts seem to be well aligned with how things should work in this approach overall.

Android: persisting data across app lifecycle

I'm working on an Android app that uses some background tasks (AsyncTasks) and I want to use best practices regarding data persistence across app lifecycle and tasks callbacks.
Up to now, I have a mix of practices regarding this:
1) I have some static fields in classes where AsyncTasks are used in the form of:
private static String str1;
private static String str2;
private static int int1;
...//=>no more than 6 static fields
2) I use a sinleton App instance with many getters/setters in the form of:
package xxx.xxx.xxx
import xxx.xxx.xxx
...
public class AppSettings {
private static AppSettings singleton;
private String _field1;
...//=>many fields
public void setField1(String field1) { _field1 = field1; }
public String getField1() { return _field1; }
...//=>many getters/setters
private AppSettings() {}
public AppSettings getInstance(){
if (instance== null) {
synchronized(AppSettings.class) {
if (instance == null)
instance = new AppSettings();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
I definitely know that abusing of static fields is not good at all, so I decided to replace them all, but I'm not completely sure if my second approach -having an application instance in a singleton with many getters/setters- is considered a good way to go, and in case not, I would like to know about better alternatives.
Thank you very much.
Edit 1: Just to clarify.
In order for you to understand more clearly what I use my AppSettings singleton class for I'll give you two examples:
1) I use it to store app setting/configuration values (that's why the name) to be available anywhere. For example, font color, font size, whatever.
2) I use it to store temporary data/values. For example, my main activity creates a small video in the backgroung using "VideoHelper" class and called through an AsyncTask, and as video generation process needs some parameters from main activity, I use AppSettings getters/setters to send them through.
Edit 2: Better explanation of everything.
Thanks to #a_local_nobody I realized my "case of use" was not so clear so I'll add a few things more.
My AppSettings is not being used to store user settings, I use SharedPreferences for that, but instead app default configuration parameters.
To give an example, I store activities background color (and this is just an example) so if in the future I change my mind and decide to use another background color this setting (and many more) are centralized there. It's like a "container" for many default app settings.
Regarding the use of getters and setters in this app singleton class, I think I'll foloww #a_local_nobody suggestion related to define some static variables in each class and use them as needed instead of having a bunch of unrelated getters/setters globally.
Anyway, all comments are welcome.

Well, you are talking about persisting data across app lifecycle which, in my mind, sounds like you're looking for a ViewModel:
The ViewModel class is designed to store and manage UI-related data in
a lifecycle conscious way. The ViewModel class allows data to survive
configuration changes such as screen rotations.
as well as:
The purpose of the ViewModel is to acquire and keep the information
that is necessary for an Activity or a Fragment. The Activity or the
Fragment should be able to observe changes in the ViewModel.
ViewModels form part of the MVVM design pattern, with loads of examples available online.
For more info, have a look at the documentation
on a side-note, perhaps you can have a look at the google sunflower project for some ideas on how to implement the new architecture components, which includes usages of ViewModels.
Also worth adding, is that what you've created with your AppSettings solution, is a big dependency. Various things will depend on this single object and it will be needed throughout your application, most likely. You might consider, instead of creating it like this, to rather use dependency injection with your options, for android, probably being either Dagger 2 or Koin for kotlin (if you ever swap over to kotlin) or perhaps your own form of dependency injection without having to use these frameworks.
Hope this helps
Edit based on feedback from OP:
I use it to store app setting/configuration values (that's why the
name) to be available anywhere. For example, font color, font size,
whatever.
this sounds like a better use case for Shared preferences, especially if these are settings defined by a user, otherwise you should be savings these into strings.xml etc. and making use of localization
I use it to store temporary data/values. For example, my main activity
creates a small video in the background using "VideoHelper" class and
called through an AsyncTask, and as video generation process needs
some parameters from main activity, I use AppSettings getters/setters
to send them through.
if you have a VideoHelper class, you might be better off either creating a Builder design pattern for this object, or having static variables for this helper to change its functionality as you need to, if these are variables for your VideoHelper, then they should be located with your VideoHelper.
Things which change together should usually stay together.

Your approach doesn't qualify as "best practices" in modern android development.
The recommended way of handling configuration changes is by using the new architecture component: ViewModel
It have the property of surviving the onDestroy triggered when a configuration change occurs.
Basically, you will need to move this AppSettings code to a ViewModel.

public or private, does it really matter with Android variables

inside of a single activity, when defining components to be used only within that activity, what's the real difference between the following definitions:
Button btnPower = null;
//or
private Button btnPower = null;
//or
public Button btnPower = null;
public void somethingUsingTheButton(){
btnPower = (Button)findViewById(R.id.btnpower_id);
}
are there some "under the hood" conventions that should be thought about (garbage cleanup, memory, etc) that would suggest to always use private over public, if the entity itself is only ever going to be used inside the class it's written in?

Private fields promote encapsulation
It's a generally accepted convention to use private unless you need to expose a field or method to other classes. Getting in this as a habit will save you a lot of pain in the long run.
However, there isn't anything inherently wrong with a public field or method. It causes no difference for garbage collection.
In some cases some types of access will affect performance, but they are probably a bit more advanced than the topic of this question.
One such case has to do with inner classes accessing outer class fields.
class MyOuterClass
{
private String h = "hello";
// because no access modifier is specified here
// the default level of "package" is used
String w = "world";
class MyInnerClass
{
MyInnerClass()
{
// this works and is legal but the compiler creates a hidden method,
// those $access200() methods you sometimes see in a stack trace
System.out.println( h );
// this needs no extra method to access the parent class "w" field
// because "w" is accessible from any class in the package
// this results in cleaner code and improved performance
// but opens the "w" field up to accidental modification
System.out.println( w );
}
}
}

well,
one important point is that defining variables as private is the standard in java programming.
So calling directly variables on objects will at least appear strange for other people that may possibly read your code.
One other thing I'd say is that if you are not alone coding on a project is always a good practice to limit the visibility of the attributes that are key on the class implementation to avoid strange work around that other developers may come up with.
I personally don't know if those modifiers are used to compiling and optimization purpose.
to conclude as I think every experienced java coder I strongly sujest to use this pattern in the definition of attributes.

The scope of visibility has nothing to do with the garbage collector or memory management
You will want to reduce the scope of visibility as much as possible so your code can be easier to maintain.

private and public are both keywords of Java that have the purpose of Object Orientated Design. I suggest you read up about this: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/concepts/
If you are only going to use those variables (objects) in your activity, then I would suggest you make those variables private.
I hope this helps.
Edit:
I'm not sure if using the private, public or no keyword will optimize you app from a memory point of perspective. As far as I can tell I think it does not and you should use what makes your code most readable, intuitive and maintainable.

If your variable declaration is inside the Activity's scope, it acts normally as a scoped variable normally would.
It is, however, bad programming practice to use variables from one method in another method when they're not parameters.
Example:
Bad:
void Foo()
{
int foo = 5;
System.out.println(Bar());
}
int Bar()
{
return foo + 5;
}
This will actually throw a syntax error because foo is declared outside of scope for Bar()
Good:
int foo;
void Foo()
{
foo = 5;
System.out.println(Bar(foo)); //prints 10
}
int Bar(int foo)
{
return foo + 5;
}