Develop Reference

Can a method parameter contain a reference to other variable instead of containing a value?

In the code below, i'd like to generalize it so I instead of viewBinding.editText.text and viewModel.property.price can use the same method for e.g viewBinding.secondEditText.text and viewModel.property.income.
I'm thinking exchanging viewBinding.editText.text for a variable defined in the primary constructor, but then I'd need the variable to contain a reference to viewBinding.editText.text/viewBinding.secondEditText.text etc. instead of containing a value.
Is this possible? I've looked at lengths for this but can't find anything useful.
fun updateProperty() {
//... other irrelevant code
if (viewBinding.editText.text.toString() != "") {
viewModel.property.price = viewBinding.editText.text.toString().toDouble()
}
//... other irrelevant code
}

You can pass parameters into a function, yeah!
This is the easy one:
fun updateProperty(editText: EditText) {
val contents = editText.text.toString()
}
simple enough, you just pass in whatever instance of an EditText and the function does something with it.
If you're just using objects with setters and getters, you can just define the type you're going to be using and pass them in. Depending on what viewmodel.property is, you might be able to pass that in as well, and access price and income on it. Maybe use an interface or a sealed class if there are other types you want to use - they need some commonality if you're going to be using a generalised function that works with them all.
Properties are a bit tricker - assuming viewmodel.property contains a var price: Double, and you didn't want to pass in property itself, just a Double that exists somewhere, you can do it like this:
import kotlin.reflect.KMutableProperty0
var wow: Double = 1.2
fun main() {
println(wow)
setVar(::wow, 6.9)
println(wow)
}
fun setVar(variable: KMutableProperty0<Double>, value: Double) {
variable.set(value)
}
>> 1.2
>> 6.9
(see Property references if you're not familiar with the :: syntax)
KMutableProperty0 represents a reference to a mutable property (a var) which doesn't have any receivers - just a basic var. And don't worry about the reflect import, this is basic reflection stuff like function references, it's part of the base Kotlin install

Yes, method parameters can also be references to classes or interfaces. And method parameters can also be references to other methods/functions/lambdas.
If you are dealing with cases that are hard to generalize, consider using some kind of inversion of control (function as parameter or lambda).
You add a lambda parameter to your updateProperty function
fun updateProperty(onUpdate: (viewBinding: YourViewBindingType, viewModel: YourViewModelType) -> Unit) {
//... other irrelevant code
// here you just call the lambda, with any parameters that might be useful 'on the other side'
onUpdate(viewBinding, viewModel)
//... other irrelevant code
}
Elsewhere in code - case 1:
updateProperty() { viewBinding, viewModel ->
if (viewBinding.editText.text.toString() != "") {
viewModel.property.price = viewBinding.editText.text.toString().toDouble()
}
}
Elsewhere in code - case 2:
updateProperty() { viewBinding, viewModel ->
if (viewBinding.secondEditText.text.toString() != "") {
viewModel.property.income = viewBinding.secondEditText.text.toString().toDouble()
}
}
Elsewhere in code - case 3:
updateProperty() { viewBinding, viewModel ->
// I am a totally different case, because I have to update two properties at once!
viewModel.property.somethingElse1 = viewBinding.thirdEditText.text.toString().toBoolean()
viewModel.property.somethingElse2 = viewBinding.fourthEditText.text
.toString().replaceAll("[- ]*", "").toInt()
}
You could then go even further and define a function for the first 2 cases, since those 2 can be generalized, and then call it inside the lambda (or even pass it as the lambda), which would save you some amount of code, if you call updateProperty() in many places in your code or simply define a simple function for each of them, and call that instead, like this
fun updatePrice() = updateProperty() { viewBinding, viewModel ->
if (viewBinding.editText.text.toString() != "") {
viewModel.property.price = viewBinding.editText.text.toString().toDouble()
}
}
fun updateIncome() = updateProperty() { viewBinding, viewModel ->
if (viewBinding.secondEditText.text.toString() != "") {
viewModel.property.income = viewBinding.secondEditText.text.toString().toDouble()
}
}
Then elsewhere in code you just call it in a really simple way
updatePrice()
updateIncome()

Getting error "Smart cast to 'EditText!' is impossible, because 'usernameET' is a mutable property that could have been changed by this time" [duplicate]

And the Kotlin newbie asks, "why won't the following code compile?":
var left: Node? = null
fun show() {
if (left != null) {
queue.add(left) // ERROR HERE
}
}
Smart cast to 'Node' is impossible, because 'left' is a mutable
property that could have been changed by this time
I get that left is mutable variable, but I'm explicitly checking left != null and left is of type Node so why can't it be smart-casted to that type?
How can I fix this elegantly?

Between execution of left != null and queue.add(left) another thread could have changed the value of left to null.
To work around this you have several options. Here are some:
Use a local variable with smart cast:
val node = left
if (node != null) {
queue.add(node)
}
Use a safe call such as one of the following:
left?.let { node -> queue.add(node) }
left?.let { queue.add(it) }
left?.let(queue::add)
Use the Elvis operator with return to return early from the enclosing function:
queue.add(left ?: return)
Note that break and continue can be used similarly for checks within loops.

1) Also you can use lateinit If you are sure you will do your initialization later on onCreate() or elsewhere.
Use this
lateinit var left: Node
Instead of this
var left: Node? = null
2) And there is other way that use !! end of variable when you use it like this
queue.add(left!!) // add !!

There is a fourth option in addition to the ones in mfulton26's answer.
By using the ?. operator it is possible to call methods as well as fields without dealing with let or using local variables.
Some code for context:
var factory: ServerSocketFactory = SSLServerSocketFactory.getDefault();
socket = factory.createServerSocket(port)
socket.close()//smartcast impossible
socket?.close()//Smartcast possible. And works when called
It works with methods, fields and all the other things I tried to get it to work.
So in order to solve the issue, instead of having to use manual casts or using local variables, you can use ?. to call the methods.
For reference, this was tested in Kotlin 1.1.4-3, but also tested in 1.1.51 and 1.1.60. There's no guarantee it works on other versions, it could be a new feature.
Using the ?. operator can't be used in your case since it's a passed variable that's the problem. The Elvis operator can be used as an alternative, and it's probably the one that requires the least amount of code. Instead of using continue though, return could also be used.
Using manual casting could also be an option, but this isn't null safe:
queue.add(left as Node);
Meaning if left has changed on a different thread, the program will crash.

The practical reason why this doesn't work is not related to threads. The point is that node.left is effectively translated into node.getLeft().
This property getter might be defined as:
val left get() = if (Math.random() < 0.5) null else leftPtr
Therefore two calls might not return the same result.

Change var left: Node? = null to lateinit var left: Node. Problem solved.

Your most elegant solution must be:
var left: Node? = null
fun show() {
left?.also {
queue.add( it )
}
}
Then you don't have to define a new and unnecessary local variable, and you don't have any new assertions or casts (which are not DRY). Other scope functions could also work so choose your favourite.

Do this:
var left: Node? = null
fun show() {
val left = left
if (left != null) {
queue.add(left) // safe cast succeeds
}
}
Which seems to be the first option provided by the accepted answer, but that's what you're looking for.

For there to be a Smart Cast of the properties, the data type of the property must be the class that contains the method or behavior that you want to access and NOT that the property is of the type of the super class.
e.g on Android
Be:
class MyVM : ViewModel() {
fun onClick() {}
}
Solution:
From: private lateinit var viewModel: ViewModel
To: private lateinit var viewModel: MyVM
Usage:
viewModel = ViewModelProvider(this)[MyVM::class.java]
viewModel.onClick {}
GL

Try using the not-null assertion operator...
queue.add(left!!)

How I would write it:
var left: Node? = null
fun show() {
val left = left ?: return
queue.add(left) // no error because we return if it is null
}

Perform as below :-
var left: Node? = null
Use a null safe call
left?.let { node -> queue.add(node) } // The most preferred one

This worked for me:
private lateinit var varName: String

Not able to reassign value to function parameter,while its not declared as val, val cannot be reassigned

I am trying to write a function in kotlin but I am not able reassign value to function parameters ,its saying val cannot be reassigned .
class WebView{
var homepage = "https://example.com"
fun webViewLoad(url: String, preferredOrientation: String) {
if (url.equals("homepage")){
url = homepage
}
}
}
when I am trying to assign a value to url = homepage .it is giving me error val cannot be reassigned , I am new to kotlin ,I do not understand what is the issue , little help will be appreciated.

Function parameters works like val variables that couldn't be reassigned. Here you need to add variable with conditional initialization:
fun webViewLoad(url: String, preferredOrientation: String) {
val urlValue = if (url.equals("homepage")){
homepage
} else {
url
}
... //use here "urlValue" variable
}
By the way, in kotlin you don't need to use equals function to compare string: common operator == will be automatically replaced with equals in byte code.

Kotlin parameters are immutable since Kotlin M5.1
(Reference)
The main reason is that this was confusing: people tend to think that this means passing a parameter by reference, which we do not support (it is costly at runtime). Another source of confusion is primary constructors: “val” or “var” in a constructor declaration means something different from the same thing if a function declarations (namely, it creates a property). Also, we all know that mutating parameters is no good style, so writing “val” or “var” infront of a parameter in a function, catch block of for-loop is no longer allowed.

It is giving you error "val cannot be reassigned" because Kotlin function parameters are immutable i.e "val" by default. You don't need to mention the "val" keyword for it.
Quick Solution would be:
class WebView{
var homepage = "https://example.com"
fun webViewLoad(url: String, preferredOrientation: String) {
val finalUrl = if (url.equals("homepage")) homepage else url
}
}

Kotlin function parameters are final. There is no val or final keyword because that's the default (and can't be changed). Have a look at this.

By default parameters passed in the function are final what you can do is to add var. Hope it helps.
fun webViewLoad(var url: String, preferredOrientation: String) {
if (url.equals("homepage")){
url = homepage
}
}

How do I initialize a collection value for a MutableLiveData object?

class Foo : ViewModel() {
val bars: MutableLiveData<ArrayList<Bar>> = MutableLiveData()
get() {
if(field.value == null) {
field.setValue(ArrayList()) // NullPointerException
}
}
}
class FooTest(){
#Test fun itShouldNotBlowUp() {
Foo() //nullPointerException
}
}
I don't understand how to initialize the value of a MutableLiveData object. I've tried to lazily initialize it via the getter and with an init block. Both approaches throw a null pointer when setting the value. bars is not null however.
Here is the stacktrace:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at android.arch.core.executor.DefaultTaskExecutor.isMainThread(DefaultTaskExecutor.java:58)
at android.arch.core.executor.ArchTaskExecutor.isMainThread(ArchTaskExecutor.java:116)
at android.arch.lifecycle.LiveData.assertMainThread(LiveData.java:434)
at android.arch.lifecycle.LiveData.setValue(LiveData.java:279)
at android.arch.lifecycle.MutableLiveData.setValue(MutableLiveData.java:33)
at org.Foo.<init>(Foo.kt:10)
at org.FooTest.ShouldNotBlowUp(FooTest.kt:3)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
How do I initialize the ArrayList and set it as the value of bars?

Maybe the reason is that you are trying to run this in the test. Your sample fails in DefaultTaskExecutor.isMainThread(), that looks like this:
public boolean isMainThread() {
return Looper.getMainLooper().getThread() == Thread.currentThread();
}
So Looper.getMainLooper() returns null in the test environment.
And also, have you tried to initialize property via 'lazy' delegate?
val bars: MutableLiveData<List<Bar>> by lazy {
MutableLiveData<List<Bar>>().apply {
value = emptyList()
}
}
That works fine in my case and feels more idiomatic

The answer to the question is: if you want to give it an empty value clearly, but the variable is not null and you can at least use it without breaking the program.
to create a variable:
val myVariable = MutableLiveData<ArrayList<String>>()
Well, now you only have to pass the constructor of the empty list within the type parentheses so that your variable does not remain with a Null value.
val myVariable = MutableLiveData<ArrayList<String>>(arrayListOf())
I know it's an old question but in case it can help someone, it helped me discover this ;)

Kotlin data classes and nullable types

I'm new to Kotlin and I don't know why compiler complains about this code:
data class Test(var data : String = "data")
fun test(){
var test: Test? = Test("")
var size = test?.data.length
}
Compiler complains with test?.data.length, it says that I should do: test?.data?.length. But data variable is String, not String?, so I don't understand why I have to put the ? when I want to check the length.

The expression test?.data.length is equivalent to (test?.data).length, and the test?.data part is nullable: it is either test.data or null. Therefore it is not null-safe to get its length, but instead you should use the safe call operator again: test?.data?.length.
The nullability is propagated through the whole calls chain: you have to write these chains as a?.b?.c?.d?.e (which is, again, equivalent to (((a?.b)?.c)?.d)?.e), because, if one of the left parts is null, the rest of the calls cannot be performed as if the value is not-null.

If you don't want to use safe call before each non-nullable component of the call chain, you can get the result of the first safe call into a new variable with the standard extension functions run or let:
// `this` is non-nullable `Test` inside lambda
val size = test?.run { data.length }
// or: `it` is non-nullable `Test` inside lambda
val size = test?.let { it.data.length }
Note that size is still nullable Int? here.