One of the best advantages of using DI is it makes testing a lot easier (What is dependency injection? backs it too). Most of DI frameworks I've worked with on other programming languages (MEF on .NET, Typhoon on Obj-C/Swift, Laravel's IoC Container on PHP, and some others) allows the developer do register dependencies on a single entry point for each component, thus preventing the "creation" of dependency on the object itself.
After I read Dagger 2 documentation, it sounds great the whole "no reflection" business, but I fail to see how it makes testing easier as objects are still kind of creating their own dependencies.
For instance, in the CoffeMaker example:
public class CoffeeApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// THIS LINE
CoffeeShop coffeeShop = DaggerCoffeeShop.create();
coffeeShop.maker().brew();
}
}
Even though you're not explicitly calling new, you still have to create your dependency.
Now for a more detailed example, let's go to an Android Example.
If you open up DemoActivity class, you will notice the onCreate implementation goes like this:
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
// Perform injection so that when this call returns all dependencies will be available for use.
((DemoApplication) getApplication()).component().inject(this);
}
You can clearly see there is no decoupling from the DI component, to the actual code. In summary, you'd need to mock/stub ((DemoApplication) getApplication()).component().inject(this); on a test case (if that's even possible).
Up to this point, I am aware Dagger 2 is pretty popular, so there is got to be something I am not seeing. So how does Dagger 2 makes testing classes easier? How would I mock, let's say a network service class that my Activity depends on? I would like the answer to be as simple as possible as I'm only interested in testing.
Dagger 2 doesn't make testing easier
...beyond encouraging you to inject dependencies in the first place, which naturally makes individual classes more testable.
The last I heard, the Dagger 2 team were still considering potential approaches to improving support for testing - though whatever discussions are going on, they don't seem to be very public.
So how do I test now?
You're correct to point out that classes which want to make explicit use of a Component have a dependency on it. So... inject that dependency! You'll have to inject the Component 'by hand', but that shouldn't be too much trouble.
The official way
Currently, the officially-recommended approach to swapping dependencies for testing is to create a test Component which extends your production one, then have that use custom modules where necessary. Something like this:
public class CoffeeApp {
public static CoffeeShop sCoffeeShop;
public static void main(String[] args) {
if (sCoffeeShop == null) {
sCoffeeShop = DaggerCoffeeShop.create();
}
coffeeShop.maker().brew();
}
}
// Then, in your test code you inject your test Component.
CoffeeApp.sCoffeeShop = DaggerTestCoffeeShop.create();
This approach works well for the things you always want to replace when you are running tests - e.g. Networking code where you want to run against a mock server instead, or IdlingResource implementations of things for running Espresso tests.
The unofficial way
Unfortunately, it the official way can involve a lot of boilerplate code - fine as a one-off, but a real pain if you only want to swap out a single dependency for one particular set of tests.
My favourite hack for this is to simply extend whichever Module has the dependency you want to replace, then override the #Provides method. Like so:
CoffeeApp.sCoffeeShop = DaggerCoffeeShop.builder()
.networkModule(new NetworkModule() {
// Do not add any #Provides or #Scope annotations here or you'll get an error from Dagger at compile time.
#Override
public RequestFactory provideRequestFactory() {
return new MockRequestFactory();
}
})
.build();
Check this gist for a full example.
"allows the developer do register dependencies on a single entry point for
each component" - analogues in Dagger 2 are the Modules and Components where you define the dependencies. The advantage is that you don't define the dependencies directly in your component thus decoupling it so later when writing unit tests you may switch the Dagger 2 component with a test one.
"it sounds great the whole "no reflection" business" - the "no reflection" thing is not the "big deal" about dagger. The "big deal" is the full dependency graph validation at compile time. Others DI frameworks don't have this feature and if you fail to define how some dependency is satisfied you will get an error late at runtime. If the error is located in some rarely used codepath your program may look like it is correct but it will fail at some point in the future.
"Even though you're not explicitly calling new, you still have to create your dependency." - well, you always have to somehow initiate dependency injection. Other DI may "hide"/automate this activity but at the end somewhere building of the graph is performed. For dagger 1&2 this is done at app start. For "normal" apps (as you shown in the example) in the main(), For android apps - in the Application class.
"You can clearly see there is no decoupling from the DI component, to the actual code" - Yes, you are 100% correct. That arises from the fact that you don't control directly the lifecycle of the activities, fragments and services in Android, i.e. the OS creates these objects for you and the OS is not aware that you are using DI. You need manually to inject your activities, fragments and services. At first this seem seems awkward but in real life the only problem is that sometimes you may forget to inject your activity in onCreate() and get NPE at runtime.
Related
I'm working on an Android App which follows the MVP architecture pattern. In all my fragments I'm injecting a Presenter. Therefore my Fragments (Views) need to have a Component in which I declare the injects. For example:
#ActivityScope
#Component(
dependencies = AppComponent.class,
modules = {
PresenterModule.class,
InteractorModule.class
}
)
public interface ViewInjectorComponent {
void inject(SelectEventOccurrenceFragment fragment);
void inject(CreateOpponentFragment fragment);
void inject(SelectOpponentFragment fragment);
void inject(TeammatesInvitedFragment fragment);
...
}
Every new View that I add into my App (Fragment) needs to have its entry declared here. I was wondering if It's possible to generate this code automatically with some kind of annotation processor. The App has already several fragments, this component file has easily more than 300 entries. It'd be awesome if I could do something like:
#Injectable
public class MyNewFragment implements MyNewView {
...
}
And then automatically generate the entry in the ViewInjectorComponent file. It's possible? Where should I look at?
The situation you are experiencing may be a consequence of organising your Modules and Components in an unusual way. In particular, grouping laterally (one Component injects all the Presenters) rather than vertically (one component injects the functionality related to SelectOpponentActivity) is problematic.
A good example to follow is in the Google Android Architecture Blueprints GitHub repo. If you peruse the code there, you will see that they have organised functionality related to Tasks inside one Java package together with a separate Component, Module, Presenter etc. This has the nice advantage of being able to restrict accessibility of the constructors of the classes contained therein and fulfilling Effective Java Item 13: Minimize the accesibility of classes and members.
Likewise, you've grouped all your modules together into a Presenter Module and an Interactor Module. The advice from the Dagger 2 official documentation is to organise Modules first for testability and then along functional lines. Again, you can refer to the Blueprint example for how to do this.
Finally, note that there is unavoidably some boilerplate involved in using most DI frameworks like Dagger 2. In a sense, you are exchanging a bigger problem ("how do I deal with all of these constructors?") with much smaller and more manageable problems ("how do I group my Components" etc.).
Update
There is a library called Auto Dagger2 that can generate components for you. See this Github repo. Here is an example of an annotation:
#AutoComponent
#Singleton
public class ExampleApplication extends Application {
}
Which generates the following code:
#Component
#Singleton
public interface ExampleApplicationComponent {
}
Also check out Google Auto if you are interested in code generation tools.
I'm not entirely sure that what I'm going to say is appropriate for an answer, but I'll take a chance here.
Even if you find a way to do what you want, don't do this in production (it is fine if you just want to learn code generation techniques).
The benefits you get from such an approach are small (not writing several lines of trivial code), but consider the drawbacks:
The logic for code generation needs to be written/debugged/maintained
Such an approach will be a violation of "principle of least astonishment"
Code generation is BAD
Note the third point - I really mean it. Usage of code generation always leads to maintenance overhead, therefore it should be used only as a last resort.
Dagger by itself uses code generation, but for a good reason - performance. However, performance is not an issue in your case.
To summarize: your idea is very interesting, but approaches like this should not be used for production applications (unless this functionality is added to Dagger natively).
I'm developing an android app implementing MVP and clean architecture. I have the following scenario:
One core module with presenters and view interfaces,...
One domain module with repositories, data sources,..
App module with the core implementation (so the Fragment/Activities).
Currently the strings.xml file is in the app module, but I'm thinking whether it should be in a commons module or not. The problem is that, sometimes, the presenter must set the text to the view, so the presenter should need to access to the strings.xml. I've thought in two possible solutions:
1) Create a TextHelper interface on core module that will be implemented on the app module and injected to the presenter, so the presenter will use this helper to get the strings it requires. (This is the solution I have implemented).
2) Move the strings.xml file to a common module so the file can be accessed from core module. But this solution would have a problem: the presenter doesn't have a context.
What do you think? What is the best approach?
Thanks in advance
If your view has nested if/elses related to strings, then they should probably be unit-tested. Therefore, that logic should stay in presenters or use-cases, where can be tested more quickly.
Your question is about how to retrieve the actual strings, given that they reside in the "outer layers" of the Clean Architecture scheme, i.e. in the Context object. IMHO your TextHelper is the right approach, as it allows to inject a mock when writing unit tests: you're interested in how the strings are processed, rather than how the strings actually look. I'm trying a very similar approach and calling it StringsRepository.
A point of uncertainty is how the the repository API should look like:
A single method like getString(#StringRes int stringResId, Object... formatArgs) that simply wraps Context.getString(): very simple to implement, but will make the presenters depend on your R.string class, which in turns requires strings.xml to be in the same module as your code under test;
One method per string with optional arguments, each one containing the reference to the appropriate string ID. This solution allows for best abstraction, but may become big (both the interface and the implementation...) and many domain classes may depend upon it. Handle with care.
Like (2), but with several classes, one per each part of your app. Each class may have a base class similar to (1) but with that method with protected visibility.
The best options for your case would be (2) or (3), but your mileage may vary.
You can use Application class to get the context any where from the app.
public class MVPApplication extends Application {
private static Context context;
public static Context getContext() {
return context;
}
#Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
context = getApplicationContext();
}
}
In the context of developing and android app, should I use presenters directly in views using 'new' or would it be better if I injected them to the view.
Pros/cons for not using injected presenters:
Faster development time, without having to write components and modules.
Presenters are tightly coupled with the views, I don't see this as much of a problem as most of the time presenters are not shared across multiple views(ie. one single view for a presenter).
Might be a problem for testing, as with using dependency injection mock implementations of the presenters can be provided(not sure if this is any useful, need more insight on this).
You're right. Using injection will only help you in the long run. You could either spend 5 minutes setting up your module / component, or you could be just coding.
As long as you don't do proper testing, there is not much difference to it, if you presenter looks like the following
mPresenter = new Presenter();
Assuming you use constructor injection properly, after creating your component, you save some lines as compared to
#Inject Presenter mPresenter;
// onCreate or some other place
{
getComponent().inject(this); /* getComponent() also 4-5 lines */
}
Again. If you use proper constructor injection there is a good chance you don't have many module code. Just creating some component will do.
But you saved some minutes and once you want to do testing this is just some easy refactoring, which can quickly be done.
So why Dagger?
This was assuming your presenter has no dependencies on other objects. But what if it does?
SharedPreferences preferences = getPreferences();
MyStorage storage = new MyStorage(preferences);
mPresenter = new Presenter(storage);
Using something to store your data is properly a good use case. While you just added some more logic about object creation to your activity, the dagger implementation would still look the same.
Even more?
Now let's assume you want to share this storage from above between activities. Now you have to add some logic to your Application or in some other place where you can create a Singleton to use throughout your app.
This will probably not be your only singleton, though, and you will start to clutter up your Application as well. Don't get me started on managing those objects lifecycle, e.g. user logging in or out, make sure to clear that cached data!
Again. The dagger implementation still looks the same. If there is some more logic needed it is well placed in the modules and abstracted with component dependencies.
Once you start thinking I could just create classes that handle object construction and injection you know that you could have just used dagger in the first place ;)
I also wrote a blog post about dagger basics including how constructor injection works, which many beginners are not using properly for some reason.
#SuppressWarnings("unsued")
#Override
#SuppressLint({ "InflateParams", "SimpleDateFormat" })
I don't get why we need to declare annotations.
We want to facilitate the writing and the maintenance of Android applications.
We believe that simple code with clear intents is the best way to achieve those goals.
Robert C. Martin wrote:
The ratio of time spent reading [code] versus writing is well over 10 to 1 [therefore] making it easy to read makes it easier to write.
While we all enjoy developing Android applications, we often wonder: Why do we always need to write the same code over and over? Why are our apps harder and harder to maintain? Context and Activity god objects, complexity of juggling with threads, hard to discover API, loads of anonymous listener classes, tons of unneeded casts... can't we improve that?
How?
Using Java annotations, developers can show their intent and let AndroidAnnotations generate the plumbing code at compile time.
Features
Dependency injection: inject views, extras, system services, resources, ...
Simplified threading model: annotate your methods so that they execute on the UI thread or on a background thread.
Event binding: annotate methods to handle events on views, no more ugly anonymous listener classes!
REST client: create a client interface, AndroidAnnotations generates the implementation.
No magic: As AndroidAnnotations generate subclasses at compile time, you can check the code to see how it works.
AndroidAnnotations provide those good things and even more for less than 50kb, without any runtime perf impact!
Is your Android code easy to write, read, and maintain?
Look at that:
#EActivity(R.layout.translate) // Sets content view to R.layout.translate
public class TranslateActivity extends Activity {
#ViewById // Injects R.id.textInput
EditText textInput;
#ViewById(R.id.myTextView) // Injects R.id.myTextView
TextView result;
#AnimationRes // Injects android.R.anim.fade_in
Animation fadeIn;
#Click // When R.id.doTranslate button is clicked
void doTranslate() {
translateInBackground(textInput.getText().toString());
}
#Background // Executed in a background thread
void translateInBackground(String textToTranslate) {
String translatedText = callGoogleTranslate(textToTranslate);
showResult(translatedText);
}
#UiThread // Executed in the ui thread
void showResult(String translatedText) {
result.setText(translatedText);
result.startAnimation(fadeIn);
}
// [...]
}
Java annotations bind specific conditions to be satisfied with code. Consider a scenario where we think we are overriding a method from anther class and we implemented code that (we think) is overriding the method. But if we somehow missed to exactly override one (e.g. we misspelled name. In superclass it was "mMethodOverridden" and we typed "mMethodoverridden"). The method will still compile and execute but it will not be doing what it should do.
So #Override is our way of telling Java to let us know if we are doing right thing. If we annotate a method with #override and it is not overriding anything, compiler will give us an error.
Other annotations work in a very similar way.
For more information, read docs Lesson: annotations
Annotations are basically syntactic metadata that can be added to Java source code.Classes, methods, variables, parameters and packages may be annotated .
Metadata is data about data
Why Were Annotations Introduced?
Prior to annotation (and even after) XML were extensively used for metadata and somehow a particular set of Application Developers and Architects thought XML maintenance was getting troublesome. They wanted something which could be coupled closely with code instead of XML which is very loosely coupled (in some cases almost separate) from code. If you google “XML vs. annotations”, you will find a lot of interesting debates. Interesting point is XML configurations were introduced to separate configuration from code. Last two statements might create a doubt in your mind that these two are creating a cycle, but both have their pros and cons.
For eg:
#Override
It instructs the compiler to check parent classes for matching methods.
I'm trying to decide whether to use Transfuse or Dagger for Android dependency injection. I've never used Transfuse, and have basic knowledge of Dagger. Thanks much.
To start, I am the primary author of Transfuse thus this answer may be a bit slanted in that direction.
Both Transfuse and Dagger handle Dependency Injection / Inversion of Control for Android in similar ways. Both use Annotation Processing at Compile time via JSR269 to generate code the supports the DI/IOC functionality. This allows them to avoid the costly runtime reflection-based analysis typically associated with DI containers found in non-Android Java. Without going into the specifics, Dagger and Transfuse do approach code generation in significantly different ways, which is reflected in the features of the libraries. Also, Transfuse and Dagger both use the common JSR330 annotations (#Inject, Provider, etc). This means they both follow a Guice-style injection scheme.
Here's how you create an object graph in Dagger:
public class DaggerActivity extends Activity {
#Inject Example example;
#Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
ObjectGraph.create().inject(this);
//do something else...
}
}
The equivalent code in Transfuse uses its #Factory functionality:
#Factory
public interface Injector {
Example get();
}
public class TransfuseActivity extends Activity {
Example example;
#Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
example = Factories.get(Injector.class).get();
//do something else...
}
}
Transfuse is meant to be used in the following way, however, utilizing POJO components, lifecycle events, etc:
#Activity
public class TransfuseActivity{
#Inject Example example;
#OnCreate public void doSomethingElse(){
//do something else...
}
}
Here's some little differences in the DI engine in Transfuse and Dagger:
Transfuse supports (as well as it can) cyclic dependencies, Dagger purposefully throws an exception in this case.
Transfuse satisfies JSR330, Dagger specifically does not. The Dagger developers wanted to err on the side of simplicity, avoiding method injection allowed them to avoid a handful of confusing cases (link).
Dagger has a reflection based engine for cases where code was not generated. Transfuse does not and requires code to be generated (annotation processor to run) in order to work.
Transfuse will inject into private fields, constructors, methods (not necessarily recommended because of the reflection overhead). Dagger throws an exception in this case.
Dagger uses Modules in a very direct way, mirroring the capabilities of Guice. Each time you create an object graph, you are given the option to configure it with a Module class, ie: ObjectGraph.create(new DripCoffeeModule()). Transfuse's configuration module is a bit different as it is incorporated into the application at compile time. Each Module in Transfuse is global to the project (this may change in future versions of Transfuse, but it has not been an issue for the use of Transfuse yet).
Singletons in Dagger are per-object-graph where Singletons in Transfuse are global to the application.
The big difference between Dagger and Transfuse is that Dagger focused on being a simple Dependency Injection library, while Transfuse's focus is to "make Android a better API using performance sensitive techniques"
Transfuse supports these capabilities as well as DI:
POJO Components
Manifest Management
Roboguice/Butterknife style injections
Lightweight event system (#Observes, #OnCreate, etc)
AOP
I'd recommend that if you're interested, give Transfuse a try. Personally, I'd love to hear about your experience contrasting it with Dagger. We have a mailing list where you can share with the community and pretty through documentation on the website.