I'm trying to construct a trait and an abstract class to subtype by messages (In an Akka play environment) so I can easily convert them to Json.
What have done so far:
abstract class OutputMessage(val companion: OutputMessageCompanion[OutputMessage]) {
def toJson: JsValue = Json.toJson(this)(companion.fmt)
}
trait OutputMessageCompanion[OT] {
implicit val fmt: OFormat[OT]
}
Problem is, when I'm trying to implement the mentioned interfaces as follows:
case class NotifyTableChange(tableStatus: BizTable) extends OutputMessage(NotifyTableChange)
object NotifyTableChange extends OutputMessageCompanion[NotifyTableChange] {
override implicit val fmt: OFormat[NotifyTableChange] = Json.format[NotifyTableChange]
}
I get this error from Intellij:
Type mismatch, expected: OutputMessageCompanion[OutputMessage], actual: NotifyTableChange.type
I'm kinda new to Scala generics - so help with some explanations would be much appreciated.
P.S I'm open for any more generic solutions than the one mentioned.
The goal is, when getting any subtype of OutputMessage - to easily convert it to Json.
The compiler says that your companion is defined over the OutputMessage as the generic parameter rather than some specific subtype. To work this around you want to use a trick known as F-bound generic. Also I don't like the idea of storing that companion object as a val in each message (after all you don't want it serialized, do you?). Defining it as a def is IMHO much better trade-off. The code would go like this (companions stays the same):
abstract class OutputMessage[M <: OutputMessage[M]]() {
self: M => // required to match Json.toJson signature
protected def companion: OutputMessageCompanion[M]
def toJson: JsValue = Json.toJson(this)(companion.fmt)
}
case class NotifyTableChange(tableStatus: BizTable) extends OutputMessage[NotifyTableChange] {
override protected def companion: OutputMessageCompanion[NotifyTableChange] = NotifyTableChange
}
You may also see standard Scala collections for an implementation of the same approach.
But if all you need the companion for is to encode with JSON format, you can get rid of it like this:
abstract class OutputMessage[M <: OutputMessage[M]]() {
self: M => // required to match Json.toJson signature
implicit protected def fmt: OFormat[M]
def toJson: JsValue = Json.toJson(this)
}
case class NotifyTableChange(tableStatus: BizTable) extends OutputMessage[NotifyTableChange] {
override implicit protected def fmt: OFormat[NotifyTableChange] = Json.format[NotifyTableChange]
}
Obviously is you also want to decode from JSON you still need a companion object anyway.
Answers to the comments
Referring the companion through a def - means that is a "method", thus defined once for all the instances of the subtype (and doesn't gets serialized)?
Everything you declare with val gets a field stored in the object (instance of the class). By default serializers trying to serialize all the fields. Usually there is some way to say that some fields should be ignored (like some #IgnoreAnnotation). Also it means that you'll have one more pointer/reference in each object which uses memory for no good reason, this might or might not be an issue for you. Declaring it as def gets a method so you can have just one object stored in some "static" place like companion object or build it on demand every time.
I'm kinda new to Scala, and I've peeked up the habit to put the format inside the companion object, would you recommend/refer to some source, about how to decide where is best to put your methods?
Scala is an unusual language and there is no direct mapping the covers all the use cases of the object concept in other languages. As a first rule of thumb there are two main usages for object:
Something where you would use static in other languages, i.e. a container for static methods, constants and static variables (although variables are discouraged, especially static in Scala)
Implementation of the singleton pattern.
By f-bound generic - do you mean the lower bound of the M being OutputMessage[M] (btw why is it ok using M twice in the same expr. ?)
Unfortunately wiki provides only a basic description. The whole idea of the F-bounded polymorphism is to be able to access to the type of the sub-class in the type of a base class in some generic manner. Usually A <: B constraint means that A should be a subtype of B. Here with M <: OutputMessage[M], it means that M should be a sub-type of the OutputMessage[M] which can easily be satisfied only by declaring the child class (there are other non-easy ways to satisfy that) as:
class Child extends OutputMessage[Child}
Such trick allows you to use the M as a an argument or result type in methods.
I'm a bit puzzled about the self bit ...
Lastly the self bit is another trick that is necessary because F-bounded polymorphism was not enough in this particular case. Usually it is used with trait when traits are used as a mix-in. In such case you might want to restrict in what classes the trait can be mixed in. And at the same type it allows you to use the methods from that base type in your mixin trait.
I'd say that the particular usage in my answer is a bit unconventional but it has the same twofold effect:
When compiling OutputMessage the compiler can assume that the type will also somehow be of the type of M (whatever M is)
When compiling any sub-type compiler ensures that the constraint #1 is satisfied. For example it will not let you to do
case class SomeChild(i: Int) extends OutputMessage[SomeChild]
// this will fail because passing SomeChild breaks the restriction of self:M
case class AnotherChild(i: Int) extends OutputMessage[SomeChild]
Actually since I had to use self:M anyway, you probably can remove the F-bounded part here, living just
abstract class OutputMessage[M]() {
self: M =>
...
}
but I'd stay with it to better convey the meaning.
As SergGr already answered, you would need an F-Bounded kind of polymorphism to solve this as it is right now.
However, for these cases, I believe (note this is only my opinion) is better to use Typeclasses instead.
In your case, you only want to provide a toJson method to any value as long as they have an instance of the OFormat[T] class.
You can achieve that with this (more simple IMHO) piece of code.
object syntax {
object json {
implicit class JsonOps[T](val t: T) extends AnyVal {
def toJson(implicit: fmt: OFormat[T]): JsVal = Json.toJson(t)(fmt)
}
}
}
final case class NotifyTableChange(tableStatus: BizTable)
object NotifyTableChange {
implicit val fmt: OFormat[NotifyTableChange] = Json.format[NotifyTableChange]
}
import syntax.json._
val m = NotifyTableChange(tableStatus = ???)
val mJson = m.toJson // This works!
The JsonOps class is an Implicit Class which will provide the toJson method to any value for which there is an implicit OFormat instance in scope.
And since the companion object of the NotifyTableChange class defines such implicit, it is always in scope - more information about where does scala look for implicits in this link.
Additionally, given it is a Value Class, this extension method does not require any instantiation in runtime.
Here, you can find a more detailed discussion about F-Bounded vs Typeclasses.
Related
Actually, the main problem is still that there are no reified typeargs for classes in Kotlin. But here is why this bothers me in this specific case:
Suppose you have a wrapper class Wrapper that takes in a string content and a class* type and can output an object of class type retrieved by parsing content as JSON by demand by calling the function getObj():
class Wrapper<T>(private val content: String, /*private val type: KClass<*>*/) {
fun getObj(): T {
// ?
}
}
And I want to use kotlinx.serialization. Now, you might have noticed how I put an asterisk after "class" before. Here's the reason: Yes, Wrapper has to take the target class in some way, but how? Should it be just the typearg (won't work because type erausre) or a KClass reference (won't work because I need a reified typearg)?
The thing is that as far as I know, the only way to decode a generic JSON to a serializable target class is to use Json.decodeFromString<T>(content), where T is the target type and content is the JSON string. Now, T is defined to be reified (so that the type can be processed at runtime) and can only be filled with another reified typearg or an actual class reference. I can't use another reified typearg because I am in the context of a class and a class cannot have reified typeargs. I can also not use an actual class reference because the user of the class should be able to construct it with different targets, e.g. they decide what the target is, not me.
So, how do I do this with kotlinx.serialization? Is it even possible?
Ok so no one answered the question yet, but I also posted this question in the r/Kotlin subreddit. Here it is.
I actually got an answer there (credits to u/JakeWharton), and since you might get across this StackOverflow question because you googled the same question, you might be happy to find an answer here. So here's my try to paraphrase the answer:
So, basically, kotlinx-serialization does indeed not work with KClasses. But when you think about it, you only need the KClass to determine how to serialize it. And since that is determined at compile-time when you work with KXS, you actually just need to pass the serializer (the actual strategy defining how to serialize / deserialize your class). You can obtain a serializer for every class annotated with #Serializable by invoking .serializer() on it; the result will be of the type KSerializer<T>. So, instead of having
class Wrapper<T>(private val content: String, private val type: KClass<T>)
and constructing it via
val wrapper = Wrapper("{}", Foo::class)
You can do it like this:
class Wrapper<T>(private val content: String, private val serializer: KSerializer<T>)
and then construct it like this:
val wrapper = Wrapper("{}", Foo.serializer())
(supposing Foo is annotated with #Serializable)
you can then serialize and deserialize by using the KSerializer instead of a typearg, like this:
val obj: T = Json.decodeFromString(serializer, "[Your JSON String]")
val str: String = Json.encodeToString(serializer, obj)
And that's it! Just swap out your regular (K)Class approach by KSerializer and it'll work with KXS.
I use AnyVals extensively to ensure type safety in my code and make it more expressive. I'm also often required to translate my objects to/from Json using the Play Framework API. I've ended up with many near-duplicated lines that look something like this:
protected implicit val capabilityFormats: Format[SomeId] =
implicitly[Format[String]].inmap(SomeId.apply, _.value)
protected implicit val capabilityFormats: Format[FullName] =
implicitly[Format[String]].inmap(FullName.apply, _.value)
protected implicit val capabilityFormats: Format[CityName] =
implicitly[Format[String]].inmap(CityName.apply, _.value)
protected implicit val capabilityFormats: Format[StreetName] =
implicitly[Format[String]].inmap(StreetName.apply, _.value)
Intuitively, it seems like since I know each of these classes has:
a .value: String member, and
an .apply(value: String) constructor, that
I should be able to do this with a trait or something.
I can get it to work for Writes[], since I can inherit the trait which includes the .value: String member, but I don't know how to let the compiler know that there's a trivial way to go from a String to the class it is looking for.
No instance of play.api.libs.json.Format is available for models.AccountStatus in the implicit scope.
This is the code taken from a github page, and only class names and variable names are changed.
package models
import slick.jdbc.H2Profile._
import play.api.libs.json._
case class Account(id: Long, name: String, category: Int, status:AccountStatus)
object Account {
implicit val accountFormat = Json.format[Account]
}
sealed abstract class AccountStatus(val as:Int)
object AccountStatus{
final case object Draft extends AccountStatus(0)
final case object Active extends AccountStatus(1)
final case object Blocked extends AccountStatus(2)
final case object Defaulter extends AccountStatus(3)
implicit val columnType: BaseColumnType[AccountStatus] = MappedColumnType.base[AccountStatus,Int](AccountStatus.toInt, AccountStatus.fromInt)
private def toInt(as:AccountStatus):Int = as match {
case Draft => 0
case Active => 1
case Blocked => 2
case Defaulter => 3
}
private def fromInt(as: Int): AccountStatus = as match {
case 0 => Draft
case 1 => Active
case 2 => Blocked
case 3 => Defaulter
_ => sys.error("Out of bound AccountStatus Value.")
}
}
https://github.com/playframework/play-scala-slick-example/blob/2.6.x/app/models/Person.scala
So, this code needs to be added inside of the object AccountStatus code block since we need to use fromInt to transform an Int to an AccountStatus. This is a Reads defined for AccountStatus:
implicit object AccountStatusReads extends Reads[AccountStatus] {
def reads(jsValue: JsValue): JsResult[AccountStatus] = {
(jsValue \ "as").validate[Int].map(fromInt)
}
}
What's a Reads? It's just a trait that defines how a JsValue (the play class encapsulating JSON values) should be deserialized from JSON to some type. The trait only requires one method to be implemented, a reads method which takes in some json and returns a JsResult of some type. So you can see in the above code that we have a Reads that will look for a field in JSON called as and try to read it as an integer. From there, it will then transform it into an AccountStatus using the already defined fromInt method. So for example in the scala console you could do this:
import play.api.libs.json._
// import wherever account status is and the above reader
scala> Json.parse("""{"as":1}""").as[AccountStatus]
res0: AccountStatus = Active
This reader isn't perfect though, mainly because it's not handling the error your code will give you on out of bound numbers:
scala> Json.parse("""{"as":20}""").as[AccountStatus]
java.lang.RuntimeException: Out of bound AccountStatus Value.
at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27)
at AccountStatus$.fromInt(<console>:42)
at AccountStatusReads$$anonfun$reads$1.apply(<console>:27)
at AccountStatusReads$$anonfun$reads$1.apply(<console>:27)
at play.api.libs.json.JsResult$class.map(JsResult.scala:81)
at play.api.libs.json.JsSuccess.map(JsResult.scala:9)
at AccountStatusReads$.reads(<console>:27)
at play.api.libs.json.JsValue$class.as(JsValue.scala:65)
at play.api.libs.json.JsObject.as(JsValue.scala:166)
... 42 elided
You could handle this by making the Reads handle the error. I can show you how if you want, but first the other part of a Format is a Writes. This trait, unsurprisingly is similar to reads except it does the reverse. You're taking your class AccountStatus and creating a JsValue (JSON). So, you just have to implement the writes method.
implicit object AccountStatusWrites extends Writes[AccountStatus] {
def writes(as: AccountStatus): JsValue = {
JsObject(Seq("as" -> JsNumber(as.as)))
}
}
Then this can be used to serialize that class to JSON like so:
scala> Json.toJson(Draft)
res4: play.api.libs.json.JsValue = {"as":0}
Now, this is actually enough to get your error to go away. Why? Because Json.format[Account] is doing all the work we just did for you! But for Account. It can do this because it's a case class and has less than 22 fields. Also every field for Account has a way to be converted to and from JSON (via a Reads and Writes). Your error message was showing that Account could not have a format automatically created for it because part of it (status field) had no formatter.
Now, why do you have to do this? Because AccountStatus is not a case class, so you can't call Json.format[AccountStatus] on it. And because the subclasses of it are each objects, which have no unapply method defined for them since they're not case classes. So you have to explain to the library how to serialize and deserialize.
Since you said you're new to scala, I imagine that the concept of an implicit is still somewhat foreign. I recommend you play around with it / do some reading to get a grasp of what to do when you see that the compiler is complaining about not being able to find an implicit it needs.
Bonus round
So, you might really not want to do that work yourself, and there is a way to avoid having to do it so you can do Json.format[AccountStatus]. You see Json.format uses the apply and unapply methods to do its dirty work. In scala, these two methods are defined automatically for case classes. But there's no reason you can't define them yourself and get everything they give you for free!
So, what do apply and unapply look like type signature wise? It changes per class, but in this case apply should match Int => AccountStatus (a function that goes from an int to an AccountStatus). So it's defined like so:
def apply(i: Int): AccountStatus = fromInt(i)
and unapply is similar to the reverse of this, but it needs to return an Option[Int], so it looks like
def unapply(as: AccountStatus): Option[Int] = Option(as.as)
with both of these defined you don't need to define the reads and writes yourself and instead can just call
// this is still inside the AccountStatus object { ... }
implicit val asFormat = Json.format[AccountStatus]
and it will work in a similar fashion.
.P.S. I'm traveling today, but feel free to leave any comments if some of this doesn't make sense and I'll try to get back to you later on
I am trying to build a generic CRUD interface that receives an element, searches for an implicit CRUD implementation from an evidence and also serialize the necessary object based on the parametrized type.
The code goes as follow:
private def createElement[T <: AnyRef](element: String)
(implicit ev: ResourceManager[T], m: Manifest[T]): Response = Try {
val e = Serializer.fromJson(element, m.runtimeClass)
ev.create(e, persistence)
ResponseBuilder.newBuilder().status(202).build()
}.getOrElse(ResponseBuilder.newBuilder().status(412).build())
As you can see. I receive a String, an evidence of a ResourceManager that implements the create method and a Manifest. When trying to serialize i make sure that the T type is of AnyRef but that is not the issue.
The problem is that m.runtimeClass returns Class[_] instead of Class[T].
My question is, if manifest does do what i want, how can i do this without explicitly passing the class name or whatever?
Thank you!
In spray / akka http I can marshal/unmarshal a case class like so:
case class Latitude(value:Double)
object Latitude extends DefaultJsonProtocol with SprayJsonSupport {
implicit val LatitudeFormat = jsonFormat1(Latitude.apply)
}
However this will marshal a Latitude(42) to an object {value:42}. I rather want it to be marshalled to just a JsNumber 42. To do so I did the following:
case class Latitude(value:Double)
object Latitude extends DefaultJsonProtocol with SprayJsonSupport {
implicit object LatitudeFormat extends RootJsonFormat[Latitude] {
def write(lat: Latitude) = lat.value.toJson
def read(value: JsValue) = ??? //too much code with decent error handling, but working
}
}
However I don't want to do this for every "simple value case class".
My goal is to e.g. create a function (or maybe a macro) that works exactly like spray's jsonFormat1 except it does not write/read objects but simple values, depending on the case class I use it on.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be any way to extend or compose the jsonRootFormat object that is returned from the jsonFormat1 function. The function itself seems to use already deprecated stuff (like ClassManifest) so I'm not sure if I want to copy and adjust it for my needs. What is my best option in this situation to get/create such a simple case class to JsValue function?