Android - This Class Should Provide a Default Constructor - java

When i want to Generate Signed app it tells me :
Error:Error: This class should provide a default constructor (a public constructor with no arguments) (com.example.discopc.beautiyuser.Customy) [Instantiatable]
My Project :
public class Customy extends ArrayAdapter<String> {
private final Activity context;
View v;
private final String[]name;
public Customy(Activity context, String[] name){
//super(null,0);
super(context,R.layout.activity_customy,name);
this.context=context;
this.name=name;
}
public View getView(final int position,View convertView,ViewGroup parent){
try{
LayoutInflater infalter=context.getLayoutInflater();
v=infalter.inflate(R.layout.activity_customy,null,true);
TextView txtName=(TextView)v.findViewById(R.id.name);
txtName.setText(""+name[position]+"");
}catch(Exception e){
}
return v;
}
}
Note: It works fine when debugging on my android device but i cant
Build > Generate Signed app
I Really don't know what to do.
Thanks ,

Check by mistake you have added that adapter name in Android Manifest. If yes, remove that and try.

A default constructor is a constructor for a class which has no arguments and can be used implicitly.
public Customy( /* notice - no arguments */) {
// your code here
}
But in your case - this must not be the issue. The issue is that you have this class somewhere in your XML configuration where some framework is trying to instantiate it using a default constructor, while we obviously see that you need to pass 2 parameters to your constructor for the class instance to function.

Related

How can I add methods that I often use to android studio?

For example,
public void show_message(String message){
Toast.makeText(this, message, Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
}
I want this method add auto Activity.java when create new activity or java class.
I want to save different methods like this and include it in the my project quickly where it is needed.
What you should do is create a BaseActivity and make your activity extend this BaseActivity. Add all the default methods in this activity so you can use them everywhere. You can refer this Github project for reference. It uses MVP.
Here is direct link to BaseActivity.
You just need to make a Common Utilities class. Just copy and paste the class in whatever project you are using it. Just make its method access specifiers as public staic so that you can easily access it.
For e.g.
CommonUtilities.showToastMessage(String text);
What I would do is create a config class and store all these small things in it. For example have a look at this :
public class Config {
public Context context;
public String sharedPrefsName;
public String carTablesName, carsTableCarColumn, databaseName;
public int databaseNewVersion, databaseOldVersion;
public boolean showNotificationsToCustomer;
public String customerNotificationState;
public String userMobile;
public SharedPreferences preferences;
public String customerChatTableName;
public String customerChatMessageColumn;
public String customerChatSentByCustomerColumn;
public String customerChatTimeColumn;
public String loggedInUserId;
public String loggedInUserName;
public String customerChatSupportNotifyingUrl;
public Config(Context context) {
this.context = context;
customerChatSupportNotifyingUrl = "";
customerChatTableName = "customerChat";
customerChatMessageColumn = "customerMessage";
customerChatTimeColumn = "sentOn";
customerChatSentByCustomerColumn = "isSentByCustomer";
sharedPrefsName = context.getString(R.string.shared_prefs_login_validator);
preferences = context.getSharedPreferences(sharedPrefsName, Context.MODE_PRIVATE);
customerNotificationState = context.getString(R.string.customer_notification_state);
showNotificationsToCustomer = preferences.getBoolean(customerNotificationState, true);
carTablesName = context.getString(R.string.user_car_table);
carsTableCarColumn = context.getString(R.string.user_car_table_car_column);
databaseName = context.getString(R.string.user_db);
databaseNewVersion = 3;
databaseOldVersion = 1;
loggedInUserId = preferences.getString(context.getString(R.string.user_db), "");
userMobile = preferences.getString(context.getString(R.string.user_mobile), "");
loggedInUserName = preferences.getString(context.getString(R.string.user_name), "");
}
}
I've placed all the constants in a single file so you need not look at them always. If your app grows in size this would be extremely useful.
For using a progress dialog I use a class like this :
public class MyProgressDialog extends ProgressDialog {
String title, message;
public MyProgressDialog(Context context, String title, String message) {
super(context);
if (!title.equals("")) this.setTitle(title);
this.setMessage(message);
this.setCancelable(false);
this.setIndeterminate(false);
}
}
This is nothing but a single class that extends ProgressDialog.So you can aquire all the functionalities of the progress dialog class.
Similarly for toast you could do the same. If you want them to appear when the activity gets created simply keep this:
MyProgressDialog dialog=new MyProgressDialog(this,"title","message");
dialog.show();
in your activity's onCreate() method. You can do the same for toast too.
In case if it is a java class just create a constructor and keep that snippet in that constructor..
You need to read about "File Templates" https://riggaroo.co.za/custom-file-templates-android-studio/ this a large topic, but this is worth it.

Force a user of my library to implement an interface or extend an abstract class

I'm developing an android library (.aar) and I was wondering if it was possible to, as the title suggest, force a user to implement an interface or extend an abstract class of my library.
I already know that I could just go with a class like this in my library :
public class MyLibrary
{
public interface VariablesInterface
{
void createVariables();
}
private static VariablesInterface vi = null;
public void setVariablesInterface(VariablesInterface v)
{
vi = v;
}
private static void SomeWork()
{
if (vi == null)
{
throw new RuntimeException("You noob.");
}
else
{
// do work
}
}
}
The library will work "alone" at some point, and when it will come to SomeWork(), if the interface isn't implemented it will crash, but this could only be seen at runtime.
Is there a way to have this behaviour when compiling the user's application ?
The goal is to avoid the user forgetting that he have to implement this without having to write it in the documentation and hope the user will probably read it.
Thanks for reading !
EDIT
I think that this question need some enhancement and background.
The purpose of the library is to provide classes that create variables which manages preferences, e.g. :
public class VarPreferenceBoolean extends VarPreference
{
private boolean defaultValue;
public VarPreferenceBoolean(String key, boolean defaultValue)
{
super(key, true);
this.defaultValue = defaultValue;
}
public void setValue(Context context, boolean value)
{
SharedPreferences.Editor e = context.getSharedPreferences(PropertiesManager.preferenceFileName, Context.MODE_PRIVATE).edit();
e.putBoolean(key, value);
e.commit();
}
public boolean getValue(Context context)
{
readPropFile(context);
SharedPreferences sp = context.getSharedPreferences(PropertiesManager.preferenceFileName, Context.MODE_PRIVATE);
return sp.getBoolean(key, defaultValue);
}
}
The same goes for int, string and so on.
In the super class, I add each VarPreference to a List to keep the library acknowledged of all the variables availables.
Note the readPropFile inside the getter.
Then, the user use the library in his project like this :
public class Constants
{
public static final VarPreferenceInt FILETYPE;
public static final VarPreferenceInt DATAMODE;
public static final VarPreferenceString URL_ONLINE;
public static final VarPreferenceBoolean UPDATING;
public static final VarPreferenceLong LAST_UPDATE;
static
{
FILETYPE = new VarPreferenceInt("FileType", MyFile.FileType.LOCAL.getValue());
DATAMODE = new VarPreferenceInt("DataMode", DataProvider.DataMode.OFFLINE.getValue());
URL_ONLINE = new VarPreferenceString("UrlOnline", "http://pouetpouet.fr");
UPDATING = new VarPreferenceBoolean("Updating", false);
LAST_UPDATE = new VarPreferenceLong("LastUpdate", 0L);
}
}
Now, when the user call an accessor, readPropFile will first search if a .properties file exist and modify accordingly the preferences if it found matches between the list of VarPreference and the properties of the file. Then it will delete the file and the accessor will return the value.
This is what exists today.
Now we want another application (let's say Pilot) to be able to get the VarPreferences of the user's application (let's say Client). Both implements the library.
Pilot send an Intent asking for the VarPreference list of Client, putting in extra the package name of Client.
The library receive the intent, verify the packagename, if it's Client it send back the list.
Problem is, if Client hasn't started, no VarPreference exists, and the list is empty.
I need to force the user to create his VarPreference in an method that my library know, to be able to call it whenever I want, and create the VarPreferences of the user when it's necessary.
Hope this is clearer !
EDIT
I rethought about all of this with a colleague and it just hit us that all this stack is biaised.
I didn't explain well and even if I said it, I didn't take account enough of this : everything needs to be done from the library.
So, even if I give an interface to the library, the application will have to run and call this affectation first in order to let the library work alone.
We are heading towards introspection now.
(This is the goal, it may not be possible...)
There will be an abstract class inside the library, with an abstract method where the user will place all of the VarPreferences creations. The user will have to extends this class and call the method in order to create his VarPreferences.
In the library, a method will search by introspection a child of the abstract class, create an instance of this child and call the method that will create the VarPreferences.
I would leave the abstract classes and interfaces in the main library and load the rest of your code via classloader from another. JDBC works like this.
Is there a way to have this behaviour when compiling the user's application ?
I see no way to force a compilation failure. However, if you force them to supply a VariablesInterface in the constructor then it will fail immediately. Make the VariablesInterface be final and only initialize it in the constructor:
public class MyLibrary {
private final VariablesInterface vi;
public MyLibrary(VariablesInterface vi) {
if (vi == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("vi can't be null");
}
this.vi = vi;
}
...
If you can't change the constructor then you can also add to any SomeWork public methods some sort of configuration check method to make sure the the vi wiring has properly been done but this requires careful programming to make sure all public methods are covered.
public void somePublicMethod() {
checkWiring();
...
}
private void checkWiring() {
if (vi == null) {
throw new IllegalStateException("vi needs to be specified");
}
}

How to correctly call a method with parameter of generic type and get rid of the "unchecked call to member of raw type" warning

I have created a base class for different subclasses of adapters for my list, which it has a List field with generic type. The code of the class is as below:
public class ListBaseAdapter<T> extends BaseAdapter {
private List<T> items;
#Override
public int getCount() {
if (items==null)
return 0;
return items.size();
}
#Override
public Object getItem(int position) {
return null;
}
#Override
public long getItemId(int position) {
return 0;
}
#Override
public View getView(int position, View convertView, ViewGroup parent) {
return null;
}
List getDataset() {
return items;
}
public void setDataset(List<T> items) {
this.items = items;
}
}
Also, below is some example of different subclasses to it:
public class UserListAdapter extends ListBaseAdapter {...}
public class AddressListAdapter extends ListBaseAdapter {...}
In the ListFragment, a ListBaseAdapter field is declared and initialised according to different type of lists shown.
public class TheListFragment extends ListFragment {
private ListBaseAdapter adapter;
public void onActivityCreated(#Nullable Bundle savedInstanceState) {
...
switch(type) {
case 1:
adapter = new UserListAdapter();
adapter.setDataset(users); // this line of code is getting the warning of "unchecked call to member of raw type"
break;
case 2:
adapter = new AddressListAdapter();
adapter.setDataset(addresses); // this line of code is getting the warning of "unchecked call to member of raw type"
break;
}
setListAdapter(adapter);
}
}
The code is just work fine, also I know that by setting a Type to the ListBaseAdapter such as the example below will get rid of the warning:
private ListBaseAdapter<Users> adapter;
but if I'm doing so, I will have to prepare multiple adapters in the ListFragment which each with a specific type.
I am wondering if there is a way to get rid of the warning (not using Lint) but still maintain only one adapter field or am I correctly doing this way of coding?
For your example cases, you should also initialize them with a type, i.e.:
public class UserListAdapter extends ListBaseAdapter<Users> {...}
public class AddressListAdapter extends ListBaseAdapter<Address> {...}
If you want to maintain only a single reference but still be able to pass in specific types, then given the code you provided, what I'd recommend would be something along these lines:
public class TheListFragment extends ListFragment {
// You really don't even need to keep a reference to this
// since it can be retrieved with getListAdapter()
private ListBaseAdapter<?> adapter;
public void onActivityCreated(#Nullable Bundle savedInstanceState) {
...
switch(type) {
case 1:
UserListAdapter userAdapter = new UserListAdapter();
userAdapter.setDataset(users);
adapter = userAdapter;
break;
case 2:
AddressListAdapter addressAdapter = new AddressListAdapter();
addressAdapter.setDataset(addresses);
adapter = addressAdapter;
break;
}
setListAdapter(adapter);
}
}
Provided you don't need to make future data assignments to the adapter, that will do the trick. Your field is only of type ListBaseAdapter<?>, but your local variables are of the specific type, so you can work with them directly, and then assign them to the more weakly-typed field adapter.

Meaning of R.layout.activity_main in android development (JAVA language)

What is the meaning of R.layout.activity_main ?
I understand that "." operator is used to define variables of a particular object but in this case its been used twice so I can't make anything out of it. Also what exactly is "R" and "layout"?
I mean obviously they are classes (right?) but what is their function ? Basically explain R.layout.activity_main !
Please comment if question too vague or too broad.
R.java is a class (with inner classes, like layout or string) generated during the build process with references to your app's resources. Every resource you create (or which is provided by Android) is referenced by an integer in R, called a resource id.
R.layout.* references any layout resource you have created, usually in /res/layout. So if you created an activity layout called activity_main.xml, you can then use the reference in R.layout.activity_main to access it. Many built-in functionality readily accepts such a resource id, for example setContentView(int layoutResid) which you use during the creation of your activity and where you probably encountered this particular example.
If you create a string resource (in strings.xml) like this:
<string name="app_name">Application name</string>
it will get a new reference in R.string.app_name. You can then use this everywhere where a string resource is accepted, for example the android:label for your application in AndroidManifest.xml, or on a TextView; either in the xml:
<TextView
android:layout_width="wrap_content"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:text="#string/app_name"
/>
or in code: textview.setText(R.string.app_name).
You can access resources programmatically using the Resources class, to which you can get a reference by calling getResources on any context (like your activity). So for example you can get your app name described above in your activity by calling this.getResources().getString(R.string.app_name).
You can also supply different resources for different device properties/settings (like screen size or language), which you can access using the same references in R. The easiest example here, imho, is strings: if you add a new values folder in /res with a language specifier (so /res/values-nl for Dutch) and you add strings with the same identifier but a different translation and the resource management system cleverly figures out which one to provide for you based on your user's device.
I hope this helps a bit. For more information on resources see the documentation.
R is an auto-generated class, and describe the resources of your project. It contains static inner classes. layout is one of them. R.layout refers to the inner class called layout. activity_main is a public static final member of the class layout
In Android R is an Java-class that is auto-generated from your resources by the build process.
The R.layout member is a auto-generated class that contains all IDs for layouts.
R.layout.activity_main is a static final int member that represents the ID of the layout-file in layout/activity_main.xml.
Okay, so R is a generated class. If you're lucky enough you'll never see it nor have to touch it, otherwise you did something very wrong.
When you make a layout, or any change to a layout, Android Studio generates quite a couple files for you. This includes a R.java file. Here's a piece of an R.java class:
public final class R {
public static final class anim {
public static final int abc_fade_in = 0x7f050000;
public static final int abc_fade_out = 0x7f050001;
public static final int abc_grow_fade_in_from_bottom = 0x7f050002;
public static final int abc_popup_enter = 0x7f050003;
public static final int abc_popup_exit = 0x7f050004;
public static final int abc_shrink_fade_out_from_bottom = 0x7f050005;
public static final int abc_slide_in_bottom = 0x7f050006;
public static final int abc_slide_in_top = 0x7f050007;
public static final int abc_slide_out_bottom = 0x7f050008;
public static final int abc_slide_out_top = 0x7f050009;
}
public static final class attr {
public static final int actionBarDivider = 0x7f010062;
public static final int actionBarItemBackground = 0x7f010063;
public static final int actionBarPopupTheme = 0x7f01005c;
public static final int actionBarSize = 0x7f010061;
public static final int actionBarSplitStyle = 0x7f01005e;
public static final int actionBarStyle = 0x7f01005d;
public static final int actionBarTabBarStyle = 0x7f010058;
public static final int actionBarTabStyle = 0x7f010057;
public static final int actionBarTabTextStyle = 0x7f010059;
As you can see, in this case if I'd type
R.anim.abc_fade_in
I'd be selecting the value 0x7f050000;.
Every layout file is mapped out in this R file, and gets an ID by which android recognizes it. The layouts are located in R.Layout. So, R.layout.activity_main gets you the value of variable activity_main of the class layout of the class R.
And again, don't try finding or changing your generated R file. Things can go very wrong if you do that.
From https://stackoverflow.com/a/4953282/1393766
R is a class containing the definitions for all resources of a particular application package. It is in the namespace of the application package.
If you want to inflate a layout inside your activity class,you can use R.layout.activity_main where layout specifies that your resource is a layout and it's name is activity_main.
If you want to use a drawable image in a layout inside your activity class,you can use R.drawable.image_name where drawable specifies that your resource is a drawable image.
Also,R.java class is an autogenerated class which is not supposed to alter manually.

Problem accessing variable[] from another class

I know this a pretty basic question, and already found another ones like mine, but I honestly don't know what I'm doing wrong.
public class InteractiveArrayAdapter extends ArrayAdapter<Model> {
private final List<Model> list;
private final Activity context;
public int teste;
public InteractiveArrayAdapter(Activity context, List<Model> list) {
super(context, R.layout.rowbuttonlayout, list);
this.context = context;
this.list = list;
}
public int getTest()
{
return teste;
}
static class ViewHolder {
protected TextView text;
protected CheckBox checkbox;
}
#Override
public View getView(int position, View convertView, ViewGroup parent) {
teste = 2;
....
}
}
and other class:
try{
InteractiveArrayAdapter adapt = new InteractiveArrayAdapter(this,
getAPPS(0));
int test = adapt.getTest();
Toast.makeText(this, Integer.toString(test), Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show();
Log.v("TAG",Integer.toString(test));
}catch(Exception e)
{
Log.v("EXCEPTION",e.toString());
}
EDIT: I was getting null for a stupid mistake, and now I'm getting the primitive and expected 0 as most of you say.
At some point of my app, everytime a checkboxes is clicked that method getView is executed. I want to store that to an array[] of strings progressively (i+1) (i just put int to be easier to understand - realize now it was a mistake), and then when users inputs ok I want to access the whole array. Wondering if it's possible the way I want.
So when I do this
InteractiveArrayAdapter adapt = new InteractiveArrayAdapter(this,
getAPPS(0));
This is meaningless, because I don't need to execute anything again, I just want to retrieve the created array - if possible!
Your code won't even compile. return this.teste; should be return this.test;.
Well, this isn't a direct copy/paste, since this obviously wouldn't compile. Whenever you're dealing with an actual error or issue, it's really best to paste the actual code. We're all programmers, so we can read it.
But based on the structure you've shown above, either the typo you've put in the line return this.teste (should be return this.test) is in your code, or you didn't initialize the instance variable test in your constructor.
Without showing us the actual code you're writing, it's impossible to say (especially the section that initializes the test variable, and the part that returns its value are missing - we're not mind readers, I'm afraid).
So, those are two potential candidates. On another note, however, if you mark the test variable as public, then you don't need to have getter/setter methods for them, since any class can access them without going through a method call. That's what public does.
But that is what should happen according to your code. You don't call B method to update teste variable.

Categories

Resources