Develop Reference

modify underlying result/value of async object

I am using Kotlin in a webserver app and I have a line of code as follows:
.onComplete { jsonResult: AsyncResult<JsonObject>? ->
Now what I want to do is change the underlying JsonObject wrapped in the AsyncResult, so that it is going to be reflected further downstream.
var res: JsonObject? = jsonResult?.result()
if (res != null) {
if (res.getInteger("files_uploaded") > 0) {
res.put("URL", "Some URL")
}
}
I was then imagining to update the underlying JSON object in the result but not sure how to do that.

please take note that single quotes are missing and ` appear as \` because the code formatting. I tried to leave what seemed least confusing...
You should be able to make changes in the conditional statement
if (res !=null) {
res being the JsonObject:
console.log(res);
would show you what's in there. You may need to use
let resXmodifiedX = JSON.parse(res);
One approach is to write a function and pass res to that function which you can do if it is in the console.log(res).
Some notes on what's below:
place the function somewhere consistent maybe at the bottom of the file...
objects often have multiple levels res.person.name, res.contact.email, or whatever...
use multiple for loops:
let level = res[key]; for(child in level) {
you don't need to do this if you know exactly what object attributes you need to update.
you can set the value directly but you always want to test for it before trying to set it to avoid errors that stop execution.
let toBe = toBe =>`${toBe}`;
let update = (res)?toBe(update(res)):toBe('not Found');
This option is really only if you know for sure that data will be there and you can't proceed without it. Which is not uncommon but also not how JSON is designed to be used.
The code below is a concise way to make some simple changes but may not be an ideal solution. To use it xModify(res) replaces console.log(res) above.
function xModify(x) {
let resXmodifiedX = JSON.parse(x);
let res = resXmodifiedX;
for (key in res) {
res[key] = key=='name'? \`My change ${res[key]}\`: key=='other'? \`My Change ${res[key]}\`:res[key];
resXmodifiedX = JSON.stringify(res);
return resXmodifiedX;
}
That will update res.name and res.other otherwise res[key] is unchanged. If you do not need to parse res change let res = xModifiedx; to let res = x; remove the first line and change the last two lines to return res;
function xModify(x) {
let res = x;
for (key in res) {
res[key] = key=='name'? \`My change ${res[key]}\`: key=='other'? \`My Change ${res[key]}\`:res[key];
return res;
}
If your data is numeric which is not generally the case in a web server response scenario this is a terrible approach. Because it is probably a string I used the template variable as a way to easily add a complex pattern in place of a string. My change ${res[key]} not a real world example. Any valid JS code can go in the ${ } (template variable). I've been defaulting to the first pattern more and more.
let me = (bestCase)?`${'the best version'} of myself`:`${'someone'} I'm ok with`;

Is it possible to declare a variable within a Java while conditional?

In Java it is possible to declare a variable in the initialization part of a for-loop:
for ( int i=0; i < 10; i++) {
// do something (with i)
}
But with the while statement this seems not to be possible.
Quite often I see code like this, when the conditional for the while loop needs to be updated after every iteration:
List<Object> processables = retrieveProcessableItems(..); // initial fetch
while (processables.size() > 0) {
// process items
processables = retrieveProcessableItems(..); // update
}
Here on stackoverflow I found at least a solution to prevent the duplicate code of fetching the processable items:
List<Object> processables;
while ((processables = retrieveProcessableItems(..)).size() > 0) {
// process items
}
But the variable still has to be declared outside the while-loop.
So, as I want to keep my variable scopes clean, is it possible to declare a variable within the while conditional, or is there some other solution for such cases?

You can write a while loop using a for loop:
while (condition) { ... }
is the same as
for (; condition; ) { ... }
since all three bits in the brackets of the basic for statement declaration are optional:
BasicForStatement:
for ( [ForInit] ; [Expression] ; [ForUpdate] ) Statement
Similarly, you can just rewrite your while loop as a for loop:
for (List<Object> processables;
(processables = retrieveProcessableItems(..)).size() > 0;) {
// ... Process items.
}
Note that some static analysis tools (e.g. eclipse 4.5) might demand that an initial value is assigned to processables, e.g. List<Object> processables = null. This is incorrect, according to JLS; my version of javac does not complain if the variable is left initially unassigned.

No it's not possible.
It doesn't really make too much sense either: unlike a for loop where you can set up the initial state of the "looping variable", in a while loop you test the value of an existing variable, akin to the conditional check of the for loop.
Of course, if you're concerned about variables "leaking" into other parts of your code, you could enclose the whole thing in an extra scope block:
{
/*declare variable here*/
while(...){...}
}
Alternatively, convert the while loop into a for loop.

Make a do/while:
String value;
do {
value = getValue();
...your processing
} while (value != null && !value.isEmpty());

Android Studio reports "Unreachable Code" with enum comparison

I'm doing something that should be trivial- retrieving an enum value from a property and comparing it with a constant of that enum in an if statement. However Android Studio claims the true case is unreachable code and won't compile.
The block is:
if (ScanState.getScanMode() != ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
{
//We're already scanning, but user wants to stop.
stopScanning();
}
else
{
ScanState.setScanMode(newMode);
restartScan();
buttonFlashMode = btnMode;
buttonFlasher();
}
where in an extra ScanState class, I have:
public static ScanModeEnum getScanMode() {
return scanMode;
}
public static void setScanMode(ScanModeEnum scanMode) {
ScanState.scanMode = scanMode;
}
public enum ScanModeEnum
{
SCAN_IDLE,
SCAN_PERSON,
SCAN_BIKE,
SCAN_SEARCH
}
private static ScanModeEnum scanMode = ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE;
Variants I've tried, which Android Studio claims will all evaluate to false are
if(ScanState.getScanMode() == ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
if(ScanState.getScanMode().compareTo(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)!=0)
if(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE == ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
if(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE.equals(ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE))
I'm new to Java (more familiar with C#), but an answer to this question suggests that my understanding of this is sound. Is there some stupid mistake I'm making?

Have you tried debugging this and verifying that the block is never actually reached?
I agree this is a very strange situation. If it persists, I can recommend swapping the enum for int constants, and conducting the check on them. It's not a real fix, but more of a workaround, but at least it can unblock you for the moment.

Good grief. After making a seperate method as suggested and discovering the problem lay elsewhere I had a look further up the code. The complete method was;
public void onScanButtonPress(#ButtonFlashMode int button)
{
ScanState.ScanModeEnum newMode;
#ButtonFlashMode int btnMode = 0;
switch (button)
{
case FLASH_BIKE:
newMode = ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_BIKE;
btnMode = FLASH_BIKE;
case FLASH_PERSON:
newMode = ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_PERSON;
btnMode = FLASH_PERSON;
default:
//Unhandled.
return;
}
if (ScanState.getScanMode() != ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE)
{
//We're already scanning, but user wants to stop.
stopScanning();
}
else
{
ScanState.setScanMode(newMode);
restartScan();
buttonFlashMode = btnMode;
buttonFlasher();
}
}
Since I've forgotten to put break statements in the cases of the switch, it'll always return before the if is ever evaluated. It'll therefore never evaluate to true and so the error is correct- if misleading since it implies (to me at least!) that the if statement does get evaluated. Thanks for the comments, and I figured this was worth leaving (despite being indeed a stupid mistake) because others might be caught out by this.

EDIT: As mentioned by #Bubletan and #MarkoTopolnik, this would not result in a compiler error. Leaving the response as documentation of something that would NOT cause this error.
Do you call anywhere in your code setScanMode? (outside that else block). The compiler may be detecting that the static variable scanMode is never modified, and therefore ScanState.getScanMode() is always ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE, thus code not reachable.
Try invoking setScanMode somewhere in your code (with a value different than ScanState.ScanModeEnum.SCAN_IDLE) and see if this error disappears.

Why does a String need to be initialized even if the assignment will happen later?

I get the "The local variable string may not have been initialized" error with the following code. The code itself doesn't make sense it was written just for the sake of exercise.
public class StringExercise
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
String string; // initializing here fixes the issue
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
if( (i % 4) == 2 )
{
string = "Number: " + i;
}
}
System.out.println(string); // this is marked as wrong by Eclipse
}
}
To get it working it is sufficient to initialize String as expressed in the comment above.
My question is why is it needed? The method println will never be given null and initialization will happen the first time the condition in the loop returns true. Am I doing something wrong or is it just Java being overcautious over programmer's errors? If the latter, how is it justified from the theoretical point of view?

My question is why is it needed?
Because even though your code is "logically" written so that string will indeed be initialized in the loop, the compiler doesn't know it. All it sees is:
for (loop; elements; here)
if (someCondition)
string = something;
In short: a compiler will not check the logic of your code; it it only smart enough as to check for syntax errors, but after that, the bytecode generation itself is "dumb".
And as Java requires that all variables be initialized before use, you get this compiler error.

The compiler can't guarantee that string = "Number: " + i; will be executed within your for and if.

How to refactor to avoid passing "special values" into a Java method?

I'm sure there must be a standard way to do this, but my attempts to search Stackoverflow have failed.
I have a method like:
public void processSomeWidgetsForUser(int userItemId) {
Iterator<Widgets> iter = allWidgets.values().iterator();
while(iter.hasNext()) {
Widget thisWidget = iter.next();
if (userItemId == -1 || thisWidget.getUsersItemId() == userItemId) {
widget.process();
}
}
}
As you can see -1 is a "special value" meaning process all. Doing this saves repeating the loop code in another method called processSomeWidgetsForAllUsers.
But I dislike special values like this because they are easy to misuse or misunderstand, which is exactly the situation what I'm having to fix now (where someone thought -1 meant something else).
I can only think of two ways to improve this.
have a constant, containing -1 called something like
Widget.ALLWIDGETS which at least is self-documenting, but doesn't
stop code from using a -1 (if someone integrates old code in, for
example)
change the method to take a list of all user ids to
process, which can be empty, but that doesn't seem great
performance-wise (would need to retrieve all user ids first and then loop through
removing. Also what happens if the number of widgets in the list changes between
retreiving the ids and removing
Is there a better way? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
The above code has been changed slightly, so may not compile, but you should get the gist.

Although somewhat redundant, a fairly neat self-documenting approach could be to have 3 methods rather than one;
Make your original method private, and make one small change which would be to add your static final int EXECUTE_ALL = -1 and use that in your original method, then add the two new methods;
public void processWidget(int wID) throws IllegalArgumentException {
if(wID == EXECUTE_ALL) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
originalMethod(wID);
}
public void processAllWidgets() {
originalMethod(EXECUTE_ALL);
}
It makes your class a little more cluttered, but as far as the exposed methods go, it is clearer and hopefully foolproof. You could alter it not to throw an exception and just ignore any invalid ids, that just depends on your situation.
This approach of course has the major downside that it changes how the class appears to other classes, breaking everything that currently uses the, now private, originalMethod().

Number 1 would work very nicely. Be sure to document what the variable is though, so future coders (possibly yourself) know what it means.
/**This is the explanation for the below variable*/
public final static int ALL_WIDGETS = -1;

Have an external method like so:
static boolean idRepresentsAll(int id) {
return id == -1;
}
In this case, if you decide to replace it with a different mechanism, you only replace your magic number one place in your code.
At the very least, you would want to do something like this:
public static final int ID_REPRESENTING_ALL = -1;

You can change the method signature to accept a boolean for when you want to process them all.
public void processSomeWidgets(boolean doAll, int userItemId) {
Iterator<Widgets> iter = allWidgets.values().iterator();
while(iter.hasNext()) {
Widget thisWidget = iter.next();
if (doAll || thisWidget.getUsersItemId() == userItemId) {
widget.process();
}
}
}
This makes it more explicit, and easier to read in my opinion as there are no special values.