Develop Reference

Java nested POJO update based on dot annotation

I have a nested POJO structure defined something like this,
public class Employee {
private String id;
private Personal personal;
private Official official;
}
public class Personal {
private String fName;
private String lName;
private String address;
}
public class Official {
private boolean active;
private Salary salary;
}
public class Salary {
private double hourly;
private double monthly;
private double yearly;
}
I get updates from a service with dot annotaion on what value changed, for ex,
id change --> id=100
address change --> personal.address=123 Main Street
hourly salary change --> official.salary.hourly=100
This POJO structure could be 3-4 level deeps. I need to look for this incoming change value and update the corresponding value in POJO. What's the best way of doing it?

If you would like to create Java objects that allows you to edit fields. You can specify your object fields with the public/default/protected access modifiers. This will enable you to get and set fields such as personal.address or official.salary.hours
This approach is typically frowned upon as the object is no longer encapsulated and any calling methods are welcome to manipulate the object. If these fields are not encapsulated with getters and setters, your object is no longer a POJO.
public provides access from any anywhere.
default provides access from any package
protected provides access from package or subclass.
public class Employee {
public String id;
public Personal personal;
public Official official;
}
public class Personal {
public String fName;
public String lName;
public String address;
}

Here's a quick approach using reflection to set fields dynamically. It surely isn't and can't be clean. If I were you, I would use a scripting engine for that (assuming it's safe to do so).
private static void setValueAt(Object target, String path, String value)
throws Exception {
String[] fields = path.split("\\.");
if (fields.length > 1) {
setValueAt(readField(target, fields[0]),
path.substring(path.indexOf('.') + 1), value);
return;
}
Field f = target.getClass()
.getDeclaredField(path);
f.setAccessible(true);
f.set(target, parse(value, f.getType())); // cast or convert value first
}
//Example code for converting strings to primitives
private static Object parse(String value, Class<?> type) {
if (String.class.equals(type)) {
return value;
} else if (double.class.equals(type) || Double.class.equals(type)) {
return Long.parseLong(value);
} else if (boolean.class.equals(type) || Boolean.class.equals(type)) {
return Boolean.valueOf(value);
}
return value;// ?
}
private static Object readField(Object from, String field) throws Exception {
Field f = from.getClass()
.getDeclaredField(field);
f.setAccessible(true);
return f.get(from);
}
Just be aware that there's a lot to improve in this code (exception handling, null checks, etc.), although it seems to achieve what you're looking for (split your input on = to call setValueAt()):
Employee e = new Employee();
e.setOfficial(new Official());
e.setPersonal(new Personal());
e.getOfficial().setSalary(new Salary());
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
setValueAt(e, "id", "123");
// {"id":"123","personal":{},"official":{"active":false,"salary":{"hourly":0.0,"monthly":0.0,"yearly":0.0}}}
setValueAt(e, "personal.address", "123 Main Street");
// {"id":"123","personal":{"address":"123 Main Street"},"official":{"active":false,"salary":{"hourly":0.0,"monthly":0.0,"yearly":0.0}}}
setValueAt(e, "official.salary.hourly", "100");
// {"id":"123","personal":{"address":"123 Main Street"},"official":{"active":false,"salary":{"hourly":100.0,"monthly":0.0,"yearly":0.0}}}

get all values from one class to anothed class method

I have an class IntegrationWithDB in which i have to method getConnection()and selectFromDB().
In the selectFromDb() i have a result set , i want to get the result
set vales in another class method
Actually it did but it only shows the last value of dataBase table.
Note i have made getter and setter method in IntegrationWithDB class and use in selectFromDB() method.
public void selectFromDB() {
try {
if (this.conn == null) {
this.getConnection();
}
if (this.stmt == null) {
this.stmt = this.conn.createStatement();
}
int success = 0;
this.query = "select * from contacts order by node_id";
this.rs = this.stmt.executeQuery(query);
// something is wrong in the while loop
while (rs.next()) {
setId(rs.getInt("node_id")); // i made getter and setter for id, name, parent and for level
setNam(rs.getString("node_name"));
setParnt(rs.getString("node_parent"));
setLvl(rs.getInt("node_parent"));
}
if (success == 0) {
this.conn.rollback();
} else {
this.conn.commit();
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
and in another class test i have method displayList() in this method i write the following code
public class test {
IntegrationWithDbClass qaz = new IntegrationWithDbClass();
public void displayList ( ) {
qaz.getConnection();
qaz.selectFromDB();
for(int i = 0; i< 5; i++){
System.out.println(" "+qaz.getId());
System.out.println(" "+qaz.getNam());
}
}
when i initilize the displayList() method in the main method , it shows the following result
5
red
how can i get all the five values?

First of all you have to create what is commonly referred to as an Entity class. This is the class that represents a single row in your database. This should ideally be separate from the code that interacts with the database connection.
So first step, create a class named Contact, and in it put the 4 fields you have, id, name, parent and level, with the respective getter methods. If you do not expect these to change by your program make them immutable, it is the good practice to ensure consistency. So something like:
public class Contact {
private final int id;
private final String name;
private final String parent;
private final String level;
public Contact(String id, String name, String parent, String level) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
this.parent = parent;
this.level = level;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
//... put the rest of the getter methods
}
Then in your IntegrationWithDB class (I would rename this to something more meaningful like ContactRepository) you can change that method you have to:
public List<Contact> getContacts() {
// ... your database connection and query code here
this.rs = this.stmt.executeQuery(query);
List<Contact> contacts = new LinkedList<Contact>();
while (rs.next()) {
int id = rs.getInt("node_id");
String name = rs.getString("node_name");
String parent = rs.getString("node_parent");
String level = setLvl(rs.getInt("level"));
contacts.add(new Contact(id, name, parent, level));
}
//... the rest of your database handling code, don't forget to close the connection
return contacts;
}
Then from displayList() you just have to call getContacts() which gives you a list of Contact objects to iterate through.

I assume that currently you're storing those properties in int/string variables. In every iteration of the loop you're overwriting the values. What you need to do is to store them in some collection like ArrayList and in each iteration add() to this collection.

Proper Constructors to Run all Methods in Java

I have this class and need to know which constructor is needed to create an object that may immediately use all its methods without error
public class Robot {
private boolean fuelEmpty = true;
private int roboID;
private String greeting;
private String securityProtocol;
//insert robot constructor here
public void destroyAllHumans(){
while (fuelEmpty == false) {
//robot begins to destroy all humans
}
}
public int getRoboID(){
return roboID;
}
public void greet(){
System.out.println(greeting);
}
public void setSecurityProtocol(String proto){
securityProtocol = proto;
}
}
For example should look like this:
public Robot(int id, String greet) {
roboID = id;
greeting = greet;
}
or this:
public Robot(int id, String greet) {
roboID = id;
greeting = greet;
fuelEmpty = false;
}
or:
public Robot(boolean full, int id, String greet, String proto) {
roboID = id;
greeting = greet;
fuelEmpty = full;
securityProtocol = proto;
}
Which of these (or something else different) is needed so that all the other methods can run without an error?

You can overload the constructor as much as you need, the important thing is
the object gets properly instantiated after you create a new one...
a way can be:
public Robot() {
this(false, 0, "", "");
}
public Robot(int id) {
this(false, id, "", "");
}
public Robot(boolean fuelEmpty, int roboID, String greeting, String securityProtocol) {
this.fuelEmpty = fuelEmpty;
this.roboID = roboID;
this.greeting = greeting;
this.securityProtocol = securityProtocol;
}
so look how all other constructors will at the end call internally the
public Robot(boolean fuelEmpty, int roboID, String greeting, String securityProtocol)
that will give you the waranty that no matter which constructor is invoked, the Robot is fully created and can invoke all those methods without crashing

The solution works like this:
you look at each of your methods
you check which fields each method is using
you check more closely, if the method breaks when that field has its default value (like null for Objects, or false for booleans)
When you do that for all methods, you get a list of those fields that you need to initialize somehow. Then you could go forward and define a corresponding constructor.
But of course, that is the wrong approach.
The real answer goes like this: you don't put fields into a class because you can. You add them because they are required so that this class can implement the requirements (responsibilities) that you want it to implement. Meaning: you focus on the methods that your class should provide. Then you clarify which fields you need in order to implement these methods.
In other words: you have exactly those fields in your class that your class needs. If you have fields in there that go unused - then you get rid of them.

Capturing method parameter in jMock to pass to a stubbed implementation

I wish to achieve the following behavior.
My class under test has a dependency on some other class, I wish to mock this dependency with jMock. Most of the methods would return some standard values, but there is one method, where I wish to make a call to a stubbed implementation, I know I can call this method from the will(...) but I want the method to be called by the exact same parameters that were passed to the mocked method.
Test
#Test
public void MyTest(){
Mockery context = new Mockery() {
{
setImposteriser(ClassImposteriser.INSTANCE);
}
};
IDependency mockObject = context.mock(IDependency.class);
Expectations exp = new Expectations() {
{
allowing(mockObject).methodToInvoke(????);
will(stubMethodToBeInvokedInstead(????));
}
};
}
Interface
public interface IDependency {
public int methodToInvoke(int arg);
}
Method to be called instead
public int stubMethodToBeInvokedInstead(int arg){
return arg;
}
So how do I capture the parameter that were passed to the method being mocked, so I could pass them to the stubbed method instead?
EDIT
Just to give another example, let's say I wish to mock the INameSource dependency in the following (C#) code, to test the class Speaker
public class Speaker
{
private readonly string firstName;
private readonly string surname;
private INameSource nameSource ;
public Speaker(string firstName, string surname, INameSource nameSource)
{
this.firstName = firstName;
this.surname = surname;
this.nameSource = nameSource;
}
public string Introduce()
{
string name = nameSource.CreateName(firstName, surname);
return string.Format("Hi, my name is {0}", name);
}
}
public interface INameSource
{
string CreateName(string firstName, string surname);
}
This is how it can be done in Rhino Mocks for C# I understand it can't be as easy as this since delegates are missing in Java

The solution from Duncan works well, but there is even a simpler solution without resort to a custom matcher. Just use the Invocation argument that is passed to the CustomActions invoke method. At this argument you can call the getParameter(long i) method that gives you the value from the call.
So instead of this
return matcher.getLastValue();
use this
return (Integer) invocation.getParameter(0);
Now you don't need the StoringMatcher anymore: Duncans example looks now like this
#RunWith(JMock.class)
public class Example {
private Mockery context = new JUnit4Mockery();
#Test
public void Test() {
final IDependency mockObject = context.mock(IDependency.class);
context.checking(new Expectations() {
{
// No custom matcher required here
allowing(mockObject).methodToInvoke(with(any(Integer.class)));
// The action will return the first argument of the method invocation.
will(new CustomAction("returns first arg") {
#Override
public Object invoke(Invocation invocation) throws Throwable {
return (Integer) invocation.getParameter(0);
}
});
}
});
Integer test1 = 1;
Integer test2 = 1;
// Confirm the object passed to the mocked method is returned
Assert.assertEquals((Object) test1, mockObject.methodToInvoke(test1));
Assert.assertEquals((Object) test2, mockObject.methodToInvoke(test2));
}
public interface IDependency {
public int methodToInvoke(int arg);
}

Like Augusto, I'm not convinced this is a good idea in general. However, I couldn't resist having a little play. I created a custom matcher and a custom action which store and return the argument supplied.
Note: this is far from production-ready code; I just had some fun. Here's a self-contained unit test which proves the solution:
#RunWith(JMock.class)
public class Example {
private Mockery context = new JUnit4Mockery();
#Test
public void Test() {
final StoringMatcher matcher = new StoringMatcher();
final IDependency mockObject = context.mock(IDependency.class);
context.checking(new Expectations() {
{
// The matcher will accept any Integer and store it
allowing(mockObject).methodToInvoke(with(matcher));
// The action will pop the last object used and return it.
will(new CustomAction("returns previous arg") {
#Override
public Object invoke(Invocation invocation) throws Throwable {
return matcher.getLastValue();
}
});
}
});
Integer test1 = 1;
Integer test2 = 1;
// Confirm the object passed to the mocked method is returned
Assert.assertEquals((Object) test1, mockObject.methodToInvoke(test1));
Assert.assertEquals((Object) test2, mockObject.methodToInvoke(test2));
}
public interface IDependency {
public int methodToInvoke(int arg);
}
private static class StoringMatcher extends BaseMatcher<Integer> {
private final List<Integer> objects = new ArrayList<Integer>();
#Override
public boolean matches(Object item) {
if (item instanceof Integer) {
objects.add((Integer) item);
return true;
}
return false;
}
#Override
public void describeTo(Description description) {
description.appendText("any integer");
}
public Integer getLastValue() {
return objects.remove(0);
}
}
}
A Better Plan
Now that you've provided a concrete example, I can show you how to test this in Java without resorting to my JMock hackery above.
Firstly, some Java versions of what you posted:
public class Speaker {
private final String firstName;
private final String surname;
private final NameSource nameSource;
public Speaker(String firstName, String surname, NameSource nameSource) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.surname = surname;
this.nameSource = nameSource;
}
public String introduce() {
String name = nameSource.createName(firstName, surname);
return String.format("Hi, my name is %s", name);
}
}
public interface NameSource {
String createName(String firstName, String surname);
}
public class Formal implements NameSource {
#Override
public String createName(String firstName, String surname) {
return String.format("%s %s", firstName, surname);
}
}
Then, a test which exercises all the useful features of the classes, without resorting to what you were originally asking for.
#RunWith(JMock.class)
public class ExampleTest {
private Mockery context = new JUnit4Mockery();
#Test
public void testFormalName() {
// I would separately test implementations of NameSource
Assert.assertEquals("Joe Bloggs", new Formal().createName("Joe", "Bloggs"));
}
#Test
public void testSpeaker() {
// I would then test only the important features of Speaker, namely
// that it passes the right values to the NameSource and uses the
// response correctly
final NameSource nameSource = context.mock(NameSource.class);
final String firstName = "Foo";
final String lastName = "Bar";
final String response = "Blah";
context.checking(new Expectations() {
{
// We expect one invocation with the correct params
oneOf(nameSource).createName(firstName, lastName);
// We don't care what it returns, we just need to know it
will(returnValue(response));
}
});
Assert.assertEquals(String.format("Hi, my name is %s", response),
new Speaker(firstName, lastName, nameSource).introduce());
}
}

JMock doesn't support your use case (or any other mocking framework I know of in java).
There's a little voice in my head that says that what you're trying to do is not ideal and that your unit test might be to complicated (maybe it's testing too much code/logic?). One of the problems I see, is that you don't know which values those mocks need to return and you're plugging something else, which might make each run irreproducible.

What's good practice of creating input validation method in Java?

If I want to validate my input, should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class? Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
More Information
Let's say I have a class
import java.util.Vector;
public class Place {
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
private String address;
private String name;
private String types;
private String icon;
private String phoneNumber;
private String websiteUrl;
private int rating;
private Vector<Integer> challenges;
public static class Builder {
// required parameter
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
// optional parameter
private String address = "n/a";
private String name = "n/a";
private String icon = "n/a";
private String phoneNumber = "n/a";
private String websiteUrl = "n/a";
private String types = "n/a";
private Vector<Integer> challenges = new Vector<Integer>();
private int rating = 0;
public Builder(double longitude, double latitude, String id) {
assert(longitude >= -180.0 && longitude <= 180.0);
assert(latitude >= -90.0 && longitude <= 90.0);
this.longitude = longitude;
this.latitude = latitude;
this.id = id;
}
public Builder address(String address) {
this.address = address;
return this;
}
public Builder types(String types) {
this.types = types;
return this;
}
public Builder name(String name) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
public Builder icon(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
return this;
}
public Builder phoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
return this;
}
public Builder websiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
return this;
}
public Builder builder(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
return this;
}
public Place build() {
return new Place(this);
}
}
public Place(Builder builder) {
// required parameters
longitude = builder.longitude;
latitude = builder.latitude;
id = builder.id;
// optional parameters
address = builder.address;
types = builder.types;
name = builder.name;
icon = builder.icon;
phoneNumber = builder.phoneNumber;
websiteUrl = builder.websiteUrl;
rating = builder.rating;
challenges = builder.challenges;
}
public double getLongitude() {
return longitude;
}
public double getLatitude() {
return latitude;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setAddress(String address) {
this.address = address;
}
public String getAddress() {
return address;
}
public String getTypes() {
return types;
}
public void setTypes(String types) {
this.types = types;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setIconUrl(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
}
public String getIcon() {
return icon;
}
public void setPhoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
}
public String getPhoneNumber() {
return phoneNumber;
}
public void setWebsiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
}
public String getWebsiteUrl() {
return websiteUrl;
}
public void setRating(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
}
public int getRating() {
return rating;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "(" + Double.toString(longitude) + ", " + Double.toString(latitude) + ")";
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + ((id == null) ? 0 : id.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Place other = (Place) obj;
if (id == null) {
if (other.id != null)
return false;
}
else if (!id.equals(other.id))
return false;
return true;
}
public Vector<Integer> getChallenges() {
return new Vector<Integer>(challenges);
}
public void addChallenges(Integer i) {
this.challenges.add(i);
}
public void showChallenges() {
for (Integer i : challenges) {
System.out.print(i + ", ");
}
}
}
If I have to validate address argument before setting it, where should I put the code for validating address in this case?

If you are talking just seeing if the entered String is formatted correctly or if the length is right, then you would use a private method. If you would on the other hand check if the address is correct (look it up on a map) or any more advanced stuff, it would make sense to create a AddressValidator interface and call it from that private method.
The reason for the private method being that you call this both from a constructor, setter or any other method that could suppy an address. The reason for the interface being that you might want to have e.g. an online / offline AddressValidator (MockAddressValidator, or one that calls a different class for each country etc).
As an AddressValidator could be reused in other classes, and to keep your code clean, I would create it as a top level interface + OnlineAddressValidator. This makes your class better readable as well. For full configurability, you might want to think about how you are going to supply the AddressValidator instance, e.g. through the constructor or one defined as a static final validator.
public interface AddressValidator {
static class AddressValidatorResult {
// some results, you might want to return some useful feedback (if not valid)
boolean isValid() {
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
public static class AddressValidationException extends Exception {
private AddressValidationException(AddressValidatorResult result) {
// add some implementation
}
}
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address);
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
}
public class DefaultAddressValidator implements AddressValidator {
public static class Params {
// some parameters for this specific validator
}
private final Params params;
public DefaultAddressValidator(Params params) {
// creates this validator
this.params = params;
}
#Override
public AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address) {
// perform your code here
// I don't like "return null" as it may lead to bugs
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
// and use it like this
private void validateAddress(String address) throws AddressValidationException {
// e.g. field AddressValidator set in constructor
AddressValidatorResult result = addressValidator.validateAddress(address);
if (!result.isValid()) {
throw new AddressValidationException(result);
}
}

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class?
This totally depends on your context. It's impossible to say what should be the best design, without knowing what you are trying to realise.
After you edit: IMO, it is still not easy to tell you. If you only have to validate the address in one single point of your application (id: the setter method), I would validate it inside the setter method. If the input was invalid, I whould throw an IllegalArgumentException.
Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
However, the answer to your second question is No. To understand why, you have to know what Object Oriented Programming is.
Some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_science)

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a
separate static helper class?
It depends if you think that you'll need to reuse the same method also in another class for the same purpose(input validation) it is better write the method in a separate static helper class so you can reuse the method and maintain it easily.
If you write the same private helper method in several class each time that you need to make a changes you have to edit each method in each class, with a static helper class you change the code in one place only ...

Read about PropertyChangeListener and Bean Validation.

I tend to validate within the get() and set() methods wherever possible - calling external static methods for common tasks such as checking dates or cleaning input (i.e. to avoid sql injection)
If you only use (and are only ever going to use) the validation within one class, keep it as a private helper method. If in doubt, I tend to pull the functionality out into a static helper class. It makes very little difference to the amount of code, is no more effort to implement, and is much more flexible.

The short answer is: you should implement your validation code the way that your framework tells you to. Typically, this is a public method or an annotation. An interface could work too. If you add code, your class size will increase.
Data validation should be automatically called by your software's infrastructure. This helps to prevent programmers from forgetting to call the appropriate code. So, the methods should be public (an interface would work too).
Frameworks like Struts, Spring, Hibernate and have their own validation systems. Java EE leverages bean validation.
I recommend bean validation, because it performs validation regardless of the input source. When most people think of input validation, they think of data coming from the user e.g. HTTP Request, command console, Swing text field. Spring and Struts validation is often fine for those situations. But in long lived programs developed for enterprises, other data feeds often get introduced e.g. SQL database updates from another programs, database restoration after a crash, enterprise service bus, JMS.
That is why I prefer bean validation. The downside is that "safe sources" (data that you know is untainted) are validated unnecessarily. But with today's processing power, that should rarely be a significant concern.
Java EE Tutorial