I have nested comments. In order to fetch them from JSON, I have the following fromJson() function:
Comment.fromJson(Map<String, dynamic> json)
: id = json['id'],
...
children = json['children'] != null
? json['children'].map((c) => Comment.fromJson(c)).toList()
: null,
...
This checks if the current comment has any children comments, and if so, recursively parses them from JSON into a Comment. However when I run this, I get the following error:
[ERROR:flutter/shell/common/shell.cc(214)]
Dart Unhandled Exception:
type 'List<dynamic>' is not a subtype of type 'List<Comment>'
stack trace: #0 new Comment.fromJson (package:app/models/comment.dart:43:18)
Which points to the line where I assign children with children = json.... I'm new to dart, but I don't understand how mapping over a list, and returning a Comment doesn't let Dart infer the type of the list. How do I fix this? Adding as List<Comment> after toList() didn't work. If I add as Comment after Comment.fromJson(c), I get unnecessary cast.
Dart can't infer anything from json['children'].map(...).toList() because json['children'] is of type dynamic, and therefore it doesn't know what the .map call is going to resolve to at runtime.
At runtime, since .map is called without an explicit type, it ends up being a call to .map<dynamic>(...), and then .toList() returns List<dynamic>.
Try either:
Explicitly using .map<Comment>(...).
Casting json['children']: (json['children'] as List<Map<String, dynamic>>).map(...). It'd probably be a good idea to validate this anyway.
Related
I switched to sound null safety and started getting runtime error in a simple assignment, that should never happen with sound null safety:
final widgetOnPressed = widget.onPressed;
Error:
type '(LogData) => void' is not a subtype of type '((LogData?) => void)?'
I can repro it for Flutter versions 2.12.0-4.1.pre and 2.13.0-0.0.pre.505.
PR: https://github.com/flutter/devtools/pull/3971
Failing line: https://github.com/flutter/devtools/blob/9fc560ff2e6749459e2ca6a1dc00bf6fb16ed93b/packages/devtools_app/lib/src/shared/table.dart#L1184
To repro, start DevTools at this PR for macos, connect to an app and click the tab 'Logging'. DevTools will show red screen and error in console.
Is it dart bug or the app bug? If it is the app bug, how can I debug it?
It's a bug in your code.
You didn't say which kind of error you got - a compile-time error or a runtime error. I'm guessing runtime error. (Well, you did say to launch it in the debugger, so that is a good hint too.)
The line final widgetOnPressed = widget.onPressed; looks like it can't possibly fail. After all, the type of the local variable is inferred from the expression assigned to it, and the runtime value of that expression will surely be a subtype of the static type because the type system is sound!
Isn't it? ISN'T IT?
It's not, sorry. Dart 2's type system is mostly sound, even more so with null safety, but class generics is covariant, which can still be unsound. It's fairly hard to hit one of the cases where that unsoundness shows its ugly head, but returning a function where the argument type is the class's type variable is one.
Your state class extends State<TableRow<T?>>, so the widget getter returns a TableRow<T?>. The onPressed of that type has type ItemCallback<T?>?, aka, void Function(T?)?.
You create a _TableRowState<LogData>, with its widget which has static type TableRow<LogData?>, but you somehow manage to pass it a TableRow<LogData> instead. That's fine. Class generics are covariant, so all is apparently fine at compile-time.
Then you do final widgetOnPressed = widget.onPressed;.
The static type of widgetOnPressed is void Function(LogData?) here.
The actual runtime type of onPressed is void Function(LogData) because it's from a TableRow<LogData>.
A void Function(LogData) is-not-a void Function(LogData?) because the former cannot be used in all places where the latter can (in particular, it can't be used in a place where it's called with null).
This assignment is potentially unsound, and actually unsound in this case. The compiler knows this and inserts an extra check to ensure that you don't assign a value to the variable which isn't actually valid. That check triggers and throws the error you see.
How do you avoid that?
Don't create a TableRow<LogData> where a TableRow<LogData?> is required.
Or type the variable as:
final ItemCallback<T>? widgetOnPressed = widget.onPressed;
(no ? on the T).
Or rewrite everything to avoid returning a function with a covariant type parameter (from the class) occurring contra-variantly (as an argument type).
Which solution fits you depends on what you want to be able to do.
Can someone simply explain to me how null assertion (!) works and when to use it?
The ! operator can be used after any expression, e!.
That evaluates the expression e to value v, then checks whether v is the null value. If it is null, an error is thrown. If not, then e! also evaluates to v.
The static type of an expression e! is (basically) the static type of e with any trailing ?s remove. So, if e has type int?, the type of e! is int.
You should not use e! unless e can be null (the type of e is potentially nullable).
The ! operator is dynamically checked. It can throw at runtime, and there is no static check which can guarantee that it won't. It's like using a value with type dynamic in that all the responsibility of preventing it from throwing is on the author, the compiler can't help you, and you need good tests to ensure that it won't throw when it's not supposed to.
It's called an assertion because it should never throw in production code.
So, use e! when you know (for some reason not obvious to the compiler, perhaps because of some invariant guaranteeing that the value is not null while something else is true) that e is not null.
Example:
abstract class Box<T extends Object> {
bool hasValue;
T? get value;
}
...
Box<int> box = ...;
if (box.hasValue) {
var value = box.value!;
... use value ...
}
If you are repeatedly using ! on the same expression, do consider whether it's more efficient to read it into a local variable just once.
Also, if (like this Box example) the value being null is equivalent to the other test you just did, maybe just check that directly:
Box<int> box = ...;
var value = box.value;
if (value != null) {
... use value ...
}
This code, with an explicit != null check on a local variable, is statically guaranteed to not throw because the value is null.
The code using ! above relies on the author to maintain whichever invariant allowed them to write the !, and if something changes, the code might just start throwing at runtime. You can't tell whether it's safe just by looking at the code locally.
Use ! sparingly, just like the dynamic type and late declarations, because they're ways to side-step the compiler's static checking and ensure it that "this is going to be fine". That's a great feature when you need it, but it's a risk if you use it unnecessarily.
I have a simple Question, but I don't found anything in the web.
Here is an example:
SpelExpressionParser parser = new SpelExpressionParser();
StandardEvaluationContext ctx = new StandardEvaluationContext();
ctx.setVariable("variable", "value");
Expression expression = parser.parseExpression("variable + temp");
expression.getValue(ctx); // returns "valuenull"
I just need to know which part of expression could not be resolved. (In this case "temp")
Something like:
List<String> variables = expression.getNotResolvedVariables(ctx);
First of all, your snippet throws an exception when I run it (not a valuenull I think you have meant #variable + #temp as the expression. Otherwise an exception is thrown:
org.springframework.expression.spel.SpelEvaluationException: EL1007E: Property or field 'variable' cannot be found on null
As to your main question...
there's no such a method in Expression to retrieve all variables or in a context to retrieve all unresolved variables for a given expression, but...
you can visit the object representation (AST) of the Spring expression through getAST() method on SpelExpression and collect all the VariableReference
then compare the set of all references variables to the one defined in your current context
AngularDart has a class called AppView, i.e. abstract class AppView<T> {}.
One (at least) of these are generated for every class annotated with #Component:
// file.dart
#Component(...)
class DashboardComponent {}
// file.template.dart (Generated)
class ViewDashboardComponent extends AppView<DashboardComponent> {}
I have code elsewhere in the framework that doesn't care what this T type is. I'm a little confused with Dart 2 what the "right" "anything" type to use. For example, I could use:
AppView
AppView<dynamic>
AppView<Object>
AppView<Null>
AppView<void>
I think more than one of these will "work". But which is the "right" one to use in this case?
You should be fine to use AppView (or AppView<dynamic>) just about anywhere. I can think of two examples where this will get you into trouble though:
If you are instantiating an AppView, you definitely want that type parameter. See the following error when you don't:
$ cat a.dart
void main() {
List<dynamic> a = ["one", "two", "three"];
List<String> b = a;
}
$ dart --preview-dart-2 a.dart
Unhandled exception:
type 'List' is not a subtype of type 'List<String>' where
List is from dart:core
List is from dart:core
String is from dart:core
#0 main (file:///Users/sam/a.dart:3:20)
#1 _startIsolate.<anonymous closure> (dart:isolate/isolate_patch.dart:279:19)
#2 _RawReceivePortImpl._handleMessage (dart:isolate/isolate_patch.dart:165:12)
If you are ever assigning a closure to a site that expects a closure with one or more typed parameters that involve T, you will see a "uses dynamic as bottom" static error (from the analyzer), and probably a runtime error as well:
$ cat f.dart
void main() {
List a = <String>["one", "two", "three"];
a.map((String s) => s.toUpperCase());
List b = ["one", "two", "three"];
b.map((String s) => s.toUpperCase());
}
$ dart --preview-dart-2 f.dart
f.dart:3:9: Error: A value of type '(dart.core::String) → dart.core::String' can't be assigned to a variable of type '(dynamic) → dynamic'.
Try changing the type of the left hand side, or casting the right hand side to '(dynamic) → dynamic'.
a.map((String s) => s.toUpperCase());
^
f.dart:6:9: Error: A value of type '(dart.core::String) → dart.core::String' can't be assigned to a variable of type '(dynamic) → dynamic'.
Try changing the type of the left hand side, or casting the right hand side to '(dynamic) → dynamic'.
b.map((String s) => s.toUpperCase());
^
(I'm not certain any Dart tool yet has complete Dart 2 runtime and compile time semantics, so this might change slightly.)
In these cases, it is best to use generic classes, generic methods, and generic typedefs to encapsulate, for a given scope, what the values of an object's type parameters might be.
I suspect there is a difference between dynamic and Object in Dart 2, and I think Günter covered this in his response, though if your code "doesn't care what this T type is", then you're probably not calling any methods on the component.
Edit: void
AppView<void> might be a good choice in this case, as an actual check that you actually never touch the underlying component (Object would probably serve the same purpose). See how we are allowed to access properties of a List<void> but not properties of the elements:
$ cat g.dart
void main() {
var c = <String>["one", "two", "three"];
fn(c);
fn2(c);
}
int fn(List<void> list) => list.length;
int fn2(List<void> list) => list.first.length;
$ dart --preview-dart-2 g.dart
g.dart:9:40: Error: The getter 'length' isn't defined for the class 'void'.
Try correcting the name to the name of an existing getter, or defining a getter or field named 'length'.
int fn2(List<void> list) => list.first.length;
^
I assume you know better than me, but my attempt
AppView - works - same as AppView<dynamic>
AppView<dynamic> - works - really means any type
AppView<Object> - works - really means any type
AppView<Null> - won't work, only null and void values match for T
AppView<void> - won't work, only null and void values match for T
AppView<void> - works (see also comment below from lrn)
The difference between <dynamic> and <Object> would be that for values of type T with T == dynamic property or method access won't be checked statically, while for T == Object only methods and properties of the Object class can be accessed without a previous cast.
In F# its a big deal that they do not have null values and do not want to support it. Still the programmer has to make cases for None similar to C# programmers having to check != null.
Is None really less evil than null?
The problem with null is that you have the possibility to use it almost everywhere, i.e. introduce invalid states where this is neither intended nor makes sense.
Having an 'a option is always an explicit thing. You state that an operation can either produce Some meaningful value or None, which the compiler can enforce to be checked and processed correctly.
By discouraging null in favor of an 'a option-type, you basically have the guarantee that any value in your program is somehow meaningful. If some code is designed to work with these values, you cannot simply pass invalid ones, and if there is a function of option-type, you will have to cover all possibilities.
Of course it is less evil!
If you don't check against None, then it most cases you'll have a type error in your application, meaning that it won't compile, therefore it cannot crash with a NullReferenceException (since None translates to null).
For example:
let myObject : option<_> = getObjectToUse() // you get a Some<'T>, added explicit typing for clarity
match myObject with
| Some o -> o.DoSomething()
| None -> ... // you have to explicitly handle this case
It is still possible to achieve C#-like behavior, but it is less intuitive, as you have to explicitly say "ignore that this can be None":
let o = myObject.Value // throws NullReferenceException if myObject = None
In C#, you're not forced to consider the case of your variable being null, so it is possible that you simply forget to make a check. Same example as above:
var myObject = GetObjectToUse(); // you get back a nullable type
myObject.DoSomething() // no type error, but a runtime error
Edit: Stephen Swensen is absolutely right, my example code had some flaws, was writing it in a hurry. Fixed. Thank you!
Let's say I show you a function definition like this:
val getPersonByName : (name : string) -> Person
What do you think happens when you pass in a name of a person who doesn't exist in the data store?
Does the function throw a NotFound exception?
Does it return null?
Does it create the person if they don't exist?
Short of reading the code (if you have access to it), reading the documentation (if someone was kindly enough to write it), or just calling the function, you have no way of knowing. And that's basically the problem with null values: they look and act just like non-null values, at least until runtime.
Now let's say you have a function with this signature instead:
val getPersonByName : (name : string) -> option<Person>
This definition makes it very explicit what happens: you'll either get a person back or you won't, and this sort of information is communicated in the function's data type. Usually, you have a better guarantee of handling both cases of a option type than a potentially null value.
I'd say option types are much more benevolent than nulls.
In F# its a big deal that they do not have null values and do not want to support it. Still the programmer has to make cases for None similar to C# programmers having to check != null.
Is None really less evil than null?
Whereas null introduces potential sources of run-time error (NullRefereceException) every time you dereference an object in C#, None forces you to make the sources of run-time error explicit in F#.
For example, invoking GetHashCode on a given object causes C# to silently inject a source of run-time error:
class Foo {
int m;
Foo(int n) { m=n; }
int Hash() { return m; }
static int hash(Foo o) { return o.Hash(); }
};
In contrast, the equivalent code in F# is expected to be null free:
type Foo =
{ m: int }
member foo.Hash() = foo.m
let hash (o: Foo) = o.Hash()
If you really wanted an optional value in F# then you would use the option type and you must handle it explicitly or the compiler will give a warning or error:
let maybeHash (o: Foo option) =
match o with
| None -> 0
| Some o -> o.Hash()
You can still get NullReferenceException in F# by circumventing the type system (which is required for interop):
> hash (box null |> unbox);;
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at Microsoft.FSharp.Core.LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.UnboxGeneric[T](Object source)
at <StartupCode$FSI_0021>.$FSI_0021.main#()
Stopped due to error