Kotlin Type-Inference Puzzler

Kotlin takes Type-Inference to the next level (at least in comparison to Java) which is great, but there’re scenarios, in which it can backfire on us.

The Riddle

fun foo(int: Int?) = {
    println(int)
}

fun main(args: Array) {
    listOf(42).forEach { foo(it) }
}

And the question is: what does the puzzler() method print and why it’s not 42? Assume that the main() method gets executed.

The answer can be found at the very end of the article.

Explanation

In Kotlin, we’ve got not only a local variable type inference (which is also coming to Java) but also the return value type inference when writing single-expression methods.

Which means that if we write a method:

fun foo() : String  {
    return "42"
}

We can rewrite it using the single-expression method syntax and ignore the explicit type declaration and the return keyword:

fun foo() = "42"

So, if we have a method:

fun foo(int: Int?) : Unit {
    println(int)
    return Unit
}

we could get rid of the return type declaration, as well as the explicit return statement by leveraging single-expression method syntax, right? but we already know that the following doesn’t work:

fun foo(int: Int?) = {
    println(int)
}

The devil’s in the details but everything becomes crystal clear if we specify the return type explicitly:

fun foo(int: Int?) : () -> Unit = {
    println(int)
}

If we look closely, it can be seen that we mixed two approaches here and actually defined a method that doesn’t return Unit but a () -> Unit itself – which is simply an action that doesn’t accept any parameters and doesn’t return anything – which is semantically equivalent to returning a java.lang.Runnable instance.

This is because Kotlin utilizes curly braces not only for defining classes/methods but also for defining Lambda Expressions and { println(42) } is a valid Lambda Expression declaration:

val foo: () -> Unit = { println(42) }

So, our original example is simply a Higher-Order Function accepting an Int parameter and returning a function that prints it – when we return it in the forEach() the return value just gets ignored.

So, if we want to fix our example, we have two ways to go.

Explicitly call invoke() on the returned function:

listOf(42)
  .forEach { foo(it).invoke() }

or simply define the method properly by removing the “=” sign:

fun foo(int: Int?) {
    println(int)
}

or by leveraging the single-expression method syntax:

fun foo(int: Int?) = println(int)

That’s why I encourage my fellow team members to declare return types explicitly.

Code snippets can be found on GitHub.

Answer

The method prints nothing.

You May Also Like

JBoss Envers and Spring transaction managers

I've stumbled upon a bug with my configuration for JBoss Envers today, despite having integration tests all over the application. I have to admit, it casted a dark shadow of doubt about the value of all the tests for a moment. I've been practicing TDD since 2005, and frankly speaking, I should have been smarter than that.

My fault was simple. I've started using Envers the right way, with exploratory tests and a prototype. Then I've deleted the prototype and created some integration tests using in-memory H2 that looked more or less like this example:

@Test
public void savingAndUpdatingPersonShouldCreateTwoHistoricalVersions() {
    //given
    Person person = createAndSavePerson();
    String oldFirstName = person.getFirstName();
    String newFirstName = oldFirstName + "NEW";

    //when
    updatePersonWithNewName(person, newFirstName);

    //then
    verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(oldFirstName, newFirstName);
}

private Person createAndSavePerson() {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    Person person = PersonFactory.createPerson();
    session.save(person);
    transaction.commit();
    return person;
}    

private void updatePersonWithNewName(Person person, String newName) {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    person.setFirstName(newName);
    session.update(person);
    transaction.commit();
}

private void verifyTwoHistoricalVersionsWereSaved(String oldFirstName, String newFirstName) {
    List<Object[]> personRevisions = getPersonRevisions();
    assertEquals(2, personRevisions.size());
    assertEquals(oldFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(0)[0]).getFirstName());
    assertEquals(newFirstName, ((Person)personRevisions.get(1)[0]).getFirstName());
}

private List<Object[]> getPersonRevisions() {
    Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
    AuditReader auditReader = AuditReaderFactory.get(session);
    List<Object[]> personRevisions = auditReader.createQuery()
            .forRevisionsOfEntity(Person.class, false, true)
            .getResultList();
    transaction.commit();
    return personRevisions;
}

Because Envers inserts audit data when the transaction is commited (in a new temporary session), I thought I have to create and commit the transaction manually. And that is true to some point.

My fault was that I didn't have an end-to-end integration/acceptance test, that would call to entry point of the application (in this case a service which is called by GWT via RPC), because then I'd notice, that the Spring @Transactional annotation, and calling transaction.commit() are two, very different things.

Spring @Transactional annotation will use a transaction manager configured for the application. Envers on the other hand is used by subscribing a listener to hibernate's SessionFactory like this:

<bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.annotation.AnnotationSessionFactoryBean" >        
...
 <property name="eventListeners">
     <map key-type="java.lang.String" value-type="org.hibernate.event.EventListeners">
         <entry key="post-insert" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-delete" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="pre-collection-update" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="pre-collection-remove" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
         <entry key="post-collection-recreate" value-ref="auditEventListener"/>
     </map>
 </property>
</bean>

<bean id="auditEventListener" class="org.hibernate.envers.event.AuditEventListener" />

Envers creates and collects something called AuditWorkUnits whenever you update/delete/insert audited entities, but audit tables are not populated until something calls AuditProcess.beforeCompletion, which makes sense. If you are using org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction manually, this is called on commit() when notifying all subscribed javax.transaction.Synchronization objects (and enver's AuditProcess is one of them).

The problem was, that I used a wrong transaction manager.

<bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager" >
    <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/>
</bean>

This transaction manager doesn't know anything about hibernate and doesn't use org.hibernate.transaction.JDBCTransaction. While Synchronization is an interface from javax.transaction package, DataSourceTransactionManager doesn't use it (maybe because of simplicity, I didn't dig deep enough in org.springframework.jdbc.datasource), and thus Envers works fine except not pushing the data to the database.

Which is the whole point of using Envers.

Use right tools for the task, they say. The whole problem is solved by using a transaction manager that is well aware of hibernate underneath.

<bean id="transactionManager" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager" >
    <property name="sessionFactory" ref="sessionFactory"/>
</bean>

Lesson learned: always make sure your acceptance tests are testing the right thing. If there is a doubt about the value of your tests, you just don't have enough of them,