Often when using go, not sure why, I get the urge to write something like
type data []event
especially when I know I'm going to be passing the slice around without thinking too much about its contents for much of the program. Sooner or later it's going to be time to unpack some data into that slice of events and I end up writing something like:
func (d *data)Unmarshal(b []byte){
//... lots of sad code that never works
}
No matter what I do I can never quite figure out how to bless my slice type with an unmarshal method that turns some bytes into the data type in-place.
When I give up, I either write a simpler function like func UnmarshalData(b []byte) data which feels like a retreat and makes it hard to write interfaces, or change the type in the first place and make a struct like
type data struct {
actuallyTheData []event
}
which feels like boilerplate purely to compensate for my lack of understanding.
So my question is: is it possible to write a function with a pointer receiver where the receiver is a slice type and that allows me to e.g. Unmarshal in-place?
The closest I can get, though it still doesn't work (and, let's face it, is pretty ugly), is something like:
type foo []int
func (f *foo) Unmarshal(s string) {
numbers := strings.Split(s, ",")
integers := make([]int, len(numbers))
for i, n := range numbers {
integer, err := strconv.Atoi(n)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
integers[i] = integer
}
my_f := foo(integers)
f = &my_f
}
Here's the full example: https://go.dev/play/p/3q7qehoW9tm. Why doesn't it work? What am I misunderstanding?
The last line in your Unmarshal function is overwriting the receiver itself, i.e. its address:
f = &my_f // changing the value of the pointer
The updated value won't be propagated to callers. From Declarations and Scope:
The scope of an identifier denoting a method receiver, function parameter, or result variable is the function body.
You must mutate the value that is being pointed to, then callers will see it upon dereference. (As a matter of fact, you don't have to convert to the defined slice type)
func (f *foo) Unmarshal(s string) {
// ...
integers := make([]int, len(numbers))
*f = integers
}
Fixed playground: https://go.dev/play/p/3JayxQMClt-
Related
Is there an easy and compact way using Testify to assert that a slice of pointers to strings contains a pointer to a string that matches my expectation?
Imagine that you're getting a slice of pointers to strings back from a function call (maybe from an API), and you'd like to validate that it contains pointers to the strings that you'd expect. To simulate that, I'll just make a test data structure to illustrate my point:
// Shared Fixture
var one = "one"
var two = "two"
var three = "three"
var slice = []*string{&one, &two, &three}
Now I want to write a test that asserts the slice contains an expected value. I could write this test:
func TestSliceContainsString(t *testing.T) {
assert.Contains(t, slice, "one")
}
It doesn't work: []*string{(*string)(0x22994f0), (*string)(0x2299510), (*string)(0x2299500)} does not contain "one". Makes sense, the slice contains pointers to strings, and the string "one" is not one of those pointers.
I could convert it first. It takes more code, but it works:
func TestDereferencedSliceContainsString(t *testing.T) {
deref := make([]string, len(slice))
for i, v := range slice {
deref[i] = *v
}
assert.Contains(t, deref, "one")
}
I can also pass a pointer to a string as my expectation:
func TestSliceContainsPointerToExpectation(t *testing.T) {
expect := "one"
assert.Same(t, &one, &one)
assert.NotSame(t, &one, &expect)
// How can I assert that they contain values
assert.Contains(t, slice, &expect)
}
Honestly, that's not bad. I can assert that a reference to a string (pointing to a difference memory location) contains the value that I expect. The main annoyance with this path is that I can't pass a reference to a literal, which would make it take less space:
func TestSliceContainsString(t *testing.T) {
assert.Contains(t, slice, &"one")
}
Is there another approach that I'm not considering? Is one of these more idiomatic of golang/testify?
Yes, unfortunately the &"one" syntax isn't valid (a few years ago, I opened an issue to allow that syntax; it was closed, though Rob Pike opened a similar issue more recently).
For now, I think the best approach is to just take the address of a variable, as in your TestSliceContainsPointerToExpectation. Or, if you're doing this often, you can write a simple stringPtr function so you can do it as a one-liner:
func stringPtr(value string) *string {
return &value
}
func TestSliceContainsString(t *testing.T) {
assert.Contains(t, slice, stringPtr("one"))
}
Or, if you're using at least Go 1.18 (with generics), you can make a generic ptr function:
func ptr[T any](value T) *T {
return &value
}
func TestSliceContains(t *testing.T) {
assert.Contains(t, slice, ptr("one"))
}
See these in the Go Playground.
Not able to figure out how to convert interface{} returned from function into an array of structs
As part of some practise i was trying to create a function which can take 2 slices of some type and concatenates both and returns the slice.
The code can be found here - https://play.golang.org/p/P9pfrf_qTS1
type mystruct struct {
name string
value string
}
func appendarr(array1 interface{}, array2 interface{}) interface{} {
p := reflect.ValueOf(array1)
q := reflect.ValueOf(array2)
r := reflect.AppendSlice(p, q)
return reflect.ValueOf(r).Interface()
}
func main() {
fmt.Println("=======")
array1 := []mystruct{
mystruct{"a1n1", "a1v1"},
mystruct{"a1n2", "a1v2"},
}
array2 := []mystruct{
mystruct{"a2n1", "a2v1"},
mystruct{"a2n2", "a2v2"},
}
arrayOp := appendarr(array1, array2)
fmt.Printf("arr: %#v\n", arrayOp) // this shows all the elements from array1 and 2
val := reflect.ValueOf(arrayOp)
fmt.Println(val) // output is <[]main.mystruct Value>
fmt.Println(val.Interface().([]mystruct)) // exception - interface {} is reflect.Value, not []main.mystruct
}
I may have slices of different types of structs. I want to concatenate them and access the elements individually.
If there is any other way of achieving the same, please do let me know.
reflect.Append() returns a value of type reflect.Value, so you don't have to (you shouldn't) pass that to reflect.ValueOf().
So simply change the return statement to:
return r.Interface()
With this it works and outputs (try it on the Go Playground):
=======
arr: []main.mystruct{main.mystruct{name:"a1n1", value:"a1v1"}, main.mystruct{name:"a1n2", value:"a1v2"}, main.mystruct{name:"a2n1", value:"a2v1"}, main.mystruct{name:"a2n2", value:"a2v2"}}
[{a1n1 a1v1} {a1n2 a1v2} {a2n1 a2v1} {a2n2 a2v2}]
[{a1n1 a1v1} {a1n2 a1v2} {a2n1 a2v1} {a2n2 a2v2}]
You also don't need to do any reflection-kungfu on the result: it's your slice wrapped in interface{}. Wrapping it in reflect.Value and calling Value.Interface() on it is just a redundant cycle. You may simply do:
arrayOp.([]mystruct)
On a side note: you shouldn't create a "generic" append() function that uses reflection under the hood, as this functionality is available as a built-in function append(). The builtin function is generic, it gets help from the compiler so it provides the generic nature at compile-time. Whatever you come up with using reflection will be slower.
Cannot Range Over List Type Interface {} In Function Using Go.
for me is important then i execute for in a function.
How can fix?
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type MyBoxItem struct {
Name string
}
type MyBox struct {
Items []MyBoxItem
}
func (box *MyBox) AddItem(item MyBoxItem) []MyBoxItem {
box.Items = append(box.Items, item)
return box.Items
}
func PrintCustomArray(list interface{}) interface{} {
//items := reflect.ValueOf(list)
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.Key,v.Value)
}
return 0
}
func main() {
items := []MyBoxItem{}
item := MyBoxItem{Name: "Test Item 1"}
box := MyBox{items}
box.AddItem(item)
fmt.Println((box.Items))
PrintCustomArray(box.Items)
}
https://play.golang.org/p/ZcIBLMliq3
Error : cannot range over list (type interface {})
How can fix?
Note
The answer below describes, in broad strokes, 2 possible approaches: using interfaces, and using specific types. The approach focusing on interfaces is mentioned for completeness sake. IMHO, the case you've presented is not a viable use-case for interfaces.
Below, you'll find a link to a playground example that uses both techniques. It should be apparent to anyone that the interface approach is too cumbersome if for this specific case.
Quite apart from the fact that you don't really seem to be too familiar with how loops work in go (v.Key and v.Value are non-existent fields for example), I'll attempt to answer your question.
You are passing a list to your function, sure enough, but it's being handled as an interface{} type. That means your function accepts, essentially, any value as an argument. You can't simply iterate over them.
What you can do is use type assertions to convert the argument to a slice, then another assertion to use it as another, specific interface:
type Item interface{
key() string
val() string
}
func (i MyBoxItem) key() string {
return i.Key
}
func (i MyBoxItem) val() string {
return i.Value
}
func PrintCustomArray(list interface{}) error {
listSlice, ok := list.([]interface{})
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("Argument is not a slice")
}
for _, v := range listSlice {
item, ok := v.(Item)
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("element in slice does not implement the Item interface")
}
fmt.Println(item.key(), item.val())
}
return nil
}
But let's be honest, a function like this only works if a slice is passed as an argument. So having that first type assertion in there makes no sense whatsoever. At the very least, changing the function to something like this makes a lot more sense:
func PrintCustomArray(list []interface{})
Then, because we're not expecting an array as such, but rather a slice, the name should be changed to PrintCustomSlice.
Lastly, because we're using the same type assertion for every value in the slice, we might as well change the function even more:
// at this point, we'll always return 0, which is pointless
// just don't return anything
func PrintCustomSlice(list []Item) {
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.key(), v.val())
}
}
The advantages of a function like this is that it can still handle multiple types (all you have to do is implement the interface). You don't need any kind of expensive operations (like reflection), or type assertions.
Type assertions are very useful, but in a case like this, they merely serve to hide problems that would otherwise have resulted in a compile-time error. Go's interface{} type is a very useful thing, but you seem to be using it to get around the type system. If that's what you want to achieve, why use a typed language in the first place?
Some closing thoughts/remarks: If your function is only going to be used to iterate over specific "thing", you don't need the interfaces at all, simply specify the type you're expecting to be passed to the function in the first place. In this case that would be:
func PrintCustomSlice(list []MyBoxItem) {
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.Key, v.Value)
}
}
Another thing that I've noticed is that you seem to be exporting everything (all functions, types, and fields start with a capital letter). This, in go, is considered bad form. Only export what needs to be public. In the main package, that usually means you're hardly export anything.
Lastly, as I mentioned at the start: you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the basics just yet. I'd strongly recommend you go through the interactive tour. It covers the basics nicely, but shows you the features of the language at a decent pace. It doesn't take long, and is well worth taking a couple of hours to complete
Playground demo
It's possible to implement PrintCustomArray using the reflect package, but most experienced Go programmers will write a simple for loop:
for _, i := range box.Items {
fmt.Println("Name:", i.Name)
}
https://play.golang.org/p/RhubiCpry0
You can also encapsulate it in a function:
func PrintCustomArray(items []MyBoxItem) {
for _, i := range items {
fmt.Println("Name:", i.Name)
}
}
https://play.golang.org/p/c4EPQIx1AH
Here since you are returning box.Items from AddItem(), Items is of the type []MyBoxItem , so list should be of type []MyBoxItem .Moreover you are returning 0 in PrintCustomArray and the return type you have set is {}interface.
func PrintCustomArray(list []MyBoxItem) {
//items := reflect.ValueOf(list)
for i, v := range list {
fmt.Println(i, v)
}
//return 0
}
Again, MyBoxItem struct has only one variable named Name so v.key v.value won't make any sense.
This is what the proper code should look like https://play.golang.org/p/ILoUwEWv6Y .
You need to clear your understanding about interfaces in go. This might help https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#interfaces_and_types .
I have a struct type with a *int64 field.
type SomeType struct {
SomeField *int64
}
At some point in my code, I want to declare a literal of this (say, when I know said value should be 0, or pointing to a 0, you know what I mean)
instance := SomeType{
SomeField: &0,
}
...except this doesn't work
./main.go:xx: cannot use &0 (type *int) as type *int64 in field value
So I try this
instance := SomeType{
SomeField: &int64(0),
}
...but this also doesn't work
./main.go:xx: cannot take the address of int64(0)
How do I do this? The only solution I can come up with is using a placeholder variable
var placeholder int64
placeholder = 0
instance := SomeType{
SomeField: &placeholder,
}
Note: the &0 syntax works fine when it's a *int instead of an *int64. Edit: no it does not. Sorry about this.
Edit:
Aparently there was too much ambiguity to my question. I'm looking for a way to literally state a *int64. This could be used inside a constructor, or to state literal struct values, or even as arguments to other functions. But helper functions or using a different type are not solutions I'm looking for.
The Go Language Specification (Address operators) does not allow to take the address of a numeric constant (not of an untyped nor of a typed constant).
The operand must be addressable, that is, either a variable, pointer indirection, or slice indexing operation; or a field selector of an addressable struct operand; or an array indexing operation of an addressable array. As an exception to the addressability requirement, x [in the expression of &x] may also be a (possibly parenthesized) composite literal.
For reasoning why this isn't allowed, see related question: Find address of constant in go. A similar question (similarly not allowed to take its address): How can I store reference to the result of an operation in Go?
0) Generic solution (from Go 1.18)
Generics are added in Go 1.18. This means we can create a single, generic Ptr() function that returns a pointer to whatever value we pass to it. Hopefully it'll get added to the standard library. Until then, you can use github.com/icza/gog, the gog.Ptr() function (disclosure: I'm the author).
This is how it can look like:
func Ptr[T any](v T) *T {
return &v
}
Testing it:
i := Ptr(2)
log.Printf("%T %v", i, *i)
s := Ptr("abc")
log.Printf("%T %v", s, *s)
x := Ptr[any](nil)
log.Printf("%T %v", x, *x)
Which will output (try it on the Go Playground):
2009/11/10 23:00:00 *int 2
2009/11/10 23:00:00 *string abc
2009/11/10 23:00:00 *interface {} <nil>
Your other options (prior to Go 1.18) (try all on the Go Playground):
1) With new()
You can simply use the builtin new() function to allocate a new zero-valued int64 and get its address:
instance := SomeType{
SomeField: new(int64),
}
But note that this can only be used to allocate and obtain a pointer to the zero value of any type.
2) With helper variable
Simplest and recommended for non-zero elements is to use a helper variable whose address can be taken:
helper := int64(2)
instance2 := SomeType{
SomeField: &helper,
}
3) With helper function
Note: Helper functions to acquire a pointer to a non-zero value are available in my github.com/icza/gox library, in the gox package, so you don't have to add these to all your projects where you need it.
Or if you need this many times, you can create a helper function which allocates and returns an *int64:
func create(x int64) *int64 {
return &x
}
And using it:
instance3 := SomeType{
SomeField: create(3),
}
Note that we actually didn't allocate anything, the Go compiler did that when we returned the address of the function argument. The Go compiler performs escape analysis, and allocates local variables on the heap (instead of the stack) if they may escape the function. For details, see Is returning a slice of a local array in a Go function safe?
4) With a one-liner anonymous function
instance4 := SomeType{
SomeField: func() *int64 { i := int64(4); return &i }(),
}
Or as a (shorter) alternative:
instance4 := SomeType{
SomeField: func(i int64) *int64 { return &i }(4),
}
5) With slice literal, indexing and taking address
If you would want *SomeField to be other than 0, then you need something addressable.
You can still do that, but that's ugly:
instance5 := SomeType{
SomeField: &[]int64{5}[0],
}
fmt.Println(*instance2.SomeField) // Prints 5
What happens here is an []int64 slice is created with a literal, having one element (5). And it is indexed (0th element) and the address of the 0th element is taken. In the background an array of [1]int64 will also be allocated and used as the backing array for the slice. So there is a lot of boilerplate here.
6) With a helper struct literal
Let's examine the exception to the addressability requirements:
As an exception to the addressability requirement, x [in the expression of &x] may also be a (possibly parenthesized) composite literal.
This means that taking the address of a composite literal, e.g. a struct literal is ok. If we do so, we will have the struct value allocated and a pointer obtained to it. But if so, another requirement will become available to us: "field selector of an addressable struct operand". So if the struct literal contains a field of type int64, we can also take the address of that field!
Let's see this option in action. We will use this wrapper struct type:
type intwrapper struct {
x int64
}
And now we can do:
instance6 := SomeType{
SomeField: &(&intwrapper{6}).x,
}
Note that this
&(&intwrapper{6}).x
means the following:
& ( (&intwrapper{6}).x )
But we can omit the "outer" parenthesis as the address operator & is applied to the result of the selector expression.
Also note that in the background the following will happen (this is also a valid syntax):
&(*(&intwrapper{6})).x
7) With helper anonymous struct literal
The principle is the same as with case #6, but we can also use an anonymous struct literal, so no helper/wrapper struct type definition needed:
instance7 := SomeType{
SomeField: &(&struct{ x int64 }{7}).x,
}
Use a function which return an address of an int64 variable to solve the problem.
In the below code we use function f which accepts an integer and
returns a pointer value which holds the address of the integer. By using this method we can easily solve the above problem.
type myStr struct {
url *int64
}
func main() {
f := func(s int64) *int64 {
return &s
}
myStr{
url: f(12345),
}
}
There is another elegant way to achieve this which doesn't produce much boilerplate code and doesn't look ugly in my opinion. In case I need a struct with pointers to primitives instead of values, to make sure that zero-valued struct members aren't used across the project, I will create a function with those primitives as arguments.
You can define a function which creates your struct and then pass primitives to this function and then use pointers to function arguments.
type Config struct {
Code *uint8
Name *string
}
func NewConfig(code uint8, name string) *Config {
return &Config{
Code: &code,
Name: &name,
}
}
func UseConfig() {
config := NewConfig(1, "test")
// ...
}
// in case there are many values, modern IDE will highlight argument names for you, so you don't have to remember
func UseConfig2() {
config := NewConfig(
1,
"test",
)
// ...
}
If you don't mind using third party libraries, there's the lo package which uses generics (go 1.18+) which has the .ToPtr() function
ptr := lo.ToPtr("hello world")
// *string{"hello world"}
this code works fine but the temp var used to call the function feels clunky
package main
import "fmt"
type Foo struct {
name string
value int
}
// SetName receives a pointer to Foo so it can modify it.
func (f *Foo) SetName(name string) {
f.name = name
}
var users = map[string]Foo{}
func main() {
// Notice the Foo{}. The new(Foo) was just a syntactic sugar for &Foo{}
// and we don't need a pointer to the Foo, so I replaced it.
// Not relevant to the problem, though.
//p := Foo{}
users["a"] = Foo{value: 1}
x := users["a"]
x.SetName("Abc")
users["a"] = x
fmt.Println(users)
}
http://play.golang.org/p/vAXthNBfdP
Unfortunately no. In Go typically pointers are transparent, and values get auto-addressed when you call pointer methods on them. You managed to find one of the few cases where they aren't. That case is map storage -- values in maps are not considered addressable. That is, you can never do val := &map[key].
When you have a value val := Typ{} and methods defined on *Typ, when you try to call val.Method() Go will super secretly do (&val).Method(). Since you can't do &map[key], then this doesn't work so that temporary variable dance you do is the only way.
As for why that's the case, the internals of a map are considered a bit secret to the user, since it's a hashmap it reserves the right to reallocate itself, shuffle around data, etc, allowing you to take the address of any value undermines that. There have been proposals considered to allow this specific case to work (that is: calling a method with a pointer receiver on it), since the fix is so easy, but none have been accepted yet. It may be allowed someday, but not right now.
Following Jsor’s detailed explanation: if you really need to call methods of map values, it seems the only way for now is to use pointers for values.
var users = make(map[string]*Foo)
func main() {
users["a"] = &Foo{value: 1}
users["a"].SetName("Abc")
fmt.Println(users["a"])
}
But that loses you, precisely, the ability to meaningfully print them (values are just memory addresses now). You’d need to write a custom printing function for *Foo:
func (f *Foo) String() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", *f)
}
http://play.golang.org/p/6-y2ewdnre