For example, I have an interface{} named a, and I also have an reflect.Type called elemType. Now, I want to type assert a to elemType, but a.(elemType) can't be compiled successfully. How to fix it?
Sorry for my confusing expression. My meaning is that I get a type from a function, and I want to type assert an interface{} to this type, but this type is stored in a reflect.Type variable.
What I want to do is similar to the code below:
var a interface{}
//do something
func getType() reflect.Type {
var ret reflect.Type
//do something
return ret
}
targetType := getType()
result := a.(targetType)
Consider a standard type assertion in Go:
v := a.(typeName)
Here the compiler can determine the type of the variable v at compile time, and make use of that knowledge when compiling any further statements involving the variable.
With your example of using a refltect.Type variable in the assertion, it would be impossible to determine the type of v, so the code could not be compiled.
If you need to check that a particular interface variable is of a particular type at runtime, you can still do that with the reflect package. For example:
// if elemType is a normal type
if reflect.ValueOf(a).Type() == elemType {
fmt.Println("type matches")
}
// if elemType is an interface, can check if the value implements it
if reflect.ValueOf(a).Type().Implements(elemType) {
fmt.Println("value implements interface")
}
But you will need a concrete type to return back to standard variables. If you've only got a small selection of possible types, perhaps using a type switch might do what you want.
Related
hi a have this func for get type of value, but i try this and never can get reflect.struct:
type Test struct {
Code int
Name string
}
func main(){
test := getTest()
data, err := getBytes(slice...)
sanitizedFile := bytes.Split(data, []byte("\r\n"))
err = Unmarshal(sanitizedFile[0], &test)
}
func getTest() interface{} {
return Test{}
}
With this code i don't can get the reflecet.struct from v params in Unmarshall func
func Unmarshal(data []byte, v interface{}) error {
rv := reflect.ValueOf(v)
if rv.Kind() == reflect.Ptr {
rvElem := rv.Elem()
switch rvElem.Kind() {
case reflect.Struct:
// implement me
}
}
return ErrInvalid
}
I would like to know if I can somehow find out if an interface is of type struct or access the values of that struct.
I think the real problem here is illustrated by this quote:
I would like to know if I can somehow find out if an interface is of type struct or access the values of that struct.
An interface value isn't "of type struct". Never! An interface value can contain a value whose type is some structure, but it is not a value of that type. It just contains one. This is similar to the way that a box1 you get from Amazon can contain a corkscrew, but the box is not a corkscrew, ever.
Given a non-nil value of type interface I for some interface type I, you know that you have a value that implements the methods of I. Since {} is the empty set of methods, all types implement it, so given a (still non-nil) value of type interface{}, you have a value that implements no methods. That's not at all useful by itself: it means you can invoke no methods, which means you can't do anything method-like.
But just because you can't do anything method-y doesn't mean you can't do anything at all. Any interface value, regardless of the interface type, can have a type-assertion used on it:
iv := somethingThatReturnsAnInterface()
cv := iv.(struct S) // assert that iv contains a `struct S`
If iv does in fact contain a struct S value—if that's what's inside the box once you open it—then this type-assertion doesn't panic, and cv winds up with the concrete value of type struct S. If panic is undesirable, we can use the cv, ok := iv.(struct S) form, or a type switch. All of these—including the version that panics—work by checking the type of the value inside the interface.
What this—or, more precisely, the way the Go language is defined—tells us is that the interface "box" really holds two things:
a concrete type, and
a concrete value.
Well, that is, unless it holds a <nil, nil> pair, in which case iv == nil is true. Note that the iv == nil test actually tests both parts.
If Go had a syntax for this, we could write something like iv.type and iv.value to get at the two separate parts. But we can't do that. We have to use type assertions, type-switch, or reflect. So, going back to this:
I would like to know if I can somehow find out if an interface is of type struct
we can see that the question itself is just a little malformed. We don't want to know if an interface value has this type. We want to know if a non-nil interface's held value is of this type, as if we could inspect iv.type and iv.value directly.
If you have a limited set of possible types, you can use the type-switch construct, and enumerate all your allowed possiblities:
switch cv := iv.(type) {
case struct S:
// work with cv, which is a struct S
case *struct S:
// work with cv, which is a *struct S
// add more cases as appropriate
}
If you need more generality, instead of doing the above, we end up using the reflect package:
tv := reflect.TypeOf(iv)
or:
vv := reflect.ValueOf(iv)
The latter is actually the more useful form, since vv captures both the iv.type pseudo-field and the iv.value pseudo-field.
As mkopriva notes in a comment, test, in your sample code, has type interface{}, so &test has type *interface{}. In most cases this is not a good idea: you just want to pass the interface{} value directly.
To allow the called function to set the object to a new value, you will want to pass a pointer to the object as the interface value. You do not want to pass a pointer to the interface while having the interface hold the struct "in the box" as it were. You need a reflect.Value on which you can invoke Set(), and to get one, you will need to follow an elem on the reflect.Value that is a pointer to the struct (not one that is a pointer to the interface).
There's a more complete example here on the Go Playground.
1This is partly an allusion to "boxed values" in certain other programming languages (see What is boxing and unboxing and what are the trade offs?), but partly literal. Don't mistake Go's interfaces for Java's boxed values, though: they are not the same at all.
Maybe what you need is type assertion?
t, ok := v.(myStruct)
https://tour.golang.org/methods/15
In any case this code prints "struct":
type tt struct {}
var x tt
var z interface{}
z = x
v := reflect.ValueOf(z).Kind()
fmt.Printf("%v\n", v)
And see this for setting the value of a struct field using reflection:
Using reflect, how do you set the value of a struct field?
ERROR: type CustomStruct is not an expression.
type CustomStruct struct {
}
func getTypeName(t interface{}) string {
rt := reflect.TypeOf(t).Elem()
return rt.Name()
}
getTypeName(CustomStruct)
How can I pass struct type to function without type instance?
This will work
getTypeName((*CustomStruct)(nil))
But I wonder if there is more simple version..
You can't. You can only pass a value, and CustomStruct is not a value but a type. Using a type identifier is a compile-time error.
Usually when a "type" is to be passed, you pass a reflect.Type value which describes the type. This is what you "create" inside your getTypeName(), but then the getTypeName() will have little left to do:
func getTypeName(t reflect.Type) string {
return t.Name()
}
// Calling it:
getTypeName(reflect.TypeOf(CustomStruct{}))
(Also don't forget that this returns an empty string for anonymous types such as []int.)
Another way is to pass a "typed" nil pointer value as you did, but again, you can just as well use a typed nil value to create the reflect.Type too, without creating a value of the type in question, like this:
t := reflect.TypeOf((*CustomStruct)(nil)).Elem()
fmt.Println(t.Name()) // Prints CustomStruct
Lets resurrect this!
The generics proposal for Go got approved, and that's coming, eventually. When this question was first asked, this probably made more sense as a question, but for anyone looking to implement a generics pattern now, I think I've got an alright API for it.
For now, you can't interact with abstract types, but you can interact with methods on the abstract type, and reflect allows you to examine function signatures. For a method, the 0th is the receiver.
type Example struct {int}
type Generic struct{reflect.Type}
func (p Example) Type() {}
func Reflect(generic interface{}) Generic {
real := reflect.TypeOf(generic)
if real.Kind() != reflect.Func || real.NumIn() < 1 {
panic("reflect.Type.In(n) panics if not a func and if n out of bounds")
}
return Generic{real.In(0)}
}
func (g Generic) Make() interface{} {
return reflect.Zero(g.Type).Interface()
}
func main() {
tOfp := Reflect(Example.Type)
fmt.Printf("Name of the type: %v\n", tOfp.Name())
fmt.Printf("Real (initial)value: %v\n", tOfp.Make())
}
Some quick notes:
The structure of "Example" doesn't matter, rather only that it has a method with a non-pointer receiver.
The definition of a type called "Generic" as a struct is to accomplish what I believed OP's actual intent to be.
The above definition of "Generic" is a struct instead of an interface so that it can have its own method set. Defining "Generic" as an interface, and using a methodset specific to each operand-type used with it would make tons of sense.
If you weren't aware, actual generics are coming in Go 1.18. My example above has no linter or compile protection, and will panic at runtime if used incorrectly. It does work, and will let you reason over abstract types while you wait for a native implementation.
Happy Coding!
From Go version 1.18 a new feature Generics has been introduced. In most of the case instead of passing types to function, we can use generics. Then we will also get compile time error instead of runtime error and it's more efficient than reflect also.
Example Code
func HttpGet[T](url, body) T {
var resp T
return T
}
resp := HttpGet[ResponseType]("dummy.example", nil)
Given the following code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type work interface {
filter() bool
}
type organ struct {
name string
}
func (s *organ) filter () bool {
return true;
}
func main() {
kidney := &organ {
name : "kidney",
}
_, ok := interface{}(kidney).(work)
fmt.Println(ok);
}
I did not fully get the following part:
_, ok := interface{}(kidney).(work)
It seems to me, it is converting struct to the interface{} type, which I understand, but why is it required to convert to an interface{} type to check if it satisfies another interface. More specifically, why the following code fails?
ok := kidney.(work)
with error
invalid type assertion: kidney.(work) (non-interface type *organ on left)
TL;DR If you always know the concrete type (e.g., kidney), then you don't need a type assertion; just pass it into your work variable and carry on--the compiler will guarantee that kidney satisfies the work interface, otherwise your program won't compile.
The reason you must first convert the concrete type into an interface{} is because type assertions (i.e., dynamic type checks) only make sense between dynamic types (i.e., interfaces). It doesn't make sense to do a runtime type check on a thing the compiler can guarantee at compile time. Hopefully this makes sense?
I understand that I can get an object's value by reflection and then use type assertion to get back the actual object using:
obj := new(User)
out := reflect.ValueOf(obj).Elem().Interface().(User)
fmt.Println(out == *obj) // true
But what if I don't know that the object's type is User, how can I do type assertion?
Say it was inside a function like:
func Foo(obj interface{}) bool {
// out := reflect.ValueOf(obj).Elem().Interface().( ... )
return out == *obj
}
func main() {
obj := new(User)
fmt.Println(Foo(obj))
}
Inside the Foo function you'll never know what type of object will actually be passed and so how do you complete the type assertion?
You can't. Type assertions allow you to take advantage of the static type checking that the language gives you even if you have an interface, whose type isn't statically checked. It basically works something like this:
You have some statically typed variable s, which has type t. The compiler enforces the guarantee that s always has type t by refusing to compile if you ever try to use s as if it were a different type, since that would break the guarantee.
You also have some interface variable, i. i's type is not known at compile-time, so there's no way the compiler can guarantee that assigning i to s wouldn't break the guarantee that s had type t. However, what you can do is a type assertion. A type assertion side-steps this problem by saying, "well, I'll check at run-time, and I'll only do the assignment if the types match up." The compiler is OK with this because it knows that the assignment will only happen if the types match up, which means that it can still guarantee that s has type t. So basically what's happening at runtime is:
if (i has type t) {
s = i
} else {
s = t{} // Zero value of t
}
The reason that what you're asking for is impossible is that the compiler has to know what type you're checking against so that it can write the check that I gave pseudocode for above. Without knowing what t is, there's no way to know what the static type of s should be, and no way to check whether it's right.
Can anyone tell me how to create a new instance of Type from a string? Reflect?
There are examples but they are for the older (pre Go 1 versions) of the language [:(]
So, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking about how you can create an object when you just have the name of the type as string. So, for example, you might have a string "MyStruct" and you want to create an object of this type.
Unfortunately, that's not easily possible because Go is a statically typed language and the linker will eliminate dead code (or inline parts of it). So, there is no guarantee, that your final executable will even contain the code of "MyStruct".
You can however, maintain a global map[string]reflect.Type manually. For example by initializing this map in the init() function of your packages which defines such discover-able types. This will also tell the compiler that you are using the types. Afterwards, you can use this map to look up the reflect.Type of the type you want to create and use reflect.New to get a pointer to a new object of that type (stored as a reflect.Value). You can extract the object into an interface with something like this:
reflect.New(yourtype).Elem().Interface()
Elem() will de-reference the pointer and Interface() will return the reflected value as an interface{}. See The Laws of Reflection for further details.
PS: There might be a better way to structure your program which doesn't even require reflection and which let the compiler catch more errors. Have you considered using a factory method for example? An other easy solution might be to maintain a map[string]func() interface{} of functions which can be invoked to create a new object with that name.
Factory with predefined constructors can be based on something like:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Creator func() interface{}
type A struct {
a int
}
type B struct {
a bool
}
func NewA() interface{} {
return new(A)
}
func NewB() interface{} {
return new(B)
}
func main() {
m := map[string]Creator{}
m["A"] = NewA
m["B"] = NewB
for k, v := range m {
fmt.Printf("%v -> %v\n", k, v())
}
}