This page answers common how-to questions that may come up when using AutoValue. You should read and understand the Introduction first.
Questions specific to usage of the builder option are documented separately; for this, start by reading AutoValue with builders.
How do I...
- ... also generate a builder for my value class?
- ... use AutoValue with a nested class?
- ... use (or not use) JavaBeans-style name prefixes?
- ... use nullable properties?
- ... perform other validation?
- ... use a property of a mutable type?
- ... use a custom implementation of
equals
, etc.? - ... have AutoValue implement a concrete or default method?
- ... have multiple
create
methods, or name it/them differently? - ... ignore certain properties in
equals
, etc.? - ... have AutoValue also implement abstract methods from my supertypes?
- ... use AutoValue with a generic class?
- ... make my class Java- or GWT-serializable?
- ... use AutoValue to implement an annotation type?
- ... also include setter (mutator) methods?
- ... also generate
compareTo
? - ... use a primitive array for a property value?
- ... use an object array for a property value?
- ... have one
@AutoValue
class extend another? - ... keep my accessor methods private?
- ... expose a constructor, not factory method, as my public creation API?
- ... use AutoValue on an interface, not abstract class?
- ... memoize ("cache") derived properties?
- ... memoize the result of
hashCode
ortoString
? - ... make a class where only one of its properties is ever set?
- ... copy annotations from a class/method to the implemented class/method/field?
- ... create a pretty string representation?
Please see AutoValue with builders.
AutoValue composes the generated class name in the form
AutoValue_
Outer_Middle_Inner
.
As many of these segments will be used in the generated name as required.
Only the simple class name will appear in toString
output.
class Outer {
static class Middle {
@AutoValue
abstract static class Inner {
static Inner create(String foo) {
return new AutoValue_Outer_Middle_Inner(foo);
}
...
Some developers prefer to name their accessors with a get-
or is-
prefix,
but would prefer that only the "bare" property name be used in toString
and
for the generated constructor's parameter names.
AutoValue will do exactly this, but only if you are using these prefixes
consistently. In that case, it infers your intended property name by first
stripping the get-
or is-
prefix, then adjusting the case of what remains as
specified by
Introspector.decapitalize.
Note that, in keeping with the JavaBeans specification, the is-
prefix is only
allowed on boolean
-returning methods. get-
is allowed on any type of
accessor.
Ordinarily the generated constructor will reject any null values. If you want to
accept null, simply apply any annotation named @Nullable
to the appropriate
accessor methods. This causes AutoValue to remove the null checks and generate
null-friendly code for equals
, hashCode
and toString
. Example:
@AutoValue
public abstract class Foo {
public static Foo create(@Nullable Bar bar) {
return new AutoValue_Foo(bar);
}
@Nullable abstract Bar bar();
}
This example also shows annotating the corresponding create
parameter with
@Nullable
. AutoValue does not actually require this annotation, only the one
on the accessor, but we recommended it as useful documentation to your caller.
Conversely, if @Nullable
is only added to the parameter in create
(or
similarly the setter method of AutoValue.Builder), but not the
corresponding accessor method, it won't have any effect.
Null checks are added automatically (as above). For other types of precondition checks or pre-processing, just add them to your factory method:
static MyType create(String first, String second) {
checkArgument(!first.isEmpty());
return new AutoValue_MyType(first, second.trim());
}
AutoValue classes are meant and expected to be immutable. But sometimes you would want to take a mutable type and use it as a property. In these cases:
First, check if the mutable type has a corresponding immutable cousin. For
example, the types List<String>
and String[]
have the immutable counterpart
ImmutableList<String>
in Guava. If so, use
the immutable type for your property, and only accept the mutable type during
construction:
@AutoValue
public abstract class ListExample {
public static ListExample create(String[] mutableNames) {
return new AutoValue_ListExample(ImmutableList.copyOf(mutableNames));
}
public abstract ImmutableList<String> names();
}
Note: this is a perfectly sensible practice, not an ugly workaround!
If there is no suitable immutable type to use, you'll need to proceed with caution. Your static factory method should pass a clone of the passed object to the generated constructor. Your accessor method should document a very loud warning never to mutate the object returned.
@AutoValue
public abstract class MutableExample {
public static MutableExample create(MutablePropertyType ouch) {
// Replace `MutablePropertyType.copyOf()` below with the right copying code for this type
return new AutoValue_MutableExample(MutablePropertyType.copyOf(ouch));
}
/**
* Returns the ouch associated with this object; <b>do not mutate</b> the
* returned object.
*/
public abstract MutablePropertyType ouch();
}
Warning: this is an ugly workaround, not a perfectly sensible practice! Callers can trivially break the invariants of the immutable class by mutating the accessor's return value. An example where something can go wrong: AutoValue objects can be used as keys in Maps.
Simply write your custom implementation; AutoValue will notice this and will skip generating its own. Your hand-written logic will thus be inherited on the concrete implementation class. We call this underriding the method.
Remember when doing this that you are losing AutoValue's protections. Be careful
to follow the basic rules of hash codes: equal objects must have equal hash
codes always, and equal hash codes should imply equal objects almost always.
You should now test your class more thoroughly, ideally using
EqualsTester
from guava-testlib.
Best practice: mark your underriding methods final
to make it clear to future
readers that these methods aren't overridden by AutoValue.
If a parent class defines a concrete (non-abstract) method that you would like
AutoValue to implement, you can redeclare it as abstract. This applies to
Object
methods like toString()
, but also to property methods that you would
like to have AutoValue implement. It also applies to default methods in
interfaces.
@AutoValue
class PleaseOverrideExample extends SuperclassThatDefinesToString {
...
// cause AutoValue to generate this even though the superclass has it
@Override public abstract String toString();
}
@AutoValue
class PleaseReimplementDefaultMethod implements InterfaceWithDefaultMethod {
...
// cause AutoValue to implement this even though the interface has a default
// implementation
@Override public abstract int numberOfLegs();
}
Just do it! AutoValue doesn't actually care. This best practice item may be relevant.
Suppose your value class has an extra field that shouldn't be included in
equals
or hashCode
computations.
If this is because it is a derived value based on other properties, see How do I memoize derived properties?.
Otherwise, first make certain that you really want to do this. It is often, but not always, a mistake. Remember that libraries will treat two equal instances as absolutely interchangeable with each other. Whatever information is present in this extra field could essentially "disappear" when you aren't expecting it, for example when your value is stored and retrieved from certain collections.
If you're sure, here is how to do it:
@AutoValue
abstract class IgnoreExample {
static IgnoreExample create(String normalProperty, String ignoredProperty) {
IgnoreExample ie = new AutoValue_IgnoreExample(normalProperty);
ie.ignoredProperty.set(ignoredProperty);
return ie;
}
abstract String normalProperty();
private final AtomicReference<String> ignoredProperty = new AtomicReference<>();
final String ignoredProperty() {
return ignoredProperty.get();
}
}
Note that this means the field is also ignored by toString
; to AutoValue the
private field simply doesn't exist.
Note that we use AtomicReference<String>
to ensure that other threads will
correctly see the value that was written. You could also make the field
volatile
, or use synchronized
(synchronized (ie)
around the assignment and
synchronized
on the ignoredProperty()
method).
AutoValue will recognize every abstract accessor method whether it is defined directly in your own hand-written class or in a supertype.
These abstract methods can come from more than one place, for example from an
interface and from the superclass. It may not then be obvious what order they
are in, even though you need to know this order if you want to call the
generated AutoValue_Foo
constructor. You might find it clearer to use a
builder instead. But the order is deterministic: within a class
or interface, methods are in the order they appear in the source code; methods
in ancestors come before methods in descendants; methods in interfaces come
before methods in classes; and in a class or interface that has more than one
superinterface, the interfaces are in the order of their appearance in
implements
or extends
.
There's nothing to it: just add type parameters to your class and to your call to the generated constructor.
Just add implements Serializable
or the @GwtCompatible(serializable = true)
annotation (respectively) to your hand-written class; it (as well as any
serialVersionUID
) will be duplicated on the generated class, and you'll be
good to go.
Note: If you are writing your annotation in Kotlin, you don't need to use
@AutoAnnotation
, since Kotlin allows you to instantiate annotations directly.
Most users should never have the need to programmatically create "fake"
annotation instances. But if you do, using @AutoValue
in the usual way will
fail because the Annotation.hashCode
specification is incompatible with
AutoValue's behavior.
However, we've got you covered anyway! Suppose this annotation definition:
public @interface Named {
String value();
}
All you need is this:
public class Names {
@AutoAnnotation public static Named named(String value) {
return new AutoAnnotation_Names_named(value);
}
}
If your annotation has several elements, you may prefer to use @AutoBuilder
:
public @interface Named {
String value();
int priority() default 0;
int size() default 0;
}
public class Names {
@AutoBuilder(ofClass = Named.class)
public interface NamedBuilder {
NamedBuilder value(String x);
NamedBuilder priority(int x);
NamedBuilder size(int x);
Named build();
}
public static NamedBuilder namedBuilder() {
return new AutoBuilder_Names_NamedBuilder();
}
...
Named named1 = namedBuilder().value("O'Cruiskeen").priority(17).size(23).build();
Named named2 = namedBuilder().value("O'Cruiskeen").build();
// priority and size get their default values
...
}
For more details, see the AutoAnnotation
javadoc.
You can't; AutoValue only generates immutable value classes.
Note that giving value semantics to a mutable type is widely considered a questionable practice in the first place. Equal instances of a value class are treated as interchangeable, but they can't truly be interchangeable if one might be mutated and the other not.
AutoValue intentionally does not provide this feature. It is better for you to
roll your own comparison logic using the new methods added to
Comparator
in Java 8, or
ComparisonChain
from Guava.
Since these mechanisms are easy to use, require very little code, and give you the flexibility you need, there's really no way for AutoValue to improve on them!
AutoValue supports this, and will generate code that acts on the values stored
the array, not the object identity of the array itself, which is (with virtual
certainty) what you want. Heed the warnings given above about mutable
properties. AutoValue will by default warn about this case,
because of the mutability, but you can silence the warning with
@SuppressWarnings("mutable")
on the accessor method.
This is not allowed. Object arrays are very badly-behaved and unlike primitive
arrays, they can be replaced with a proper List
implementation for very little
added cost.
If it's important to accept an object array at construction time, refer to the first example shown here.
This ability is intentionally not supported, because there is no way to do it correctly. See Effective Java, 2nd Edition Item 8: "Obey the general contract when overriding equals".
We're sorry. This is one of the rare and unfortunate restrictions AutoValue's approach places on your API. Your accessor methods don't have to be public, but they must be at least package-visible.
We're sorry. This is one of the rare restrictions AutoValue's approach places on your API. However, note that static factory methods are recommended over public constructors by Effective Java, Item 1.
AutoValue classes can certainly implement an interface, however an interface may
not be used in lieu of an abstract class. The only advantage of interfaces we're
aware of is that you can omit public abstract
from the methods. That's not
much. On the other hand, you would lose the immutability guarantee, and you'd
also invite more of the kind of bad behavior described in
this best-practices item. On balance, we don't think it's
worth it.
Sometimes your class has properties that are derived from the ones that AutoValue implements. You'd typically implement them with a concrete method that uses the other properties:
@AutoValue
abstract class Foo {
abstract Bar barProperty();
String derivedProperty() {
return someFunctionOf(barProperty());
}
}
But what if someFunctionOf(Bar)
is expensive? You'd like to calculate it only
one time, then cache and reuse that value for all future calls. Normally,
thread-safe lazy initialization involves a lot of tricky boilerplate.
Instead, just write the derived-property accessor method as above, and
annotate it with @Memoized
. Then AutoValue will override that method to
return a stored value after the first call:
@AutoValue
abstract class Foo {
abstract Bar barProperty();
@Memoized
String derivedProperty() {
return someFunctionOf(barProperty());
}
}
Then your method will be called at most once, even if multiple threads attempt to access the property concurrently.
The annotated method must have the usual form of an accessor method, and may not
be abstract
, final
, or private
.
The stored value will not be used in the implementation of equals
, hashCode
,
or toString
.
If a @Memoized
method is also annotated with @Nullable
, then null
values
will be stored; if not, then the overriding method throws NullPointerException
when the annotated method returns null
.
You can also make your class remember and reuse the result of hashCode
,
toString
, or both, like this:
@AutoValue
abstract class Foo {
abstract Bar barProperty();
@Memoized
@Override
public abstract int hashCode();
@Memoized
@Override
public abstract String toString();
}
Often, the best way to do this is using inheritance. Although one
@AutoValue
class can't inherit from another, two @AutoValue
classes can
inherit from a common parent.
public abstract class StringOrInteger {
public abstract String representation();
public static StringOrInteger ofString(String s) {
return new AutoValue_StringOrInteger_StringValue(s);
}
public static StringOrInteger ofInteger(int i) {
return new AutoValue_StringOrInteger_IntegerValue(i);
}
@AutoValue
abstract static class StringValue extends StringOrInteger {
abstract String string();
@Override
public String representation() {
return '"' + string() + '"';
}
}
@AutoValue
abstract static class IntegerValue extends StringOrInteger {
abstract int integer();
@Override
public String representation() {
return Integer.toString(integer());
}
}
}
So any StringOrInteger
instance is actually either a StringValue
or an
IntegerValue
. Clients only care about the representation()
method, so they
don't need to know which it is.
But if clients of your class may want to take different actions depending on
which property is set, there is an alternative to @AutoValue
called
@AutoOneOf
. This effectively creates a
tagged union.
Here is StringOrInteger
written using @AutoOneOf
, with the
representation()
method moved to a separate client class:
@AutoOneOf(StringOrInteger.Kind.class)
public abstract class StringOrInteger {
public enum Kind {STRING, INTEGER}
public abstract Kind getKind();
public abstract String string();
public abstract int integer();
public static StringOrInteger ofString(String s) {
return AutoOneOf_StringOrInteger.string(s);
}
public static StringOrInteger ofInteger(int i) {
return AutoOneOf_StringOrInteger.integer(i);
}
}
public class Client {
public String representation(StringOrInteger stringOrInteger) {
switch (stringOrInteger.getKind()) {
case STRING:
return '"' + stringOrInteger.string() + '"';
case INTEGER:
return Integer.toString(stringOrInteger.integer());
}
throw new AssertionError(stringOrInteger.getKind());
}
}
Switching on an enum like this can lead to more robust code than using
instanceof
checks, especially if a tool like Error
Prone can alert you
if you add a new variant without updating all your switches. (On the other hand,
if nothing outside your class references getKind()
, you should consider if a
solution using inheritance might be better.)
There must be an enum such as Kind
, though it doesn't have to be called Kind
and it doesn't have to be nested inside the @AutoOneOf
class. There must be an
abstract method returning the enum, though it doesn't have to be called
getKind()
. For every value of the enum, there must be an abstract method with
the same name (ignoring case and underscores). An @AutoOneOf
class called
Foo
will then get a generated class called AutoOneOf_Foo
that has a static
factory method for each property, with the same name. In the example, the
STRING
value in the enum corresponds to the string()
property and to the
AutoOneOf_StringOrInteger.string
factory method.
Properties in an @AutoOneOf
class can be void
to indicate that the
corresponding variant has no data. In that case, the factory method for that
variant has no parameters:
@AutoOneOf(Transform.Kind.class)
public abstract class Transform {
public enum Kind {NONE, CIRCLE_CROP, BLUR}
public abstract Kind getKind();
abstract void none();
abstract void circleCrop();
public abstract BlurTransformParameters blur();
public static Transform ofNone() {
return AutoOneOf_Transform.none();
}
public static Transform ofCircleCrop() {
return AutoOneOf_Transform.circleCrop();
}
public static Transform ofBlur(BlurTransformParmeters params) {
return AutoOneOf_Transform.blur(params);
}
}
Here, the NONE
and CIRCLE_CROP
variants have no associated data but are
distinct from each other. The BLUR
variant does have data. The none()
and circleCrop()
methods are package-private; they must exist to configure
@AutoOneOf
, but calling them is not very useful. (It does nothing if the
instance is of the correct variant, or throws an exception otherwise.)
The AutoOneOf_Transform.none()
and AutoOneOf_Transform.circleCrop()
methods
return the same instance every time they are called.
If one of the void
variants means "none", consider using an Optional<Transform>
or
a @Nullable Transform
instead of that variant.
Properties in an @AutoOneOf
class cannot be null. Instead of a
StringOrInteger
with a @Nullable String
, you probably want a
@Nullable StringOrInteger
or an Optional<StringOrInteger>
, or an empty
variant as just described.
If you want to copy annotations from your @AutoValue
-annotated class to the
generated AutoValue_...
implementation, annotate your class with
@AutoValue.CopyAnnotations
.
For example, if Example.java
is:
@AutoValue
@AutoValue.CopyAnnotations
@SuppressWarnings("Immutable") // justification ...
abstract class Example {
// details ...
}
Then @AutoValue
will generate AutoValue_Example.java
:
@SuppressWarnings("Immutable")
final class AutoValue_Example extends Example {
// implementation ...
}
Applying @AutoValue.CopyAnnotations
to an @AutoValue.Builder
class like
Foo.Builder
similarly causes annotations on that class to be copied to the
generated subclass AutoValue_Foo.Builder
.
For historical reasons, annotations on methods of an @AutoValue
-annotated
class are copied to the generated implementation class's methods. However, if
you want to exclude some annotations from being copied, you can use
@AutoValue.CopyAnnotations
's exclude
method to stop this behavior.
If you want to copy annotations from your @AutoValue
-annotated class's methods
to the generated fields in the AutoValue_...
implementation, annotate your
method with @AutoValue.CopyAnnotations
.
For example, if Example.java
is:
@Immutable
@AutoValue
abstract class Example {
@CopyAnnotations
@SuppressWarnings("Immutable") // justification ...
abstract Object getObject();
// other details ...
}
Then @AutoValue
will generate AutoValue_Example.java
:
final class AutoValue_Example extends Example {
@SuppressWarnings("Immutable")
private final Object object;
@SuppressWarnings("Immutable")
@Override
Object getObject() {
return object;
}
// other details ...
}
If you have a value class with a long toString()
representation, annotate a
method with @ToPrettyString
and AutoValue will generate an implementation that
returns a pretty String rendering of the instance. For example:
@AutoValue
abstract class Song {
abstract String lyrics();
abstract List<Artist> artists();
@ToPrettyString
abstract String toPrettyString();
}
Below is a sample rendering of the result of calling toPrettyString()
.
Song {
lyrics = I'm off the deep end, watch as I dive in
I'll never meet the ground
Crash through the surface, where they can't hurt us
We're far from the shallow now.,
artists = [
Artist {
name = Lady Gaga,
},
Artist {
name = Bradley Cooper,
}
],
}
@ToPrettyString
can be used on the default toString()
to override the
default AutoValue-generated toString()
implementation, or on another
user-defined method.