Parameterized type constructed incorrectly for nested types about auto-value-moshi HOT 12 CLOSED

from auto-value-moshi.

Honestly I don't even know what Types.newParameterizedTypeWithOwner is. @swankjesse or @JakeWharton, any insight?

from auto-value-moshi.

It's for nested types.

class Foo {
  class Bar<T> {
  }
}
Types.newParameterizedTypeWithOwner(Foo.class, Bar.class, String.class)

so it depends on where the A, B, C classes are nested.

from auto-value-moshi.

Aha! That explains it. Sorry, my <A<B<C<Long>>>> didn't capture all of the relevant info. Great inference! Two surprising things:

1. the classes in question are all static. so it's:

class Foo {
  static class Bar<T> {

2. the owner types that I supplied are all wrong, but it works.

The constructor of ParameterizedTypeImpl requires an owner type for static inner classes, but doesn't care if it's the right class or not. I've spent the whole day showing the moshi team that I don't understand what's going on ;-) But this seems a bit off. Either ParameteredTypeImpl shouldn't need an owner class for static enclosed classes (seems right to me), or if it's gonna require an owner, maybe it oughtta check that it's the right owner?

from auto-value-moshi.

If you pass in the wrong owner type, you will get subtle errors when checking equality of Types.
Good spot; I opened square/moshi#450 to fail explicitly and earlier in the common case.

from auto-value-moshi.

So if a type is nested (which we can check with Class.getEnclosingType) then we should create it with Types.newParameterizedTypeWithOwner rather than Types.newParameterizedType. I'd be happy to provide a PR, but I'm stuck on an old version by #99. I'll stay subbed, in case we figure out a way to resolve #99.

from auto-value-moshi.

Is this actually something we should support? As opposed to just saying the inner classes should also be static. Thinking out loud, but it it seems weird to me that a subset of the nested json data would have any requirements of the java ownership of the class consuming it. I'm kind of in favor of voting just requiring inner classes to be static (with a descriptive error), but open to hear arguments in favor of non-static inner classes

from auto-value-moshi.

I agree that only supporting static inner classes is the right call. However, inner classes of any kind currently not supported, static or not.

from auto-value-moshi.

Isn't newParameterizedTypeWithOwner only for non-static inner classes?

from auto-value-moshi.

That was not my experience.

from auto-value-moshi.

Isn't newParameterizedTypeWithOwner only for non-static inner classes?

No. It's for nested classes.

from auto-value-moshi.

I'm using newParameterizedTypeWithOwner without issue here: 1c5e6f8

As such I'm going to close this as static inner classes do work

from auto-value-moshi.