Get with type

[lacopiroty]

Hi! :)

Is it possible to add support for type parameter to "get/call" etc. functions?
I also created a PR :)

example for get function:

Current implementation:

T get<T extends Object>({
   String? instanceName,
   dynamic param1,
   dynamic param2,
 }) {
   final instanceFactory = _findFactoryByNameAndType<T>(instanceName);
   // normal implementation of GetIt
}

Expected implementation:

T get<T extends Object>({
    String? instanceName,
    dynamic param1,
    dynamic param2,
    Type? type,
  }) {
    final instanceFactory = _findFactoryByNameAndType<T>(instanceName, type);
    // normal implementation of GetIt
}

[shtse8]

I have the same question, how can we resolve instance by runtime type?

[wim07101993]

This issue has been open for about 6 months, could someone please take a look at the pr? :)

[escamoteur]

@esDotDev @dancamdev what are your thoughts on this? get_it used the generics from the beginning and I'm somewhat hesitant to add a type, although internally I do use is too.

[esDotDev]

I'm not clear on the use cases, but if there are valid ones then I don't see how it would hurt to allow an optional type.

[escamoteur]

Some people want to access objects at runtime with a variable type

[escamoteur]

One question I have is, how can this be done in a typesafe way? I mean how can the analyzer control if the destination variable has the correct type?

[escamoteur]

included in V7.6.0

[escamoteur]

I just stumbled again upon these lines

    assert(
        type == null || type is T,
        'The type you passed is not a $T. This can happen '
        'if the receiving variable is of the wrong type, or you passed a gerenic type and a type parameter');

and I really wonder how any of you uses the option of passing a runtime type to get an object from get_it as it turns out this check will always fail if the receiving variable is defined with any other type than Object due to the limitation and also my misunderstanding of what the is operator it capable of see dart-lang/sdk#43390 (comment)

You should all have gotten a lot of assertion errors from that.
I now fixed that so that the check is done correctly