Is it legit to have a dedicated interface containi...

# getting-started

[elect]

Is it legit to have a dedicated interface containing a function with a lambda with a receiver to be implemented by third parts?

interface Action {
//    interface DSL Builder
    operator fun<T> invoke(block: T.() -> Unit)
}

Because I cant seem to properly override in the implementation..

[elect]

If I try:

object V2 : Action {
    operator fun invoke(block: Builder.() -> Unit) {..}
    class Builder

I get on object V2

Object 'V2' is not abstract and does not implement abstract member public abstract operator fun <T> invoke(block: T.() → Unit): Unit defined in kyge.Action

while on the function itself:

Accidental override: The following declarations have the same JVM signature (invoke(Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function1;)V):

public abstract fun <T> invoke(block: T.() → Unit): Unit defined in kyge.actions.checkout.V2

public final operator fun invoke(block: checkout.V2.Builder.() → Unit): Unit defined in kyge.actions.checkout.V2

Ps: it isn't an extension function anymore

[elect]

ah nice

[elect]

thanks

[elect]

one thing though, I'm trying to move the invoke function inside the Action interface, but I don't know how I can call block from that..
I'm thinking what the best design could be

[elect]

maybe adding a val t: T in the interface?

[elect]

I'm writing a DSL helper to generate github action yaml files.
The i-th action, such as uploadArtifact, should just declare the builder
Then the implemented Action<T> interface would initialize the yaml writing