I am a newbie for Scala and now am trying to complete an exercise. How can I return an InvalidCartException while the function return type is Try[Price]
//Success: return the calculated price
//Failure: InvalidCartException
def calculateCartPrice(cart:Cart): Try[Price] = {
if(isCartValid(cart)) {
//Calculations happen here
return Try(Price(totalPrice));
}
}
def isCartValid(cart: Cart): Boolean = {
//THIS WORKS FINE
}
Thank you for the help
If you mean "how to make the Try contain an exception", then use the Failure() like below:
def calculateCartPrice(cart:Cart): Try[Price] = {
if(isCartValid(cart)) {
//Calculations happen here
Success(Price(totalPrice));
} else {
Failure(new InvalidCartException())
}
}
Then, given a Try you can use getOrElse to get the value of success or throw the exception.
Try will catch the exception for you, so put the code that can throw the exception in there. For example
def divideOneBy(x: Int): Try[Int] = Try { 1 / x}
divideOneBy(0) // Failure(java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero)
If what you have is a Try and you want to throw the exception when you have a Failure, then you can use pattern matching to do that:
val result = divideByOne(0)
result match {
case Failure(exception) => throw exception
case Success(_) => // What happens here?
}
The Neophyte's Guide to Scala has lots of useful information for people new to Scala (I found it invaluable when I was learning).
Related
so I have a method which already has a try block that throws ExceptionA. Now I need to put another try block where this method is being called and needs to throw an exception with some added details. Something like this:
method inner():
try{
//some logic
} catch {
throw new ExceptionA("exceptionA occurred")
}
method outer():
identifier = fromSomeDBCallPrivateToOuter()
try{
inner()
} catch {
// now either
// throw new Exception("Error with identifier" + identifier)
// or
// append identifier to thrown error from inner()
}
Can someone please provide any insight or suggestion on how to do this in Scala? Thanks in advance!
What you have in your snippet would work as written (if you correct the syntax), with a caveat, that exceptions are immutable (and even they weren't, it's still not a good idea to mutate them), so, instead of "appending" to exception, you'd need to create a new one, and set the original as cause.
It is more idiomatic in scala though to use Try monad instead of the "procedural" try/catch blocks. Something like this:
case class ExceptionB(id: String, original: ExceptionA)
extends Exception(s"Badness happened with id $id", original)
def outer(): Try[ReturnType] =
val id = getId()
Try {
inner
} recover {
case e: ExceptionA if iWannaNewException => throw new Exception(s"Id: id")
case e: ExceptionA => throw ExceptionB(id, e)
}
You can also use Either structure. This structure can return Right(value) if function completes without error or Left(message) containing information about error. You can adapt your code like below one:
def inner(): Either[String, Int] = {
if (checkSomeStuff()) Left("Cannot assigne identifier")
else Right(doSomeStuff())
}
def outer(): Either[String, Int] = {
inner() match {
case Left(error) => {
println("There is an error: " + error)
// you can also throw new Exception(s"Some info about $error") here
}
case Right(identifier) => {
println("Identifier : " + identifier)
doSomeStuffWithId() // do some staff for id
}
}
}
If you want to use Exceptions you need to choose who will handle the error case (in the inner or in the outer function).
The Scala Try construct together with its flatMap does not work as I would expect or want it to. The TL;DR is that I want to do a series of operations that can fail in two ways: either by raising an exception, which should be promoted and caught higher up in the call stack, or by returning Failure, as the failure must logically be handled in different parts of the program.
I would expect something like this to do the trick:
def firstStepSucceeds(): Try[Int] = Try {
1
}
def secondStepThrows(input: Int) = {
throw new Exception("Exception thrown in second step")
}
// I expect this to propagate the exception thrown in secondStepThrows
firstStepSucceeds() flatMap (secondStepThrows _)
(Full Scastie with example)
However, in this case, the flatMap() call actually implicitly catches the uncaught exception thrown by secondStepThrows, which is not what I want (which is why I left out the Try block). Is there a way to get the same behaviour without the implicit exception-catching?
What happens in a Try should stay in a Try. Most Scala programmers would be very surprised if a function returning a Try also sometimes threw an exception.
The typical pattern if you want to handle exceptions in different places is to differentiate by the type of the exception. So
val partiallyRecoveredTry = originalTry.recover{
case _: SecondStepException => "second step had an exception"
}
// Further up the call stack
partiallyRecoveredTry.getOrElse("first step had an exception")
Try.flatMap() did not caught exceptions implicitely, it is the essence of Try.
When you use it, it is very explicit, and that's the goal.
I don't really understand what you want, but is something like that is possible for you ?
try {
val first = firstStepSucceeds()
val second = first.map(secondStepThrows).get
val third = secondStepFails(second)
// ...
}
catch {
case e: Exception => ???
}
I did some further experimentation, and what I ended up with was this reimplementation of Try as (the now right-biased and hence monadic) Either:
object CatchAll {
def apply[SomeType](block: => SomeType) = try { Right(block) }
catch { case e: Throwable => Left(e) }
}
def firstStepSucceeds() = CatchAll {
1
}
def firstStepFails() = CatchAll {
throw new Exception("First step failed")
}
def secondStepSucceeds(input: Int) = CatchAll {
input + 1
}
def secondStepFails(input: Int) = CatchAll {
throw new Exception("Second step failed in try block!")
}
def secondStepThrows(input: Int) = {
throw new Exception("Second step failed unexpectedly!")
}
firstStepSucceeds() flatMap (secondStepSucceeds _)
firstStepFails() flatMap (secondStepSucceeds _)
firstStepSucceeds() flatMap (secondStepFails _)
// This now throws an exception as expected
//firstStepSucceeds() flatMap (secondStepThrows _)
In the code below I have two Play for Scala functions, the first one catches an exception (this works fine) and in the second one I'm trying to rewrite it using Try.
I have two problems with Try: (1) when the number is negative the method doesn't fail, (2) I need to wrap all the responses with Future.successful.
How to fix this code?
class Test extends Controller {
def test1 = Action.async { request =>
val future = isPositive(-1)
future.map { result =>
Ok("OK, it's positive")
}
.recover {
case e => Ok(e.getMessage)
}
}
def isPositive(i: Int) = Future {
if (i<0)
throw new Exception ( "Number is negative" )
else
i
}
def test2 = Action.async { request =>
isPositiveWithTry(-1) match {
case Success(s) => Future.successful(Ok("OK, it's positive (Try succeded)"))
case Failure(f) => Future.successful(Ok(f.getMessage + " (Try failed)"))
}
}
def isPositiveWithTry(i: Int) : Try[Future[Int]] = Try {
isPositive(i)
}
}
In isPositive method exceptions are already caught by Future
def isPositive(i: Int) = Future {
if (i<0)
throw new Exception ( "Number is negative" )
else
i
}
In the below code
def isPositiveWithTry(i: Int) : Try[Future[Int]] = Try {
isPositive(i)
}
isPositive already catches all expections and Try is always a success.
So, when i is negative. Exception raised are handled by future and try gets a success value, resultant Try is a success. So you get successful Try with a failed Future inside.
Understanding using Grenade example
Assume throwing the exception as blowing up a Grenade.
Assume Future and Try as two layers. When grenade is blasted inside the double layer of Try[Future] i.e Try is around Future and grenade is gone off in the Future.
Now Future withstands the blast and becomes a failed value. As Future already took the damage caused by the damage of exception(grenade). Try will be a success but the value inside the Try is a failed future value. That failed future value is nothing but the exception raised.
Try is redundant when you are using Future
You can refactor your code to below one
Get rid of isPositiveWithTry. This method is not needed.
def isPositive(i: Int) = Future {
if (i<0)
throw new Exception ( "Number is negative" )
else
i
}
def test2 = Action.async { request =>
isPositive(-1).flatMap { _ =>
Future.successful(Ok("OK, it's positive (Try succeded)"))
}.recoverWith {
case f: Throwable => Future.successful(Ok(f.getMessage + " (Try failed)"))
}
}
Again test2 can also be written as
def test2 = Action.async { request =>
isPositive(-1).map { _ =>
Ok("OK, it's positive (Try succeded)")
}.recover {
case f: Throwable => Ok(f.getMessage + " (Try failed)")
}
}
In case isPositive returns Try
def isPositive(i: Int) = Try {
if (i<0)
throw new Exception ( "Number is negative" )
else
i
}
Now test2 will look like
def test2 = Action.async { request =>
isPositive(-1) match {
case Success(s) => Future.successful(Ok("OK, it's positive (Try succeded)"))
case Failure(f) => Future.successful(Ok(f.getMessage + " (Try failed)"))
}
}
Couple points:
1) You need to rewrite your isPositive such that it does not surround itself via a Future. The Future is catching the exception.
def isPositive(i: Int) ={
if (i<0)
throw new Exception ( "Number is negative" )
else
i
}
2) If you have a Try and you want a Future, then you can use the method on the companion object of Future, Future.fromTry. That will take a Try and turn it into the correct state of a Future.
Is there a better way to ensure resources are properly released - a better way to write the following code ?
val out: Option[FileOutputStream] = try {
Option(new FileOutputStream(path))
} catch {
case _ => None
}
if (out.isDefined) {
try {
Iterator.continually(in.read).takeWhile(-1 != _).foreach(out.get.write)
} catch {
case e => println(e.getMessage)
} finally {
in.close
out.get.flush()
out.get.close()
}
}
Something like that is a good idea, but I'd make it a method:
def cleanly[A,B](resource: => A)(cleanup: A => Unit)(code: A => B): Option[B] = {
try {
val r = resource
try { Some(code(r)) }
finally { cleanup(r) }
} catch {
case e: Exception => None
}
}
(note that we only catch once; if you really want a message printed in one case and not the other, then you do have to catch both like you did). (Also note that I only catch exceptions; catching Error also is usually unwise, since it's almost impossible to recover from.) The method is used like so:
cleanly(new FileOutputStream(path))(_.close){ fos =>
Iterator.continually(in.read).takeWhile(_ != -1).foreach(fos.write)
}
Since it returns a value, you'll get a Some(()) if it succeeded here (which you can ignore).
Edit: to make it more general, I'd really have it return an Either instead, so you get the exception. Like so:
def cleanly[A,B](resource: => A)(cleanup: A => Unit)(code: A => B): Either[Exception,B] = {
try {
val r = resource
try { Right(code(r)) } finally { cleanup(r) }
}
catch { case e: Exception => Left(e) }
}
Now if you get a Right, all went okay. If you get a Left, you can pick out your exception. If you don't care about the exception, you can use .right.toOption to map it into an option, or just use .right.map or whatever to operate on the correct result only if it is there (just like with Option). (Pattern matching is a useful way to deal with Eithers.)
Have a look at Scala-ARM
This project aims to be the Scala Incubator project for Automatic-Resource-Management in the scala library ...
... The Scala ARM library allows users to ensure opening closing of resources within blocks of code using the "managed" method. The "managed" method essentially takes an argument of "anything that has a close or dispose method" and constructs a new ManagedResource object.
Alternatively you can do this with Choppy's Lazy TryClose monad.
val output = for {
fin <- TryClose(in)
fout <- TryClose.wrapWithCloser(new FileOutputStream(path))(out => {out.flush(); out.close();})
} yield wrap(Iterator.continually(fin.read).takeWhile(-1 != _).foreach(fout.get.write))
// Then execute it like this:
output.resolve
More info here: https://github.com/choppythelumberjack/tryclose
(just be sure to import tryclose._ and tryclose.JavaImplicits._)
I've been working up my answer to Is there a standard Scala function for running a block with a timeout?, and have run into a problem if an exception is thrown in a Future.
def runWithTimeout[T](timeoutMs: Long)(f: => T) : Option[T] = {
awaitAll(timeoutMs, future(f)).head.asInstanceOf[Option[T]]
}
So that
runWithTimeout(50) { "result" } should equal (Some("result"))
runWithTimeout(50) { Thread.sleep(100); "result" } should equal (None)
But if I throw an exception in my block it doesn't leak, but is swallowed - so that the following fails with "..no exception was thrown"
intercept[Exception] {
runWithTimeout(50) { throw new Exception("deliberate") }
}.getMessage should equal("deliberate")
Syserr has a stack trace with the message
<function0>: caught java.lang.Exception: deliberate
but I can't find where in the Scala runtime that is printed.
Apart from wrapping f in another block which catches exceptions and propagates them if thrown, is there any way to persuade awaitAll and/or Future to throw?
Short answer: no.
Exceptions don't do what you want when you're working in a threaded context, because you want to know about the exception in the caller, and the exception happens in the future's thread.
Instead, if you want to know what the exception was, you should return an Either[Exception,WhatYouWant]--of course, you have to catch that exception within the future and package it up.
scala> scala.actors.Futures.future{
try { Right("fail".toInt) } catch { case e: Exception => Left(e) }
}
res0: scala.actors.Future[Product with Serializable with Either[Exception,Int]] = <function0>
scala> res0() // Apply the future
res1: Product with Serializable with Either[Exception,Int] =
Left(java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "fail")
Disclaimer: I work for Typesafe
Or.... you could use Akka and it would give you what you want without you having to go through hoops for it.
val f: Future[Int] = actor !!! message
Then
f.get
Will throw the exception that happened in the actor
f.await.exception
will give you an Option[Throwable]
Working my way through #Rex Kerr's suggestion, I've created
object Timeout {
val timeoutException = new TimeoutException
def runWithTimeout[T](timeoutMs: Long)(f: => T) : Either[Throwable, T] = {
runWithTimeoutIgnoreExceptions(timeoutMs)(exceptionOrResult(f)) match {
case Some(x) => x
case None => Left(timeoutException)
}
}
def runWithTimeout[T](timeoutMs: Long, default: T)(f: => T) : Either[Throwable, T] = {
val defaultAsEither: Either[Throwable, T] = Right(default)
runWithTimeoutIgnoreExceptions(timeoutMs, defaultAsEither)(exceptionOrResult(f))
}
def runWithTimeoutIgnoreExceptions[T](timeoutMs: Long)(f: => T) : Option[T] = {
awaitAll(timeoutMs, future(f)).head.asInstanceOf[Option[T]]
}
def runWithTimeoutIgnoreExceptions[T](timeoutMs: Long, default: T)(f: => T) : T = {
runWithTimeoutIgnoreExceptions(timeoutMs)(f).getOrElse(default)
}
private def exceptionOrResult[T](f: => T): Either[Throwable, T] =
try {
Right(f)
} catch {
case x => Left(x)
}
}
so that
#Test def test_exception {
runWithTimeout(50) { "result" }.right.get should be ("result")
runWithTimeout(50) { throw new Exception("deliberate") }.left.get.getMessage should be ("deliberate")
runWithTimeout(50) { Thread.sleep(100); "result" }.left.get should be (Timeout.timeoutException)
runWithTimeout(50, "no result") { "result" }.right.get should be ("result")
runWithTimeout(50, "no result") { throw new Exception("deliberate") }.left.get.getMessage should be ("deliberate")
runWithTimeout(50, "no result") { Thread.sleep(100); "result" }.right.get should be ("no result")
}
Again, I'm a bit of a Scala novice, so would welcome feedback.
scala.concurrent.ops.future includes exception handling.
So, instead of importing scala.actors.Futures.future, import scala.concurrent.ops.future instead.
That simple change in which import is there will cause the caller's call to .get to rethrow the exception. It works great!
Or use Future.liftTryTry, turns it from Future[Object] to Future[Try[Object]], and you can match on the Try[Object] and check for an exception case Throw(e) and log / exit gracefully
You need to override the method exceptionHandler in order to catch exceptions. So your option is to define your own future method so it creates a MyFutureActor with exceptionHandler.
EDIT: FutureActor is private, so subclassing it isn't possible.
Another option is to use links to know when exceptions happened.
However, I think Rex Kerr's approach is better - just wrap the function in something that will catch the Exception. Too bad future doesn't already do that.