How to convert scala code block to string? - scala

I need to implement a testing function which checks compile-time error information for the "splain" plugin, part of this function needs to convert a codeblock into a string, e.g.:
def convert(fn: => Unit): String
// for testing
val code = convert {
object I extends Seq {}
}
assert(code == "object I extends Seq {}")
Is this possible using standard scala features? Thanks a lot for your advice.
This function will enable verifications of compile-time messages of complex code that needs to be indexed and refactored by IDE often

Yes, it's possible.
Li Haoyi's macro Text from sourcecode
def text[T: c.WeakTypeTag](c: Compat.Context)(v: c.Expr[T]): c.Expr[sourcecode.Text[T]] = {
import c.universe._
val fileContent = new String(v.tree.pos.source.content)
val start = v.tree.collect {
case treeVal => treeVal.pos match {
case NoPosition ⇒ Int.MaxValue
case p ⇒ p.startOrPoint
}
}.min
val g = c.asInstanceOf[reflect.macros.runtime.Context].global
val parser = g.newUnitParser(fileContent.drop(start))
parser.expr()
val end = parser.in.lastOffset
val txt = fileContent.slice(start, start + end)
val tree = q"""${c.prefix}(${v.tree}, $txt)"""
c.Expr[sourcecode.Text[T]](tree)
}
does almost what you want:
def convert[A](fn: => Text[A]): String = fn.source
convert(10 + 20 +
30
)
//10 + 20 +
// 30
Unfortunately,
if you have multiple statements in a {} block, sourcecode.Text will only capture the source code for the last expression that gets returned.
And since { object I extends Seq {} } is actually { object I extends Seq {}; () } the macro will not work in this case.
So let's write our own simple macro
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.blackbox
def convert(fn: => Any): String = macro convertImpl
def convertImpl(c: blackbox.Context)(fn: c.Tree): c.Tree = {
import c.universe._
val pos = fn.pos
val res = new String(pos.source.content).slice(pos.start, pos.end)
Literal(Constant(res))
}
Usage:
trait Seq
convert {
val i: Int = 1
object I extends Seq {}
10 + 20 + 30
convert(1)
}
//{
// val i: Int = 1
// object I extends Seq {}
// 10 + 20 + 30
// convert(1)
// }
Notice that arguments of def macros are typechecked before macro expansion (so convert { val i: Int = "a" }, convert { object I extends XXX } without defined XXX, convert { (; } etc. will not compile).

Related

Scalacheck Shrink

I am fairly new to ScalaCheck (and Scala entirely) so this may be a fairly simple solution
I am using ScalaCheck to generate tests for an AST and verifying that the writer/parser work. I have these files
AST.scala
package com.test
object Operator extends Enumeration {
val Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide = Value
}
sealed trait AST
case class Operation(left: AST, op: Operator.Value, right: AST) extends AST
case class Literal(value: Int) extends AST
GenOperation.scala
import com.test.{AST, Literal}
import org.scalacheck._
import Shrink._
import Prop._
import Arbitrary.arbitrary
object GenLiteral extends Properties("AST::Literal") {
property("Verify parse/write") = forAll(genLiteral){ (node) =>
// val string_version = node.writeToString() // AST -> String
// val result = Parse(string_version) // String -> AST
true
}
def genLiteral: Gen[Literal] = for {
value <- arbitrary[Int]
} yield Literal(value)
implicit def shrinkLiteral: Shrink[AST] = Shrink {
case Literal(value) =>
for {
reduced <- shrink(value)
} yield Literal(reduced)
}
}
GenOperation.scala
import com.test.{AST, Operation}
import org.scalacheck._
import Gen._
import Shrink._
import Prop._
import GenLiteral._
object GenOperation extends Properties("AST::Operation") {
property("Verify parse/write") = forAll(genOperation){ (node) =>
// val string_version = node.writeToString() // AST -> String
// val result = Parse(string_version) // String -> AST
true
}
def genOperation: Gen[Operation] = for {
left <- oneOf(genOperation, genLiteral)
right <- oneOf(genOperation, genLiteral)
op <- oneOf(Operator.values.toSeq)
} yield Operation(left,op,right)
implicit def shrinkOperation: Shrink[AST] = Shrink {
case Operation(l,o,r) =>
(
for {
ls <- shrink(l)
rs <- shrink(r)
} yield Operation(ls, o, rs)
) append (
for {
ls <- shrink(l)
} yield Operation(ls, o, r)
) append (
for {
rs <- shrink(r)
} yield Operation(l, o, rs)
) append shrink(l) append shrink(r)
}
}
In the example code I wrote (what is pasted above) I get the error
ambiguous implicit values:
both method shrinkLiteral in object GenLiteral of type => org.scalacheck.Shrink[com.test.AST]
and method shrinkOperation in object GenOperation of type => org.scalacheck.Shrink[com.test.AST]
match expected type org.scalacheck.Shrink[com.test.AST]
ls <- shrink(l)
How do I write the shrink methods for this?
You have two implicit instances of Shrink[AST] and so the compiler complains about ambiguous implicit values.
You could re-write your code as:
implicit def shrinkLiteral: Shrink[Literal] = Shrink {
case Literal(value) => shrink(value).map(Literal)
}
implicit def shrinkOperation: Shrink[Operation] = Shrink {
case Operation(l,o,r) =>
shrink(l).map(Operation(_, o, r)) append
shrink(r).map(Operation(l, o, _)) append ???
}
implicit def shrinkAST: Shrink[AST] = Shrink {
case o: Operation => shrink(o)
case l: Literal => shrink(l)
}

scala proxy macro, issue converting method args to values

I am trying to write a proxy macro using scala macros. I want to be able to proxy a trait X and return instances of X that invoke a function for all methods of X.
Here is what I did so far. Say we want to proxy the trait TheTrait (which is defined below), we can run ProxyMacro.proxy passing a function that will be called for all invocations of the proxy methods.
trait TheTrait
{
def myMethod(x: String)(y: Int): String
}
val proxy = ProxyMacro.proxy[TheTrait] {
case ("myMethod", args) =>
"ok"
}
println(proxy.myMethod("hello")(5))
The implementation so far is this:
package macrotests
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.whitebox.Context
object ProxyMacro
{
type Implementor = (String, Any) => Any
def proxy[T](implementor: Implementor): T = macro impl[T]
def impl[T: c.WeakTypeTag](c: Context)(implementor: c.Expr[Implementor]): c.Expr[T] = {
import c.universe._
val tpe = weakTypeOf[T]
val decls = tpe.decls.map { decl =>
val termName = decl.name.toTermName
val method = decl.asMethod
val params = method.paramLists.map(_.map(s => internal.valDef(s)))
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
internal.captureVariable(s)
internal.referenceCapturedVariable(s)
})
q""" def $termName (...$params) = {
$implementor (${termName.toString}, List(..${paramVars}) ).asInstanceOf[${method.returnType}]
}"""
}
c.Expr[T] {
q"""
new $tpe {
..$decls
}
"""
}
}
}
But there is a problem. This doesn't compile due to List(..${paramVars}). This should just create a list with all the values of the method arguments.
But I get a compilation issue (not worth pasting it) on that line.
How can I convert the list of method arguments to their values?
showInfo is useful when you debug macro
def showInfo(s: String) =
c.info(c.enclosingPosition, s.split("\n").mkString("\n |---macro info---\n |", "\n |", ""), true)
change
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
internal.captureVariable(s)
internal.referenceCapturedVariable(s)
})(this result is List(x0$1, x1$1))
to
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
s.name
})(this result is List(x, y))

Scala Functional "no-op" syntax [duplicate]

When programming in java, I always log input parameter and return value of a method, but in scala, the last line of a method is the return value. so I have to do something like:
def myFunc() = {
val rs = calcSomeResult()
logger.info("result is:" + rs)
rs
}
in order to make it easy, I write a utility:
class LogUtil(val f: (String) => Unit) {
def logWithValue[T](msg: String, value: T): T = { f(msg); value }
}
object LogUtil {
def withValue[T](f: String => Unit): ((String, T) => T) = new LogUtil(f).logWithValue _
}
Then I used it as:
val rs = calcSomeResult()
withValue(logger.info)("result is:" + rs, rs)
it will log the value and return it. it works for me,but seems wierd. as I am a old java programmer, but new to scala, I don't know whether there is a more idiomatic way to do this in scala.
thanks for your help, now I create a better util using Kestrel combinator metioned by romusz
object LogUtil {
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
def logV[A](f: String => Unit)(s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x) { y => f(s + ": " + y)}
}
I add f parameter so that I can pass it a logger from slf4j, and the test case is:
class LogUtilSpec extends FlatSpec with ShouldMatchers {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass())
import LogUtil._
"LogUtil" should "print log info and keep the value, and the calc for value should only be called once" in {
def calcValue = { println("calcValue"); 100 } // to confirm it's called only once
val v = logV(logger.info)("result is", calcValue)
v should be === 100
}
}
What you're looking for is called Kestrel combinator (K combinator): Kxy = x. You can do all kinds of side-effect operations (not only logging) while returning the value passed to it. Read https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-10-29/kestrel.markdown#readme
In Scala the simplest way to implement it is:
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
Then you can define your printing/logging function as:
def logging[A](x: A) = kestrel(x)(println)
def logging[A](s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x){ y => println(s + ": " + y) }
And use it like:
logging(1 + 2) + logging(3 + 4)
your example function becomes a one-liner:
def myFunc() = logging("result is", calcSomeResult())
If you prefer OO notation you can use implicits as shown in other answers, but the problem with such approach is that you'll create a new object every time you want to log something, which may cause performance degradation if you do it often enough. But for completeness, it looks like this:
implicit def anyToLogging[A](a: A) = new {
def log = logging(a)
def log(msg: String) = logging(msg, a)
}
Use it like:
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().log("result is")
You have the basic idea right--you just need to tidy it up a little bit to make it maximally convenient.
class GenericLogger[A](a: A) {
def log(logger: String => Unit)(str: A => String): A = { logger(str(a)); a }
}
implicit def anything_can_log[A](a: A) = new GenericLogger(a)
Now you can
scala> (47+92).log(println)("The answer is " + _)
The answer is 139
res0: Int = 139
This way you don't need to repeat yourself (e.g. no rs twice).
If you like a more generic approach better, you could define
implicit def idToSideEffect[A](a: A) = new {
def withSideEffect(fun: A => Unit): A = { fun(a); a }
def |!>(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // forward pipe-like
def tap(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // public demand & ruby standard
}
and use it like
calcSomeResult() |!> { rs => logger.info("result is:" + rs) }
calcSomeResult() tap println
Starting Scala 2.13, the chaining operation tap can be used to apply a side effect (in this case some logging) on any value while returning the original value:
def tap[U](f: (A) => U): A
For instance:
scala> val a = 42.tap(println)
42
a: Int = 42
or in our case:
import scala.util.chaining._
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().tap(x => logger.info(s"result is: $x"))
Let's say you already have a base class for all you loggers:
abstract class Logger {
def info(msg:String):Unit
}
Then you could extend String with the ## logging method:
object ExpressionLog {
// default logger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
def info(s:String) {println(s)}
}
// adding ## method to all String objects
implicit def stringToLog (msg: String) (implicit logger: Logger) = new {
def ## [T] (exp: T) = {
logger.info(msg + " = " + exp)
exp
}
}
}
To use the logging you'd have to import members of ExpressionLog object and then you could easily log expressions using the following notation:
import ExpressionLog._
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = "sum result" ## (a+b)
val c = sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will print:
a = 1
b = 2
sum result = 3
This works because every time when you call a ## method on a String compiler realises that String doesn't have the method and silently converts it into an object with anonymous type that has the ## method defined (see stringToLog). As part of the conversion compiler picks the desired logger as an implicit parameter, this way you don't have to keep passing on the logger to the ## every time yet you retain full control over which logger needs to be used every time.
As far as precedence goes when ## method is used in infix notation it has the highest priority making it easier to reason about what will be logged.
So what if you wanted to use a different logger in one of your methods? This is very simple:
import ExpressionLog.{logger=>_,_} // import everything but default logger
// define specific local logger
// this can be as simple as: implicit val logger = new MyLogger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
var lineno = 1
def info(s:String) {
println("%03d".format(lineno) + ": " + s)
lineno+=1
}
}
// start logging
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = a+b
val c = "sum result" ## sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will output:
001: a = 1
002: b = 2
003: sum result = 3
Compiling all the answers, pros and cons, I came up with this (context is a Play application):
import play.api.LoggerLike
object LogUtils {
implicit class LogAny2[T](val value : T) extends AnyVal {
def ##(str : String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(str);
value
}
def ##(f : T => String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(f(value))
value
}
}
As you can see, LogAny is an AnyVal so there shouldn't be any overhead of new object creation.
You can use it like this:
scala> import utils.LogUtils._
scala> val a = 5
scala> val b = 7
scala> implicit val logger = play.api.Logger
scala> val c = a + b ## { c => s"result of $a + $b = $c" }
c: Int = 12
Or if you don't need a reference to the result, just use:
scala> val c = a + b ## "Finished this very complex calculation"
c: Int = 12
Any downsides to this implementation?
Edit:
I've made this available with some improvements in a gist here

avoid explicit cast at scala's dynamic types

I add variables with Dynamic from scala 2.10.0-RC1 like this:
import language.dynamics
import scala.collection.mutable.HashMap
object Main extends Dynamic {
private val map = new HashMap[String, Any]
def selectDynamic(name: String): Any = {return map(name)}
def updateDynamic(name:String)(value: Any) = {map(name) = value}
}
val fig = new Figure(...) // has a method number
Main.figname = fig
Now, if I want to access Main.figname.number it doesn't work, because the compiler thinks it's of type Any.
But it's also Main.figname.isInstanceOf[Figure] == true, so it's Any and Figure, but doesn't have Figures abilities. Now I can cast it like, Main.figname.asInstanceOf[Figure].number and it works! This is ugly! And I can't present this to my domain users (I'd like to build a internal DSL.)
Note: If I use instead of Any the supertype of Figure it doesn't work either.
Is this a bug in scala 2.10, or a feature?
It is quite logical. You are explicitly returning instances of Any. A workaround would be to have instances of Dynamic all along:
import language.dynamics
import scala.collection.mutable.HashMap
import scala.reflect.ClassTag
trait DynamicBase extends Dynamic {
def as[T:ClassTag]: T
def selectDynamic[T](name: String): DynamicBase
def updateDynamic(name:String)(value: Any)
}
class ReflectionDynamic( val self: Any ) extends DynamicBase with Proxy {
def as[T:ClassTag]: T = { implicitly[ClassTag[T]].runtimeClass.asInstanceOf[Class[T]].cast( self ) }
// TODO: cache method lookup for faster access + handle NoSuchMethodError
def selectDynamic[T](name: String): DynamicBase = {
val ref = self.asInstanceOf[AnyRef]
val clazz = ref.getClass
clazz.getMethod(name).invoke( ref ) match {
case dyn: DynamicBase => dyn
case res => new ReflectionDynamic( res )
}
}
def updateDynamic( name: String )( value: Any ) = {
val ref = self.asInstanceOf[AnyRef]
val clazz = ref.getClass
// FIXME: check parameter type, and handle overloads
clazz.getMethods.find(_.getName == name+"_=").foreach{ meth =>
meth.invoke( ref, value.asInstanceOf[AnyRef] )
}
}
}
object Main extends DynamicBase {
def as[T:ClassTag]: T = { implicitly[ClassTag[T]].runtimeClass.asInstanceOf[Class[T]].cast( this ) }
private val map = new HashMap[String, DynamicBase]
def selectDynamic[T](name: String): DynamicBase = { map(name) }
def updateDynamic(name:String)(value: Any) = {
val dyn = value match {
case dyn: DynamicBase => dyn
case _ => new ReflectionDynamic( value )
}
map(name) = dyn
}
}
Usage:
scala> class Figure {
| val bla: String = "BLA"
| }
defined class Figure
scala> val fig = new Figure() // has a method number
fig: Figure = Figure#6d1fa2
scala> Main.figname = fig
Main.figname: DynamicBase = Figure#6d1fa2
scala> Main.figname.bla
res40: DynamicBase = BLA
All instances are wrapped in a Dynamic instance.
We can recover the actual type using the as method which performs a dynamic cast.
scala> val myString: String = Main.figname.bla.as[String]
myString: String = BLA
You can add any extensions or custom functionalities to Any or any predefined value classes. You can define an implicit value class like this:
implicit class CustomAny(val self: Any) extends AnyVal {
def as[T] = self.asInstanceOf[T]
}
Usage:
scala> class Figure {
| val xyz = "xyz"
| }
defined class Figure
scala> val fig = new Figure()
fig: Figure = Figure#73dce0e6
scala> Main.figname = fig
Main.figname: Any = Figure#73dce0e6
scala> Main.figname.as[Figure].xyz
res8: String = xyz
The implicit value class is not costly like like regular class. It will be optimised in compile time and it will be equivalent to a method call on a static object, rather than a method call on a newly instantiated object.
You can find more info on implicit value class here.

how to keep return value when logging in scala

When programming in java, I always log input parameter and return value of a method, but in scala, the last line of a method is the return value. so I have to do something like:
def myFunc() = {
val rs = calcSomeResult()
logger.info("result is:" + rs)
rs
}
in order to make it easy, I write a utility:
class LogUtil(val f: (String) => Unit) {
def logWithValue[T](msg: String, value: T): T = { f(msg); value }
}
object LogUtil {
def withValue[T](f: String => Unit): ((String, T) => T) = new LogUtil(f).logWithValue _
}
Then I used it as:
val rs = calcSomeResult()
withValue(logger.info)("result is:" + rs, rs)
it will log the value and return it. it works for me,but seems wierd. as I am a old java programmer, but new to scala, I don't know whether there is a more idiomatic way to do this in scala.
thanks for your help, now I create a better util using Kestrel combinator metioned by romusz
object LogUtil {
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
def logV[A](f: String => Unit)(s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x) { y => f(s + ": " + y)}
}
I add f parameter so that I can pass it a logger from slf4j, and the test case is:
class LogUtilSpec extends FlatSpec with ShouldMatchers {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass())
import LogUtil._
"LogUtil" should "print log info and keep the value, and the calc for value should only be called once" in {
def calcValue = { println("calcValue"); 100 } // to confirm it's called only once
val v = logV(logger.info)("result is", calcValue)
v should be === 100
}
}
What you're looking for is called Kestrel combinator (K combinator): Kxy = x. You can do all kinds of side-effect operations (not only logging) while returning the value passed to it. Read https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-10-29/kestrel.markdown#readme
In Scala the simplest way to implement it is:
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
Then you can define your printing/logging function as:
def logging[A](x: A) = kestrel(x)(println)
def logging[A](s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x){ y => println(s + ": " + y) }
And use it like:
logging(1 + 2) + logging(3 + 4)
your example function becomes a one-liner:
def myFunc() = logging("result is", calcSomeResult())
If you prefer OO notation you can use implicits as shown in other answers, but the problem with such approach is that you'll create a new object every time you want to log something, which may cause performance degradation if you do it often enough. But for completeness, it looks like this:
implicit def anyToLogging[A](a: A) = new {
def log = logging(a)
def log(msg: String) = logging(msg, a)
}
Use it like:
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().log("result is")
You have the basic idea right--you just need to tidy it up a little bit to make it maximally convenient.
class GenericLogger[A](a: A) {
def log(logger: String => Unit)(str: A => String): A = { logger(str(a)); a }
}
implicit def anything_can_log[A](a: A) = new GenericLogger(a)
Now you can
scala> (47+92).log(println)("The answer is " + _)
The answer is 139
res0: Int = 139
This way you don't need to repeat yourself (e.g. no rs twice).
If you like a more generic approach better, you could define
implicit def idToSideEffect[A](a: A) = new {
def withSideEffect(fun: A => Unit): A = { fun(a); a }
def |!>(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // forward pipe-like
def tap(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // public demand & ruby standard
}
and use it like
calcSomeResult() |!> { rs => logger.info("result is:" + rs) }
calcSomeResult() tap println
Starting Scala 2.13, the chaining operation tap can be used to apply a side effect (in this case some logging) on any value while returning the original value:
def tap[U](f: (A) => U): A
For instance:
scala> val a = 42.tap(println)
42
a: Int = 42
or in our case:
import scala.util.chaining._
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().tap(x => logger.info(s"result is: $x"))
Let's say you already have a base class for all you loggers:
abstract class Logger {
def info(msg:String):Unit
}
Then you could extend String with the ## logging method:
object ExpressionLog {
// default logger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
def info(s:String) {println(s)}
}
// adding ## method to all String objects
implicit def stringToLog (msg: String) (implicit logger: Logger) = new {
def ## [T] (exp: T) = {
logger.info(msg + " = " + exp)
exp
}
}
}
To use the logging you'd have to import members of ExpressionLog object and then you could easily log expressions using the following notation:
import ExpressionLog._
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = "sum result" ## (a+b)
val c = sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will print:
a = 1
b = 2
sum result = 3
This works because every time when you call a ## method on a String compiler realises that String doesn't have the method and silently converts it into an object with anonymous type that has the ## method defined (see stringToLog). As part of the conversion compiler picks the desired logger as an implicit parameter, this way you don't have to keep passing on the logger to the ## every time yet you retain full control over which logger needs to be used every time.
As far as precedence goes when ## method is used in infix notation it has the highest priority making it easier to reason about what will be logged.
So what if you wanted to use a different logger in one of your methods? This is very simple:
import ExpressionLog.{logger=>_,_} // import everything but default logger
// define specific local logger
// this can be as simple as: implicit val logger = new MyLogger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
var lineno = 1
def info(s:String) {
println("%03d".format(lineno) + ": " + s)
lineno+=1
}
}
// start logging
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = a+b
val c = "sum result" ## sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will output:
001: a = 1
002: b = 2
003: sum result = 3
Compiling all the answers, pros and cons, I came up with this (context is a Play application):
import play.api.LoggerLike
object LogUtils {
implicit class LogAny2[T](val value : T) extends AnyVal {
def ##(str : String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(str);
value
}
def ##(f : T => String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(f(value))
value
}
}
As you can see, LogAny is an AnyVal so there shouldn't be any overhead of new object creation.
You can use it like this:
scala> import utils.LogUtils._
scala> val a = 5
scala> val b = 7
scala> implicit val logger = play.api.Logger
scala> val c = a + b ## { c => s"result of $a + $b = $c" }
c: Int = 12
Or if you don't need a reference to the result, just use:
scala> val c = a + b ## "Finished this very complex calculation"
c: Int = 12
Any downsides to this implementation?
Edit:
I've made this available with some improvements in a gist here