How to Monadic Logging in Scala - scala

I often want to log or to print something without changing it.
It looks like this:
val result = myResult // this could be an Option or a Future
.map{r =>
info(s"the result is $r")
r
}
These three lines are always the same.
In a for comprehension, this can be done a bit nicer.
But I look for a solution for the first declarative version. It should look like:
val result = myResult
.log(info(s"the result is ${_}"))
This one-liner could be put in every place in the chain where there could be a map, like:
val result = myResult
.log(info(s"1. ${_}"))
.filter(_ > 1)
.log(info(s"2. ${_}"))
...
How could this be achieved? If possible, without a functional library.

Ok so I decided to take a swing at this and I would like to retract my comment of
Maybe you can define a implicit class that has a method "log" acting on a Product ?
I was confident that Future and all the monads (collections, options) shared a common ancestor, turns out I was wrong. I have the following solution without using Cats. This can be done in a much prettier way in cats, besides the aforementioned "flatTap", and embelished with possibly cats.Ref or something.
Future is the obvious outliner here but as more exceptions come along you might need to expand this object.
import scala.concurrent._
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
object MonadicConv {
implicit class MonadicLog[+B <: Product, A] (val u: B){
def log(l: String, args: List[A] = List()): B = {
println("logging")
println(u)
println(l)
u
}
}
implicit class FutureLog[T, A](val u: Future[T]){
def log(l: String, args: List[A] = List()) : Future[T] = {
println("logging")
println(u)
println(l)
u
}
}
}
1) You will need to modify this with you own logging logic, I am just printing
2) I am not super proud of this as this is no longer a pure function. I am not sure if there is a work around this in Scala without using Cats. (There might be)
3) The args can be removed, just added them in case you want to pass in extra info
4) If you really want to combine these, you could try defining your own product, some leads: Implement product type in Scala with generic update function working on its parts
You can use this with
import MonadicConv._
val x = Some(5).log("").get
val lx = List(Some(5), Some(10), Some(1)).log("list").flatten.log("x").filter(_ > 1).log("")
val ff = Future.successful(List(Some(5), Some(10), Some(1))).log("fff").map(_.flatten.filter(_ > 1).log("inner")).log("")
This prints out
logging
Some(5)
option test
logging
List(Some(5), Some(10), Some(1))
list test
logging
List(5, 10, 1)
flat test
logging
List(5, 10)
filter test
logging
Future(Success(List(Some(5), Some(10), Some(1))))
future test
logging
Future(<not completed>)
incomplete test
logging
List(5, 10)
inner future test
Scastie version here
As I have mentioned, this is really the Cats land at this point. This is the best I could come up with in core Scala

For your purpose, it is best to use treelog. It turns the logging process and values into a Monad of DescribedComputation :
import treelog.LogTreeSyntaxWithoutAnnotations._
val result: DescribedComputation[YourValueType] = myResult ~> (_.fold("The result is empty")(r => s"The result is $r")
And usually to subtract the value from a DescribedComputation, use for comprehension:
for {
res <- result
} {
doSomethingTo(res)
}
See details from https://github.com/lancewalton/treelog
The whole example will look like:
val compRes = "Logging Result" ~< {
for {
r <- myResult ~> (_.fold("The result is empty")(r => s"The result is $r")
} yield r
}
}
for (res <- compRes) {
doSomethingTo(res)
}
logger.info(logging.run.written.shows)
The output will look like:
2019-11-18 00:00:00,000 INFO Logging Result
The result is XXX

Just for reference. ZIO provides this functionality nicely.
/**
* Returns an effect that effectfully "peeks" at the success of this effect.
*
* {{{
* readFile("data.json").tap(putStrLn)
* }}}
*/
final def tap[R1 <: R, E1 >: E](f: A => ZIO[R1, E1, Any]): ZIO[R1, E1, A] = self.flatMap(new ZIO.TapFn(f))
There is even a version for the error case:
/**
* Returns an effect that effectfully "peeks" at the failure of this effect.
* {{{
* readFile("data.json").tapError(logError(_))
* }}}
*/
final def tapError[R1 <: R, E1 >: E](f: E => ZIO[R1, E1, Any]): ZIO[R1, E1, A]
This makes debugging really easy:
myDangerousZioFunction
.tapError(e => putStrLn(s"Server Exception: $e"))
.tap(r => putStrLn(s"Result is $r"))
....

Related

Chain State monads with Scala Cats

I'm trying to chain a few sequential operations in a functional way with Scala and Cats. They look perfect separately but I'm not sure how can I chain them now with a flatMap / for comprehension.
So, let's say, I have something like
import cats.data.State
object Step1 {
def apply() = State[String, Seq[String]] { text =>
val ans = text.trim.split("""[\s]+""").toSeq
(text, ans)
}
}
println(Step1().run("Lorem Ipsum Dolor").value)
object Step2 {
def apply() = State[Seq[String], Seq[String]] { terms =>
val ans = terms.map(_.toLowerCase)
(terms, ans)
}
}
println(Step2().run(Seq("Lorem", "Ipsum", "Dolor")).value)
Ideally, I'd like to have something like
for {
a <- Step1()
b <- Step2()
} yield (b)
What is the best way to achieve this?
Take note of your types:
For your Step1, you have State[String, Seq[String]].
For your Step2, you have State[Seq[String], Seq[String]].
The function flatMap takes in an argument of M[A] and A => M[B] and returns M[B] but clearly your M[_] for Step1 and Step2 are clearly different even though they are both using the State datatype.
Take note that State has a type signature of * -> * -> * or it looks something like State[S, A] where your S is your "state" and A is your value.
In this case, if you really want to flatMap the two distinct State then you have to first "adjust" and equate the S of one of them.

How to create an Iteratee that passes through values to an inner Iteratee unless a specific value is found

I've got an ADT that's essentially a cross between Option and Try:
sealed trait Result[+T]
case object Empty extends Result[Nothing]
case class Error(cause: Throwable) extends Result[Nothing]
case class Success[T](value: T) extends Result[T]
(assume common combinators like map, flatMap etc are defined on Result)
Given an Iteratee[A, Result[B] called inner, I want to create a new Iteratee[Result[A], Result[B]] with the following behavior:
If the input is a Success(a), feed a to inner
If the input is an Empty, no-op
If the input is an Error(err), I want inner to be completely ignored, instead returning a Done iteratee with the Error(err) as its result.
Example Behavior:
// inner: Iteratee[Int, Result[List[Int]]]
// inputs:
1
2
3
// output:
Success(List(1,2,3))
// wrapForResultInput(inner): Iteratee[Result[Int], Result[List[Int]]]
// inputs:
Success(1)
Success(2)
Error(Exception("uh oh"))
Success(3)
// output:
Error(Exception("uh oh"))
This sounds to me like the job for an Enumeratee, but I haven't been able to find anything in the docs that looks like it'll do what I want, and the internal implementations are still voodoo to me.
How can I implement wrapForResultInput to create the behavior described above?
Adding some more detail that won't really fit in a comment:
Yes it looks like I was mistaken in my question. I described it in terms of Iteratees but it seems I really am looking for Enumeratees.
At a certain point in the API I'm building, there's a Transformer[A] class that is essentially an Enumeratee[Event, Result[A]]. I'd like to allow clients to transform that object by providing an Enumeratee[Result[A], Result[B]], which would result in a Transformer[B] aka an Enumeratee[Event, Result[B]].
For a more complex example, suppose I have a Transformer[AorB] and want to turn that into a Transformer[(A, List[B])]:
// the Transformer[AorB] would give
a, b, a, b, b, b, a, a, b
// but the client wants to have
a -> List(b),
a -> List(b, b, b),
a -> Nil
a -> List(b)
The client could implement an Enumeratee[AorB, Result[(A, List[B])]] without too much trouble using Enumeratee.grouped, but they are required to provide an Enumeratee[Result[AorB], Result[(A, List[B])] which seems to introduce a lot of complication that I'd like to hide from them if possible.
val easyClientEnumeratee = Enumeratee.grouped[AorB]{
for {
_ <- Enumeratee.dropWhile(_ != a) ><> Iteratee.ignore
headResult <- Iteratee.head.map{ Result.fromOption }
bs <- Enumeratee.takeWhile(_ == b) ><> Iteratee.getChunks
} yield headResult.map{_ -> bs}
val harderEnumeratee = ??? ><> easyClientEnumeratee
val oldTransformer: Transformer[AorB] = ... // assume it already exists
val newTransformer: Transformer[(A, List[B])] = oldTransformer.andThen(harderEnumeratee)
So what I'm looking for is the ??? to define the harderEnumeratee in order to ease the burden on the user who already implemented easyClientEnumeratee.
I guess the ??? should be an Enumeratee[Result[AorB], AorB], but if I try something like
Enumeratee.collect[Result[AorB]] {
case Success(ab) => ab
case Error(err) => throw err
}
the error will actually be thrown; I actually want the error to come back out as an Error(err).
Simplest implementation of such would be Iteratee.fold2 method, that could collect elements until something is happened.
Since you return single result and can't really return anything until you verify there is no errors, Iteratee would be enough for such a task
def listResults[E] = Iteratee.fold2[Result[E], Either[Throwable, List[E]]](Right(Nil)) { (state, elem) =>
val Right(list) = state
val next = elem match {
case Empty => (Right(list), false)
case Success(x) => (Right(x :: list), false)
case Error(t) => (Left(t), true)
}
Future(next)
} map {
case Right(list) => Success(list.reverse)
case Left(th) => Error(th)
}
Now if we'll prepare little playground
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits._
import scala.concurrent.{Await, Future}
import scala.concurrent.duration._
val good = Enumerator.enumerate[Result[Int]](
Seq(Success(1), Empty, Success(2), Success(3)))
val bad = Enumerator.enumerate[Result[Int]](
Seq(Success(1), Success(2), Error(new Exception("uh oh")), Success(3)))
def runRes[X](e: Enumerator[Result[X]]) : Result[List[X]] = Await.result(e.run(listResults), 3 seconds)
we can verify those results
runRes(good) //res0: Result[List[Int]] = Success(List(1, 2, 3))
runRes(bad) //res1: Result[List[Int]] = Error(java.lang.Exception: uh oh)

Safer way to extract future result [duplicate]

I have two functions which return Futures. I'm trying to feed a modified result from first function into the other using a for-yield comprehension.
This approach works:
val schoolFuture = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid.get) if sid.isDefined
} yield s
However I'm not happy with having the "if" in there, it seems that I should be able to use a map instead.
But when I try with a map:
val schoolFuture: Future[Option[School]] = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
} yield s
I get a compile error:
[error] found : Option[scala.concurrent.Future[Option[School]]]
[error] required: scala.concurrent.Future[Option[School]]
[error] s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
I've played around with a few variations, but haven't found anything attractive that works. Can anyone suggest a nicer comprehension and/or explain what's wrong with my 2nd example?
Here is a minimal but complete runnable example with Scala 2.10:
import concurrent.{Future, Promise}
case class User(userId: Int)
case class UserDetails(userId: Int, schoolId: Option[Int])
case class School(schoolId: Int, name: String)
trait Error
class UserStore {
def getUserDetails(userId: Int): Future[Either[Error, UserDetails]] = Promise.successful(Right(UserDetails(1, Some(1)))).future
}
class SchoolStore {
def getSchool(schoolId: Int): Future[Option[School]] = Promise.successful(Option(School(1, "Big School"))).future
}
object Demo {
import concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
val userStore = new UserStore
val schoolStore = new SchoolStore
val user = User(1)
val schoolFuture: Future[Option[School]] = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
} yield s
}
(Edited to give a correct answer!)
The key here is that Future and Option don't compose inside for because there aren't the correct flatMap signatures. As a reminder, for desugars like so:
for ( x0 <- c0; w1 = d1; x1 <- c1 if p1; ... ; xN <- cN) yield f
c0.flatMap{ x0 =>
val w1 = d1
c1.filter(x1 => p1).flatMap{ x1 =>
... cN.map(xN => f) ...
}
}
(where any if statement throws a filter into the chain--I've given just one example--and the equals statements just set variables before the next part of the chain). Since you can only flatMap other Futures, every statement c0, c1, ... except the last had better produce a Future.
Now, getUserDetails and getSchool both produce Futures, but sid is an Option, so we can't put it on the right-hand side of a <-. Unfortunately, there's no clean out-of-the-box way to do this. If o is an option, we can
o.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception))
to turn an Option into an already-completed Future. So
for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId) // RHS is a Future[Either[...]]
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId) // RHS is an Option[Int]
fid <- sid.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception)) // RHS is Future[Int]
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(fid)
} yield s
will do the trick. Is that better than what you've got? Doubtful. But if you
implicit class OptionIsFuture[A](val option: Option[A]) extends AnyVal {
def future = option.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception))
}
then suddenly the for-comprehension looks reasonable again:
for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid <- ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId).future
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid)
} yield s
Is this the best way to write this code? Probably not; it relies upon converting a None into an exception simply because you don't know what else to do at that point. This is hard to work around because of the design decisions of Future; I'd suggest that your original code (which invokes a filter) is at least as good of a way to do it.
This answer to a similar question about Promise[Option[A]] might help. Just substitute Future for Promise.
I'm inferring the following types for getUserDetails and getSchool from your question:
getUserDetails: UserID => Future[Either[??, UserDetails]]
getSchool: SchoolID => Future[Option[School]]
Since you ignore the failure value from the Either, transforming it to an Option instead, you effectively have two values of type A => Future[Option[B]].
Once you've got a Monad instance for Future (there may be one in scalaz, or you could write your own as in the answer I linked), applying the OptionT transformer to your problem would look something like this:
for {
ud <- optionT(getUserDetails(user.userID) map (_.right.toOption))
sid <- optionT(Future.successful(ud.schoolID))
s <- optionT(getSchool(sid))
} yield s
Note that, to keep the types compatible, ud.schoolID is wrapped in an (already completed) Future.
The result of this for-comprehension would have type OptionT[Future, SchoolID]. You can extract a value of type Future[Option[SchoolID]] with the transformer's run method.
What behavior would you like to occur in the case that the Option[School] is None? Would you like the Future to fail? With what kind of exception? Would you like it to never complete? (That sounds like a bad idea).
Anyways, the if clause in a for-expression desugars to a call to the filter method. The contract on Future#filteris thus:
If the current future contains a value which satisfies the predicate,
the new future will also hold that value. Otherwise, the resulting
future will fail with a NoSuchElementException.
But wait:
scala> None.get
java.util.NoSuchElementException: None.get
As you can see, None.get returns the exact same thing.
Thus, getting rid of the if sid.isDefined should work, and this should return a reasonable result:
val schoolFuture = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid.get)
} yield s
Keep in mind that the result of schoolFuture can be in instance of scala.util.Failure[NoSuchElementException]. But you haven't described what other behavior you'd like.
We've made small wrapper on Future[Option[T]] which acts like one monad (nobody even checked none of monad laws, but there is map, flatMap, foreach, filter and so on) - MaybeLater. It behaves much more than an async option.
There are a lot of smelly code there, but maybe it will be usefull at least as an example.
BTW: there are a lot of open questions(here for ex.)
It's easier to use https://github.com/qifun/stateless-future or https://github.com/scala/async to do A-Normal-Form transform.

Future[Option] in Scala for-comprehensions

I have two functions which return Futures. I'm trying to feed a modified result from first function into the other using a for-yield comprehension.
This approach works:
val schoolFuture = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid.get) if sid.isDefined
} yield s
However I'm not happy with having the "if" in there, it seems that I should be able to use a map instead.
But when I try with a map:
val schoolFuture: Future[Option[School]] = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
} yield s
I get a compile error:
[error] found : Option[scala.concurrent.Future[Option[School]]]
[error] required: scala.concurrent.Future[Option[School]]
[error] s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
I've played around with a few variations, but haven't found anything attractive that works. Can anyone suggest a nicer comprehension and/or explain what's wrong with my 2nd example?
Here is a minimal but complete runnable example with Scala 2.10:
import concurrent.{Future, Promise}
case class User(userId: Int)
case class UserDetails(userId: Int, schoolId: Option[Int])
case class School(schoolId: Int, name: String)
trait Error
class UserStore {
def getUserDetails(userId: Int): Future[Either[Error, UserDetails]] = Promise.successful(Right(UserDetails(1, Some(1)))).future
}
class SchoolStore {
def getSchool(schoolId: Int): Future[Option[School]] = Promise.successful(Option(School(1, "Big School"))).future
}
object Demo {
import concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
val userStore = new UserStore
val schoolStore = new SchoolStore
val user = User(1)
val schoolFuture: Future[Option[School]] = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- sid.map(schoolStore.getSchool(_))
} yield s
}
(Edited to give a correct answer!)
The key here is that Future and Option don't compose inside for because there aren't the correct flatMap signatures. As a reminder, for desugars like so:
for ( x0 <- c0; w1 = d1; x1 <- c1 if p1; ... ; xN <- cN) yield f
c0.flatMap{ x0 =>
val w1 = d1
c1.filter(x1 => p1).flatMap{ x1 =>
... cN.map(xN => f) ...
}
}
(where any if statement throws a filter into the chain--I've given just one example--and the equals statements just set variables before the next part of the chain). Since you can only flatMap other Futures, every statement c0, c1, ... except the last had better produce a Future.
Now, getUserDetails and getSchool both produce Futures, but sid is an Option, so we can't put it on the right-hand side of a <-. Unfortunately, there's no clean out-of-the-box way to do this. If o is an option, we can
o.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception))
to turn an Option into an already-completed Future. So
for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId) // RHS is a Future[Either[...]]
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId) // RHS is an Option[Int]
fid <- sid.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception)) // RHS is Future[Int]
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(fid)
} yield s
will do the trick. Is that better than what you've got? Doubtful. But if you
implicit class OptionIsFuture[A](val option: Option[A]) extends AnyVal {
def future = option.map(Future.successful).getOrElse(Future.failed(new Exception))
}
then suddenly the for-comprehension looks reasonable again:
for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid <- ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId).future
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid)
} yield s
Is this the best way to write this code? Probably not; it relies upon converting a None into an exception simply because you don't know what else to do at that point. This is hard to work around because of the design decisions of Future; I'd suggest that your original code (which invokes a filter) is at least as good of a way to do it.
This answer to a similar question about Promise[Option[A]] might help. Just substitute Future for Promise.
I'm inferring the following types for getUserDetails and getSchool from your question:
getUserDetails: UserID => Future[Either[??, UserDetails]]
getSchool: SchoolID => Future[Option[School]]
Since you ignore the failure value from the Either, transforming it to an Option instead, you effectively have two values of type A => Future[Option[B]].
Once you've got a Monad instance for Future (there may be one in scalaz, or you could write your own as in the answer I linked), applying the OptionT transformer to your problem would look something like this:
for {
ud <- optionT(getUserDetails(user.userID) map (_.right.toOption))
sid <- optionT(Future.successful(ud.schoolID))
s <- optionT(getSchool(sid))
} yield s
Note that, to keep the types compatible, ud.schoolID is wrapped in an (already completed) Future.
The result of this for-comprehension would have type OptionT[Future, SchoolID]. You can extract a value of type Future[Option[SchoolID]] with the transformer's run method.
What behavior would you like to occur in the case that the Option[School] is None? Would you like the Future to fail? With what kind of exception? Would you like it to never complete? (That sounds like a bad idea).
Anyways, the if clause in a for-expression desugars to a call to the filter method. The contract on Future#filteris thus:
If the current future contains a value which satisfies the predicate,
the new future will also hold that value. Otherwise, the resulting
future will fail with a NoSuchElementException.
But wait:
scala> None.get
java.util.NoSuchElementException: None.get
As you can see, None.get returns the exact same thing.
Thus, getting rid of the if sid.isDefined should work, and this should return a reasonable result:
val schoolFuture = for {
ud <- userStore.getUserDetails(user.userId)
sid = ud.right.toOption.flatMap(_.schoolId)
s <- schoolStore.getSchool(sid.get)
} yield s
Keep in mind that the result of schoolFuture can be in instance of scala.util.Failure[NoSuchElementException]. But you haven't described what other behavior you'd like.
We've made small wrapper on Future[Option[T]] which acts like one monad (nobody even checked none of monad laws, but there is map, flatMap, foreach, filter and so on) - MaybeLater. It behaves much more than an async option.
There are a lot of smelly code there, but maybe it will be usefull at least as an example.
BTW: there are a lot of open questions(here for ex.)
It's easier to use https://github.com/qifun/stateless-future or https://github.com/scala/async to do A-Normal-Form transform.

How can I reverse of flow of Option Monad?

say, I have a bunch of "validation" functions that return None if there is no error, otherwise it return Some(String) specifying the error message. Something like the following ...
def validate1:Option[String]
def validate2:Option[String]
def validate3:Option[String]
I am going to call them in a sequence and as soon as one returns Some(String), I stop and return the same. If it returns None, I go to the next until the sequence is over. If all of them return None, I return None.
I would like to glue them together in a "for expression". Something like ...
for( a <- validate1; b <- validate2; c <- validate3) yield None;
However, Option flows exactly the opposite what I want here. It stops at None and follows with Some(String).
How can I achieve something like that?
You could just chain the calls together with the orElse method on Option
validate1 orElse validate2 orElse validate3
or you could run a fold over a collection of validate methods converted to functions
val vlist= List(validate1 _, validate2 _, validate3 _)
vlist.foldLeft(None: Option[String]) {(a, b) => if (a == None) b() else a}
The scalaz library has a type called Validation which allows for some incredible gymnastics with building both errors and success. For example, suppose you have a few methods which can either return a failure message or some successful outcome (A/B/C):
import scalaz._; import Scalaz._
def fooA : ValidationNEL[String, A]
def fooB : ValidationNEL[String, B]
def fooC : ValidationNEL[String, C]
These can be used with the applicative functor to chain the calls together:
(foo1 <|**|> (foo2, foo3)) match {
case Success( (a, b, c) ) => //woot
case Failure(msgs) => //erk
}
Note that if any one of foo1/2/3 fails, then the whole composition fails with a non-empty list (NEL) of failure messages. If more than one fails, you get all failure messages.
It's a killer app. Examples of how tor return a success and failure are as follows
def foo1 : ValidationNEL[String, Int] = 1.success
def foo2 : ValidationNEL[String, Double] = "some error msg".failNel
Can't you just combine the iterators together and then take the first element? Something like:
scala> def validate1: Option[String] = {println("1"); None}
scala> def validate2: Option[String] = {println("2"); Some("error")}
scala> def validate3: Option[String] = {println("3"); None}
scala> (validate1.iterator ++ validate2.iterator ++ validate3.iterator).next
1
2
res5: String = error
I think you might benefit from using Lift's Box, which has Full (i.e. Some), Empty (i.e. None) and Failure (an Empty with a reason why it's empty and that can be chained). David Pollak has a good blog post introducing it. In short, you might do something like this (not tested):
def validate1: Box[String]
def validate2: Box[String]
def validate3: Box[String]
val validation = for (
validation1 <- validate1 ?~ "error message 1"
validation2 <- validate2 ?~ "error message 2"
validation3 <- validate3 ?~ "error message 3"
) yield "overall success message"
This isn't any shorter than the original example but it's, in my opinion, a bit more logical, with the result of a successful validation in a Full and a failed validation in Failure.
However, we can get smaller. First, since our validation function return Box[String], they can return Failures themselves and we don't need to transform Empty to Failure ourselves:
val validation = for (
validation1 <- validate1
validation2 <- validate2
validation3 <- validate3
) yield "overall success message"
But, Box also has an or method that returns the same Box if it is Full or the other Box if it is not. This would give us:
val validation = validate1 or validate2 or validate3
However, that line stops at the first validation success, not the first failure. It might make sense to make another method that does what you want (perhaps called unless?) though I can't say that it would really be much more useful than the for comprehension approach.
However, here's a little library pimping that does it:
scala> class Unless[T](a: Box[T]) {
| def unless(b: Box[T]) = {
| if (a.isEmpty) { a }
| else b
| }
| }
defined class Unless
scala> implicit def b2U[T](b: Box[T]): Unless[T] = new Unless(b)
b2U: [T](b: net.liftweb.common.Box[T])Unless[T]
scala> val a = Full("yes")
a: net.liftweb.common.Full[java.lang.String] = Full(yes)
scala> val b = Failure("no")
b: net.liftweb.common.Failure = Failure(no,Empty,Empty)
scala> val c = Full("yes2")
c: net.liftweb.common.Full[java.lang.String] = Full(yes2)
scala> a unless b
res1: net.liftweb.common.Box[java.lang.String] = Failure(no,Empty,Empty)
scala> a unless b unless c
res2: net.liftweb.common.Box[java.lang.String] = Failure(no,Empty,Empty)
scala> a unless c unless b
res3: net.liftweb.common.Box[java.lang.String] = Failure(no,Empty,Empty)
scala> a unless c
res4: net.liftweb.common.Box[java.lang.String] = Full(yes2)
This is a quick hack based upon my limited understanding of Scala's type system, as you can see in the following error:
scala> b unless a
<console>:13: error: type mismatch;
found : net.liftweb.common.Full[java.lang.String]
required: net.liftweb.common.Box[T]
b unless a
^
However, that should be enough to get you on the right track.
Of course the Lift ScalaDocs have more information on Box.