I am starting to use the state monad to clean up my code. I have got it working for my problem where I process a transaction called CDR and modify the state accordingly.
It is working perfectly fine for individual transactions, using this function to perform the state update.
def addTraffic(cdr: CDR): Network => Network = ...
Here is an example:
scala> val processed: (CDR) => State[Network, Long] = cdr =>
| for {
| m <- init
| _ <- modify(Network.addTraffic(cdr))
| p <- get
| } yield p.count
processed: CDR => scalaz.State[Network,Long] = $$Lambda$4372/1833836780#1258d5c0
scala> val r = processed(("122","celda 1", 3))
r: scalaz.State[Network,Long] = scalaz.IndexedStateT$$anon$13#4cc4bdde
scala> r.run(Network.empty)
res56: scalaz.Id.Id[(Network, Long)] = (Network(Map(122 -> (1,0.0)),Map(celda 1 -> (1,0.0)),Map(1 -> Map(1 -> 3)),1,true),1)
What i want to do now is to chain a number of transactions on an iterator. I have found something that works quite well but the state transitions take no inputs (state changes through RNG)
import scalaz._
import scalaz.std.list.listInstance
type RNG = scala.util.Random
val f = (rng:RNG) => (rng, rng.nextInt)
val intGenerator: State[RNG, Int] = State(f)
val rng42 = new scala.util.Random
val applicative = Applicative[({type l[Int] = State[RNG,Int]})#l]
// To generate the first 5 Random integers
val chain: State[RNG, List[Int]] = applicative.sequence(List.fill(5)(intGenerator))
val chainResult: (RNG, List[Int]) = chain.run(rng42)
chainResult._2.foreach(println)
I have unsuccessfully tried to adapt this, but I can not get they types signatures to match because my state function requires the cdr (transaction) input
Thanks
TL;DR
you can use traverse from the Traverse type-class on a collection (e.g. List) of CDRs, using a function with this signature: CDR => State[Network, Long]. The result will be a State[Network, List[Long]]. Alternatively, if you don't care about the List[Long] there, you can use traverse_ instead, which will return State[Network, Unit]. Finally, should you want to "aggregate" the results T as they come along, and T forms a Monoid, you can use foldMap from Foldable, which will return State[Network, T], where T is the combined (e.g. folded) result of all Ts in your chain.
A code example
Now some more details, with code examples. I will answer this using Cats State rather than Scalaz, as I never used the latter, but the concept is the same and, if you still have problems, I will dig out the correct syntax.
Assume that we have the following data types and imports to work with:
import cats.implicits._
import cats.data.State
case class Position(x : Int = 0, y : Int = 0)
sealed trait Move extends Product
case object Up extends Move
case object Down extends Move
case object Left extends Move
case object Right extends Move
As it is clear, the Position represents a point in a 2D plane and a Move can move such point up, down, left or right.
Now, lets create a method that will allow us to see where we are at a given time:
def whereAmI : State[Position, String] = State.inspect{ s => s.toString }
and a method to change our position, given a Move:
def move(m : Move) : State[Position, String] = State{ s =>
m match {
case Up => (s.copy(y = s.y + 1), "Up!")
case Down => (s.copy(y = s.y - 1), "Down!")
case Left => (s.copy(x = s.x - 1), "Left!")
case Right => (s.copy(x = s.x + 1), "Right!")
}
}
Notice that this will return a String, with the name of the move followed by an exclamation mark. This is just to simulate the type change from Move to something else, and show how the results will be aggregated. More on this in a bit.
Now let's try to play with our methods:
val positions : State[Position, List[String]] = for{
pos1 <- whereAmI
_ <- move(Up)
_ <- move(Right)
_ <- move(Up)
pos2 <- whereAmI
_ <- move(Left)
_ <- move(Left)
pos3 <- whereAmI
} yield List(pos1,pos2,pos3)
And we can feed it an initial Position and see the result:
positions.runA(Position()).value // List(Position(0,0), Position(1,2), Position(-1,2))
(you can ignore the .value there, it's a quirk due to the fact that State[S,A] is really just an alias for StateT[Eval,S,A])
As you can see, this behaves as you would expect, and you can create different "blueprints" (e.g. sequences of state modifications), which will be applied once an initial state is provided.
Now, to actually answer to you question, say we have a List[Move] and we want to apply them sequentially to an initial state, and get the result: we use traverse from the Traverse type-class.
val moves = List(Down, Down, Left, Up)
val result : State[Position, List[String]] = moves.traverse(move)
result.run(Position()).value // (Position(-1,-1),List(Down!, Down!, Left!, Up!))
Alternatively, should you not need the A at all (the List in you case), you can use traverse_, instead of traverse and the result type will be:
val result_ : State[Position, List[String]] = moves.traverse_(move)
result_.run(Position()).value // (Position(-1,-1),Unit)
Finally, if your A type in State[S,A] forms a Monoid, then you could also use foldMap from Foldable to combine (e.g. fold) all As as they are calculated. A trivial example (probably useless, because this will just concatenate all Strings) would be this:
val result : State[Position,String] = moves.foldMap(move)
result.run(Position()).value // (Position(-1,-1),Down!Down!Left!Up!)
Whether this final approach is useful or not to you, really depends on what A you have and if it makes sense to combine it.
And this should be all you need in your scenario.
Related
I wrote this simple program in my attempt to learn how Cats Writer works
import cats.data.Writer
import cats.syntax.applicative._
import cats.syntax.writer._
import cats.instances.vector._
object WriterTest extends App {
type Logged2[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
Vector("started the program").tell
val output1 = calculate1(10)
val foo = new Foo()
val output2 = foo.calculate2(20)
val (log, sum) = (output1 + output2).pure[Logged2].run
println(log)
println(sum)
def calculate1(x : Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
output
}
}
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate 2").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
output
}
}
The program works and the output is
> run-main WriterTest
[info] Compiling 1 Scala source to /Users/Cats/target/scala-2.11/classes...
[info] Running WriterTest
Vector()
50
[success] Total time: 1 s, completed Jan 21, 2017 8:14:19 AM
But why is the vector empty? Shouldn't it contain all the strings on which I used the "tell" method?
When you call tell on your Vectors, each time you create a Writer[Vector[String], Unit]. However, you never actually do anything with your Writers, you just discard them. Further, you call pure to create your final Writer, which simply creates a Writer with an empty Vector. You have to combine the writers together in a chain that carries your value and message around.
type Logged[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
val (log, sum) = (for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
output1 <- calculate1(10)
foo = new Foo()
output2 <- foo.calculate2(20)
} yield output1 + output2).run
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
} yield output
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate2").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
} yield output
}
Note the use of for notation. The definition of calculate1 is really
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = Vector("came inside calculate1").tell.flatMap { _ =>
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell.map { _ => output }
}
flatMap is the monadic bind operation, which means it understands how to take two monadic values (in this case Writer) and join them together to get a new one. In this case, it makes a Writer containing the concatenation of the logs and the value of the one on the right.
Note how there are no side effects. There is no global state by which Writer can remember all your calls to tell. You instead make many Writers and join them together with flatMap to get one big one at the end.
The problem with your example code is that you're not using the result of the tell method.
If you take a look at its signature, you'll see this:
final class WriterIdSyntax[A](val a: A) extends AnyVal {
def tell: Writer[A, Unit] = Writer(a, ())
}
it is clear that tell returns a Writer[A, Unit] result which is immediately discarded because you didn't assign it to a value.
The proper way to use a Writer (and any monad in Scala) is through its flatMap method. It would look similar to this:
println(
Vector("started the program").tell.flatMap { _ =>
15.pure[Logged2].flatMap { i =>
Writer(Vector("ended program"), i)
}
}
)
The code above, when executed will give you this:
WriterT((Vector(started the program, ended program),15))
As you can see, both messages and the int are stored in the result.
Now this is a bit ugly, and Scala actually provides a better way to do this: for-comprehensions. For-comprehension are a bit of syntactic sugar that allows us to write the same code in this way:
println(
for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
i <- 15.pure[Logged2]
_ <- Vector("ended program").tell
} yield i
)
Now going back to your example, what I would recommend is for you to change the return type of compute1 and compute2 to be Writer[Vector[String], Int] and then try to make your application compile using what I wrote above.
Is it possible to handle Either in similar way to Option? In Option, I have a getOrElse function, in Either I want to return Left or process Right. I'm looking for the fastest way of doing this without any boilerplate like:
val myEither:Either[String, Object] = Right(new Object())
myEither match {
case Left(leftValue) => value
case Right(righValue) =>
"Success"
}
In Scala 2.12,
Either is right-biased, which means that Right is assumed to be the default case to operate on. If it is Left, operations like map, flatMap, ... return the Left value unchanged
so you can do
myEither.map(_ => "Success").merge
if you find it more readable than fold.
You can use .fold:
scala> val r: Either[Int, String] = Right("hello")
r: Either[Int,String] = Right(hello)
scala> r.fold(_ => "got a left", _ => "Success")
res7: String = Success
scala> val l: Either[Int, String] = Left(1)
l: Either[Int,String] = Left(1)
scala> l.fold(_ => "got a left", _ => "Success")
res8: String = got a left
Edit:
Re-reading your question it's unclear to me whether you want to return the value in the Left or another one (defined elsewhere)
If it is the former, you can pass identity to .fold, however this might change the return type to Any:
scala> r.fold(identity, _ => "Success")
res9: Any = Success
Both cchantep's and Marth's are good solutions to your immediate problem. But more broadly, it's difficult to treat Either as something fully analogous to Option, particularly in letting you express sequences of potentially failable computations for comprehensions. Either has a projection API (used in cchantep's solution), but it is a bit broken. (Either's projections break in for comprehensions with guards, pattern matching, or variable assignment.)
FWIW, I've written a library to solve this problem. It augments Either with this API. You define a "bias" for your Eithers. "Right bias" means that ordinary flow (map, get, etc) is represented by a Right object while Left objects represent some kind of problem. (Right bias is conventional, although you can also define a left bias if you prefer.) Then you can treat the Either like an Option; it offers a fully analogous API.
import com.mchange.leftright.BiasedEither
import BiasedEither.RightBias._
val myEither:Either[String, Object] = ...
val o = myEither.getOrElse( "Substitute" )
More usefully, you can now treat Either like a true scala monad, i.e. use flatMap, map, filter, and for comprehensions:
val myEither : Either[String, Point] = ???
val nextEither = myEither.map( _.x ) // Either[String,Int]
or
val myEither : Either[String, Point] = ???
def findGalaxyAtPoint( p : Point ) : Either[String,Galaxy] = ???
val locPopPair : Either[String, (Point, Long)] = {
for {
p <- myEither
g <- findGalaxyAtPoint( p )
} yield {
(p, g.population)
}
}
If all processing steps succeeded, locPopPair will be a Right[Long]. If anything went wrong, it will be the first Left[String] encountered.
It's slightly more complex, but a good idea to define an empty token. Let's look at a slight variation on the for comprehension above:
val locPopPair : Either[String, (Point, Long)] = {
for {
p <- myEither
g <- findGalaxyAtPoint( p ) if p.x > 1000
} yield {
(p, g.population)
}
}
What would happen if the test p.x > 1000 failed? We'd want to return some Left that signifies "empty", but there is no universal appropriate value (not all Left's are Left[String]. As of now, what would happen is the code would throw a NoSuchElementException. But we can specify an empty token ourselves, as below:
import com.mchange.leftright.BiasedEither
val RightBias = BiasedEither.RightBias.withEmptyToken[String]("EMPTY")
import RightBias._
val myEither : Either[String, Point] = ???
def findGalaxyAtPoint( p : Point ) : Either[String,Galaxy] = ???
val locPopPair : Either[String, (Point, Long)] = {
for {
p <- myEither
g <- findGalaxyAtPoint( p ) if p.x > 1000
} yield {
(p, g.population)
}
}
Now, if the p.x > 1000 test fails, there will be no Exception, locPopPair will just be Left("EMPTY").
I guess you can do as follows.
def foo(myEither: Either[String, Object]) =
myEither.right.map(rightValue => "Success")
In scala 2.13, you can use myEither.getOrElse
Right(12).getOrElse(17) // 12
Left(12).getOrElse(17) // 17
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)
I have a collection which I want to map to a new collection, however each resulting value is dependent on the value before it in some way.I could solve this with a leftFold
val result:List[B] = (myList:List[A]).foldLeft(C -> List.empty[B]){
case ((c, list), a) =>
..some function returning something like..
C -> (B :: list)
}
The problem here is I need to iterate through the entire list to retrieve the resultant list. Say I wanted a function that maps TraversableOnce[A] to TraversableOnce[B] and only evaluate members as I call them?
It seems to me to be a fairly conventional problem so Im wondering if there is a common approach to this. What I currently have is:
implicit class TraversableOnceEx[T](val self : TraversableOnce[T]) extends AnyVal {
def foldyMappyFunction[A, U](a:A)(func:(A,T) => (A,U)):TraversableOnce[U] = {
var currentA = a
self.map { t =>
val result = func(currentA, t)
currentA = result._1
result._2
}
}
}
As far as functional purity goes, you couldn't run it in parallel, but otherwise it seems sound.
An example would be;
Return me each element and if it is the first time that element has appeared before.
val elements:TraversableOnce[E]
val result = elements.mappyFoldyFunction(Set.empty[E]) {
(s, e) => (s + e) -> (e -> s.contains(e))
}
result:TraversableOnce[(E,Boolean)]
You might be able to make use of the State Monad. Here is your example re-written using scalaz:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
def foldyMappy(i: Int) = State[Set[Int], (Int, Boolean)](s => (s + i, (i, s contains(i))))
val r = List(1, 2, 3, 3, 6).traverseS(foldyMappy)(Set.empty[Int])._2
//List((1,false), (2,false), (3,false), (3,true), (6,false))
println(r)
It is look like you need SeqView. Use view or view(from: Int, until: Int) methods for create a non-strict view of list.
I really don't understand your example as your contains check will always result to false.
foldLeft is different. It will result in a single value by aggregating all elements of the list.
You clearly need map (List => List).
Anyway, answering your question about laziness:
you should use Stream instead of List. Stream doesn't evaluate the tail before actually calling it.
Stream API
I wish to find a match within a List and return values dependant on the match. The CollectFirst works well for matching on the elements of the collection but in this case I want to match on the member swEl of the element rather than on the element itself.
abstract class CanvNode (var swElI: Either[CSplit, VistaT])
{
private[this] var _swEl: Either[CSplit, VistaT] = swElI
def member = _swEl
def member_= (value: Either[CSplit, VistaT] ){ _swEl = value; attach}
def attach: Unit
attach
def findVista(origV: VistaIn): Option[Tuple2[CanvNode,VistaT]] = member match
{
case Right(v) if (v == origV) => Option(this, v)
case _ => None
}
}
def nodes(): List[CanvNode] = topNode :: splits.map(i => List(i.n1, i.n2)).flatten
//Is there a better way of implementing this?
val temp: Option[Tuple2[CanvNode, VistaT]] =
nodes.map(i => i.findVista(origV)).collectFirst{case Some (r) => r}
Do I need a View on that, or will the collectFirst method ensure the collection is only created as needed?
It strikes me that this must be a fairly general pattern. Another example could be if one had a List member of the main List's elements and wanted to return the fourth element if it had one. Is there a standard method I can call? Failing that I can create the following:
implicit class TraversableOnceRichClass[A](n: TraversableOnce[A])
{
def findSome[T](f: (A) => Option[T]) = n.map(f(_)).collectFirst{case Some (r) => r}
}
And then I can replace the above with:
val temp: Option[Tuple2[CanvNode, VistaT]] =
nodes.findSome(i => i.findVista(origV))
This uses implicit classes from 2.10, for pre 2.10 use:
class TraversableOnceRichClass[A](n: TraversableOnce[A])
{
def findSome[T](f: (A) => Option[T]) = n.map(f(_)).collectFirst{case Some (r) => r}
}
implicit final def TraversableOnceRichClass[A](n: List[A]):
TraversableOnceRichClass[A] = new TraversableOnceRichClass(n)
As an introductory side node: The operation you're describing (return the first Some if one exists, and None otherwise) is the sum of a collection of Options under the "first" monoid instance for Option. So for example, with Scalaz 6:
scala> Stream(None, None, Some("a"), None, Some("b")).map(_.fst).asMA.sum
res0: scalaz.FirstOption[java.lang.String] = Some(a)
Alternatively you could put something like this in scope:
implicit def optionFirstMonoid[A] = new Monoid[Option[A]] {
val zero = None
def append(a: Option[A], b: => Option[A]) = a orElse b
}
And skip the .map(_.fst) part. Unfortunately neither of these approaches is appropriately lazy in Scalaz, so the entire stream will be evaluated (unlike Haskell, where mconcat . map (First . Just) $ [1..] is just fine, for example).
Edit: As a side note to this side note: apparently Scalaz does provide a sumr that's appropriately lazy (for streams—none of these approaches will work on a view). So for example you can write this:
Stream.from(1).map(Some(_).fst).sumr
And not wait forever for your answer, just like in the Haskell version.
But assuming that we're sticking with the standard library, instead of this:
n.map(f(_)).collectFirst{ case Some(r) => r }
I'd write the following, which is more or less equivalent, and arguably more idiomatic:
n.flatMap(f(_)).headOption
For example, suppose we have a list of integers.
val xs = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
We can make this lazy and map a function with a side effect over it to show us when its elements are accessed:
val ys = xs.view.map { i => println(i); i }
Now we can flatMap an Option-returning function over the resulting collection and use headOption to (safely) return the first element, if it exists:
scala> ys.flatMap(i => if (i > 2) Some(i.toString) else None).headOption
1
2
3
res0: Option[java.lang.String] = Some(3)
So clearly this stops when we hit a non-empty value, as desired. And yes, you'll definitely need a view if your original collection is strict, since otherwise headOption (or collectFirst) can't reach back and stop the flatMap (or map) that precedes it.
In your case you can skip findVista and get even more concise with something like this:
val temp = nodes.view.flatMap(
node => node.right.toOption.filter(_ == origV).map(node -> _)
).headOption
Whether you find this clearer or just a mess is a matter of taste, of course.