My use case has case classes something like
case class Address(name:String,pincode:String){
override def toString =name +"=" +pincode
}
case class Department(name:String){
override def toString =name
}
case class emp(address:Address,department:Department)
I want to create a DSL like below.Can anyone share the links about how to create a DSL and any suggestions to achieve the below.
emp.withAddress("abc","12222").withDepartment("HR")
Update:
Actual use case class may have more fields close to 20. I want to avoid redudancy of code
I created a DSL using reflection so that we don't need to add every field to it.
Disclamer: This DSL is extremely weakly typed and I did it just for fun. I don't really think this is a good approach in Scala.
scala> create an Employee where "homeAddress" is Address("a", "b") and "department" is Department("c") and that_s it
res0: Employee = Employee(a=b,null,c)
scala> create an Employee where "workAddress" is Address("w", "x") and "homeAddress" is Address("y", "z") and that_s it
res1: Employee = Employee(y=z,w=x,null)
scala> create a Customer where "address" is Address("a", "b") and "age" is 900 and that_s it
res0: Customer = Customer(a=b,900)
The last example is the equivalent of writing:
create.a(Customer).where("address").is(Address("a", "b")).and("age").is(900).and(that_s).it
A way of writing DSLs in Scala and avoid parentheses and the dot is by following this pattern:
object.method(parameter).method(parameter)...
Here is the source:
// DSL
object create {
def an(t: Employee.type) = new ModelDSL(Employee(null, null, null))
def a(t: Customer.type) = new ModelDSL(Customer(null, 0))
}
object that_s
class ModelDSL[T](model: T) {
def where(field: String): ValueDSL[ModelDSL2[T], Any] = new ValueDSL(value => {
val f = model.getClass.getDeclaredField(field)
f.setAccessible(true)
f.set(model, value)
new ModelDSL2[T](model)
})
def and(t: that_s.type) = new { def it = model }
}
class ModelDSL2[T](model: T) {
def and(field: String) = new ModelDSL(model).where(field)
def and(t: that_s.type) = new { def it = model }
}
class ValueDSL[T, V](callback: V => T) {
def is(value: V): T = callback(value)
}
// Models
case class Employee(homeAddress: Address, workAddress: Address, department: Department)
case class Customer(address: Address, age: Int)
case class Address(name: String, pincode: String) {
override def toString = name + "=" + pincode
}
case class Department(name: String) {
override def toString = name
}
I really don't think you need the builder pattern in Scala. Just give your case class reasonable defaults and use the copy method.
i.e.:
employee.copy(address = Address("abc","12222"),
department = Department("HR"))
You could also use an immutable builder:
case class EmployeeBuilder(address:Address = Address("", ""),department:Department = Department("")) {
def build = emp(address, department)
def withAddress(address: Address) = copy(address = address)
def withDepartment(department: Department) = copy(department = department)
}
object EmployeeBuilder {
def withAddress(address: Address) = EmployeeBuilder().copy(address = address)
def withDepartment(department: Department) = EmployeeBuilder().copy(department = department)
}
You could do
object emp {
def builder = new Builder(None, None)
case class Builder(address: Option[Address], department: Option[Department]) {
def withDepartment(name:String) = {
val dept = Department(name)
this.copy(department = Some(dept))
}
def withAddress(name:String, pincode:String) = {
val addr = Address(name, pincode)
this.copy(address = Some(addr))
}
def build = (address, department) match {
case (Some(a), Some(d)) => new emp(a, d)
case (None, _) => throw new IllegalStateException("Address not provided")
case _ => throw new IllegalStateException("Department not provided")
}
}
}
and use it as emp.builder.withAddress("abc","12222").withDepartment("HR").build().
You don't need optional fields, copy, or the builder pattern (exactly), if you are willing to have the build always take the arguments in a particular order:
case class emp(address:Address,department:Department, id: Long)
object emp {
def withAddress(name: String, pincode: String): WithDepartment =
new WithDepartment(Address(name, pincode))
final class WithDepartment(private val address: Address)
extends AnyVal {
def withDepartment(name: String): WithId =
new WithId(address, Department(name))
}
final class WithId(address: Address, department: Department) {
def withId(id: Long): emp = emp(address, department, id)
}
}
emp.withAddress("abc","12222").withDepartment("HR").withId(1)
The idea here is that each emp parameter gets its own class which provides a method to get you to the next class, until the final one gives you an emp object. It's like currying but at the type level. As you can see I've added an extra parameter just as an example of how to extend the pattern past the first two parameters.
The nice thing about this approach is that, even if you're part-way through the build, the type you have so far will guide you to the next step. So if you have a WithDepartment so far, you know that the next argument you need to supply is a department name.
If you want to avoid modifying the origin classes you can use implicit class, e.g.
implicit class EmpExtensions(emp: emp) {
def withAddress(name: String, pincode: String) {
//code omitted
}
// code omitted
}
then import EmpExtensions wherever you need these methods
Related
I have some duplication of code due to having to do some grouping on 3 different fields in a case class and then populate a new case class with those. Since they share a common schema it should be possible for me to do a function that can take the input of the 3 different fields and populate accordingly. However, I am not exactly sure how to do this.
Schemas:
case class Transaction(
senderBank: Bank,
receiverBank: Bank,
intermediaryBank: Bank)
case class Bank(
name: String,
country: Option[String],
countryCode: Option[String])
case class GroupedBank(
name: String,
country: Option[String],
countryCode: Option[String],
bankType: String)
Current function I tried to do:
def groupedBank(transactionSeq: Seq[Transaction], bankName: Bank, bankTypeString: String): Iterable[Seq[GroupedBank]] = {
transactionSeq.groupBy(_ => bankName.name).map {
case (key, transactionSeq) =>
val bankGroupedSeq = transactionSeq.map(_ => {
GroupedBank(
name = bankName.name,
country = bankName.country,
countryCode = bankName.countryCode,
bankType = bankTypeString)
})
bankGroupedSeq
}
}
I need to do the grouping for SenderBank, receiverBank, and intermediaryBank. However, I am not sure how to refer to them correctly in the function parameter bankName. So for SenderBank I would want to do something like Transaction.senderBank, which would point to the correct fields for name, country and so on for senderBank. For receiverBank it should be similar, so Transactions.receiverBank, which then refers to the correct fields for receiverBank and so on. And again for intermediaryBank the same logic. My question is therefore how can I accomplish something like this or is there another way that would be more appropriate?
You can pass a function to extract the bank with the correct type from a transaction:
def groupedBank(
transactionSeq: Seq[Transaction],
getBank: Transaction => Bank,
bankTypeString: String
): Iterable[Seq[GroupedBank]] = {
transactionSeq.groupBy(getBank(_).name).map {
case (key, transactionSeq) =>
transactionSeq.map { transaction =>
val bank = getBank(transaction)
GroupedBank(
name = bank.name,
country = bank.country,
countryCode = bank.countryCode,
bankType = bankTypeString)
}
}
}
And then call it like this:
groupedBank(transactionSeq, _.senderBank, "sender")
It could also be a good idea to abstract the bank type concept into a separate trait:
sealed trait BankGroup {
def name: String
def getBank(transaction: Transaction): Bank
def groupBanks(transactionSeq: Seq[Transaction]): Iterable[Seq[GroupedBank]] = {
transactionSeq.groupBy(getBank(_).name).map {
case (key, transactionSeq) =>
transactionSeq.map { transaction =>
val bank = getBank(transaction)
GroupedBank(
name = bank.name,
country = bank.country,
countryCode = bank.countryCode,
bankType = name)
}
}
}
}
object BankGroup {
object Sender extends BankGroup {
def name: String = "sender"
def getBank(transaction: Transaction): Bank = transaction.senderBank
}
object Receiver extends BankGroup {
def name: String = "receiver"
def getBank(transaction: Transaction): Bank = transaction.receiverBank
}
object Intermediary extends BankGroup {
def name: String = "intermediary"
def getBank(transaction: Transaction): Bank = transaction.intermediaryBank
}
val values: Seq[BankGroup] = Seq(Sender, Receiver, Intermediary)
def byName(name: String): BankGroup = values.find(_.name == name)
.getOrElse(sys.error(s"unknown bank type: $name"))
}
And you can call it in one of those ways:
BankGroup.Sender.groupBanks(transactionSeq)
BankGroup.byName("sender").groupBanks(transactionSeq)
I'm trying to figure out if a member field in any given case class is also a case class. Taken from this answer, given an instance or an object, I can pass it along and determine if it's a case class:
def isCaseClass(v: Any): Boolean = {
import reflect.runtime.universe._
val typeMirror = runtimeMirror(v.getClass.getClassLoader)
val instanceMirror = typeMirror.reflect(v)
val symbol = instanceMirror.symbol
symbol.isCaseClass
}
However, what I'd like, is to take a case class, extract all of its member fields, and find out which ones are case classes themselves. Something in this manner:
def innerCaseClasses[A](parentCaseClass:A): List[Class[_]] = {
val nestedCaseClasses = ListBuffer[Class[_]]()
val fields = parentCaseClass.getClass.getDeclaredFields
fields.foreach(field => {
if (??? /*field is case class */ ) {
nestedCaseClasses += field.getType
}
})
nestedCaseClasses.toList
}
I thought maybe I could extract the fields, their classes, and use reflection to instantiate a new instance of that member field as its own class. I'm not 100% how to do that, and it seems like perhaps there's an easier way. Is there?
Ah! I've figured it out (simplified the function which tells the determination):
import reflect.runtime.universe._
case class MyThing(str:String, num:Int)
case class WithMyThing(name:String, aThing:MyThing)
val childThing = MyThing("Neat" , 293923)
val parentCaseClass = WithMyThing("Nate", childThing)
def isCaseClass(v: Any): Boolean = {
val typeMirror = runtimeMirror(v.getClass.getClassLoader)
val instanceMirror = typeMirror.reflect(v)
val symbol = instanceMirror.symbol
symbol.isCaseClass
}
def innerCaseClasses[A](parentCaseClass:A): Unit = {
val fields = parentCaseClass.asInstanceOf[Product].productIterator
fields.foreach(field => {
println(s"Field: ${field.getClass.getSimpleName} isCaseClass? " + isCaseClass(field))
})
}
innerCaseClasses(parentCaseClass)
printout:
Field: String isCaseClass? false
Field: MyThing isCaseClass? true
Is it possible to add functionality before calling constructor in extra constructor in scala ?
Lets say, I have class User, and want to get one string - and to split it into attributes - to send them to the constructor:
class User(val name: String, val age: Int){
def this(line: String) = {
val attrs = line.split(",") //This line is leading an error - what can I do instead
this(attrs(0), attrs(1).toInt)
}
}
So I know I'm not able to add a line before sending to this, because all constructors need to call another constructor as the first statement of the constructor.
Then what can I do instead?
Edit:
I have a long list of attributes, so I don't want to repeat line.split(",")
I think this is a place where companion object and apply() method come nicely into play:
object User {
def apply(line: String): User = {
val attrs = line.split(",")
new User(attrs(0), attrs(1).toInt)
}
}
class User(val name: String, val age: Int)
Then you just create your object the following way:
val u1 = User("Zorro,33")
Also since you're exposing name and age anyway, you might consider using case class instead of standard class and have consistent way of constructing User objects (without new keyword):
object User {
def apply(line: String): User = {
val attrs = line.split(",")
new User(attrs(0), attrs(1).toInt)
}
}
case class User(name: String, age: Int)
val u1 = User("Zorro,33")
val u2 = User("Zorro", "33")
Ugly, but working solution#1:
class User(val name: String, val age: Int){
def this(line: String) = {
this(line.split(",")(0), line.split(",")(1).toInt)
}
}
Ugly, but working solution#2:
class User(val name: String, val age: Int)
object User {
def fromString(line: String) = {
val attrs = line.split(",")
new User(attrs(0), attrs(1).toInt)
}
}
Which can be used as:
val johny = User.fromString("johny,35")
You could use apply in place of fromString, but this will lead to a confusion (in one case you have to use new, in the other you have to drop it) so I prefer to use different name
Another ugly solution:
class User(line: String) {
def this(name: String, age: Int) = this(s"$name,$age")
val (name, age) = {
val Array(nameStr,ageStr) = line.split(",")
(nameStr,ageStr.toInt)
}
}
But using a method of the companion object is probably better.
Please find below a short example which puzzles me.
I must concede that I have some difficulties to manipulate existential types in Scala.
How should I solve the type mismatch line 56 ?
proposer is OK type _$1 while proposers is of type _$1 <: Individual
Thanks in advance,
Maxime.
class Individual(n: String) {
protected val name=n
var preferred: Individual = this
override def toString(): String=name
}
class Man(n: String) extends Individual(n) { }
class Woman(n: String) extends Individual(n) { }
class Marriage(m: Man, w: Woman){
private val man=m
private val woman=w
def this(w: Woman, m: Man) = this(m,w)
override def toString(): String = man+"--"+woman
}
class Matching(){
private var list: List[Marriage] = Nil
def add(m: Marriage): Unit = { list = m ::list }
override def toString(): String= {
var s: String = ""
for (elm<-list) s=s+elm+" "
return s
}
}
object Test{
protected var male = true
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val al = new Man("Al")
val bob = new Man("Bob")
val alice = new Woman("Alice")
val barbara = new Woman("Barbara")
al.preferred = alice
bob.preferred = barbara
alice.preferred = bob
barbara.preferred = al
val men = Set(al, bob)
val women = Set(alice, barbara)
val m = new Matching()
//var proposers=women
var proposers: Set[_ <:Individual] = Set[Individual]()
if (male) proposers = men
else proposers = women
while (!proposers.isEmpty) {
for(proposer <- proposers) {
val proposer=proposers.head
if (proposer.isInstanceOf[Man])
m.add(new Marriage(
proposer.asInstanceOf[Man],
proposer.preferred.asInstanceOf[Woman]
))
else
m.add(new Marriage(
proposer.asInstanceOf[Woman],
proposer.preferred.asInstanceOf[Man]
))
proposers-=proposer//There is an error here
}
}
println(m)
}
}
This code is messy. It's poorly formatted, it mixes tabs and spaces, and it uses mutability even in the most trivial of places where a functional solution requires little thought.
This code also won't scale internationally to countries where same-sex marriage is a possibility.
Working from the top down...
I suspect you'll never want to directly instantiate an Individual, only ever a Man or a Woman. So a algebraic data type makes more sense, this is done with a sealed trait and case class subtypes.
I'll also drop the preferred property, as it can lead to circular references. Dealing with this in immutable data is beyond the level I'm willing to go in this answer.
sealed trait Individual {
def name: String
override def toString(): String=name
}
//as it's a case class, `name` becomes a val,
//which implements the abstract `def name` from the trait
case class Man(name: String) extends Individual
case class Woman(name: String) extends Individual
Marriage can also be a case class, and let's drop the clumsy duplication of class parameters into vals - it's just pointless boilerplate. This is also a good time to move the auxiliary constructor to a factory method in the companion object:
case class Marriage(man: Man, woman: Woman) {
override def toString(): String = man + "--" + woman
}
object Marriage {
def apply(w: Woman, m: Man) = new Marriage(m,w)
}
Matching is almost pointless, an entire class just to wrap a List? This kind of thing made sense in pre-Generics Java, but not any more. I'll keep it anyway (for now) so I can fix up that toString implementation, which is painfully mutable and uses return for no good reason:
case class Matching(){
private var list: List[Marriage] = Nil
def add(m: Marriage): Unit = { list ::= m }
override def toString() = list.mkString(" ")
}
Finally, the "meat" of the problem. Comments are inline, but you'll note that I don't need (or use) Matching. It's replaced in its entirety by the final println
object Test{
//better name, and a val (because it never changes)
protected val menPropose = true
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
// `new` not required for case classes
val al = Man("Al")
val bob = Man("Bob")
val alice = Woman("Alice")
val barbara = Woman("Barbara")
// remember how preference was removed from `Individual`?
val mprefs = Map( al -> alice, bob -> barbara )
val fprefs = Map( alice -> bob, barbara -> al )
val men = Set(al, bob)
val women = Set(alice, barbara)
// nicely immutable, and using the returned value from if/else
val proposers = if (menPropose) men else women
// no while loop, name shadowing, or mutability.
// just a simple for-comprehension
val marriages = for(proposer <- proposers) yield {
//pattern-matching beats `isInstanceOf`... every time
proposer match {
case m: Man => Marriage(m, mprefs(m))
case f: Woman => Marriage(f, fprefs(f))
}
}
println(marriages mkString " ")
}
}
There's more that can be done here, way more. What of same-sex relationships? What if two or more people share the same preference? What if someone has no preference?
I could also encode the type of someone's preference into Individual instances. But that's getting a bit more advanced.
I'm using scala and slick here, and I have a baserepository which is responsible for doing the basic crud of my classes.
For a design decision, we do have updatedTime and createdTime columns all handled by the application, and not by triggers in database. Both of this fields are joda DataTime instances.
Those fields are defined in two traits called HasUpdatedAt, and HasCreatedAt, for the tables
trait HasCreatedAt {
val createdAt: Option[DateTime]
}
case class User(name:String,createdAt:Option[DateTime] = None) extends HasCreatedAt
I would like to know how can I use reflection to call the user copy method, to update the createdAt value during the database insertion method.
Edit after #vptron and #kevin-wright comments
I have a repo like this
trait BaseRepo[ID, R] {
def insert(r: R)(implicit session: Session): ID
}
I want to implement the insert just once, and there I want to createdAt to be updated, that's why I'm not using the copy method, otherwise I need to implement it everywhere I use the createdAt column.
This question was answered here to help other with this kind of problem.
I end up using this code to execute the copy method of my case classes using scala reflection.
import reflect._
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
import scala.reflect.runtime._
class Empty
val mirror = universe.runtimeMirror(getClass.getClassLoader)
// paramName is the parameter that I want to replacte the value
// paramValue is the new parameter value
def updateParam[R : ClassTag](r: R, paramName: String, paramValue: Any): R = {
val instanceMirror = mirror.reflect(r)
val decl = instanceMirror.symbol.asType.toType
val members = decl.members.map(method => transformMethod(method, paramName, paramValue, instanceMirror)).filter {
case _: Empty => false
case _ => true
}.toArray.reverse
val copyMethod = decl.declaration(newTermName("copy")).asMethod
val copyMethodInstance = instanceMirror.reflectMethod(copyMethod)
copyMethodInstance(members: _*).asInstanceOf[R]
}
def transformMethod(method: Symbol, paramName: String, paramValue: Any, instanceMirror: InstanceMirror) = {
val term = method.asTerm
if (term.isAccessor) {
if (term.name.toString == paramName) {
paramValue
} else instanceMirror.reflectField(term).get
} else new Empty
}
With this I can execute the copy method of my case classes, replacing a determined field value.
As comments have said, don't change a val using reflection. Would you that with a java final variable? It makes your code do really unexpected things. If you need to change the value of a val, don't use a val, use a var.
trait HasCreatedAt {
var createdAt: Option[DateTime] = None
}
case class User(name:String) extends HasCreatedAt
Although having a var in a case class may bring some unexpected behavior e.g. copy would not work as expected. This may lead to preferring not using a case class for this.
Another approach would be to make the insert method return an updated copy of the case class, e.g.:
trait HasCreatedAt {
val createdAt: Option[DateTime]
def withCreatedAt(dt:DateTime):this.type
}
case class User(name:String,createdAt:Option[DateTime] = None) extends HasCreatedAt {
def withCreatedAt(dt:DateTime) = this.copy(createdAt = Some(dt))
}
trait BaseRepo[ID, R <: HasCreatedAt] {
def insert(r: R)(implicit session: Session): (ID, R) = {
val id = ???//insert into db
(id, r.withCreatedAt(??? /*now*/))
}
}
EDIT:
Since I didn't answer your original question and you may know what you are doing I am adding a way to do this.
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
val user = User("aaa", None)
val m = runtimeMirror(getClass.getClassLoader)
val im = m.reflect(user)
val decl = im.symbol.asType.toType.declaration("createdAt":TermName).asTerm
val fm = im.reflectField(decl)
fm.set(??? /*now*/)
But again, please don't do this. Read this stackoveflow answer to get some insight into what it can cause (vals map to final fields).