How to handle a future option inside of a playframework controller? - scala

I currently have the following signature for my method call:
val article:Future[Option[Article]] = articleService.getById(1)
My controller looks like:
def show(id: Int) = Action.async { request =>
articleService.getById(id).onSuccess {
case articleOpt => {
articleOpt.map{
article => Ok("....")
}
}
}
Ok("fail")
}
Is there a cleaner way of handling a Future[Option[Model]] ?

def show(id: Int) = Action.async { request =>
articleService.getById(id).map {
case Some(article) => Ok(article)
case None => Ok("...")
}.recover{case ex => Ok("fail")}
}
Even more cleaner way requires using smth like scalaz's ReaderT

You can also use scalaz monad transformer OptionT:
import scalaz.OptionT
def show(id: Int) = Action.async {
OptionT(articleService.getById(id))
.map(a => Ok(s"found: ${a.name}"))
.getOrElse(NotFound("Not found"))
}

Maybe something like this
def show(id: Int) = Action.async { request =>
articleService.getById(id) map { op =>
op match {
case Some(acle) => Ok(s"found: ${acle.name}")
case None => NotFound("Not found")
}}
}

Related

Why are Futures in scala realised using a collection in the companion object?

I'm not sure whether I chose the right title for my question..
I'm interested as to why the collection in the companion object is defined. Am I mistaken that this collection will have only one f in it? What I am seeing is a collection with exactly one element.
Here's the Future I'm dealing with:
trait Future[+T] { self =>
def onComplete(callback: Try[T] => Unit): Unit
def map[U](f: T => U) = new Future[U] {
def onComplete(callback: Try[U] => Unit) =
self onComplete (t => callback(t.map(f)))
}
def flatMap[U](f: T => Future[U]) = new Future[U] {
def onComplete(callback: Try[U] => Unit) =
self onComplete { _.map(f) match {
case Success(fu) => fu.onComplete(callback)
case Failure(e) => callback(Failure(e))
} }
}
def filter(p: T => Boolean) =
map { t => if (!p(t)) throw new NoSuchElementException; t }
}
Its companion object:
object Future {
def apply[T](f: => T) = {
val handlers = collection.mutable.Buffer.empty[Try[T] => Unit]
var result: Option[Try[T]] = None
val runnable = new Runnable {
def run = {
val r = Try(f)
handlers.synchronized {
result = Some(r)
handlers.foreach(_(r))
}
}
}
(new Thread(runnable)).start()
new Future[T] {
def onComplete(f: Try[T] => Unit) = handlers.synchronized {
result match {
case None => handlers += f
case Some(r) => f(r)
}
}
}
}
}
In my head I was imagining something like the following instead of the above companion object (notice how I replaced the above val handlers .. with var handler ..):
object Future {
def apply[T](f: => T) = {
var handler: Option[Try[T] => Unit] = None
var result: Option[Try[T]] = None
val runnable = new Runnable {
val execute_when_ready: Try[T] => Unit = r => handler match {
case None => execute_when_ready(r)
case Some(f) => f(r)
}
def run = {
val r = Try(f)
handler.synchronized {
result = Some(r)
execute_when_ready(r)
}
}
}
(new Thread(runnable)).start()
new Future[T] {
def onComplete(f: Try[T] => Unit) = handler.synchronized {
result match {
case None => handler = Some(f)
case Some(r) => f(r)
}
}
}
}
}
So why does the function execute_when_ready leads to stackoverflow, but that's not the case with handlers.foreach? what is the collection is offering me which I can't do without it? And is it possible to replace the collection with something else in the companion object?
The collection is not in the companion object, it is in the apply method, so there is a new instance for each Future. It is there because there can be multiple pending onComplete handlers on the same Future.
Your implementation only allows a single handler and silently removes any existing handler in onComplete which is a bad idea because the caller has no idea if a previous function has added an onComplete handler or not.
As noted in the comments, the stack overflow is because execute_when_ready calls itself if handler is None with no mechanism to stop the recursion.

Handling a case of when my future returns a None in my play controller action method,

I want to refactor by update action below to look a little more readable and also handle the failure case better
The userService has the following functions:
class UserService {
def getUserByUsername: Future[Option[Int]] // which is the UserId
def getUserById: Future[User]
}
My action looks like:
def update(userId: Int) = Action.async { implicit request =>
request.body.validate[User] match {
case JsSuccess(user, _) => {
userService.getUserByUsername(user.username).map { userId =>
userService.getUserById(userId.get).map { existingUser =>
userService.update(user.username)
Ok
}
}
}
case JsError(err) => Future.sucessful(BadRequest(err))
}
}
How do I handle the situation where getUserByUsername returns a None?
Would this look cleaner if it was in a for comprehension, is it better style?
You have some missing data in your questions such as case classes for the User model, userService class.
also better to attach the original function.
Anyways, I will do something as follows:
def update(userId: Int) = Action { implicit request =>
request.body.validate[User] match {
case JsSuccess(user: User, _) => {
val userId = getUserByUsername(user.username)
userId match {
case Some(userId) => {
for {
_ <- userService.getUserById(userId)
_ <- userService.update(user.username)
} yield Ok
}.recover {
case t: Throwable =>
Metrics.errOnUpdate.increment() // Some metric to monitor
logger.error(s"update userId: $userId failed with ex: ${t.getMessage}") // log the error
InternalServerError(Json.toJson(Json.obj("error" -> "Failure occured on update"))) // return custom made exception to the client
}
case None => Future.successful(NotFound(s"No such user with ${user.username}"))
}
}
case JsError(err) => Future.sucessful(BadRequest(err))
}
}
Note: If .update returns Future, you actually not waiting to update before returning Ok to the user, thus, if its fails, its still returns Ok.
To fix that, use flatMap and then map the value of update response.
You can also separate the recovering for the getUserById and update if you prefer.
Edit:
def update(userId: Int) = Action { implicit request =>
request.body.validate[User] match {
case JsSuccess(user: User, _) => {
getUserByUsername(user.username).flatMap {
case Some(userId) => for {
_ <- userService.getUserById(userId)
_ <- userService.update(user.username)
} yield Ok
case None => Future.successful(NotFound(s"No such user with ${user.username}"))
}
}.recover {
case t: Throwable =>
Metrics.errOnUpdate.increment() // Some metric to monitor
logger.error(s"update userId: $userId failed with ex: ${t.getMessage}") // log the error
InternalServerError(Json.toJson(Json.obj("error" -> "Failure occured on update"))) // return custom made exception to the client
}
}
case JsError(err) => Future.sucessful(BadRequest(err))
}
}
First, you probably need to use Option.fold:
#inline final def fold[B](ifEmpty: => B)(f: A => B)
Then you can do something like this:
def update(userId: Int) = Action.async { implicit request =>
def handleJsonErrors(errors: Seq[(JsPath, collection.Seq[JsonValidationError])]): Future[Result] = ???
def updateUser(userWithoutId: User): Future[Result] = {
for {
userId <- userService.getUserByUsername(userWithoutId.username)
_ <- userService.getUserById(userId.get)
_ <- userService.update(userWithoutId.username)
} yield {
Ok
}
}
request.body.asJson.fold {
Future.successful(BadRequest("Bad json"))
} {
_.validate[User].fold(handleJsonErrors, updateUser).recover {
case NonFatal(ex) =>
InternalServerError
}
}
}

How to implement multiple thread pools in a Play application using cats-effect IO

In my Play application, I service my requests usings cats-effect's IO, instead of Future in the controller, like this (super-simplified):
def handleServiceResult(serviceResult: ServiceResult): Result = ...
def serviceMyRequest(request: Request): IO[ServiceResult] = ...
def myAction = Action { request =>
handleServiceResult(
serviceMyRequest(request).unsafeRunSync()
)
}
Requests are then processed (asynchronously) on Play's default thread pool. Now, I want to implement multiple thread pools to handle different sorts of requests. Were I using Futures, I could do this:
val myCustomExecutionContext: ExecutionContext = ...
def serviceMyRequest(request: Request): Future[ServiceResult] = ...
def myAction = Action.async { request =>
Future(serviceMyRequest(request))(myCustomExecutionContext)
.map(handleServiceResult)(defaultExecutionContext)
}
But I'm not using Futures, I'm using IO, and I'm not sure about the right way to go about implementing it. This looks promising, but seems a bit clunky:
def serviceMyRequest(request: Request): IO[ServiceResult] = ...
def myAction = Action { request =>
val ioServiceResult = for {
_ <- IO.shift(myCustomExecutionContext)
serviceResult <- serviceMyRequest(request)
_ <- IO.shift(defaultExecutionContext)
} yield {
serviceResult
}
handleServiceResult(ioServiceResult.unsafeRunSync())
}
Is this the right way to implement it? Is there a best practice here? Am I screwing up badly? Thanks.
Ok, so since this doesn't seem to be well-trodden ground, this is what I ended up implementing:
trait PlayIO { self: BaseControllerHelpers =>
implicit class IOActionBuilder[A](actionBuilder: ActionBuilder[Request, A]) {
def io(block: Request[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
actionBuilder.apply(block.andThen(_.unsafeRunSync()))
}
def io(executionContext: ExecutionContext)(block: Request[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
val shiftedBlock = block.andThen(IO.shift(executionContext) *> _ <* IO.shift(defaultExecutionContext))
actionBuilder.apply(shiftedBlock.andThen(_.unsafeRunSync()))
}
}
}
Then (using the framework from the question) if I mix PlayIO into the controller, I can do this,
val myCustomExecutionContext: ExecutionContext = ...
def handleServiceResult(serviceResult: ServiceResult): Result = ...
def serviceMyRequest(request: Request): IO[ServiceResult] = ...
def myAction = Action.io(myCustomExecutionContext) { request =>
serviceMyRequest(request).map(handleServiceResult)
}
such that I execute the action's code block on myCustomExecutionContext and then, once complete, thread-shift back to Play's default execution context.
Update:
This is a bit more flexible:
trait PlayIO { self: BaseControllerHelpers =>
implicit class IOActionBuilder[R[_], A](actionBuilder: ActionBuilder[R, A]) {
def io(block: R[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
actionBuilder.apply(block.andThen(_.unsafeRunSync()))
}
def io(executionContext: ExecutionContext)(block: R[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
if (executionContext == defaultExecutionContext) io(block) else {
val shiftedBlock = block.andThen(IO.shift(executionContext) *> _ <* IO.shift(defaultExecutionContext))
io(shiftedBlock)
}
}
}
}
Update2:
Per the comment above, this will ensure we always shift back to the default thread pool:
trait PlayIO { self: BaseControllerHelpers =>
implicit class IOActionBuilder[R[_], A](actionBuilder: ActionBuilder[R, A]) {
def io(block: R[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
actionBuilder.apply(block.andThen(_.unsafeRunSync()))
}
def io(executionContext: ExecutionContext)(block: R[A] => IO[Result]): Action[A] = {
if (executionContext == defaultExecutionContext) io(block) else {
val shiftedBlock = block.andThen { ioResult =>
IO.shift(executionContext).bracket(_ => ioResult)(_ => IO.shift(defaultExecutionContext))
}
io(shiftedBlock)
}
}
}
}

What about a Scala Future#collectWith method?

There're map/flatMap methods, there're also recover/recoverWith methods in the Scala Future standard API.
Why there's no collectWith ?
The code of the collect method is pretty simple :
def collect[S](pf: PartialFunction[T, S])(implicit executor: ExecutionContext): Future[S] =
map {
r => pf.applyOrElse(r, (t: T) => throw new NoSuchElementException("Future.collect partial function is not defined at: " + t))
}
The code of the collectWith method is then easy to imagine :
def collectWith[S](pf: PartialFunction[T, Future[S]])(implicit executor: ExecutionContext): Future[S] =
flatMap {
r => pf.applyOrElse(r, (t: T) => throw new NoSuchElementException("Future.collect partial function is not defined at: " + t))
}
I know that I can implement it and "extend" the Future standard API easily thanks to this article : http://debasishg.blogspot.fr/2008/02/why-i-like-scalas-lexically-scoped-open.html
I done that in my project :
class RichFuture[T](future: Future[T]) {
def collectWith[S](pf: PartialFunction[T, Future[S]])(implicit executor: ExecutionContext): Future[S] =
future.flatMap {
r => pf.applyOrElse(r, (t: T) => throw new NoSuchElementException("Future.collect partial function is not defined at: " + t))
}
}
trait WithRichFuture {
implicit def enrichFuture[T](person: Future[T]): RichFuture[T] = new RichFuture(person)
}
Maybe my needs for that does not justify to implement it in the standard API ?
Here is why I need this method in my Play2 project :
def createCar(key: String, eligibleCars: List[Car]): Future[Car] = {
def handleResponse: PartialFunction[WSResponse, Future[Car]] = {
case response: WSResponse if response.status == Status.CREATED => Future.successful(response.json.as[Car])
case response: WSResponse
if response.status == Status.BAD_REQUEST && response.json.as[Error].error == "not_the_good_one" =>
createCar(key, eligibleCars.tail)
}
// The "carApiClient.createCar" method just returns the result of the WS API call.
carApiClient.createCar(key, eligibleCars.head).collectWith(handleResponse)
}
I don't know how to do that without my collectWith method.
Maybe it's not the right way to do something like this ?
Do you know a better way ?
EDIT:
I have maybe a better solution for the createCar method that does not requires the collectWith method :
def createCar(key: String, eligibleCars: List[Car]): Future[Car] = {
for {
mayCar: Option[Car] <- Future.successful(eligibleCars.headOption)
r: WSResponse <- carApiClient.createCar(key, mayCar.get) if mayCar.nonEmpty
createdCar: Car <- Future.successful(r.json.as[Car]) if r.status == Status.CREATED
createdCar: Car <- createCar(key, eligibleCars.tail) if r.status == Status.BAD_REQUEST && r.json.as[Error].error == "not_the_good_one"
} yield createdCar
}
What do you think about this second solution ?
Second edit:
Just for information, here is my final solution thanks to #Dylan answer :
def createCar(key: String, eligibleCars: List[Car]): Future[Car] = {
def doCall(head: Car, tail: List[Car]): Future[Car] = {
carApiClient
.createCar(key, head)
.flatMap( response =>
response.status match {
case Status.CREATED => Future.successful(response.json.as[Car])
case Status.BAD_REQUEST if response.json.as[Error].error == "not_the_good_one" =>
createCar(key, tail)
}
)
}
eligibleCars match {
case head :: tail => doCall(head, tail)
case Nil => Future.failed(new RuntimeException)
}
}
Jules
How about:
def createCar(key: String, eligibleCars: List[Car]): Future[Car] = {
def handleResponse(response: WSResponse): Future[Car] = response.status match {
case Status.Created =>
Future.successful(response.json.as[Car])
case Status.BAD_REQUEST if response.json.as[Error].error == "not_the_good_one" =>
createCar(key, eligibleCars.tail)
case _ =>
// just fallback to a failed future rather than having a `collectWith`
Future.failed(new NoSuchElementException("your error here"))
}
// using flatMap since `handleResponse` is now a regular function
carApiClient.createCar(key, eligibleCars.head).flatMap(handleResponse)
}
Two changes:
handleResponse is no longer a partial function. The case _ returns a failed future, which is essentially what you were doing in your custom collectWith implementation.
use flatMap instead of collectWith, since handleResponse now suits that method signature
edit for extra info
If you really need to support the PartialFunction approach, you could always convert a PartialFunction[A, Future[B]] to a Function[A, Future[B]] by calling orElse on the partial function, e.g.
val handleResponsePF: PartialFunction[WSResponse, Future[Car]] = {
case ....
}
val handleResponse: Function[WSResponse, Future[Car]] = handleResponsePF orElse {
case _ => Future.failed(new NoSucheElementException("default case"))
}
Doing so would allow you to adapt an existing partial function to fit into a flatMap call.
(okay, technically, it already does, but you'd be throwing MatchErrors rather than your own custom exceptions)

Type conversion from Unit to Future[Boolean]

I have the following function and I would like to return Future[Boolean] but the IDE prompts that I return Unit. I am new in Scala. Can someone point me out what I am doing wrong?
def remove(loginInfo: LoginInfo): Future[Boolean] = {
val result = findObject(loginInfo)
result.onSuccess {
case Some(persistentPasswordInfo) =>
val removeResult = remove(persistentPasswordInfo._id.toString)
removeResult.map {
case Left(ex) => Future.successful(false)
case Right(b) => Future.successful(b)
}
case None => Future.successful(false)
}
}
Replace onSuccess with flatMap. Assuming your remove(x: String) method also returns a Future, that will also need to be flatMapped:
def remove(loginInfo: LoginInfo): Future[Boolean] = {
val result = findObject(loginInfo)
result.flatMap {
case Some(persistentPasswordInfo) =>
val removeResult = remove(persistentPasswordInfo._id.toString)
removeResult.flatMap {
case Left(ex) => Future.successful(false)
case Right(b) => Future.successful(b)
}
case None => Future.successful(false)
}
}