I'm a fairly new Scala developer. I am an experienced Java developer and so far I've been enjoying Scala's simplicity. I really like the functional constructs and quite often they force you to write cleaner code. However recently I noticed due to comfort and simplicity I end up using constructs I wouldn't necessarily use in Java and would actually be considered a bad practice e.g.
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = {
Try(value.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_))).getOrElse(Seq())
}
The same code snippet can be written as
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = {
if(value!=null) value.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_)) else Seq()
}
A part of me realizes that the Try/getOrElse block is designed with Options in mind but quite often it makes code more readable and handles cases you might have missed (which of course isn't always a good thing).
I would be interested to know what is the opinion of an experienced Scala developer on the matter.
I am not claiming any "experience" title but I much prefer your second construct for a few reasons
Throwing an exception (an NPE in this case) is expensive and best avoided; it should remain just that, exceptional
if are expressions in Scala, which avoids declaring "dangling" variables to hold the result of the test (just like ternary operators). Alternatively the match..case construct provides for very readable code.
I would personally return an Option[Seq[Integer]] to "pass back" the information that the values was null and facilitate further chaining of your function.
Something like
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Option[Seq[Integer]] = value match {
case null => None
case _ => Some(value.split(",").map(convertToSourceId(_)))
}
note 1: not sure you need the toSeq
note 2: for good or bad, looks a bit Haskellish
The combination of Scala + FP makes it almost doubly certain you will get different opinions :)
Edit
Please read comments below for additional reasons and alternatives, i.e,
def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String): Option[Array[String]] = Option(value).map(_.split(",").map(convertToSourceId(_)))
If you can, use Options instead of null to show when a value is missing.
Assuming that you can't use Options, a more readable way to handle this could be
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = value match {
case null => Seq();
case s => s.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_));
}
Related
If I run the following code, then I get an error:
import scala.reflect.ClassTag
class General {
}
class SubGeneral extends General {
def test() = println("tested")
}
class ProGeneral[T <: General: ClassTag] {
var array = Array.ofDim[T](3, 3)
def funcForSubGeneral(): Unit =
if (array(0)(0).isInstanceOf[SubGeneral]) then array(0)(0).test()
}
That is because General does not have the function test().
I know that I can fix this with pattern matching. This instead of the above funcForSubGeneral() works:
def funcForSubGeneral(): Unit =
array(0)(0) match {
case s: SubGeneral => s.test()
case _ => println("nope")
}
But I was wondering if it is possible to get the runtime type of array(0)(0) and check if it is a SubGeneral, and if that is the case then I call test(), which shouldn't cause a problem?
That is what I was actually trying by using isIntanceOf. I want to omit pattern matching since I'm just interested in one type.
isInstanceOf doesn't change anything, you would need to do array(0)(0).asInstanceOf[SubGeneral].test() in order to force the casting.
Note that the casting may fail at runtime, so that is why you need to check with the if before. Thus the end code looks like this:
if (array(0)(0).isInstanceOf[SubGeneral]) then array(0)(0).asInstanceOf[SubGeneral].test()
But, since this is cumbersome and error-prone, we have pattern matching:
array(0)(0) match {
case subGeneral: SubGeneral => subGeneral.test()
}
However, note that type tests are considered a bad practice; mainly because they are actually class checks and may fail certain circumstances. For example:
List("a", "b", "c") match {
case numbers: List[Int] => numbers.head + 1
}
Will throw an exception in runtime since, due to type erasure, we lost the [String] part and it matches only List then it tries to read the first element as an Int which is an error.
Anyways, this is the fourth time in two days you ask a question that shows bad practices and unidiomatic code.
My advice:
I would bet you are not following an appropriate resource to learn the language. Rather, it seems you are just trying to mimic another language (Python?) with different syntax. - Thus, I encourage you to pick an appropriate book, course, tutorial, etc; that properly introduces the language and its idioms.
I would encourage you to join the official Discord server which is more suitable for newcomers than StackOverflow.
I would recommend you to explain the meta-problem you are trying to solve in detail (either here in a new question or in the Discord server), I am pretty sure there are better and more idiomatic ways to solve it.
First of all, I'm very new to Scala and don't have any experience writing production code with it, so I lack understanding of what is considered a good/best practice among community. I stumbled upon these resources:
https://github.com/alexandru/scala-best-practices
https://nrinaudo.github.io/scala-best-practices/
It is mentioned there that throwing exceptions is not very good practice, which made me think what would be a good way to define preconditions for function then, because
A function that throws is a bit of a lie: its type implies it’s total function when it’s not.
After a bit of research, it seems that using Option/Either/Try/Or(scalactic) is a better approach, since you can use something like T Or IllegalArgumentException as return type to clearly indicate that function is actually partial, using exception as a way to store message that can be wrapped in other exceptions.
However lacking Scala experience I don't quite understand if this is actually viable approach for a real project or using Predef.require is a way to go. I would appreciate if someone explained how things are usually done in Scala community and why.
I've also seen Functional assertion in Scala, but while the idea itself looks interesting, I think PartialFunction is not very suitable for the purpose as it is, because often more than one argument is passed and tuples look like a hack in this case.
Option or Either is definitely the way to go for functional programming.
With Option it is important to document why None might be returned.
With Either, the left side is the unsuccessful value (the "error"), while the right side is the successful value. The left side does not necessarily have to be an Exception (or a subtype of it), it can be a simple error message String (type aliases are your friend here) or a custom data type that is suitable for you application.
As an example, I usually use the following pattern when error handling with Either:
// Somewhere in a package.scala
type Error = String // Or choose something more advanced
type EitherE[T] = Either[Error, T]
// Somewhere in the program
def fooMaybe(...): EitherE[Foo] = ...
Try should only be used for wrapping unsafe (most of the time, plain Java) code, giving you the ability to pattern-match on the result:
Try(fooDangerous()) match {
case Success(value) => ...
case Failure(value) => ...
}
But I would suggest only using Try locally and then go with the above mentioned data types from there.
Some advanced datatypes like cats.effect.IO or monix.reactive.Observable contain error handling natively.
I would also suggest looking into cats.data.EitherT for typeclass-based error handling. Read the documentation, it's definitely worth it.
As a sidenote, for everyone coming from Java, Scala treats all Exceptions as Java treats RuntimeExceptions. That means, even when an unsafe piece of code from one of your dependencies throws a (checked) IOException, Scala will never require you to catch or otherwise handle the exception. So as a rule of thumb, when using Java - dependencies, almost always wrap them in a Try (or an IO if they execute side effects or block the thread).
I think your reasoning is correct. If you have a simple total (opposite of partial) function with arguments that can have invalid types then the most common and simple solution is to return some optional result like Option, etc.
It's usually not advisable to throw exceptions as they break FP laws. You can use any library that can return a more advanced type than Option like Scalaz Validation if you need to compose results in ways that are awkward with Option.
Another two alternatives I could offer is to use:
Type constrained arguments that enforce preconditions. Example: val i: Int Refined Positive = 5 based on https://github.com/fthomas/refined. You can also write your own types which wrap primitive types and assert some properties. The problem here is if you have arguments that have multiple interdependent valid values which are mutually exclusive per argument. For instance x > 1 and y < 1 or x < 1 and y > 1. In such case you can return an optional value instead of using this approach.
Partial functions, which in the essence resemble optional return types: case i: Int if i > 0 => .... Docs: https://www.scala-lang.org/api/2.12.1/scala/PartialFunction.html.
For example:
PF's def lift: (A) ⇒ Option[B] converts PF to your regular function.
Turns this partial function into a plain function returning an Option
result.
Which is similar to returning an option. The problem with partial functions that they are a bit awkward to use and not fully FP friendly.
I think Predef.require belongs to very rare cases where you don't want to allow any invalid data to be constructed and is more of a stop-everything-if-this-happens kind of measure. Example would be that you get arguments you never supposed to get.
You use the return type of the function to indicate the type of the result.
If you want to describe a function that can fail for whatever reason, of the types you mentioned you would probably return Try or Either: I am going to "try" to give your a result, or I am going to return "either" a success or an failure.
Now you can specify a custom exception
case class ConditionException(message: String) extends RuntimeException(message)
that you would return if your condition is not satisfied, e.g
import scala.util._
def myfunction(a: String, minLength: Int): Try[String] = {
if(a.size < minLength) {
Failure(ConditionException(s"string $a is too short")
} else {
Success(a)
}
}
and with Either you would get
import scala.util._
def myfunction(a: String, minLength: Int): Either[ConditionException,String] = {
if(a.size < minLength) {
Left(ConditionException(s"string $a is too short")
} else {
Right(a)
}
}
Not that the Either solution clearly indicates the error your function might return
WartRemover's NonUnitStatements requires that statements that aren't returning unit must have an assignment. OK, but sometimes we have to use annoying Java APIs that both mutate and return a value, and we don't actually hardly ever care about the returned value.
So I end up trying this:
val _ = mutateSomething(foo)
But if I have multiple of these, _ is actually a legit val that has been assigned to, so I cannot reassign. Wartremover also rightly will admonish for gratuitous var-usage, so I can't just do var _ =.
I can do the following (need the ; to avoid Scala thinking it is a continue definition unless I add a full newline everytime I do this).
;{val _ = mutateSomething(foo)}
Is there a better way?
My general thoughts about linting tools is that you should not jump through hoops to satisfy them.
The point is to make your code better, both with fewer bugs and stylistically. But just assigning to var _ = does not achieve this. I would first be sure I really really don't care about the return value, not even asserting that it is what I expect it to be. If I don't, I would just add a #SuppressWarnings(Array("org.wartremover.warts.NonUnitStatements")) and maybe a comment about why and be done with it.
Scala is somewhat unique in that it's a somewhat opinionated language that also tries to integrate with another not-so-opinionated language. This leads to pain points. There are different philosophies to dealing with this, but I tend to not sweat it, and just be aware of and try to isolate the boundaries.
I'm posting an answer, but the real credit goes to Shane Delmore for pointing this out:
def discard(evaluateForSideEffectOnly: Any): Unit = {
val _: Any = evaluateForSideEffectOnly
() //Return unit to prevent warning due to discarding value
}
Alternatively (or see #som-snytt's comments below):
#specialized def discard[A](evaluateForSideEffectOnly: A): Unit = {
val _: A = evaluateForSideEffectOnly
() //Return unit to prevent warning due to discarding value
}
Then use it like: discard{ badMutateFun(foo) }.
Unlike the ;{ val _ = ... } solution, it looks way better, and also works in the beginning of a block without needing to alter style (a ; can't come at the start of a block, it must come after a statement).
This is purely a coding-style question.
A function I'm calling returns an Option, and I want to take a specific action if it's equal to None.
Say, for example, that I'm trying to create a default user at boot time if it doesn't already exist. I'd call a function that attempts to find a user that matches the default one, and returns an Option[User].
If that return value is None, I'd like to run some user creation code. If not, I'm done.
I'm wondering what's the most idiomatic Scala syntax for this. What I have so far is:
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ...
getUser("admin") getOrElse createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
getUser("admin") match {
case None => createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
case _ =>
}
if(getUser("admin") == None) createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
The first solution seems like the most functional one, but I can't help but feel that there might be better ones - possibly by using partially applied functions, which I admit I'm still a bit fuzzy about.
Since in your case the goal is to cause a side effect, I'd use a conditional to stress that, instead of using getOrElse.
if (getUser("admin").isEmpty)
createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
Remember that scala is a multi-paradigm language.
In addition to syntax, you want to consider concepts such as cohesion (single responsibility) and so you can consider the composition of your objects in addition to the actual idioms you use in the syntax.
The OO way might be to decorate the object/class that getUser belongs to in to put that concern of creating the user in a wrapper so that other code that calls the getUser function never has to deal with that concern. This fits nicely with open/closed principle and single responsibility. This is a bit of an anemic domain model anti-pattern here but may show how OO can be used to extend the conversation into actual design.
Either pattern matching or getOrElse are reasonable solutions. Generally if statements aren't used against Monads like the option - at least not that I see.
Either way, I beleive the expression should return the result even if there are side effects (user creation).
case class User(name: String)
class UserService {
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ???
def createUser(name: String): User = ???
}
class UserServiceDecorator extends UserService {
override def getUser(name: String): Option[User] =
Some(super.getUser(name).getOrElse(super.createUser(name)))
}
Really the best way to do this is to assign the result to a meaningful variable name so your future code doesn't need to know if createUser was called or not.
val user = getUser("admin").getOrElse(createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!"))
This way you can use the user variable regardless of if you've created a new user or not.
is there a way to create an alias for a scala keyword? in particular i have some boilerplate syntax that involves "val" and in order to make it easier to read i'd like to be able to type something "##" instead and have that translated to val.
Edit:
In some cases, it might be very convenient to be able to replace "lazy val", not just "val". The use case has to do with a function that acts as a python decorator. It looks like this:
lazy val function = Decorate(function_ _)
def function_(x: Int, ...) = { ... }
it would be a lot nicer if it looked like this:
# function = Decorate(function_ _)
def function_(x: Int, ...) = { ... }
just so that there's not a val stacked on top of a def, where both names are extremely similar. (the function_ name is not meant to be called, so it's the cleanest to make the names similar.)
No, there isn't.
(filler so SO will let me post)
Ouch! This isn't particularly idiomatic Scala.
To start with, you're naming a method "function_", they're not the same thing, a method is simply a member of some class, a Function is an object in its own right (although a method can be "lifted" to a function by the compiler, in a similar fashion to the autoboxing of primitives).
Second, what is Decorate? The initial uppercase letter suggests that it's a singleton, therefore an object and the only actual "Function" in that expression!
Could you post a bit more info as to what the method and decorator actually do, so that I can give you a better example as to how you might achieve the same in Scala?
I guess one could write a Scala Compiler Plugin to achieve this. At least the Eclipse Plugin actually uses the original Scala Compiler, so it might actually work nicely with the IDE.
Other then that: Daniel C. Sobral is correct: No, there isn't.
Still it sounds like a lot of trouble for a little gain.
If function_ is never meant to be called directly, why not write
lazy val function = Decorate { (x: Int, ...) => ... }
or even
/**
* This version makes it more explicit that it's a function value.
*/
lazy val function: (Int, ...) => ReturnType =
Decorate { (x, ...) => ... }
Some caution is advised: conciseness and terseness are two different things. Here, it looks like you're trying to buy a few keystrokes at a very high price in terms of readability.
Update:
If you really want to achieve a simpler syntax for this sort of thing, you will need a compiler plugin. If you're going to go that far, I'd suggest using an annotations-based syntax that's likely to be pretty intuitive for Java/Scala developers:
#decorate(Memoize)
def slowFn(i: Int) = { ... }