Scala Future[Option[T]] Un Packing - scala

In the following snippet,
trait MyType1; trait MyType2
import scala.concurrent.Promise
val p1 = Promise[Option[MyType1]]()
val p2 = Promise[MyType2]()
I pass in p1 and p2 to another function where I complete the Promise using a successful Future. After the call to this function, I try to read the value in the Promise:
trait Test {
// get the Future from the promise
val f1 = p1.future
val f2 = p2.future
for {
someF1Elem <- f1
f1Elem <- someF1Elem
f2Elem <- f1Elem
} yield {
// do something with f1Elem and f2Elem
"..."
}
}
When I try to compile this, I get some compiler issues.
Error:(52, 19) type mismatch;
found : Option[Nothing]
required: scala.concurrent.Future[?]
flElem <- someF1Elem
^
IntelliJ shows no errors or what-so-ever and the types look aligned. But I'm not sure why the compiler is unhappy! Any clues?

Your for comprehension types must be consistent, so you cannot freely mix Option and Future in the way you do.
In your example, f1 returns a Future[Option[MyType1]] while f2 returns a Future[MyType2]
Remember that a for comprehension desugars to a series of flatMap/map and potentially withFilter.
Also the (simplified) signatures of flatMap for Future[A] and Option[A] are
def flatMap[B](f: A => Future[B]): Future[B]
def flatMap[B](f: A => Option[B]): Option[B]
The first two steps of the for-comprehension desugar to
f1.flatMap { someF1Elem =>
someF1Elem.flatMap { f1Elem => // this returns a `Option[MyType1]`
...
}
}
see the error now?
Now, to fix this there's a few approaches you can follow. One very handy is to use Monad Transformers, which allow you to combine (for instance) Future and Option into a single monad type OptionT.
Specifically you can go back and forth from Future[Option[A]] to OptionT[Future, A]. The basic idea is that you can flatMap on the latter and extract a value of type A.
But before that, you need to make your types of the "right shape", so that both are a Future[Option[Something]]
Here's an example using scalaz
import scalaz._; import Scalaz._ ; import scalaz.OptionT._
import scala.concurrent.{ Promise, Future }
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
trait MyType1
trait MyType2
val p1 = Promise[Option[MyType1]]()
val p2 = Promise[MyType2]()
val f1 = p1.future
val f2 = p2.future
val res = for {
f1Elem <- optionT(f1)
f2Elem <- f2.liftM[OptionT]
} yield {
println(s"$f1Elem $f2Elem")
}
optionT builds an OptionT[Future, A] given a Future[Option[A]], while liftM[OptionT] achieves the same when you have a Future[A]
The type of res is OptionT[Future, Unit] in this case, and you can get a Future[Option[Unit]] by calling run on it.

Looking at "How does yield work", your for comprehension is equivalent to
f1.flatMap(someF1Elem: Option[MyType1] =>
someF1Elem.flatMap(f1Elem =>
f1Elem.map(f2Elem =>
"..."
)
)
)
Basically what happens is this: flatMap on a Future is defined to take a function that returns another Future.
This gives you a similar error:
<console>:64: error: value map is not a member of MyType1
f1Elem.map(f2Elem =>
^
<console>:63: error: type mismatch;
found : Option[Nothing]
required: scala.concurrent.Future[?]
someF1Elem.flatMap(f1Elem =>
^
If you want the operation to perform asynchronously, i.e. really mapping the Future instances, you will have to get back to a Future[Option[X]]. As Kim suggested, you can nest the comprehension:
import scala.concurrent.{Future, Promise}
def test: Future[Option[String]] = {
val p1 = Promise[Option[MyType1]]()
val p2 = Promise[MyType2]()
// ... run code that completes the promises
val f1 = p1.future
val f2 = p2.future
for {
someF1Elem: Option[MyType1] <- f1
f2Elem <- f2
} yield {
for (f1Elem <- someF1Elem) yield "something"
}
}
You could also make the resulting Future fail when the option is not defined (NoSuchElementException)
def test: Future[String] = {
val p1 = Promise[Option[MyType1]]()
val p2 = Promise[MyType2]()
// ... run code that completes the promises
val f1 = p1.future
val f2 = p2.future
for {
someF1Elem: Option[MyType1] <- f1
f2Elem <- f2
} yield {
val f1Elem = someF1Elem.get // may cause an exception and fail the future
"something"
}
}

In a for comprehension, the expressions on the right hand side of the <- have to have compatible types. That is because for comprehensions are basically syntactic sugar for nested flatMap calls. To solve this problem, you can either have a for comprehension nested within another for comprehension or you can use methods like get or map on the Options.
Another option is to use monad transformers, but that's beyond the scope of this answer.

Related

Stacking monads Writer and OptionT

I have the following code:
override def getStandsByUser(email: String): Try[Seq[Stand]] =
(for {
user <- OptionT(userService.findOneByEmail(email)): Try[Option[User]]
stands <- OptionT.liftF(standService.list()):[Try[List[Stand]]]
filtered = stands.filter(stand => user.stands.contains(stand.id))
} yield filtered).getOrElse(Seq())
}
I want to add logging on each stage of the processing - so I need to introduce writer monad and stack it with monad transformer OptionT. Could you please suggest how to do that?
The best way to do this is to convert your service calls into using cats-mtl.
For representing Try or Option you can use MonadError and for logging you can use FunctorTell. Now I don't know what exactly you're doing inside your userService or standService, but I wrote some code to demonstrate what the result might look like:
type Log = List[String]
//inside UserService
def findOneByEmail[F[_]](email: String)
(implicit F: MonadError[F, Error], W: FunctorTell[F, Log]): F[User] = ???
//inside StandService
def list[F[_]]()
(implicit F: MonadError[F, Error], W: FunctorTell[F, Log]): F[List[Stand]] = ???
def getStandsByUser[F[_]](email: String)
(implicit F: MonadError[F, Error], W: FunctorTell[F, Log]): F[List[Stand]] =
for {
user <- userService.findOneByEmail(email)
stands <- standService.list()
} yield stands.filter(stand => user.stands.contains(stand.id))
//here we actually run the function
val result =
getStandsByUser[WriterT[OptionT[Try, ?], Log, ?] // yields WriterT[OptionT[Try, ?], Log, List[Stand]]
.run // yields OptionT[Try, (Log, List[Stand])]
.value // yields Try[Option[(Log, List[Stand])]]
This way we can avoid all of the calls to liftF and easily compose our different services even if they will use different monad transformers at runtime.
If you take a look at the definition of cats.data.Writer you will see that it is an alias to cats.data.WriterT with the effect fixed to Id.
What you want to do is use WriterT directly and instead of Id use OptionT[Try, YourType].
Here is a small code example of how that can be achieved:
object Example {
import cats.data._
import cats.implicits._
type MyType[A] = OptionT[Try, A]
def myFunction: MyType[Int] = OptionT(Try(Option(1)))
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val tmp: WriterT[MyType, List[String], Int] = for {
_ <- WriterT.tell[MyType, List[String]](List("Before first invocation"))
i <- WriterT.liftF[MyType, List[String], Int](myFunction)
_ <- WriterT.tell[MyType, List[String]](List("After second invocation"))
j <- WriterT.liftF[MyType, List[String], Int](myFunction)
_ <- WriterT.tell[MyType, List[String]](List(s"Result is ${i + j}"))
} yield i + j
val result: Try[Option[(List[String], Int)]] = tmp.run.value
println(result)
// Success(Some((List(Before first invocation, After second invocation, Result is 2),2)))
}
}
The type annotations make this a bit ugly, but depending on your use case you might be able to get rid of them. As you can see myFunction returns a result of type OptionT[Try, Int] and WriterT.lift will push that into a writer object that also has a List[String] for your logs.

Scala Option[Future[T]] to Future[Option[T]]

How can I convert Option[Future[T]] to Future[Option[T]] in scala?
I want to use it in:
val customerAddresses = for {
a <- addressDAO.insert(ca.address) // Future[Address]
ia <- ca.invoiceAddress.map(addressDAO.insert) // Option[Future[Address]]
} yield (a, ia) // Invalid value have to be two futures
Here signature insert method
def insert(address: Address): Future[Address]
ca is a CustomerData
case class CustomerData(address: Address, invoiceAddress: Option[Address])
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext
def f[A](x: Option[Future[A]])(implicit ec: ExecutionContext): Future[Option[A]] =
x match {
case Some(f) => f.map(Some(_))
case None => Future.successful(None)
}
Examples:
scala> f[Int](Some(Future.successful(42)))
res3: scala.concurrent.Future[Option[Int]] = Success(Some(42))
scala> f[Int](None)
res4: scala.concurrent.Future[Option[Int]] = scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$KeptPromise#c88a337
If you have cats as a dependency in your application, the most beautiful way would be to use traverse
import cats._
import cats.implicits._
val customerAddresses = for {
a <- addressDAO.insert(ca.address) // Future[Address]
ia <- ca.invoiceAddress.traverse(addressDAO.insert) // Future[Option[Address]]
} yield (a, ia)
The standard library does provide the methods to use Future.sequence on an Option, unfortunately you have to plumb them together.
Either as a quick method:
def swap[M](x: Option[Future[M]]): Future[Option[M]] =
Future.sequence(Option.option2Iterable(x)).map(_.headOption)
Note I found the implicit Option.option2Iterable was already in scope for me. So you may not need to provide it, reducing the code down to Future.sequence(x).map(_.headOption)
Or you may prefer an extension method:
implicit class OptionSwitch[A](f: Option[Future[A]]) {
import scala.concurrent.Future
def switch: Future[Option[A]] = Future.sequence(Option.option2Iterable(f))
.map(_.headOption)
}
val myOpt = Option(Future(3))
myOpt.switch
Here is another solution:
def swap[T](o: Option[Future[T]]): Future[Option[T]] =
o.map(_.map(Some(_))).getOrElse(Future.successful(None))
The trick is to convert Option[Future[T]] into Option[Future[Option[T]]] which is easy, and then extract the value from that Option.
When you have a list (or any TraversableOnce) of futures and want a single future for computing the whole list, you use Future.sequence or Future.traverse. You can think of an Option like a list of 1 or 0 elements but since is technically not a list you have to go for a little conversion in this case. Anyway, this is a code that does it normally:
val optionFuture:Option[Future[String]] = ???
val futureOption:Future[Option[String]] = Future.sequence(optionFuture.toIterable).map(_.headOption)
In you example use better Future.traverse:
val customerAddresses = for {
a <- addressDAO.insert(ca.address) // Future[Address]
ia <- Future.traverse(ca.invoiceAddress.toIterable)(addressDAO.insert).map(_.headOption) // Future[Option[Address]]
} yield CustomerData(a, ia) // Types OK
val customerAddresses = for {
a <- addressDAO.insert(ca.address) // Future[Address]
ia <- ca.invoiceAddress.map(x => addressDAO.insert(x).map(_.map(k => Some(k))).getOrElse(Future.successful(None)))
} yield (a, ia)
You can do it simply using Dumonad
import io.github.dumonad.dumonad.Implicits._
futureOfOption.dummed

Play Framework / Dependent Future Composition

I am trying to do several dependent Slick/DB calls and then display the resulting data within a twirl template.
def show(slug: String) = Action.async { implicit rs =>
for {
f <- fooDAO.findBySlug(slug) // f is of type Option[foo]
fid <- f.flatMap(a => a.id.map(b => b)) // fid is of type Long
b <- barDAO.findByFooId(fid) // b is of type Seq[bar]
} yield {
f.map {
case Some(f) => Ok(views.html.foobar(f, b))
case _ => NotFound
}
}
}
I first need to get the "ID" to then be able to query other relevant data. The compiler is now producing this error:
play.sbt.PlayExceptions$CompilationException: Compilation error[type mismatch;
found : scala.concurrent.Future[Option[play.api.mvc.Result]]
required: Option[?]]
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
There is a fundamental flaw in your code, in that you're mixing in the same comprehension an Option and a Seq
A for-comprehension is expected to work on the same "container" type, which will be the resulting representation of the yield
e.g. if you combine several Options you get an Option, if you combine Seqs you get a Seq.
In this case you can overcome the problem by converting the Option (foo) to a Seq (which will be empty if the foo is None and have 1 element if not).
The end result would be
val results: Seq[(Foo, Bar)] =
for {
f <- fooDAO.findBySlug(slug).toSeq // f is of type Seq[Foo]
b <- barDAO.findByFooId(f.id) // b is of type Seq[Bar]
} yield (f, b)
But I guess this is not what you need. I suppose you want to get all Bars associated with the retrieved Foo, if any, and present it with your template. If no Foo is present for the slug, you want a NotFound.
We can do it like this
def show(slug: String) = Action.async { implicit rs =>
val f = fooDAO.findBySlug(slug) // f is of type Option[Foo]
f.fold(
NotFound,
foo => Ok(views.html.foobar(foo, barDAO.findByFooId(foo.id))
)
}
You can make it more explicit by defining a supporting method
def show(slug: String) = Action.async { implicit rs =>
def barsOf(f: Foo): Seq[Bar] = barDAO.findByFooId(f.id)
val f = fooDAO.findBySlug(slug) // f is of type Option[Foo]
f.fold(
NotFound,
foo => Ok(views.html.foobar(foo, barsOf(foo))
)
}
It's a bit tricky understanding what you're trying to achieve here, but if the whole thing is predicated on the findbySlug returning a Future[Option[Foo]] and the eventual outcome being a NotFound if that Option is a None, then your yield should probably just be:
...
} yield {
f.fold(NotFound)(foo => Ok(views.html.foobar(foo, b)))
}
Option[T] is a fantastic type for data-retrieval and control-flow, but pattern-matching on it is almost never the right approach. The use of fold feels nicely succinct for the task.

Future[Option[Future[Option[Boolean]] Simplifying Futures and Options?

I've been trying to simplify the way I do futures in Scala. I got at one point a Future[Option[Future[Option[Boolean]] but I've simplified it further below. Is there a better way to simplify this?
Passing a future of "failed" doesn't seem like the best way to do this. i.e. in the sequential world I simply returned "FAIL!!" any time it failed rather than continuing to the end. Are there other ways?
val doSimpleWork = Future {
//Do any arbitrary work (can be a different function)
true //or false
}
val doComplexWork = Future {
//Do any arbitrary work (can be a different function)
Some("result") //or false
}
val failed = Future {
//Do no work at all!!! Just return
false
}
val fut1 = doSimpleWork
val fut2 = doSimpleWork
val fut3 = (fut1 zip fut2).map({
case (true, true) => true
case _ => false
})
val fut4 = fut3.flatMap({
case true =>
doComplexWork.flatMap({
case Some("result") =>
doSimpleWork
case None =>
failed
})
case false =>
failed
})
fut4.map({
case true =>
"SUCCESS!!!"
case _ =>
"FAIL!!"
})
Note that in your example, because you're eagerly instantiating the Futures to a val, all of them will start executing as soon as you declare them (val x = Future {...}). Using methods instead will make the Futures execute only when they're requested by the chain of execution.
One way to avoid the further computation would be to throw an exception, then handle it with onFailure:
def one = future { println("one") ; Some(1) }
def two = future { println("two") ; throw new Exception("no!"); 2 }
def three = future { println("three") ; 3 }
val f = one flatMap {
result1 => two flatMap {
result2 => three
}
}
f onFailure {
case e: Exception =>
println("failed somewhere in the chain")
}
You can see here that "three" isn't supposed to be printed out, because we fail on two. This is the case:
one
two
failed somewhere in the chain
a "Monad transformer" is a construct which lets you combine the "effects" of two monads, the scalaz project provides several different monad transformers. My suggestion is that you can use the OptionT monad transformer to simplify your code if you also make use of the fact that Option[Unit] is isomorphic to Boolean (Some(()) == true and None == false). Here's a complete example:
import scalaz._
import Scalaz._
import scala.concurrent._
import ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.duration._
object Foo {
// We need a Monad instance for Future, here is a valid one, or you can use the implementation
// in the scalaz-contrib project, see http://typelevel.org
implicit def futureMonad(implicit executor: ExecutionContext): Monad[Future] = new Monad[Future] {
override def bind[A, B](fa: Future[A])(f: A ⇒ Future[B]) = fa flatMap f
override def point[A](a: ⇒ A) = Future(a)
override def map[A, B](fa: Future[A])(f: A ⇒ B) = fa map f
}
// OptionT allows you to combine the effects of the Future and Option monads
// to more easily work with a Future[Option[A]]
val doSimpleWork : OptionT[Future,Unit] = OptionT(Future {
// Option[Unit] is isomorphic to Boolean
Some(()) //or None
})
val simpleFail : OptionT[Future,Unit] = OptionT(Future {
None
})
val doComplexWork: OptionT[Future,String] = OptionT(Future {
Some("result") //or None
})
val f1 = doSimpleWork
val f2 = doSimpleWork
val f3 = doComplexWork
val f4 = doSimpleWork
def main(argv: Array[String]) {
val result = for {
_ <- f1
// we don't get here unless both the future succeeded and the result was Some
_ <- f2
_ <- f3
r <- f4
} yield(r)
result.fold((_ => println("SUCCESS!!")),println("FAIL!!"))
// "run" will get you to the Future inside the OptionT
Await.result(result.run, 1 second)
}
}
You could try something like this, using for comprehensions to clean up the code a bit:
def doSimpleWork = Future{
//do some simple work
true
}
def doComplexWork = Future{
//do something complex here
Some("result")
}
val fut1 = doSimpleWork
val fut2 = doSimpleWork
val fut = for{
f1Result <- fut1
f2Result <- fut2
if (f1Result && f2Result)
f3Result <- doComplexWork
if (f3Result.isDefined)
f4Result <- doSimpleWork
} yield "success"
fut onComplete{
case Success(value) => println("I succeeded")
case Failure(ex) => println("I failed: " + ex.getMessage)
}
And if you really just wanted to print out "success" or "failed" at the end, you could change that last piece of code to:
fut.recover{case ex => "failed"} onSuccess{
case value => println(value)
}
Now, to explain what's going on. For starters, we've defined two functions that return Futures that are doing some async work. The doSimpleWork function will do some simple work and return a boolean success/fail indicator. The doComplexWork function will do something more complex (and time consuming) and return an Option[String] representing a result. We then kick off two parallel invocations of doSimpleWork before entering the for comprehension. In for for comp, we get the results of fut1 and fut2 (in that order) before checking if they were both successful. If not, we would stop here, and the fut val would be failed with a NoSuchElementException which is what you get when a condition like this fails in a for comp. If both were successful, we would continue on and invoke the doComplexWork function and wait for its result. We would then check its result and if it was Some, we would kick off one last invocation of doSimpleWork. If that succeeds, we would yield the string "success". If you check the type of the fut val, its of type Future[String].
From there, we use one of the async callback functions to check if the whole sequence of calls either made it all the way through (the Success case), or failed somewhere in the process (the Failure case), printing out something related to which case it hit. In the alternate final code block, we recover from any possible failure by returning the String "failed" "and then use just the onSuccess callback which will print either "success" or "failed" depending on what happened.

TraversableOnce, Future, and Option in a Scala for comprehension

I have a list of string ids representing DB records. I'd like to load them from the DB asynchronously, then upload each record to a remote server asynchronously, then when all are done uploading, make a record of the ids of the records that were uploaded.
Since I'm on Scala 2.9.2, I'm using Twitter's core-util Future implementation, but it should work exactly like the 2.10 futures in terms of Monadic transformations.
The general concept is this:
def fetch(id: String): Future[Option[Record]]
def upload(record: Record): Future[String]
def notifyUploaded(ids: Seq[String]): Unit
val ids: Seq[String] = ....
I'm trying to do this via a for comprehension but the fact that fetch returns a Future of Option makes it obscure and the code doesn't compile:
for {
id <- ids
maybeRecord <- fetch(id)
record <- maybeRecord
uploadedId <- upload(record)
} yield uploadedId
Compiling this results in the following error:
scala: type mismatch;
found : com.twitter.util.Future[String]
required: Option[?]
uploadedId <- upload(record)
^
What am I missing? why does the compiler expect uploadedId to be an Option? is there any pretty way I could work around this?
Consider the signature of the flatMap (or bind) function:
trait Monad[M[_]] {
def flatMap[A](a : M[A], f : A => M[B]) : M[B]
....
In your case, you're trying to use flatMap on an Option, giving it an f that generates a Future. But as in the signature above, f should be generating something in the same monad that it's been called on.
Scala isn't necessarily terribly helpful in this regard, since it's pretty good at converting things around (to Seqs, for example) in such a way that you get the impression that you can chain arbitrary flatMap calls together, regardless of the container.
What you possibly want is a 'Monad transformer', which gives you some ability to compose monads. Debasish Ghosh has a post on using Scalaz monad transformers here.
You cannot mix all different types in one for comprehension, I figured out that you might mix Seq and Option and result would be either Seq or Option depending on what is first. It is not possible to mix Future and Seq or Option. If you want to use for-comprehension you would have to cascade them few. In such cases it might be nicer with map/flatMap. I implemented your question in both ways and added types to few intermediate results so that you see the mess that is being created while working with all that different types.
object TestClass {
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
case class Record(id: String)
def fetch(id: String): Future[Option[Record]] = Future {
Thread.sleep(1000);
Some(Record(id))
}
def upload(record: Record): Future[String] = Future {
Thread.sleep(3000);
record.id + "_uploaded"
}
def notifyUploaded(ids: Seq[String]): Unit = println("notified" + ids)
val ids: Seq[String] = Seq("a", "b", "c")
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
forComprehensionImpl()
mapAndFlatMapImpl()
}
def forComprehensionImpl() = {
val result: Seq[Future[Option[Future[String]]]] = for {
id <- ids
} yield {
for {
maybeRecord <- fetch(id)
} yield {
for {
record <- maybeRecord
} yield {
for {
uploadedId <- upload(record)
} yield uploadedId
}
}
}
val result2: Future[Seq[Option[Future[String]]]] = Future.sequence(result)
val result3: Future[Unit] = result2.flatMap { x: Seq[Option[Future[String]]] =>
Future.sequence(x.flatten).map(notifyUploaded)
}
Await.result(result3, Duration.Inf)
}
def mapAndFlatMapImpl() = {
val res: Seq[Future[Iterable[String]]] = ids.map { id =>
fetch(id).flatMap { maybeRecord =>
val res1: Option[Future[Seq[String]]] = maybeRecord.map { record =>
upload(record) map (Seq(_))
}
res1 match {
case Some(a) => a
case None => Future(Seq())
}
}
}
val res3: Future[Unit] = Future.sequence(res) map (a => notifyUploaded(a.flatten))
Await.result(res3, Duration.Inf)
}
}