I can't seem to figure out how to chain together these functions, any help or advice would be appreciated.
// Generic approach to adding flags to a command string
trait UpdateCommandString {
def update[T](option: Option[T], flagName: String)(implicit command: String): String = {
if (option.isEmpty)
command
else if (option.get.isInstanceOf[Boolean]) {
if (option.get.asInstanceOf[Boolean])
s"$command $flagName"
command
} else
s"$command $flagName ${option.get.asInstanceOf[String]}"
}
}
// One example of flags (the program I'm using has literally 50+ flags
// so there will be a number of case classes that group them into related
// sets)
case class Flags(cache: Option[String] = None,
errorlog: Option[String] = None,
accesslog: Option[String] = None,
verbose: Option[Boolean] = Some(false),
auth: Option[Boolean] = Some(false)) extends UpdateCommandString {
def applyToCommand(implicit command: String): String = {
// These seem to apply separately, but I want to chain
// them together!
update(cache, "-cache")
update(errorlog, "-error")
update(accesslog, "-access")
update(auth, "-do-auth")
}
}
// An example of what I'm trying to do
// Given a base command string and a bunch of case classes to apply
// to that string, I'd like to be able to call applyToCommand and
// get back the modified command string
var command = "run_system"
val f = Flags(Some("asdfasdf"), None, None, Some(true), Some(false))
command = f.applyToCommand(command)
I would recommend a complete redesign of your current approach.
Every member of your Flags class should be it's own case class, extending a common Flag class.
So you can define functions to combine different flags to one configuration. This configuration can than, in a final step, be used to build your result string.
abstract class Flag(name: String, parameter : Option[String])
case class Cache(parameter : Option[String]) extends Flag("-cache", parameter)
case class ErrorLog(parameter : Option[String]) extends Flag("-errorlog", parameter)
//...
type Config = List[Flag]
def applyToCommand(commandName : String, config : Config) = {
def buildString(f:Flag) =
s" $f.name${f.parameter.map(" " ++ _).getOrElse("")}"
val flagsString = config.map(buildString).mkString("")
s"$commandName" ++ flagString
}
//Now you can it simply use it as I described above
val config = List(Cache(Some("asdf")), ErrorLog(None))
applyToCommand("run_system", config)
This makes your code more flexible and easier to refactor.
At last here are some advises how you could modify this design to better fit your needs:
If you need to group your flags, you can put them in objects or separate files. Or if you want to change their behavior based on the group you can enhance the class hierarchy and add an intermediate layer.
You can move the parameter from Flag down to the case classes, so every Flag can define if it needs parameters, if yes how many and if those are optional or not.
You could also implement buildString at the case classes so every flag can decide how to format it self.
If you want do add new Flags you simply add a new class and that's it, no need to add anything to an unrelated class.
As explained #bmaderbacher, I think you should separate the different flags in the different case class.
But to answer your question, you should modify applyToCommand:
def applyToCommand(implicit command: String): String = {
var s = update(cache, "-cache")(command)
s = update(errorlog, "-error")(s)
s = update(accesslog, "-access")(s)
s = update(auth, "-do-auth")(s)
s
}
At this point it should be clear that you didn't make the right choice for your Flag class.
I'll do something like that:
trait Flag {
def toString: String
}
case class Command(value: String) {
def add(flag: Flag) = Command(value + ' ' + flag.toString)
def +(flag: Flag) = add(flag)
}
case class Cache(size: Int) extends Flag {
def toString = s"--cache $size"
}
case object Auth extends Flag {
def toString = "--auth"
}
Now you can do something like:
val command = Command("run") + Cache(500) + Auth
Related
I am currently trying to create case classes that are constructed differently based on the inputs of their parameters. As a real world use-case, let's say we are constructing a case class that contains sensitive information. So everytime the case class contains data from a user, we need to hash their phone number, otherwise construct the case class as normal. If that did not make much sense, I have created a lighter example to illustrate what I am trying to do.
Let's say we are creating a case class that does not accept a sad cow like:
case class HappyCow(name: String, feeling: String)
I tried making the case class construction conditional by defining an apply method:
case class HappyCow(name: String, feeling: String) {
def apply(name: String, feeling: String): HappyCow =
if (feeling == "sad") HappyCow(name, "Happy")
else HappyCow(name, feeling)
}
However testing if my solution works results in:
val cow1 = HappyCow("Moowy", "excited")
val cow2 = HappyCow("MooMoo", "sad")
println(cow1) // HappyCow(Moowy,excited)
println(cow2) // HappyCow(MooMoo,sad)
println(cow2.feeling) // sad
I expected cow2.feeling to be "Happy"
apply should be a method of companion object, not case class.
Also inside definition of apply replace HappyCow(name, "Happy")... with new HappyCow(name, "Happy")..., otherwise it's infinite recursion.
case class HappyCow(name: String, feeling: String)
object HappyCow {
def apply(name: String, feeling: String): HappyCow =
if (feeling == "sad") new HappyCow(name, "Happy")
else new HappyCow(name, feeling)
}
val cow1 = HappyCow("Moowy", "excited")
val cow2 = HappyCow("MooMoo", "sad")
println(cow1) // HappyCow(Moowy,excited)
println(cow2) // HappyCow(MooMoo,Happy)
println(cow2.feeling) // Happy
I'm trying to come up with a CSV Parser that can be called like this:
parser parse "/path/to/csv/file" using parserConfiguration
Where the parser will be a class that contains the target case class into which the CSV file will be parsed into:
class CSVParser[A] {
def parse(path: String) = Source.fromFile(fromFilePath).getLines().mkString("\n")
def using(cfg: ParserConfig) = ??? How do I chain this optionally???
}
val parser = CSVParser[SomeCaseClass]
I managed to get up to the point where I can call:
parser parse "/the/path/to/the/csv/file/"
But I do not want to run the parse method yet as I want to apply the configuration using the using like DSL as mentioned above! So there are two rules here. If the caller does not supply a parserConfig, I should be able to run with the default, but if the user supplies a parserConfig, I want to apply the config and then run the parse method. I tried it with a combination of implicits, but could not get them to work properly!
Any suggestions?
EDIT: So the solution looks like this as per comments from "Cyrille Corpet":
class CSVReader[A] {
def parse(path: String) = ReaderWithFile[A](path)
case class ReaderWithFile[A](path: String) {
def using(cfg: CSVParserConfig): Seq[A] = {
val lines = Source.fromFile(path).getLines().mkString("\n")
println(lines)
println(cfg)
null
}
}
object ReaderWithFile {
implicit def parser2parsed[A](parser: ReaderWithFile[A]): Seq[A] = parser.using(defaultParserCfg)
}
}
object CSVReader extends App {
def parser[A] = new CSVReader[A]
val sss: Seq[A] = parser parse "/csv-parser/test.csv" // assign this to a val so that the implicit conversion gets applied!! Very important to note!
}
I guess I need to get the implicit in scope at the location where I call the parser parse, but at the same time I do not want to mess up the structure that I have above!
If you replace using with an operator with a higher precedence than parse you can get it to work without needing extra type annotations. Take for instance <<:
object parsedsl {
class ParserConfig
object ParserConfig {
val default = new ParserConfig
}
case class ParseUnit(path: String, config: ParserConfig)
object ParseUnit {
implicit def path2PU(path: String) = ParseUnit(path, ParserConfig.default)
}
implicit class ConfigSyntax(path: String) {
def <<(config: ParserConfig) = ParseUnit(path, config)
}
class CSVParser {
def parse(pu: ParseUnit) = "parsing"
}
}
import parsedsl._
val parser = new CSVParser
parser parse "path" << ParserConfig.default
parser parse "path"
Your parse method should just give a partial result, without doing anything at all. To deal with default implem, you can use implicit conversion to output type:
class CSVParser[A] {
def parse(path: String) = ParserWithFile[A](path)
}
case class ParserWithFile[A](path: String) {
def using(cfg: ParserConfig): A = ???
}
object ParserWithFile {
implicit def parser2parsed[A](parser: ParserWithFile[A]): A = parser.using(ParserConfig.default)
}
val parser = CSVParser[SomeCaseClass]
This is somewhat of a theoretical question but something I might want to do. Is it possible to return multiple data data types from a Scala function but limit the types that are allowed? I know I can return one type by specifying it, or I can essentially allow any data type by not specifying the return type, but I would like to return 1 of 3 particular data types to preserve a little bit of type safety. Is there a way to write an 'or' in the return type like:
def myFunc(input:String): [Int || String] = { ...}
The main context for this is trying to write universal data loading script. Some of my users use Spark, some Scalding, and who knows what will be next. I want my users to be able to use a generic loading script that might return a RichPipe, RDD, or some other data format depending on the framework they are using, but I don't want to throw type safety completely out the window.
You can use the Either type provided by the Scala Library.
def myFunc(input:String): Either[Int, String] = {
if (...)
Left(42) // return an Int
else
Right("Hello, world") // return a String
}
You can use more than two types by nesting, for instance Either[A,Either[B,C]].
As already noted in comments you'd better use Either for this task, but if you really want it, you can use implicits
object IntOrString {
implicit def fromInt(i: Int): IntOrString = new IntOrString(None, Some(i))
implicit def fromString(s: String): IntOrString = new IntOrString(Some(s), None)
}
case class IntOrString(str: Option[String], int: Option[Int])
implicit def IntOrStringToInt(v: IntOrString): Int = v.int.get
implicit def IntOrStringToStr(v: IntOrString): String = v.str.get
def myFunc(input:String): IntOrString = {
if(input.isEmpty) {
1
} else {
"test"
}
}
val i: Int = myFunc("")
val s: String = myFunc("123")
//exception
val ex: Int = myFunc("123")
I'd make the typing by the user less implicit and more explicit. Here are three examples:
def loadInt(input: String): Int = { ... }
def loadString(input: String): String = { ... }
That's nice and simple. Alternatively, we can have a function that returns the appropriate curried function using an implicit context:
def loader[T]()(implicit context: String): String => T = {
context match {
case "RDD" => loadInt _ // or loadString _
}
}
Then the user would:
implicit val context: String = "RDD" // simple example
val loader: String => Int = loader()
loader(input)
Alternatively, can turn it into an explicit parameter:
val loader: String => Int = loader("RDD")
I try to define a parametric type alias :
case class A
case class B
case class C
// We need an Int to load instances of A and B, and a String to load C
object Service {
def loadA(i: Int) : A = ???
def loadB(i: Int) : B = ???
def loadC(s: String) : C = ???
}
trait Location[T] { def get : T}
class IntLocation(val i: Int)
class StringLocation(val s: String)
trait EntityLocation[E] extends Location[_]
// Aim : make the loader typesafe
// Problem : I need something like that : type EntityLocation[Composite] = IntLocation
object Family {
trait EntityLoader[EntityT] extends (EntityLocation[EntityT] => EntityT)
val ALoader = new EntityLoader[A] {def load[A](l: EntityLocation[A]) = Service.loadA(l.get)
}
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. Could you please explain how you want to use these types in your code?
Assuming just want to use the types IdLocation and FileLocation in your code, maybe you want to try
trait Location[T] { def get : T }
type IdLocation = Location[Id]
type FileLocation = Location[java.io.File]
Seems rather convoluted, so I'm not sure I follow exactly what your purpose here is. You seem to go into many layers of factories that create factories, that call factory methods, etc.
Seems to me that at the end of the day you need you want to have a val ALoader value that you can use to get instances of A from Location[Int] objects, so I'll go with that assumption:
// Not sure what you want this one, but let's assume that you need a wrapper class per your example.
trait Location[P] { def get: P }
class IntLocation(val i: Int) extends Location[Int]
{
override def get: Int = i
}
// P for parameter, O for output class.
def loader[O, P](creator: P => O)(param: Location[P]) = { creator(param.get) }
object Service
{
// A function somewhere, capable of taking your parameter and creating something else (in your example, an Int to an 'A')
// here Int to String to make something concrete.
// This could be any function, anywhere
def loadA(someParam: Int) = someParam.toString
}
def main(args: Array[String])
{
val myStringLoader: Location[Int] => String = loader(Service.loadA)
// Alternatively, you could have written `val myStringLoader = loader(Service.loadA)(_)`. Either the type or the underscore are needed to tell the compiler that you expect a function, not a value.
// Some definition for you wrapper class
val location3 = new Location[Int]{
override def get: Int = 3
}
// ... or just a plain old instance of it.
val otherLocation = new IntLocation(5)
// This would 'load' the kind of thing you want using the method you specified.
val myString = myStringLoader(location3)
val myOtherString = myStringLoader(otherLocation)
// This prints "3 - 5"
print(myString + " - " + myOtherString)
}
This might seem like a long answer, but in truth the line def loader[O, P](creator: P => O)(param: Location[P]) = { creator(param.get) } is the one that does it all, the rest is to make it as similar to your sample as possible and to provide a working main you can use to start from.
Of course, this would be even simpler if you don't really need the Location wrapper for your integer.
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).