I have this weird requirement where data comes in as name ->value pair from a service and all the name-> value type is string only (which really they are not but that's how data is stored)
This is a simplified illustration.
case class EntityObject(type:String,value:String)
EntityObject("boolean","true")
now when getting that EntityObject if type is "boolean" then I have to make sure value is not anything else but boolean so first get type out and check value and cast value to that type. e.g in this case check value is boolean so have to cast string value to boolean to validate. If it was anything else besides boolean then it should fail.
e.g. if data came in as below, casting will fail and it should report back to the caller about this error.
EntityObject("boolean","1")
Due to this weird requirement it forces type conversion in validation code which doesn't look elegant and against type safe programming. Any elegant way to handle this in scala (may be in a more type safe manner)?
Here is where I'm going to channel an idea taken from a tweet by Miles Sabin in regards to hereogenous mappings (see this gist on github.) If you know the type of object mapping names a head of time you can use a nifty little trick which involves dependent types. Hold on, 'cause it's a wild ride:
trait AssocConv[K] { type V ; def convert: String => V }
def makeConv[V0](name: String, con: String => V0) = new AssocConv[name.type]{
V = V0
val convert = con
}
implicit val boolConv = makeConv("boolean", yourMappingFunc)
def convEntity(name: String, value: String)(implicit conv: AssocConv[name.type]): Try[conv.V] = Try{ conv.convert(value) }
I haven't tested this but it "should" work. I've also enclosed it in a Scala Try so that it catches exceptions thrown by your conversion function (in case you're doing things like _.toInt as the converter.)
You're really talking about conversion, not casting. Casting would be if the value really were an instance of Boolean at runtime, whereas what you have is a String representation of a Boolean.
If you're already working with a case class, I think a pattern matching expression would work pretty well here.
For example,
def convert(entity : EntityObject) : Any = entity match {
case EntityObject("boolean", "true") => true
case EntityObject("boolean", "false") => false
case EntityObject("string", s) => s
// TODO: add Regex-based matchers for numeric types
}
Anything that doesn't match one of the specified patterns would cause a MatchError, or you could put a catchall expression at the end to throw your own exception.
In this particular example, since the function returns Any, the calling coffee would need to do an actual type cast to get the specific type, but at least by that point all validation/conversion would have already been performed. Alternatively, you could just put the code that uses the values directly into the above function and avoid casting. I don't know what your specific needs are, so I can't offer anything more detailed.
Related
Here is a code that requires a change:
val activityDate = validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0).toString
When we run a job, 'activityDate' might return null as a result of query since there might not be any data in db. In this case we get NullPointerException. I need to update this code to avoid NPE.
I tried to do it in different ways but there is always smth missing. I should probably use Match Expression here but have face some errors while initializing it.
The usual way to model some kind of data that might or might not be there in Scala is the Option type. The Option type has two concrete implementations, Some for a value which is there and the None singleton to represent any absent value. Option conveniently has a constructor that wraps a nullable value and turns it into either a Some(value) for non-null values and None for nulls. You can use it as follows:
Option(validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0))
You can apply transformations to it using various combinators. If you want to transform the piece of data itself into something more meaningful for your application, map is usually a good call. The following applies the logic you had before:
val activityDate: Option[String] =
Option(validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0)).
map { activityDate => activityDate.toString }
Note that now activityDate is an Option itself, which means that you have to explicitly handle the case in which the data is not there. You can do so with a match on the concrete type of the option as follows:
activityDate match {
case Some(date) => // `date` is there for sure!
case None => // handle the `select` returned nothing
}
Altenrnatively if you want to apply a default value you can use the getOrElse method on the Option:
val activityDate: String =
Option(validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0)).
map { activityDate => activityDate.toString }.
getOrElse("No Data")
Another possibility to apply a default value on a None and a function to the value in a Some is using fold:
val activityDate: String =
Option(validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0)).
fold("No Data")(activityDate => activityDate.toString)
As a final note, you can shorten anonymous functions in these cases as follows:
val activityDate: String =
Option(validation.select("activity_date").first.get(0)).
fold("No Data")(_.toString)
Where _ is used to refer to the only parameter.
So I have a class:
case class Document (idx: String, name: String, code: String)
Due to some transformations, an object which was initially created as Document, now becomes of type Any.
val doc = Document("12", "anyName", "ps") // Ends up as type Any
So I want to convert it into type Document again.
I know that can be done like this:
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[Document]
But, what I am trying is to pass the type, in this case Document, as a parameter to make it more generic.
So I was trying the following:
val mType = Document
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[mType]
But Intellij says:
Cannot resolve symbol mType
Edit: My ultimate goal is to pass the parameter Document to a function, so at the end I could do something like:
def convertIntoDoc(doc: Any, mType: Type) = {
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[mType]
docNew
}
If you want to learn programming with Scala you have to learn about the difference between types and values.
Due to type-erasure type parameters never actually make it into your program. In reality, types only exist to help you write good code.
If you go down this road you will eventually realise that asInstanceOf[T] does not actually do anything.
You might think this is weird and with type-erasure the type system is superfluous, but let me assure you it is perfectly useful and when it comes to more complicated code actually becomes the stepping stone to generic programming, e.g. code that can be used in many different ways due to type parametrisation.
To spin this a little further you should almost never end up with a val of type Any because you will loose this additional safety net of static typing. This means you have already made a mistake somewhere upstream in your code.
Your ultimate goal is simple to achieve:
def convertIntoDoc[MType](doc: Any) = {
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[MType]
docNew
}
You just have to remember that MType is a type and not a variable. So it has to be used as type parameter and not as value parameter.
The problem is that casting an Any into a MType will get you ClassCastExceptions (when running your program!) if you use the wrong type.
asInstanceOf is very dangerous because it kind of overwrites the type safety that the Scala compiler provides.
If you have any questions about this let me know.
The correct way to convert your Any to Document is to use match:
val docNew = doc match { case d: Document => d }
This is safe because it will throw a MatchException if for some reason the object is not of type Document.
Your convertIntoDoc function is just a wrapper around asInstanceOf, so you need to give more detail on what this function is intended to do (preferably in a separate question).
instead of val you can use type
type mType = Document
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[mType]
For the second part of the question, you can pass the type using type parameter as argument
def convertIntoDoc[A](doc: Any) = {
val docNew = doc.asInstanceOf[A]
docNew
}
I've been working with Scala Macros and have the following code in the macro:
val fieldMemberType = fieldMember.typeSignatureIn(objectType) match {
case NullaryMethodType(tpe) => tpe
case _ => doesntCompile(s"$propertyName isn't a field, it must be another thing")
}
reify{
new TypeBuilder() {
type fieldType = fieldMemberType.type
}
}
As you can see, I've managed to get a c.universe.Type fieldMemberType. This represents the type of certain field in the object. Once I get that, I want to create a new TypeBuilder object in the reify. TypeBuilder is an abstract class with an abstract parameter. This abstract parameter is fieldType. I want this fieldType to be the type that I've found before.
Running the code shown here returns me a fieldMemberType not found. Is there any way that I can get the fieldMemberType to work inside the reify clause?
The problem is that the code you pass to reify is essentially going to be placed verbatim at the point where the macro is being expanded, and fieldMemberType isn't going to mean anything there.
In some cases you can use splice to sneak an expression that you have at macro-expansion time into the code you're reifying. For example, if we were trying to create an instance of this trait:
trait Foo { def i: Int }
And had this variable at macro-expansion time:
val myInt = 10
We could write the following:
reify { new Foo { def i = c.literal(myInt).splice } }
That's not going to work here, which means you're going to have to forget about nice little reify and write out the AST by hand. You'll find this happens a lot, unfortunately. My standard approach is to start a new REPL and type something like this:
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
trait TypeBuilder { type fieldType }
showRaw(reify(new TypeBuilder { type fieldType = String }))
This will spit out several lines of AST, which you can then cut and paste into your macro definition as a starting point. Then you fiddle with it, replacing things like this:
Ident(TypeBuilder)
With this:
Ident(newTypeName("TypeBuilder"))
And FINAL with Flag.FINAL, and so on. I wish the toString methods for the AST types corresponded more exactly to the code it takes to build them, but you'll pretty quickly get a sense of what you need to change. You'll end up with something like this:
c.Expr(
Block(
ClassDef(
Modifiers(Flag.FINAL),
anon,
Nil,
Template(
Ident(newTypeName("TypeBuilder")) :: Nil,
emptyValDef,
List(
constructor(c),
TypeDef(
Modifiers(),
newTypeName("fieldType"),
Nil,
TypeTree(fieldMemberType)
)
)
)
),
Apply(Select(New(Ident(anon)), nme.CONSTRUCTOR), Nil)
)
)
Where anon is a type name you've created in advance for your anonymous class, and constructor is a convenience method I use to make this kind of thing a little less hideous (you can find its definition at the end of this complete working example).
Now if we wrap this expression up in something like this, we can write the following:
scala> TypeMemberExample.builderWithType[String]
res0: TypeBuilder{type fieldType = String} = $1$$1#fb3f1f3
So it works. We've taken a c.universe.Type (which I get here from the WeakTypeTag of the type parameter on builderWithType, but it will work in exactly the same way with any old Type) and used it to define the type member of our TypeBuilder trait.
There is a simpler approach than tree writing for your use case. Indeed I use it all the time to keep trees at bay, as it can be really difficult to program with trees. I prefer to compute types and use reify to generate the trees. This makes much more robust and "hygienic" macros and less compile time errors. IMO using trees must be a last resort, only for a few cases, such as tree transforms or generic programming for a family of types such as tuples.
The tip here is to define a function taking as type parameters, the types you want to use in the reify body, with a context bound on a WeakTypeTag. Then you call this function by passing explicitly the WeakTypeTags you can build from universe Types thanks to the context WeakTypeTag method.
So in your case, that would give the following.
val fieldMemberType: Type = fieldMember.typeSignatureIn(objectType) match {
case NullaryMethodType(tpe) => tpe
case _ => doesntCompile(s"$propertyName isn't a field, it must be another thing")
}
def genRes[T: WeakTypeTag] = reify{
new TypeBuilder() {
type fieldType = T
}
}
genRes(c.WeakTypeTag(fieldMemberType))
EDIT
OK, #Drexin brings up a good point re: loss of type safety/surprising results when using implicit converters.
How about a less common conversion, where conflicts with PreDef implicits would not occur? For example, I'm working with JodaTime (great project!) in Scala. In the same controller package object where my implicits are defined, I have a type alias:
type JodaTime = org.joda.time.DateTime
and an implicit that converts JodaTime to Long (for a DAL built on top of ScalaQuery where dates are stored as Long)
implicit def joda2Long(d: JodaTime) = d.getMillis
Here no ambiguity could exist between PreDef and my controller package implicits, and, the controller implicits will not filter into the DAL as that is in a different package scope. So when I do
dao.getHeadlines(articleType, Some(jodaDate))
the implicit conversion to Long is done for me, IMO, safely, and given that date-based queries are used heavily, I save some boilerplate.
Similarly, for str2Int conversions, the controller layer receives servlet URI params as String -> String. There are many cases where the URI then contains numeric strings, so when I filter a route to determine if the String is an Int, I do not want to stringVal.toInt everytime; instead, if the regex passes, let the implicit convert the string value to Int for me. All together it would look like:
implicit def str2Int(s: String) = s.toInt
get( """/([0-9]+)""".r ) {
show(captures(0)) // captures(0) is String
}
def show(id: Int) = {...}
In the above contexts, are these valid use cases for implicit conversions, or is it more, always be explicit? If the latter, then what are valid implicit conversion use cases?
ORIGINAL
In a package object I have some implicit conversions defined, one of them a simple String to Int:
implicit def str2Int(s: String) = s.toInt
Generally this works fine, methods that take an Int param, but receive a String, make the conversion to Int, as do methods where the return type is set to Int, but the actual returned value is a String.
Great, now in some cases the compiler errors with the dreaded ambiguous implicit:
both method augmentString in object Predef of type (x: String)
scala.collection.immutable.StringOps and method str2Int(s: String) Int
are possible conversion functions from java.lang.String to ?{val
toInt: ?}
The case where I know this is happening is when attempting to do manual inline String-to-Int conversions. For example, val i = "10".toInt
My workaround/hack has been to create an asInt helper along with the implicits in the package object: def asInt(i: Int) = i and used as, asInt("10")
So, is implicit best practice implicit (i.e. learn by getting burned), or are there some guidelines to follow so as to not get caught in a trap of one's own making? In other words, should one avoid simple, common implicit conversions and only utilize where the type to convert is unique? (i.e. will never hit ambiguity trap)
Thanks for the feedback, implicits are awesome...when they work as intended ;-)
I think you're mixing two different use cases here.
In the first case, you're using implicit conversions used to hide the arbitrary distinction (or arbitrary-to-you, anyway) between different classes in cases where the functionality is identical. The JodaTime to Long implicit conversion fits in that category; it's probably safe, and very likely a good idea. I would probably use the enrich-my-library pattern instead, and write
class JodaGivesMS(jt: JodaTime) { def ms = jt.getMillis }
implicit def joda_can_give_ms(jt: JodaTime) = new JodaGivesMS(jt)
and use .ms on every call, just to be explicit. The reason is that units matter here (milliseconds are not microseconds are not seconds are not millimeters, but all can be represented as ints), and I'd rather leave some record of what the units are at the interface, in most cases. getMillis is rather a mouthful to type every time, but ms is not too bad. Still, the conversion is reasonable (if well-documented for people who may modify the code in years to come (including you)).
In the second case, however, you're performing an unreliable transformation between one very common type and another. True, you're doing it in only a limited context, but that transformation is still liable to escape and cause problems (either exceptions or types that aren't what you meant). Instead, you should write those handy routines that you need that correctly handle the conversion, and use those everywhere. For example, suppose you have a field that you expect to be "yes", "no", or an integer. You might have something like
val Rint = """(\d+)""".r
s match {
case "yes" => println("Joy!")
case "no" => println("Woe!")
case Rint(i) => println("The magic number is "+i.toInt)
case _ => println("I cannot begin to describe how calamitous this is")
}
But this code is wrong, because "12414321431243".toInt throws an exception, when what you really want is to say that the situation is calamitous. Instead, you should write code that matches properly:
case object Rint {
val Reg = """([-]\d+)""".r
def unapply(s: String): Option[Int] = s match {
case Reg(si) =>
try { Some(si.toInt) }
catch { case nfe: NumberFormatException => None }
case _ => None
}
}
and use this instead. Now instead of performing a risky and implicit conversion from String to Int, when you perform a match it will all be handled properly, both the regex match (to avoid throwing and catching piles of exceptions on bad parses) and the exception handling even if the regex passes.
If you have something that has both a string and an int representation, create a new class and then have implicit conversions to each if you don't want your use of the object (which you know can safely be either) to keep repeating a method call that doesn't really provide any illumination.
I try not to convert anything implicitly just to convert it from one type to another, but only for the pimp my library pattern. It can be a bit confusing, when you pass a String to a function that takes an Int. Also there is a huge loss of type safety. If you would pass a string to a function that takes an Int by mistake the compiler could not detect it, as it assumes you want to do it. So always do type conversion explicitly and only use implicit conversions to extend classes.
edit:
To answer your updated question: For the sake of readability, please use the explicit getMillis. In my eyes valid use cases for implicits are "pimp my library", view/context bounds, type classes, manifests, builders... but not being too lazy to write an explicit call to a method.
Is this an opportunity to make things a bit more efficient (for the prorammer): I find it gets a bit tiresome having to wrap things in Some, e.g. Some(5). What about something like this:
implicit def T2OptionT( x : T) : Option[T] = if ( x == null ) None else Some(x)
You would lose some type safety and possibly cause confusion.
For example:
val iThinkThisIsAList = 2
for (i <- iThinkThisIsAList) yield { i + 1 }
I (for whatever reason) thought I had a list, and it didn't get caught by the compiler when I iterated over it because it was auto-converted to an Option[Int].
I should add that I think this is a great implicit to have explicitly imported, just probably not a global default.
Note that you could use the explicit implicit pattern which would avoid confusion and keep code terse at the same time.
What I mean by explicit implicit is rather than have a direct conversion from T to Option[T] you could have a conversion to a wrapper object which provides the means to do the conversion from T to Option[T].
class Optionable[T <: AnyRef](value: T) {
def toOption: Option[T] = if ( value == null ) None else Some(value)
}
implicit def anyRefToOptionable[T <: AnyRef](value: T) = new Optionable(value)
... I might find a better name for it than Optionable, but now you can write code like:
val x: String = "foo"
x.toOption // Some("foo")
val y: String = null
x.toOption // None
I believe that this way is fully transparent and aids in the understanding of the written code - eliminating all checks for null in a nice way.
Note the T <: AnyRef - you should only do this implicit conversion for types that allow null values, which by definition are reference types.
The general guidelines for implicit conversions are as follows:
When you need to add members to a type (a la "open classes"; aka the "pimp my library" pattern), convert to a new type which extends AnyRef and which only defines the members you need.
When you need to "correct" an inheritance hierarchy. Thus, you have some type A which should have subclassed B, but didn't for some reason. In that case, you can define an implicit conversion from A to B.
These are the only cases where it is appropriate to define an implicit conversion. Any other conversion runs into type safety and correctness issues in a hurry.
It really doesn't make any sense for T to extend Option[T], and obviously the purpose of the conversion is not simply the addition of members. Thus, such a conversion would be inadvisable.
It would seem that this could be confusing to other developers, as they read your code.
Generally, it seems, implicit works to help cast from one object to another, to cut out confusing casting code that can clutter code, but, if I have some variable and it somehow becomes a Some then that would seem to be bothersome.
You may want to put some code showing it being used, to see how confusing it would be.
You could also try to overload the method :
def having(key:String) = having(key, None)
def having(key:String, default:String) = having(key, Some(default))
def having(key: String, default: Option[String]=Option.empty) : Create = {
keys += ( (key, default) )
this
}
That looks good to me, except it may not work for a primitive T (which can't be null). I guess a non-specialized generic always gets boxed primitives, so probably it's fine.