Suppose I have a function getCustomers and getOrdersByCustomer.
def getCustomer():List[Customer] = ...
def getOrdersByCustomer(cust: Customer): List[Order] = ...
Now I can easily define a function getOrdersOfAllCustomers
def getOrdersOfAllCustomers(): List[Order] =
for(cust <- getCustomer(); order <- getOrderByCustomer(cust)) yield order
So far, so good but what if getCustomer and getOrdersByCustomer return Options of the lists ?
def getCustomer():Option[List[Customer]] = ...
def getOrdersByCustomer(cust: Customer): Option[List[Order]] = ...
Now I would like to implement two different flavors of getOrdersOfAllCustomers():
Return None if one of the functions returns None;
Return None if getCustomer returns None and do not care if getOrdersByCustomer returns None.
How would you suggest implement it?
I think you should consider three possibilities--a populated list, an empty list, or an error--and avoid a lot of inelegant testing to figure out which one happened.
So use Try with List:
def getOrdersOfAllCustomers(): Try[List[Order]] = {
Try(funtionReturningListOfOrders())
}
If all goes well, you will come out with a Success[List[Order]]; if not, Failure[List[Order]].
The beauty of this approach is no matter which happens--a populated list, an empty list, or an error--you can do all the stuff you want with lists. This is because Try is a monad just like Option is. Go ahead and filter, forEach, map, etc. to your heart's content without caring which of those three occurred.
The one thing is that awkward moment when you do have to figure out if success or failure happened. Then use a match expression:
getOrdersOfAllCustomers() match {
case Success(orders) => println(s"Awww...yeah!")
case Failure(ex) => println(s"Stupid Scala")
}
Even if you don't go with the Try, I implore you not to treat empty lists different from populated lists.
Try this,
def getOrdersOfAllCustomers(): Option[List[Order]] =
for{
cust <- getCustomer().toList.flatten;
order <- getOrderByCustomer(cust).toList.flatten
} yield order
This should do it:
def getOrdersOfAllCustomers(): Option[List[Order]] = {
getCustomer() flatMap { customers =>
//optOrders is a List[Option[List[Order]]]
val optOrders = customers map { getOrderByCustomer }
// Any result must be wrapped in an Option because we're flatMapping
// the return from the initial getCustomer call
if(optOrders contains None) None
else {
// map the nested Option[List[Order]]] into List[List[Order]]
// and flatten into a List[Order]
// This then gives a List[List[Order]] which can be flattened again
Some(optOrders.map(_.toList.flatten).flatten)
}
}
}
The hard part is handling the case where one of the nested invocations of getOrderByCustomer returns None and bubbling that result back to the outer scope (which is why using empty lists is so much easier)
Related
I have a List of “rules” tuples as follows:
val rules = List[(A, List[B])], where A and B are two separate case-classes
For the purposes of my use-case, I need to convert this to an Option[(A, List[B])]. The A case class contains a property id which is of type Option[String], based on which the tuple is returned.
I have written a function def findRule(entryId: Option[String]), from which I intend to return the tuple (A, List[B]) whose A.id = entryId as an Option. So far, I have written the following snippet of code:
def findRule(entryId: Option[String]) = {
for {
ruleId <- rules.flatMap(_._1.id) // ruleId is a String
id <- entryId // entryId is an Option[String]
} yield {
rules.find(_ => ruleId.equalsIgnoreCase(id)) // returns List[Option[(A, List[B])]
}
}
This snippet returns a List[Option[(A, List[B])] but I can’t figure out how to retrieve just the Option from it. Using .head() isn’t an option, since the rules list may be empty. Please help as I am new to Scala.
Example (the real examples are too large to post here, so please consider this representative example):
val rules = [(A = {id=1, ….}, B = [{B1}, {B2}, {B3}, …]), (A={id=2, ….}, B = [{B10}, {B11}, {B12}, …]), …. ] (B is not really important here, I need to find the tuple based on the id element of case-class A)
Now, suppose entryId = Some(1)
After the findRule() function, this would currently look like:
[Some((A = {id=1, …}, B = [{B1}, {B2}, {B3}, …]))]
I want to return:
Some((A = {id=1, …}, B = [{B1}, {B2}, {B3}, …])) , ie, the Option within the List returned (currently) from findRule()
From your question, it sounds like you're trying to pick a single item from your list based on some conditional, which means you'll probably want to start with rules.find. The problem then becomes how to express the predicate function that you pass to find.
From my read of your question, the conditional is
The id on the A part of the tuple needs to match the entryId that was passed in elsewhere
def findRule(entryId: Option[String]) =
rules.find { case (a, listOfB) => entryId.contains(a.id) }
The case expression is just nice syntax for dealing with the tuple. I could have also done
rules.find { tup => entryId.contains(tup._1.id) }
The contains method on Option roughly does "if I'm a Some, see if my value equals the argument; if I'm a None, just return false and ignore the argument". It works as a comparison between the Option[String] you have for entryId and the plain String you have for A's id.
Your first attempt didn't work because rules.flatMap got you a List, and using that after the <- in the for-comprehension means another flatMap, which keeps things as a List.
A variant that I personally prefer is
def findRule(entryId: Option[String]): Option[(A, List[B])] = {
entryId.flatMap { id =>
rules.find { case (a, _) => a.id == id }
}
}
In the case where entryId is None, it just immediately returns None. If you start with rules.find, then it will iterate through all of the rules and check each one even when entryId is None. It's unlikely to make any observable performance difference if the list of rules is small, but I also find it more intuitive to understand.
I have a set of operations that are completed in sequence, but if an intermediate sequence returns "null" I would like to abort the operation early (skip the subsequent steps).
I conjured up a function like this which given an input parameter, performs several operations against Redis and will return a product if it exists. Since it is possible that one of the intermediate requests returns a null value, the complete operation could "fail" and I would like to short circuit the unnecessary steps that come afterwards.
The nesting here is becoming crazy, and I would like to make it more legible. Is there a proper "functional" way to perform this type of "if/else" short circuiting?
def getSingleProduct(firstSku: String): Option[Product] = {
val jedis = pool.getResource
val sid: Array[Byte] = jedis.get(Keys.sidForSku(firstSku, sectionId, feedId).getBytes)
Option(sid).flatMap {
sid: Array[Byte] =>
Option(jedis.get(Keys.latestVersionForSid(sectionId, feedId, sid))) flatMap {
version: Array[Byte] =>
Option(Keys.dataForSid(sectionId, feedId, version, sid)) flatMap {
getDataKey: Array[Byte] =>
Option(jedis.get(getDataKey)) flatMap {
packedData: Array[Byte] =>
val data = doSomeStuffWith(packedData)
Option(Product(data, "more interesting things"))
}
}
}
}
}
The way to do this is to use for:
for {
sid <- Option(jedis.get(...))
version <- Option(jedis.get(..., sid, ...))
getDataKey <- Option(jedis.get(...version,...))
packedData <- Option(jedis.get(getDataKey))
} yield {
// Do stuff with packedData
}
This will return None if any of the get calls returns None, otherwise it will return Some(x) where x is the result of the yeild expression.
You might also want to consider writing a wrapper for jedis.get which returns Option(x) rather than using null as the error result.
I am trying to collect paginated results by trying to do the following logic in Scala and failed pathetically:
def python_version():
cursor
books, cursor = fetch_results()
while (cursor!=null) {
new_books = fetch_results(cursor)
books = books + new_books
}
return books
def fetch_results(cursor=None):
#do some fetchings...
return books, next_cursor
Here is an alternative solution using a recursive function, which avoids mutable values:
def fetchResults(c: Option[Cursor]=None): (List[Book], Option[Cursor]) = ...
def fetchAllResults(): List[Book] = {
#tailrec
def loop(cursor: Option[Cursor], res: List[Book]): List[Book] = {
val (books, newCursor) = fetchResults(cursor)
val newBooks = res ::: books
newCursor match {
case Some(_) =>
loop(newCursor, newBooks)
case None =>
newBooks
}
}
loop(None, Nil)
}
This is a fairly standard pattern for recursive functions in Scala where the actual recursion is done in an internal function. The result of the previous iteration is passed down to the next iteration and then returned from the function. This means that loop is a tail-recursive function and can be optimised by the compiler into a while loop. (The #tailrec annotation tells the compiler to warn if this is not actually tail-recursive)
Something like this, perhaps:
Iterator.iterate(fetch_results()) {
case (_, None) => (Nil, None)
case (books, cursor) => fetch_results(cursor)
}.map(_._1).takeWhile(_.nonEmpty).flatten.toList`
.iterate takes the first parameter to be the initial element of the iterator, and the second one is a function, that, given previous element, computes the next one.
So, this creates an iterator of tuples (Seq[Book], Cursor), starting with the initial return of fetch_results, and then keeps fetching more results, and accumulating them, until the nextCursor is None (I used None instead of null, because nulls are evil, and shouldn't really be used in a normal language, like scala, that provides enough facilities to avoid them).
Then .map(_._1) discards the cursors (don't need them any more), so we now have an iterator of pages, .takeWhile truncates the iterator at the first
page that is empty, then .flatten concatenates all inner Seqs together, and finally toList materializes all the elements, and returns the entire list of books.
Apologies if this is a newbie question...
In Scala I understand that it is preferred to use an Option rather than returning null when you have a function which returns an instance but could potentially return nothing. I understand that this makes it better with regards to safety, because you are not passing null references around, and risking NullPointerException somewhere down the line.
However, is there a cleaner way to handle options than using pattern matching?
The syntax I end up using is the following:
val optObj : Option[MyObject] = myFunctionThatReturnsOption
optObj match {
case Some(obj) => {
//my code using obj
}
case None => _
}
In reality all this doing is the equivalent of the Java version:
MyObject obj = myMethodThatCanReturnNull()
if (obj != null) {
//my code using obj
}
Is there some other way to avoid all this boilerplate in Scala when using Option instead of null references? All I want to do is execute a piece of code as long as the Option contains some object (i.e. is not None).
Use foreach, getOrElse and/or map if you want to work in a more consistent way. Here's some use cases and what I'd do:
//I want to get a non-null value and I have a sane default
val result = myOption getOrElse 3
//I want to perform some side effecting action but only if not None
myOption foreach{ value =>
println(value toString ())
}
//equivalently
for(value <- myOption){
//notice I haven't used the "yeild" keyword here
}
//I want to do a computation and I don't mind if it comes back as an Option
val result = for(value <- myOption) yield func(value)
val equivalent = myOption map func
The third example will use map in both cases.
It gets really interesting when you can mix and match things in a "for comprehension" (Google term.) Let's say that func also returns an Option but I only want things working in specific cases:
val result = for{
value <- myOption if value > 0
output <- func(value)
} yield output
Now I get back an Option but only if myOption contained an integer that was greater than zero. Pretty nifty stuff, no?
You can use foreach if you just want to perform some side-effecting operation with the value:
optObj.foreach(obj => {
//my code using obj
})
if you have some other use case you should use some other method on Option like map, filter or getOrElse.
Of course, the way I usually use options if I only care about present value is foreach:
optObj.foreach { obj =>
//...
}
Having said this, there are a lot of other options (which #wheaties enlisted) and some people keep battling about the true one.
You can use the flatMap-method pretty well with Option. Like hier:
case class Player(name: String)
def lookupPlayer(id: Int): Option[Player] = {
if (id == 1) Some(new Player("Sean"))
else if(id == 2) Some(new Player("Greg"))
else None
}
def lookupScore(player: Player): Option[Int] = {
if (player.name == "Sean") Some(1000000) else None
}
println(lookupPlayer(1).map(lookupScore)) // Some(Some(1000000))
println(lookupPlayer(2).map(lookupScore)) // Some(None)
println(lookupPlayer(3).map(lookupScore)) // None
println(lookupPlayer(1).flatMap(lookupScore)) // Some(1000000)
println(lookupPlayer(2).flatMap(lookupScore)) // None
println(lookupPlayer(3).flatMap(lookupScore)) // None
Here's a great reference for Scala best practices regarding options:
http://blog.tmorris.net/posts/scalaoption-cheat-sheet/index.html
The following code compiles as long as the return type of the recursive call is Any, but obviously I'm doing something wrong because it should not have to be Any.
case class Group(
id: Long = -1,
parentId: Long = -1,
name: String = "")
def makeTree(groupId: Long, groups: List[Group]) = {
def getAllChildren(gid: Long): Any = {
def children = for {
g <- groups; if g.parentId == gid
} yield g
if (children.isEmpty) List()
else {
children map { x =>
getAllChildren(x.id)
}
}
}
getAllChildren(groupId)
}
val groups = List(Group(1, 0, "A"),
Group(2, 1, "B"),
Group(3, 1, "C"),
Group(4, 2, "D"))
makeTree(1, groups)
//Results in: Any = List(List(List()), List())
}
If I change the signature of getAllChildren to:
def getAllChildren(gid: Long): List[Group]
then I get an error:
type mismatch; found : List[List[Group]] required: List[Group]
What am I doing wrong here.
Not really speaking scala, but it looks like, for some id, you collect the groups with that id, and then replace each group with a list of it's children, and so on.
Specifically, here:
if (children.isEmpty) List()
else {
children map { x =>
getAllChildren(x.id)
}
}
Indeed, here is the root of your error: Your algorithm allows for infinite recursion, and each recursion adds another List[...] around your return type. But you can't have a type with dynamic depth.
For example, if you try to fix this by giving type List[List[Group]], it will complain that it found List[List[List[Group]]], and so on, until you give up.
This is the way typecheckers tell us that we're about to program a potentially infinite recursion. You may have assumed the invariant that your hierarchy can't involve loops, yet this is not reflected in the types. In fact, it is not hard to construct an example where two groups are each others parents. In that case, your program will produce an ever deeper nesting list until it terminates due to lack of memory.
Note that you can't fix your code simply by using flatMap instead of map: the reason being that getAllChildren never ever produces a list with Group elements. It either returns an empty list, or, a flattened list of empty lists, that is, an empty list. Hence, if it should return at all, it would return an empty list in the flatmap version.
You need to change the call to children map ... for children flatMap ..., otherwise you're not returning a List[Group] but potentially a List[List[.....]] like #Ingo suggests. flatMap will map each element to a List and then flatten all lists to create just one List[Group] containing all children.
EDIT: As #Ingo points out, even if flatMap would solve the typing problem, your function still doesn't work, since you always return an empty List. You should go for
children flatMap { x => x :: getAllChildren(x.id, acc) }
to prepend the child to the child's children.
Your code will work if you flatten the list returned on children map like this:
def makeTree(groupId: Long, groups: List[Group]) = {
def getAllChildren(gid: Long): List[Group] = {
def children = for {
g <- groups; if g.parentId == gid
} yield g
if (children.isEmpty) List()
else {
val listList = children map { x =>
x :: getAllChildren(x.id)
}
listList.flatten
}
}
getAllChildren(groupId)
}
The reason this is happening is that you are taking a List[Group] and mapping it over a function that also returns a List[Group], thus resulting in a List[List[Group]]. Simply flattening that List will produce the desired result.