I'm trying to generalize setting up Squeryl (Slick poses the same problems AFAIK). I want to avoid having to name every case class explicitly for a number of general methods.
table[Person]
table[Bookmark]
etc.
This also goes for generating indexes, and creating wrapper methods around the CRUD methods for every case class.
So ideally what I want to do is have a list of classes and make them into tables, add indexes and add a wrapper method:
val listOfClasses = List(classOf[Person], classOf[Bookmark])
listOfClasses.foreach(clazz => {
val tbl = table[clazz]
tbl.id is indexed
etc.
})
I thought Scala Macros would be the thing to apply here, since I don't think you can have values as type parameters. Also I need to generate methods for every type of the form:
def insert(model: Person): Person = persons.insert(model)
I've got my mits on an example on Macros but I don't know how to generate a generic datastructure.
I got this simple example to illustrate what I want:
def makeList_impl(c: Context)(clazz: c.Expr[Class[_]]): c.Expr[Unit] = {
import c.universe._
reify {
println(List[clazz.splice]()) // ERROR: error: type splice is not a member of c.Expr[Class[_]]
}
}
def makeList(clazz: Class[_]): Unit = macro makeList_impl
How do I do this? Or is Scala Macros the wrong tool?
Unfortunately, reify is not flexible enough for your use case, but there's good news. In macro paradise (and most likely in 2.11.0) we have a better tool to construct trees, called quasiquotes: http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/quasiquotes.html.
scala> def makeList_impl(c: Context)(clazz: c.Expr[Class[_]]): c.Expr[Any] = {
| import c.universe._
| val ConstantType(Constant(tpe: Type)) = clazz.tree.tpe
| c.Expr[Any](q"List[$tpe]()")
| }
makeList_impl: (c: scala.reflect.macros.Context)(clazz: c.Expr[Class[_]])c.Expr[Any]
scala> def makeList(clazz: Class[_]): Any = macro makeList_impl
defined term macro makeList: (clazz: Class[_])Any
scala> makeList(classOf[Int])
res2: List[Int] = List()
scala> makeList(classOf[String])
res3: List[String] = List()
Quasiquotes are even available in 2.10.x with a minor tweak to the build process (http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/paradise.html#macro_paradise_for_210x), so you might want to give them a try.
This will probably not fill all your needs here, but it may help a bit:
The signature of table method looks like this:
protected def table[T]()(implicit manifestT: Manifest[T]): Table[T]
As you can see, it takes implicit Manifest object. That object is passed automatically by the compiler and contains information about type T. This is actually what Squeryl uses to inspect database entity type.
You can just pass these manifests explicitly like this:
val listOfManifests = List(manifest[Person], manifest[Bookmark])
listOfManifests.foreach(manifest => {
val tbl = table()(manifest)
tbl.id is indexed
etc.
})
Unfortunately tbl in this code will have type similar to Table[_ <: CommonSupertypeOfAllGivenEntities] which means that all operations on it must be agnostic of concrete type of database entity.
Related
I have the following case class:
case class Example[T](
obj: Option[T] | T = None,
)
This allows me to construct it like Example(myObject) instead of Example(Some(myObject)).
To work with obj I need to normalise it to Option[T]:
lazy val maybeIn = obj match
case o: Option[T] => o
case o: T => Some(o)
the type test for Option[T] cannot be checked at runtime
I tried with TypeTest but I got also warnings - or the solutions I found look really complicated - see https://stackoverflow.com/a/69608091/2750966
Is there a better way to achieve this pattern in Scala 3?
I don't know about Scala3. But you could simply do this:
case class Example[T](v: Option[T] = None)
object Example {
def apply[T](t: T): Example[T] = Example(Some(t))
}
One could also go for implicit conversion, regarding the specific use case of the OP:
import scala.language.implicitConversions
case class Optable[Out](value: Option[Out])
object Optable {
implicit def fromOpt[T](o: Option[T]): Optable[T] = Optable(o)
implicit def fromValue[T](v: T): Optable[T] = Optable(Some(v))
}
case class SomeOpts(i: Option[Int], s: Option[String])
object SomeOpts {
def apply(i: Optable[Int], s: Optable[String]): SomeOpts = SomeOpts(i.value, s.value)
}
println(SomeOpts(15, Some("foo")))
We have a specialized Option-like type for this purpose: OptArg (in Scala 2 but should be easily portable to 3)
import com.avsystem.commons._
def gimmeLotsOfParams(
intParam: OptArg[Int] = OptArg.Empty,
strParam: OptArg[String] = OptArg.Empty
): Unit = ???
gimmeLotsOfParams(42)
gimmeLotsOfParams(strParam = "foo")
It relies on an implicit conversion so you have to be a little careful with it, i.e. don't use it as a drop-in replacement for Option.
The implementation of OptArg is simple enough that if you don't want external dependencies then you can probably just copy it into your project or some kind of "commons" library.
EDIT: the following answer is incorrect. As of Scala 3.1, flow analysis is only able to check for nullability. More information is available on the Scala book.
I think that the already given answer is probably better suited for the use case you proposed (exposing an API can can take a simple value and normalize it to an Option).
However, the question in the title is still interesting and I think it makes sense to address it.
What you are observing is a consequence of type parameters being erased at runtime, i.e. they only exist during compilation, while matching happens at runtime, once those have been erased.
However, the Scala compiler is able to perform flow analysis for union types. Intuitively I'd say there's probably a way to make it work in pattern matching (as you did), but you can make it work for sure using an if and isInstanceOf (not as clean, I agree):
case class Example[T](
obj: Option[T] | T = None
) {
lazy val maybeIn =
if (obj.isInstanceOf[Option[_]]) {
obj
} else {
Some(obj)
}
}
You can play around with this code here on Scastie.
Here is the announcement from 2019 when flow analysis was added to the compiler.
Context: I'm trying to write a macro that is statically aware of an non-fixed number of types. I'm trying to pass these types as a single type parameter using an HList. It would be called as m[ConcreteType1 :: ConcreteType2 :: ... :: HNil](). The macro then builds a match statement which requires some implicits to be found at compile time, a bit like how a json serialiser might demand implicit encoders. I've got a working implementation of the macro when used on a fixed number of type parameters, as follows:
def m[T1, T2](): Int = macro mImpl[T1, T2]
def mImpl[T1: c.WeakTypeTag, T2: c.WeakTypeTag](c: Context)(): c.Expr[Int] = {
import c.universe._
val t = Seq(
weakTypeOf[T1],
weakTypeOf[T2]
).map(c => cq"a: $c => externalGenericCallRequiringImplicitsAndReturningInt(a)")
val cases = q"input match { case ..$t }"
c.Expr[Int](cases)
}
Question: If I have a WeakTypeTag[T] for some T <: HList, is there any way to turn that into a Seq[Type]?
def hlistToSeq[T <: HList](hlistType: WeakTypeTag[T]): Seq[Type] = ???
My instinct is to write a recursive match which turns each T <: HList into either H :: T or HNil, but I don't think that kind of matching exists in scala.
I'd like to hear of any other way to get a list of arbitrary size of types into a macro, bearing in mind that I would need a Seq[Type], not Expr[Seq[Type]], as I need to map over them in macro code.
A way of writing a similar 'macro' in Dotty would be interesting too - I'm hoping it'll be simpler there, but haven't fully investigated yet.
Edit (clarification): The reason I'm using a macro is that I want a user of the library I'm writing to provide a collection of types (perhaps in the form of an HList), which the library can iterate over and expect implicits relating to. I say library, but it will be compiled together with the uses, in order for the macros to run; in any case it should be reusable with different collections of types. It's a bit confusing, but I think I've worked this bit out - I just need to be able to build macros that can operate on lists of types.
Currently you seem not to need macros. It seems type classes or shapeless.Poly can be enough.
def externalGenericCallRequiringImplicitsAndReturningInt[C](a: C)(implicit
mtc: MyTypeclass[C]): Int = mtc.anInt
trait MyTypeclass[C] {
def anInt: Int
}
object MyTypeclass {
implicit val mtc1: MyTypeclass[ConcreteType1] = new MyTypeclass[ConcreteType1] {
override val anInt: Int = 1
}
implicit val mtc2: MyTypeclass[ConcreteType2] = new MyTypeclass[ConcreteType2] {
override val anInt: Int = 2
}
//...
}
val a1: ConcreteType1 = null
val a2: ConcreteType2 = null
externalGenericCallRequiringImplicitsAndReturningInt(a1) //1
externalGenericCallRequiringImplicitsAndReturningInt(a2) //2
I am trying to test whether two "containers" use the same higher-kinded type. Look at the following code:
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
class Funct[A[_],B]
class Foo[A : TypeTag](x: A) {
def test[B[_]](implicit wt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) =
println(typeOf[A] <:< weakTypeOf[Funct[B,_]])
def print[B[_]](implicit wt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) = {
println(typeOf[A])
println(weakTypeOf[B[_]])
}
}
val x = new Foo(new Funct[Option,Int])
x.test[Option]
x.print[Option]
The output is:
false
Test.Funct[Option,Int]
scala.Option[_]
However, I expect the conformance test to succeed. What am I doing wrong? How can I test for higher-kinded types?
Clarification
In my case, the values I am testing (the x: A in the example) come in a List[c.Expr[Any]] in a Macro. So any solution relying on static resolution (as the one I have given), will not solve my problem.
It's the mixup between underscores used in type parameter definitions and elsewhere. The underscore in TypeTag[B[_]] means an existential type, hence you get a tag not for B, but for an existential wrapper over it, which is pretty much useless without manual postprocessing.
Consequently typeOf[Funct[B, _]] that needs a tag for raw B can't make use of the tag for the wrapper and gets upset. By getting upset I mean it refuses to splice the tag in scope and fails with a compilation error. If you use weakTypeOf instead, then that one will succeed, but it will generate stubs for everything it couldn't splice, making the result useless for subtyping checks.
Looks like in this case we really hit the limits of Scala in the sense that there's no way for us to refer to raw B in WeakTypeTag[B], because we don't have kind polymorphism in Scala. Hopefully something like DOT will save us from this inconvenience, but in the meanwhile you can use this workaround (it's not pretty, but I haven't been able to come up with a simpler approach).
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
object Test extends App {
class Foo[B[_], T]
// NOTE: ideally we'd be able to write this, but since it's not valid Scala
// we have to work around by using an existential type
// def test[B[_]](implicit tt: WeakTypeTag[B]) = weakTypeOf[Foo[B, _]]
def test[B[_]](implicit tt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) = {
val ExistentialType(_, TypeRef(pre, sym, _)) = tt.tpe
// attempt #1: just compose the type manually
// but what do we put there instead of question marks?!
// appliedType(typeOf[Foo], List(TypeRef(pre, sym, Nil), ???))
// attempt #2: reify a template and then manually replace the stubs
val template = typeOf[Foo[Hack, _]]
val result = template.substituteSymbols(List(typeOf[Hack[_]].typeSymbol), List(sym))
println(result)
}
test[Option]
}
// has to be top-level, otherwise the substituion magic won't work
class Hack[T]
An astute reader will notice that I used WeakTypeTag in the signature of foo, even though I should be able to use TypeTag. After all, we call foo on an Option which is a well-behaved type, in the sense that it doesn't involve unresolved type parameters or local classes that pose problems for TypeTags. Unfortunately, it's not that simple because of https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-7686, so we're forced to use a weak tag even though we shouldn't need to.
The following is an answer that works for the example I have given (and might help others), but does not apply to my (non-simplified) case.
Stealing from #pedrofurla's hint, and using type-classes:
trait ConfTest[A,B] {
def conform: Boolean
}
trait LowPrioConfTest {
implicit def ctF[A,B] = new ConfTest[A,B] { val conform = false }
}
object ConfTest extends LowPrioConfTest {
implicit def ctT[A,B](implicit ev: A <:< B) =
new ConfTest[A,B] { val conform = true }
}
And add this to Foo:
def imp[B[_]](implicit ct: ConfTest[A,Funct[B,_]]) =
println(ct.conform)
Now:
x.imp[Option] // --> true
x.imp[List] // --> false
Simple question about reflection in Scala :
How can I write a method fields that returns all the fields of a certain type, even in subclasses?
Is that even the right way to do it? How would you do it if it is not?
Example :
class Top { def fields = ... }
class A extends Top {
val f1 = Field(...)
val f2 = Field(...)
}
(new A).fields // List(f1, f2)
So, in my trials and errors, I've found genuine run-time type reflection to be difficult, because of Scala's trick of embedding type information at compile time when you ask for an implicit TypeTag. What I've found is that, if you want to reflect on the Type of an object, that object's type must have been available at compile time. (That may reflect a limitation of my knowledge rather than a limitation of Scala reflection, but I have tried and so far failed to reflect on runtime types that cannot be captured at compile time.)
So, here is closest to what you want that I know how to do:
scala> import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._;
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
scala> class Base[T <: Base[T] : TypeTag] {
| def stringVals = typeOf[T].members.filter( _.isTerm ).map( _.asTerm).filter( _.isVal ).filter( _.typeSignature <:< typeOf[String] )
| }
defined class Base
scala> class Derived extends Base[Derived] {
| val f1 = "Bye";
| val f2 = 27;
| val f3 = "Sad.";
| }
defined class Derived
scala> (new Derived).stringVals
res0: Iterable[reflect.runtime.universe.TermSymbol] = List(value f3, value f1)
Note that I had to explicitly name my own type when I extended Base, so that at compile time, the appropriate TypeTag could be embedded (as an implicit into my constructor). I just don't know a way around that.
The vals are returned here in the form of a List of TermSymbols. I'm not sure what you wanted; if you just wanted String val names, add ".map( _.name.toString.trim )" to the end of the stringVals function. (I've found the call to trim to be important in practice, but I bet as the reflection library finalizes and evolves it will become superfluous.)
Good luck!
By dictionary I mean a lightweight map from names to values that can be used as the return value of a method.
Options that I'm aware of include making case classes, creating anon objects, and making maps from Strings -> Any.
Case classes require mental overhead to create (names), but are strongly typed.
Anon objects don't seem that well documented and it's unclear to me how to use them as arguments since there is no named type.
Maps from String -> Any require casting for retrieval.
Is there anything better?
Ideally these could be built from json and transformed back into it when appropriate.
I don't need static typing (though it would be nice, I can see how it would be impossible) - but I do want to avoid explicit casting.
Here's the fundamental problem with what you want:
def get(key: String): Option[T] = ...
val r = map.get("key")
The type of r will be defined from the return type of get -- so, what should that type be? From where could it be defined? If you make it a type parameter, then it's relatively easy:
import scala.collection.mutable.{Map => MMap}
val map: MMap[String, (Manifest[_], Any) = MMap.empty
def get[T : Manifest](key: String): Option[T] = map.get(key).filter(_._1 <:< manifest[T]).map(_._2.asInstanceOf[T])
def put[T : Manifest](key: String, obj: T) = map(key) = manifest[T] -> obj
Example:
scala> put("abc", 2)
scala> put("def", true)
scala> get[Boolean]("abc")
res2: Option[Boolean] = None
scala> get[Int]("abc")
res3: Option[Int] = Some(2)
The problem, of course, is that you have to tell the compiler what type you expect to be stored on the map under that key. Unfortunately, there is simply no way around that: the compiler cannot know what type will be stored under that key at compile time.
Any solution you take you'll end up with this same problem: somehow or other, you'll have to tell the compiler what type should be returned.
Now, this shouldn't be a burden in a Scala program. Take that r above... you'll then use that r for something, right? That something you are using it for will have methods appropriate to some type, and since you know what the methods are, then you must also know what the type of r must be.
If this isn't the case, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the code -- or, perhaps, you haven't progressed from wanting the map to knowing what you'll do with it.
So you want to parse json and turn it into objects that resemble the javascript objets described in the json input? If you want static typing, case classes are pretty much your only option and there are already libraries handling this, for example lift-json.
Another option is to use Scala 2.9's experimental support for dynamic typing. That will give you elegant syntax at the expense of type safety.
You can use approach I've seen in the casbah library, when you explicitly pass a type parameter into the get method and cast the actual value inside the get method. Here is a quick example:
case class MultiTypeDictionary(m: Map[String, Any]) {
def getAs[T <: Any](k: String)(implicit mf: Manifest[T]): T =
cast(m.get(k).getOrElse {throw new IllegalArgumentException})(mf)
private def cast[T <: Any : Manifest](a: Any): T =
a.asInstanceOf[T]
}
implicit def map2multiTypeDictionary(m: Map[String, Any]) =
MultiTypeDictionary(m)
val dict: MultiTypeDictionary = Map("1" -> 1, "2" -> 2.0, "3" -> "3")
val a: Int = dict.getAs("1")
val b: Int = dict.getAs("2") //ClassCastException
val b: Int = dict.getAs("4") //IllegalArgumetExcepton
You should note that there is no real compile-time checks, so you have to deal with all exceptions drawbacks.
UPD Working MultiTypeDictionary class
If you have only a limited number of types which can occur as values, you can use some kind of union type (a.k.a. disjoint type), having e.g. a Map[Foo, Bar | Baz | Buz | Blargh]. If you have only two possibilities, you can use Either[A,B], giving you a Map[Foo, Either[Bar, Baz]]. For three types you might cheat and use Map[Foo, Either[Bar, Either[Baz,Buz]]], but this syntax obviously doesn't scale well. If you have more types you can use things like...
http://cleverlytitled.blogspot.com/2009/03/disjoint-bounded-views-redux.html
http://svn.assembla.com/svn/metascala/src/metascala/OneOfs.scala
http://www.chuusai.com/2011/06/09/scala-union-types-curry-howard/