I am trying to parse commandline arguments and execute a function that takes the parameters upon successful extraction of the parameters. I have an object called CurrencyExchangeRunner where the main method is. I have envisioned the structure of the class as follows:
object CurrencyExtractionRunner {
def main(args:Array[String]){
parseArgs(args){
(currencyType,currencyTypeArgs) =>
CurrencyExchanger(curencyType,currencyTypeArgs){
(exchanger) => exchanger.startExchange
}
}
}
}
}
What I want to accomplish above is to parse the arguments using parseArgs(args), get the (currencyType,currencyTypeArgs) as parameters and pass those into the CurrencyExchanger factory object and then that would return the appropriate exchanger on which I will execute the startExchange method. This is what I have envisioned but I am a little clueless on how would I go about creating this flow. The first thing I tried was to create a trait that parses the command-line args as follows(I am using the jcommander library for the commandline parse):
object Args {
#Parameter(
names = Array("-h", "--help"), help = true)
var help = false
#Parameter(
names = Array("-c", "--currency-type"),
description = "Type of currency exchange that needs to be performed",
required = true)
var currencyType: String = null
#Parameter(
names = Array("-d", "--denominations"),
description = "Specific denominations to be used during the exchage")
var exchangeDenomination: String = null
#Parameter(
names = Array("-s", "--someotheroptionalarg"),
description = "Additional argument for a specific currency exchange")
var someOtherOptionalArg: String = null
}
trait ParseUtils {
//How do I do this, take the args and return a function.
def parseArgs(args: Array[String]){
val jCommander = new JCommander(Args, args.toArray: _*)
if (Args.help) {
jCommander.usage()
System.exit(0)
}
//What do I do now? How do I proceed with executing the function with
//the specific arguments?
//What do I need to do to wrap the commandline arguments so that it could
//be passed to the next function
}
}
I am pretty stuck here since I am not sure how would I make the code flexible enough to take the arbitrary sequence of commandline args and execute the next step which is the factory that returns that takes these arguments and returns the correct exchanger.
It will be great if someone could point me in the right direction.
I'm not sure why you'd use such unusual syntax to pass return values to the following methods.
I would go for a simpler solution that looks like
trait ParseUtils {
//Why would you return a function here?
//Is it a strict constraint you need to fulfill?
def parseArgs(args: Array[String]): (String, String) {
val jCommander = new JCommander(Args, args.toArray: _*)
if (Args.help) {
jCommander.usage()
System.exit(0)
}
//This is the return value of the method, a pair of parameters
(Args.currencyType, Args.exchangeDenomination)
//If you need to embed additional params, you should append them to existing one
// or you could create optional values from the Args members...
// e.g. (Args.currencyType, Args.exchangeDenomination, Option(Args.someOtherOptionalArg))
// with return type (String, String, Option[String])
}
}
object CurrencyExtractionRunner with ParseUtils {
def main(args:Array[String]){
val (currencyType,currencyTypeArgs) = parseArgs(args)
CurrencyExchanger(currencyType,currencyTypeArgs).startExchange
}
}
case class CurrencyExchanger(currencyType: String, currencyTypeArgs: String) {
def startExchange = //implementation details using the costructor arguments
}
Alternative solution
since I prefer parseArgs to be more "functional" I'd change it to
trait ParseUtils {
def parseArgs(args: Array[String]): Option[(String, String)] {
val jCommander = new JCommander(Args, args.toArray: _*)
if (Args.help) {
jCommander.usage()
None
} else
Some(Args.currencyType, Args.exchangeDenomination)
}
}
object CurrencyExtractionRunner with ParseUtils {
def main(args:Array[String]){
parseArgs(args).foreach {
case (currencyType,currencyTypeArgs) =>
CurrencyExchanger(currencyType,currencyTypeArgs).startExchange
}
}
}
case class CurrencyExchanger(currencyType: String, currencyTypeArgs: String) {
def startExchange = //implementation details using the costructor arguments
}
Related
Primary goal
I want to use some static vals in a class so that I don't have to pass them as function parameters.
My approach
Since I want them to be static, I am declaring them in the companion object. But I cannot assign them values when I declare them, for some reasons. So I am following the below approach.
case class DemoParams(name: String)
class Demo {
def foo = {
println("Demo params name is: ", Demo.demoParams.name) // Works fine
anotherFoo(Demo.demoParams.name) // Throws NPE !
}
def anotherFoo(someName: String) = {
// some code
}
}
object Demo {
var demoParams: DemoParams = _ // Declare here
def apply() = new Demo()
def run = {
demoParams = DemoParams(name = "Salmon") // Define here
val demoObj = Demo()
demoObj.foo
}
def main() = {
run
}
}
Demo.main()
I am able to print Demo.demoParams but surprisingly, this throws a NullPointerException when I pass Demo.demoParams to another function, while running the Spark app on a cluster.
Questions
Firstly, is this the right way of declaring static values and defining them later? I would prefer to not use vars and use immutable vals. Is there a better alternative?
Second, could you think of any reason I would be getting a NPE while passing Demo.demoParams.name to another function?
Your code works fine and doesn't throw anything (after fixing a few compile errors).
But ... Don't do this, it's ... yucky :/
How about passing params to the class as ... well ... params instead?
case class Demo(params: DemoParams) {
def foo() = {
println("Demo params name is: " + params.name)
}
}
object Demo {
def run() = {
val demoParams = DemoParams(name = "Salmon")
val demoObj = Demo(demoParams)
demoObj.foo()
}
}
Not sure this is the best alternative, but consider using a trait, which still keeps you in the FP zone by avoiding the use of var:
case class DemoParams(name: String)
trait Demo {
val demoParams: DemoParams
}
Then just define it where you need it, and it's ready for use:
object MainApp extends App {
val demoObj = new Demo {
override val demoParams: DemoParams = DemoParams(name = "Salmon")
}
println("Demo params name is: ", demoObj.demoParams.name) // (Demo params name is: ,Salmon)
anotherFoo(demoObj.demoParams.name) // Salmon
def anotherFoo(name: String): Unit = println(name)
}
About the second question, without the actual code one can only guess (this sample code does not throw NPE). Probably somewhere you are using it without defining it previously, because var demoParams: DemoParams = _ just initializes demoParams to the default value of the reference type DemoParams, which is null in this case, and you get NPE when you try to access the name value of a null object. This is why using var is discouraged.
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 have a method like this:
def aMethod(param: String = "asdf") = {
...
}
If the method is called as follows, then param is given the default value "asdf":
aMethod() ...
But what I would like, is that if the method is called with null, then the default value would also be applied:
aMethod(null) //inside the method, I can use `param` and it has the value "asdf".
Whats the best way to do this in Scala? I can think of pattern matching or a simple if statement.
Pattern matching
def aMethod(param: String = null) {
val paramOrDefault = param match {
case null => "asdf"
case s => s
}
}
Option (implicitly)
def aMethod(param: String = null) {
val paramOrDefault = Option(param).getOrElse("asdf")
}
Option (explicitly)
def aMethod(param: Option[String] = None) {
val paramOrDefault = param getOrElse "asdf"
}
The last approach is actually the most idiomatic and readable once you get use to it.
def aMethod(param: String = null) = {
val p =
if(param == null)
"asdf"
else
param
println(p)
}
But the question must be asked: why allow null? Would Option be possible in your case? For this you could do:
def aMethod(param: Option[String]) = {
val p = param.getOrElse("asdf")
println(p)
}
This makes it clear that your method expects the possibility of a "null" argument.
If the method has just one or two default parameters that can be set to null consider this pattern:
// please note that you must specify function return type
def aMethod (x:String = "asdf"):String = if (x==null) aMethod() else {
// aMethod body ...
x
}
There are some benefits:
The method definition clearly indicates the parameter's default value.
The correct default value can be picked by Scala tools, including ScalaDoc.
There is no need to define an additional value to substitute for the original parameter within the method body - less room for mistakes, easier to reason.
The pattern is fairly concise.
Furthermore, consider the following scenario:
trait ATrait {
def aMethod (x:String = "trait's default value for x"):String
}
class AClass extends ATrait {
....
}
Clearly, here we need to extend the trait, whilst preserving the original default value. Any of the patterns that involve initially setting the parameter to null followed by a check and actual default value will break the contract established by the trait:
class AClass extends ATrait {
// wrong, breaks the expected contract
def aMethod(x: String = null):String = {
val xVal = if (x == null) "asdf" else x
...
}
}
Indeed in this scenario the only way to preserve the original value from ATrait will be:
class AClass extends ATrait {
override def aMethod (x:String):String = if (x==null) aMethod() else {
... // x contains default value defined within ATrait
}
}
However, in the scenario when there are more than one or two default parameters that can be set to null the pattern starts getting rather messy:
// two parameters
def aMethod (x:String = "Hello",y:String = "World"):String =
if (x==null) aMethod(y=y) else
if (y==null) aMethod(x=x) else {
// aMethod body ...
x + " " + y
}
// three parameters
def aMethod (x:String = "Hello",y:String = " ",z:String = "World"):String =
if (x==null) aMethod(y=y,z=z) else
if (y==null) aMethod(x=x,z=z) else
if (z==null) aMethod(x=x,y=y) else {
// aMethod body ...
x + y + z
}
Still when overriding an existing contract this might be the only way to honour the original default values.
coming from my other question is there a way to get by-name-parameters for constructors working? I need a way to provide a code-block which is executed on-demand/lazy/by-name inside an object and this code-block must be able to access the class-methods as if the code-block were part of the class.
Following Testcase fails:
package test
class ByNameCons(code: => Unit) {
def exec() = {
println("pre-code")
code
println("post-code")
}
def meth() = println("method")
def exec2(code2: => Unit) = {
println("pre-code")
code2
println("post-code")
}
}
object ByNameCons {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val tst = new ByNameCons {
println("foo")
meth() // knows meth() as code is part of ByNameCons
}
tst.exec() // ByName fails (executed right as constructor)
println("--------")
tst.exec2 { // ByName works
println("foo")
//meth() // does not know meth() as code is NOT part of ByNameCons
}
}
}
Output:
foo
method
pre-code
post-code
--------
pre-code
foo
post-code
This is because when you're making an instance like this:
val tst = new ByNameCons {
...
}
.. you're actually creating an anonymous class, like in java.
The above code is the same as:
val tst = new ByNameCons() { ... }
.. while the correct syntax for passing by-name is:
val tst = new ByNameCons( { ... } )
You cant omit parentheses the same way for constructors as with functions.
val tst = new ByNameCons( {
println("foo")
} )
Thought it is probably just easier to do this:
object ByNameCons {
def apply(code: => Unit) = new ByNameCons(code)
}
val tst = ByNameCons { // no "new" here -- can't mix traits either
println("foo")
}
I dont know why, but it appears that using {} or () when creating the class changes the behavior. Using the following class,
class Coder(code: => Unit) {
def exec = {
println("before")
code
println("after")}
}
}
scala> val brackets = new Coder {println("testing")}
testing
brackets: Coder = $anon$1#1af7a03
scala> brackets exec
before
after
Now instead if defined another way,
scala> val parens = new Coder(println("testing"))
parens: Coder = Coder#dca3ed
scala> parens exec
before
testing
after
as desired. It seems as if in the first notation, the compiler is interpreting the brackets as a block to be evaluated to Unit, instead of an anonymous function which, when called, evaluates to Unit.
FWIW, using ({ ... }) also works fine.