I have a series of validation functions that returns an Option[Problem], if any, or None if no validation problems are found.
I would like to write a simple function that calls each validation function, stop and return the first not-None result.
Naturally I can write this method in the "java-style", but I would like to know if a better approach exists.
EDIT
This was the original Java solution:
validate01(arg);
validate02(arg);
validate03(arg);
...
Each method throws an exception in case of problem. I would stay away from the exceptions while I'm writing Scala.
As an example, let's say we want to validate a String. Our validation function takes a String and a list of validators, which are functions from String to Option[Problem]. We can implement it in a functional manner like this:
def firstProblem(validators: List[String => Option[Problem]], s:String) =
validators.view.flatMap(_(s)).headOption
This creates a new list by applying each validation function to the string and keeping the result only if it is a Some. We then take the first element of this List. Because of the call to view, the list will be computed only as needed. So as soon as the first Problem is found, no further validators will be called.
If you have finite and known at compile time number of validations you may use .orElse on Options:
def foo(x: Int): Option[Problem] = ...
def bar(x: Int): Option[Problem] = ...
...
def baz(x: Int): Option[Problem] = ...
foo(1) orElse bar(2) orElse .. baz(n)
Maybe you want--assuming the validation functions take no arguments
def firstProblem(fs: (() => Option[Problem])*) = {
fs.iterator.map(f => f()).find(_.isDefined).flatten
}
You'll get an existing Option[Problem] if there are any, or None if they all succeed. If you need to pass arguments to the functions, then you need to explain what those arguments are. For example, you could
def firstProblem[A](a: A)(fs: (A => Option[Problem])*) = /* TODO */
if you can pass the same argument to all of them. You would use it like this:
firstProblem(myData)(
validatorA,
validatorB,
validatorC,
validatorD
)
Related
I have Future[MyType] and I need to pass the value of MyType to a method which returns Seq[Future[MyType]], so basic signature of problem is:
val a: Seq[Future[MyType]] = ...
getValue(t: MyType): Seq[Future[MyType]] = {...}
I want to pass value of a to getValue. I tried something like:
val b:Seq[Future[MyType]] = a.map{v => getValue(v)}
I want b to be of Seq[Future[MyType]] type
but, it obviously didn't worked as v is of type Future[MyType] and getValue needs only MyType as parameter. What could be a possible solution??
You can do:
val b = a.map(_.map(getValue(_)))
This will give you a Seq[Future[Seq[Future[MyType]]]]. That's pretty ugly. There are three tools that can make that better.
Future.sequence takes a Seq[Future[A]] and gives you a Future[Seq[A]]. The output future will wait for all input futures to complete before giving a result. This might not always be what you want.
fut.flatMap takes a function computing a Future as a result but does not return a nested Future, as would happen with .map.
You can call .flatten on a Seq[Seq[A]] to get a Seq[A]
Putting this all together, you could do something like:
val b: Seq[Future[Seq[MyType]] = a.map(_.flatMap(x => Future.sequence(getValue(x))))
val c: Future[Seq[MyType]] = Future.sequence(b).map(_.flatten)
More generally, when dealing with "container" types, you'll use some combination of map and flatMap to get at the inner types and pass them around. And common containers often have ways to flatten or swap orders, e.g. A[A[X]] => A[X] or A[B[X]] => B[A[X]].
I'd like to call a function returned by a function with an implicit parameter, simply and elegantly. This doesn't work:
def resolveA(implicit a: A): String => String = { prefix =>
s"$prefix a=$a"
}
case class A(n: Int)
implicit val a = A(1)
println(resolveA("-->")) // won't compile
I've figured out what's going on: Scala sees the ("-->") and thinks it's an attempt to explicitly fill in the implicit parameter list. I want to pass that as the prefix argument, but Scala sees it as the a argument.
I've tried some alternatives, like putting an empty parameter list () before the implicit one, but so far I've always been stopped by the fact that Scala thinks the argument to the returned function is an attempt to fill in the implicit parameter list of resolveA.
What's a nice way to do what I'm trying to do here, even if it's not as nice as the syntax I tried above?
Another option would be to use the apply method of the String => String function returned by resolveA. This way the compiler won't confuse the parameter lists, and is a little shorter than writing implicltly[A].
scala> resolveA[A].apply("-->")
res3: String = --> a=A(1)
I am new to Scala, and am learning it by going over some Play code. I have had a good read of the major concepts of Scala and am comfortable with functional programming having done some Haskell and ML.
I am really struggling to read this code, at the level of the syntax and the programming paradigms alone. I understand what the code is supposed to do, but not how it does it because I can't figure out the syntax.
// -- Home page
def index(ref: Option[String]): Action[AnyContent] = Prismic.action(ref) { implicit request =>
for {
someDocuments <- ctx.api.forms("everything").ref(ctx.ref).submit()
} yield {
Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments))
}
}
(Prismic is an API separate to Play and is not really that relevant). How would I describe this function (or is it a method??) to another developer over the phone: in other words, using English. For example in this code:
def add(a: Int, b: Int): Int = a + b
I would say "add is a function which takes two integers, adds them together and returns the result as another integer".
In the Play code above I don't even know how to describe it after getting to "index is a function which takes an Option of a String and returns an Action of type AnyContent by ....."
The bit after the '=' and then the curly braces and the '=>' scare me! How do I read them? And is the functional or OO?
Thanks for your assistance
Let's reduce it to this:
def index(ref: Option[String]): Action[AnyContent] = Prismic.action(ref)(function)
That's better, isn't it? index is a function from Option of String to Action of AnyContent (one word), which calls the action method of the object Prismic passing two curried parameters: ref, the parameter that index received, and a function (to be described).
So let's break down the anonymous function:
{ implicit request =>
for {
someDocuments <- ctx.api.forms("everything").ref(ctx.ref).submit()
} yield {
Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments))
}
}
First, it uses {} instead of () because Scala allows one to drop () as parameter delimiter if it's a single parameter (there are two parameter lists, but each has a single parameter), and that parameter is enclosed in {}.
So, what about {}? Well, it's an expression that contains declarations and statements, with semi-colon inference on new lines, whose value is that of the last statement. That is, the value of these two expressions is the same, 3:
{ 1; 2; 3 }
{
1
2
3
}
It's a syntactic convention to use {} when passing a function that extends for more than one line, even if, as in this case, that function could have been passed with just parenthesis.
The next thing confusing is the implicit request =>, Let's pick something simpler:
x => x * 2
That's pretty easy, right? It takes one parameter, x, and returns x * 2. In our case, it is the same thing: the function takes one parameter, request, and returns this:
for (someDocuments <- somethingSomething())
yield Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments))
That is, it calls some methods, iterate over the result, and map those results into a new value. This is a close equivalent to Haskell's do notation. You can rewrite it like below (I'm breaking it down into multiple lines for readability):
ctx
.api
.forms("everything")
.ref(ctx.ref)
.submit()
.map(someDocuments => Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments)))
So, back to our method definition, we have this:
def index(ref: Option[String]): Action[AnyContent] = Prismic.action(ref)(
implicit request =>
ctx
.api
.forms("everything")
.ref(ctx.ref)
.submit()
.map(someDocuments => Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments)))
)
The only remaining question here is what that implicit is about. Basically, it makes that parameter implicitly available through the scope of the function. Presumably, at least one of these method calls require an implicit parameter which is properly fielded by request. I could drop the implicit there an pass request explicitly, if I knew which of these methods require it, but since I don't, I'm skipping that.
An alternate way of writing it would be:
def index(ref: Option[String]): Action[AnyContent] = Prismic.action(ref)({
request =>
implicit val req = request
ctx
.api
.forms("everything")
.ref(ctx.ref)
.submit()
.map(someDocuments => Ok(views.html.index(someDocuments)))
})
Here I added {} back because I added a declaration to the body of the function, though I decided not to drop the parenthesis, which I could have.
Something like this:
index is a function which takes an Option of a String and returns an Action of type AnyContent. It calls the method action that takes as a first argument an Option and as a second argument a method that assumes an implicit value request of type Request is in scope. This method uses a For-comprehension that calls the submit method which returns an Option or a Future and then in case its execution is successful, it yields the result Ok(...) that will be wrapped in the Action returned by the action method of Prismic.
Prismic.action is a method that takes 2 groups of arguments (a.k.a. currying).
The first is ref
The second is { implicit request => ...}, a function defined in a block of a code
more information on Action
Given this definition:
class Foo(var x: String) {}
object Helper {
def model[T](get: ⇒ T, set: T ⇒ Unit) : Model[T] = new Model[T] {
override def getObject(): T = get
override def setObject(obj: T) { set(obj) }
}
}
I try to call model like this:
val f = new Foo("initial")
val stringModel = model(f.x, f.x = _)
But that doesn't work, the compiler gives me this, complaining about the underscore:
missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$1) => f.x = x$1)
If I change the definition of model to use two parameter lists like this:
def model[T](get: ⇒ T)(set: T ⇒ Unit) // rest is unchanged
Then I can call it like this:
model(f.x)(f.x = _)
Which I find nice and concise. I don't really mind doing it like this, though it makes method overloading harder. I would like to understand, however, why the second variant works and the first one doesn't?
The second variant works because Scala refines its types parameter-block by parameter-block. If you don't specify the type of your input parameter for the function, it's possible that it would change the type T that it has inferred based on the first parameter. If you push it to a separate parameter block, Scala's already decided what T must be by the time it hits that block, so it fills in the only possible value for the function argument type.
I've been reading about the OO 'fluent interface' approach in Java, JavaScript and Scala and I like the look of it, but have been struggling to see how to reconcile it with a more type-based/functional approach in Scala.
To give a very specific example of what I mean: I've written an API client which can be invoked like this:
val response = MyTargetApi.get("orders", 24)
The return value from get() is a Tuple3 type called RestfulResponse, as defined in my package object:
// 1. Return code
// 2. Response headers
// 2. Response body (Option)
type RestfulResponse = (Int, List[String], Option[String])
This works fine - and I don't really want to sacrifice the functional simplicity of a tuple return value - but I would like to extend the library with various 'fluent' method calls, perhaps something like this:
val response = MyTargetApi.get("customers", 55).throwIfError()
// Or perhaps:
MyTargetApi.get("orders", 24).debugPrint(verbose=true)
How can I combine the functional simplicity of get() returning a typed tuple (or similar) with the ability to add more 'fluent' capabilities to my API?
It seems you are dealing with a client side API of a rest style communication. Your get method seems to be what triggers the actual request/response cycle. It looks like you'd have to deal with this:
properties of the transport (like credentials, debug level, error handling)
providing data for the input (your id and type of record (order or customer)
doing something with the results
I think for the properties of the transport, you can put some of it into the constructor of the MyTargetApi object, but you can also create a query object that will store those for a single query and can be set in a fluent way using a query() method:
MyTargetApi.query().debugPrint(verbose=true).throwIfError()
This would return some stateful Query object that stores the value for log level, error handling. For providing the data for the input, you can also use the query object to set those values but instead of returning your response return a QueryResult:
class Query {
def debugPrint(verbose: Boolean): this.type = { _verbose = verbose; this }
def throwIfError(): this.type = { ... }
def get(tpe: String, id: Int): QueryResult[RestfulResponse] =
new QueryResult[RestfulResponse] {
def run(): RestfulResponse = // code to make rest call goes here
}
}
trait QueryResult[A] { self =>
def map[B](f: (A) => B): QueryResult[B] = new QueryResult[B] {
def run(): B = f(self.run())
}
def flatMap[B](f: (A) => QueryResult[B]) = new QueryResult[B] {
def run(): B = f(self.run()).run()
}
def run(): A
}
Then to eventually get the results you call run. So at the end of the day you can call it like this:
MyTargetApi.query()
.debugPrint(verbose=true)
.throwIfError()
.get("customers", 22)
.map(resp => resp._3.map(_.length)) // body
.run()
Which should be a verbose request that will error out on issue, retrieve the customers with id 22, keep the body and get its length as an Option[Int].
The idea is that you can use map to define computations on a result you do not yet have. If we add flatMap to it, then you could also combine two computations from two different queries.
To be honest, I think it sounds like you need to feel your way around a little more because the example is not obviously functional, nor particularly fluent. It seems you might be mixing up fluency with not-idempotent in the sense that your debugPrint method is presumably performing I/O and the throwIfError is throwing exceptions. Is that what you mean?
If you are referring to whether a stateful builder is functional, the answer is "not in the purest sense". However, note that a builder does not have to be stateful.
case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
Firstly; this can be created using named parameters:
Person(name="Oxbow", age=36)
Or, a stateless builder:
object Person {
def withName(name: String)
= new { def andAge(age: Int) = new Person(name, age) }
}
Hey presto:
scala> Person withName "Oxbow" andAge 36
As to your use of untyped strings to define the query you are making; this is poor form in a statically-typed language. What is more, there is no need:
sealed trait Query
case object orders extends Query
def get(query: Query): Result
Hey presto:
api get orders
Although, I think this is a bad idea - you shouldn't have a single method which can give you back notionally completely different types of results
To conclude: I personally think there is no reason whatsoever that fluency and functional cannot mix, since functional just indicates the lack of mutable state and the strong preference for idempotent functions to perform your logic in.
Here's one for you:
args.map(_.toInt)
args map toInt
I would argue that the second is more fluent. It's possible if you define:
val toInt = (_ : String).toInt
That is; if you define a function. I find functions and fluency mix very well in Scala.
You could try having get() return a wrapper object that might look something like this
type RestfulResponse = (Int, List[String], Option[String])
class ResponseWrapper(private rr: RestfulResponse /* and maybe some flags as additional arguments, or something? */) {
def get : RestfulResponse = rr
def throwIfError : RestfulResponse = {
// Throw your exception if you detect an error
rr // And return the response if you didn't detect an error
}
def debugPrint(verbose: Boolean, /* whatever other parameters you had in mind */) {
// All of your debugging printing logic
}
// Any and all other methods that you want this API response to be able to execute
}
Basically, this allows you to put your response into a contain that has all of these nice methods that you want, and, if you simply want to get the wrapped response, you can just call the wrapper's get() method.
Of course, the downside of this is that you will need to change your API a bit, if that's worrisome to you at all. Well... you could probably avoid needing to change your API, actually, if you, instead, created an implicit conversion from RestfulResponse to ResponseWrapper and vice versa. That's something worth considering.