I'm trying to implement a new type, Chunk, that is similar to a Map. Basically, a "Chunk" is either a mapping from String -> Chunk, or a string itself.
Eg it should be able to work like this:
val m = new Chunk("some sort of value") // value chunk
assert(m.getValue == "some sort of value")
val n = new Chunk("key" -> new Chunk("value"), // nested chunks
"key2" -> new Chunk("value2"))
assert(n("key").getValue == "value")
assert(n("key2").getValue == "value2")
I have this mostly working, except that I am a little confused by how the + operator works for immutable maps.
Here is what I have now:
class Chunk(_map: Map[String, Chunk], _value: Option[String]) extends Map[String, Chunk] {
def this(items: (String, Chunk)*) = this(items.toMap, None)
def this(k: String) = this(new HashMap[String, Chunk], Option(k))
def this(m: Map[String, Chunk]) = this(m, None)
def +[B1 >: Chunk](kv: (String, B1)) = throw new Exception(":( do not know how to make this work")
def -(k: String) = new Chunk(_map - k, _value)
def get(k: String) = _map.get(k)
def iterator = _map.iterator
def getValue = _value.get
def hasValue = _value.isDefined
override def toString() = {
if (hasValue) getValue
else "Chunk(" + (for ((k, v) <- this) yield k + " -> " + v.toString).mkString(", ") + ")"
}
def serialize: String = {
if (hasValue) getValue
else "{" + (for ((k, v) <- this) yield k + "=" + v.serialize).mkString("|") + "}"
}
}
object main extends App {
val m = new Chunk("message_info" -> new Chunk("message_type" -> new Chunk("boom")))
val n = m + ("c" -> new Chunk("boom2"))
}
Also, comments on whether in general this implementation is appropriate would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Edit: The algebraic data types solution is excellent, but there remains one issue.
def +[B1 >: Chunk](kv: (String, B1)) = Chunk(m + kv) // compiler hates this
def -(k: String) = Chunk(m - k) // compiler is pretty satisfied with this
The - operator here seems to work, but the + operator really wants me to return something of type B1 (I think)? It fails with the following issue:
overloaded method value apply with alternatives: (map: Map[String,Chunk])MapChunk <and> (elems: (String, Chunk)*)MapChunk cannot be applied to (scala.collection.immutable.Map[String,B1])
Edit2:
Xiefei answered this question -- extending map requires that I handle + with a supertype (B1) of Chunk, so in order to do this I have to have some implementation for that, so this will suffice:
def +[B1 >: Chunk](kv: (String, B1)) = m + kv
However, I don't ever really intend to use that one, instead, I will also include my implementation that returns a chunk as follows:
def +(kv: (String, Chunk)):Chunk = Chunk(m + kv)
How about an Algebraic data type approach?
abstract sealed class Chunk
case class MChunk(elems: (String, Chunk)*) extends Chunk with Map[String,Chunk] {
val m = Map[String, Chunk](elems:_*)
def +[B1 >: Chunk](kv: (String, B1)) = m + kv
def -(k: String) = m - k
def iterator = m.iterator
def get(s: String) = m.get(s)
}
case class SChunk(s: String) extends Chunk
// A 'Companion' object that provides 'constructors' and extractors..
object Chunk {
def apply(s: String) = SChunk(s)
def apply(elems: (String, Chunk)*) = MChunk(elems: _*)
// just a couple of ideas...
def unapply(sc: SChunk) = Option(sc).map(_.value)
def unapply(smc: (String, MChunk)) = smc match {
case (s, mc) => mc.get(s)
}
}
Which you can use like:
val simpleChunk = Chunk("a")
val nestedChunk = Chunk("b" -> Chunk("B"))
// Use extractors to get the values.
val Chunk(s) = simpleChunk // s will be the String "a"
val Chunk(c) = ("b" -> nestedChunk) // c will be a Chunk: Chunk("B")
val Chunk(c) = ("x" -> nestedChunk) // will throw a match error, because there's no "x"
// pattern matching:
("x" -> mc) match {
case Chunk(w) => Some(w)
case _ => None
}
The unapply extractors are just a suggestion; hopefully you can mess with this idea till you get what you want.
The way it's written, there's no way to enforce that it can't be both a Map and a String at the same time. I would be looking at capturing the value using Either and adding whatever convenience methods you require:
case class Chunk(value:Either[Map[String,Chunk],String]) {
...
}
That will also force you to think about what you really need to do in situations such as adding a key/value pair to a Chunk that represents a String.
Have you considered using composition instead of inheritance? So, instead of Chunk extending Map[String, Chunk] directly, just have Chunk internally keep an instance of Map[String, Chunk] and provide the extra methods that you need, and otherwise delegating to the internal map's methods.
def +(kv: (String, Chunk)):Chunk = new Chunk(_map + kv, _value)
override def +[B1 >: Chunk](kv: (String, B1)) = _map + kv
What you need is a new + method, and also implement the one declared in Map trait.
Related
Is there a nice way I can convert a Scala case class instance, e.g.
case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
into a mapping of some kind, e.g.
getCCParams(x) returns "param1" -> "hello", "param2" -> "world"
Which works for any case class, not just predefined ones. I've found you can pull the case class name out by writing a method that interrogates the underlying Product class, e.g.
def getCCName(caseobj: Product) = caseobj.productPrefix
getCCName(x) returns "MyClass"
So I'm looking for a similar solution but for the case class fields. I'd imagine a solution might have to use Java reflection, but I'd hate to write something that might break in a future release of Scala if the underlying implementation of case classes changes.
Currently I'm working on a Scala server and defining the protocol and all its messages and exceptions using case classes, as they are such a beautiful, concise construct for this. But I then need to translate them into a Java map to send over the messaging layer for any client implementation to use. My current implementation just defines a translation for each case class separately, but it would be nice to find a generalised solution.
This should work:
def getCCParams(cc: AnyRef) =
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.foldLeft(Map.empty[String, Any]) { (a, f) =>
f.setAccessible(true)
a + (f.getName -> f.get(cc))
}
Because case classes extend Product one can simply use .productIterator to get field values:
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map( _.getName ) // all field names
.zip( cc.productIterator.to ).toMap // zipped with all values
Or alternatively:
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = {
val values = cc.productIterator
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map( _.getName -> values.next ).toMap
}
One advantage of Product is that you don't need to call setAccessible on the field to read its value. Another is that productIterator doesn't use reflection.
Note that this example works with simple case classes that don't extend other classes and don't declare fields outside the constructor.
Starting Scala 2.13, case classes (as implementations of Product) are provided with a productElementNames method which returns an iterator over their field's names.
By zipping field names with field values obtained with productIterator we can generically obtain the associated Map:
// case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
// val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
(x.productElementNames zip x.productIterator).toMap
// Map[String,Any] = Map("param1" -> "hello", "param2" -> "world")
If anybody looks for a recursive version, here is the modification of #Andrejs's solution:
def getCCParams(cc: Product): Map[String, Any] = {
val values = cc.productIterator
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map {
_.getName -> (values.next() match {
case p: Product if p.productArity > 0 => getCCParams(p)
case x => x
})
}.toMap
}
It also expands the nested case-classes into maps at any level of nesting.
Here's a simple variation if you don't care about making it a generic function:
case class Person(name:String, age:Int)
def personToMap(person: Person): Map[String, Any] = {
val fieldNames = person.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName)
val vals = Person.unapply(person).get.productIterator.toSeq
fieldNames.zip(vals).toMap
}
scala> println(personToMap(Person("Tom", 50)))
res02: scala.collection.immutable.Map[String,Any] = Map(name -> Tom, age -> 50)
If you happen to be using Json4s, you could do the following:
import org.json4s.{Extraction, _}
case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
Extraction.decompose(x)(DefaultFormats).values.asInstanceOf[Map[String,String]]
Solution with ProductCompletion from interpreter package:
import tools.nsc.interpreter.ProductCompletion
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = {
val pc = new ProductCompletion(cc)
pc.caseNames.zip(pc.caseFields).toMap
}
You could use shapeless.
Let
case class X(a: Boolean, b: String,c:Int)
case class Y(a: String, b: String)
Define a LabelledGeneric representation
import shapeless._
import shapeless.ops.product._
import shapeless.syntax.std.product._
object X {
implicit val lgenX = LabelledGeneric[X]
}
object Y {
implicit val lgenY = LabelledGeneric[Y]
}
Define two typeclasses to provide the toMap methods
object ToMapImplicits {
implicit class ToMapOps[A <: Product](val a: A)
extends AnyVal {
def mkMapAny(implicit toMap: ToMap.Aux[A, Symbol, Any]): Map[String, Any] =
a.toMap[Symbol, Any]
.map { case (k: Symbol, v) => k.name -> v }
}
implicit class ToMapOps2[A <: Product](val a: A)
extends AnyVal {
def mkMapString(implicit toMap: ToMap.Aux[A, Symbol, Any]): Map[String, String] =
a.toMap[Symbol, Any]
.map { case (k: Symbol, v) => k.name -> v.toString }
}
}
Then you can use it like this.
object Run extends App {
import ToMapImplicits._
val x: X = X(true, "bike",26)
val y: Y = Y("first", "second")
val anyMapX: Map[String, Any] = x.mkMapAny
val anyMapY: Map[String, Any] = y.mkMapAny
println("anyMapX = " + anyMapX)
println("anyMapY = " + anyMapY)
val stringMapX: Map[String, String] = x.mkMapString
val stringMapY: Map[String, String] = y.mkMapString
println("anyMapX = " + anyMapX)
println("anyMapY = " + anyMapY)
}
which prints
anyMapX = Map(c -> 26, b -> bike, a -> true)
anyMapY = Map(b -> second, a -> first)
stringMapX = Map(c -> 26, b -> bike, a -> true)
stringMapY = Map(b -> second, a -> first)
For nested case classes, (thus nested maps)
check another answer
I don't know about nice... but this seems to work, at least for this very very basic example. It probably needs some work but might be enough to get you started? Basically it filters out all "known" methods from a case class (or any other class :/ )
object CaseMappingTest {
case class MyCase(a: String, b: Int)
def caseClassToMap(obj: AnyRef) = {
val c = obj.getClass
val predefined = List("$tag", "productArity", "productPrefix", "hashCode",
"toString")
val casemethods = c.getMethods.toList.filter{
n =>
(n.getParameterTypes.size == 0) &&
(n.getDeclaringClass == c) &&
(! predefined.exists(_ == n.getName))
}
val values = casemethods.map(_.invoke(obj, null))
casemethods.map(_.getName).zip(values).foldLeft(Map[String, Any]())(_+_)
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
println(caseClassToMap(MyCase("foo", 1)))
// prints: Map(a -> foo, b -> 1)
}
}
commons.mapper.Mappers.Mappers.beanToMap(caseClassBean)
Details: https://github.com/hank-whu/common4s
With the use of Java reflection, but no change of access level. Converts Product and case class to Map[String, String]:
def productToMap[T <: Product](obj: T, prefix: String): Map[String, String] = {
val clazz = obj.getClass
val fields = clazz.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName).toSet
val methods = clazz.getDeclaredMethods.filter(method => fields.contains(method.getName))
methods.foldLeft(Map[String, String]()) { case (acc, method) =>
val value = method.invoke(obj).toString
val key = if (prefix.isEmpty) method.getName else s"${prefix}_${method.getName}"
acc + (key -> value)
}
}
Modern variation with Scala 3 might also be a bit simplified as with the following example that is similar to the answer posted by Walter Chang above.
def getCCParams(cc: AnyRef): Map[String, Any] =
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields
.tapEach(_.setAccessible(true))
.foldLeft(Map.empty)((a, f) => a + (f.getName -> f.get(cc)))
I am currently reading Hutton's and Meijer's paper on parsing combinators in Haskell http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pszgmh/monparsing.pdf. For the sake of it I am trying to implement them in scala. I would like to construct something easy to code, extend and also simple and elegant. I have come up with two solutions for the following haskell code
/* Haskell Code */
type Parser a = String -> [(a,String)]
result :: a -> Parser a
result v = \inp -> [(v,inp)]
zero :: Parser a
zero = \inp -> []
item :: Parser Char
item = \inp -> case inp of
[] -> []
(x:xs) -> [(x,xs)]
/* Scala Code */
object Hutton1 {
type Parser[A] = String => List[(A, String)]
def Result[A](v: A): Parser[A] = str => List((v, str))
def Zero[A]: Parser[A] = str => List()
def Character: Parser[Char] = str => if (str.isEmpty) List() else List((str.head, str.tail))
}
object Hutton2 {
trait Parser[A] extends (String => List[(A, String)])
case class Result[A](v: A) extends Parser[A] {
def apply(str: String) = List((v, str))
}
case object Zero extends Parser[T forSome {type T}] {
def apply(str: String) = List()
}
case object Character extends Parser[Char] {
def apply(str: String) = if (str.isEmpty) List() else List((str.head, str.tail))
}
}
object Hutton extends App {
object T1 {
import Hutton1._
def run = {
val r: List[(Int, String)] = Zero("test") ++ Result(5)("test")
println(r.map(x => x._1 + 1) == List(6))
println(Character("abc") == List(('a', "bc")))
}
}
object T2 {
import Hutton2._
def run = {
val r: List[(Int, String)] = Zero("test") ++ Result(5)("test")
println(r.map(x => x._1 + 1) == List(6))
println(Character("abc") == List(('a', "bc")))
}
}
T1.run
T2.run
}
Question 1
In Haskell, zero is a function value that can be used as it is, expessing all failed parsers whether they are of type Parser[Int] or Parser[String]. In scala we achieve the same by calling the function Zero (1st approach) but in this way I believe that I just generate a different function everytime Zero is called. Is this statement true? Is there a way to mitigate this?
Question 2
In the second approach, the Zero case object is extending Parser with the usage of existential types Parser[T forSome {type T}] . If I replace the type with Parser[_] I get the compile error
Error:(19, 28) class type required but Hutton2.Parser[_] found
case object Zero extends Parser[_] {
^
I thought these two expressions where equivalent. Is this the case?
Question 3
Which approach out of the two do you think that will yield better results in expressing the combinators in terms of elegance and simplicity?
I use scala 2.11.8
Note: I didn't compile it, but I know the problem and can propose two solutions.
The more Haskellish way would be to not use subtyping, but to define zero as a polymorphic value. In that style, I would propose to define parsers not as objects deriving from a function type, but as values of one case class:
final case class Parser[T](run: String => List[(T, String)])
def zero[T]: Parser[T] = Parser(...)
As shown by #Alec, yes, this will produce a new value every time, since a def is compiled to a method.
If you want to use subtyping, you need to make Parser covariant. Then you can give zero a bottom result type:
trait Parser[+A] extends (String => List[(A, String)])
case object Zero extends Parser[Nothing] {...}
These are in some way quite related; in system F_<:, which is the base of what Scala uses, the types _|_ (aka Nothing) and \/T <: Any. T behave the same (this hinted at in Types and Programming Languages, chapter 28). The two possibilities given here are a consequence of this fact.
With existentials I'm not so familiar with, but I think that while unbounded T forSome {type T} will behave like Nothing, Scala does not allow inhertance from an existential type.
Question 1
I think that you are right, and here is why: Zero1 below prints hello every time you use it. The solution, Zero2, involves using a val instead.
def Zero1[A]: Parser[A] = { println("hi"); str => List() }
val Zero2: Parser[Nothing] = str => List()
Question 2
No idea. I'm still just starting out with Scala. Hope someone answers this.
Question 3
The trait one will play better with Scala's for (since you can define custom flatMap and map), which turns out to be (somewhat) like Haskell's do. The following is all you need.
trait Parser[A] extends (String => List[(A, String)]) {
def flatMap[B](f: A => Parser[B]): Parser[B] = {
val p1 = this
new Parser[B] {
def apply(s1: String) = for {
(a,s2) <- p1(s1)
p2 = f(a)
(b,s3) <- p2(s2)
} yield (b,s3)
}
}
def map[B](f: A => B): Parser[B] = {
val p = this
new Parser[B] {
def apply(s1: String) = for ((a,s2) <- p(s1)) yield (f(a),s2)
}
}
}
Of course, to do anything interesting you need more parsers. I'll propose to you one simple parser combinator: Choice(p1: Parser[A], p2: Parser[A]): Parser[A] which tries both parsers. (And rewrite your existing parsers more to my style).
def choice[A](p1: Parser[A], p2: Parser[A]): Parser[A] = new Parser[A] {
def apply(s: String): List[(A,String)] = { p1(s) ++ p2(s) }
}
def unit[A](x: A): Parser[A] = new Parser[A] {
def apply(s: String): List[(A,String)] = List((x,s))
}
val character: Parser[Char] = new Parser[Char] {
def apply(s: String): List[(Char,String)] = List((s.head,s.tail))
}
Then, you can write something like the following:
val parser: Parser[(Char,Char)] = for {
x <- choice(unit('x'),char)
y <- char
} yield (x,y)
And calling parser("xyz") gives you List((('x','x'),"yz"), (('x','y'),"z")).
I have a generic map with values, some of which can be in turn lists of values.
I'm trying to process a given key and convert the results to the type expected by an outside caller, like this:
// A map with some values being other collections.
val map: Map[String, Any] = Map("foo" -> 1, "bar" -> Seq('a', 'b'. 'a'))
// A generic method with a "specialization" for collections (pseudocode)
def cast[T](key: String) = map.get(key).map(_.asInstanceOf[T])
def cast[C <: Iterable[T]](key: String) = map.get(key).map(list => list.to[C].map(_.asIntanceOf[T]))
// Expected usage
cast[Int]("foo") // Should return 1:Int
cast[Set[Char]]("bar") // Should return Set[Char]('a', 'b')
This is to show what I would like to do, but it does not work. The compiler error complains (correctly, about 2 possible matches). I've also tried to make this a single function with some sort of pattern match on the type to no avail.
I've been reading on #specialized, TypeTag, CanBuildFrom and other scala functionality, but I failed to find a simple way to put it all together. Separate examples I've found address different pieces and some ugly workarounds, but nothing that would simply allow an external user to call cast and get an exception is the cast was invalid. Some stuff is also old, I'm using Scala 2.10.5.
This appears to work but it has a some problems.
def cast[T](m: Map[String, Any], k: String):T = m(k) match {
case x: T => x
}
With the right input you get the correct output.
scala> cast[Int](map,"foo")
res18: Int = 1
scala> cast[Set[Char]](map,"bar")
res19: Set[Char] = Set(a, b)
But it throws if the type is wrong for the key or if the map has no such key (of course).
You can do this via implicit parameters:
val map: Map[String, Any] = Map("foo" -> 1, "bar" -> Set('a', 'b'))
abstract class Casts[B] {def cast(a: Any): B}
implicit val doubleCast = new Casts[Double] {
override def cast(a: Any): Double = a match {
case x: Int => x.toDouble
}
}
implicit val intCast = new Casts[Int] {
override def cast(a: Any): Int = a match {
case x: Int => x
case x: Double => x.toInt
}
}
implicit val seqCharCast = new Casts[Seq[Char]] {
override def cast(a: Any): Seq[Char] = a match {
case x: Set[Char] => x.toSeq
case x: Seq[Char] => x
}
}
def cast[T](key: String)(implicit p:Casts[T]) = p.cast(map(key))
println(cast[Double]("foo")) // <- 1.0
println(cast[Int]("foo")) // <- 1
println(cast[Seq[Char]]("bar")) // <- ArrayBuffer(a, b) which is Seq(a, b)
But you still need to iterate over all type-to-type options, which is reasonable as Set('a', 'b').asInstanceOf[Seq[Char]] throws, and you cannot use a universal cast, so you need to handle such cases differently.
Still it sounds like an overkill, and you may need to review your approach from global perspective
Starting my first project with Scala: a poker framework.
So I have the following class
class Card(rank1: CardRank, suit1: Suit){
val rank = rank1
val suit = suit1
}
And a Utils object which contains two methods that do almost the same thing: they count number of cards for each rank or suit
def getSuits(cards: List[Card]) = {
def getSuits(cards: List[Card], suits: Map[Suit, Int]): (Map[Suit, Int]) = {
if (cards.isEmpty)
return suits
val suit = cards.head.suit
val value = if (suits.contains(suit)) suits(suit) + 1 else 1
getSuits(cards.tail, suits + (suit -> value))
}
getSuits(cards, Map[Suit, Int]())
}
def getRanks(cards: List[Card]): Map[CardRank, Int] = {
def getRanks(cards: List[Card], ranks: Map[CardRank, Int]): Map[CardRank, Int] = {
if (cards isEmpty)
return ranks
val rank = cards.head.rank
val value = if (ranks.contains(rank)) ranks(rank) + 1 else 1
getRanks(cards.tail, ranks + (rank -> value))
}
getRanks(cards, Map[CardRank, Int]())
}
Is there any way I can "unify" these two methods in a single one with "field/method-as-parameter"?
Thanks
Yes, that would require high order function (that is, function that takes function as parameter) and type parameters/genericity
def groupAndCount[A,B](elements: List[A], toCount: A => B): Map[B, Int] = {
// could be your implementation, just note key instead of suit/rank
// and change val suit = ... or val rank = ...
// to val key = toCount(card.head)
}
then
def getSuits(cards: List[Card]) = groupAndCount(cards, {c : Card => c.suit})
def getRanks(cards: List[Card]) = groupAndCount(cards, {c: Card => c.rank})
You do not need type parameter A, you could force the method to work only on Card, but that would be a pity.
For extra credit, you can use two parameter lists, and have
def groupAndCount[A,B](elements: List[A])(toCount: A => B): Map[B, Int] = ...
that is a little peculiarity of scala with type inference, if you do with two parameters lists, you will not need to type the card argument when defining the function :
def getSuits(cards: List[Card]) = groupAndCount(cards)(c => c.suit)
or just
def getSuits(cards: List[Card] = groupAndCount(cards)(_.suit)
Of course, the library can help you with the implementation
def groupAndCount[A,B](l: List[A])(toCount: A => B) : Map[A,B] =
l.groupBy(toCount).map{case (k, elems) => (k, elems.length)}
although a hand made implementation might be marginally faster.
A minor note, Card should be declared a case class :
case class Card(rank: CardRank, suit: Suit)
// declaration done, nothing else needed
Is there a nice way I can convert a Scala case class instance, e.g.
case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
into a mapping of some kind, e.g.
getCCParams(x) returns "param1" -> "hello", "param2" -> "world"
Which works for any case class, not just predefined ones. I've found you can pull the case class name out by writing a method that interrogates the underlying Product class, e.g.
def getCCName(caseobj: Product) = caseobj.productPrefix
getCCName(x) returns "MyClass"
So I'm looking for a similar solution but for the case class fields. I'd imagine a solution might have to use Java reflection, but I'd hate to write something that might break in a future release of Scala if the underlying implementation of case classes changes.
Currently I'm working on a Scala server and defining the protocol and all its messages and exceptions using case classes, as they are such a beautiful, concise construct for this. But I then need to translate them into a Java map to send over the messaging layer for any client implementation to use. My current implementation just defines a translation for each case class separately, but it would be nice to find a generalised solution.
This should work:
def getCCParams(cc: AnyRef) =
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.foldLeft(Map.empty[String, Any]) { (a, f) =>
f.setAccessible(true)
a + (f.getName -> f.get(cc))
}
Because case classes extend Product one can simply use .productIterator to get field values:
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map( _.getName ) // all field names
.zip( cc.productIterator.to ).toMap // zipped with all values
Or alternatively:
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = {
val values = cc.productIterator
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map( _.getName -> values.next ).toMap
}
One advantage of Product is that you don't need to call setAccessible on the field to read its value. Another is that productIterator doesn't use reflection.
Note that this example works with simple case classes that don't extend other classes and don't declare fields outside the constructor.
Starting Scala 2.13, case classes (as implementations of Product) are provided with a productElementNames method which returns an iterator over their field's names.
By zipping field names with field values obtained with productIterator we can generically obtain the associated Map:
// case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
// val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
(x.productElementNames zip x.productIterator).toMap
// Map[String,Any] = Map("param1" -> "hello", "param2" -> "world")
If anybody looks for a recursive version, here is the modification of #Andrejs's solution:
def getCCParams(cc: Product): Map[String, Any] = {
val values = cc.productIterator
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map {
_.getName -> (values.next() match {
case p: Product if p.productArity > 0 => getCCParams(p)
case x => x
})
}.toMap
}
It also expands the nested case-classes into maps at any level of nesting.
Here's a simple variation if you don't care about making it a generic function:
case class Person(name:String, age:Int)
def personToMap(person: Person): Map[String, Any] = {
val fieldNames = person.getClass.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName)
val vals = Person.unapply(person).get.productIterator.toSeq
fieldNames.zip(vals).toMap
}
scala> println(personToMap(Person("Tom", 50)))
res02: scala.collection.immutable.Map[String,Any] = Map(name -> Tom, age -> 50)
If you happen to be using Json4s, you could do the following:
import org.json4s.{Extraction, _}
case class MyClass(param1: String, param2: String)
val x = MyClass("hello", "world")
Extraction.decompose(x)(DefaultFormats).values.asInstanceOf[Map[String,String]]
Solution with ProductCompletion from interpreter package:
import tools.nsc.interpreter.ProductCompletion
def getCCParams(cc: Product) = {
val pc = new ProductCompletion(cc)
pc.caseNames.zip(pc.caseFields).toMap
}
You could use shapeless.
Let
case class X(a: Boolean, b: String,c:Int)
case class Y(a: String, b: String)
Define a LabelledGeneric representation
import shapeless._
import shapeless.ops.product._
import shapeless.syntax.std.product._
object X {
implicit val lgenX = LabelledGeneric[X]
}
object Y {
implicit val lgenY = LabelledGeneric[Y]
}
Define two typeclasses to provide the toMap methods
object ToMapImplicits {
implicit class ToMapOps[A <: Product](val a: A)
extends AnyVal {
def mkMapAny(implicit toMap: ToMap.Aux[A, Symbol, Any]): Map[String, Any] =
a.toMap[Symbol, Any]
.map { case (k: Symbol, v) => k.name -> v }
}
implicit class ToMapOps2[A <: Product](val a: A)
extends AnyVal {
def mkMapString(implicit toMap: ToMap.Aux[A, Symbol, Any]): Map[String, String] =
a.toMap[Symbol, Any]
.map { case (k: Symbol, v) => k.name -> v.toString }
}
}
Then you can use it like this.
object Run extends App {
import ToMapImplicits._
val x: X = X(true, "bike",26)
val y: Y = Y("first", "second")
val anyMapX: Map[String, Any] = x.mkMapAny
val anyMapY: Map[String, Any] = y.mkMapAny
println("anyMapX = " + anyMapX)
println("anyMapY = " + anyMapY)
val stringMapX: Map[String, String] = x.mkMapString
val stringMapY: Map[String, String] = y.mkMapString
println("anyMapX = " + anyMapX)
println("anyMapY = " + anyMapY)
}
which prints
anyMapX = Map(c -> 26, b -> bike, a -> true)
anyMapY = Map(b -> second, a -> first)
stringMapX = Map(c -> 26, b -> bike, a -> true)
stringMapY = Map(b -> second, a -> first)
For nested case classes, (thus nested maps)
check another answer
I don't know about nice... but this seems to work, at least for this very very basic example. It probably needs some work but might be enough to get you started? Basically it filters out all "known" methods from a case class (or any other class :/ )
object CaseMappingTest {
case class MyCase(a: String, b: Int)
def caseClassToMap(obj: AnyRef) = {
val c = obj.getClass
val predefined = List("$tag", "productArity", "productPrefix", "hashCode",
"toString")
val casemethods = c.getMethods.toList.filter{
n =>
(n.getParameterTypes.size == 0) &&
(n.getDeclaringClass == c) &&
(! predefined.exists(_ == n.getName))
}
val values = casemethods.map(_.invoke(obj, null))
casemethods.map(_.getName).zip(values).foldLeft(Map[String, Any]())(_+_)
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
println(caseClassToMap(MyCase("foo", 1)))
// prints: Map(a -> foo, b -> 1)
}
}
commons.mapper.Mappers.Mappers.beanToMap(caseClassBean)
Details: https://github.com/hank-whu/common4s
With the use of Java reflection, but no change of access level. Converts Product and case class to Map[String, String]:
def productToMap[T <: Product](obj: T, prefix: String): Map[String, String] = {
val clazz = obj.getClass
val fields = clazz.getDeclaredFields.map(_.getName).toSet
val methods = clazz.getDeclaredMethods.filter(method => fields.contains(method.getName))
methods.foldLeft(Map[String, String]()) { case (acc, method) =>
val value = method.invoke(obj).toString
val key = if (prefix.isEmpty) method.getName else s"${prefix}_${method.getName}"
acc + (key -> value)
}
}
Modern variation with Scala 3 might also be a bit simplified as with the following example that is similar to the answer posted by Walter Chang above.
def getCCParams(cc: AnyRef): Map[String, Any] =
cc.getClass.getDeclaredFields
.tapEach(_.setAccessible(true))
.foldLeft(Map.empty)((a, f) => a + (f.getName -> f.get(cc)))