I have a document in MongoDB that looks like this:
{"_id":"asdf", "data":[
{"a":"1","b":"2"},
{"a":"3","b":"4"},
{"a":"5","b":"6"},
]}
I would like to query that object using Scala, and convert the entries in "data" into a list of case classes. After a few hours' work, I've yet to come up with something that even compiles. Can someone point me to a tutorial with this information? This tutorial hasn't been any help. I've tried every combination of nested maps, fors, foreaches, casts, and pattern matching that I can come up with.
Edit: My super-ugly but now seemingly working code is now this:
def getData(source_id:String) = {
val source = collection.findOne(MongoDBObject("_id" -> source_id)).get
val data = source.get("data").asInstanceOf[BasicDBList]
var ret:List[Data] = List()
val it = presses.iterator
while(it.hasNext) {
val item = it.next.asInstanceOf[BasicDBObject]
ret = Data(
item.get("a").asInstanceOf[String],
item.get("b").asInstanceOf[String]
) :: ret
}
ret
}
Please, someone tell me there's a better way.
As you are using case classes anyway, the easiest solution is to just use salat – it will automatically serialize/deserialize to and from a mongo connection with very little boilerplate.
A minor point, but in your code you should be able to simply map across the DBObject holding structure rather than manually mutate the ret variable:
val ret = presses.map { item => Data(…) }
you may need to call .toList if you really want a List (though you may only need Seq or Iterable)
Related
Given an array of items I need to generate a sorted collection in Scala for a java.lang.reflect.Type but I'm unable to do so. The following snippet might explain better.
def buildList(paramType: Type): SortedSet[_] = {
val collection = new Array[Any](5)
for (i <- 0 until 5) {
collection(i) = new EasyRandom().nextObject(paramType.asInstanceOf[Class[Any]])
}
SortedSet(collection:_*)
}
I'm unable to do as I get the error "No implicits found for parameter ord: Ordering[Any]". I'm able to work around this if I swap to an unsorted type such as Set.
def buildList(paramType: Type): Set[_] = {
val collection = new Array[Any](5)
for (i <- 0 until 5) {
collection(i) = new EasyRandom().nextObject(paramType.asInstanceOf[Class[Any]])
}
Set(collection:_*)
}
How can I dynamically build a sorted set at runtime? I've been looking into how Jackson tries to achieve the same but I couldn't quite follow how to get T here: https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-module-scala/blob/0e926622ea4e8cef16dd757fa85400a0b9dcd1d3/src/main/scala/com/fasterxml/jackson/module/scala/introspect/OrderingLocator.scala#L21
(Please excuse me if my question is unclear.)
This happens because SortedSet needs a contextual (implicit) Ordering type class instance for a given type A
However, as Luis said on the comment section, I'd strongly advice you against using this approach and using a safer, strongly typed one, instead.
Generating random case classes (which I suppose you're using since you're using Scala) should be easy with the help of some libraries like magnolia. That would turn your code into something like this:
def randomList[A : Ordering : Arbitrary]: SortedSet[A] = {
val arb: Arbitrary[A] = implicitly[Arbitrary[A]]
val sampleData = (1 to 5).map(arb.arbitrary.sample)
SortedSet(sampleData)
}
This approach involves some heavy concepts like implicits and type classes, but is way safer.
I am trying to prevent empty values being inserted into my mongoDB collection. The field in question looks like this:
MongoDB Field
"stadiumArr" : [
"Old Trafford",
"El Calderon",
...
]
Sample of (mapped) case class
case class FormData(_id: Option[BSONObjectID], stadiumArr: Option[List[String]], ..)
Sample of Scala form
object MyForm {
val form = Form(
mapping(
"_id" -> ignored(Option.empty[BSONObjectID]),
"stadiumArr" -> optional(list(text)),
...
)(FormData.apply)(FormData.unapply)
)
}
I am also using the Repeated Values functionality in Play Framework like so:
Play Template
#import helper._
#(myForm: Form[models.db.FormData])(implicit request: RequestHeader, messagesProvider: MessagesProvider)
#repeatWithIndex(myForm("stadiumArr"), min = 5) { (stadium, idx) =>
#inputText(stadium, '_label -> ("stadium #" + (idx + 1)))
}
This ensures that whether there are at least 5 values or not in the array; there will still be (at least) 5 input boxes created. However if one (or more) of the input boxes are empty when the form is submitted an empty string is still being added as value in the array, e.g.
"stadiumArr" : [
"Old Trafford",
"El Calderon",
"",
"",
""
]
Based on some other ways of converting types from/to the database; I've tried playing around with a few solutions; such as:
implicit val arrayWrite: Writes[List[String]] = new Writes[List[String]] {
def writes(list: List[String]): JsValue = Json.arr(list.filterNot(_.isEmpty))
}
.. but this isn't working. Any ideas on how to prevent empty values being inserted into the database collection?
Without knowing specific versions or libraries you're using it's hard to give you an answer, but since you linked to play 2.6 documentation I'll assume that's what you're using there. The other assumption I'm going to make is that you're using reactive-mongo library. Whether or not you're using the play plugin for that library or not is the reason why I'm giving you two different answers here:
In that library, with no plugin, you'll have defined a BSONDocumentReader and a BSONDocumentWriter for your case class. This might be auto-generated for you with macros or not, but regardless how you get it, these two classes have useful methods you can use to transform the reads/writes you have to another one. So, let's say I defined a reader and writer for you like this:
import reactivemongo.bson._
case class FormData(_id: Option[BSONObjectID], stadiumArr: Option[List[String]])
implicit val formDataReaderWriter = new BSONDocumentReader[FormData] with BSONDocumentWriter[FormData] {
def read(bson: BSONDocument): FormData = {
FormData(
_id = bson.getAs[BSONObjectID]("_id"),
stadiumArr = bson.getAs[List[String]]("stadiumArr").map(_.filterNot(_.isEmpty))
)
}
def write(formData: FormData) = {
BSONDocument(
"_id" -> formData._id,
"stadiumArr" -> formData.stadiumArr
)
}
}
Great you say, that works! You can see in the reads I went ahead and filtered out any empty strings. So even if it's in the data, it can be cleaned up. That's nice and all, but let's notice I didn't do the same for the writes. I did that so I can show you how to use a useful method called afterWrite. So pretend the reader/writer weren't the same class and were separate, then I can do this:
val initialWriter = new BSONDocumentWriter[FormData] {
def write(formData: FormData) = {
BSONDocument(
"_id" -> formData._id,
"stadiumArr" -> formData.stadiumArr
)
}
}
implicit val cleanWriter = initialWriter.afterWrite { bsonDocument =>
val fixedField = bsonDocument.getAs[List[String]]("stadiumArr").map(_.filterNot(_.isEmpty))
bsonDocument.remove("stadiumArr") ++ BSONDocument("stadiumArr" -> fixedField)
}
Note that cleanWriter is the implicit one, that means when the insert call on the collection happens, it will be the one chosen to be used.
Now, that's all a bunch of work, if you're using the plugin/module for play that lets you use JSONCollections then you can get by with just defining play json Reads and Writes. If you look at the documentation you'll see that the reads trait has a useful map function you can use to transform one Reads into another.
So, you'd have:
val jsonReads = Json.reads[FormData]
implicit val cleanReads = jsonReads.map(formData => formData.copy(stadiumArr = formData.stadiumArr.map(_.filterNot(_.isEmpty))))
And again, because only the clean Reads is implicit, the collection methods for mongo will use that.
NOW, all of that said, doing this at the database level is one thing, but really, I personally think you should be dealing with this at your Form level.
val form = Form(
mapping(
"_id" -> ignored(Option.empty[BSONObjectID]),
"stadiumArr" -> optional(list(text)),
...
)(FormData.apply)(FormData.unapply)
)
Mainly because, surprise surprise, form has a way to deal with this. Specifically, the mapping class itself. If you look there you'll find a transform method you can use to filter out empty values easily. Just call it on the mapping you need to modify, for example:
"stadiumArr" -> optional(
list(text).transform(l => l.filter(_.nonEmpty), l => l.filter(_.nonEmpty))
)
To explain a little more about this method, in case you're not used to reading the signatures in the scaladoc.
def
transform[B](f1: (T) ⇒ B, f2: (B) ⇒ T): Mapping[B]
says that by calling transform on some mapping of type Mapping[T] you can create a new mapping of type Mapping[B]. In order to do this you must provide functions that convert from one to the other. So the code above causes the list mapping (Mapping[List[String]]) to become a Mapping[List[String]] (the type did not change here), but when it does so it removes any empty elements. If I break this code down a little it might be more clear:
def convertFromTtoB(list: List[String]): List[String] = list.filter(_.nonEmpty)
def convertFromBtoT(list: List[String]): List[String] = list.filter(_.nonEmpty)
...
list(text).transform(convertFromTtoB, convertFromBtoT)
You might wondering why you need to provide both, the reason is because when you call Form.fill and the form is populated with values, the second method will be called so that the data goes into the format the play form is expecting. This is more obvious if the type actually changes. For example, if you had a text area where people could enter CSV but you wanted to map it to a form model that had a proper List[String] you might do something like:
def convertFromTtoB(raw: String): List[String] = raw.split(",").filter(_.nonEmpty)
def convertFromBtoT(list: List[String]): String = list.mkString(",")
...
text.transform(convertFromTtoB, convertFromBtoT)
Note that when I've done this in the past sometimes I've had to write a separate method and just pass it in if I didn't want to fully specify all the types, but you should be able to work from here given the documentation and type signature for the transform method on mapping.
The reason I suggest doing this in the form binding is because the form/controller should be the one with the concern of dealing with your user data and cleaning things up I think. But you can always have multiple layers of cleaning and whatnot, it's not bad to be safe!
I've gone for this (which always seems obvious when it's written and tested):
implicit val arrayWrite: Writes[List[String]] = new Writes[List[String]] {
def writes(list: List[String]): JsValue = Json.toJson(list.filterNot(_.isEmpty).toIndexedSeq)
}
But I would be interested to know how to
.map the existing Reads rather than redefining from scratch
as #cchantep suggests
I have a server API that returns a list of things, and does so in chunks of, let's say, 25 items at a time. With every response, we get a list of items, and a "token" that we can use for the following server call to return the next 25, and so on.
Please note that we're using a client library that has been written in stodgy old mutable Java, and doesn't lend itself nicely to all of Scala's functional compositional patterns.
I'm looking for a way to return a lazily evaluated sequence of all server items, by doing a server call with the latest token whenever the local list of items has been exhausted. What I have so far is:
def fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject: StateObject): Seq[Thing] = {
val results = server.call(uglyStateObject)
uglyStateObject.update(results.token())
results.asScala.toList ++ (if results.moreAvailable() then
fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject)
else
List())
}
However, this function does eager evaluation. What I'm looking for is to have ++ concatenate a "strict sequence" and a "lazy sequence", where a thunk will be used to retrieve the next set of items from the server. In effect, I want something like this:
results.asScala.toList ++ Seq.lazy(() => fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject))
Except I don't know what to use in place of Seq.lazy.
Things I've seen so far:
SeqView, but I've seen comments that it shouldn't be used because it re-evaluates all the time?
Streams, but they seem like the abstraction is supposed to generate elements at a time, whereas I want to generate a bunch of elements at a time.
What should I use?
I also suggest you to take a look at scalaz-strem. Here is small example how it may look like
import scalaz.stream._
import scalaz.concurrent.Task
// Returns updated state + fetched data
def fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject: StateObject): (StateObject, Seq[Thing]) = ???
// Initial state
val init: StateObject = new StateObject
val p: Process[Task, Thing] = Process.repeatEval[Task, Seq[Thing]] {
var state = init
Task(fetchFromServer(state)) map {
case (s, seq) =>
state = s
seq
}
} flatMap Process.emitAll
As a matter of fact, in the meantime I already found a slightly different answer that I find more readable (indeed using Streams):
def fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject: StateObject): Stream[Thing] = {
val results = server.call(uglyStateObject)
uglyStateObject.update(results.token())
results.asScala.toStream #::: (if results.moreAvailable() then
fetchFromServer(uglyStateObject)
else
Stream.empty)
}
Thanks everyone for
I came across this sentence in Scala in explaining its functional behavior.
operation of a program should map input of values to output values rather than change data in place
Could somebody explain it with a good example?
Edit: Please explain or give example for the above sentence in its context, please do not make it complicate to get more confusion
The most obvious pattern that this is referring to is the difference between how you would write code which uses collections in Java when compared with Scala. If you were writing scala but in the idiom of Java, then you would be working with collections by mutating data in place. The idiomatic scala code to do the same would favour the mapping of input values to output values.
Let's have a look at a few things you might want to do to a collection:
Filtering
In Java, if I have a List<Trade> and I am only interested in those trades executed with Deutsche Bank, I might do something like:
for (Iterator<Trade> it = trades.iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
Trade t = it.next();
if (t.getCounterparty() != DEUTSCHE_BANK) it.remove(); // MUTATION
}
Following this loop, my trades collection only contains the relevant trades. But, I have achieved this using mutation - a careless programmer could easily have missed that trades was an input parameter, an instance variable, or is used elsewhere in the method. As such, it is quite possible their code is now broken. Furthermore, such code is extremely brittle for refactoring for this same reason; a programmer wishing to refactor a piece of code must be very careful to not let mutated collections escape the scope in which they are intended to be used and, vice-versa, that they don't accidentally use an un-mutated collection where they should have used a mutated one.
Compare with Scala:
val db = trades filter (_.counterparty == DeutscheBank) //MAPPING INPUT TO OUTPUT
This creates a new collection! It doesn't affect anyone who is looking at trades and is inherently safer.
Mapping
Suppose I have a List<Trade> and I want to get a Set<Stock> for the unique stocks which I have been trading. Again, the idiom in Java is to create a collection and mutate it.
Set<Stock> stocks = new HashSet<Stock>();
for (Trade t : trades) stocks.add(t.getStock()); //MUTATION
Using scala the correct thing to do is to map the input collection and then convert to a set:
val stocks = (trades map (_.stock)).toSet //MAPPING INPUT TO OUTPUT
Or, if we are concerned about performance:
(trades.view map (_.stock)).toSet
(trades.iterator map (_.stock)).toSet
What are the advantages here? Well:
My code can never observe a partially-constructed result
The application of a function A => B to a Coll[A] to get a Coll[B] is clearer.
Accumulating
Again, in Java the idiom has to be mutation. Suppose we are trying to sum the decimal quantities of the trades we have done:
BigDecimal sum = BigDecimal.ZERO
for (Trade t : trades) {
sum.add(t.getQuantity()); //MUTATION
}
Again, we must be very careful not to accidentally observe a partially-constructed result! In scala, we can do this in a single expression:
val sum = (0 /: trades)(_ + _.quantity) //MAPPING INTO TO OUTPUT
Or the various other forms:
(trades.foldLeft(0)(_ + _.quantity)
(trades.iterator map (_.quantity)).sum
(trades.view map (_.quantity)).sum
Oh, by the way, there is a bug in the Java implementation! Did you spot it?
I'd say it's the difference between:
var counter = 0
def updateCounter(toAdd: Int): Unit = {
counter += toAdd
}
updateCounter(8)
println(counter)
and:
val originalValue = 0
def addToValue(value: Int, toAdd: Int): Int = value + toAdd
val firstNewResult = addToValue(originalValue, 8)
println(firstNewResult)
This is a gross over simplification but fuller examples are things like using a foldLeft to build up a result rather than doing the hard work yourself: foldLeft example
What it means is that if you write pure functions like this you always get the same output from the same input, and there are no side effects, which makes it easier to reason about your programs and ensure that they are correct.
so for example the function:
def times2(x:Int) = x*2
is pure, while
def add5ToList(xs: MutableList[Int]) {
xs += 5
}
is impure because it edits data in place as a side effect. This is a problem because that same list could be in use elsewhere in the the program and now we can't guarantee the behaviour because it has changed.
A pure version would use immutable lists and return a new list
def add5ToList(xs: List[Int]) = {
5::xs
}
There are plenty examples with collections, which are easy to come by but might give the wrong impression. This concept works at all levels of the language (it doesn't at the VM level, however). One example is the case classes. Consider these two alternatives:
// Java-style
class Person(initialName: String, initialAge: Int) {
def this(initialName: String) = this(initialName, 0)
private var name = initialName
private var age = initialAge
def getName = name
def getAge = age
def setName(newName: String) { name = newName }
def setAge(newAge: Int) { age = newAge }
}
val employee = new Person("John")
employee.setAge(40) // we changed the object
// Scala-style
case class Person(name: String, age: Int) {
def this(name: String) = this(name, 0)
}
val employee = new Person("John")
val employeeWithAge = employee.copy(age = 40) // employee still exists!
This concept is applied on the construction of the immutable collection themselves: a List never changes. Instead, new List objects are created when necessary. Use of persistent data structures reduce the copying that would happen on a mutable data structure.
I'm learning Squeryl and trying to understand the 'using' syntax but can't find documentation on it.
In the following example two databases are created, A contains the word Hello, and B contains Goodbye. The intention is to query the contents of A, then append the word World and write the result to B.
Expected console output is Inserted Message(2,HelloWorld)
object Test {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
Class.forName("org.h2.Driver");
import Library._
val sessionA = Session.create(DriverManager.getConnection(
"jdbc:h2:file:data/dbA","sa","password"),new H2Adapter)
val sessionB = Session.create(DriverManager.getConnection(
"jdbc:h2:file:data/dbB","sa","password"),new H2Adapter)
using(sessionA){
drop; create
myTable.insert(Message(0,"Hello"))
}
using(sessionB){
drop; create
myTable.insert(Message(0,"Goodbye"))
}
using(sessionA){
val results = from(myTable)(s => select(s))//.toList
using(sessionB){
results.foreach(m => {
val newMsg = m.copy(msg = (m.msg+"World"))
myTable.insert(newMsg)
println("Inserted "+newMsg)
})
}
}
}
case class Message(val id: Long, val msg: String) extends KeyedEntity[Long]
object Library extends Schema { val myTable = table[Message] }
}
As it stands, the code prints Inserted Message(2,GoodbyeWorld), unless the toList is added on the end of the val results line.
Is there some way to bind the results query to use sessionA even when evaluated inside the using(sessionB)? This seems preferable to using toList to force the query to evaluate and store the contents in memory.
Update
Thanks to Dave Whittaker's answer, the following snippet fixes it without resorting to 'toList' and corrects my understanding of both 'using' and the running of queries.
val results = from(myTable)(s => select(s))
using(sessionA){
results.foreach(m => {
val newMsg = m.copy(msg = (m.msg+"World"))
using(sessionB){myTable.insert(newMsg)}
println("Inserted "+newMsg)
})
}
First off, I apologize for the lack of documentation. The using() construct is a new feature that is only available in SNAPSHOT builds. I actually talked to Max about some of the documentation issues for early adopters yesterday and we are working to fix them.
There isn't a way that I can think of to bind a specific Session to a Query. Looking at your example, it looks like an easy work around would be to invert your transactions. When you create a query, Squeryl doesn't actually access the DB, it just creates an AST representing the SQL to be performed, so you don't need to issue your using(sessionA) at that point. Then, when you are ready to iterate over the results you can wrap the query invocation in a using(sessionA) nested within your using(sessionB). Does that make sense?