Using async methods in one branch of match - f#

I'm getting started with F# and async.
I have trying to convert some C# code that looks like:
public async Task<string> getValueOrDefault(string? key)
{
if (key is null)
{
return "default";
}
else
{
return await getValue(key);
}
}
My F# code looks like:
let getValueOrDefault (key: Option<string>) =
async {
return match key with
| None -> "default"
| Some (key) -> getValue key
}
It complains that the 2 branches have different types: string and Async<string>.
Changing return to return! of course tells me that "default" is expected to be Async<'a>
I can do:
let getValueOrDefault (key: Option<string>) =
async {
return! match key with
| None -> async { return "default" }
| Some (key) -> getValue key
}
But is this the "right" way of doing it? Does it matter?

You're missing the equivalent of the await keyword in your first F# version which is let! or return!.
I think your second version is perfectly adequate, but you can also do this, where each of the match results returns its own value.
let getValueOrDefault (key: Option<string>) =
async {
match key with
| None -> return "default"
| Some (key) -> return! getValue key
}

I would probably write this the way Tim does in his answer, i.e. wrap the whole method in an async { .. } block and then use return in one branch and return! in the other. However, you can also simplify your last snippet a bit by turning async { return! e } to just e - because that's exactly equivalent.
Then you get another quite elegant version, which also encodes the same logic:
let getValueOrDefault (key: Option<string>) =
match key with
| None -> async { return "default" }
| Some (key) -> getValue key

There's nothing really wrong with your attempt, except that the double computational expressions look a bit weird.
You can easily avoid that by calling getValue outside your async {}
How about this:
let getValueOrDefault (key:string option) =
key
|> Option.map getValue
|> Option.defaultValue (async { return "default"})

Related

F# Fable Fetch Correctly Unwrap Promise to another Promise type

I need to request data from several URLs and then use the results.
I am using plain Fable 3 with the Fable-Promise and Fable-Fetch libraries.
I have worked out how to fetch from multiple URLs and combine the results into a single Promise that I can then use to update the UI (the multiple results need to be drawn only once).
But if one of the fetch errors then the whole thing falls over. Ideally I'd like to use tryFetch and then propagate the Result<TermData, None | Exception> but nothing I do seems to compile.
How exactly do I use tryFetch and then unwrap the result with a second let! in the CE? (The comments explain more)
module App
open Browser.Dom
open App
open System.Collections.Generic
open System.Text.RegularExpressions
open Fetch
open System
type TermData =
abstract counts : int []
abstract scores : int []
abstract term : string
abstract allWords : bool
type QueryTerm =
{ mutable Term: string
mutable AllWords: bool }
let loadSingleSeries (term: QueryTerm) =
promise {
let url =
$"/api/plot/{term.Term}?allWords={term.AllWords}"
// Works but doesn't handle errors.
let! plotData = fetch url [] // type of plotData: Response
// let plotDataResult = tryFetch url []
// This ideally becomes Promise<Result<TermData, None>>
// let unwrapped = match plotDataResult with
// | Ok res -> Ok (res.json<TermData>()) // type: Promise<TermData>
// | Error err -> ??? // tried Error (Promise.create(fun resolve reject -> resolve None)) among others
let! result = plotData.json<TermData>() // type of result: TermData
return result
}
let dataArrays =
parsed // type Dictionary<int, TermData>
|> Seq.map (fun term -> loadSingleSeries term.Value)
|> Promise.Parallel
|> Promise.map (fun allData -> console.log(allData))
// Here we will handle None when we have it
I don't have much Fable experience, but if I understand your question correctly, I think the following should work:
let loadSingleSeries (term: QueryTerm) =
promise {
let url =
$"/api/plot/{term.Term}?allWords={term.AllWords}"
let! plotDataResult = tryFetch url []
match plotDataResult with
| Ok resp ->
let! termData = resp.json<TermData>()
return Ok termData
| Error ex ->
return Error ex
}
The idea here is that if you get an error, you simply propagate that error in the new Result value. This returns a Promise<Result<TermData, Exception>>, as you requested.
Update: Fixed return type using a second let!.
I haven't run this code but looking at the docs it looks like you need to use Promise.catch
let loadSingleSeries (term: QueryTerm) =
promise {
let url =
$"/api/plot/{term.Term}?allWords={term.AllWords}"
let! plotDataResult =
fetch url []
|> Promise.map Ok // Wraps the "happy path" in a Result.Ok
|> Promise.catch (fun err ->
//handle the error
Error err)
return
match plotDataResult with
| Ok res -> ...
| Error err -> ...
}
I ended up having to use the pipeline rather than CE approach for this as follows:
let loadSingleSeries (term: QueryTerm) =
let url =
$"/api/plot/{term.Term}?allWords={term.AllWords}"
let resultPromise =
fetch url []
|> Promise.bind (fun response ->
let arr = response.json<TermData> ()
arr)
|> Promise.map (Ok)
|> Promise.catch (Error)
resultPromise
The key was using Promise.bind to convert the first promise to get the Response to the promise of Promise<TermData>. The map and catch then convert to a Promise<Result<TermData, exn>>.

how can I combine / compose computation expressions, in F#?

This is not for a practical need, but rather to try to learn something.
I am using FSToolKit's asyncResult expression which is very handy and I would like to know if there is a way to 'combine' expressions, such as async and result here, or does a custom expression have to be written?
Here is an example of my function to set the ip to a subdomain, with CloudFlare:
let setSubdomainToIpAsync zoneName url ip =
let decodeResult (r: CloudFlareResult<'a>) =
match r.Success with
| true -> Ok r.Result
| false -> Error r.Errors.[0].Message
let getZoneAsync (client: CloudFlareClient) =
asyncResult {
let! r = client.Zones.GetAsync()
let! d = decodeResult r
return!
match d |> Seq.filter (fun x -> x.Name = zoneName) |> Seq.toList with
| z::_ -> Ok z // take the first one
| _ -> Error $"zone '{zoneName}' not found"
}
let getRecordsAsync (client: CloudFlareClient) zoneId =
asyncResult {
let! r = client.Zones.DnsRecords.GetAsync(zoneId)
return! decodeResult r
}
let updateRecordAsync (client: CloudFlareClient) zoneId (records: DnsRecord seq) =
asyncResult {
return!
match records |> Seq.filter (fun x -> x.Name = url) |> Seq.toList with
| r::_ -> client.Zones.DnsRecords.UpdateAsync(zoneId, r.Id, ModifiedDnsRecord(Name = url, Content = ip, Type = DnsRecordType.A, Proxied = true))
| [] -> client.Zones.DnsRecords.AddAsync(zoneId, NewDnsRecord(Name = url, Content = ip, Proxied = true))
}
asyncResult {
use client = new CloudFlareClient(Credentials.CloudFlare.Email, Credentials.CloudFlare.Key)
let! zone = getZoneAsync client
let! records = getRecordsAsync client zone.Id
let! update = updateRecordAsync client zone.Id records
return! decodeResult update
}
It is interfacing with a C# lib that handles all the calls to the CloudFlare API and returns a CloudFlareResult object which has a success flag, a result and an error.
I remapped that type to a Result<'a, string> type:
let decodeResult (r: CloudFlareResult<'a>) =
match r.Success with
| true -> Ok r.Result
| false -> Error r.Errors.[0].Message
And I could write an expression for it (hypothetically since I've been using them but haven't written my own yet), but then I would be happy to have an asyncCloudFlareResult expression, or even an asyncCloudFlareResultOrResult expression, if that makes sense.
I am wondering if there is a mechanism to combine expressions together, the same way FSToolKit does (although I suspect it's just custom code there).
Again, this is a question to learn something, not about the practicality since it would probably add more code than it's worth.
Following Gus' comment, I realized it would be good to illustrate the point with some simpler code:
function DoA : int -> Async<AWSCallResult<int, string>>
function DoB : int -> Async<Result<int, string>>
AWSCallResultAndResult {
let! a = DoA 3
let! b = DoB a
return b
}
in this example I would end up with two types that can take an int and return an error string, but they are different. Both have their expressions so I can chain them as needed.
And the original question is about how these can be combined together.
It's possible to extend CEs with overloads.
The example below makes it possible to use the CustomResult type with a usual result builder.
open FsToolkit.ErrorHandling
type CustomResult<'T, 'TError> =
{ IsError: bool
Error: 'TError
Value: 'T }
type ResultBuilder with
member inline _.Source(result : CustomResult<'T, 'TError>) =
if result.IsError then
Error result.Error
else
Ok result.Value
let computeA () = Ok 42
let computeB () = Ok 23
let computeC () =
{ CustomResult.Error = "oops. This went wrong"
CustomResult.IsError = true
CustomResult.Value = 64 }
let computedResult =
result {
let! a = computeA ()
let! b = computeB ()
let! c = computeC ()
return a + b + c
}

With closures as parameter and return values, is Fn or FnMut more idiomatic?

Continuing from How do I write combinators for my own parsers in Rust?, I stumbled into this question concerning bounds of functions that consume and/or yield functions/closures.
From these slides, I learned that to be convenient for consumers, you should try to take functions as FnOnce and return as Fn where possible. This gives the caller most freedom what to pass and what to do with the returned function.
In my example, FnOnce is not possible because I need to call that function multiple times. While trying to make it compile I arrived at two possibilities:
pub enum Parsed<'a, T> {
Some(T, &'a str),
None(&'a str),
}
impl<'a, T> Parsed<'a, T> {
pub fn unwrap(self) -> (T, &'a str) {
match self {
Parsed::Some(head, tail) => (head, &tail),
_ => panic!("Called unwrap on nothing."),
}
}
pub fn is_none(&self) -> bool {
match self {
Parsed::None(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
}
pub fn achar(character: char) -> impl Fn(&str) -> Parsed<char> {
move |input|
match input.chars().next() {
Some(c) if c == character => Parsed::Some(c, &input[1..]),
_ => Parsed::None(input),
}
}
pub fn some_v1<T>(parser: impl Fn(&str) -> Parsed<T>) -> impl Fn(&str) -> Parsed<Vec<T>> {
move |input| {
let mut re = Vec::new();
let mut pos = input;
loop {
match parser(pos) {
Parsed::Some(head, tail) => {
re.push(head);
pos = tail;
}
Parsed::None(_) => break,
}
}
Parsed::Some(re, pos)
}
}
pub fn some_v2<T>(mut parser: impl FnMut(&str) -> Parsed<T>) -> impl FnMut(&str) -> Parsed<Vec<T>> {
move |input| {
let mut re = Vec::new();
let mut pos = input;
loop {
match parser(pos) {
Parsed::Some(head, tail) => {
re.push(head);
pos = tail;
}
Parsed::None(_) => break,
}
}
Parsed::Some(re, pos)
}
}
#[test]
fn try_it() {
assert_eq!(some_v1(achar('#'))("##comment").unwrap(), (vec!['#', '#'], "comment"));
assert_eq!(some_v2(achar('#'))("##comment").unwrap(), (vec!['#', '#'], "comment"));
}
playground
Now I don't know which version is to be preferred. Version 1 takes Fn which is less general, but version 2 needs its parameter mutable.
Which one is more idiomatic/should be used and what is the rationale behind?
Update: Thanks jplatte for the suggestion on version one. I updated the code here, that case I find even more interesting.
Comparing some_v1 and some_v2 as you wrote them I would say version 2 should definitely be preferred because it is more general. I can't think of a good example for a parsing closure that would implement FnMut but not Fn, but there's really no disadvantage to parser being mut - as noted in the first comment on your question this doesn't constrain the caller in any way.
However, there is a way in which you can make version 1 more general (not strictly more general, just partially) than version 2, and that is by returning impl Fn(&str) -> … instead of impl FnMut(&str) -> …. By doing that, you get two functions that each are less constrained than the other in some way, so it might even make sense to keep both:
Version 1 with the return type change would be more restrictive in its argument (the callable can't mutate its associated data) but less restrictive in its return type (you guarantee that the returned callable doesn't mutate its associated data)
Version 2 would be less restrictive in its argument (the callable is allowed to mutate its associated data) but more restrictive in its return type (the returned callable might mutate its associated data)

Async Controller Actions in F#

Using C# - ASP.NET MVC 4, I can define an async controller action like:
public async Task<ActionResult> IndexWorks()
{
var data = await DownloadAsync("http://stackoverflow.com");
return Content(data);
}
Is there a way to do something similar, using F#?
I'm aware of that I could use the AsyncManager approach. I'm also aware of that #Tomas Petricek have made a quite neat AsyncActionBuilder, but it just feels like a lot of boilerplate, compared to the C# approach.
async/await uses Tasks, so you'll need to convert back and forth between Task object and F# Async objects. To convert from Task to Async, use Async.AwaitTask. To do the opposite use Async.StartAsTask. Your example becomes:
member x.IndexWorks() =
async {
let! data = Async.AwaitTask (DownloadAsync "http://stackoverflow.com")
return x.Content(data)
} |> Async.StartAsTask
Alternatively, instead of using the async computation expression, you can use a computation expression that works for Tasks out of the box. There's one in FSharpx:
let task = FSharpx.Task.TaskBuilder()
(...)
member x.IndexWorks() = task {
let! data = DownloadAsync "http://stackoverflow.com"
return x.Content(data)
}
It actually seems like a fellow programmer, Dmitry Morozov have made such thing possible. He have made a custom AsyncWorkflowController that makes it possible to return Async<ActionResult> from an ActionResult. The code for the AsyncWorkFlowController can be found at http://fssnip.net/5q.
However, his implementation makes it very difficult to debug, due to the fact that the stack trace wont be preserved when rethrowen in the custom controller. Therefore I've made a little change to make this possible:
member actionDesc.EndExecute(asyncResult) =
match endAsync'.Value(asyncResult) with
| Choice1Of2 value -> box value
| Choice2Of2 why ->
// Preserve the stack trace, when rethrow
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(why).Throw()
obj() (* Satisfy return value *) } } }
Also I've changed the following line: new ReflectedControllerDescriptor(controllerType),
to new ReflectedAsyncControllerDescriptor(controllerType) - However this change is purely optional, as it wont make any difference. I just found it more logical to use the Async one.
The full code would then be:
open System
open System.Web.Mvc
open System.Web.Mvc.Async
open System.Runtime.ExceptionServices
open Unchecked
type AsyncWorkflowController() =
inherit AsyncController()
override __.CreateActionInvoker() =
upcast { new AsyncControllerActionInvoker() with
member __.GetControllerDescriptor(controllerContext) =
let controllerType = controllerContext.Controller.GetType()
upcast { new ReflectedAsyncControllerDescriptor(controllerType) with
member ctrlDesc.FindAction(controllerContext, actionName) =
let forwarder = base.FindAction(controllerContext, actionName) :?> ReflectedActionDescriptor
if(forwarder = null || forwarder.MethodInfo.ReturnType <> typeof<Async<ActionResult>>) then
upcast forwarder
else
let endAsync' = ref (defaultof<IAsyncResult -> Choice<ActionResult, exn>>)
upcast { new AsyncActionDescriptor() with
member actionDesc.ActionName = forwarder.ActionName
member actionDesc.ControllerDescriptor = upcast ctrlDesc
member actionDesc.GetParameters() = forwarder.GetParameters()
member actionDesc.BeginExecute(controllerContext, parameters, callback, state) =
let asyncWorkflow =
forwarder.Execute(controllerContext, parameters) :?> Async<ActionResult>
|> Async.Catch
let beginAsync, endAsync, _ = Async.AsBeginEnd(fun () -> asyncWorkflow)
endAsync' := endAsync
beginAsync((), callback, state)
member actionDesc.EndExecute(asyncResult) =
match endAsync'.Value(asyncResult) with
| Choice1Of2 value -> box value
| Choice2Of2 why ->
// Preserve the stack trace, when rethrow
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(why).Throw()
obj() (* Satisfy return value *) } } }
Usage:
type TestController() =
inherit AsyncWorkflowController()
member x.IndexWorks() = async {
let startThread = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId
let! data = asyncDownload "http://stackoverflow.com"
let endThread = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagaedThreadId
return ContentResult(Content = "Start = %i | End = %i" startThread endThread) :> ActionResult }
And to confirm that it actually does everything async, and is not blocking any thread from the ASP.NET Pool, use:
member x.IndexWorks() = async {
let startThread = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId
let! data = asyncDownload "http://stackoverflow.com"
let endThread = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagaedThreadId
return ContentResult(Content = "Start = %i | End = %i" startThread endThread) :> ActionResult }
The start and end thread will differ, hence the start thread was put back into the pool, and a new was returned when the async operation had completed.
I think there might be a bunch of people trying to do something like
type SomeController() =
inherit ApiController()
member x.Get() =
let data = Download("http://stackoverflow.com")
x.Ok(data) :> IHttpActionResult // Using built in Ok, BadRequest, etc.
Where type Get() = unit -> Task<IHttpActionResult> as expected from a C# WebApi Controller
If you try to do it as the accepted answer suggests (while trying to use the built-in Ok, BadRequest, etc. methods) you run into
can't access protected members from within a lambda
To solve this I used the ExtensionMethods directly rather than try to do contort between async {} and Task that MVC is expecting
type SomeController() =
inherit ApiController()
member x.Get() = async {
let! data = DownloadAsync("http://stackoverflow.com") |> Async.AwaitTask
return System.Web.Http.Results.OkNegotiatedContentResult(data, x) :> IHttpActionResult // Pass in 'this' pointer (x) into extension method along with data
} |> Async.StartAsTask
This with the additional upcast :> IHttpActionResult you can also return different behavior BadRequest, etc from your model and still have it run async and the type signatures should work out and compile cleanly

Pattern combining type test and literal

The active pattern in this question fails to compile after upgrading to VS 2012 RTM. It provides a way to do a type test and match a literal within a single pattern. For example:
let (|Value|_|) value =
match box value with
| :? 'T as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
let getValue (name: string) (r: IDataReader) =
match r.[name] with
| null | :? DBNull | Value "" -> Unchecked.defaultof<_>
| v -> unbox v
Can this be done without the active pattern? I realize a when guard could be used (:? string as s when s = "") but it can't be combined with other patterns.
kvb's variation (which doesn't do quite the same thing since it assumes the type test succeeds) can be modified to produce a similar pattern:
let (|Value|_|) x value =
match box value with
| :? 'T as y when x = y -> Some()
| _ -> None
However, there is a subtle performance difference. The original active pattern translates to:
public static FSharpOption<T> |Value|_|<a, T>(a value)
{
object obj = value;
if (!LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.TypeTestGeneric<T>(obj))
{
return null;
}
return FSharpOption<T>.Some((T)((object)obj));
}
that is, it does a type test and cast. It's usage (match x with Value "" -> ...) translates to:
FSharpOption<string> fSharpOption = MyModule.|Value|_|<object, string>(obj);
if (fSharpOption != null && string.Equals(fSharpOption.Value, ""))
{
...
}
Most notably, the typed value returned from the pattern is matched using the typical compiler transformations for patterns (string.Equals for strings).
The updated pattern translates to:
public static FSharpOption<Unit> |Value|_|<T, a>(T x, a value)
{
object obj = value;
if (LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.TypeTestGeneric<T>(obj))
{
T y = (T)((object)obj);
T y3 = y;
if (LanguagePrimitives.HashCompare.GenericEqualityIntrinsic<T>(x, y3))
{
T y2 = (T)((object)obj);
return FSharpOption<Unit>.Some(null);
}
}
return null;
}
which uses generic equality and is less efficient than matching against a literal. The usage is a bit simpler since equality is baked into the pattern:
FSharpOption<Unit> fSharpOption = MyModule.|Value|_|<string, object>("", obj);
if (fSharpOption != null)
{
...
}
Anyway, it works. But I like the original better.
You should be able to use a parameterized active pattern:
let (|Value|_|) v x =
if unbox x = v then
Some()
else None
The usage should look exactly like what you've got now.
Edit
While I don't know if the breaking change was intentional, I believe that active patterns with generic return types unrelated to the input types should usually be avoided. When combined with type inference, they can easily mask subtle errors. Consider the following example, using your original (|Value|_|) pattern:
match [1] with
| Value [_] -> "Singleton"
| _ -> "Huh?"
It seems like this isn't something you would actually ever attempt - the name implies that Value should only be used with literals; parameterized active patterns enable exactly this scenario.

Resources