How do I get the exported types of an erlang module? - erlang
I had cause to check the types exported by a module, and I immediately thought "right, module_info then" but was surprised to run into a few difficulties. I found I can get the exported types from modules I compile, but not from say modules in stdlib.
My (three) questions are, how do I reliably get the exported types of a module, why are the exported types in the attributes bit of the module info on some modules, and why some modules and not others?
I discovered that if I build this module:
-module(foo).
-export([bar/0]).
-export_types([baz/0]).
bar() -> bat .
And then use foo:module_info/0, I get this:
[{exports,[{bar,0},{module_info,0},{module_info,1}]},
{imports,[]},
{attributes,[{vsn,[108921085595958308709649797749441408863]},
{export_types,[{baz,0}]}]},
{compile,[{options,[{outdir,"/tmp"}]},
{version,"5.0.1"},
{time,{2015,10,22,10,38,8}},
{source,"/tmp/foo.erl"}]}]
Great, hidden away in 'attributes' is 'export_types'. Why this is in attributes I'm not quite sure, but... whatever...
I now know this will work:
4> lists:keyfind(export_types, 1, foo:module_info(attributes)).
{export_types,[{baz,0}]}
Great. So, I now know this will work:
5> lists:keyfind(export_types, 1, ets:module_info(attributes)).
false
Ah... it doesn't.
I know there are exported types of course, if the documentation isn't good enough the ets source shows:
-export_type([tab/0, tid/0, match_spec/0, comp_match_spec/0, match_pattern/0]).
In fact the exported type information for the ets module doesn't seem to be anywhere in the module info:
6> rp(ets:module_info()).
[{exports,[{match_spec_run,2},
{repair_continuation,2},
{fun2ms,1},
{foldl,3},
{foldr,3},
{from_dets,2},
{to_dets,2},
{test_ms,2},
{init_table,2},
{tab2file,2},
{tab2file,3},
{file2tab,1},
{file2tab,2},
{tabfile_info,1},
{table,1},
{table,2},
{i,0},
{i,1},
{i,2},
{i,3},
{module_info,0},
{module_info,1},
{tab2list,1},
{match_delete,2},
{filter,3},
{setopts,2},
{give_away,3},
{update_element,3},
{match_spec_run_r,3},
{match_spec_compile,1},
{select_delete,2},
{select_reverse,3},
{select_reverse,2},
{select_reverse,1},
{select_count,2},
{select,3},
{select,2},
{select,1},
{update_counter,3},
{slot,2},
{safe_fixtable,2},
{rename,2},
{insert_new,2},
{insert,2},
{prev,2},
{next,2},
{member,2},
{match_object,3},
{match_object,2},
{match_object,1},
{match,3},
{match,2},
{match,1},
{last,1},
{info,2},
{info,1},
{lookup_element,3},
{lookup,2},
{is_compiled_ms,1},
{first,1},
{delete_object,2},
{delete_all_objects,1},
{delete,2},
{delete,1},
{new,2},
{all,0}]},
{imports,[]},
{attributes,[{vsn,[310474638056108355984984900680115120081]}]},
{compile,[{options,[{outdir,"/tmp/buildd/erlang-17.1-dfsg/lib/stdlib/src/../ebin"},
{i,"/tmp/buildd/erlang-17.1-dfsg/lib/stdlib/src/../include"},
{i,"/tmp/buildd/erlang-17.1-dfsg/lib/stdlib/src/../../kernel/include"},
warnings_as_errors,debug_info]},
{version,"5.0.1"},
{time,{2014,7,25,16,54,59}},
{source,"/tmp/buildd/erlang-17.1-dfsg/lib/stdlib/src/ets.erl"}]}]
ok
I took things to extremes now and ran this, logging the output to a file:
rp(beam_disasm:file("/usr/lib/erlang/lib/stdlib-2.1/ebin/ets.beam")).
Not that I don't consider this absurd... but anyway, it's about 5,000 lines of output, but nowhere do I find an instance of the string "tid".
Up to Erlang 18 this information is not easily available.
Dialyzer, for example, extracts it from the abstract syntax tree of the core Erlang version of a module (see e.g. dialyzer_utils:get_record_and_type_info/1 used by e.g. dialyzer_analysis_callgraph:compile_byte/5)
Regarding this part:
why are the exported types in the attributes bit of the module info on some modules, and why some modules and not others?
this is due to a bad definition in your module. The attribute should be -export_type, not -export_types. If you use the correct one (and define the baz/0 type and use it somewhere so that the module compiles), the exported types... vanish, as is expected.
Related
Can Erlang source code be embedded in Elixir code? If so, how?
Elixir source may be injected using Code.eval_string/3. I don't see mention of running raw Erlang code in the docs: https://hexdocs.pm/elixir/Code.html#eval_string/3 I am coming from a Scala world in which Java objects are callable using Scala syntax, and Scala is compiled into Java and visible by intercepting the compiler output (directly generated with scalac). I get the sense that Elixir does not provide such interoperating features, nor allow injection of custom Erlang into the runtime. Is this the case?
You can use the erlang standard library modules from Elixir, as described here or here. For example: def random_integer(upper) do :rand.uniform(upper) # rand is an erlang library end You can also add erlang packages to your mix.exs dependencies and use them in your project, as long as these packages are published on hex or on github. You can also use erlang and elixir code together in a project as described here. So yeah, it's perfectly possible to call erlang code from elixir. Vice-versa is also possible, see here for more information: Elixir compiles into BEAM byte code (via Erlang Abstract Format). This means that Elixir code can be called from Erlang and vice versa, without the need to write any bindings.
Expanding what #zwippie have written:
All remote function calls (by that I mean calling function with explicitly set module/alias) are in form of:
<atom with module name>.<function name>(<arguments>)
# Technically it is the same as:
# apply(module, function_name_as_atom, [arguments])
And all "upper case module names" in Elixir are just atoms:
is_atom(Foo) == true
Foo == :"Elixir.Foo" # => true
So from Elixir viewpoint there is no difference between calling Erlang functions and Elixir functions. It is just different atom passed as the receiving module.
So you can easily call Erlang modules from Elixir. That mean that without much of the hassle you should be able to compile Erlang AST from within Elixir as well:
"rand:uniform(100)"
|> :merl.quote()
|> :erl_eval.expr(#{})
No need for any mental translation.
Additionally you can without any problems mix Erlang and Elixir code in single Mix project. With tree structure like:
.
|`- mix.exs
|`- src
| `- example.erl
`- lib
`- example.ex
Where example.erl is:
-module(example).
-export([hello/0]).
hello() -> <<"World">>.
And example.ex:
defmodule Example do
def print_hello, do: IO.puts(:example.hello())
end
You can compile project and run it with
mix run -e "Example.print_hello()"
And see that Erlang module was successfully compiled and executed from within Elixir code in the same project without problems.
One more thing to watch for when calling erlang code from elixir. erlang uses charlists for strings. When you call a erlang function that takes a string, convert the string to a charlist and convert returned string to a string. Examples: iex(17)> :string.to_upper "test" ** (FunctionClauseError) no function clause matching in :string.to_upper/1 The following arguments were given to :string.to_upper/1: # 1 "test" (stdlib 3.15.1) string.erl:2231: :string.to_upper/1 iex(17)> "test" |> String.to_charlist() |> :string.to_upper 'TEST' iex(18)> "test" |> String.to_charlist() |> :string.to_upper |> to_string "TEST" iex(19)>
Does a BEAM file remember whether it was built with -Werror?
I am working on a tool that deals with BEAM files, and we want to be able to assume the code was compiled with -Werror, so we don't have to repeat validations that are already done by the erl_lint compiler pass.
Is there a way to figure out if the BEAM was built with -Werror?
I'd expect beam_lib:chunks/2 to help here, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have what I'm looking for:
beam_lib:chunks("sample.beam", [debug_info, attributes, compile_info]).
% the stuff returned says nothing about -Werror, even if I compile with -Werror
It seems that this information would be always stripped
However, if you are in control of compilation process - you can put additional info into beam files, - which will be accessible through M:module_info(compile) and via beam chunks as well.
For example in rebar:
{erl_opts, [debug_info, {compile_info, [{my_key, my_value}]}]}.
And then:
1> my_module:module_info(compile).
[{version,"7.6.6"},
{options,[debug_info, ...
{my_key,my_value}]
The same is true for "discoverability" of this key directly from beam chunks:
2> beam_lib:chunks("my_beam.beam", [compile_info]).
{ok, ... {my_key,my_value}]}]}}
Meaning, that you can "stamp" your beam files with some meta-information easily. So, a workaround may be to stamp those beam files with this mark.
Function from other module not detecting
I two modules in same src folder. mod1 declares function I wish to use in module mod2:
-module(mod1).
-export([myfunc/1]).
myfunc(A) -> {ok}.
In other module I not import mod1:
-module(mod2).
If I do "mod1:" in mod2 it recognizes "myfunc", problem is at run-time when I call mod1:myfunc(A) I get "undefined function mod1:myfunc/1"
I not understand why I get error if intellisense detect my mod1 function in mod2?
From the shell, you could try doing mod1:module_info(exports) to see the list of all the exported functions, though if your module is written as it is above, it should be generating a syntax error. If, however, I'm wrong, and you actually do have it written properly in your module, (ie, it's just a typo here), try doing the following at the erlang shell: c(mod1). c(mod2). And see if that works for you. This will compile and load the modules for you. If you don't have the module compiled (ie, it's just a .erl file in the directory), that's insufficient. EDIT Also, make sure that the beam files are being loaded properly when erlang launches. This is typically done by launching erl with erl -pa /path/to/beams
What kind of types can be sent on an Erlang message?
Mainly I want to know if I can send a function in a message in a distributed Erlang setup.
On Machine 1:
F1 = Fun()-> hey end,
gen_server:call(on_other_machine,F1)
On Machine 2:
handler_call(Function,From,State) ->
{reply,Function(),State)
Does it make sense?
Here's an interesting article about "passing fun's to other Erlang nodes". To resume it briefly: [...] As you might know, Erlang distribution works by sending the binary encoding of terms; and so sending a fun is also essentially done by encoding it using erlang:term_to_binary/1; passing the resulting binary to another node, and then decoding it again using erlang:binary_to_term/1.[...] This is pretty obvious for most data types; but how does it work for function objects? When you encode a fun, what is encoded is just a reference to the function, not the function implementation. [...] [...]the definition of the function is not passed along; just exactly enough information to recreate the fun at an other node if the module is there. [...] If the module containing the fun has not yet been loaded, and the target node is running in interactive mode; then the module is attempted loaded using the regular module loading mechanism (contained in the module error_handler); and then it tries to see if a fun with the given id is available in said module. However, this only happens lazily when you try to apply the function. [...] If you never attempt to apply the function, then nothing bad happens. The fun can be passed to another node (which has the module/fun in question) and then everybody is happy. Maybe the target node has a module loaded of said name, but perhaps in a different version; which would then be very likely to have a different MD5 checksum, then you get the error badfun if you try to apply it. I would suggest you to read the whole article, cause it's extremely interesting.
You can send any valid Erlang term. Although you have to be careful when sending funs. Any fun referencing a function inside a module needs that module to exist on the target node to work:
(first#host)9> rpc:call(second#host, erlang, apply,
[fun io:format/1, ["Hey!~n"]]).
Hey!
ok
(first#host)10> mymodule:func("Hey!~n").
5
(first#host)11> rpc:call(second#host, erlang, apply,
[fun mymodule:func/1, ["Hey!~n"]]).
{badrpc,{'EXIT',{undef,[{mymodule,func,["Hey!~n"]},
{rpc,'-handle_call_call/6-fun-0-',5}]}}}
In this example, io exists on both nodes and it works to send a function from io as a fun. However, mymodule exists only on the first node and the fun generates an undef exception when called on the other node.
As for anonymous functions, it seems they can be sent and work as expected.
t1#localhost:
(t1#localhost)7> register(shell, self()).
true
(t1#localhost)10> A = me, receive Fun when is_function(Fun) -> Fun(A) end.
hello me you
ok
t2#localhost:
(t2#localhost)11> B = you.
you
(t2#localhost)12> Fn2 = fun (A) -> io:format("hello ~p ~p~n", [A, B]) end.
#Fun<erl_eval.6.54118792>
(t2#localhost)13> {shell, 't1#localhost'} ! Fn2.
I am adding coverage logic to an app built on riak-core, and the merge of results gathered can be tricky if anonymous functions cannot be used in messages.
Also check out riak_kv/src/riak_kv_coverage_filter.erl
riak_kv might be using it to filter result, I guess.
How to distinguish ERTS versions at pre-processing time?
In the recent Erlang R14, inets' file httpd.hrl has been moved from:
src/httpd.hrl
to:
src/http_server/httpd.hrl
The Erlang Web framework includes the file in several places using the following directive:
-include_lib("inets/src/httpd.hrl").
Since I'd love the Erlang Web to compile with both versions of Erlang (R13 and R14), what I'd need ideally is:
-ifdef(OLD_ERTS_VERSION).
-include_lib("inets/src/httpd.hrl").
-else.
-include_lib("inets/src/http_server/httpd.hrl").
-endif.
Even if it possible to retrieve the ERTS version via:
erlang:system_info(version).
That's indeed not possible at pre-processing time.
How to deal with these situations? Is the parse transform the only way to go? Are there better alternatives?
Not sure if you'll like this hackish trick, but you could use a parse transform.
Let's first define a basic parse transform module:
-module(erts_v).
-export([parse_transform/2]).
parse_transform(AST, _Opts) ->
io:format("~p~n", [AST]).
Compile it, then you can include both headers in the module you want this to work for. This should give the following:
-module(test).
-compile({parse_transform, erts_v}).
-include_lib("inets/src/httpd.hrl").
-include_lib("inets/src/http_server/httpd.hrl").
-export([fake_fun/1]).
fake_fun(A) -> A.
If you're on R14B and compile it, you should have the abstract format of the module looking like this:
[{attribute,1,file,{"./test.erl",1}},
{attribute,1,module,test},
{error,{3,epp,{include,lib,"inets/src/httpd.hrl"}}},
{attribute,1,file,
{"/usr/local/lib/erlang/lib/inets-5.5/src/http_server/httpd.hrl",1}},
{attribute,1,file,
{"/usr/local/lib/erlang/lib/kernel-2.14.1/include/file.hrl",1}},
{attribute,24,record,
{file_info,
[{record_field,25,{atom,25,size}},
{record_field,26,{atom,26,type}},
...
What this tells us is that we can use both headers, and the valid one will automatically be included while the other will error out. All we need to do is remove the {error,...} tuple and get a working compilation. To do this, fix the parse_transform module so it looks like this:
-module(erts_v).
-export([parse_transform/2]).
parse_transform(AST, _Opts) ->
walk_ast(AST).
walk_ast([{error,{_,epp,{include,lib,"inets/src/httpd.hrl"}}}|AST]) ->
AST;
walk_ast([{error,{_,epp,{include,lib,"inets/src/http_server/httpd.hrl"}}}|AST]) ->
AST;
walk_ast([H|T]) ->
[H|walk_ast(T)].
This will then remove the error include, only if it's on the precise module you wanted. Other messy includes should fail as usual.
I haven't tested this on all versions, so if the behaviour changed between them, this won't work. On the other hand, if it stayed the same, this parse_transform will be version independent, at the cost of needing to order the compiling order of your modules, which is simple enough with Emakefiles and rebar.
If you are using makefiles, you can do something like ERTS_VER=$(shell erl +V 2>&1 | egrep -o '[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+') than match the string and define macro in erlc arguments or in Emakefile. There is no other way, AFAIK.