I'd like to check that a value is of a particular case of a discriminated union, without having to also check any included data. My motivation is to only test one thing with each unit test.
An example is as follows (the last two lines give compilation errors):
module MyState
open NUnit.Framework
open FsUnit
type MyState =
| StateOne of int
| StateTwo of int
let increment state =
match state with
| StateOne n when n = 10 -> StateTwo 0
| StateOne n -> StateOne (n + 1)
| StateTwo n -> StateTwo (n + 1)
[<Test>]
let ``incrementing StateOne 10 produces a StateTwo`` ()=
let state = StateOne 10
(increment state) |> should equal (StateTwo 0) // works fine
(increment state) |> should equal (StateTwo _) // I would like to write this...
(increment state) |> should be instanceOfType<StateTwo> // ...or this
Can this be done in FsUnit?
I'm aware of this answer but would prefer not to have to write matching functions for each case (in my real code there are far more than two).
If you don't mind using reflections, the isUnionCase function from this answer could be handy:
increment state
|> isUnionCase <# StateTwo #>
|> should equal true
Note that it's a bit verbose because you need a function call before comparing values.
A similar but lighter approach could be comparison of tags:
// Copy from https://stackoverflow.com/a/3365084
let getTag (a:'a) =
let (uc,_) = Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpValue.GetUnionFields(a, typeof<'a>)
uc.Name
increment state
|> getTag
|> should equal "StateTwo"
Beware that this is not type-safe and you can easily misspell a union case name.
What I would do is to create a similar DUs for comparison purpose:
type MyStateCase =
| StateOneCase
| StateTwoCase
let categorize = function
| StateOne _ -> StateOneCase
| StateTwo _ -> StateTwoCase
In this way, you define categorize once and use it multiple times.
increment state
|> categorize
|> should equal StateTwoCase
It appears FSUnit doesn't (or can't, I'm not sure) directly support this use case.
The next best thing I've found is to declare a TestResult type like the following and use a match to reduce the result to this type.
type TestResult =
| Pass
| Fail of obj
Here is the reducing match
let testResult =
match result with
| OptionA(_) -> Pass
| other -> Fail(other)
Now you can just use should equal to ensure the correct result.
testResult |> should equal Pass
The benefits of this solution are strong typing but more importantly in the failure case you can see what the invalid result was.
It doesn't look very elegant, but you can extract type from a value of state:
let instanceOfState (state: 'a) =
instanceOfType<'a>
And then use it in the test:
(increment state) |> should be (instanceOfState <| StateTwo 88)
EDIT
Yes, unfortunately the type is always MyState. Looks like pattern matching or ugly reflection are inevitable.
What if FsUnit already supports an assertion against a specific union case, albeit one restricted to values of the type Microsoft.FSharp.Core.Choice<_,...,_>?
Let's leverage this with a multi-case active pattern, which uses Reflection to check against the union case name.
open System.Reflection
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
let (|Pass|Fail|) name (x : obj) =
let t = x.GetType()
if FSharpType.IsUnion t &&
t.InvokeMember("Is" + name,
BindingFlags.GetProperty, null, x, null )
|> unbox then Pass
else Fail x
Should be working now:
increment state
|> (|Pass|Fail|) "StateTwo"
|> should be (choice 1)
Related
I read the following type definition. What does it do?
type StreamCell<'a> =
| Nill
| Cons of 'a * Stream<'a>
and Stream<'a> = Lazy<StreamCell<'a>>
I tried to define the value with the type.
let x = Lazy(1::2::Nill) // Type is Lazy<list<int>>
let y = Lazy(Nill::1) // Lazy<StreamCell<obj>>
I thought the type of x and y should be StreamCell?
The and in F# exists to define recursive types. In most other languages there exists no order. Once you define a class, function and so on. You can access it. But in F# order is important. You only can access thinks that are already defined.
Because of this, usually it would not be possible to define recursive types, or in generall circular types. What i think is a good idea. But sometimes, you want this, and in this case, you must define the types that should be recursive with an and.
A simple example would be
type A = A of B
type B = B of A
and this will fail. Because when you define A, there is no B. So B must be defined before A. But you cannot define B before A because it depends on A.
So instead of using type you use and instead.
type A = A of B
and B = B of A
You cannot create a value of this type because it would be infinite, but it's only for understanding the problem. Next, your example is not the best, because.
and Stream<'a> = Lazy<StreamCell<'a>>
is only a Type Alias. Here you define Stream<'a> as an alias to Lazy<StreamCell<'a>>. But the compiler will usually not use Stream<'a>. This only helps if you would write the type manually in your function definitions. Your definition could also be.
type StreamCell<'a> =
| Nill
| Cons of 'a * Lazy<StreamCell<'a>>
In your example
let x = Lazy(1::2::Nill)
You use :: and this IS NOT the Cons you define with your stream. You will use the cons operator that is defined with F#, and that is the built-in list. This is the reason why you see Lazy<List<int>> as a type.
If you want to define your stream with two values you need to write.
let x = Cons(1,lazy Cons(2, lazy Nill))
As a general note i would rename Cons to Next or something else. To avoid confusion and create helper function to create Nill and Next values.
Addition
and can also be used to change the Order of definition, and make it more obvious, which types belong together.
type Person = {
Name: string
Sex: Sex
}
and Sex =
| Male
| Female
let person = { Name="David"; Sex=Male }
Example
Here is a full-blown example how i would do a Stream type on what you provided.
type Stream<'a> =
| Nill
| Next of 'a * Lazy<Stream<'a>>
let nill = Nill
let next h t = Next(h,t)
let rec unfold gen state =
match gen state with
| None -> Nill
| Some(x,state) -> next x (lazy unfold gen state)
let rec fold f acc xs =
match xs with
| Nill -> acc
| Next(h,t) -> fold f (f acc h) (t.Force())
let rec rev stream =
fold (fun acc x -> next x (lazy acc)) nill stream
let toList stream =
fold (fun acc x -> x::acc ) [] (rev stream)
let rec take x stream =
if x > 0 then
match stream with
| Nill -> Nill
| Next(h,t) -> next h (lazy take (x-1) (t.Force()))
else
Nill
let fromTo start stop =
unfold (fun acc -> if acc<stop then Some(acc,acc+1) else None) start
let x = next 1 (lazy next 2 (lazy next 3 (lazy nill)))
let y = next 1.0 (lazy next 2.0 (lazy next 3.0 (lazy nill)))
printfn "%A" (toList (take 2 x))
printfn "%A" (toList (take 2 y))
printfn "%A" (toList (take 2 (fromTo 1 100)))
printfn "%A" (toList (take 5 (fromTo 1 1_000_000_000)))
I have the following Discriminated Union (DU) declaration:
type Book =
| Dictionary of string[]
| Novel of int[]
| Comics of bool[]
An example:
let x = Dictionary [|"a"; "b"|]
How can I extract the length of the array inside without doing pattern matching and without caring about the data type of the array (in this case: string, int, bool). Note: I have no control over the DU declaration; as a result, I can't write new member method within Book, like getArrayLength()
Of course, we can do it in some way as followed:
match x with
| Dictionary (x: _[]) -> x |> Array.length
| Novel (x: _[]) -> x |> Array.length
| Comics (x: _[]) -> x |> Array.length
But typing x |> Array.length a lot is incovenient. This is a simple example, but we can think of a general problem:
type Animal =
| Dog of DogClass
| Cat of CatClass
| Cow of CowClass
...
... and DogClass, CatClass, etc. may share something. We want to get that shared thing. E.g. those classes inherit from AnimalClass, within which there is countLegs() method. Suppsed there are many animals, pattern matching for all of them while the code block after -> is almost the same. I love the principle DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself).
Is there any convenient way to tackle such problem?
==
EDITED 21.10.2019
I was also looking for some syntax like:
let numEles =
match x with
| _ (arr: _[]) -> x |> Array.Length
| _ -> failwith "No identifiers with fields as Array."
let numLegs =
match anAnimall with
| _ (animal: ?> Animal) -> animal.countLegs()
| _ -> failwith "Can't count legs because of not being an animal."
I think this still follows the spirit of matching, but seem like this approach is not supported.
Realistically, there's no getting around pattern matching here. DUs were, in a way, built for it. Since you don't control the type, you can always add a type extension:
type Book with
member this.Length =
match this with
| Dictionary d -> d.Length
| Novel n -> n.Length
| Comics c -> c.Length
let x = Dictionary [|"a"; "b"|]
printfn "%d" x.Length // Prints 2
Though it's also equally valid to define a Book module with a length function on it if you prefer that:
module Book =
let length b =
match b with
| Dictionary d -> d.Length
| Novel n -> n.Length
| Comics c -> c.Length
let x = Dictionary [|"a"; "b"|]
printfn "%d" (x |> Book.length) // prints 2
But you'll need to write a pattern match expression on the Book type at least once. The fact that every case is made up of data that all has the same property doesn't really help the fact that you need to still identify every case individually.
I have a discriminated union like this:
type A = |B | C of int*A
I have to pattern match like this (the parenthesis appear to be needed):
match x with
| B -> printfn "B"
| C (i,a) -> printfn "%A, %A" i a
Is there a way to instead match like this with something like an active pattern:
match x with
| B -> printfn "B"
| C i a -> printfn "%A, %A" i a
And if not how come F# is designed such that this matching with curried arguments doesn't work and it instead forces you to use a tuple?
Edit: This was inspired by the F# list in which you can use h::t without any tupling or anything like that. And the source code is like:
type List<'T> =
| ([]) : 'T list
| (::) : Head: 'T * Tail: 'T list -> 'T list
I think examining the definitions of a curried function and an active pattern will make this clear for you.
Curried function:
A function which takes multiple parameters but which allows you to pass them in one at a time in order to return a function which does the same thing but takes one fewer parameters. Example:
let add a b = a + b
//val add : a:int -> b:int -> int
let add5 = add 5
//val add5 : (int -> int)
Active Pattern:
A way of applying pattern matching where the matching can be done using parsing or other complex logic. Takes one parameter and returns the result of the parsing. So input -> single return parameter.
//Example taken from https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/convenience-active-patterns/
let (|Int|_|) str =
match System.Int32.TryParse(str) with
| (true,int) -> Some(int)
| _ -> None
val ( |Int|_| ) : str:string -> int option
Since the whole point of currying a function is to be able to partially apply the function, the concept simply makes no sense when applied to the result of an active pattern.
Put another way, the result of an active pattern can't be "curried" because you can only curry functions and the result of an active pattern is data which is not a function. In your example, 'C (i,a)' is defining the return type of the Active Pattern case, not a function call.
You cannot have whitespace as delimiter between bound patterns, because neither union cases nor active patterns support this. Syntax as per the F# spec:
6.9.8 Evaluating Union Case
Case(e1,…,en)
7.2.3 Active Patterns
(|CaseName|) arg1 ... argn inp
(|CaseName|_|) arg1 ... argn inp
So it's necessarily one tupled argument for a union case; and n+1 arguments for the banana function, of which n arguments are parameters. Only the last argument binds to the pattern. Consider:
type X = B | C
let (|C|) a b = C (a, b)
let i = 42
match C with
| B -> printfn "B"
| C i a -> printfn "%A, %A" i a // prints 42, (42, C)
The case C in your discriminated union has a value of a tuple type (int * A).
The (i,a) part of your pattern matching isn't a parameter, it's matching the i to the int part and the a to the A part.
You could equally match with C x and x would hold a tuple of (int * A).
I keep learning F# pattern matching with my simple function which should return square root if argument is number, argument otherwise. I've modified it a bit and it looks like as follows.
let my_sqrt (o: obj) =
match o with
| :? float as d -> (sqrt d).ToString()
| _ as x -> x.ToString()
It is working fine for my purpose, but what if I don't want to cast return value to string? How can I return "some object" and then use it in printfn "%A" (my_sqrt [| 1; 2; 3 |]) construction?
Even though your example is just a demonstration of what you're trying to do, it is worth pointing out that this is probably not a good design. In F#, you would not normally use functions that operate on objects using casts - a better way to represent this would be a discriminated union:
type MyInput =
| Numeric of float
| Other of obj
let my_sqrt = function
| Numeric d -> Numeric (sqrt d)
| Other o -> Other o
This function works on a type that is either Numeric or Other, but thanks to the DU, you do not need any casting. I think something along these lines would be a better approach to your actual problem too.
I think you want
let my_sqrt (o: obj) =
match o with
| :? float as d -> (sqrt d) :> obj
| _ as x -> x
just upcast to object
I think your function is ok. When you want to compute each square root, you have to map your function over array like this:
Array.map my_sqrt [| 1.0; 2.0; 3.0 |] |> printfn "%A"
As mentioned in TP answer, the general idea should be, wherever possible, to surface information to your type system.
It is then easier for you to read and reason your program, as you have named things.
That means F# can actually work for you and tell you when you made something wrong
That makes it always worth the investment.
I agree with Tomas that using a Discriminated Union would be better. There is no Either monad built into F# but you could use the Choice union to standardize the interface:
let my_sqrt (o : obj) =
match o with
| :? float as d -> Choice1Of2 (sqrt d)
| o -> Choice2Of2 o;;
Suppose I have the following code:
type Vehicle =
| Car of string * int
| Bike of string
let xs = [ Car("family", 8); Bike("racing"); Car("sports", 2); Bike("chopper") ]
I can filter above list using incomplete pattern matching in an imperative for loop like:
> for Car(kind, _) in xs do
> printfn "found %s" kind;;
found family
found sports
val it : unit = ()
but it will cause a:warning FS0025: Incomplete pattern matches on this expression. For example, the value 'Bike (_)' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s). Unmatched elements will be ignored.
As the ignoring of unmatched elements is my intention, is there a possibility to get rid of this warning?
And is there a way to make this work with list-comprehensions without causing a MatchFailureException? e.g. something like that:
> [for Car(_, seats) in xs -> seats] |> List.sum;;
val it : int = 10
Two years ago, your code was valid and it was the standard way to do it. Then, the language has been cleaned up and the design decision was to favour the explicit syntax. For this reason, I think it's not a good idea to ignore the warning.
The standard replacement for your code is:
for x in xs do
match x with
| Car(kind, _) -> printfn "found %s" kind
| _ -> ()
(you could also use high-order functions has in pad sample)
For the other one, List.sumBy would fit well:
xs |> List.sumBy (function Car(_, seats) -> seats | _ -> 0)
If you prefer to stick with comprehensions, this is the explicit syntax:
[for x in xs do
match x with
| Car(_, seats) -> yield seats
| _ -> ()
] |> List.sum
You can silence any warning via the #nowarn directive or --nowarn: compiler option (pass the warning number, here 25 as in FS0025).
But more generally, no, the best thing is to explicitly filter, as in the other answer (e.g. with choose).
To explicitly state that you want to ignore unmatched cases, you can use List.choose and return None for those unmatched elements. Your codes could be written in a more idomatic way as follows:
let _ = xs |> List.choose (function | Car(kind, _) -> Some kind
| _ -> None)
|> List.iter (printfn "found %s")
let sum = xs |> List.choose (function | Car(_, seats)-> Some seats
| _ -> None)
|> List.sum