trying to follow example in the expert f# book, and having an issue with the workflows...the code is as follows:
type Attempt<'a> = option<'a>
let succeed x = Some (x)
let fail = None
let bind p rest =
match p with
| None -> fail
| Some r -> rest r
let delay f = f()
type AttemptBuilder() =
member b.Return (x) = succeed x
member b.Bind (p, rest) = bind p rest
member b.Delay (f) = delay f
member b.Let (p, rest):Attempt<'a> = rest p //'
member b.ReturnFrom x = x
// using it:
let attempt = new AttemptBuilder()
let test foo =
attempt {
if not foo then return! fail else return foo
}
let check () =
attempt {
let! n1 = test true
let! n2 = test false
let! n3 = test true
let foo = n1,n2,n3
return foo
}
let foo = check ()
problem is , when all values are true, i get as expected, a Some(true, true, true), but if one of the values passed in is false, foo is null (!). Anyone ftw?
thanks!
This is just because None is actually represented as null at runtime (see the remarks on the Option<'T> page on MSDN). Also, note that you can add
member x.Zero() = fail
to your builder, and then you can write test as
let test x = attempt { if x then return foo }
which is a little cleaner to my eyes.
Related
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
}
I have issues with generation of data within my tests.
testProperty "calculate Operation against different operations should increase major" <| fun operationIdApi operationIdClient summaryApi summaryClient descriptionApi descriptionClient ->
( notAllEqual [
fun () -> assessEquality <| StringEquals(operationIdApi, operationIdClient)
fun () -> assessEquality <| StringEquals(summaryApi , summaryClient)
fun () -> assessEquality <| StringEquals(descriptionApi, descriptionClient)
]) ==> lazy (
let operationClient = createOpenApiOperation operationIdClient summaryClient descriptionClient
let operationAPI = createOpenApiOperation operationIdApi summaryApi descriptionApi
let actual = calculate operationAPI operationClient
Expect.equal actual (Fact.Semver.IncreaseMajor) "return IncreaseMajor"
)
The code that is actually tested is :
semver {
if operationAPI.OperationId<> operationClient.OperationId then yield! IncreaseMajor
if operationAPI.Summary <> operationClient.Summary then yield! IncreaseMajor
}
The test should fail when the data produced is same OperationId, same summary and different description.
But it does not and it led me to create my own generator or at least try to do so:
I wanted my test to be written like this :
testProperty "calculate Operation against different operations should increase major" <| fun (operationId:ElementSet<string>) (summary:ElementSet<string>) ->
Therefore I create a type accordingly:
type ElementSet<'a> =
| Same of 'a
| Different
and a generator for this type :
let setGen<'a> =
Gen.oneof [
gen {
let! v = Arb.generate<'a>
return Same(v)
}
gen { return Different}
]
type ElementSetGenerator =
static member ElementSet() =
Arb.fromGen setGen<'a>
do Arb.register<ElementSetGenerator>() |> ignore
I was then trying to extract the data to construct my object :
let createOpenApiOperation operationId summary=
let pi = OpenApiOperation(OperationId=operationId.Get, Summary=summary.Get)
pi
The Get method did not exist yet so I was about to implement it by adding a member to my ElementSet<'a>:
type ElementSet<'a> =
| Same of 'a
| Different
with member this.Get =
match this with
| Same s -> s
| Different -> Arb.generate<'a>// some random generation here
And this is where I am stuck. I would love to get some randomness here when I extract data. I wonder if this is the correct way to do so, or if I should have answered the problem earlier?
Thanks for your inputs.
I think I found it, the answer was to handle it at the beginning :
let setGen<'a when 'a:equality> =
Gen.oneof [
gen {
let! v = Arb.generate<'a>
return Same(v)
}
gen {
let! x,y =
Arb.generate<'a>
|> Gen.two
|> Gen.filter (fun (a,b)-> a <> b)
return Different(x,y)
}
]
and then to use two getter to access the values :
type ElementSet<'a> when 'a:equality=
| Same of 'a
| Different of 'a*'a
with member this.Fst = match this with | Same s -> s | Different (a, b)-> a
member this.Snd = match this with | Same s -> s | Different (a, b)-> b
this way I can access values within my test:
testProperty "calculate Operation against different operations should increase major" <| fun (operationId:ElementSet<NonWhiteSpaceString>) (summary:ElementSet<NonWhiteSpaceString>) (description:ElementSet<NonWhiteSpaceString>) ->
let operationClient = createOpenApiOperation operationId.Fst summary.Fst description.Fst
let operationAPI = createOpenApiOperation operationId.Snd summary.Snd description.Snd
let actual = calculate operationAPI operationClient
Expect.equal actual (Fact.Semver.IncreaseMajor) "return IncreaseMajor"
for the record I then have the creation of my stub as follows :
let createOpenApiOperation (operationId:NonWhiteSpaceString) (summary:NonWhiteSpaceString) (description:NonWhiteSpaceString)=
let pi = OpenApiOperation(OperationId=operationId.Get, Summary=summary.Get, Description=description.Get)
pi
I have a Computational Expression Builder which receives
a value during construction
type SomeBuilder<'e> (e: 'e) =
member this.Bind(x, fn) = ...
member this.Return x = ...
member this.ReturnFrom x = ...
let buildSome v = SomeBuilder(v)
buildSome 2 {
return 1
}
Now I'd like to access the value e from within the
Computational Expression via a custom operation so that
buildSome 2 {
return 1 + e()
}
So I really want to access properties/values in the underlying builder object and work with them
I imagine I would need something like
type SomeBuilder<'e> (e: 'e) =
member this.Bind(x, fn) = ...
member this.Return x = ...
member this.ReturnFrom x = ...
[<CustomOperation("e")>]
member this.E () = e
but that doesn't work.
So my question is
a) is something like this possible using CustomOperations and Computational Expressions
b) and if it is possible, how?
Disclaimer:
As usual in programming there is a million ways to achieve similar effects
in completely different ways. I am explicitly asking for this particular way
and I am OK if the answer is simply "No". But please refrain from answers that are non answers in the narrowest sense laid out here.
I'm not sure you'll like my answer and whether it's within your boundaries, but you could capture the builder instance using a trick like this:
type SomeBuilder<'e> (e: 'e) =
member this.Value = e
[<CustomOperation("extract", MaintainsVariableSpaceUsingBind = true, AllowIntoPattern = true)>]
member this.Extract (state) = this
member this.Bind(x, fn) = fn x
member this.Return x = x
member this.ReturnFrom x = x
let builder e = new SomeBuilder<_>(e)
let x = builder 1 {
extract into builder // now we've brought builder in the scope
printfn "here we can read the value = %d" builder.Value
return 0
}
To show that primary constructor arguments are in scope for the builder's instance methods:
type SomeBuilder<'e> (e: 'e) =
member __.Bind(x, fn) = fn x
member __.Return x = x
[<CustomOperation("e", MaintainsVariableSpaceUsingBind = true, AllowIntoPattern = true)>]
member __.E _ = e
SomeBuilder 2 {
e into i
return 1 + i }
// val it : int = 3
SomeBuilder "bar" {
e into s
return "foo" + s }
// val it : string = "foobar"
Consider the position of the custom operation inside the builder; it will ignore expressions that precede it.
Is it possible to pass a F# function by Reflection?
(*in module A*)
type Foo() =
static member bar n = {1..n}
let functionUsingFoobar (x:(int -> #('a seq)) n =
let z = BarFoo.ofSeq (x n)
z.count
(* in module B
here is where I want to pass Foo.bar by reflection*)
let y = functionUsingFoobar Foo.bar 1000
I cannot invoke the member without the args parameter, so partial function application through InvokeMember cannot work.
let foo = new Foo()
let z = foo.GetType().InvokeMember("bar", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, foo, [|1000|])
(*tried null, [||], [|null|] for args parameter*)
I'm out of ideas how to pass the function by reflection
The problem is that GetMethod returns a MethodInfo, but you need an F# function value. The easiest way to overcome this mismatch is probably to use CreateDelegate to create a .NET delegate from the method, and then treat the Invoke method as a function value of the correct type:
let d =
typeof<Foo>.GetMethod("bar").CreateDelegate(typeof<System.Func<int,seq<int>>>)
:?> System.Func<int,seq<int>>
functionUsingFooBar d.Invoke 1000
If this is what I think you want, it works just fine
type Foo() =
static member bar n = {1..n}
let functionUsingFoobar (x:(int -> #('a seq))) n =
(x n) |> Seq.length
let y = functionUsingFoobar Foo.bar 1000
let foo = new Foo()
let z = fun t -> foo.GetType().InvokeMember("bar", System.Reflection.BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, foo, [|t|])
How could nested pattern matching, such as the following example, be re-written so that None is specified only once? I think the Maybe monad solves this problem. Is there something similar in the F# core library? Or, is there an alternative approach?
match a with
| Some b ->
let c = b.SomeProperty
match c with
| Some d ->
let e = d.SomeProperty
//and so on...
| None -> ()
| None -> ()
you can solve this using built-in capabilities: Option.bind
type A =
member this.X : B option = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
and B =
member this.Y : С option = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
and С =
member this.Z : string option = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
let a : A = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
let v =
match
a.X
|> Option.bind (fun v -> v.Y)
|> Option.bind (fun v -> v.Z) with
| Some s -> s
| None -> "<none>"
Frankly, I doubt that introducing full-fledged 'maybe' implementation (via computation expressions) here can shorten the code.
EDIT: Dream mode - on
I think that version with Option.bind can be made smaller if F# has more lightweight syntax for the special case: lambda that refer to some member of its argument:
"123" |> fun s -> s.Length // current version
"123" |> #.Length // hypothetical syntax
This is how the sample can be rewritten in Nemerle that already has such capabilities:
using System;
using Nemerle.Utility; // for Accessor macro : generates property for given field
variant Option[T]
{
| Some {value : T}
| None
}
module OptionExtensions
{
public Bind[T, U](this o : Option[T], f : T -> Option[U]) : Option[U]
{
match(o)
{
| Option.Some(value) => f(value)
| Option.None => Option.None()
}
}
}
[Record] // Record macro: checks existing fields and creates constructor for its initialization
class A
{
[Accessor]
value : Option[A];
}
def print(_)
{
// shortened syntax for functions with body -> match over arguments
| Option.Some(_) => Console.WriteLine("value");
| Option.None => Console.WriteLine("none");
}
def x = A(Option.Some(A(Option.Some(A(Option.None())))));
print(x.Value.Bind(_.Value)); // "value"
print(x.Value.Bind(_.Value).Bind(_.Value)); // "none"
I like desco's answer; one should always favor built-in constructs. But FWIW, here's what a workflow version might look like (if I understand the problem correctly):
type CE () =
member this.Bind (v,f) =
match v with
| Some(x) -> f x
| None -> None
member this.Return v = v
type A (p:A option) =
member this.P
with get() = p
let f (aIn:A option) = CE () {
let! a = aIn
let! b = a.P
let! c = b.P
return c.P }
let x = f (Some(A(None)))
let y = f (Some(A(Some(A(Some(A(Some(A(None)))))))))
printfn "Your breakpoint here."
I don't suggest this, but you can also solve it with exception handling:
try
<code that just keeps dotting into option.Value with impunity>
with
| :? System.NullReferenceException -> "None"
I just wanted to point out the rough equivalence of exception-handling to the Maybe/Either monads or Option.bind. Typically prefer one of them to throwing and catching exceptions.
Using Option.maybe from FSharpx:
open FSharpx
type Pet = { Name: string; PreviousOwner: option<string> }
type Person = { Name: string; Pet: option<Pet> }
let pers = { Name = "Bob"; Pet = Some {Name = "Mr Burns"; PreviousOwner = Some "Susan"} }
Option.maybe {
let! pet = pers.Pet
let! prevOwner = pet.PreviousOwner
do printfn "%s was the previous owner of %s." prevOwner pet.Name
}
Output:
Susan was the previous owner of Mr Burns.
But, e.g. with this person instead there is just no output:
let pers = { Name = "Bob"; Pet = None }