I am using the Serde crate to deserialise a JSON file, which has a nested structure like this:
struct Nested {
a: Vec<Foo>,
b: u8,
}
struct Foo {
c: Bar,
d: Vec<f32>,
}
Struct Bar {
e: u32,
f: String,
}
Part of the applications purpose is to check for missing parameters (or incorrect types in parameters), and then display a nicely printed list of errors found in the file, so I need to handle the structure missing parameters or wrongly typed.
I came across this great post that helped solved my issue, by wrapping each parameter in an enum result that contains the value if it passed, the value if it failed, or a final enum if it was missing (since the nested structures might also be missing I wrapped them in the same enum):
pub enum TryParse<T> {
Parsed(T),
Unparsed(Value),
NotPresent
}
struct Nested {
a: TryParse<Vec<Foo>>,
b: TryParse<u8>,
}
struct Foo {
c: TryParse<Bar>,
d: TryParse<Vec<f32>>,
}
Struct Bar {
e: TryParse<u32>,
f: TryParse<String>,
}
However, I'm not sure how to access them now without unpacking every step into a match statement. For example, I can access B very easily:
match file.b {
Parsed(val) => {println!("Got parameter of {}", val)},
Unparsed(val) => {println!("Invalid type: {:?}", val)}
NotPresent => {println!("b not found")},
};
However, I'm not sure how to access the nested ones (C D E and F). I can't use Unwrap or expect since this isn't technically a 'Result', so how do I unpack these?:
if file.a.c.e.Parsed() && file.a.c.e == 32 {... //invalid
if file.a.d && file.a.d.len() == 6... //invalid
I know in a way this flies against rust's 'handle every outcome' philosophy, and I want to handle them, but I want to know if there is a nicer way than 400 nested match statements (the above example is very simplified, the files I am using have up to 6 nested layers, each parameter in the top node has at least 3 layers, some are vectors as well)…
Perhaps I need to implement a function similar to unwrap() on my 'TryParse'? or would it be better to wrap each parameter in a 'Result', extend that with the deserialise trait, and then somehow store the error in the Err option that says if it was a type error or missing parameter?
EDIT
I tried adding the following, some of which works and some of which does not:
impl <T> TryParse<T> {
pub fn is_ok(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::Parsed(_t) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_absent(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::NotPresent => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_invalid(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::Unparsed(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn get(self) -> Result<T, dyn Error> { //doesnt work
match self {
Self::Parsed(t) => Ok(t),
Self::Unparsed(e) => Err(e),
Self::NotPresent => Err("Invalid")
}
}
}
I can't believe it is this hard just to get the result, should I just avoid nested enums or get rid of the TryParse enums/ functions all together and wrap everything in a result, so the user simply knows if it worked or didn't work (but no explanation why it failed)
Implementing unwrap() is one possibility. Using Result is another, with a custom error type. You can deserialize directly into result with #[serde(deserialize_with = "...")], or using a newtype wrapper.
However, a not-enough-used power of pattern matching is nested patterns. For example, instead of if file.a.c.e.Parsed() && file.a.c.e == 32 you can write:
if let TryParse::Parsed(a) = &file.a {
// Unfortunately we cannot combine this `if let` with the surrounding `if let`,
// because `Vec` doesn't support pattern matching (currently).
if let TryParsed::Parsed(
[Foo {
c:
TryParse::Parsed(Bar {
e: TryParse::Parsed(32),
..
}),
..
}, ..],
) = a.as_slice()
{
// ...
}
}
May not be the most Rust-y way of doing it, but for those like me moving from another language like C/Python/C++, this is the way I have done it that still allows me to quickly validate if I have an error and use the match syntax to handle it. Thanks to #Chayim Friedman for assisting with this, his way is probably better but this made the most sense for me:
#[derive(Debug)]
pub enum TryParse<T> {
Parsed(T),
Unparsed(Value),
NotPresent
}
impl<'de, T: DeserializeOwned> Deserialize<'de> for TryParse<T> {
fn deserialize<D: Deserializer<'de>>(deserializer: D) -> Result<Self, D::Error> {
match Option::<Value>::deserialize(deserializer)? {
None => Ok(TryParse::NotPresent),
Some(value) => match T::deserialize(&value) {
Ok(t) => Ok(TryParse::Parsed(t)),
Err(_) => Ok(TryParse::Unparsed(value)),
},
}
}
}
impl <T> TryParse<T> {
//pub fn is_ok(self) -> bool { ---> Use get().is_ok(), built into result
// match self {
// Self::Parsed(_t) => true,
// _ => false,
// }
//}
pub fn is_absent(self) -> bool {
match self {
Self::NotPresent => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_invalid(self) -> bool {
match self {
Self::Unparsed(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn get(&self) -> Result<&T, String> {
match self {
Self::Parsed(t) => Ok(t),
Self::Unparsed(v) => Err(format!("Unable to Parse {:?}", v)),
Self::NotPresent => Err("Parameter not Present".to_string())
}
}
// pub fn get_direct(&self) -> &T {
// match self {
// Self::Parsed(t) => t,
// _ => panic!("Can't get this value!"),
// }
// }
}
match &nested.a.get().unwrap()[1].c.get.expect("Missing C Parameter").e{
Parsed(val) => {println!("Got value of E: {}", val)},
Unparsed(val) => {println!("Invalid Type: {:?}", val)}
NotPresent => {println!("Param E Not Found")},
};
//Note the use of '&' at the beginning because we need to borrow a reference to it
I know I need to change my mindset to use the rust way of thinking, and I am completely open to other suggestions if they can demonstrate some working code.
Related
I am working on some language bindings to Arrayfire using the arrayfire-rust crate.
Arrayfire has a typed struct Array<T> which represents a matrix. All acceptable types implement the HasAfEnum trait. This trait has a number of associated types, whose values are not the same for the types that implement this trait.
Since I need a reference to the array in a Rwlock for safe language interop, I have defined the following struct:
pub struct ExAfRef(pub RwLock<ExAfArray>);
impl ExAfRef {
pub fn new(slice: &[u8], dim: Dim4, dtype: ExAfDType) -> Self {
Self(RwLock::new(ExAfArray::new(slice, dim, dtype)))
}
pub fn value(&self) -> ExAfArray {
match self.0.try_read() {
Ok(refer) => (*refer),
Err(_) => unreachable!(),
}
}
}
which is contained by a struct:
pub struct ExAf {
pub resource: ResourceArc<ExAfRef>,
}
impl ExAf {
pub fn new(slice: &[u8], dim: Dim4, dtype: ExAfDType) -> Self {
Self {
resource: ResourceArc::new(ExAfRef::new(slice, dim, dtype)),
}
}
// This function is broken
pub fn af_value<T: HasAfEnum>(&self) -> &Array<T> {
self.resource.value().value()
}
}
With the help of the following enum:
pub enum ExAfArray {
U8(Array<u8>),
S32(Array<i32>),
S64(Array<i64>),
F32(Array<f32>),
F64(Array<f64>),
}
impl ExAfArray {
pub fn new(slice: &[u8], dim: Dim4, dtype: ExAfDType) -> Self {
let array = Array::new(slice, dim);
match dtype {
ExAfDType::U8 => ExAfArray::U8(array),
ExAfDType::S32 => ExAfArray::S32(array.cast::<i32>()),
ExAfDType::S64 => ExAfArray::S64(array.cast::<i64>()),
ExAfDType::F32 => ExAfArray::F32(array.cast::<f32>()),
ExAfDType::F64 => ExAfArray::F64(array.cast::<f64>()),
}
}
// This function is broken
pub fn value<T: HasAfEnum>(&self) -> &Array<T> {
// match self {
// ExAfArray::U8(array) => array,
// ExAfArray::S32(array) => array,
// ExAfArray::S64(array) => array,
// ExAfArray::F32(array) => array,
// ExAfArray::F64(array) => array,
// }
if let ExAfArray::U8(array) = self {
return array;
} else if let ExAfArray::S32(array) = self {
return array;
} else if let ExAfArray::S64(array) = self {
return array;
} else if let ExAfArray::F32(array) = self {
return array;
} else {
let ExAfArray::F64(array) = self;
return array;
}
}
pub fn get_type(&self) -> ExAfDType {
match self {
ExAfArray::U8(array) => ExAfDType::U8,
ExAfArray::S32(array) => ExAfDType::S32,
ExAfArray::S64(array) => ExAfDType::S64,
ExAfArray::F32(array) => ExAfDType::F32,
ExAfArray::F64(array) => ExAfDType::F64,
}
}
}
I have used an enum because generic structs are not supported in my language-interop "framework" and because the HasAfEnum trait has associated types (hence dynamic dispatch using dyn is not viable (at least to my knowledge)).
This has worked fine for initializing new arrays.
However when I need to apply some operation on an array, I need to be able to access the value stored by the enum variant. However I am unable to write a type signature for a function to access the value, as dynamic dispatch is not usable and generics are too boilerplate.
Since all variants are tuples, is there some way I can access the value of the tuple variant using a built-in enum feature?
EDIT:
I am using rustler
In short, no there is not a way to do what you seem to be trying to do in Rust presently.
Your functions are broken because you are trying to use generics orthogonally to how they work. When a generic function is called in Rust, the caller fills in the type parameters, not the callee. However, your enum in a sense "knows" what the concrete array type is, so only it can determine what that type parameter is supposed to be. If this mismatch is blocking your progress, this usually calls for a reconsideration of your code structure.
This also explains why there is no built-in enum method that does what you're trying to do. That method would run into the same issue as your value method. When you want to inspect the contents of an enum in Rust, you need to pattern match on it.
There is at least one way to try to accomplish your goal, but I would not really recommend it. One change that makes the code closer to being viable is by passing a closure into the function to make the modification, (the syntax below is not currently valid Rust but it gets the idea across):
pub fn modify<'a, F>(&'a self, op: F)
where
F: for<T: HasAfEnum> FnOnce(&'a Array<T>)
{
// This looks repetitive, but the idea is that in each branch
// the type parameter T takes on the appropriate type for the variant
match self {
ExAfArray::U8(array) => op(array),
ExAfArray::S32(array) => op(array),
ExAfArray::S64(array) => op(array),
ExAfArray::F32(array) => op(array),
ExAfArray::F64(array) => op(array),
}
}
Unfortunately the for<T> FnTrait(T) syntax does not exist yet and I'm not even sure if there's a proposal for it to be added. This can be worked around through a macro:
pub(crate) fn call_unary<F, T, U>(arg: T, f: F) -> U
where F: FnOnce(T) -> U {
f(arg)
}
macro_rules! modify {
($ex_af_array:expr, $op:expr) => {
match &$ex_af_array {
ExAfArray::U8(array) => call_unary(array, $op),
ExAfArray::S32(array) => call_unary(array, $op),
ExAfArray::S64(array) => call_unary(array, $op),
ExAfArray::F32(array) => call_unary(array, $op),
ExAfArray::F64(array) => call_unary(array, $op),
}
};
}
The call_unary helper is needed to ensure type inference works properly. ($op)(array) will fail to compile when the types of the arguments to $op need to be inferred.
Now this solution mostly covers the functionality that for<T> FnTrait(T) would provide, but it's not very clean code (especially after the macro body is sanitized), and the compiler errors will be poor if the macro is misused.
tl;dr Is it possible to extend std::result::Result to add my own variant that signals "things are Okay but also..." and keep impl Result methods like is_ok()?
I want to extend Result to signal additional states that a function caller can use for special cases.
use std::result::Result
use std::io::Error;
/// Extend Result to also signal "things are okay but check on things"
enum ResultExt<T, E> {
Result<T, E>,
OkButCheckThings(T),
}
pub fn do_stuff() -> ResultExt<u64, Error> {
// ...
}
pub fn main() -> {
let var = match do_stuff() {
Ok(val) => { val },
Err(err) => { 0 },
OkButCheckThings(val) => { check_things(); val },
}
dbg!(var);
}
It's possible to plainly extend an Enum. But I would also like to use the underlying Result<T, E> functions like is_ok.
let var2 = do_stuff();
if var2.is_ok() {
println!("It is totally Ok, nothing to check!");
}
I created a rust playground example that successfully extends Result<T, E> but the extended enum cannot use functions like is_ok().
The real-world use-case is a function that calls std::io::Read may need to "modify" the returned Result to signal additional states beyond Ok and Err. But I want these various "meta states" to be captured by one enum, as opposed to returning various other bool flags (I want to avoid return signature with (Result<T>, bool, bool). This would allow one clean match statement of all possible states; Ok, Err, "Okay but...", "Err but ...", etc..
There is no current way of "extending" and enum perse.
But it could be simply solved by embedding your own enum type into the result itself.
Simple example, similar to yours:
use std::fmt::Display;
enum StuffToCheck<T> {
Ok(T),
CheckThis(T),
}
impl<T> StuffToCheck<T>
where
T: Display + Copy,
{
pub fn check_things(&self) -> T {
match self {
Self::Ok(val) => {
*val
}
Self::CheckThis(val) => {
println!("Checking stuff for {}", val);
*val
}
}
}
}
fn do_stuff() -> ResultExt<u64> {
Ok(StuffToCheck::CheckThis(10))
}
type ResultExt<T> = Result<StuffToCheck<T>, std::io::Error>;
fn main() {
let var = match do_stuff() {
Ok(result) => result.check_things(),
Err(_err) => 0,
};
dbg!(var);
}
Playground
You could even use nested pattern matching:
...
match do_stuff() {
Err(e) => {//handle error}
Ok(StuffToCheck::Ok(value)) => { value },
Ok(StuffToCheck::CheckThis(value)) => {
check_things(value);
value
}
}
...
I think this is an instance of the X-Y problem. You can use the built-in result, you just need a different error type, that returns an option: Some(partial_result) or None.
For example you have function parse, that can attempt to adjust for a malformed input, but report the error.
pub fn parse(b: &str) -> Result<&str, CustomParseError> {
// Do something that might fail,
if failed(){
return CustomParseError::new(None)
} else if partially_failed() {
return CustomParseError::new(Some(partial_result))
} else {
return completeResult
}
}
This way you have a clean code path where nothing failed, and all of your assumptions are correct, and if it's not => instead of unwrapping, you match and check which case you have. This is vastly superior, because the error often contains enough information for you to reconstruct both what went wrong, and what could be done to fix it.
Introduction
I'm learning rust and have been trying to find the right signature for using multiple Results in a single function and then returning either correct value, or exit the program with a message.
So far I have 2 different methods and I'm trying to combine them.
Context
This is what I'm trying to achieve:
fn blur(image: DynamicImage, amount: &str) -> DynamicImage {
let amount = parse_between_or_error_out("blur", amount, 0.0, 10.0);
image.brighten(amount)
}
This is what I have working now, but would like to refactor.
fn blur(image: DynamicImage, amount: &str) -> DynamicImage {
match parse::<f32>(amount) {
Ok(amount) => {
verify_that_value_is_between("blur", amount, 0.0, 10.0);
image.blur(amount)
}
_ => {
println!("Error");
process::exit(1)
}
}
}
Combining these methods
Now here's the two working methods that I'm trying to combine, to achieve this.
fn parse<T: FromStr>(value: &str) -> Result<T, <T as FromStr>::Err> {
value.parse::<T>()
}
fn verify_that_value_is_between<T: PartialOrd + std::fmt::Display>(
name: &str,
amount: T,
minimum: T,
maximum: T,
) {
if amount > maximum || amount < minimum {
println!(
"Error: Expected {} amount to be between {} and {}",
name, minimum, maximum
);
process::exit(1)
};
println!("- Using {} of {:.1}/{}", name, amount, maximum);
}
Here's what I tried
I have tried the following. I realise I'm likely doing a range of things wrong. This is because I'm still learning Rust, and I'd like any feedback that helps me learn how to improve.
fn parse_between_or_error_out<T: PartialOrd + FromStr + std::fmt::Display>(
name: &str,
amount: &str,
minimum: T,
maximum: T,
) -> Result<T, <T as FromStr>::Err> {
fn error_and_exit() {
println!(
"Error: Expected {} amount to be between {} and {}",
name, minimum, maximum
);
process::exit(1);
}
match amount.parse::<T>() {
Ok(amount) => {
if amount > maximum || amount < minimum {
error_and_exit();
};
println!("- Using {} of {:.1}/{}", name, amount, maximum);
amount
}
_ => {
error_and_exit();
}
}
}
Currently this looks quite messy, probably I'm using too many or the wrong types and the error needs to be in two places (hence the inlined function, which I know is not good practice).
Full reproducible example.
The question
How to best combine logic that is using a Result and another condition (or Result), exit with a message or give T as a result?
Comments on any of the mistakes are making are very welcome too.
You can use a crate such as anyhow to bubble your events up and handle them as needed.
Alternatively, you can write your own trait and implement it on Result.
trait PrintAndExit<T> {
fn or_print_and_exit(&self) -> T;
}
Then use it by calling the method on any type that implements it:
fn try_get_value() -> Result<bool, MyError> {
MyError { msg: "Something went wrong".to_string() }
}
let some_result: Result<bool, MyError> = try_get_value();
let value: bool = some_result.or_print_and_exit();
// Exits with message: "Error: Something went wrong"
Implementing this trait on Result could be done with:
struct MyError {
msg: String,
}
impl<T> PrintAndExit<T> for Result<T, MyError> {
fn or_print_and_exit(&self) -> T {
match self {
Ok(val) => val,
Err(e) => {
println!("Error: {}", e.msg);
std::process::exit(1);
},
}
}
}
Here are a few DRY tricks.
tl;dr:
Convert other Errors into your unified error type(s) with impl From<ExxError> for MyError;
In any function that may result in an Error, use ? as much as you can. Return Result<???, MyError> (*). ? will utilize the implicit conversion.
(*) Only if MyError is an appropriate type for the function. Always create or use the most appropriate error types. (Kinda obvious, but people often treat error types as a second-class code, pun intended)
Recommendations are in the comments.
use std::error::Error;
use std::str::FromStr;
// Debug and Display are required by "impl Error" below.
#[derive(Debug)]
enum ProcessingError {
NumberFormat{ message: String },
NumberRange{ message: String },
ProcessingError{ message: String },
}
// Display will be used when the error is printed.
// No need to litter the business logic with error
// formatting code.
impl Display for ProcessingError {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
match self {
ProcessingError::NumberFormat { message } =>
write!(f, "Number format error: {}", message),
ProcessingError::NumberRange { message } =>
write!(f, "Number range error: {}", message),
ProcessingError::ProcessingError { message } =>
write!(f, "Image processing error: {}", message),
}
}
}
impl Error for ProcessingError {}
// FromStr::Err will be implicitly converted into ProcessingError,
// when ProcessingError is needed. I guess this is what
// anyhow::Error does under the hood.
// Implement From<X> for ProcessingError for every X error type
// that your functions like process_image() may encounter.
impl From<FromStr::Err> for ProcessingError {
fn from(e: FromStr::Err) -> ProcessingError {
ProcessingError::NumberFormat { message: format!("{}", e) }
}
}
pub fn try_parse<T: FromStr>(value: &str) -> Result<T, ProcessingError> {
// Note ?. It will implicitly return
// Err(ProcessingError created from FromStr::Err)
Ok (
value.parse::<T>()?
)
}
// Now, we can have each function only report/handle errors that
// are relevant to it. ? magically eliminates meaningless code like
// match x { ..., Err(e) => Err(e) }.
pub fn parse_between<T>(value: &str, min_amount: T, max_amount: T)
-> Result<T, ProcessingError>
where
T: FromStr + PartialOrd + std::fmt::Display,
{
let amount = try_parse::<T>(value)?;
if amount > max_amount || amount < min_amount {
Err(ProcessingError::NumberRange {
message: format!(
"Expected value to be between {} and {} but received {}",
min_amount,
max_amount,
amount)
})
} else {
Ok(amount)
}
}
main.rs
use image::{DynamicImage};
use std::fmt::{Debug, Formatter, Display};
fn blur(image: DynamicImage, value: &str)
-> Result<DynamicImage, ProcessingError>
{
let min_amount = 0.0;
let max_amount = 10.0;
// Again, note ? in the end.
let amount = parse_between(value, min_amount, max_amount)?;
image.blur(amount)
}
// All processing extracted into a function, whose Error
// then can be handled by main().
fn process_image(image: DynamicImage, value: &str)
-> Result<DynamicImage, ProcessingError>
{
println!("applying blur {:.1}/{:.1}...", amount, max_amount);
image = blur(image, value);
// save image ...
image
}
fn main() {
let mut image = DynamicImage::new(...);
image = match process_image(image, "1") {
Ok(image) => image,
// No need to reuse print-and-exit functionality. I doubt
// you want to reuse it a lot.
// If you do, and then change your mind, you will have to
// root it out of all corners of your code. Better return a
// Result and let the caller decide what to do with errors.
// Here's a single point to process errors and exit() or do
// something else.
Err(e) => {
println!("Error processing image: {:?}", e);
std::process::exit(1);
}
}
}
Sharing my results
I'll share my results/answer as well for other people who are new to Rust. This answer is based on that of #Acidic9's answer.
The types seem to be fine
anyhow looks to be the de facto standard in Rust.
I should have used a trait and implement that trait for the Error type.
I believe the below example is close to what it might look like in the wild.
// main.rs
use image::{DynamicImage};
use app::{parse_between, PrintAndExit};
fn main() {
// mut image = ...
image = blur(image, "1")
// save image
}
fn blur(image: DynamicImage, value: &str) -> DynamicImage {
let min_amount = 0.0;
let max_amount = 10.0;
match parse_between(value, min_amount, max_amount).context("Input error") {
Ok(amount) => {
println!("applying blur {:.1}/{:.1}...", amount, max_amount);
image.blur(amount)
}
Err(error) => error.print_and_exit(),
}
}
And the implementation inside the apps library, using anyhow.
// lib.rs
use anyhow::{anyhow, Error, Result};
use std::str::FromStr;
pub trait Exit {
fn print_and_exit(self) -> !;
}
impl Exit for Error {
fn print_and_exit(self) -> ! {
eprintln!("{:#}", self);
std::process::exit(1);
}
}
pub fn try_parse<T: FromStr>(value: &str) -> Result<T, Error> {
match value.parse::<T>() {
Ok(value) => Ok(value),
Err(_) => Err(anyhow!("\"{}\" is not a valid value.", value)),
}
}
pub fn parse_between<T>(value: &str, min_amount: T, max_amount: T) -> Result<T, Error>
where
T: FromStr + PartialOrd + std::fmt::Display,
{
match try_parse::<T>(value) {
Ok(amount) => {
if amount > max_amount || amount < min_amount {
return Err(anyhow!(
"Expected value to be between {} and {} but received {}",
min_amount,
max_amount,
amount
));
};
Ok(amount)
}
Err(error) => Err(error),
}
}
Hopefully seeing this full implementation will help someone out there.
Source code.
I'm new to rust.
I'm trying to follow the example for implementing the from_str trait here
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/str/trait.FromStr.html
But I keep getting this error pointing at 'return Err(Self::Err)'
variant or associated item not found in `black_jack_tools::PlayerDifficulty`
I have an idea of why, Self::Err isn't defined in my enum But I don't get why rust cares in this scenario since I'm returning an Err of my Err object which is inline with the Result<Self,Self::Err> type.
Here's my FromStr is below here's a link to the rust playground with an MRE
impl FromStr for PlayerDifficulty {
type Err = ParseError;
fn from_str(s:&str) -> Result<Self,Self::Err>{
let result = match s {
"Player" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Player),
"Dealer" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Dealer),
"Normal" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Normal),
"Perfect"=> Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Perfect),
"Micky" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Micky),
"Elliot" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Elliot),
"Cultist"=> Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Cultist),
_ => return Err(Self::Err)
};
}
}
What Am I doing wrong?
Is there a better way to do this?
There are three issues with your code. The first is that you need to use <Self as FromStr>::Err if you want to refer to the Err type in your FromStr implementation:
impl FromStr for PlayerDifficulty {
type Err = ParseError;
fn from_str(s:&str) -> Result<Self,Self::Err>{
let result = match s {
"Player" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Player),
/* ... */
_ => return Err(<Self as FromStr>::Err)
};
}
}
Self::Err tries to look for an Err variant in the PlayerDifficulty enum but there is no such variant.
The second issue is that std::string::ParseError is in fact an alias for std::convert::Infallible, which is an error that can never happen and cannot be instantiated. Since your conversion may fail, you need to use an error that can be instantiated or define your own:
struct UnknownDifficultyError;
impl FromStr for PlayerDifficulty {
type Err = UnknownDifficultyError;
fn from_str(s:&str) -> Result<Self,Self::Err>{
let result = match s {
"Player" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Player),
/* ... */
_ => return Err(UnknownDifficultyError),
};
}
}
Finally, you need to return the result even when conversion succeeds, by removing the let result = and the semicolon:
struct UnknownDifficultyError;
impl FromStr for PlayerDifficulty {
type Err = UnknownDifficultyError;
fn from_str(s:&str) -> Result<Self,Self::Err>{
match s {
"Player" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Player),
/* ... */
_ => return Err(UnknownDifficultyError),
}
}
}
Playground
The function will return it last statement. Remove the last semicolon, and you could also remove the internal return statement, the result of the match statement will be returned.
Is there a better way? It looks like you are parsing a string to a enum, the create enum-utils does that. Instead of implementing the parser with boilerplate code you just derive it.
#[derive(Debug, PartialEq, enum_utils::FromStr)]
enum PlayerDifficulty {
Player,
Dealer,
Cultist,
Normal,
}
fn main() {
let _x:PlayerDifficulty= "Player".parse().unwrap();
}
And in your cargo.toml
[dependencies]
enum-utils = "0.1.2"
You should define a custom error
#[derive(Debug)]
struct PlayerError;
impl std::fmt::Display for PlayerError {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
write!(f, "Could not parse player")
}
}
impl std::error::Error for PlayerError{}
Then change the match always return the Result in the same path
use std::str::FromStr;
impl FromStr for PlayerDifficulty {
type Err = PlayerError;
fn from_str(s:&str) -> Result<Self,Self::Err>{
match s {
"Player" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Player),
"Dealer" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Dealer),
"Normal" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Normal),
"Perfect"=> Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Perfect),
"Micky" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Micky),
"Elliot" => Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Elliot),
"Cultist"=> Ok(PlayerDifficulty::Cultist),
_ => Err(PlayerError)
}
}
}
And use it with ? to propagate error.
fn main() -> (Result<(),Box<dyn std::error::Error>>) {
let _x = PlayerDifficulty::from_str("Player")?;
let _x = PlayerDifficulty::from_str("PlayerPlayer")?;
Ok(())
}
I'd like to check enums with fields in tests while ignoring the actual value of the fields for now.
Consider the following example:
enum MyEnum {
WithoutFields,
WithFields { field: String },
}
fn return_with_fields() -> MyEnum {
MyEnum::WithFields {
field: "some string".into(),
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn example() {
assert_eq!(return_with_fields(), MyEnum::WithFields {..});
}
}
playground
I'd like to use assert_eq! here, but the compiler tells me:
error: expected expression, found `}`
--> src/lib.rs:18:64
|
18 | assert_eq!(return_with_fields(), MyEnum::WithFields {..});
| ^ expected expression
This is similar to Why do I get an error when pattern matching a struct-like enum variant with fields?, but the solution does not apply in my case.
Of course, I can use match and do it myself, but being able to use assert_eq! would be less work.
Rust 1.42
You can use std::matches:
assert!(matches!(return_with_fields(), MyEnum::WithFields { .. }));
Previous versions
Your original code can be made to work with a new macro:
macro_rules! is_enum_variant {
($v:expr, $p:pat) => (
if let $p = $v { true } else { false }
);
}
#[test]
fn example() {
assert!(is_enum_variant!(return_with_fields(), MyEnum::WithoutFields {..}));
}
Personally, I tend to add methods to my enums:
fn is_with_fields(&self) -> bool {
match self {
MyEnum::WithFields { .. } => true,
_ => false,
}
}
I also tend to avoid struct-like enums and instead put in extra work:
enum MyEnum {
WithoutFields,
WithFields(WithFields),
}
struct WithFields { field: String }
impl MyEnum {
fn is_with_fields(&self) -> bool {
match self {
MyEnum::WithFields(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
fn as_with_fields(&self) -> Option<&WithFields> {
match self {
MyEnum::WithFields(x) => Some(x),
_ => None,
}
}
fn into_with_fields(self) -> Option<WithFields> {
match self {
MyEnum::WithFields(x) => Some(x),
_ => None,
}
}
}
I hope that some day, enum variants can be made into their own type to avoid this extra struct.
If you are using Rust 1.42 and later, see Shepmaster's answer below.
A simple solution here would be to do the opposite assertion:
assert!(return_with_fields() != MyEnum::WithoutFields);
or even more simply:
assert_ne!(return_with_fields(), MyEnum::WithoutFields);
Of course if you have more members in your enum, you'll have to add more asserts to cover all possible cases.
Alternatively, and this what OP probably had in mind, since assert! just panics in case of failure, the test can use pattern matching and call panic! directly in case something is wrong:
match return_with_fields() {
MyEnum::WithFields {..} => {},
MyEnum::WithoutFields => panic!("expected WithFields, got WithoutFields"),
}
I'd use a macro like #Shepmaster proposed, but with more error reporting (like the existing assert! and assert_eq! macros:
macro_rules! assert_variant {
($value:expr, $pattern:pat) => ({
let value = &$value;
if let $pattern = value {} else {
panic!(r#"assertion failed (value doesn't match pattern):
value: `{:?}`,
pattern: `{}`"#, value, stringify!($pattern))
}
})
// TODO: Additional patterns for trailing args, like assert and assert_eq
}
Rust playground demonstrating this example