I have a complex nested data structure that I would like to convert to JSON in different ways depending on some provided context. My use case is that my server contains the full state of the world state, but depending on which client is asking for it I want to provide a redacted copy. Ideally I'd like to write something like:
instance ToJSON MyNestedType where
toJSON x = do
currentUser <- ask
return $ if owner x == currentUser then (defaultToJson x) else (toJSON "REDACTED")
encodeWithReader (UserId 123) myDataStructure
Looking at the type of toJSON :: a -> Value this doesn't appear to be possible with plain Aeson. What would be a good option for doing this? A couple of options I was thinking about:
Implementing my own typeclass ToJSONReader, and having a default implementation that simply passes through to ToJSON and overriding for the types that need redacting. Something like (this doesn't compile, just pseudocode. I don't actually know how to make this work.):
class ToJSONReader a where
toJSONReader :: a -> Reader b Value
instance ToJSON a => ToJSONReader a where
toJSONReader x = return $ toJSON x
instance ToJSONReader MyNestedType where
toJSONReader x = do
currentUser <- ask
return $ if owner x == currentUser then (toJSON x) else (toJSON "REDACTED")
Rather than use encode directly, use toJSON to get the intermediate Value then write code to redact that (kind of gross).
Extend my type to include tags for redaction, then pre-process a copy of the type before converting to JSON.
Create a new complex parent type RedactedMyType and duplicate the structure of the original type, but subbing in redacted options in the ADT as needed. Pretty gross also.
Does anyone have any recommendations?
Related
Given the following persistent type:
share
[mkPersist sqlSettings, mkMigrate "migrateAll"]
[persistLowerCase|
Account
email Text
passphrase Text
firstName Text
lastName Text
deriving Eq Show Generic
|]
What I think is a kind of lens is generated, ie AccountEmail, AccountPassphrase etc etc. Is it possible to combine these in such a way, not necessarily composition but say string concatenation, I often find myself writing these kinds of functions:
accountFullName :: SqlExpr (Entity Account) -> SqlExpr Text
accountFullName acc = acc ^. AccountFirstName ++. val " " ++. acc ^. AccountLastName
It would be good if I could define this in a similar way to Account* so I can call them using ^. rather than using raw functions, ie acc ^. AccountFullName. This may not be an appropriate way of using these accessors, but if it isn't I would be interested to know why as I feel it may help further my understanding of this part of the Persistent library, as I feel fairly lost when I look at the code around EntityField...
This isn't really possible.
(^.) :: (PersistEntity val, PersistField typ)
=> expr (Entity val)
-> EntityField val typ
-> expr (Value typ)
You'll see that the second argument is EntityField val typ, which is a type family defined in the PersistEntity val class. This is pre-defined for your table, and can't be changed, so this particular operator can't be used for custom accessors the way you want.
When you use persistLowerCase and friends, it uses Template Haskell to parse your definition and generate appropriate data definitions. As I understand it, something similar to the following is generated:
data Account = Account
{ accountEmail :: Text
, accountPassphrase :: Text
, accountFirstName :: Text
, accountLastName :: Text
}
data AccountField a where
AccountId :: AccountField Key
AccountEmail :: AccountField Text
AccountPassphrase :: AccountField Text
AccountFirstName :: AccountField Text
AccountLastName :: AccountField Text
instance PersistEntity Account where
data EntityField Account a = AccountField a
...
(This isn't syntactically accurate and is missing a lot of detail, but it provides enough context for this situation I think.)
So the "lens" you pass to (^.) is actually just a constructor for a type associated with your table type Account. You can't create new constructors or re-associate the type family dynamically, so you can't make something else that can be passed to (^.). These accessors are effectively set in stone.
I think it makes the most sense to just go with the raw function. accountFullName acc isn't bad to write, and it makes it clear that you're doing something a little more complex than just pulling a field value.
Hello i am new to Haskell and i was wondering :
For every new defined type constructor even if it is something with 0 depth eg.:
data Letter =A | B | C deriving (Show)
do i have to provide
instance Show Type
Letter A = "A"
Letter B ="B"
Letter C ="C"
I understand that for nested types you have to provide Show implementation but for something simple is there no other way to just use something equivalent to reflection (C#) ? Just get the property name / constructor name and ToString-it ?
Do haskell programmers provide instances for Show for any adhoc type they create?
By nested types i mean having a simple ADT inside another ADT inside another etc..but all you want is to get their names:
e.g:
data Person = Male | Female
data IsMarried=Yes | No
data Worker=Worker{
person::Person,
status::IsMarried
}
For this kind of nesting do i really have to define instance of Show for all these type constructors even though all i want is their name be "stringified"?
Do I have to provide [a show instance for every type?]
No, because you have automatically derived Show:
data Letter = A | B | C deriving (Show)
-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here
However, if you want a 'smarter' show, such as displaying a custom list as [1,2,3] rather than a mess of constructors, you're going to have to write it yourself.
You can do the same for a number of classes (Including Eq,Ord,Read,Enum, and Bounded) but most classes, including user-defined classes, must be implemented manually without the use of certain language extensions.
I understand that for nested types you have to provide Show implementation[...]
You do not! For instance, I can write this:
data Maybe a = Just a | Nothing deriving (Show)
And the compiler will automatically add the necessary constraints, despite it being a 'nested' type.
Just get the property name / constructor name and ToString-it ?
There are no 'properties' in Haskell - don't think in terms of C# here. show is the equivalent of ToString. However, a form of type reflection is available in TypeReps, though I would advise not using this until you have a solid grasp on Haskell.
Since #AJFarmar edit back his answer when i change it:
Do I have to provide [a show instance for every type?]
Yes. Either by deriving it with deriving Show, or by supplying a type instance
instance Show -type- where...
I understand that for nested types you have to provide Show implementation[...]
Yes you do, the compiler will not add any necessary instances for Show.
data Test = Test -- no instance for Show
test :: String
test = show $ (Just Test :: Maybe Test)
Will not compile with the error message:
main.hs:4:8: error:
• No instance for (Show Test) arising from a use of ‘show’
• In the expression: show $ (Just Test :: Maybe Test)
In an equation for ‘test’: test = show $ (Just Test :: Maybe Test)
Which is why you need to have a Show instance for a aswell. If one already exists, you do not have to supply a new one, however.
I'm looking for a way to reference an element of a vector using lens library...
Let me try to explain what I'm trying to achieve using a simplified example of my code.
I'm working in this monad transformer stack (where StateT is the focus, everything else is not important)
newtype MyType a = MyType (StateT MyState (ExceptT String IO) a)
MyState has a lot of fields but one of those is a vector of clients which is a data type I defined:
data MyState = MyState { ...
, _clients :: V.Vector ClientT
}
Whenever I need to access one of my clients I tend to do it like this:
import Control.Lens (use)
c <- use clients
let neededClient = c V.! someIndex
... -- calculate something, update client if needed
clients %= (V.// [(someIndex, updatedClient)])
Now, here is what I'm looking for: I would like my function to receive a "reference" to the client I'm interested in and use it (retrieve it from State, update it if needed).
In order to clear up what I mean here is a snippet (that won't compile even in pseudo code):
...
myFunction (clients.ix 0)
...
myFunction clientLens = do
c <- use clientLens -- I would like to access a client in the vector
... -- calculate stuff
clientLens .= updatedClient
Basically, I would like to pass to myFunction something from Lens library (I don't know what I'm passing here... Lens? Traversal? Getting? some other thingy?) which will allow me to point at particular element in the vector which is kept in my StateT. Is it at all possible? Currently, when using "clients.ix 0" I get an error that my ClientT is not an instance of Monoid.
It is a very dumbed down version of what I have. In order to answer the question "why I need it this way" requires a lot more explanation. I'm interested if it is possible to pass this "reference" which will point to some element in my vector which is kept in State.
clients.ix 0 is a traversal. In particular, traversals are setters, so setting and modifying should work fine:
clients.ix 0 .= updatedClient
Your problem is with use. Because a traversal doesn't necessarily contain exactly one value, when you use a traversal (or use some other getter function on it), it combines all the values assuming they are of a Monoid type.
In particular,
use (clients.ix n)
would want to return mempty if n is out of bounds.
Instead, you can use the preuse function, which discards all but the first target of a traversal (or more generally, a fold), and wraps it in a Maybe. E.g.
Just c <- preuse (clients.ix n)
Note this will give a pattern match error if n is out of bounds, since preuse returns Nothing then.
I have a record type say
data Rec {
recNumber :: Int
, recName :: String
-- more fields of various types
}
And I want to write a toString function for Rec :
recToString :: Rec -> String
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ map ($ r) fields
where fields = [show . recNumber, show . recName]
This works. fields has type [Rec -> String]. But I'm lazy and I would prefer writing
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ map (\f -> show $ f r) fields
where fields = [recNumber, recName]
But this doesn't work. Intuitively I would say fields has type Show a => [Rec -> a] and this should be ok. But Haskell doesn't allow it.
I'd like to understand what is going on here. Would I be right if I said that in the first case I get a list of functions such that the 2 instances of show are actually not the same function, but Haskell is able to determine which is which at compile time (which is why it's ok).
[show . recNumber, show . recName]
^-- This is show in instance Show Number
^-- This is show in instance Show String
Whereas in the second case, I only have one literal use of show in the code, and that would have to refer to multiple instances, not determined at compile time ?
map (\f -> show $ f r) fields
^-- Must be both instances at the same time
Can someone help me understand this ? And also are there workarounds or type system expansions that allow this ?
The type signature doesn't say what you think it says.
This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Consider the function
foo :: Show a => Rec -> a
People frequently seem to think this means that "foo can return any type that it wants to, so long as that type supports Show". It doesn't.
What it actually means is that foo must be able to return any possible type, because the caller gets to choose what the return type should be.
A few moments' thought will reveal that foo actually cannot exist. There is no way to turn a Rec into any possible type that can ever exist. It can't be done.
People often try to do something like Show a => [a] to mean "a list of mixed types but they all have Show". That obviously doesn't work; this type actually means that the list elements can be any type, but they still have to be all the same.
What you're trying to do seems reasonable enough. Unfortunately, I think your first example is about as close as you can get. You could try using tuples and lenses to get around this. You could try using Template Haskell instead. But unless you've got a hell of a lot of fields, it's probably not even worth the effort.
The type you actually want is not:
Show a => [Rec -> a]
Any type declaration with unbound type variables has an implicit forall. The above is equivalent to:
forall a. Show a => [Rec -> a]
This isn't what you wan't, because the a must be specialized to a single type for the entire list. (By the caller, to any one type they choose, as MathematicalOrchid points out.) Because you want the a of each element in the list to be able to be instantiated differently... what you are actually seeking is an existential type.
[exists a. Show a => Rec -> a]
You are wishing for a form of subtyping that Haskell does not support very well. The above syntax is not supported at all by GHC. You can use newtypes to sort of accomplish this:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
newtype Showy = forall a. Show a => Showy a
fields :: [Rec -> Showy]
fields = [Showy . recNumber, Showy . recName]
But unfortunatley, that is just as tedious as converting directly to strings, isn't it?
I don't believe that lens is capable of getting around this particular weakness of the Haskell type system:
recToString :: Rec -> String
recToString r = intercalate "\t" $ toListOf (each . to fieldShown) fields
where fields = (recNumber, recName)
fieldShown f = show (f r)
-- error: Couldn't match type Int with [Char]
Suppose the fields do have the same type:
fields = [recNumber, recNumber]
Then it works, and Haskell figures out which show function instance to use at compile time; it doesn't have to look it up dynamically.
If you manually write out show each time, as in your original example, then Haskell can determine the correct instance for each call to show at compile time.
As for existentials... it depends on implementation, but presumably, the compiler cannot determine which instance to use statically, so a dynamic lookup will be used instead.
I'd like to suggest something very simple instead:
recToString r = intercalate "\t" [s recNumber, s recName]
where s f = show (f r)
All the elements of a list in Haskell must have the same type, so a list containing one Int and one String simply cannot exist. It is possible to get around this in GHC using existential types, but you probably shouldn't (this use of existentials is widely considered an anti-pattern, and it doesn't tend to perform terribly well). Another option would be to switch from a list to a tuple, and use some weird stuff from the lens package to map over both parts. It might even work.
I have two records that both have a field I want to extract for display. How do I arrange things so they can be manipulated with the same functions? Since they have different fields (in this case firstName and buildingName) that are their name fields, they each need some "adapter" code to map firstName to name. Here is what I have so far:
class Nameable a where
name :: a -> String
data Human = Human {
firstName :: String
}
data Building = Building {
buildingName :: String
}
instance Nameable Human where
name x = firstName x
instance Nameable Building where
-- I think the x is redundant here, i.e the following should work:
-- name = buildingName
name x = buildingName x
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStr $ show (map name items)
where
items :: (Nameable a) => [a]
items = [ Human{firstName = "Don"}
-- Ideally I want the next line in the array too, but that gives an
-- obvious type error at the moment.
--, Building{buildingName = "Empire State"}
]
This does not compile:
TypeTest.hs:23:14:
Couldn't match expected type `a' against inferred type `Human'
`a' is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for `items' at TypeTest.hs:22:23
In the expression: Human {firstName = "Don"}
In the expression: [Human {firstName = "Don"}]
In the definition of `items': items = [Human {firstName = "Don"}]
I would have expected the instance Nameable Human section would make this work. Can someone explain what I am doing wrong, and for bonus points what "concept" I am trying to get working, since I'm having trouble knowing what to search for.
This question feels similar, but I couldn't figure out the connection with my problem.
Consider the type of items:
items :: (Nameable a) => [a]
It's saying that for any Nameable type, items will give me a list of that type. It does not say that items is a list that may contain different Nameable types, as you might think. You want something like items :: [exists a. Nameable a => a], except that you'll need to introduce a wrapper type and use forall instead. (See: Existential type)
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
data SomeNameable = forall a. Nameable a => SomeNameable a
[...]
items :: [SomeNameable]
items = [ SomeNameable $ Human {firstName = "Don"},
SomeNameable $ Building {buildingName = "Empire State"} ]
The quantifier in the data constructor of SomeNameable basically allows it to forget everything about exactly which a is used, except that it is Nameable. Therefore, you will only be allowed to use functions from the Nameable class on the elements.
To make this nicer to use, you can make an instance for the wrapper:
instance Nameable (SomeNameable a) where
name (SomeNameable x) = name x
Now you can use it like this:
Main> map name items
["Don", "Empire State"]
Everybody is reaching for either existential quantification or algebraic data types. But these are both overkill (well depending on your needs, ADTs might not be).
The first thing to note is that Haskell has no downcasting. That is, if you use the following existential:
data SomeNameable = forall a. Nameable a => SomeNameable a
then when you create an object
foo :: SomeNameable
foo = SomeNameable $ Human { firstName = "John" }
the information about which concrete type the object was made with (here Human) is forever lost. The only things we know are: it is some type a, and there is a Nameable a instance.
What is it possible to do with such a pair? Well, you can get the name of the a you have, and... that's it. That's all there is to it. In fact, there is an isomorphism. I will make a new data type so you can see how this isomorphism arises in cases when all your concrete objects have more structure than the class.
data ProtoNameable = ProtoNameable {
-- one field for each typeclass method
protoName :: String
}
instance Nameable ProtoNameable where
name = protoName
toProto :: SomeNameable -> ProtoNameable
toProto (SomeNameable x) = ProtoNameable { protoName = name x }
fromProto :: ProtoNameable -> SomeNameable
fromProto = SomeNameable
As we can see, this fancy existential type SomeNameable has the same structure and information as ProtoNameable, which is isomorphic to String, so when you are using this lofty concept SomeNameable, you're really just saying String in a convoluted way. So why not just say String?
Your items definition has exactly the same information as this definition:
items = [ "Don", "Empire State" ]
I should add a few notes about this "protoization": it is only as straightforward as this when the typeclass you are existentially quantifying over has a certain structure: namely when it looks like an OO class.
class Foo a where
method1 :: ... -> a -> ...
method2 :: ... -> a -> ...
...
That is, each method only uses a once as an argument. If you have something like Num
class Num a where
(+) :: a -> a -> a
...
which uses a in multiple argument positions, or as a result, then eliminating the existential is not as easy, but still possible. However my recommendation to do this changes from a frustration to a subtle context-dependent choice, because of the complexity and distant relationship of the two representations. However, every time I have seen existentials used in practice it is with the Foo kind of tyepclass, where it only adds needless complexity, so I quite emphatically consider it an antipattern. In most of these cases I recommend eliminating the entire class from your codebase and exclusively using the protoized type (after you give it a good name).
Also, if you do need to downcast, then existentials aren't your man. You can either use an algebraic data type, as others people have answered, or you can use Data.Dynamic (which is basically an existential over Typeable. But don't do that; a Haskell programmer resorting to Dynamic is ungentlemanlike. An ADT is the way to go, where you characterize all the possible types it could be in one place (which is necessary so that the functions that do the "downcasting" know that they handle all possible cases).
I like #hammar's answer, and you should also check out this article which provides another example.
But, you might want to think differently about your types. The boxing of Nameable into the SomeNameable data type usually makes me start thinking about whether a union type for the specific case is meaningful.
data Entity = H Human | B Building
instance Nameable Entity where ...
items = [H (Human "Don"), B (Building "Town Hall")]
I'm not sure why you want to use the same function for
getting the name of a Human and the name of a Building.
If their names are used in fundamentally different ways,
except maybe for simple things like printing them,
then you probably want two
different functions for that. The type system
will automatically guide you to choose the right function
to use in each situation.
But if having a name is something significant about the
whole purpose of your program, and a Human and a Building
are really pretty much the same thing in that respect as far as your program
is concerned, then you would define their type together:
data NameableThing =
Human { name :: String } |
Building { name :: String }
That gives you a polymorphic function name that works for
whatever particular flavor of NameableThing you happen to have,
without needing to get into type classes.
Usually you would use a type class for a different kind of situation:
if you have some kind of non-trivial operation that has the same purpose
but a different implementation for several different types.
Even then, it's often better to use some other approach instead, like
passing a function as a parameter (a "higher order function", or "HOF").
Haskell type classes are a beautiful and powerful tool, but they are totally
different than what is called a "class" in object-oriented languages,
and they are used far less often.
And I certainly don't recommend complicating your program by using an advanced
extension to Haskell like Existential Qualification just to fit into
an object-oriented design pattern.
You can try to use Existentially Quanitified types and do it like this:
data T = forall a. Nameable a => MkT a
items = [MkT (Human "bla"), MkT (Building "bla")]
I've just had a look at the code that this question is abstracting from. For this, I would recommend merging the Task and RecurringTaskDefinition types:
data Task
= Once
{ name :: String
, scheduled :: Maybe Day
, category :: TaskCategory
}
| Recurring
{ name :: String
, nextOccurrence :: Day
, frequency :: RecurFrequency
}
type ProgramData = [Task] -- don't even need a new data type for this any more
Then, the name function works just fine on either type, and the functions you were complaining about like deleteTask and deleteRecurring don't even need to exist -- you can just use the standard delete function as usual.