Lets say I want to write a little client for an HTTP API. It has a resource that returns a list of cars:
GET /cars
It also accepts the two optional query parameters color and manufacturer, so I could query specific cars like:
GET /cars?color=black
GET /cars?manufacturer=BMW
GET /cars?color=green&manufacturer=VW
How would I expose these resources properly in Rust? Since Rust doesn't support overloading, defining multiple functions seems to be the usual approach, like:
fn get_cars() -> Cars
fn get_cars_by_color(color: Color) -> Cars
fn get_cars_by_manufacturer(manufacturer: Manufacturer) -> Cars
fn get_cars_by_manufacturer_and_color(manufacturer: Manufacturer, color: Color) -> Cars
But this will obviously not scale when you have more than a few parameters.
Another way would be to use a struct:
struct Parameters {
color: Option<Color>,
manufacturer: Option<Manufacturer>
}
fn get_cars(params: Parameters) -> Cars
This has the same scaling issue, every struct field must be set on creation (even if its value is just None).
I guess I could just accept a HashMap<String, String>, but that doesn't sound very good either.
So my question is, what is the proper/best way to do this in Rust?
You could use the Builder pattern, as mentioned here. For your particular API, it could look like this:
Cars::new_get()
.by_color("black")
.by_manufacturer("BMW")
.exec();
I would like to point out that no matter the solution, if you wish for a compile-time checked solution the "url parsing -> compile-time checkable" translation is necessarily hard-wired. You can generate that with an external script, with macros, etc... but in any case for the compiler to check it, it must exist at compile-time. There just is no short-cut.
Therefore, no matter which API you go for, at some point you will have something akin to:
fn parse_url(url: &str) -> Parameters {
let mut p: Parameters = { None, None };
if let Some(manufacturer) = extract("manufacturer", url) {
p.manufacturer = Some(Manufacturer::new(manufacturer));
}
if let Some(color) = extract("color", url) {
p.color = Some(Color::new(color));
}
p
}
And although you can try and sugarcoat it, the fundamentals won't change.
Related
I am currently trying to learn Nannou.rs. I generate a Luma8 image (corresponding to a Perlin heightmap) and I am trying to display it in my app's window using the function load_from_image_buffer implemented by nannou::wgpu::Texture in the model function as follow:
fn model(app: &App) -> Model {
let img_buf = NoiseBuilder::generate_image(256, 8, 8, None);
let texture = wgpu::Texture::load_from_image_buffer(device, queue, usage, &img_buf).unwrap();
Model { texture }
}
As you can see, in this snippet I am not defining the device, queue and usage parameters. I tried multiple things but nothing worked, and online resources are rather scarce.
So my question really is how can I provide this parameters?
I played around first with the from_image function and it worked, but as I am trying to learn my way around the library I am interested in the use of this specific function. Also this parameters are required by many other methods and I ll need to understand it anyway.
The wgpu module imported in the snippet above is the nannou::wgpu and not directly the wgpu crate.
The NoiseBuilder::generate_image return an ImageBuffer<Luma<u8>, Vec<u8>> variable.
You can use the trait method with_device_queue_pair which is defined in the trait WithDeviceQueuePair and implemented for either App or Window.
The usage is just the normal wgpu::TextureUsages.
So if you would like to mimic the from_path function of the texture you could do something like this (untested):
fn model(app: &App) -> Model {
let img_buf = NoiseBuilder::generate_image(256, 8, 8, None);
let usage = nannou::wgpu::TextureUsages::COPY_SRC |
nannou::wgpu::TextureUsages::COPY_DST |
nannou::wgpu::TextureUsages::RENDER_ATTACHMENT;
src.with_device_queue_pair(|device, queue| {
let texture = wgpu::Texture::load_from_image_buffer(device, queue, usage, &img_buf).unwrap();
Model { texture }
})
}
I'm implementing a tokio/axum HTTP server. In the function where I run the server, I configure routing, add shared application services and add tracing layer.
My tracing configuration looks like this:
let tracing_layer = TraceLayer::new_for_http()
.make_span_with(|_request: &Request<Body>| {
let request_id = Uuid::new_v4().to_string();
tracing::info_span!("http-request", %request_id)
})
.on_request(|request: &Request<Body>, _span: &Span| {
tracing::info!("request: {} {}", request.method(), request.uri().path())
})
.on_response(
|response: &Response<BoxBody>, latency: Duration, _span: &Span| {
tracing::info!("response: {} {:?}", response.status(), latency)
},
)
.on_failure(
|error: ServerErrorsFailureClass, _latency: Duration, _span: &Span| {
tracing::error!("error: {}", error)
},
);
let app = Router::new()
// routes
.layer(tracing_layer)
// other layers
...
Trying to organize the code a bit I move the tracing layer configuration to a separate function. The trick is to provide a compiling return type for this function.
The first approach was to move the code as is and let an IDE generate the return type:
TraceLayer<SharedClassifier<ServerErrorsAsFailures>, fn(&Request<Body>) -> Span, fn(&Request<Body>, &Span), fn(&Response<BoxBody>, Duration, &Span), DefaultOnBodyChunk, DefaultOnEos, fn(ServerErrorsFailureClass, Duration, &Span)>
Which is completely unreadable, but the worst is it does not compile: "expected fn pointer, found closure"
In the second approach I changed fn into impl Fn that would mean a closure type. Again, I get an error that my closures are not Clone.
Third, I try to extract closures into separate functions. But then I get "expected fn pointer, found fn item".
What can I do 1) to make it compile and 2) to make it more readable?
Speaking from experience, breaking up the code like that is very hard due to all the generics. I would instead recommend functions that accept and return axum::Routers. That way you bypass all the generics:
fn add_middleware(router: Router) -> Router {
router.layer(
TraceLayer::new_for_http().make_span_with(...)
)
}
Recently I started to learn Rust and one of my main struggles is converting years of Object Oriented thinking into procedural code.
I'm trying to parse a XML that have tags that are processed by an specific handler that can deal with the data it gets from the children.
Further more I have some field members that are common between them and I would prefer not to have to write the same fields to all the handlers.
I tried my hand on it and my code came out like this:
use roxmltree::Node; // roxmltree = "0.14.0"
fn get_data_from(node: &Node) -> String {
let tag_name = get_node_name(node);
let tag_handler: dyn XMLTagHandler = match tag_name {
"name" => NameHandler::new(),
"phone" => PhoneHandler::new(),
_ => DefaultHandler::new()
}
if tag_handler.is_recursive() {
for child in node.children() {
let child_value = get_data_from(&child);
// do something with child value
}
}
let value: String = tag_handler.value()
value
}
// consider that handlers are on my project and can be adapted to my needs, and that XMLTagHandler is the trait that they share in common.
My main issues with this are:
This feels like a Object oriented approach to it;
is_recursive needs to be reimplemented to each struct because they traits cannot have field members, and I will have to add more fields later, which means more boilerplate for each new field;
I could use one type for a Handler and pass to it a function pointer, but this approach seems dirty. e.g.:=> Handler::new(my_other_params, phone_handler_func)
This feels like a Object oriented approach to it
Actually, I don't think so. This code is in clear violation of the Tell-Don't-Ask principle, which falls out from the central idea of object-oriented programming: the encapsulation of data and related behavior into objects. The objects (NameHandler, PhoneHandler, etc.) don't have enough knowledge about what they are to do things on their own, so get_data_from has to query them for information and decide what to do, rather than simply sending a message and letting the object figure out how to deal with it.
So let's start by moving the knowledge about what to do with each kind of tag into the handler itself:
trait XmlTagHandler {
fn foreach_child<F: FnMut(&Node)>(&self, node: &Node, callback: F);
}
impl XmlTagHandler for NameHandler {
fn foreach_child<F: FnMut(&Node)>(&self, _node: &Node, _callback: F) {
// "name" is not a recursive tag, so do nothing
}
}
impl XmlTagHandler for DefaultHandler {
fn foreach_child<F: FnMut(&Node)>(&self, node: &Node, callback: F) {
// all other tags may be recursive
for child in node.children() {
callback(child);
}
}
}
This way you call foreach_child on every kind of Handler, and let the handler itself decide whether the right action is to recurse or not. After all, that's why they have different types -- right?
To get rid of the dyn part, which is unnecessary, let's write a little generic helper function that uses XmlTagHandler to handle one specific kind of tag, and modify get_data_from so it just dispatches to the correct parameterized version of it. (I'll suppose that XmlTagHandler also has a new function so that you can create one generically.)
fn handle_tag<H: XmlTagHandler>(node: &Node) -> String {
let handler = H::new();
handler.foreach_child(node, |child| {
// do something with child value
});
handler.value()
}
fn get_data_from(node: &Node) -> String {
let tag_name = get_node_name(node);
match tag_name {
"name" => handle_tag::<NameHandler>(node),
"phone" => handle_tag::<PhoneHandler>(node),
_ => handle_tag::<DefaultHandler>(node),
}
}
If you don't like handle_tag::<SomeHandler>(node), also consider making handle_tag a provided method of XmlTagHandler, so you can instead write SomeHandler::handle(node).
Note that I have not really changed any of the data structures. Your presumption of an XmlTagHandler trait and various Handler implementors is a pretty normal way to organize code. However, in this case, it doesn't offer any real improvement over just writing three separate functions:
fn get_data_from(node: &Node) -> String {
let tag_name = get_node_name(node);
match tag_name {
"name" => get_name_from(node),
"phone" => get_phone_from(node),
_ => get_other_from(node),
}
}
In some languages, such as Java, all code has to be part of some class – so you can find yourself writing classes that don't exist for any other reason than to group related things together. In Rust you don't need to do this, so make sure that any added complication such as XmlTagHandler is actually pulling its weight.
is_recursive needs to be reimplemented to each struct because they traits cannot have field members, and I will have to add more fields later, which means more boilerplate for each new field
Without more information about the fields, it's impossible to really understand what problem you're facing here; however, in general, if there is a family of structs that have some data in common, you may want to make a generic struct instead of a trait. See the answers to How to reuse codes for Binary Search Tree, Red-Black Tree, and AVL Tree? for more suggestions.
I could use one type for a Handler and pass to it a function pointer, but this approach seems dirty
Elegance is sometimes a useful thing, but it is subjective. I would recommend closures rather than function pointers, but this suggestion doesn't seem "dirty" to me. Making closures and putting them in data structures is a very normal way to write Rust code. If you can elaborate on what you don't like about it, perhaps someone could point out ways to improve it.
I have started out learning Rust and is currently trying to write a small neural network as personal exercise. I want to define a struct for my forthcoming Layers/Clusters/Groups of nodes. My initial definition looks like this:
struct Layer {
name: String, // Human readable name
id: String, // UUID in the future
order: u8, // int for sorting
width: u8, // Number of nodes
input: [&'Self], // References to other Layers that feed input into this
}
The thing I am struggling with is the input field which should contain a list of references to other Layer-instances. I will know at compile time how many each Layer will have in the list so it wont have to me mutable. Is it possible to do this? I cant find a solution on the Google machine or in "the book".
Please advise.
Is it possible to do this? I cant find a solution on the Google machine or in "the book".
Possible yes, though I would not recommend it.
Let's start with the possible: &Self would be a "layer reference" with an unnamed lifetime, a lifetime name is for the form '<symbol>, so when you write &'Self you're specifying a reference of lifetime 'Self, but you're never specifying the type being refered to, which is why rustc complains about "expected type".
If you add a "proper" lifetime name, and parametrize the structure, it compiles fine:
struct Layer<'sublayers> {
name: String, // Human readable name
id: String, // UUID in the future
order: u8, // int for sorting
width: u8, // Number of nodes
input: [&'sublayers Self], // References to other Layers that feed input into this
}
However I would not recommend it as the last member being a slice means it's a DST which are difficult to work with at the best of time -- as the nomicon specifically notes "custom DSTs are a largely half-baked feature for now".
Since Rust doesn't yet have const generics proper you can't use an array you'd parameterize through layer either (e.g. Layer<const Size> and input: [&Self;Size], maybe one day), so you probably want something like a vector or a slice reference e.g.
struct Layer<'slice, 'sublayers: 'slice> {
name: String, // Human readable name
id: String, // UUID in the future
order: u8, // int for sorting
width: u8, // Number of nodes
input: &'slice [&'sublayers Self], // References to other Layers that feed input into this
}
I'm learning how to use neon, but I don't understand a thing. If I try to execute this code:
#[macro_use]
extern crate neon;
use neon::vm::{Call, JsResult};
use neon::mem::Handle;
use neon::js::{JsInteger, JsNumber, JsString, JsObject, JsArray, JsValue, Object, Key};
use neon::js::error::{JsError, Kind};
fn test(call: Call) -> JsResult<JsArray> {
let scope = call.scope;
let js_arr: Handle<JsArray> = try!(try!(call.arguments.require(scope, 1)).check::<JsArray>());
js_arr.set(0, JsNumber::new(scope, 1000));
Ok(js_arr)
}
register_module!(m, {
m.export("test", test)
});
I get this error when I call js_arr.set: This function takes 3 parameters but 2 were supplied.
I don't understand why since it's a JsArray. Even Racer tells me that the set method takes 2 parameters. No matter what, js_arr.set takes 3 parameters in this order: &mut bool, neon::macro_internal::runtime::raw::Local and neon::macro_internal::runtime::raw::Local.
What's happening? I can't understand how JsArray works.
As paulsevere says on a GitHub issue for Neon, import neon::js::Object. In addition, do not import Key, which also provides a set method:
#[macro_use]
extern crate neon;
use neon::vm::{Call, JsResult};
use neon::js::{Object, JsArray, JsInteger, JsObject, JsNumber};
fn make_an_array(call: Call) -> JsResult<JsArray> {
let scope = call.scope; // the current scope for rooting handles
let array = JsArray::new(scope, 3);
array.set(0, JsInteger::new(scope, 9000))?;
array.set(1, JsObject::new(scope))?;
array.set(2, JsNumber::new(scope, 3.14159))?;
Ok(array)
}
register_module!(m, {
m.export("main", make_an_array)
});
This creates a brand new array. If you'd like to accept an array as the first argument to your function and then modify it, this works:
#[macro_use]
extern crate neon;
use neon::vm::{Call, JsResult};
use neon::js::{Object, JsArray, JsInteger, JsUndefined};
use neon::mem::Handle;
fn hello(call: Call) -> JsResult<JsUndefined> {
let scope = call.scope;
let js_arr: Handle<JsArray> = call.arguments.require(scope, 0)?.check::<JsArray>()?;
js_arr.set(0, JsInteger::new(scope, 1000))?;
Ok(JsUndefined::new())
}
register_module!(m, {
m.export("hello", hello)
});
let js_arr: Handle<JsArray> makes it clear that js_arr is a Handle<JsArray> and Handle<T> has this method:
unsafe fn set(self, out: &mut bool, obj: Local, val: Local) -> bool
I'd guess that you're accidentally trying to call Handle::set (which is unsafe and takes three non-self arguments) rather than JsArray::set (which is safe and takes two non-self arguments).
If that's the case, you need to force a deref_mut to occur. (_mut because JsArray::set takes &mut self.)
I haven't run into this sort of naming collision before, so I can't be certain whether the auto-deref is smart enough, but something like this may work:
(&mut js_arr).set(0, JsNumber::new(scope, 1000));
Failing that, two other things to try are:
JsArray::set(&mut js_arr, 0, JsNumber::new(scope, 1000));
(If the former example fails because it's too much like C++-style method overloading. This is known as Fully Qualified Syntax and is normally used to disambiguate when an object implements two traits which provide methods of the same name.)
Call js_arr.deref_mut() directly to get a mutable reference to the underlying JsArray, then call set on that.