I have this haskell code which behaves as expected:
import Control.Monad
getVal1 :: Maybe String
getVal1 = Just "hello"
getVal2 :: Maybe String
getVal2 = Just "World"
main = process >>= putStrLn
process :: IO String
process = case liftM2 operation getVal1 getVal2 of
Nothing -> error "can't run operation, one of the params is Nothing"
Just result -> result
operation :: String -> String -> IO String
operation a b = return $ a ++ b
However when transposed to Fay, it doesn't typecheck:
{-# LANGUAGE NoImplicitPrelude, EmptyDataDecls #-}
import Prelude
import FFI
liftM2 f m1 m2 = do { x1 <- m1; x2 <- m2; return (f x1 x2) }
getVal1 :: Maybe String
getVal1 = Just "hello"
getVal2 :: Maybe String
getVal2 = Just "World"
main = process >>= putStrLn
process :: Fay String
process = case liftM2 operation getVal1 getVal2 of
Nothing -> error "can't run operation, one of the params is Nothing"
Just result -> result
operation :: String -> String -> Fay String
operation a b = return $ a ++ b
The compile error is:
fay: ghc:
TestFay.hs:17:33:
Couldn't match expected type `Fay String'
with actual type `Maybe String'
In the second argument of `liftM2', namely `getVal1'
In the expression: liftM2 operation getVal1 getVal2
In the expression:
case liftM2 operation getVal1 getVal2 of {
Nothing
-> error "can't run operation, one of the params is Nothing"
I'm not exactly following the problem here. Actually I even tried to remove the import for Control.Monad in the GHC code and paste the liftM2 as in the Fay code, but it still typechecks properly... Any option of using such functions such as liftMx in Fay, or am I missing something completely here?
This is Fay 0.16.0.3... Maybe I should try upgrading to 0.17?
I suspect that do notation in Fay works for the Fay monad only, because AFAIK Fay does not support type classes. Looking at the Fay Prelude, I see that (>>=) and return are monomorphic, specialized to the Fay monad.
Related
In our haskell code base, business logic is interlaved with tracing and logging code. This can obscure the business logic and make it harder to understand and debug. I am looking for ideas how to reduce the code footprint of logging and tracing to make the business logic stick out more.
Our code currently mostly looks roughly like this:
someFunction a b cs =
withTaggedSpan tracer "TRACE_someFunction" [("arg_b", show b)] $ do
logDebug logger $ "someFunction start: " <> show (trimDownC <$> cs)
result <- do ... some business logic ...
if isError result then
logError logger $ "someFunction error: " <> show result
else
logDebug logger $ "someFunction success: " <> show (trimDownResult result)
One observation is that whe mostly trace the entire function body and log at beginning and end. This should allow combining tracing and logging into single helper and automatically extract function name and names of captured values via meta programming. I have used AST transforming compile time macros and runtime introspection in other languges before but not Haskell.
What are good ways to do this using Template Haskell, HasCallStack or other options?
(Cross posted at https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/gdfu52/extracting_context_for_tracinglogging_via_haskell/)
Let's assume for simplicity that the functions in your business logic are of the form:
_foo :: Int -> String -> ReaderT env IO ()
_bar :: Int -> ExceptT String (ReaderT env IO) Int
That is, they return values in a ReaderT transformer over IO, or perhaps also throw errors using ExceptT. (Actually that ReaderT transformer isn't required right now, but it'll come in handy later).
We could define a traced function like this:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
import Data.Void (absurd)
import Control.Monad.IO.Class
import Control.Monad.Reader -- from "mtl"
import Control.Monad.Trans -- from "transformers"
import Control.Monad.Trans.Except
traced :: Traceable t => Name -> t -> t
traced name = _traced name []
type Name = String
type Arg = String
class Traceable t where
_traced :: Name -> [Arg] -> t -> t
instance Show r => Traceable (ReaderT env IO r) where
_traced msg args t = either absurd id <$> runExceptT (_traced msg args (lift t))
instance (Show e, Show r) => Traceable (ExceptT e (ReaderT env IO) r) where
_traced msg args t =
do
liftIO $ putStrLn $ msg ++ " invoked with args " ++ show args
let mapExits m = do
e <- m
case e of
Left err -> do
liftIO $ putStrLn $ msg ++ " failed with error " ++ show err
return $ Left err
Right r -> do
liftIO $ putStrLn $ msg ++ " exited with value " ++ show r
return $ Right r
mapExceptT (mapReaderT mapExits) t
instance (Show arg, Traceable t) => Traceable (arg -> t) where
_traced msg args f = \arg -> _traced msg (args ++ [show arg]) (f arg)
This solution is still a bit unsatisfactory because, for functions that call other functions, we must decide at the outset if we want the traced version of the called functions or not.
One thing we could try—although more invasive to the code—is to put our functions in a record, and make the environment of the ReaderT equal to that same record. Something like this:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveAnyClass #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveGeneric #-}
import GHC.Generics
-- from "red-black-record"
import Data.RBR (FromRecord (..), IsRecordType, ToRecord (..))
data MyAPI = MyAPI
{ foo :: Int -> String -> ReaderT MyAPI IO (),
bar :: Int -> ExceptT String (ReaderT MyAPI IO) Int,
baz :: Bool -> ExceptT String (ReaderT MyAPI IO) ()
}
deriving (Generic, FromRecord, ToRecord)
An then use some generics utility library (here red-black-record) to write a function that says: "if every function in your record is Traceable, I will give you another record where all the functions are traced":
import Data.Kind
import Data.Proxy
import Data.Monoid (Endo(..))
import GHC.TypeLits
import Data.RBR
( I (..),
KeyValueConstraints,
KeysValuesAll,
Maplike,
cpure'_Record,
liftA2_Record,
)
traceAPI ::
( IsRecordType r t,
Maplike t,
KeysValuesAll (KeyValueConstraints KnownSymbol Traceable) t
) =>
r ->
r
traceAPI =
let transforms =
cpure'_Record (Proxy #Traceable) $
\fieldName -> Endo (traced fieldName)
applyTraced (Endo endo) (I v) = I (endo v)
in fromRecord . liftA2_Record applyTraced transforms . toRecord
-- small helper function to help invoke the functions in the record
call :: MonadReader env m => (env -> f) -> (f -> m r) -> m r
call getter execute = do
f <- asks getter
execute f
Alternatively, in order to avoid magic, such function could we written by hand for each particular API record.
Putting it to work:
main :: IO ()
main = do
let api =
traceAPI $
MyAPI
{ foo = \_ _ ->
do liftIO $ putStrLn "this is foo",
bar = \_ ->
do
liftIO $ putStrLn "this is bar"
return 5,
baz = \_ ->
do
call foo $ \f -> lift $ f 0 "fooarg"
call bar $ \f -> f 23
throwE "oops"
}
flip runReaderT api $ runExceptT $ baz api False
pure ()
-- baz invoked with args ["False"]
-- foo invoked with args ["0","\"fooarg\""]
-- this is foo
-- foo exited with value ()
-- bar invoked with args ["23"]
-- this is bar
-- bar exited with value 5
-- baz failed with error "oops"
Pure functions are deterministic. If you know what went into them, you can always reproduce the result. Thus, you shouldn't need a lot of logging inside the main parts of a functional code base.
Log the impure actions only, and architect your code into a pure core with a small imperative shell. Log only the impure actions that take place in the shell. I've described the technique in a blog post here.
Backstory
I have a number of data files, each of them containing a list of data records (one per line).
Similar to CSV but sufficiently different that I'd prefer to write my own parser rather than using a CSV library.
For the purpose of this question I will use a simplified data file that contains just one number per line:
1
2
3
error
4
As you can see it is possible that a file contains malformed data in which case the whole file should be considered malformed.
The kind of data-processing I want to do can be expressed in terms of maps and folds.
So, I thought this would be a good opportunity to learn how to use the pipes library.
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
import Control.Monad.Except
import Pipes ((>->))
import qualified Pipes as P
import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P
import qualified Pipes.Safe as P
import qualified System.IO as IO
First, I create a producer of lines in the text file.
This is very similar to the example in the docs of Pipes.Safe.
getLines = do
P.bracket (IO.openFile "data.txt" IO.ReadMode) IO.hClose P.fromHandle
Next, I need a function to parse each of these lines.
As I mentioned before, this might fail, which I will represent with Either.
type ErrMsg = String
parseNumber :: String -> Either ErrMsg Integer
parseNumber s = case reads s of
[(n, "")] -> Right n
_ -> Left $ "Parse Error: \"" ++ s ++ "\""
For simplicity, as a first step, I want to collect all data records into a list of records.
The most straight-forward approach is to pipe all the lines through the parser and just collect the whole thing into a list.
readNumbers1 :: IO [Either ErrMsg Integer]
readNumbers1 = P.runSafeT $ P.toListM $
getLines >-> P.map parseNumber
Unfortunately, that creates a list of eithers of records.
However, if the file contains one wrong record then the whole file should be considered wrong.
What I really want is an either of a list of records.
Of course I can just use sequence to transpose the list of eithers.
readNumbers2 :: IO (Either ErrMsg [Integer])
readNumbers2 = sequence <$> readNumbers1
But, that would read the whole file even if the first line is already malformed.
These files can be large and I have many of them, so, it would be better if the reading would stop at the first error.
Question
My Question is how to achieve that.
How to abort parsing upon the first malformed record?
What I got so far
My first thought was to use the monad instance of Either ErrMsg and P.mapM instead of P.map.
Since we are reading from a file we already have IO and SafeT in our monad stack, so, I guess I'll need ExceptT to get error handling into that monad stack.
This is the point where I'm stuck.
I tried many different combinations and always ended up being yelled at by the type-checker.
The following is the closest I can get to it compiles.
readNumbers3 = P.runSafeT $ runExceptT $ P.toListM $
getLines >-> P.mapM (ExceptT . return . parseNumber)
The infered type of readNumbers3 reads
*Main> :t readNumbers3
readNumbers3
:: (MonadIO m, P.MonadSafe (ExceptT ErrMsg (P.SafeT m)),
P.MonadMask m, P.Base (ExceptT ErrMsg (P.SafeT m)) ~ IO) =>
m (Either ErrMsg [Integer])
which looks close to what I want:
readNumbers3 :: IO (Either ErrMsg [Integer])
However, as soon as I try to actually execute that action I get the following error message in ghci:
*Main> readNumbers3
<interactive>:7:1:
Couldn't match expected type ‘IO’
with actual type ‘P.Base (ExceptT ErrMsg (P.SafeT m0))’
The type variable ‘m0’ is ambiguous
In the first argument of ‘print’, namely ‘it’
In a stmt of an interactive GHCi command: print it
If I try to apply the following type-signature:
readNumbers3 :: IO (Either ErrMsg [Integer])
Then I get the following error message:
error.hs:108:5:
Couldn't match expected type ‘IO’
with actual type ‘P.Base (ExceptT ErrMsg (P.SafeT IO))’
In the first argument of ‘(>->)’, namely ‘getLines’
In the second argument of ‘($)’, namely
‘getLines >-> P.mapM (ExceptT . return . parseNumber)’
In the second argument of ‘($)’, namely
‘P.toListM $ getLines >-> P.mapM (ExceptT . return . parseNumber)’
Failed, modules loaded: none.
Aside
Another motivation for moving the error handling into the pipe's base monad is that it would make further data processing much easier if I wouldn't have to juggle with eithers in my maps and folds.
Here is an incremental approach to solving the problem.
Following Tekmo's suggestion in this SO answer
we aim to operate in the following monad:
ExceptT String (Pipe a b m) r
We begin with imports and the definition of parseNumber:
import Control.Monad.Except
import Pipes ((>->))
import qualified Pipes as P
import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P
parseNumber :: String -> Either String Integer
parseNumber s = case reads s of
[(n, "")] -> Right n
_ -> Left $ "Parse Error: \"" ++ s ++ "\""
Here is a plain Producer of Strings in the IO-monad we'll use as our input:
p1 :: P.Producer String IO ()
p1 = P.stdinLn >-> P.takeWhile (/= "quit")
To lift it to the ExceptT monad we just use lift:
p2 :: ExceptT String (P.Producer String IO) ()
p2 = lift p1
Here is a pipeline segment which converts Strings to Integers in the ExceptT monad:
p4 :: ExceptT String (P.Pipe String Integer IO) a
p4 = forever $
do s <- lift P.await
case parseNumber s of
Left e -> throwError e
Right n -> lift $ P.yield n
The probably can be written more combinatorially, but I've left it very explicit for clarity.
Next we join p2 and p4 together. The result is also in the ExceptT monad.
-- join together p2 and p4
p7 :: ExceptT String (P.Producer Integer IO) ()
p7 = ExceptT $ runExceptT p2 >-> runExceptT p4
Tekmo's SO answer suggests creating a new operator for this.
Finally, we can use toListM' to run this pipeline. (I've included the definition of toListM' here because it doesn't appear in my installed version of Pipes.Prelude)
p8 :: IO ([Integer], Either String ())
p8 = toListM' $ runExceptT p7
toListM' :: Monad m => P.Producer a m r -> m ([a], r)
toListM' = P.fold' step begin done
where
step x a = x . (a:)
begin = id
done x = x []
Examples of how p8 works:
ghci> p8
4
5
6
quit
([4,5,6],Right ())
ghci> p8
5
asd
([5],Left "Parse Error: \"asd\"")
Update
You can simplify the code by generalizing parseNumber like this:
parseNumber' :: (MonadError [Char] m) => String -> m Integer
parseNumber' s = case reads s of
[(n, "")] -> return n
_ -> throwError $ "Parse Error: \"" ++ s ++ "\""
Then p4 may be written:
p4' :: ExceptT String (P.Pipe String Integer IO) a
p4' = forever $ lift P.await >>= parseNumber' >>= lift . P.yield
While doing some TTD in Haskell, I recently developed the following function:
import Test.HUnit
import Data.Typeable
import Control.Exception
assertException :: (Show a) => TypeRep -> IO a -> Assertion
assertException errType fun = catch (fun >> assertFailure msg) handle
where
msg = show errType ++ " exception was not raised!"
handle (SomeException e) [...]
The function takes a Type representation of an expected exception and an IO action. The problem is that most of the time I don't get the exception thrown even though I should have been, because of laziness. Often failing parts of fun are actually never evaluated here.
To remedy this i tried to replace (fun >> assertFailure msg) with (seq fun $ assertFailure msg). I also tried to enable BangPatterns extension and put a bang before fun binding, but none of it helped. So how can I really force Haskell to evaluate fun strictly?
You have to distinguish between:
Evaluating the value of type IO a
Running the action represented by it, which may have side effects and returns a value of type a, and
Evaluating the result of type a (or parts of it).
These always happen in that order, but not necessarily all of it. The code
foo1 :: IO a -> IO ()
foo1 f = do
seq f (putStrLn "done")
will do only the first, while
foo2 :: IO a -> IO ()
foo2 f = do
f -- equivalent to _ <- f
putStrLn "done"
also does the second and finally
foo3 :: IO a -> IO ()
foo3 f = do
x <- f
seq x $ putStrLn "done"
also does the third (but the usual caveats of using seq on a complex data type like lists apply).
Try these arguments and observe that foo1, foo2 and foo3 treat them differently.
f1 = error "I am not a value"
f2 = fix id -- neither am I
f3 = do {putStrLn "Something is printed"; return 42}
f4 = do {putStrLn "Something is printed"; return (error "x has been evaluated")}
f5 = do {putStrLn "Something is printed"; return (Just (error "x has been deeply evaluated"))}
You probably need to force the value to its normal form, not just its weak head normal form. For example, evaluating Just (error "foo") to WHNF won't trigger the exception, it'll just evaluate Just. I'd use the combination of evaluate (which allows to properly sequence forced evaluation with IO actions) and rnf (or force if you'd need the value for something):
assertException :: (Show a) => TypeRep -> IO a -> Assertion
assertException errType fun =
catch (fun >>= evaluate . rnf >> assertFailure msg) handle
where ...
However, be careful, as assertFailure is implemented using exceptions, so wrapping into the catch block might catch it as well. So I'd suggest to evaluate the computation using try and call assertFailure outside the try block:
import Test.HUnit
import Data.Typeable
import Control.DeepSeq
import Control.Exception
assertException :: (NFData a, Show a) => TypeRep -> IO a -> Assertion
assertException errType fun =
(try (fun >>= evaluate . rnf) :: IO (Either SomeException ())) >>= check
where
check (Right _) =
assertFailure $ show errType ++ " exception was not raised!"
check (Left (SomeException ex))
| typeOf ex == errType = return () -- the expected exception
| otherwise = assertFailure
$ show ex ++ " is not " ++ show errType
i have the following set of actions:
action1 :: IO Bool
action2 :: IO Bool
action3 :: IO Bool
some actions are just composition of another actions
complexAction = do
action1
action2
action3
What i need is the construction that checks result of each action and returns False in a case of false. I can do it manually but i know for sure that haskell does have tools to get rid of that kind of boilerplate.
The simplest way is
complexAction = fmap and (sequence [action1, action2, action3])
But you could also write your own combinator to stop after the first action:
(>>/) :: Monad m => m Bool -> m Bool -> m Bool
a >>/ b = do
yes <- a
if yes then b else return False
You'd want to declare the fixity to make it associative
infixl 1 >>/
Then you can do
complexAction = action1 >>/ action2 >>/ action3
I'd suggest you to use MaybeT monad transformer instead. Using it has many advantages over just returning IO Bool:
Your actions can have different types and return values (not just true/false). If you don't need any results, just use MaybeT IO ().
Later ones can depend on results of preceding ones.
Since MaybeT produces monads that are instances of MonadPlus, you can use all monad plus operations. Namely mzero for a failed action and x mplus y, which will run y iff x fails.
A slight disadvantage is that you have to lift all IO actions to MaybeT IO. This can be solved by writing your actions as MonadIO m => ... -> m a instead of ... -> IO a.
For example:
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.IO.Class
import Control.Monad.Trans
import Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe
-- Lift print and putStrLn
print' :: (MonadIO m, Show a) => a -> m ()
print' = liftIO . print
putStrLn' :: (MonadIO m) => String -> m ()
putStrLn' = liftIO . putStrLn
-- Add something to an argument
plus1, plus3 :: Int -> MaybeT IO Int
plus1 n = print' "+1" >> return (n + 1)
plus3 n = print' "+3" >> return (n + 3)
-- Ignore an argument and fail
justFail :: Int -> MaybeT IO a
justFail _ = mzero
-- This action just succeeds with () or fails.
complexAction :: MaybeT IO ()
complexAction = do
i <- plus1 0
justFail i -- or comment this line out <----------------<
j <- plus3 i
print' j
-- You could use this to convert your actions to MaybeT IO:
boolIOToMaybeT :: IO Bool -> MaybeT IO ()
boolIOToMaybeT x = do
r <- lift x
if r then return () else mzero
-- Or you could have even more general version that works with other
-- transformers as well:
boolIOToMaybeT' :: (MonadIO m, MonadPlus m) => IO Bool -> m ()
boolIOToMaybeT' x = do
r <- liftIO x
if r then return () else mzero
main :: IO ()
main = runMaybeT complexAction >>= print'
As Petr says, for anything but a narrow and contained case, you're almost certainly better off wiring your code for proper error handling from the outset. I know I've often regretted not doing this, condemning myself to some very tedious refactoring.
If I may, I'd like to recommend Gabriel Gonzalez's errors package, which imposes a little more coherence on Haskell's various error-handling mechanisms than has been traditional. It allows you to plumb Eithers through your code, and Either is a good type for capturing errors. (By contrast, Maybe will lose information on the error side.) Once you've installed the package, you can write things like this:
module Errors where
import Control.Error
import Data.Traversable (traverse)
data OK = OK Int deriving (Show)
action1, action2, action3 :: IO (Either String OK)
action1 = putStrLn "Running action 1" >> return (Right $ OK 1)
action2 = putStrLn "Running action 2" >> return (Right $ OK 2)
action3 = putStrLn "Running action 3" >> return (Left "Oops on 3")
runStoppingAtFirstError :: [IO (Either String OK)] -> IO (Either String [OK])
runStoppingAtFirstError = runEitherT . traverse EitherT
...with output like
*Errors> runStoppingAtFirstError [action1, action2]
Running action 1
Running action 2
Right [OK 1,OK 2]
*Errors> runStoppingAtFirstError [action1, action3, action2]
Running action 1
Running action 3
Left "Oops on 3"
(But note that the computation here stops at the first error and doesn't soldier on until the bitter end -- which might not be what you had wanted. The errors package is certainly wide-ranging enough that many other variations are possible.)
I want to write a function that read some data using getLine and return i.e. a tuple (Integer, Integer) but using do-notation. Something like this (of course it doesn't work):
fun :: (Integer, Integer)
fun = do
a <- read (getLine::Integer)
b <- read (getLine::Integer)
return (a, b)
Do I have to write my own monad for this? Is there any solution to not writing a new monad?
EDIT
So I can write main function that use fun, I think it's the only solution:
main :: IO ()
main = do
tuple <- fun
putStrLn (show tuple)
fun :: IO (Integer, Integer)
fun = do
a1 <- getLine
b1 <- getLine
let a = read (a1)
b = read (b1)
return (a, b)
And above code works.
You type of function should be
fun :: IO (Integer, Integer)
as mentioned by #kaan you should not try to get a mondic value (with side effects) out of the monad as that will break referential transparency. Running fun should always return same value no matter how many times it is run and if we use your type this will not happen. However if the type is IO (Integer, Integer) then it returns the same action every time you use that function and running this action actually perform the side effect of reading the values from the console.
Coming back to using you function. You can do that inside another IO monad like
main = do
(a,b) <- fun
print a
print b
Although there are ways of getting things out of IO using unsafe functions but that is not recommended until you know exactly what you are doing.
As mentioned, you will need to give fun the type IO (Integer, Integer) instead of (Integer, Integer). However, once you have resigned yourself to this fate, there are many ways to skin this cat. Here are a handful of ways to get your imagination going.
fun = do
a <- getLine
b <- getLine
return (read a, read b)
-- import Control.Applicative for (<$>)
-- can also spell (<$>) as fmap, liftA, liftM, and others
fun = do
a <- read <$> getLine
b <- read <$> getLine
return (a, b)
fun = do
a <- readLn
b <- readLn
return (a, b)
fun = liftM2 (,) readLn readLn
-- different type!
-- use in main like this:
-- main = do
-- [a, b] <- fun
-- foo
-- import Control.Monad for replicateM
fun :: IO [Integer]
fun = replicateM 2 readLn