I'm trying to print the error message of a define-condition that I created:
(defun is-t? (actual)
(assertion (create-result (equal t actual) actual t 'equal)))
(defun create-result (result actual expected operator)
(let ((assert-result (make-hash-table)) (message))
(setf message (concatenate 'string (string actual) " " (string operator) " " (string expected)))
(setf (gethash 'result assert-result) result)
(setf (gethash 'actual assert-result) actual)
(setf (gethash 'expected assert-result) expected)
(setf (gethash 'message assert-result) message)
assert-result))
(defun assertion (assert-result)
(unless (gethash 'result assert-result)
(error 'assertion-error :message (gethash 'message assert-result))))
(define-condition assertion-error (error)
((message :initarg :message :reader error-message)))
What I am trying to do is the following, an assertion library where I can throw an error when there is a failure, for a test runner to capture it and use the object that is the hash-table to signal where it is wrong. I do not know how to pass this has-table into error, could I pass on :message? I imagine it is not recommended. And how do I redeem it later or even a :message?
An example trying to catch an error:
CL-USER> (handler-case (is-t? nil)
(assertion-error (c)
(format t "~a" c)))
Condition COMMON-LISP-USER::ASSERTION-ERROR was signalled.
NIL
How do I access :message and how would I pass hash-table to access it?
How do I access :message ?
You access it either with its :reader or :accessor. Here, you can do (error-message c).
An accessor is both a "getter" and a "setter". I invite you to read more about the object system here: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/clos.html#getters-and-setters-accessor-reader-writer
how would I pass hash-table to access it?
Conditions are not strictly classes but very similar in practice. We can define many slots with their corresponding reader, writer or accessor, we are not restricted to a message slot. So as said by Svante, instead of storing a hash-table, just store the information you want in other slots. Or create a "result" slot to which you give a hash-table, it's also possible.
(define-condition assertion-error (error)
((message :initarg :message :reader error-message)
(expected :initarg :expected :accessor assertion-expected)
(actual …)
(result …))
(:report …))
To set "expected": (setf (assertion-expected c) <value>).
The :report is what is displayed in the debugger: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/error_handling.html#defining-and-making-conditions
In order to change the output, you need to override the reporting function:
(define-condition assertion-error (error)
((expected :initarg :expected :reader assertion-expected)
(actual :initarg :actual :reader assertion-actual))
(:report (lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
"Assertion failed. Expected ~s but got ~s instead."
(assertion-expected condition)
(assertion-actual condition)))))
As you see, you do not need an extra hash-table. The condition object already provides named slots etc. This is also where you'd do the formatting, so you need not format the message at the throwing point.
Related
I'm still quite new to Common Lisp macros.
For an abstraction over a defclass with defgeneric I thought it'd be nice to make a macro.
A complitely naive implementation looks like:
(defmacro defgserver (name &key call-handler cast-handler)
"TODO: needs firther testing. Convenience macro to more easily create a new `gserver' class."
`(progn
(defclass ,name (gserver) ())
(defmethod handle-call ((server ,name) message current-state)
,(if call-handler call-handler nil))
(defmethod handle-cast ((server ,name) message current-state)
,(if cast-handler cast-handler nil))))
When used the error says that 'message' is not known.
I'm not sure. 'message' is the name of a parameter of defgeneric:
(defgeneric handle-call (gserver message current-state))
Using the macro I see a warning 'undefined variable message':
(defgserver foo :call-handler
(progn
(print message)))
; in: DEFGSERVER FOO
; (PRINT MESSAGE)
;
; caught WARNING:
; undefined variable: COMMON-LISP-USER::MESSAGE
Which when used has this consequence:
CL-USER> (defvar *my* (make-instance 'foo))
*MY*
CL-USER> (call *my* "Foo")
<WARN> [10:55:10] cl-gserver gserver.lisp (handle-message fun5) -
Error condition was raised on message processing: CL-GSERVER::C: #<UNBOUND-VARIABLE MESSAGE {1002E24553}>
So something has to happen with message and/or current-state.
Should they be interned into the current package where the macro is used?
Manfred
The problem, as mentioned, is that you are talking about different symbols.
However this is really a symptom of a more general problem: what you are trying to do is a sort of anaphora. If you fixed up the package structure so this worked:
(defgserver foo :call-handler
(progn
(print message)))
Then, well, what exactly is message? Where did it come from, what other bindings exist in that scope? Anaphora can be useful, but it also can be a source of obscure bugs like this.
So, I think a better way to do this, which avoids this problem is to say that the *-handler options should specify what arguments they expect. So instead of the above form you'd write something like this:
(defgserver foo
:call-handler ((server message state)
(print message)
(detonate server)))
So here, value of the :call-handler-option is the argument list and body of a function, which the macro will turn into a method specialising on the first argument. Because the methods it creates have argument lists provided by the user of the macro there's never a problem with names, and there is no anaphora.
So, one way to do that is to do two things:
make the default values of these options be suitable for processing into methods without any special casing;
write a little local function in the macro which turns one of these specifications into a suitable (defmethod ...) form.
The second part is optional of course, but it saves a little bit of code.
In addition to this I've also done a slightly dirty trick: I've changed the macro definition so it has an &body option, the value of which is ignored. The only reason I've done this is to help my editor indent it better.
So, here's a revised version:
(defmacro defgserver (name &body forms &key
(call-handler '((server message current-state)
(declare (ignorable
server message current-state))
nil))
(cast-handler '((server message current-state)
(declare (ignorable
server message current-state))
nil)))
"TODO: needs firther testing. Convenience macro to more easily
create a new `gserver' class."
(declare (ignorable forms))
(flet ((write-method (mname mform)
(destructuring-bind (args &body decls/forms) mform
`(defmethod ,mname ((,(first args) ,name) ,#(rest args))
,#decls/forms))))
`(progn
(defclass ,name (gserver) ())
,(write-method 'handle-call call-handler)
,(write-method 'handle-cast cast-handler))))
And now
(defgserver foo
:call-handler ((server message state)
(print message)
(detonate server)))
Expands to
(progn
(defclass foo (gserver) nil)
(defmethod handle-call ((server foo) message state)
(print message)
(detonate server))
(defmethod handle-cast ((server foo) message current-state)
(declare (ignorable server message current-state))
nil))
I have the following basic classes and methods:
(defgeneric connect-edge (edge))
(defclass Node ()
((forward-edges :initform nil)
(backward-edges :initform nil)
(value :initform 0.0)))
(defclass Edge ()
((value :initform 0.0)
(nodes :initform nil)))
(defmethod connect-edge ((edge Edge))
;; does nothing important. Simplified to cause the problem
(slot-value (car (slot-value edge 'nodes)) 'forward-edges))
I simplified the method enough to give me an error. Basically it doesn't do anything useful at this point, but it is enough to demonstrate the problem.
Setup:
The Edge class has nodes which is a list of Node objects. The Node class has lists of Edge objects.
Intention:
Read/ write the forward-edges and backward-edges in the Node objects encapsulated within an Edge object (the node list)
Problem/Question:
This "works" by returning nil as expected:
(defparameter *edge* (make-instance 'Edge))
(setf (slot-value *edge* 'nodes) (list (make-instance 'Node) (make-instance 'Node)))
(connect-edge *edge*)
This code gives me the error below, Why?
(connect-edge (make-instance 'Edge))
There is no applicable method for the generic function
#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION (SB-PCL::SLOT-ACCESSOR :GLOBAL
COMMON-LISP-USER::FORWARD-EDGES
SB-PCL::READER) (1)>
when called with arguments
(NIL).
Also, if I do this, I get the error below, which I think I understand why: No generic function defined which takes nil:
(connect-edge nil)
There is no applicable method for the generic function
#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION COMMON-LISP-USER::CONNECT-EDGE (1)>
when called with arguments
(NIL).
[Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR]
Why am I doing all this?
I have the following code which causes (perhaps for different reason) similar error:
(defun make-classic (net)
(loop
for this-layer in net
for next-layer in (cdr net)
do
(loop
for this-node in this-layer
do
(loop
for next-node in next-layer
do
(let ((edge (make-instance 'Edge)))
(setf (slot-value edge 'nodes) '(this-node next-node))
(format t "Type of edge is ~a~%" (type-of edge))
;; Error is here
(connect-edge edge))))))
I wasn't sure if the error is due to passing a scoped variable, so I ended up trying to pass a (make-instance 'Edge) to cause the error.
This is all you need:
when called with arguments (NIL).
(slot-value (make-instance 'Edge) 'nodes)
is nil, so
(slot-value (car (slot-value edge 'nodes)) 'forward-edges))
fails.
I am getting the following error trying to compile some code:
Lambda list of method # is incompatible with that of the generic function
INITIALIZE-INSTANCE. Method's lambda-list : (PAT::E)
Generic-function's : (CCL::INSTANCE &REST CCL::INITARGS &KEY
&ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS)
Here is the code causing the error:
(defclass event ()
((timestamp
:initarg :timestamp
:accessor timestamp)
(value
:initarg :value
:accessor value)))
(defclass update (event)
((security
:initarg :sectype
:accessor sectype)))
(defclass prc (update)
((lastp
:accessor lastp)
(lastv
:accessor lastv)))
(defmethod initialize-instance :after ((e prc)) ; <- :(
(setf (lastp e) (first (value e)))
(when (second (value e))
(setf (lastv e) (second (value e)))))
Any hints as to what might be causing the error would be really appreciated.
You need to add &key at the end of the argument list to your initialize-instance method.
To quote from "Practical Common Lisp", chapter "17. Object Reorientation: Classes":
The &key in the parameter list is required to keep the method's parameter list congruent with the generic function's--the parameter list specified for the INITIALIZE-INSTANCE generic function includes &key in order to allow individual methods to supply their own keyword parameters but doesn't require any particular ones. Thus, every method must specify &key even if it doesn't specify any &key parameters.
Say if I define a metaclass that enhances standard slots with a validator slot, when I pass :validator (clavier:valid-email "The email is invalid") as an option, instead of storing the result of of the expression, which is a funcallable, it stores the expression itself. Am I'm missing a step when extending the standard slots? How do I ensure the expression is evaluated before stored? I'm using SBCL 1.2.11 btw. Here is the code in question
(unless (find-package 'clavier)
(ql:quickload :clavier))
(unless (find-package 'c2mop)
(ql:quickload :c2mop))
(defpackage #:clos2web/validation
(:use #:cl)
(:import-from #:c2mop
#:standard-class
#:standard-direct-slot-definition
#:standard-effective-slot-definition
#:validate-superclass
#:direct-slot-definition-class
#:effective-slot-definition-class
#:compute-effective-slot-definition
#:slot-value-using-class))
(in-package #:clos2web/validation)
(defun true (value)
"Always return true."
(declare (ignore value))
t)
(defclass validation-class (standard-class)
()
(:documentation "Meta-class for objects whose slots know how to validate
their values."))
(defmethod validate-superclass
((class validation-class) (super standard-class))
t)
(defmethod validate-superclass
((class standard-class) (super validation-class))
t)
(defclass validation-slot (c2mop:standard-slot-definition)
((validator :initarg :validator :accessor validator :initform #'true
:documentation "The function to determine if the value is
valid. It takes as a parameter the value.")))
(defclass validation-direct-slot (validation-slot
standard-direct-slot-definition)
())
(defclass validation-effective-slot (validation-slot
standard-effective-slot-definition)
())
(defmethod direct-slot-definition-class ((class validation-class) &rest initargs)
(declare (ignore initargs))
(find-class 'validation-direct-slot))
(defmethod effective-slot-definition-class ((class validation-class) &rest initargs)
(declare (ignore initargs))
(find-class 'validation-effective-slot))
(defmethod compute-effective-slot-definition
((class validation-class) slot-name direct-slot-definitions)
(let ((effective-slot-definition (call-next-method)))
(setf (validator effective-slot-definition)
(some #'validator direct-slot-definitions))
effective-slot-definition))
(defmethod (setf slot-value-using-class) :before
(new (class validation-class) object (slot validation-effective-slot))
(when (slot-boundp slot 'validator)
(multiple-value-bind (validp msg)
(funcall (validator slot) new)
(unless validp
(error msg)))))
;; Example usage
(defclass user ()
((name :initarg :name)
(email :initarg :email :validator (clavier:valid-email "The email is invalid") :accessor email))
(:metaclass validation-class))
(let ((pepe (make-instance 'user :name "Pepe" :email "pepe#tumadre.com")))
(setf (email pepe) "FU!")) ;; should throw
The code fails when making an instance as (CLAVIER:VALID-EMAIL "The email is invalid") is not a funcallable.
(CLAVIER:VALID-EMAIL
"The email is invalid") fell through ETYPECASE expression.
Wanted one of (FUNCTION SYMBOL).
[Condition of type SB-KERNEL:CASE-FAILURE]
Like the comment above says, defclass does not evaluate arguments (it is a macro). While the usual advice is to avoid eval, I think that eval in this circumstance might be exactly what you want. While usually you would splice the form directly into some macro body, with defclass I think the answer is to eval the form in slot initialization and store the evaluation (if it has not yet been evaled).
This would probably occur in:
(defmethod initialize-instance :after ((obj validation-slot)
&key &allow-other-keys)
#| ... |#)
Optionally you could also store the :validation-message and :validation-fn as two separate arguments then call:
(multiple-value-bind (validp msg)
(funcall (funcall (validator-fn slot)
(validator-message slot))
new)
(unless validp
(error msg)))
Another alternative would be to store the evaluation of the form and pass that to the macro:
(defvar *email-validator* (CLAVIER:VALID-EMAIL "The email is invalid"))
(defun email-validator (val)
(funcall *email-validator* val))
Then pass email-validator to defclass.
Additionally I might suggest that your validation functions signal slot-validation-error type conditions instead of error type conditions. Then your condition could contain references to the validator that failed, the value, the slot and the instance. This could give you much better control than the raw error. You could also add some restarts (abort to skip setting the slot, use-value to provide a different value).
Depending on your setup, it might also make more sense for your validation function to signal these directly instead of returning multiple values that are then coerced to signals.
What I'm trying to do:
I want the functionality of simple-error in another error. I want this for these reasons:
to be able to handle it in a separate clause of handler-case.
to avoid specifying the message string over and over again...
to have debugger invoked when the error occurs.
I'm sort of puzzled this doesn't happen naturally by default, never paid enough attention to this issue, but this is apparently how it functions... What I am able to do is to signal an error, which I can later handle with handler-case or handler-bind, but this is bad, because I don't always remember whether the function throws or not, and when it does throw, but I forget to handle it, the function just returns early, as if nothing happened. But if I resume to using simple-error, then my code starts looking like:
...
(signal "Container ~S has no key ~S~&" :container foo :key bar)
...
(signal "Container ~S has no key ~S~&" :container foo :key baz)
...
And so on, all over the place :/ Of course I can dedicate a variable for saving the message text and maybe have a macro to make it shorter, but this doesn't help really, because it only hides the actual clutter instead of solving the problem.
What I could do so far:
(define-condition missing-key (condition)
((key :initarg :key
:accessor key-of)
(container :initarg :container
:accessor container-of))
(:documentation
"An error rised when a KEY is not in the CONTAINER"
:report
#'(lambda (condition stream)
(unless *print-escape*
(format stream "~&Container ~S has no key ~S"
(container-of condition)
(key-of condition))))))
(handler-bind
((missing-key
#'(lambda (condition)
(invoke-debugger condition))))
(signal 'missing-key :key 'foo :container 'bar))
What happens, however is that reporting function never gets called... when the error is signalled, instead it prints a generic message Condition MISSING-KEY was signalled.
EDIT:
Thanks to sds answer, this is what I have now:
(define-condition missing-key (error)
((key :initarg :key
:accessor key-of)
(container :initarg :container
:accessor container-of))
(:documentation
"An error rised when a KEY is not in the CONTAINER")
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream "Container ~S has no key ~S"
(container-of condition)
(key-of condition)))))
(defmacro signal-missing-key (container key)
`(let ((*break-on-signals*
(cond
((null *break-on-signals*) 'missing-key)
((consp *break-on-signals*)
(list 'or 'missing-key (cdr *break-on-signals*)))
(t (list 'or *break-on-signals* 'missing-key)))))
(signal 'missing-key :key ,container :container ,key)))
I could probably make it more generic by passing more arguments down to signal, but this does what I wanted to do initially, so, unless there is a better way to do the same thing, I'll probably just use this.
You can use error or cerror with your own condition types, if you want the debugger to be invoked unless the conditions are handled otherwise. This also works for conditions that are not descendants of simple-error.
If you want this behavior for signal, too, you can set the variable *break-on-signals* to the according type. For example, you could set it to t in order to invoke the debugger for every unhandled condition.
Your code works as you intended with the following modifications: remove #' before lambda, remove ~& from format (error reporting does that and more), close the :documentation clause and open the :report clause:
(define-condition missing-key (condition)
((key :initarg :key
:accessor key-of)
(container :initarg :container
:accessor container-of))
(:documentation
"An error rised when a KEY is not in the CONTAINER")
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(unless *print-escape*
(format stream "Container ~S has no key ~S"
(container-of condition)
(key-of condition))))))
MISSING-KEY
(signal 'missing-key :key 'foo :container 'bar)
==> NIL
(handler-bind
((missing-key
#'(lambda (condition)
(invoke-debugger condition))))
(signal 'missing-key :key 'foo :container 'bar))
*** - Container BAR has no key FOO
The following restarts are available:
ABORT :R1 Abort main loop
Break 1 [46]>
i.e., signal prints nothing but handler invokes the debugger.
Make your condition a subclass of ERROR rather than CONDITION. Not all conditions are errors that require intervention via debugger, and the condition class hierarchy is designed to distinguish between them.