I am just getting started with eJabberd and am writing a custom module with HTTP access.
I have the request going through, but am now trying to retrieve a custom header and that's where I'm having problems.
I've used the Request record to get the request_headers list and can see that it contains all of the headers I need (although the one I'm after is a binary string on both the key and value for some reason...) as follows:
[
{ 'Content-Length', <<"100">> },
{ <<"X-Custom-Header">>, <<"CustomValue">> },
{ 'Host', <<"127.0.0.1:5280">> },
{ 'Content-Type', <<"application/json">> },
{ 'User-Agent', <<"Fiddler">> }
]
This is also my first foray into functional programming, so from procedural perspective, I would loop through the list and check if the key is the one that I'm looking for and return the value.
To this end, I've created a function as:
find_header(HeaderKey, Headers) ->
lists:foreach(
fun(H) ->
if
H = {HeaderKey, Value} -> H;
true -> false
end
end,
Headers).
With this I get the error:
illegal guard expression
I'm not even sure I'm going about this the right way so am looking for some advice as to how to handle this sort of scenario in Erlang (and possibly in functional languages in general).
Thanks in advance for any help and advice!
PhilHalf
The List that you have mentioned is called a "Property list", which is an ordinary list containing entries in the form of either tuples, whose first elements are keys used for lookup and insertion or atoms, which work as shorthand for tuples {Atom, true}.
To get a value of key, you may do the following:
proplists:get_value(Key,List).
for Example to get the Content Length:
7> List=[{'Content-Length',<<"100">>},
{<<"X-Custom-Header">>,<<"CustomValue">>},
{'Host',<<"127.0.0.1:5280">>},
{'Content-Type',<<"application/json">>},
{'User-Agent',<<"Fiddler">>}].
7> proplists:get_value('Content-Type',List).
<<"application/json">>
You can use the function lists:keyfind/3:
> {_, Value} = lists:keyfind('Content-Length', 1, Headers).
{'Content-Length',<<"100">>}
> Value.
<<"100">>
The 1 in the second argument tells the function what tuple element to compare. If, for example, you wanted to know what key corresponds to a value you already know, you'd use 2 instead:
> {Key, _} = lists:keyfind(<<"100">>, 2, Headers).
{'Content-Length',<<"100">>}
> Key.
'Content-Length'
As for how to implement this in Erlang, you'd write a recursive function.
Imagine that you're looking at the first element of the list, trying to figure out if this is the entry you're looking for. There are three possibilities:
The list is empty, so there is nothing to compare.
The first entry matches. Return it and ignore the rest of the list.
The first entry doesn't match. Therefore, the result of looking for this key in this list is the same as the result of looking for it in the remaining elements: we recurse.
find_header(_HeaderKey, []) ->
not_found;
find_header(HeaderKey, [{HeaderKey, Value} | _Rest]) ->
{ok, Value};
find_header(HeaderKey, [{_Key, _Value} | Rest]) ->
find_header(HeaderKey, Rest).
Hope this helps.
Related
let memoize (sequence: seq<'a>) =
let cache = Dictionary()
seq {for i in sequence ->
match cache.TryGetValue i with
| true, v -> printf "cached"
| false,_ -> cache.Add(i ,i)
}
I will call my memoize function inside this function :
let isCached (input:seq<'a>) : seq<'a> = memoize input
If the given sequence item is cached it should print cached otherwise it will continue to add sequence value to cache.
Right now I have problems with types.
When I try to call my function like this :
let seq1 = seq { 1 .. 10 }
isCached seq1
It throws an error
"The type int does not match the type unit"
I want my function to work generic even though I return printfn. Is it possible to achieve that? And while adding value to the cache is it appropriate to give the same value to tuple?
eg:
| false,_ -> cache.Add(i ,i)
I think the problem is that your memoize function does not actually return the item from the source sequence as a next element of the returned sequence. Your version only adds items to the cache, but then it returns unit. You can fix that by writing:
let memoize (sequence: seq<'a>) =
let cache = Dictionary()
seq {for i in sequence do
match cache.TryGetValue i with
| true, v -> printf "cached"
| false,_ -> cache.Add(i ,i)
yield i }
I used explicit yield rather than -> because I think that makes the code more readable. With this change, the code runs as expected for me.
Tomas P beat me to the punch, but I'll post this up anyway just in case it helps.
I'm not too sure what you are trying to achieve here, but I'll say a few things that I think might help.
Firstly, the type error. Your isCached function is defined as taking a seq of type 'a, and returning a seq of type 'a. As written in your question, right now it takes a seq of type 'a, and returns a sequence of type unit. If you try modifying the output specification to seq<'b> (or actually just omitting it altogether and letting type inference do it), you should overcome the type error. This probably still won't do what you want, since you aren't actually returning the cache from that function (you can just add cache as the final line to return it). Thus, try something like:
let memoize (sequence: seq<'a>) =
let cache = Dictionary()
for i in sequence do
match cache.TryGetValue i with
| true, v -> printf "cached"
| false,_ -> cache.Add(i ,i)
cache
let isCached (input:seq<'a>) : seq<'b> = memoize input
All this being said, if you are expecting to iterate over the same sequence a lot, it might be best just to use the library function Seq.cache.
Finally, with regards to using the value as the key in the dictionary... There's nothing stopping you from doing that, but it's really fairly pointless. If you already have a value, then you shouldn't need to look it up in the dictionary. If you are just trying to memoize the sequence, then use the index of the given element as the key. Or use the specific input as the key and the output from that input as the value.
let list p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
I have such a function to check if the list is well formatted or not. The list shouldn't have an empty string and nulls. I don't get what I am missing since Check.Verbose list returns falsifiable output.
How should I approach the problem?
I think you don't quite understand FsCheck yet. When you do Check.Verbose someFunction, FsCheck generates a bunch of random input for your function, and fails if the function ever returns false. The idea is that the function you pass to Check.Verbose should be a property that will always be true no matter what the input is. For example, if you reverse a list twice then it should return the original list no matter what the original list was. This property is usually expressed as follows:
let revTwiceIsSameList (lst : int list) =
List.rev (List.rev lst) = lst
Check.Verbose revTwiceIsSameList // This will pass
Your function, on the other hand, is a good, useful function that checks whether a list is well-formed in your data model... but it's not a property in the sense that FsCheck uses the term (that is, a function that should always return true no matter what the input is). To make an FsCheck-style property, you want to write a function that looks generally like:
let verifyMyFunc (input : string list) =
if (input is well-formed) then // TODO: Figure out how to check that
myFunc input = true
else
myFunc input = false
Check.Verbose verifyMyFunc
(Note that I've named your function myFunc instead of list, because as a general rule, you should never name a function list. The name list is a data type (e.g., string list or int list), and if you name a function list, you'll just confuse yourself later on when the same name has two different meanings.)
Now, the problem here is: how do you write the "input is well-formed" part of my verifyMyFunc example? You can't just use your function to check it, because that would be testing your function against itself, which is not a useful test. (The test would essentially become "myFunc input = myFunc input", which would always return true even if your function had a bug in it — unless your function returned random input, of course). So you'd have to write another function to check if the input is well-formed, and here the problem is that the function you've written is the best, most correct way to check for well-formed input. If you wrote another function to check, it would boil down to not (List.contains "" || List.contains null) in the end, and again, you'd be essentially checking your function against itself.
In this specific case, I don't think FsCheck is the right tool for the job, because your function is so simple. Is this a homework assignment, where your instructor is requiring you to use FsCheck? Or are you trying to learn FsCheck on your own, and using this exercise to teach yourself FsCheck? If it's the former, then I'd suggest pointing your instructor to this question and see what he says about my answer. If it's the latter, then I'd suggest finding some slightly more complicated function to use to learn FsCheck. A useful function here would be one where you can find some property that should always be true, like in the List.rev example (reversing a list twice should restore the original list, so that's a useful property to test with). Or if you're having trouble finding an always-true property, at least find a function that you can implement in at least two different ways, so that you can use FsCheck to check that both implementations return the same result for any given input.
Adding to #rmunn's excellent answer:
if you wanted to test myFunc (yes I also renamed your list function) you could do it by creating some fixed cases that you already know the answer to, like:
let myFunc p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
let tests =
testList "myFunc" [
testCase "empty list" <| fun()-> "empty" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ ])
testCase "nonempty list" <| fun()-> "hi" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ "hi" ])
testCase "null case" <| fun()-> "null" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ null ])
testCase "empty string" <| fun()-> "\"\"" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ "" ])
]
Tests.runTests config tests
Here I am using a testing library called Expecto.
If you run this you would see one of the tests fails:
Failed! myFunc/empty string:
"". Actual value was true but had expected it to be false.
because your original function has a bug; it checks for space " " instead of empty string "".
After you fix it all tests pass:
4 tests run in 00:00:00.0105346 for myFunc – 4 passed, 0 ignored, 0
failed, 0 errored. Success!
At this point you checked only 4 simple and obvious cases with zero or one element each. Many times functions fail when fed more complex data. The problem is how many more test cases can you add? The possibilities are literally infinite!
FsCheck
This is where FsCheck can help you. With FsCheck you can check for properties (or rules) that should always be true. It takes a little bit of creativity to think of good ones to test for and granted, sometimes it is not easy.
In your case we can test for concatenation. The rule would be like this:
If two lists are concatenated the result of MyFunc applied to the concatenation should be true if both lists are well formed and false if any of them is malformed.
You can express that as a function this way:
let myFuncConcatenation l1 l2 = myFunc (l1 # l2) = (myFunc l1 && myFunc l2)
l1 # l2 is the concatenation of both lists.
Now if you call FsCheck:
FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation
It tries a 100 different combinations trying to make it fail but in the end it gives you the Ok:
0:
["X"]
["^"; ""]
1:
["C"; ""; "M"]
[]
2:
[""; ""; ""]
[""; null; ""; ""]
3:
...
Ok, passed 100 tests.
This does not necessarily mean your function is correct, there still could be a failing combination that FsCheck did not try or it could be wrong in a different way. But it is a pretty good indication that it is correct in terms of the concatenation property.
Testing for the concatenation property with FsCheck actually allowed us to call myFunc 300 times with different values and prove that it did not crash or returned an unexpected value.
FsCheck does not replace case by case testing, it complements it:
Notice that if you had run FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation over the original function, which had a bug, it would still pass. The reason is the bug was independent of the concatenation property. This means that you should always have the case by case testing where you check the most important cases and you can complement that with FsCheck to test other situations.
Here are other properties you can check, these test the two false conditions independently:
let myFuncHasNulls l = if List.contains null l then myFunc l = false else true
let myFuncHasEmpty l = if List.contains "" l then myFunc l = false else true
Check.Quick myFuncHasNulls
Check.Quick myFuncHasEmpty
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
I have incoming param List<Somedata>.Somedata class contains id field.
My goal is to make HashMap<Somedata.id, Somedata> from this list.
Is next approach correct or there is a better/safer way to do that?
list
.filter { it.id != null }
.associateTo(HashMap(), {it.id!! to it})
Actually, I cannot understand, why should I use !! keyword in associateTo method, when above I filtered it with non-null values only.
Or maybe there is a good way to perform this with ?. or ?.let keywords?
You can do:
list.mapNotNull { e -> e.id?.let { it to e } }.toMap()
Breakdown:
The call to .let with the ?. safe call operator will make the result null if the element is null.
So the lambda passed to mapNotNull is of type (Somedata) -> Pair<IdType, Somedata>.
mapNotNull discards the null pairs, and toMap turns the resulting List<Pair<IdType, Somedata>> into a Map<IdType, Somedata>.
If you want to avoid the creation of an intermediate list to hold the pairs, you can turn the list into a lazy Sequence from the start:
list.asSequence().mapNotNull { e -> e.id?.let { it to e } }.toMap()
Alternatively, since you asked:
why should I use !! keyword in associateTo method, when above I filtered it with non-null values only.
this is because the list is still of type List<Somedata> - this says nothing about the nullability of the field itself. The compiler does not know that the id fields are still not null, by the time your associateTo call is executed.
I am trying to understand elm's type signatures. What does this function return exactly? It appears to be a function that accepts no arguments and returns ...
route : Parser (Page -> a) a
As a learning exercise for myself I'm going to try to answer this. Others will chip in if I get something wrong.
I'm sure you are used to something like
type Person = Adult String | Child String Age
Child is a type that takes two parameters. Parser is the same. But it's definition is pretty formidable
type Parser a b =
Parser (State a -> List (State b))
type alias State value =
{ visited : List String
, unvisited : List String
, params : Dict String String
, value : value
}
That said, you see how Parser is ultimately a wrapper around a function from a State to a list of States. Ultimately it is going to be passed a List of 'unvisited' strings or params; it will progressively 'visit' each one and the result will be combined into the final 'value'.
Next, note that while Parser takes two type parameters - a, b - parseHash is defined
parseHash : Parser (a -> a) a -> Location -> Maybe a
So, your original
route : Parser (Page -> a) a
is going to have to be
route : Parser (Page -> Page) Page
to type check.
To return to your original question, therefore, route is a Parser (which is a very general object) that encapsulates instructions on how to go from one Page to another, and can be used - via parseHash - to tell you what Page to go to next, and that is of course what you would expect from a router.
Hope this gets you started
I am trying to learn Erlang and I am working on the practice problems Erlang has on the site. One of them is:
Write the function time:swedish_date() which returns a string containing the date in swedish YYMMDD format:
time:swedish_date()
"080901"
My function:
-module(demo).
-export([swedish_date/0]).
swedish_date() ->
[YYYY,MM,DD] = tuple_to_list(date()),
string:substr((integer_to_list(YYYY, 3,4)++pad_string(integer_to_list(MM))++pad_string(integer_to_list(DD)).
pad_string(String) ->
if
length(String) == 1 -> '0' ++ String;
true -> String
end.
I'm getting the following errors when compiled.
demo.erl:6: syntax error before: '.'
demo.erl:2: function swedish_date/0 undefined
demo.erl:9: Warning: function pad_string/1 is unused
error
How do I fix this?
After fixing your compilation errors, you're still facing runtime errors. Since you're trying to learn Erlang, it's instructive to look at your approach and see if it can be improved, and fix those runtime errors along the way.
First let's look at swedish_date/0:
swedish_date() ->
[YYYY,MM,DD] = tuple_to_list(date()),
Why convert the list to a tuple? Since you use the list elements individually and never use the list as a whole, the conversion serves no purpose. You can instead just pattern-match the returned tuple:
{YYYY,MM,DD} = date(),
Next, you're calling string:substr/1, which doesn't exist:
string:substr((integer_to_list(YYYY,3,4) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(MM)) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(DD))).
The string:substr/2,3 functions both take a starting position, and the 3-arity version also takes a length. You don't need either, and can avoid string:substr entirely and instead just return the assembled string:
integer_to_list(YYYY,3,4) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(MM)) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(DD)).
Whoops, this is still not right: there is no such function integer_to_list/3, so just replace that first call with integer_to_list/1:
integer_to_list(YYYY) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(MM)) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(DD)).
Next, let's look at pad_string/1:
pad_string(String) ->
if
length(String) == 1 -> '0' ++ String;
true -> String
end.
There's a runtime error here because '0' is an atom and you're attempting to append String, which is a list, to it. The error looks like this:
** exception error: bad argument
in operator ++/2
called as '0' ++ "8"
Instead of just fixing that directly, let's consider what pad_string/1 does: it adds a leading 0 character if the string is a single digit. Instead of using if to check for this condition — if isn't used that often in Erlang code — use pattern matching:
pad_string([D]) ->
[$0,D];
pad_string(S) ->
S.
The first clause matches a single-element list, and returns a new list with the element D preceded with $0, which is the character constant for the character 0. The second clause matches all other arguments and just returns whatever is passed in.
Here's the full version with all changes:
-module(demo).
-export([swedish_date/0]).
swedish_date() ->
{YYYY,MM,DD} = date(),
integer_to_list(YYYY) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(MM)) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(DD)).
pad_string([D]) ->
[$0,D];
pad_string(S) ->
S.
But a simpler approach would be to use the io_lib:format/2 function to just format the desired string directly:
swedish_date() ->
io_lib:format("~w~2..0w~2..0w", tuple_to_list(date())).
First, note that we're back to calling tuple_to_list(date()). This is because the second argument for io_lib:format/2 must be a list. Its first argument is a format string, which in our case says to expect three arguments, formatting each as an Erlang term, and formatting the 2nd and 3rd arguments with a width of 2 and 0-padded.
But there's still one more step to address, because if we run the io_lib:format/2 version we get:
1> demo:swedish_date().
["2015",["0",56],"29"]
Whoa, what's that? It's simply a deep list, where each element of the list is itself a list. To get the format we want, we can flatten that list:
swedish_date() ->
lists:flatten(io_lib:format("~w~2..0w~2..0w", tuple_to_list(date()))).
Executing this version gives us what we want:
2> demo:swedish_date().
"20150829"
Find the final full version of the code below.
-module(demo).
-export([swedish_date/0]).
swedish_date() ->
lists:flatten(io_lib:format("~w~2..0w~2..0w", tuple_to_list(date()))).
UPDATE: #Pascal comments that the year should be printed as 2 digits rather than 4. We can achieve this by passing the date list through a list comprehension:
swedish_date() ->
DateVals = [D rem 100 || D <- tuple_to_list(date())],
lists:flatten(io_lib:format("~w~2..0w~2..0w", DateVals)).
This applies the rem remainder operator to each of the list elements returned by tuple_to_list(date()). The operation is needless for month and day but I think it's cleaner than extracting the year and processing it individually. The result:
3> demo:swedish_date().
"150829"
There are a few issues here:
You are missing a parenthesis at the end of line 6.
You are trying to call integer_to_list/3 when Erlang only defines integer_to_list/1,2.
This will work:
-module(demo).
-export([swedish_date/0]).
swedish_date() ->
[YYYY,MM,DD] = tuple_to_list(date()),
string:substr(
integer_to_list(YYYY) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(MM)) ++
pad_string(integer_to_list(DD))
).
pad_string(String) ->
if
length(String) == 1 -> '0' ++ String;
true -> String
end.
In addition to the parenthesis error on line 6, you also have an error on line 10 where yo use the form '0' instead of "0", so you define an atom rather than a string.
I understand you are doing this for educational purpose, but I encourage you to dig into erlang libraries, it is something you will have to do. For a common problem like this, it already exists function that help you:
swedish_date() ->
{YYYY,MM,DD} = date(), % not useful to transform into list
lists:flatten(io_lib:format("~2.10.0B~2.10.0B~2.10.0B",[YYYY rem 100,MM,DD])).
% ~X.Y.ZB means: uses format integer in base Y, print X characters, uses Z for padding