F#, FParsec, and Calling a Stream Parser Recursively, Second Take - recursion

Thank you for the replies to my first post and my second post on this project. This question is basically the same question as the first, but with my code updated according to the feedback received on those two questions. How do I call my parser recursively?
I'm scratching my head and staring blankly at the code. I've no idea where to go from here. That's when I turn to stackoverflow.
I've included in code comments the compile-time errors I'm receiving. One stumbling block may be my discriminated union. I've not worked with discriminated unions much, so I may be using mine incorrectly.
The example POST I'm working with, bits of which I've included in my previous two questions, consists of one boundary that includes a second post with a new boundary. That second post includes several additional parts separated by the second boundary. Each of those several additional parts is a new post consisting of headers and XML.
My goal in this project is to build a library to be used in our C# solution, with the library taking a stream and returning the POST parsed into headers and parts recursively. I really want F# to shine here.
namespace MultipartMIMEParser
open FParsec
open System.IO
type Header = { name : string
; value : string
; addl : (string * string) list option }
type Content = Content of string
| Post of Post list
and Post = { headers : Header list
; content : Content }
type UserState = { Boundary : string }
with static member Default = { Boundary="" }
module internal P =
let ($) f x = f x
let undefined = failwith "Undefined."
let ascii = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII
let str cs = System.String.Concat (cs:char list)
let makeHeader ((n,v),nvps) = { name=n; value=v; addl=nvps}
let runP p s = match runParserOnStream p UserState.Default "" s ascii with
| Success (r,_,_) -> r
| Failure (e,_,_) -> failwith (sprintf "%A" e)
let blankField = parray 2 newline
let delimited d e =
let pEnd = preturn () .>> e
let part = spaces
>>. (manyTill
$ noneOf d
$ (attempt (preturn () .>> pstring d)
<|> pEnd)) |>> str
in part .>>. part
let delimited3 firstDelimiter secondDelimiter thirdDelimiter endMarker =
delimited firstDelimiter endMarker
.>>. opt (many (delimited secondDelimiter endMarker
>>. delimited thirdDelimiter endMarker))
let isBoundary ((n:string),_) = n.ToLower() = "boundary"
let pHeader =
let includesBoundary (h:Header) = match h.addl with
| Some xs -> xs |> List.exists isBoundary
| None -> false
let setBoundary b = { Boundary=b }
in delimited3 ":" ";" "=" blankField
|>> makeHeader
>>= fun header stream -> if includesBoundary header
then
stream.UserState <- setBoundary (header.addl.Value
|> List.find isBoundary
|> snd)
Reply ()
else Reply ()
let pHeaders = manyTill pHeader $ attempt (preturn () .>> blankField)
let rec pContent (stream:CharStream<UserState>) =
match stream.UserState.Boundary with
| "" -> // Content is text.
let nl = System.Environment.NewLine
let unlines (ss:string list) = System.String.Join (nl,ss)
let line = restOfLine false
let lines = manyTill line $ attempt (preturn () .>> blankField)
in pipe2 pHeaders lines
$ fun h c -> { headers=h
; content=Content $ unlines c }
| _ -> // Content contains boundaries.
let b = "--" + stream.UserState.Boundary
// VS complains about pContent in the following line:
// Type mismatch. Expecting a
// Parser<'a,UserState>
// but given a
// CharStream<UserState> -> Parser<Post,UserState>
// The type 'Reply<'a>' does not match the type 'Parser<Post,UserState>'
let p = pipe2 pHeaders pContent $ fun h c -> { headers=h; content=c }
in skipString b
>>. manyTill p (attempt (preturn () .>> blankField))
// VS complains about Content.Post in the following line:
// Type mismatch. Expecting a
// Post list -> Post
// but given a
// Post list -> Content
// The type 'Post' does not match the type 'Content'
|>> Content.Post
// VS complains about pContent in the following line:
// Type mismatch. Expecting a
// Parser<'a,UserState>
// but given a
// CharStream<UserState> -> Parser<Post,UserState>
// The type 'Reply<'a>' does not match the type 'Parser<Post,UserState>'
let pStream = runP (pipe2 pHeaders pContent $ fun h c -> { headers=h; content=c })
type MParser (s:Stream) =
let r = P.pStream s
let findHeader name =
match r.headers |> List.tryFind (fun h -> h.name.ToLower() = name) with
| Some h -> h.value
| None -> ""
member p.Boundary =
let header = r.headers
|> List.tryFind (fun h -> match h.addl with
| Some xs -> xs |> List.exists P.isBoundary
| None -> false)
in match header with
| Some h -> h.addl.Value |> List.find P.isBoundary |> snd
| None -> ""
member p.ContentID = findHeader "content-id"
member p.ContentLocation = findHeader "content-location"
member p.ContentSubtype = findHeader "type"
member p.ContentTransferEncoding = findHeader "content-transfer-encoding"
member p.ContentType = findHeader "content-type"
member p.Content = r.content
member p.Headers = r.headers
member p.MessageID = findHeader "message-id"
member p.MimeVersion = findHeader "mime-version"
EDIT
In response to the feedback I've received thus far (thank you!), I made the following adjustments, receiving the errors annotated:
let rec pContent (stream:CharStream<UserState>) =
match stream.UserState.Boundary with
| "" -> // Content is text.
let nl = System.Environment.NewLine
let unlines (ss:string list) = System.String.Join (nl,ss)
let line = restOfLine false
let lines = manyTill line $ attempt (preturn () .>> blankField)
in pipe2 pHeaders lines
$ fun h c -> { headers=h
; content=Content $ unlines c }
| _ -> // Content contains boundaries.
let b = "--" + stream.UserState.Boundary
// The following complaint is about `pContent stream`:
// This expression was expected to have type
// Reply<'a>
// but here has type
// Parser<Post,UserState>
let p = pipe2 pHeaders (fun stream -> pContent stream) $ fun h c -> { headers=h; content=c }
in skipString b
>>. manyTill p (attempt (preturn () .>> blankField))
// VS complains about the line above:
// Type mismatch. Expecting a
// Parser<Post,UserState>
// but given a
// Parser<'a list,UserState>
// The type 'Post' does not match the type ''a list'
// See above complaint about `pContent stream`. Same complaint here.
let pStream = runP (pipe2 pHeaders (fun stream -> pContent stream) $ fun h c -> { headers=h; content=c })
I tried throwing in Reply ()s, but they just returned parsers, meaning c above became a Parser<...> rather than Content. That seemed to have been a step backwards, or at least in the wrong direction. I admit my ignorance, though, and welcome correction!

I can help with one of the errors.
F# generally binds arguments left to right, so you need to use either parentheses around the recursive calls to pContent or a pipe-backward operator <| to show that you want to evaluate the recursive call and bind the return value.
It's also worth noting that <| is the same as your $ operator.
Content.Post is not a constructor for a Post object. You need a function to accept a Post list and return a Post. (Does something from the List module do what you need?)

My first answer was completely wrong, but I'd thought I'd leave it up.
The types Post and Content are defined as:
type Content =
| Content of string
| Post of Post list
and Post =
{ headers : Header list
; content : Content }
Post is a Record, and Content is a Discriminated Union.
F# treats the cases for Discriminated Unions as a separate namespace from types. So Content is different from Content.Content, and Post is different from Content.Post. Because they are different, having the same identifier is confusing.
What is pContent supposed to be returning? If it's supposed to be returning the Discriminated Union Content, you need to wrap the Post record you are returning in the first case in the Content.Post case i.e.
$ fun h c -> Post [ { headers=h
; content=Content $ unlines c } ]
(F# is able to infer that 'Post' refers to Content.Post case, instead of the Post record type here.)

Related

Railway oriented programming with Async operations

Previously asked similar question but somehow I'm not finding my way out, attempting again with another example.
The code as a starting point (a bit trimmed) is available at https://ideone.com/zkQcIU.
(it has some issue recognizing Microsoft.FSharp.Core.Result type, not sure why)
Essentially all operations have to be pipelined with the previous function feeding the result to the next one. The operations have to be async and they should return error to the caller in case an exception occurred.
The requirement is to give the caller either result or fault. All functions return a Tuple populated with either Success type Article or Failure with type Error object having descriptive code and message returned from the server.
Will appreciate a working example around my code both for the callee and the caller in an answer.
Callee Code
type Article = {
name: string
}
type Error = {
code: string
message: string
}
let create (article: Article) : Result<Article, Error> =
let request = WebRequest.Create("http://example.com") :?> HttpWebRequest
request.Method <- "GET"
try
use response = request.GetResponse() :?> HttpWebResponse
use reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream())
use memoryStream = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd()))
Ok ((new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof<Article>)).ReadObject(memoryStream) :?> Article)
with
| :? WebException as e ->
use reader = new StreamReader(e.Response.GetResponseStream())
use memoryStream = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd()))
Error ((new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof<Error>)).ReadObject(memoryStream) :?> Error)
Rest of the chained methods - Same signature and similar bodies. You can actually reuse the body of create for update, upload, and publish to be able to test and compile code.
let update (article: Article) : Result<Article, Error>
// body (same as create, method <- PUT)
let upload (article: Article) : Result<Article, Error>
// body (same as create, method <- PUT)
let publish (article: Article) : Result<Article, Error>
// body (same as create, method < POST)
Caller Code
let chain = create >> Result.bind update >> Result.bind upload >> Result.bind publish
match chain(schemaObject) with
| Ok article -> Debug.WriteLine(article.name)
| Error error -> Debug.WriteLine(error.code + ":" + error.message)
Edit
Based on the answer and matching it with Scott's implementation (https://i.stack.imgur.com/bIxpD.png), to help in comparison and in better understanding.
let bind2 (switchFunction : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>) =
fun (asyncTwoTrackInput : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) -> async {
let! twoTrackInput = asyncTwoTrackInput
match twoTrackInput with
| Ok s -> return! switchFunction s
| Error err -> return Error err
}
Edit 2 Based on F# implementation of bind
let bind3 (binder : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>) (asyncResult : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) = async {
let! result = asyncResult
match result with
| Error e -> return Error e
| Ok x -> return! binder x
}
Take a look at the Suave source code, and specifically the WebPart.bind function. In Suave, a WebPart is a function that takes a context (a "context" is the current request and the response so far) and returns a result of type Async<context option>. The semantics of chaining these together are that if the async returns None, the next step is skipped; if it returns Some value, the next step is called with value as the input. This is pretty much the same semantics as the Result type, so you could almost copy the Suave code and adjust it for Result instead of Option. E.g., something like this:
module AsyncResult
let bind (f : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>) (a : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) : Async<Result<'b, 'c>> = async {
let! r = a
match r with
| Ok value ->
let next : Async<Result<'b, 'c>> = f value
return! next
| Error err -> return (Error err)
}
let compose (f : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'e>>) (g : 'b -> Async<Result<'c, 'e>>) : 'a -> Async<Result<'c, 'e>> =
fun x -> bind g (f x)
let (>>=) a f = bind f a
let (>=>) f g = compose f g
Now you can write your chain as follows:
let chain = create >=> update >=> upload >=> publish
let result = chain(schemaObject) |> Async.RunSynchronously
match result with
| Ok article -> Debug.WriteLine(article.name)
| Error error -> Debug.WriteLine(error.code + ":" + error.message)
Caution: I haven't been able to verify this code by running it in F# Interactive, since I don't have any examples of your create/update/etc. functions. It should work, in principle — the types all fit together like Lego building blocks, which is how you can tell that F# code is probably correct — but if I've made a typo that the compiler would have caught, I don't yet know about it. Let me know if that works for you.
Update: In a comment, you asked whether you need to have both the >>= and >=> operators defined, and mentioned that you didn't see them used in the chain code. I defined both because they serve different purposes, just like the |> and >> operators serve different purposes. >>= is like |>: it passes a value into a function. While >=> is like >>: it takes two functions and combines them. If you would write the following in a non-AsyncResult context:
let chain = step1 >> step2 >> step3
Then that translates to:
let asyncResultChain = step1AR >=> step2AR >=> step3AR
Where I'm using the "AR" suffix to indicate versions of those functions that return an Async<Result<whatever>> type. On the other hand, if you had written that in a pass-the-data-through-the-pipeline style:
let result = input |> step1 |> step2 |> step3
Then that would translate to:
let asyncResult = input >>= step1AR >>= step2AR >>= step3AR
So that's why you need both the bind and compose functions, and the operators that correspond to them: so that you can have the equivalent of either the |> or the >> operators for your AsyncResult values.
BTW, the operator "names" that I picked (>>= and >=>), I did not pick randomly. These are the standard operators that are used all over the place for the "bind" and "compose" operations on values like Async, or Result, or AsyncResult. So if you're defining your own, stick with the "standard" operator names and other people reading your code won't be confused.
Update 2: Here's how to read those type signatures:
'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>
This is a function that takes type A, and returns an Async wrapped around a Result. The Result has type B as its success case, and type C as its failure case.
Async<Result<'a, 'c>>
This is a value, not a function. It's an Async wrapped around a Result where type A is the success case, and type C is the failure case.
So the bind function takes two parameters:
a function from A to an async of (either B or C)).
a value that's an async of (either A or C)).
And it returns:
a value that's an async of (either B or C).
Looking at those type signatures, you can already start to get an idea of what the bind function will do. It will take that value that's either A or C, and "unwrap" it. If it's C, it will produce an "either B or C" value that's C (and the function won't need to be called). If it's A, then in order to convert it to an "either B or C" value, it will call the f function (which takes an A).
All this happens within an async context, which adds an extra layer of complexity to the types. It might be easier to grasp all this if you look at the basic version of Result.bind, with no async involved:
let bind (f : 'a -> Result<'b, 'c>) (a : Result<'a, 'c>) =
match a with
| Ok val -> f val
| Error err -> Error err
In this snippet, the type of val is 'a, and the type of err is 'c.
Final update: There was one comment from the chat session that I thought was worth preserving in the answer (since people almost never follow chat links). Developer11 asked,
... if I were to ask you what Result.bind in my example code maps to your approach, can we rewrite it as create >> AsyncResult.bind update? It worked though. Just wondering i liked the short form and as you said they have a standard meaning? (in haskell community?)
My reply was:
Yes. If the >=> operator is properly written, then f >=> g will always be equivalent to f >> bind g. In fact, that's precisely the definition of the compose function, though that might not be immediately obvious to you because compose is written as fun x -> bind g (f x) rather than as f >> bind g. But those two ways of writing the compose function would be exactly equivalent. It would probably be very instructive for you to sit down with a piece of paper and draw out the function "shapes" (inputs & outputs) of both ways of writing compose.
Why do you want to use Railway Oriented Programming here? If you just want to run a sequence of operations and return information about the first exception that occurs, then F# already provides a language support for this using exceptions. You do not need Railway Oriented Programming for this. Just define your Error as an exception:
exception Error of code:string * message:string
Modify the code to throw the exception (also note that your create function takes article but does not use it, so I deleted that):
let create () = async {
let ds = new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof<Error>)
let request = WebRequest.Create("http://example.com") :?> HttpWebRequest
request.Method <- "GET"
try
use response = request.GetResponse() :?> HttpWebResponse
use reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream())
use memoryStream = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd()))
return ds.ReadObject(memoryStream) :?> Article
with
| :? WebException as e ->
use reader = new StreamReader(e.Response.GetResponseStream())
use memoryStream = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd()))
return raise (Error (ds.ReadObject(memoryStream) :?> Error)) }
And then you can compose functions just by sequencing them in async block using let! and add exception handling:
let main () = async {
try
let! created = create ()
let! updated = update created
let! uploaded = upload updated
Debug.WriteLine(uploaded.name)
with Error(code, message) ->
Debug.WriteLine(code + ":" + message) }
If you wanted more sophisticated exception handling, then Railway Oriented Programming might be useful and there is certainly a way of integrating it with async, but if you just want to do what you described in your question, then you can do that much more easily with just standard F#.

OCaml main function

I need a main function to run the others functions.
I tried this:
let main () =
let deck = make_mazo in
let jugadores = players [] 0 in
dothemagic deck jugadores 0 [] [] [];;
But I got this error:
File "game.ml", line 329, characters 37-39:
Error: Syntax error
I think ;; is the problem and I need a different way to end the code. Also try with only ; and the problem is the same.
[EDIT]
An update here
let main =
let deck = make_mazo [] in
let game = players deck [] 0 in
let dd = fst game in
let jugadores = snd game in
dothemagic dd jugadores 0 [] [] [] [];
let () = main;;
Error persist:
File "game.ml", line 253, characters 13-15:
Error: Syntax error
The other functions are working perfectly fine, but i need a main function because I want to run the program with ocaml game.ml or ocamlbuild game.native
[SECOND EDIT]
After #camlspotter response: The use of ; of your code is wrong. Remove it.
Update 2.0
let main =
let deck = make_mazo [] in
let game = players deck [] 0 in
let dd = fst game in
let jugadores = snd game in
dothemagic dd jugadores 0 [] [] [] []
let () = main;;
New Error:
File "game.ml", line 253, characters 0-3: Error: Syntax error
Think let is the problem now, so i try with this
let main =
let deck = make_mazo [] in
let game = players deck [] 0 in
let dd = fst game in
let jugadores = snd game in
dothemagic dd jugadores 0 [] [] [] []
main;;
But Error is:
File "game.ml", line 253, characters 4-6:
Error: Syntax error
There's nothing syntactically wrong with the code you show here.
Most likely the problem is near the end of the part you don't show, like around line 324 of the file.
If I had to guess, I'd say that line 324 ends with in :-)
As a side comment, you'll also need to call this main function. You might want the last line of the file to be something like this:
let () = main ()
(This line appears in many of my OCaml projects.)
In ocaml, there is no main function unlike other languages, see the code below :
let () = print_string "hello\n";;
let f = print_string "hello, this is f\n";;
let () = f;;
OCaml programs, unlike programs in many other languages, do not have a specific entry-point: all the code in a module (file) is evaluated in order from top to bottom, sort of like in a scripting language. A common idiom you'll see is:
let name = "World" (* I could have added a ;; at the
* end of this line, but that would
* have been unnecessary *)
let () =
Printf.printf "Hello, %s!\n" name
which will output
Hello, World!
The let () = ... may seem a bit wonky, but it's really just pattern-matching: the return type of Printf.printf is unit, () is also of type unit, the you're really just saying "match this unit value with the result of evaluating this expression". Basically, this idiom means "run this unit-type expression in a safe way".
A similar, although highly discouraged, idiom, uses the catch-all pattern:
let greet s =
match s with
| "" -> false
| _ ->
Printf.printf "Hello, %s!\n" s;
true
let name = "World"
let _ =
greet world
The catch-all pattern doesn't care about the type (or value) of the expression it's being matched against, and this idiom means "run this expression and discard whatever it returned".
To solve my problem, I had to write the functions in the following way,
let fun x =
let y = blabla in
code_returning_unit; (* Use ; for unit returns *)
return_value;; (* Use ;; for end of fun *)
Thanks all for the help.

How to access a field of a type defined in an OCaml recursive module?

I am working on recursive modules in OCaml and I have some trouble accessing type fields.
If I try to do :
module A = struct type t = { name : string; } end
module A2 =
struct
include A
let getName (x:t) = x.name
end;;
Everything is alright. However, I need a more complex type, forcing me to define my type in a recursive module.
module rec B:Set.OrderedType =
struct
type t = {name: string; set : S.t}
let compare _ _ = 0
end
and S:Set.S = Set.Make (B);;
Everything still works perfectly. However, the following module is incorrect :
module B2 =
struct
include B
let get_name (x:t) = x.name
end;;
The returned error is "Unbound record field name". What is the problem ?
module rec B:Set.OrderedType =
Your recursive definition says that module B has the signature Set.OrderedType, which hides the definition of t and in this case, its projections. In Set.OrderedType, the type t is abstract, like this: type t;;.
If you want to show the definition of type t, it must be part of the signature. The first example works because you did not offer a signature for module A, so it was typed by default with a signature that exports everything.
The example below works for me with OCaml 4.02.1.
module rec B:
sig type t = { name:string ; set : S.t } val compare: t -> t -> int end
=
struct
type t = {name: string; set : S.t}
let compare _ _ = 0
end
and S:Set.S = Set.Make (B);;
The toplevel confirms the definition thus:
module rec B :
sig type t = { name : string; set : S.t; } val compare : t -> t -> int end
and S : Set.S

How to convert a string to integer list in ocaml?

I need to pass two list as command line arguments in ocaml.
I used the following code to access it in the program.
let list1=Sys.argv.(1);;
let list2=Sys.argv.(2);;
I need to have the list1 and list2 as list of integers.
I am getting the error
This expression has type string but an expression was expected of type
int list
while processing.
How can I convert that arguments to a list of integers.
The arguments are passed in this format [1;2;3;4] [1;5;6;7]
Sys.argv.(n) will always be a string. You need to parse the string into a list of integers. You could try something like this:
$ ocaml
OCaml version 4.01.0
# #load "str.cma";;
# List.map int_of_string (Str.split (Str.regexp "[^0-9]+") "[1;5;6;7]");;
- : int list = [1; 5; 6; 7]
Of course this doesn't check the input for correct form. It just pulls out sequences of digits by brute force. To do better you need to do some real lexical analysis and simple parsing.
(Maybe this is obvious, but you could also test your function in the toplevel (the OCaml read-eval-print loop). The toplevel will handle the work of making a list from what you type in.)
As Sys.argv is a string array, you need to write your own transcription function.
I guess the simplest way to do this is to use the Genlex module provided by the standard library.
let lexer = Genlex.make_lexer ["["; ";"; "]"; ]
let list_of_string s =
let open Genlex in
let open Stream in
let stream = lexer (of_string s) in
let fail () = failwith "Malformed string" in
let rec aux acc =
match next stream with
| Int i ->
( match next stream with
| Kwd ";" -> aux (i::acc)
| Kwd "]" -> i::acc
| _ -> fail () )
| Kwd "]" -> acc
| _ -> fail ()
in
try
match next stream with
| Kwd "[" -> List.rev (aux [])
| _ -> fail ()
with Stream.Failure -> fail ()
let list1 = list_of_string Sys.argv.(1)
let list2 = list_of_string Sys.argv.(2)
Depending on the OCaml flavor you want to use, some other library may look more interesting. If you like yacc, Menhir may solve your problem in a few lines of code.

f# types' properties in inconsistent order and of slightly differing types

I'm trying to iterate through an array of objects and recursively print out each objects properties.
Here is my object model:
type firmIdentifier = {
firmId: int ;
firmName: string ;
}
type authorIdentifier = {
authorId: int ;
authorName: string ;
firm: firmIdentifier ;
}
type denormalizedSuggestedTradeRecommendations = {
id: int ;
ticker: string ;
direction: string ;
author: authorIdentifier ;
}
Here is how I am instantiating my objects:
let getMyIdeasIdeas = [|
{id=1; ticker="msfqt"; direction="buy";
author={authorId=0; authorName="john Smith"; firm={firmId=12; firmName="Firm1"}};};
{id=2; ticker="goog"; direction="sell";
author={authorId=1; authorName="Bill Jones"; firm={firmId=13; firmName="ABC Financial"}};};
{id=3; ticker="DFHF"; direction="buy";
author={authorId=2; authorName="Ron James"; firm={firmId=2; firmName="DEFFirm"}};}|]
And here is my algorithm to iterate, recurse and print:
let rec recurseObj (sb : StringBuilder) o=
let props : PropertyInfo [] = o.GetType().GetProperties()
sb.Append( o.GetType().ToString()) |> ignore
for x in props do
let getMethod = x.GetGetMethod()
let value = getMethod.Invoke(o, Array.empty)
ignore <|
match value with
| :? float | :? int | :? string | :? bool as f -> sb.Append(x.Name + ": " + f.ToString() + "," ) |> ignore
| _ -> recurseObj sb value
for x in getMyIdeas do
recurseObj sb x
sb.Append("\r\n") |> ignore
If you couldnt tell, I'm trying to create a csv file and am printing out the types for debugging purposes. The problem is, the first element comes through in the order you'd expect, but all subsequent elements come through with a slightly different (and confusing) ordering of the "child" properties like so:
RpcMethods+denormalizedSuggestedTradeRecommendationsid:
1,ticker: msfqt,direction:
buy,RpcMethods+authorIdentifierauthorId:
0,authorName: john
Smith,RpcMethods+firmIdentifierfirmId:
12,firmName: Firm1,
RpcMethods+denormalizedSuggestedTradeRecommendationsid:
2,ticker: goog,direction:
sell,RpcMethods+authorIdentifierauthorName:
Bill
Jones,RpcMethods+firmIdentifierfirmName:
ABC Financial,firmId: 13,authorId: 1,
RpcMethods+denormalizedSuggestedTradeRecommendationsid:
3,ticker: DFHF,direction:
buy,RpcMethods+authorIdentifierauthorName:
Ron
James,RpcMethods+firmIdentifierfirmName:
DEFFirm,firmId: 2,authorId: 2,
Any idea what is going on here?
Does adding this help?
for x in props |> Array.sortBy (fun p -> p.Name) do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In general, I think reflection returns entities (like attributes, methods, properties) in an unspecified order. So just pick a fixed sort order?
(Or did I misunderstand the issue?)
This is a reflection thing. You can't rely on the order of the properties using reflection. I need to sort using MetaTokens. I will post this solution when I get around to implementing it.

Resources