You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
One pervasive challenge in defining a decode library is the fact that OCaml/Reason's type system allows for different types than what JSON allows. This can be seen in the intFromNumber and date decoders, which impose rules on top of JSON values that JSON itself doesn't define.
It becomes an even more complex issue when dealing with Reason's "variants" which have no obvious mapping to/from JSON. In the past, bs-decode has provided two solutions to this:
the ExpectedValidOption error, which is sort of a catch-all, but it carries no useful error information
the ParseError.ResultOf and Decode.Make module functors, which is a powerful but complex solution that allows extending the underlying error type
Variant decoders have gotten easier to express with alt/oneOf and the recent addition of literal decoders, but the foundational literal decoders use ExpectedValidOption which means that don't give great error messages on failure.
The Proposal:
I haven't fully thought through this, but I'm considering adding a FailedValidation('e) error constructor.
Int and Date decoding would take advantage of this (eliminating the need for ExpectedInt and ExpectedValidDate). Literal decoders could use this, eliminating the need for ExpectedValidOption, and since the error carries a polymorphic payload, it would be easy to extend, hopefully without needing to get module functors involved.
The big thing I haven't fully figured out is how error reporting would work. Since we'll be using these validations internally, I think that means the 'e type will actually be an open polymorphic variant. For functions like ParseError.toString, you'll need to tell us how to convert your extensions to a string, but hopefully not the entire variant. :> might get involved, which is too bad, but I still think this is worth trying.
If implemented, we should:
Add the constructor in ParseError
Add a new validate function that is sort of like a combination of map and flatMap that lets the user return their own custom validations
Use validate for ints (and remove ExpectedInt)
Use validate for dates (and remove ExpectedValidDate)
Use validate for literal decoders (and remove ExpectedValidOption)
I haven't pushed anything yet (or even committed it, honestly), but I started playing around with how this could work, and I'm excited about the possibilities. At the moment, it's starting to look something like:
// in ParseError.remoduleError= {
typet('a) =
| Value(valueError, Js.Json.t)
| Array(arrError('a), list(arrError('a)))
| Object((string, objError('a)), list((string, objError('a))))
| Validation('a, Js.Json.t)
and valueError =
| ExpectedNull
| ExpectedBool
| ExpectedNumber
| ExpectedString
| ExpectedArray
| ExpectedObject
and arrError('a) = {
position: int,
error: t('a),
}
and objError('a) =
| MissingField
| InvalidFieldValue(t('a));letexpectedNull= json =>Value(ExpectedNull, json);letexpectedBool= json =>Value(ExpectedBool, json);letexpectedNumber= json =>Value(ExpectedNumber, json);letexpectedString= json =>Value(ExpectedString, json);letexpectedArray= json =>Value(ExpectedArray, json);letexpectedObject= json =>Value(ExpectedObject, json);letarrError= (position, error) => {position, error};letarrayErrorSingleton= (position, error) =>Array({position, error},[]);letarrayErrors= (first, rest) =>Array(first, rest);letobjError= (field, error) => (field, error);letobjectErrorSingleton= (field, error) =>Object((field, error),[]);letobjectErrors= (first, rest) =>Object(first, rest);letmissingField= field => objectErrorSingleton(field,MissingField);letinvalidFieldValue= (field, error) =>
objectErrorSingleton(field,InvalidFieldValue(error));letvalidationError= (error, json) =>Validation(error, json);
};// in the actual decodersletvalidate= (f, decode, json) =>
decode(json)
|>Result.flatMap(a =>
f(a) |>Result.mapError(Error.validationError(_, json))
);letisValidInt= num =>
float(int_of_float(num)) == num
?Ok(int_of_float(num)) :Error(`InvalidInt);letint= validate(isValidInt, number);// in a downstream projectletnaturalNotThirteen=
int
|> validate(a => a >=0?Ok(a) :Error(`InvalidNaturalNumber))
|> validate(a => a ==13?Error(`UnluckyNumber) :Ok(a));
The Problem:
One pervasive challenge in defining a decode library is the fact that OCaml/Reason's type system allows for different types than what JSON allows. This can be seen in the
intFromNumber
anddate
decoders, which impose rules on top of JSON values that JSON itself doesn't define.It becomes an even more complex issue when dealing with Reason's "variants" which have no obvious mapping to/from JSON. In the past,
bs-decode
has provided two solutions to this:ExpectedValidOption
error, which is sort of a catch-all, but it carries no useful error informationParseError.ResultOf
andDecode.Make
module functors, which is a powerful but complex solution that allows extending the underlying error typeVariant decoders have gotten easier to express with
alt
/oneOf
and the recent addition ofliteral
decoders, but the foundationalliteral
decoders useExpectedValidOption
which means that don't give great error messages on failure.The Proposal:
I haven't fully thought through this, but I'm considering adding a
FailedValidation('e)
error constructor.Int and Date decoding would take advantage of this (eliminating the need for
ExpectedInt
andExpectedValidDate
). Literal decoders could use this, eliminating the need forExpectedValidOption
, and since the error carries a polymorphic payload, it would be easy to extend, hopefully without needing to get module functors involved.The big thing I haven't fully figured out is how error reporting would work. Since we'll be using these validations internally, I think that means the
'e
type will actually be an open polymorphic variant. For functions likeParseError.toString
, you'll need to tell us how to convert your extensions to a string, but hopefully not the entire variant.:>
might get involved, which is too bad, but I still think this is worth trying.If implemented, we should:
ParseError
validate
function that is sort of like a combination ofmap
andflatMap
that lets the user return their own custom validationsvalidate
for ints (and removeExpectedInt
)validate
for dates (and removeExpectedValidDate
)validate
forliteral
decoders (and removeExpectedValidOption
)ExpectedTuple
(also see Deprecate tuple decoders #121)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: