On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:40:41 PM UTC-5, Mars0i wrote:
>
> spec/explain-data seems very important. It allows programmatic responses
> to spec failures. Maybe explain-data's behavior hasn't yet stabilized,
> though? The structure of the return value has changed between 1.9.0-alpha7
> to the current 1.9.0-alpha10, the docstring is a bit vague, and the Spec
> Guide only talks about it very briefly.
>
explain-data is not in flux but as we are in alpha, it could still change.
:path are path tags
:via are specs
:in are data keys
At present, it's easy to figure out which test(s) has/have failed by
> examining the :path value(s) in explain-data's return value in some
> situations, such as when specs are combined using spec/keys or spec/or. In
> other situations--at least when specs are combined with spec/and, the:path
> values are empty. Unlike spec/or, there's no way to specify keywords that
> would identify the failed test.
>
> Am I right that explain-data is in flux? Is the goal that in the future,
> it will always be possible for developers to specify composite specs in
> such a way that explain-data can return info that identifies the failed
> test clearly? For example, in the first spec/and illustration below, maybe
> explain-data could use the names of the component specs as path elements?
> (Or am I just confused about something?)
>
As specs, the component spec path is recorded in :via.
>
> Thanks-
>
> Example, using Clojure 1.9.0-alpha10:
>
> (s/def ::even even?)
> (s/def ::zero-to-ten (s/int-in 0 10)) ; require number from 0 to 10
> inclusive
>
> user=> (s/explain-data (s/or :pred1 ::even :pred2 ::zero-to-ten) 11)
> {:clojure.spec/problems
> ({:path [:pred1], :pred even?, :val 11, :via [:user/even], :in []}
> {:path [:pred2],
> :pred (int-in-range? 0 10 %),
> :val 11,
> :via [:user/zero-to-ten],
> :in []})}
>
> ;; Note that the format of the path entries are different above and below.
> ;; Is there a reason for this difference, or will later versions return
> ;; the same path elements?
>
Both examples seem consistent with my prior description of the data (specs
in :via, paths in :path, and data keys in :in). They are specs with
different structure so I would not expect them to yield the same explain
results.
> user=> (s/explain-data (s/keys :req-un [::even ::zero-to-ten]) {:even 11
> :zero-to-ten 11})
> {:clojure.spec/problems
> ({:path [:even], :pred even?, :val 11, :via [:user/even], :in [:even]}
> {:path [:zero-to-ten],
> :pred (int-in-range? 0 10 %),
> :val 11,
> :via [:user/zero-to-ten],
> :in [:zero-to-ten]})}
>
> ;; Here there's nothing in the :path or :in sequences, although :via
> provides some information:
>
Yes, as expected.
> user=> (s/explain-data (s/and ::even ::zero-to-ten) 11)
> #:clojure.spec{:problems [{:path [], :pred even?, :val 11, :via
> [:user/even], :in []}]}
>
> ;; Note that only the first failed test is identified, which makes sense.
>
>
> ;; Another s/and example, with no info other than the value of :pred to
> indicate what test failed:
>
What other info could be provided? You have the predicate and the invalid
value. If you had named the predicate, you would have more info.
user=> (s/explain-data (s/and even? (s/int-in 0 10)) 11)
> #:clojure.spec{:problems [{:path [], :pred even?, :val 11, :via [], :in
> []}]}
>
user=> (s/def ::even even?)
:user/even
user=> (s/def ::irange (s/int-in 0 10))
:user/irange
user=> (s/explain-data (s/and ::even ::irange) 11)
#:clojure.spec{:problems [{:path [], :pred even?, :val 11, :via
[:user/even], :in []}]}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
