Thank you Alex.
It happens that I forgot to name the kwargs part in the s/cat call, so the
working version should be :
(s/fdef adder
:args (s/cat :a integer? :b integer? :kwargs (s/keys* :opt-un
[::c]))
:ret string?)
I'm asking because I've just discovered something about s/cat + s/or +
s/keys* (after 1 day and a half of trials).
Before I added the keyword args spec, the specs of my function were like
this (simplified) :
(s/fdef adder
:args (s/or :version1 (s/cat :a integer? :b integer?)
:version2 (s/cat :a number? :b number?)
:ret integer?))
This version is working just fine, with stest/check etc.
When I added keyword args spec yesterday, I added it like this :
(s/fdef adder
:args (s/cat :normal-args (s/or :version1 (s/cat :a integer? :b
integer?)
:version2 (s/cat :a float? :b
float?))
:kwargs (s/keys* :opt-un [::c]))
:ret number?)
It produced some strange behavior. Under `stest/check`, the arguments
passed to the function were in a messed up form. The smallest input found
by stest/check is `:smallest [((1.0 1.0))]` which looks like a sequence
inside a sequence. When I finally realized that I couldn't "un-factorize"
the spec of the keyword args and the put it into each s/or branch, it
worked :
(s/fdef adder
:args (s/or :version1 (s/cat :a integer? :b integer? :kwargs
(s/keys* :opt-un [::c]))
:version2 (s/cat :a float? :b float? :kwargs (s/keys*
:opt-un [::c])))
:ret number?)
I realize that nesting s/cat calls can produce nested sequences, but in my
case it seemed natural at first to factorize the spec of the keyword args
and express the specificity of the "normal args" separately. It's like
check couldn't somehow "unroll" the nested s/cat...
My question is: does it make sense ? Should it work and it's a bug ? Is
there no way to factorize like I tried (I would be fine with this really).
I hope I made my question clear, it took me quite some time to nail it and
create a reproduction case.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:36:47 PM UTC+1, Alex Miller wrote:
>
> You don’t need the final s/? but otherwise that’s right!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
