Maybe we can do a little more:
(defmacro limit-keys
[& {:keys [req req-un opt opt-un only] :as args}]
(if only
`(s/merge (s/keys ~@(apply concat (vec args)))
(s/map-of ~(set (concat req
(map (comp keyword name) req-un)
opt
(map (comp keyword name) opt-un)))
any?))
`(s/keys ~@(apply concat (vec args)))))
Test Code like this:
(def email-regex #"^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,63}$")
(s/def ::email-type (s/and string? #(re-matches email-regex %)))
(def phone-regex #"^[0-9]{7,11}$")
(s/def ::phone (s/and string? #(re-matches phone-regex %)))
(s/def ::acctid int?)
(s/def ::first-name string?)
(s/def ::last-name string?)
(s/def ::email ::email-type)
(s/def ::person (limit-keys :req [::first-name ::last-name ::email]
:opt [::phone]))
(s/def ::x-person (limit-keys :req [::first-name ::last-name ::email]
:opt [::phone]
:only true))
(deftest smart-test
(is (= true (s/valid? ::person
{::first-name "Bugs"
::last-name "Bunny"
::email "b...@example.com"})))
(is (= true (s/valid? ::person
{::first-name "Bugs"
::last-name "Bunny"
::email "b...@example.com"
::phone "1000000"})))
(is (= false (s/valid? ::x-person
{::first-name "Bugs"
::last-name "Bunny"
::email "b...@example.com"
::x-phone "1000000"})))
(is (= true (s/valid? ::person
{::first-name "Bugs"
::last-name "Bunny"
::email "b...@example.com"
::x-phone "1000000"}))))
在 2016年9月25日星期日 UTC+8下午3:15:12，Alistair Roche写道：
>
> Whoops, that should be:
>
> (defmacro only-keys
> [& {:keys [req req-un opt opt-un] :as args}]
> `(s/merge (s/keys ~@(apply concat (vec args)))
> (s/map-of ~(set (concat req
> (map (comp keyword name) req-un)
> opt
> (map (comp keyword name) opt-un)))
> any?)))
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 25 September 2016 17:13:12 UTC+10, Alistair Roche wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, my team and I were initially surprised at the lack of a built-in
>> option for this to s/keys, but TBH it's been an unusual use case so far,
>> and Alex / Beau's solutions don't seem particularly onerous despite the
>> repetition.
>>
>> I suppose if you're using it all over the place you could write a macro
>> like this:
>>
>>
>> (defmacro only-keys
>> [& {:keys [req req-un opt opt-un] :as args}]
>> `(s/and (s/keys ~@(apply concat (vec args)))
>> (s/map-of ~(set (concat req
>> (map (comp keyword name) req-un)
>> opt
>> (map (comp keyword name) opt-un)))
>> any?)))
>>
>>
>>
>> (please feel free to suggest a neater way!)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:08:25 UTC+10, David Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice, thanks. I had not thought to use map-of for this. And, s/merge
>>> certainly helps too.
>>>
>>> The only remaining issue for me is that this requires supplying the list
>>> of keys twice.
>>> AI think this case is general enough that it is worth extending the
>>> s/keys macro to support: (s/keys :req [::a ::b] :allow-other-keys false)
>>>
>>> Or, if is is objectionable to have a keyword default to true when not
>>> supplied, perhaps: (s/keys :req [::a ::b] :strict-keys true)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:47:43 PM UTC+3, Alex Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For stuff like this s/merge is probably preferable to s/and (when
>>>> combining map specs) - the difference being that merge does not flow
>>>> conformed results, will combine all failures, and that gen can work better
>>>> in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> (s/def ::a int?)
>>>> (s/def ::b string?) ;; changed for this example
>>>> (s/explain ::my-map {::a 1 ::b 2 ::BAD 3})
>>>> In: [:user/b] val: 2 fails spec: :user/b at: [:user/b] predicate:
>>>> string?
>>>>
>>>> ;; vs:
>>>>
>>>> (s/def ::my-map2 (s/merge (s/keys :req [::a ::b]) (s/map-of #{::a ::b}
>>>> any?)))
>>>> (s/explain ::my-map2 {::a 1 ::b 2 ::BAD 3})
>>>> In: [:user/b] val: 2 fails spec: :user/b at: [:user/b] predicate:
>>>> string?
>>>> In: [:user/BAD 0] val: :user/BAD fails spec: :user/my-map2 at: [0]
>>>> predicate: #{:user/a :user/b}
>>>>
>>>> ^^ Note you get *both* failures here - both bad attribute value AND the
>>>> invalid key vs the prior one where you only get the first failure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:38:47 AM UTC-5, Beau Fabry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> boot.user=> (s/def ::my-map (s/and (s/keys :req [::a ::b]) (s/map-of
>>>>> #{::a ::b} any?)))
>>>>> boot.user=> (s/explain ::my-map {::a 1 ::b 2 ::BAD 3})
>>>>> In: [:boot.user/BAD 0] val: :boot.user/BAD fails spec:
>>>>> :boot.user/my-map at: [0] predicate: #{:boot.user/a :boot.user/b}
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems better
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:38:10 AM UTC-7, David Goldfarb
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In clojure.spec, how can I declare a map that accepts only certain
>>>>>> keys?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *{::a 1 ::b 2 ::BAD 3}* does conform to *(s/keys :req :req [::a
>>>>>> ::b])*, but I want a spec that will be bothered by ::BAD or any
>>>>>> other undeclared key.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My use case: I am introducing spec to some legacy code, and I want to
>>>>>> be warned if I have failed to specify some elements that may appear in
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> map.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, assuming that this is not possible currently, I brute-forced it
>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *(defn- key-checker [valid-keys]*
>>>>>> * (fn [map-to-check]*
>>>>>> * (empty? (clojure.set/difference (into #{} (keys map-to-check))
>>>>>> valid-keys))))*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *(s/def ::my-map (s/and (s/keys :req [::a ::b]) (key-checker #{::a
>>>>>> ::b})))*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignoring the ugly, and easily fixable, smell of the duplicated set of
>>>>>> keys, this has a bigger problem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the predicate fails, the error that assert gives me is *"{... big
>>>>>> ugly map ...} fails predicate: (key-checker #{::a ::b})"* with no
>>>>>> easy way for the viewer to see which key failed. Can I somehow hook into
>>>>>> the explain mechanism to give a more useful message?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
--
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.
