Alex, thanks very much. That's all very helpful. Just what I needed. I
hadn't seen an explanation of the meaning of :path, :via, and :in, and was
guessing about them from experiments. :via and :in aren't mentioned in
the docstring, so I wasn't sure whether to depend on them. (The source
code that feeds into explain-data isn't easy reading--no reason to think it
would be--and I haven't made sense of it so far.) I just noticed this
morning that :path is explained in "clojure.spec - Rationale and Overview".
I assume that the explain-data docstring will eventually sketch the meaning
of :path, :via, and :in. Or is this the sort of thing that I ought to file
a JIRA ticket on if I think it's important? (I'm new to using JIRA don't
want to clutter up with irrelevant tickets during an alpha process. I
don't see a ticket about the explain-data docstring.
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:34:23 AM UTC-5, Alex Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 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.
