Catch multiple Exception with Lenses - amazon-web-services

I am using Lens with Amazonka to deal with errors but I struggle to deal with errors:
doSignup e p = (AWS.send $ AWS.signUp "secret" e p)
$> Right ()
& catching_ AWS._UsernameExistsException (return $ Left AlreadyExistingEmail)
& catching_ AWS._InvalidPasswordException (return $ Left WeakPassword)
& catching AWS._SertviceError (return . UnknownSignUpError)
data SignUpError where
AlreadyExistingEmail :: SignUpError
NotAnEmail :: SignUpError
WeakPassword :: SignUpError
UnknownSignUpError :: forall a. Show a => a -> SignUpError
I struggle to have a consistent catching behavior, when a _UsernameExistsException is thrown I got a Left WeakPassword.
It becomes weirder because it works when I drop the WeakPassword line.
While I get the right error (keeping only the last line):
expected: Right ()
but got: Left UnknownSignUpError ServiceError' {_serviceAbbrev = Abbrev "CognitoIdentityProvider", _serviceStatus = Status {statusCode = 400, statusMessage = "Bad Request"}, _serviceHeaders = [("Date","Tue, 06 Oct 2020 05:38:56 GMT"),("Content-Type","application/x-amz-json-1.1"),("Content-Length","96"),("Connection","keep-alive"),("x-amzn-RequestId","b09210a3-41ed-46ee-af4f-46db58b98695"),("x-amzn-ErrorType","UsernameExistsException:"),("x-amzn-ErrorMessage","An account with the given email already exists.")], _serviceCode = ErrorCode "UsernameExists", _serviceMessage = Just (ErrorMessage "An account with the given email already exists."), _serviceRequestId = Just (RequestId "b09210a3-41ed-46ee-af4f-46db58b98695")}
I have tried to use catches but handler requires Typeable Lenses which is not the case.
How can I have a "pattern matching-like" way to deal with exceptions? Thanks in advance.

In fact Control.Lens.catching was used instead of Network.AWS.Prelude.catching which was messing up the exception handling.

Related

error about tabs function in rmarkdown(in MASS library)

what should i do with this error?it was correct in my R file but cant make Rmark down because of this error
Error in loglin(data, margins, start = start, fit = fitted, param = param, :
'margin' must contain names or numbers corresponding to 'table'
Calls: ... eval -> loglm -> loglm1 -> loglm1.default -> loglin
Execution halted

Yesod Persistent using Aeson to parse UTCTime into record

I have my model from models.persistentmodels
...
Thing
title Text
price Int
kosher Bool
optionalstuff [Text] Maybe
createdat UTCTime
updatedat UTCTime
deriving Show
...
It contains two time fields, which are UTCTime.
I am receiving via AJAX what is almost a Thing, in JSON. But the user JSON should not have createdat and updatedat or kosher. So we need to fill them in.
postNewEventR = do
inputjson <- requireCheckJsonBody :: Handler Value
...
-- get rawstringofthings from inputjson
...
let objectsMissingSomeFields = case (decode (BL.fromStrict $ TE.encodeUtf8 rawstringofthings) :: Maybe [Object]) of
Nothing -> error "Failed to get a list of raw objects."
Just x -> x
now <- liftIO getCurrentTime
-- Solution needs to go here:
let objectsWithAllFields = objectsMissingSomeFields
-- We hope to be done
let things = case (eitherDecode $ encode objectsWithAllFields) :: Either String [Thing] of
Left err -> error $ "Failed to get things because: " <> err
Right xs -> xs
The error "Failed to get things" comes here because the JSON objects we parsed are missing fields that are needed in the model.
Solution
let objectsWithAllFields = Import.map (tackOnNeccessaryThingFields now True) objectsMissingSomeFields
So we take the current object and tack on the missing fields e.g. kosher and createdat.
But there is some strange difference in the way UTCTime is read vs aeson's way to parse UTCTime. So when I print UTCTime in to a Aeson String, I needed to print out the UTCTime into the format that it is expecting later:
tackOnNeccessaryThingFields :: UTCTime -> Bool -> Object -> Object
tackOnNeccessaryThingFields t b hm = G.fromList $ (G.toList hm) <> [
("createdat", String (pack $ formatTime defaultTimeLocale "%FT%T%QZ" t)),
("updatedat", String (pack $ formatTime defaultTimeLocale "%FT%T%QZ" t)),
("kosher", Bool b)
]
tackOnNeccessaryThingFields _ _ _ = error "This isn't an object."
After this fix, the object has all the fields needed to make the record, so the code gives [Thing].
And also the code runs without runtime error, instead of failing to parse the tshow t as UTCTime.
Note:
This aeson github issue about this problem seems to be closed but it seems to be not any more permissive: https://github.com/bos/aeson/issues/197
Thanks to Artyom:
https://artyom.me/aeson#records-and-json-generics
Thanks to Pbrisbin:
https://pbrisbin.com/posts/writing_json_apis_with_yesod/
Thanks to Snoyman:
For everything

ocaml unbound constructor type error from type definition

I'd like to use dates and times in my code, so I have loaded the Calendar Lib using opam. I have a simple piece of code that demonstrates the problem (example.ml):
open CalendarLib
type datefun = date -> int
let run_datefun (f : datefun) (d : date) = (f d)
let () =
let mydate = make 2016 5 23 in
printf "Day of week = %i" run_datefun days_in_month mydate
As far as I can see the Calendar days_in_month method has a type signature of date -> int.
When I try and compile this code (corebuild -pkg calendar example.byte) I get the following error:
File "example.ml", line 3, characters 15-19:
Error: Unbound type constructor date
which seems to me like the compiler is looking for a Date constructor for a date type.
What am I doing wrong?
The functions and datatypes you'd like to use are inside the Date module, so rephrasing your code we get (I've also taken the liberty of rewriting the output phrase and inserted the missing parentheses):
open CalendarLib
type datefun = Date.t -> int
let run_datefun (f : datefun) (d : Date.t) = (f d)
let () =
let mydate = Date.make 2016 5 23 in
Printf.printf "# of days in current month = %i\n" (run_datefun Date.days_in_month mydate)
A little test (by the way, you don't need corebuild for this):
$ ocamlbuild -pkg calendar example.ml example.byte
Finished, 3 targets (3 cached) in 00:00:00.
$ _build/calendar.byte
# of days in current month = 31

How to extract messages using regex in Scala?

My version of RegEx is being greedy and now working as it suppose to. I need extract each message with timestamp and user who created it. Also if user has two or more consecutive messages it should go inside one match / block / group. How to solve it?
https://regex101.com/r/zD5bR6/1
val pattern = "((a\.b|c\.d)\n(.+\n)+)+?".r
for(m <- pattern.findAllIn(str).matchData; e <- m.subgroups) println(e)
UPDATE
ndn solution throws StackOverflowError when executed:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
at java.util.regex.Pattern$GroupTail.match(Pattern.java:4708)
.......
Code:
val pattern = "(?:.+(?:\\Z|\\n))+?(?=\\Z|\\w\\.\\w)".r
val array = (pattern findAllIn str).toArray.reverse foreach{println _}
for(m <- pattern.findAllIn(str).matchData; e <- m.subgroups) println(e)
I don't think a regular expression is the right tool for this job. My solution below uses a (tail) recursive function to loop over the lines, keep the current username and create a Message for every timestamp / message pair.
import java.time.LocalTime
case class Message(user: String, timestamp: LocalTime, message: String)
val Timestamp = """\[(\d{2})\:(\d{2})\:(\d{2})\]""".r
def parseMessages(lines: List[String], usernames: Set[String]) = {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def go(
lines: List[String], currentUser: Option[String], messages: List[Message]
): List[Message] = lines match {
// no more lines -> return parsed messages
case Nil => messages.reverse
// found a user -> keep as currentUser
case user :: tail if usernames.contains(user) =>
go(tail, Some(user), messages)
// timestamp and message on next line -> create a Message
case Timestamp(h, m, s) :: msg :: tail if currentUser.isDefined =>
val time = LocalTime.of(h.toInt, m.toInt, s.toInt)
val newMsg = Message(currentUser.get, time, msg)
go(tail, currentUser, newMsg :: messages)
// invalid line -> ignore
case _ =>
go(lines.tail, currentUser, messages)
}
go(lines, None, Nil)
}
Which we can use as :
val input = """
a.b
[10:12:03]
you can also get commands
[10:11:26]
from the console
[10:11:21]
can you check if has been resolved
[10:10:47]
ah, okay
c.d
[10:10:39]
anyways startsLevel is still 4
a.b
[10:09:25]
might be a dead end
[10:08:56]
that need to be started early as well
"""
val lines = input.split('\n').toList
val users = Set("a.b", "c.d")
parseMessages(lines, users).foreach(println)
// Message(a.b,10:12:03,you can also get commands)
// Message(a.b,10:11:26,from the console)
// Message(a.b,10:11:21,can you check if has been resolved)
// Message(a.b,10:10:47,ah, okay)
// Message(c.d,10:10:39,anyways startsLevel is still 4)
// Message(a.b,10:09:25,might be a dead end)
// Message(a.b,10:08:56,that need to be started early as well)
The idea is to take as little characters as possible that will be followed by a username or the end of the string:
(?:.+(?:\Z|\n))+?(?=\Z|\w\.\w)
See it in action

Operating on an F# List of Union Types

This is a continuation of my question at F# List of Union Types. Thanks to the helpful feedback, I was able to create a list of Reports, with Report being either Detail or Summary. Here's the data definition once more:
module Data
type Section = { Header: string;
Lines: string list;
Total: string }
type Detail = { State: string;
Divisions: string list;
Sections: Section list }
type Summary = { State: string;
Office: string;
Sections: Section list }
type Report = Detail of Detail | Summary of Summary
Now that I've got the list of Reports in a variable called reports, I want to iterate over those Report objects and perform operations based on each one. The operations are the same except for the cases of dealing with either Detail.Divisions or Summary.Office. Obviously, I have to handle those differently. But I don't want to duplicate all the code for handling the similar State and Sections of each.
My first (working) idea is something like the following:
for report in reports do
let mutable isDetail = false
let mutable isSummary = false
match report with
| Detail _ -> isDetail <- true
| Summary _ -> isSummary <- true
...
This will give me a way to know when to handle Detail.Divisions rather than Summary.Office. But it doesn't give me an object to work with. I'm still stuck with report, not knowing which it is, Detail or Summary, and also unable to access the attributes. I'd like to convert report to the appropriate Detail or Summary and then use the same code to process either case, with the exception of Detail.Divisions and Summary.Office. Is there a way to do this?
Thanks.
You could do something like this:
for report in reports do
match report with
| Detail { State = s; Sections = l }
| Summary { State = s; Sections = l } ->
// common processing for state and sections (using bound identifiers s and l)
match report with
| Detail { Divisions = l } ->
// unique processing for divisions
| Summary { Office = o } ->
// unique processing for office
The answer by #kvb is probably the approach I would use if I had the data structure you described. However, I think it would make sense to think whether the data types you have are the best possible representation.
The fact that both Detail and Summary share two of the properties (State and Sections) perhaps implies that there is some common part of a Report that is shared regardless of the kind of report (and the report can either add Divisions if it is detailed or just Office if if is summary).
Something like that would be better expressed using the following (Section stays the same, so I did not include it in the snippet):
type ReportInformation =
| Divisions of string list
| Office of string
type Report =
{ State : string;
Sections : Section list
Information : ReportInformation }
If you use this style, you can just access report.State and report.Sections (to do the common part of the processing) and then you can match on report.Information to do the varying part of the processing.
EDIT - In answer to Jeff's comment - if the data structure is already fixed, but the view has changed, you can use F# active patterns to write "adaptor" that provides access to the old data structure using the view that I described above:
let (|Report|) = function
| Detail dt -> dt.State, dt.Sections
| Summary st -> st.State, st.Sections
let (|Divisions|Office|) = function
| Detail dt -> Divisions dt.Divisions
| Summary st -> Office st.Office
The first active pattern always succeeds and extracts the common part. The second allows you to distinguish between the two cases. Then you can write:
let processReport report =
let (Report(state, sections)) = report
// Common processing
match report wiht
| Divisions divs -> // Divisions-specific code
| Office ofc -> // Offices-specific code
This is actually an excellent example of how F# active patterns provide an abstraction that allows you to hide implementation details.
kvb's answer is good, and probably what I would use. But the way you've expressed your problem sounds like you want classic inheritance.
type ReportPart(state, sections) =
member val State = state
member val Sections = sections
type Detail(state, sections, divisions) =
inherit ReportPart(state, sections)
member val Divisions = divisions
type Summary(state, sections, office) =
inherit ReportPart(state, sections)
member val Office = office
Then you can do precisely what you expect:
for report in reports do
match report with
| :? Detail as detail -> //use detail.Divisions
| :? Summary as summary -> //use summary.Office
//use common properties
You can pattern match on the Detail or Summary record in each of the union cases when you match and handle the Divisions or Office value with a separate function e.g.
let blah =
for report in reports do
let out = match report with
| Detail({ State = state; Divisions = divisions; Sections = sections } as d) ->
Detail({ d with Divisions = (handleDivisions divisions) })
| Summary({ State = state; Office = office; Sections = sections } as s) ->
Summary( { s with Office = handleOffice office })
//process out
You can refactor the code to have a utility function for each common field and use nested pattern matching:
let handleReports reports =
reports |> List.iter (function
| Detail {State = s; Sections = ss; Divisions = ds} ->
handleState s
handleSections ss
handleDivisions ds
| Summary {State = s; Sections = ss; Office = o} ->
handleState s
handleSections ss
handleOffice o)
You can also filter Detail and Summary to process them separately in different functions:
let getDetails reports =
List.choose (function Detail d -> Some d | _ -> None) reports
let getSummaries reports =
List.choose (function Summary s -> Some s | _ -> None) reports