DDevelopment & Design

Validation with warnings in scala with scalaz

  • byAjk
  • August 26, 2014
  • 2 minute read
Monad are containers with ‘special powers’, when it comes to applying function over its content.Validation special power is propagating Failure over validation process.If you are not familiar with scalaz.Validation I urge you to read this example,…

Monad are containers with ‘special powers’, when it comes to applying function over its content.
Validation special power is propagating Failure over validation process.

If you are not familiar with scalaz.Validation I urge you to read this example, which shows how to use Validation: A Tale of 3 Nightclubs

Basically validation looks like this:

Scalaz.Validation uses idiomatic scala way to compose monads by For Comprehension.

Concrete validation method, returning scalaz.Validation instances looks like this:

Scalaz provide helper methods for wrapping values into Failure or Success.

To sum it up. Validation is a an elegant way to handle application validation logic.

However it’s not enough.

Our business rules require application logic’s to perform validation with warnings, which should not propagate as failures, but rather propagate independently of Success/Failure types.

We liked monad approach to data validation so we wanted to keep it that way.

Let me introduce Validation with warnings

What it does is basically wrapping scalaz.Validation into another type responsible for carrying warnings over validation process

Thank to scala type inference our validation code look’s just the same, but now for expression operates on ValidationWithWarnings type rather than Validation.

OK, but what about validation code? We created similar helper methods for wrapping validation into ValidationWithWarnings and wrapping values directly into warnings.

One could inline warning in for loop:

Or use it in validation method:

And of course chain it in for-loop:

Applicative

We support scalaz.Applicative, so it’s possible to take few validations and apply them to function if all elements are successes, collecting any errors and warnings if present.

Summing

Similarly to scalaz.Validation, we also support summing values, if value type has Semigroup typeclass:

Repository

Code with examples in test files can be found at https://github.com/Ajk4/ValidationWithWarnings

Q&A

Why not use Writer Monad?
– Same reason why we prefer Validation over Either with left/right projection. It’s more direct and descriptive.

Why validation nel underhood?
– It suited our business needs best.

Validation is not a Monad!
– True. 

— Previous article

Multi phased processing in scala

Next article —

Warsjawa – hold your own workshop

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Spock, Java and Maven

Few months ago I've came across Groovy - powerful language for JVM platform which combines the power of Java with abilities typical for scripting languages (dynamic typing, metaprogramming).

Together with Groovy I've discovered spock framework (https://code.google.com/p/spock/) - specification framework for Groovy (of course you can test Java classes too!). But spock is not only test/specification framework - it also contains powerful mocking tools.

Even though spock is dedicated for Groovy there is no problem with using it for Java classes tests. In this post I'm going to describe how to configure Maven project to build and run spock specifications together with traditional JUnit tests.


Firstly, we need to prepare pom.xml and add necessary dependencies and plugins.

Two obligatory libraries are:
<dependency>
    <groupid>org.spockframework</groupId>
    <artifactid>spock-core</artifactId>
    <version>0.7-groovy-2.0</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
    <groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
    <artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
    <version>${groovy.version}</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
Where groovy.version is property defined in pom.xml for more convenient use and easy version change, just like this: 
<properties>
    <gmaven-plugin.version>1.4</gmaven-plugin.version>
    <groovy.version>2.1.5</groovy.version>
</properties>

I've added property for gmaven-plugin version for the same reason ;)

Besides these two dependencies, we can use few additional ones providing extra functionality:
  • cglib - for class mocking
  • objenesis - enables mocking classes without default constructor
To add them to the project put these lines in <dependencies> section of pom.xml:
<dependency>
    <groupid>cglib</groupId>
    <artifactid>cglib-nodep</artifactId>
    <version>3.0</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
    <groupid>org.objenesis</groupId>
    <artifactid>objenesis</artifactId>
    <version>1.3</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

And that's all for dependencies section. Now we will focus on plugins necessary to compile Groovy classes. We need to add gmaven-plugin with gmaven-runtime-2.0 dependency in plugins section:
<plugin>
    <groupid>org.codehaus.gmaven</groupId>
    <artifactid>gmaven-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>${gmaven-plugin.version}</version>
    <configuration>
        <providerselection>2.0</providerSelection>
    </configuration>
    <executions>
        <execution>
            <goals>
                <goal>compile</goal>
                <goal>testCompile</goal>
            </goals>
        </execution>
    </executions>
    <dependencies>
        <dependency>
            <groupid>org.codehaus.gmaven.runtime</groupId>
            <artifactid>gmaven-runtime-2.0</artifactId>
            <version>${gmaven-plugin.version}</version>
            <exclusions>
                <exclusion>
                    <groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
                    <artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
                </exclusion>
            </exclusions>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupid>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
            <artifactid>groovy-all</artifactId>
            <version>${groovy.version}</version>
        </dependency>
    </dependencies>
</plugin>

With these configuration we can use spock and write our first specifications. But there is one issue: default settings for maven-surefire plugin demand that test classes must end with "..Test" postfix, which is ok when we want to use such naming scheme for our spock tests. But if we want to name them like CommentSpec.groovy or whatever with "..Spec" ending (what in my opinion is much more readable) we need to make little change in surefire plugin configuration:
<plugin>
    <groupid>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactid>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>2.15</version>
    <configuration>
        <includes>
            <include>**/*Test.java</include>
            <include>**/*Spec.java</include>
        </includes>
    </configuration>
</plugin>

As you can see there is a little trick ;) We add include directive for standard Java JUnit test ending with "..Test" postfix, but there is also an entry for spock test ending with "..Spec". And there is a trick: we must write "**/*Spec.java", not "**/*Spec.groovy", otherwise Maven will not run spock tests (which is strange and I've spent some time to figure out why Maven can't run my specs).

Little update: instead of "*.java" postfix for both types of tests we can write "*.class" what is in my opinion more readable and clean:
<include>**/*Test.class</include>
<include>**/*Spec.class</include>
(thanks to Tomek Pęksa for pointing this out!)

With such configuration, we can write either traditional JUnit test and put them in src/test/java directory or groovy spock specifications and place them in src/test/groovy. And both will work together just fine :) In one of my next posts I'll write something about using spock and its mocking abilities in practice, so stay in tune.