Hi,
Presumably you want the key => undef to represent that you want some
sort of default value that is different from key not being set at all?
There is yet another symbolic value that be used for that, the literal
default. You can do Hash[String, Variant[Default, Integer]], and users
can pass { a => default }, or {a => 42}, and if you specify
Optional[Variant[Default, Integer]], the key can also be omitted.
So yes, I want it to be initialised to 'nothing' essentially. The reason i
tried undef was because I wanted to pass it on to an option on a type, exec.
>From my understanding of what you've written it would mean that this 3.x
thing:
$retries = undef
exec { 'ls':
tries => $retries,
}
Is the same as this in 4.x:
$retries = default
exec { 'ls':
tries => $retries,
}
So essentially all the cases where we used to use 'undef' to specify a form
of 'nothingness' so that the default for that parameter on the type we were
passing it is was respected are now handled by undef.
--
Daniele Sluijters
On Friday, 10 October 2014 07:28:09 UTC-7, henrik lindberg wrote:
>
> Thanks Daniele, excellent feedback !
>
> More comments below...
>
> On 2014-10-10 9:06, Daniele Sluijters wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > As an exercise to get me familiar with the new type system I started a
> > from-scratch rewrite of the apt module (don't worry I won't publish it
> > like that). The reasons for this are legion but it's mostly an exercise
> > to get acquainted with the type system and rethink a few of the things
> > we're doing, try out new stuff etc. All my testing has been done with
> > Puppet 3.7.1's version of the future parser.
> >
> > First, some code (if the arrows don't line up it's a font thing, they
> > line up in Vim just fine):
> >
> > class apt::params {
> >
> > $purge_defaults = { 'sources_file' => true,
> > 'sources_dir' => true,
> > 'preferences_file' => true,
> > 'preferences_dir' => true, }
> >
> > $update_defaults = { 'policy' => 'changed',
> > 'timeout' => undef,
> > 'tries' => undef, }
> >
> > $proxy_defaults = { 'host' => undef,
> > 'port' => 8080, }
> > }
> >
> > class apt (
> > Hash[Enum[sources_file,
> > sources_dir,
> > preferences_file,
> > preferences_dir], Boolean] $purge = {},
> >
> > Struct[{policy => Optional[Enum[changed, always, daily, weekly]],
> > timeout => Optional[Integer],
> > retries => Optional[Integer],}] $update = {},
> >
> > Struct[{host => Optional[String],
> > port => Optional[Integer[1,65535],}] $proxy = ${},
> >
> > Hash $sources = {},
> > Hash $keys = {},
> > ) inherits apt::params {
> >
> > $merged_purge = merge($purge_defaults, $purge)
> > $merged_update = merge($update_defaults, $update)
> > $merged_proxy = merge($proxy_defaults, $proxy)
> >
> > }
> >
> > As a rationale for all the hashes... What I want to have is not four
> > purge_* parameters but one purge parameter with four keys. The user
> > should then be allowed to supply a partial hash (meaning only the keys
> > that need to change from the default) to configure behaviour (this is
> > what the three merge() calls achieve in the body).
> >
> > First of all, this is awesome. Being able to express what kind of input
> > you expect this way is great. Especially because you can go to great
> > lengths to make sure that what you receive is what you would expect.
> > Even though the Type code might be a bit much at this point it's going
> > to spare us a whole load of headaches later on because we can just use a
> > variable/value and be sure that it's set to something sensible. Hurray!
> >
> > Unfortunately, if you look at the type code, even for the first Hash, it
> > quickly becomes difficult to read. It would be great if we could alias
> > these things somehow, along the lines of:
> >
> > type purge_validation = Hash[Enum[sources_file, sources_dir,
> > preferences_file, preferences_dir], Boolean]
> > class apt {
> > Purge_validation $purge = $::apt::params::purge_defaults,
> > ) inherits apt::params { }
> >
> > I don't have a preference for a keyword but type seems sensible, alias
> > could probably work too. Even though the validation code is still quite
> > complex the class declaration itself becomes mighty easy to read, about
> > as easy as the current form without all the type annotations.
> >
>
> This is something we want to add in a 4.x version for the exact reasons
> you mention - the long type specs in parameter declarations makes it
> harder to read what is going on. To instead use a descriptive name is of
> great value.
>
> > By the way, if you're wondering what that Type declaration says: I
> > expect a Hash, that can contain 0-* keys (I did not specify a size on
> > the hash so it is allowed to be empty). Those keys must be named one of
> > these four things (those in the Enum[]) and I expect all values
> > associated with those keys to be Boolean, so true or false.
> >
> > This means people can no longer torture you and your beautiful module
> > with crap like this:
> >
> > class { 'apt':
> > purge => { 'source_file' => 'yes', 'sources_dir' => 'false',
> > 'preference_file' => 'UNDEF', 'preferences_dir' => true },
> > }
> >
> > Puppet will simply throw errors at them. The errors themselves aren't
> > very informative though. Currently you get them in the form of: Expected
> > parameter 'purge' to have type <the whole type definition here> but got
> > <something else>. It would be nice if we could get error messages along
> > the lines of: Expected parameter 'purge' to be <a more human
> > description> but got <another more human description> I know that's a
> > tall order, but on the list of "nice to have" I suppose.
> >
>
> We have a ticket for that. The first, simple approach only provides
> meaningful output for simple cases like "excpected String, got Integer",
> but it breaks down for complex types leaving it up to the user to read a
> large amount of type information to find the actual diff.
> We want to do a much better diff output.
>
> > Onwards! Optional is causing me some trouble. According to the blog
> > "Luckily, the type system has a type called Optional that does exactly
> > what we want in this situation, it accepts something of a specific type
> > or Undef."
> >
> > This would mean that notice(undef =~ Optional[Numeric]) should evaluate
> > to true, and indeed it does:
> > Notice: Scope(Class[main]): true
> > Notice: Compiled catalog for nvc2542 in environment production in 0.33
> > seconds
> > Notice: Finished catalog run in 0.01 seconds
> >
> > So this should also work:
> >
> > class test (
> > Optional[Numeric] $number = undef,
> > ) {}
> >
> > include test
> >
> > However, it does not:
> > Error: Expected parameter 'number' of 'Class[Test]' to have type
> > Optional[Numeric], got Runtime[ruby, Symbol] on node nvc2542.
> >
> > I tried to change that to Variant[Numeric, Undef], even though that's
> > exactly what Optional is defined as, but no dice either.. This feels
> > like a bug to me, I'm hoping Henrik or Andy can shed some light on the
> > situation.
> >
> Ah - you found a bug. Please file a ticket. We seem to have been a bit
> too aggressive in removing the use of :undef.
>
> Until it has been fixed, you could try using a Runtime[ruby, Symbol] as
> the type of undef in that particular situation.
>
> > One really awesome sauce feature of Optional is when it comes to hashes.
> > Earlier I showed this piece of code:
> > Struct[{policy => Optional[Enum[changed, always, daily, weekly]],
> > timeout => Optional[Integer],
> > retries => Optional[Integer],}] $update = {},
> >
> > What I'm defining here is that I want a Hash (Struct[{}]), whose keys
> > are named 'policy', 'timeout' and 'retries'. By setting their values to
> > Optional however you are now allowed to pass in a partial hash, so just
> > sending { 'policy' => 'changed' } into update will work without it
> > complaining that you're missing the 'timeout' and 'retries' keys.
> >
> > One thing that does strike me as slightly odd though is that even though
> > the value is defined as Optional, which should allow us to send in
> > undef, you cannot. If you do { 'policy' => undef } you'll get an error
> > based on that validation. Now, I'm very glad it doesn't allow me to do
> > so because that's really the behaviour I want in this specific case, but
> > that might not always be true.
> >
> > There are places where I really would like to allow undef as a value for
> > a hash key, but not always. I haven't found a way to express that yet
> > though. So essentially want to be able to say both:
> > - key may be omitted but if available must be of value Integer <-
> > current behaviour of Optional[Integer] with a Structs{{ key => }]
> > - key may be omitted but if available may be Integer or Undef <- I
> > can't seem to express this. Though there is no need in the case of
> > $update to pass in '{retries => undef}' a user should be allowed to do
> > so even if it doesn't achieve anything and from my understanding of the
> > Optional definition, it should.
> >
>
> Presumably you want the key => undef to represent that you want some
> sort of default value that is different from key not being set at all?
> There is yet another symbolic value that be used for that, the literal
> default. You can do Hash[String, Variant[Default, Integer]], and users
> can pass { a => default }, or {a => 42}, and if you specify
> Optional[Variant[Default, Integer]], the key can also be omitted.
>
>
> > Lets add a bit to my confusion:
> > class test (
> > Struct[{policy => Optional[Enum[changed, always, daily, weekly]],
> > timeout => Optional[Integer],
> > retries => Optional[Integer],}] $update = {}
> > ) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > include test
> >
> > 23:35:37 ~/D/g/d/p/apt (master) $ puppet apply test.pp --parser future
> > Notice: Compiled catalog for nvc2542.nedap.local in environment
> > production in 0.41 seconds
> > Notice: Finished catalog run in 0.01 seconds
> >
> > It gets a bit weirder because this is valid too:
> > class test (
> > Struct[{policy => Optional[Enum[changed, always, daily, weekly]],
> > timeout => Optional[Integer],
> > retries => Optional[Integer],}] $update = { 'retries' =>
> undef, }
> > ) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > include test
> >
> > 23:35:58 ~/D/g/d/p/apt (master) $ puppet apply test.pp --parser future
> > Notice: Compiled catalog for nvc2542.nedap.local in environment
> > production in 0.42 seconds
> > Notice: Finished catalog run in 0.01 seconds
> >
> >
> > But:
> > class test (
> > Struct[{policy => Optional[Enum[changed, always, daily, weekly]],
> > timeout => Optional[Integer],
> > retries => Optional[Integer],}] $update = {}
> > ) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > class { 'test':
> > update => { 'retries' => undef, 'policy' => 'changed', 'timeout' =>
> 1},
> > }
> >
> > Results in:
> > 23:38:01 ~/D/g/d/p/apt (master) $ puppet apply test.pp --parser future
> > Error: Expected parameter 'update' of 'Class[Test]' to have type
> > Struct[{'policy'=>Optional[Enum['changed', 'always', 'daily',
> > 'weekly']], 'timeout'=>Optional[Integer],
> > 'retries'=>Optional[Integer]}], got Hash[String, Runtime[ruby, Symbol]]
> > at /Users/daenney/Development/github/daenney/puppet/apt/test.pp:9 on
> > node nvc2542.nedap.local
> >
>
> Same bug as you found earlier. The evaluators notion of undef (which is
> Ruby nil), is translated to the Compiler's notion of undef (Ruby symbol
> :undef), but it is not translated back to nil when the type check is
> made. (Same aggressive removal of :undef).
>
> And in case you wonder, the 3x function API has different rules :-)
>
> > At this point I'm utterly confused. It looks like I can't have Optional
> > accept undef on a 'top' parameter, I can use it on a hash and initialise
> > that hash with a key that is set to undef but I cannot pass in a hash
> > with that same key set to undef.
> >
> > Maybe I've misunderstood the behaviour of Optional or something is going
> > wrong in the way undef is being parsed, the Runtime[ruby, Symbol] I find
> > very suspicious, but someone should look at this and figure out what's
> > going on. I'm betting the answer is going to be "you're being an idiot"
> > but I would really like to understand why.
> >
> You are not an idiot. The problem is in the bridge between new code and
> old code and the messy nature of undef in the old code.
>
> It is excellent that you found this, and I hope we can fix this in 3.7.2.
>
> > Except for my troubles with Optional all I have to say is
> > "sweeeeeeeeet". As a module maintainer, this will prevent a lot of
> > headaches. If only puppet-strings could parse a human-understandable
> > description of the Type annotation into the docs it generates... :).
> >
>
> Thanks Daniel for testing and sharing the experience. Much appreciated.
>
> - henrik
>
> --
>
> Visit my Blog "Puppet on the Edge"
> http://puppet-on-the-edge.blogspot.se/
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/012970ad-d50b-497e-8c7c-fb9f7c9bfa97%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
