Can We Have Form Objects in Elixir?
blog.lelonek.me
blog.lelonek.me
I was using Ruby myself for 10 years before using Elixir and the Form object pattern was one I used very often myself. A general principle of Elixir I have often seen that if you think something doesn't work, or is the wrong way you in fact need to unlearn some of the brain damage acquired from Ruby.
A great example of this is Wojtek Mach's github_ecto project (https://github.com/wojtekmach/github_ecto). His abstracting of the Github API behind a Ecto.Repo was mindblowing to me. Your app communicates with a HTTP API without knowing it's any different than your DB.
Elixir is very much a different way of thinking about problems than Ruby.
https://github.com/cieplak/chat/blob/master/src/http/forms.e...
https://github.com/cieplak/chat/blob/master/src/domain/types...
No data validation at the moment, but it would be nice to generate the form parsing and validation, as well as the getters and setters, from a declarative spec.
In the following code (from the linked site): What is embeds_many? Are :string and :map type information or Atoms? What happens to :changes, Change, primary_key? Does the code between do and end just call the field function twice?
embeds_many :changes, Change, primary_key: false do
field :field, :string
field :value, :map
endNOTE: I haven never used Ecto, but I have used Elixir for a few hobby projects.
1. `embeds_many` is a function name, described here: https://hexdocs.pm/ecto/Ecto.Schema.html#embeds_many/3
2. Anything that begins with a colon is an Atom in Elixir, including :string, :map, :changes, :field, and :value. These atoms are used by Ecto at runtime to identify certain things. `:changes` is a unique name given to the embedded schema, `:field` and `:value` are field names on that schema, and :string and :map are informing Ecto of how to treat certain values.
3. `Change` is the name of a Module which describes the Schema we are embedding
4. `primary_key: false` is a configuration option
5. Everything after `do...` is describing what the embedded schema would look like. So it has a `:field` field that is of type string, and a `:value` field that is of type map.
Hopefully that makes some sense... I'm not totally clear on it either (having not used Ecto before) but that's what I'm grokking.
embeds_many is another such macro [2], that allows you embed another schema, in-line, into the current schema. This is contrast to your more common has_many relationship, which references another table entirely.
Here, :string, :map, etc are atoms that are being passed to the field macro [3], to define the schema for the table.
[0] Basically a super lightweight ActiveRecord
[1] https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto/blob/b030353d4b94ddd4216...
[2] https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto/blob/b030353d4b94ddd4216...
[3] https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto/blob/b030353d4b94ddd4216...
In Elixir, the most basic function application looks fairly standard:
func_name(arg1, arg2, ...)
But the parens are optional, so you can write: func_name arg1, arg2, ...
as well.Next, in Erlang and Elixir function arity (number of arguments it takes) is always fixed (i.e. no varargs or Python's *args). Because of this you generally have to pack your arguments in a list; functions like `printf` work that way:
iex(2)> :io.format("fmt ~p foo: ~p bar: ~p", [1, 3, 4])
fmt 1 foo: 3 bar: 4
That takes care of (positional) varargs. There are some other functions, however, which would benefit from "keyword arguments", which also isn't directly supported. To get around this, you can take a list of pairs (keyword, value) as one of your arguments (usually last): some_func(arg1, [{:keyword1, value}, {:keyword2, value}])
Where `{}` creates a tuple and `:` creates an atom (called symbols in Lisp), which you can think of as a special[1] string value. This pattern is so common, that Elixir provides a syntactic sugar for it. The above is equivalent to: some_func(arg1, [keyword1: value, keyword2: value])
The brackets around keyword list are also optional, but only inside function call. The most sugar-y way to write this looks like this: some_func arg1, keyword1: value, keyword2: value
The last thing of note is that the `do ... end` is just a syntactic sugar for `[do: ...]`, where `...` is treated as a block of code.Normally, the block of code would be evaluated and only last value would be passed to the function:
some_fun arg1, kwarg1: 1, kwarg2: 3 do 1; 2; 3 end # notice no comma before `do`
would be equivalent to (after all the sugar being resolved): some_fun(arg1, [{:kwarg1, 1}, {:kwargs2, 2}], [{:do, 3}])
However, when writing a macro, the macro gets the unevaluated block, which then can be modified or executed. See http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/meta/macros.html for more info on that.Edited to add: Capitalized names in Elixir are actually special atoms, mostly used for naming modules. It works like this:
iex(5)> :'Elixir.Change' == Change
true
There is more going on because of the fact you can alias module names, but mostly you can think about this as (another) special syntax for atoms.[1] Allocated once and cached. When working with normal strings:
a = "Asd"
b = "Asd"
you have no guarantee that `a` and `b` point to the same thing in memory, while with atoms you do have that guarantee. This makes comparing them efficient.In the newest Elixir I get a warning about a variable not existing when I omit the parenthesis, and it suggests to add them.
Or I'm missing something?