Request: Truthiness of Result, Correct way to filter over Iterable[Result]
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Idoneità per principianti
- 20/100
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia con gli esempi documentati di Result/Option e con gli entry point returns.iterables e Fold.collect_all menzionati nell’issue. Confronta le indicazioni canoniche sul filtraggio con le idee proposte relative a truthiness, alla proprietà ok, a Filter e all’intestazione della documentazione; il lavoro è completato quando è definita chiaramente una raccomandazione condivisa o una modifica circoscritta all’API/documentazione.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
Not sure if this is a question, feature request, recommendation, documenting request, or whatnot.
Love what you folks are doing with this library. However, I've been going through the docs and examples and I'm not sure how to handle Result/Option at the boundary with less-functional-style Python. Take the example of filtering over some failure-prone operation.
from returns.result import Result, Success, Failure
def half(x: int) -> Result:
if x & 1:
return Failure('not an even number')
return Success(x // 2)
results = [half(i) for i in range(5)]
results
out:
[<Success: 0>,
<Failure: not an even number>,
<Success: 1>,
<Failure: not an even number>,
<Success: 2>]
Alright, now I want to obtain only the successful results. My very first instinct is to reach for something like [el for el in results if el] / filter(lambda x: x, results), however Failure and Nothing are both Truthy. Alright, I can see how that interface makes sense, but then I want to reach for [el for el in results if el.ok], alas that doesn't exist.
Looking around the repo for inspiration, I find pipeline.is_successful. Alright, that basically casts an UnwrapFailedError to a bool. I suppose I could do that, but seems rather clunky and not that performant. Alternatively, I could do bool(result.unwrap_or(False)), but...ew. Checking isinstance(result, Failure) fails cause Failure is a function, and _Failure is private and thus discouraged.
Ok there's Fold surely there's from returns.iterables import Filter....mmm nope. A list-like container with a .filter method would also suffice, but I'm not seeing anything built-in. Maybe I'm supposed to use something like Fold.collect(results, ??)? But I can't get the accumulator right. Fold.collect(results, Some(())) just gives me a single Failure. I suspect I'd need some sort of iterable.List which acts like list() but supports the Container interface.
Pipelining is all well and good, but in some places I want to start getting my feet wet with Maybes and Results, and it's a very shallow interface between lots of traditional imperative Python.
First, a question: What is the current canonical/recommended way to filter over a sequence of Results/Maybes? (see edit below)
My recommendations:
- I think the most pythonic and intuitive approach would be to define
__bool__()for Nothing and Failure to return False. Nothing is very obviously Falsy, but Failure is a little less clear-cut, though my gut is it's Falsy. This gives the nice advantage offilterworks identically over Result and Maybe. Law of least surprisal. Etc. - If you aren't keen on that, definitely add some
.okproperty (preferred) or.ok()method. I can't think of any reason not to. - It would also be cool to have
iterables.Filteranditerables.ImmutableListor eveniterables.Listif you want to be a filthy heathen, just to be able to.map()over lists. Paircontainer is actually pretty cool and I can think of a few uses. It would be nice if that were initerablesrather than just in the test suite.
I'd be willing to take a stab at writing up and PR-ing any of the above if you are interested.
Edit: Ok I'm a bit of a goofus, apparently I wanted Fold.collect_all(results, Success(())). This still seems a little roundabout. I still think a convenience method Fold.filter(results) makes sense here, whether it's just sugar for Fold.collect_all(foo: List[Bar[Spam]], Bar(())), or checking for truthiness, or whatever.
Might also be good to have a bolded header for Filtering an iterable of containers just below
Collecting an iterable of containers into a single container for, erm, the more oblivious developers out there ;)
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 4.4k
- Fork
- 154
- Merge medio
- 3h 5m
- PR unite (30g)
- 22
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di dry-python/returns
-
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 48/100
dry-python/returns#2394 · 1 reazione ·
-
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 52/100
dry-python/returns#2365 ·
-
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 25/100
dry-python/returns#2355 · 1 commento ·
-
bug
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 45/100
dry-python/returns#2295 · 4 commenti · 1 reazione ·
-
bug
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 45/100
dry-python/returns#2253 · 2 commenti ·
Tutte le issue di dry-python/returns
Issue simili
-
essnmx good first issue
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 95/100
-
[Feature] 奇物选择添加优先级 Aperta
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 65/100
syfoud/Simulated_Scepter#174 ·
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
Giskard-AI/giskard-oss#2840 · 1 commento ·
-
A claim comment carrying the issue number is silently declined while the workflow reports success Apertaarea: repo bug perceived difficulty: 2
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 70/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
yeti-platform/yeti#1380 ·