I'm developing an application where data is stored in mongodb. There are several collections and of course all of them have some common fields (like Id, creation date, etc) and methods (for example Insert). In my vision, I need to create base model struct with needed fields and methods, and then embed this struct into my models. Unfortunately, this doesn't work because method defined for base model doesn't see child fields.
I don't know how to explain further. Here is code in playground:
https://play.golang.org/p/_x-B78g4TV
It uses json instead of mgo, but idea is still the same.
I want the output to be:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42, "foo": "Some value for foo", "bar": "Here we set some value for bar"}
Not:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42}
Writing that insert method for each my model seems to be against DRY, so what is correct/idiomatic way to achieve this in Go?
This is not possible, for details see my answer: Can embedded struct method have knowledge of parent/child?
You may do 2 things:
1. Abandon method and make it a helper / utility function
The idea is to make Insert() detached from BaseModel and make it a simple function, and you pass the document to it which you want to save.
I personally prefer this option, as it requires less hassle and maintenance. It could look like this:
func Insert(doc interface{}) {
j, _ := json.Marshal(doc)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
You also had a "typo" in the tags:
type MyModel struct {
*BaseModel
Foo string `json:"foo"`
Bar string `json:"bar"`
}
Using it:
Insert(m)
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
2. Pass the (pointer to) the wrapper to the BaseModel
In this approach, you have to pass a pointer to the embedder struct so the BaseModel.Insert() method will have a pointer to it, and may use that to save / marshal. This is basically manually maintaining a "reference" to the struct that embeds us and is being saved/marshalled.
This is how it could look like:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
collectionName string
wrapper interface{}
}
And then in the Insert() method save the wrapper:
func (m *BaseModel) Insert() {
fmt.Printf("Saving to '%v'\n", m.collectionName)
j, _ := json.Marshal(m.wrapper)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
Creation is slightly more complex:
func NewMyModel() *MyModel {
mm := &MyModel{
Foo: "Some value for foo",
}
mm.BaseModel = NewBaseModel("my_model_collection", mm)
return mm
}
But output is as you wish:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
Try it on the Go Playground.
In Golang, you can't override a parent method, because that's not how polymorphism works. The Insert method will apply on the BaseModel member, and not on MyModel.
Also, you're trying to use mgo in an improper way. If you want to insert documents in collections, then you already have an Insert method for a Collection struct which works on interface{} types (same as json.Marshal).
Of course, you can have a BaseModel that will contain fields shared by all of your models. In fact, GORM uses a similar approach and provides a Model struct to be included in every child model.
Well known problem ;o) Member variables (like collectionName) which name starts with lower letter are not visible from other packages (like json). Therefore change struct to:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
CollectionName string `json:"collectionName"`
}
and world will be better place to live in.
Related
I have below code try to assign embed struct to its parent struct. There are two set of structure: Guider is the parent struct, DataBlock extends from it. The method func Put(x Guider) accept a parameter with type Guider. It works when I pass a DataBlock variable.
However, the other case is Mock extends from zerolog.Event, but it fails to pass the parameter on the method Test(e zerolog.Event)
I got the following error:
cannot use m (variable of type Mock) as type zerolog.Event in argument to Test
Why are these two cases works differently? How can I make them both work?
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/rs/zerolog"
)
type Guider interface {
Guid() string
}
type FSEntity struct {
guid string
}
func (e FSEntity) Guid() string {
return e.guid
}
func Put(x Guider) {
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", x)
}
type Mock struct {
zerolog.Event
}
func Test(e zerolog.Event) {
}
//Child struct:
type DataBlock struct {
FSEntity
data []byte
}
func main() {
myVar := DataBlock{}
myVar.guid = "test"
myVar.data = []byte("moar test")
Put(myVar) // it works
m := Mock{}
Test(m) // it doesn't work. cannot use m (variable of type Mock) as type zerolog.Event in argument to Test
}
First, a couple of definitions:
Polymorphism
Polymorphism is the provision of a single interface to entities of different types or the use of a single symbol to represent multiple different types.
Subtyping
Subtyping (also subtype polymorphism or inclusion polymorphism) is a form of type polymorphism in which a subtype is a datatype that is related to another datatype (the supertype) by some notion of substitutability, meaning that program elements, typically subroutines or functions, written to operate on elements of the supertype can also operate on elements of the subtype
Inheritance
In object-oriented programming, inheritance is the mechanism of basing an object or class upon another object (prototype-based inheritance) or class (class-based inheritance), retaining similar implementation.
Object composition
Object composition and object aggregation are closely related ways to combine objects or data types into more complex ones.
Golang follows composition over inheritance principle, e.g. it doesn't support inheritance. So when you're saying
Mock extends from zerolog.Event
you actually mean that Mock includes zerolog.Event struct.
The way Golang implements polymorphism is interface. All types that implement some interface can be used in its place. It's what you see when use Guider.
However, it doesn't work for simple structs. zerolog.Event is a struct inside Mock.
So, normally, Test function should accept some interface as a parameter, and both mock and real event should implement this interface. However, it looks like zerolog doesn't provide interface for Event. So instead you should access the Event field of you struct. Example
Put(myVar) is legal because myVar is a DataBlock which contains (not inherits from and not implements) an FSEntity which in turn implements the Guider interface.
Since Put accepts a Guider, the reference to myVar is compatible, by virtue of the anonymous FSEntity field it contains which implements Guider. The implementation of Guider on FSEntity is (in effect) elevated to the containing struct (providing a means of delegating interfaces). This only occurs if the contained field is anonymous.
But in the case of Test(m), the function accepts a zerolog.Event which is a struct type, not an interface. As such, there is no "delegation" possible. Test() must be passed a zerolog.Event and in this scenario, this requires that you use the type name of the anonymous field:
Type(m.Event)
Some bonus info:
If DataBlock contained two anonymous fields which both implemented Guider then implicit delegation/elevation cannot take place; golang does not know which of the contained implementations should be delegated to/elevated (if any). In that scenario you must again use the name of the field that you wish to pass to the Put() function:
// given...
type Foo string
func (f Foo) Guid() string {
return string(f)
}
// and...
type DataBlock struct {
FSEntity
Foo
data []byte
}
// then...
Put(myVar) // is now illegal
// and must instead use either/or:
Put(myVar.FSEntity)
Put(myVar.Foo)
Whether implicit or explicit, the crucial distinction is that it is a field of the DataBlock (myVar) that is passed to Put(), not myVar itself.
If you want to pass the DataBlock to Put(), using a Guider interface, then DataBlock must itself implement the Guider interface.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not familiar with zerolog package.
Your Guider is an interface, which might have any underlying type as long as Guid() method is satisfied. I assume this is happening through DataBlock containing FSEntity, which itself implements Guid() method, therefore satisfies MIGHT the interface.
On the other hand, I don't know what methods should be implemented to satisfy zerolog.Event or if it's even an interface, or a struct straight up. If it's an interface, you might need to implement it's required methods to be able to use DataBlock as zerolog.Event type. You might want/need to dig into that direction for some very specific answers.
I have two structs that are having same receiver function implementations:
type A struct {
name string
// other fields
}
type B struct {
name string
// other fields
}
type AA struct {
resource A
}
func (a *AA) Get() string {
// process something with a.resource.name
return a.resource.name
}
type BB struct {
resource B
}
func (b *BB) Get() string {
// process something with b.resource.name
return b.resource.name
}
type I interface {
Get() string
}
both structs AA and BB have Get function, in order to satisfy the interface I, this might be a dumb question, but I dont know how I can simplify them to remove the duplications of two Get functions, tried:
having a generic struct and embedded in A & B - cant do this due
to json serializations in the system I use.
embedded AA in BB and calling AA.Get - wont work since name is inside B instead of A
Combine AA and BB with both fields like resourceA and resourceB - this complicates the Get function, since then it needs to handle
create a non-receiver function and use it for both AA and BB - this can work but since there are quite some fields I need, not just name, so the function will end up with quite many parameters.
I cant stop feeling there should be an easier way, and also trying/googling a way to simplify it, but non of them seems to work, could someone point me some directions or hints?
much appreciated!
[UPDATE]
I'm trying to create a Kubernetes operator, which has some CRDs (Custom Resource Definitions), and since I create a generic controller that just take the CRDs and calling their functions (that's why I have interface), but I found I need to implement functions that are exactly the same, like GetName, GetObject, or some functions that manipulate the data and get back the results, and they're all the same across those CRD structs.
I've decided to just create a function that takes required parameters, and reuse the function across the structs, thanks for all the comments.
If you have other suggestions, please feel free to comment or suggest, thanks!
I'm working on several web server projects in Go, and there is a common problem that I'm always facing. I know we can achieve something like polymorphism in Go with interfaces and methods, but many times I had a scenario that I needed polymorphism on some data-holder structs that (maybe) just had some common fields, and no methods at all.
For example consider a story writing platform, where each user can write short stories and novels:
type ShortStory struct {
Name string
ID int
Body string
}
type LongStory struct {
Name string
ID int
Chapters []string
}
Now I simply want to have a data layer function, say GetStories(), which fetches all stories written by a user from database.
func GetStories(id int) []SOME_TYPE {
...
}
There are really no methods that I want to have on my ShortStory and LongStory structs. I know I can add a dummy method and let them satisfy some Storier interface, then use that interface as return type. But since there is no method I would want on a data container model, adding a dummy method just for the language to enable a feature, seems like a poor design choice to me.
I can also make the function return []interface{}, but that's against the whole idea of "typed language" I believe.
Another way is to have two separate GetShortStories() and GetLongStories() methods, which return a slice of their own type. But at some point I would finally want to merge those two slices into one and there I would again need a []interface{}. Yes, I can return a JSON like:
{
"short_stories" : [...],
"long_stories" : [...]
}
But I want my json to be like:
[{...}, {...}, {...}]
And I wouldn't change my APIs because of a language's limits!
I'm not a pro in Go, so am I missing something here? Is there a Go-ish approach to this, or is it really bad language design on Golang's side?
If you cannot express what you want to do using the features of a language, you should first try to change the way you structure your program before blaming the language itself. There are concepts that cannot be expressed in Go but can be expressed well in other languages, and there are concepts you cannot express well in other languages but you can in Go. Change the way you solve the problem to effectively use the language.
One way you can address your problem is using a different type of struct:
type Story struct {
Name string
ID int
ShortBody string
Chapters []string
}
If the Chapters is empty, then it is a short story.
Another way:
type Story struct {
Name string
ID int
Content StoryContent
}
type StoryContent interface {
Type() string
}
type ShortStory interface {
StoryContent
Body() string
}
type LongStory interface {
StoryContent
Chapters() []string
}
etc.
Consider this example. Let's say I have this object which is ubiquitous throughout my codebase:
type Person struct {
Name string
Age int
[some other fields]
}
Somewhere deep in the codebase, I also have some code that creates a new Person struct. Maybe it's something like the following utility function (note that this is just an example of some function that creates a Person-- the point of my question is not to ask about the copy function specifically):
func copyPerson(origPerson Person) *Person {
copy := Person{
Name: origPerson.Name,
Age: origPerson.Age,
[some other fields]
}
return ©
}
Another developer comes along and adds a new field Gender to the Person struct. However, because the copyPerson function is in a distant piece of code they forget to update copyPerson. Since golang doesn't throw any warning or error if you omit a parameter when creating a struct, the code will compile and appear to work fine; the only difference is that the copyPerson method will now fail to copy over the Gender struct, and the result of copyPerson will have Gender replaced with a nil value (e.g. the empty string).
What is the best way to prevent this from happening? Is there a way to ask golang to enforce no missing parameters in a specific struct initialization? Is there a linter that can detect this type of potential error?
The way I would solve this is to just use NewPerson(params) and not export the person. This makes it so the only way to get a person instance is to go through your New method.
package person
// Struct is not exported
type person struct {
Name string
Age int
Gender bool
}
// We are forced to call the constructor to get an instance of person
func New(name string, age int, gender bool) person {
return person{name, age, gender}
}
This forces everyone to get an instance from the same place. When you add a field, you can add it to the function definition and then you get compile time errors anywhere they are constructing a new instance, so you can easily find them and fix them.
First of all, your copyPerson() function does not live up to its name. It copies some fields of a Person, but not (necessarily) all. It should've been named copySomeFieldsOfPerson().
To copy a complete struct value, just assign the struct value. If you have a function receiving a non-pointer Person, that is already a copy, so just return its address:
func copyPerson(p Person) *Person {
return &p
}
That's all, this will copy all present and future fields of Person.
Now there may be cases where fields are pointers or header-like values (like a slice) which should be "detached" from the original field (more precisely from the pointed object), in which case you do need to make manual adjustments, e.g.
type Person struct {
Name string
Age int
Data []byte
}
func copyPerson(p Person) *Person {
p2 := p
p2.Data = append(p2.Data, p.Data...)
return &p2
}
Or an alternative solution which does not make another copy of p but still detaches Person.Data:
func copyPerson(p Person) *Person {
var data []byte
p.Data = append(data, p.Data...)
return &p
}
Of course, if someone adds a field which also needs manual handling, this won't help you out.
You could also use unkeyed literal, like this:
func copyPerson(p Person) *Person {
return &Person{
p.Name,
p.Age,
}
}
This will result in a compile-time error if someone adds a new field to Person, because an unkeyed composite struct literal must list all fields. Again, this will not help you out if someone changes the fields where the new fields are assignable to the old ones (e.g. someone swaps 2 fields next to each other having the same type), also unkeyed literals are discouraged.
Best would be for the package owner to provide a copy constructor, next to the Person type definition. So if someone changes Person, he / she should be responsible keeping CopyPerson() still operational. And as others mentioned, you should already have unit tests which should fail if CopyPerson() does not live up to its name.
The best viable option?
If you can't place the CopyPerson() next to the Person type and have its author maintain it, go ahead with the struct value copying and manual handling of pointer and header-like fields.
And you can create a person2 type which is a "snapshot" of the Person type. Use a blank global variable to receive compile-time alert if the original Person type changes, in which case copyPerson()'s containing source file will refuse to compile, so you'll know it needs adjusting.
This is how it can be done:
type person2 struct {
Name string
Age int
}
var _ = Person(person2{})
The blank variable declaration will not compile if fields of Person and person2 do not match.
A variation of the above compile-time check could be to use typed-nil pointers:
var _ = (*Person)((*person2)(nil))
I'm not aware of a language rule that enforces that.
But you can write custom checkers for Go vet if you'd like. Here's a recent post talking about that.
That said, I would reconsider the design here. If the Person struct is so important in your code base, centralize its creation and copying so that "distant places" don't just create and move Persons around. Refactor your code so that only a single constructor is used to build Persons (maybe something like person.New returning a person.Person), and then you'll be able to centrally control how its fields are initialized.
The idiomatic way would be to not do this at all, and instead make the zero value useful. The example of a copy function doesn't really make sense because it's totally unnecessary - you could just say:
copy := new(Person)
*copy = *origPerson
and not need a dedicated function nor have to keep a listing of fields up to date. If you want a constructor for new instances like NewPerson, just write one and use it as a matter of course. Linters are great for some things but nothing beats well-understood best practices and peer code review.
The best solution I have been able to come up with (and it's not very good) is to define a new struct tempPerson identical to the Person struct and put it nearby to any code which initializes a new Person struct, and to change the code that initializes a Person so that it instead initializes it as a tempPerson but then casts it to a Person. Like this:
type tempPerson struct {
Name string
Age int
[some other fields]
}
func copyPerson(origPerson Person) *Person {
tempCopy := tempPerson{
Name: orig.Name,
Age: orig.Age,
[some other fields]
}
copy := (Person)(tempCopy)
return ©
}
This way if another field Gender is added to Person but not to tempPerson the code will fail at compile-time. Presumably the developer would then see the error, edit tempPerson to match their change to Person, and in doing so notice the nearby code which uses tempPerson and recognize that they should edit that code to also handle the Gender field as well.
I don't love this solution because it involves copying and pasting the struct definition everywhere that we initialize a Person struct and would like to have this safety. Is there any better way?
Approach 1 Add something like copy constructor:
type Person struct {
Name string
Age int
}
func CopyPerson(name string, age int)(*Person, error){
// check params passed if needed
return &Person{Name: name, Age: age}, nil
}
p := CopyPerson(p1.Name, p1.age) // force all fields to be passed
Approach 2: (not sure if this is possible)
Can this be covered in tests say using reflection?
If we compare the number of fields initialised(initialise all the field with values different than the default values) in the original struct and the fields in copy returned by the copy function.
Here is how i would do it:
func copyPerson(origPerson Person) *Person {
newPerson := origPerson
//proof that 'newPerson' points to a new person object
newPerson.name = "new name"
return &newPerson
}
Go Playground
I get cannot use map[string]MyType literal (type map[string]MyType) as type map[string]IterableWithID in argument to MapToList with the code below, how do I pass in a concrete map type to method that expects a interface type?
https://play.golang.org/p/G7VzMwrRRw
Go's interface convention doesn't quite work the same way as in, say, Java (and the designers apparently didn't like the idea of getters and setters very much :-/ ). So you've got two core problems:
A map[string]Foo is not the same as a map[string]Bar, even if Bar implements Foo, so you have to break it out a bit (use make() beforehand, then assign in a single assignment).
Interface methods are called by value with no pointers, so you really need to do foo = foo.Method(bar) in your callers or get really pointer-happy to implement something like this.
What you can do to more-or-less simulate what you want:
type IterableWithID interface {
SetID(id string) IterableWithID // use as foo = foo.SetID(bar)
}
func (t MyType) SetID(id string) IterableWithID {
t.ID = id
return t
}
...and to deal with the typing problem
t := make(map[string]IterableWithID)
t["foo"] = MyType{}
MapToList(t) // This is a map[string]IterableWithID, so compiler's happy.
...and finally...
value = value.SetID(key) // We set back the copy of the value we mutated
The final value= deals with the fact that the method gets a fresh copy of the value object, so the original would be untouched by your method (the change would simply vanish).
Updated code on the Go Playground
...but it's not particularly idiomatic Go--they really want you to just reference struct members rather than use Java-style mutators in interfaces (though TBH I'm not so keen on that little detail--mutators are supes handy to do validation).
You can't do what you want to do because the two map types are different. It doesn't matter that the element type of one is a type that implements the interface which is the element type of the other. The map type that you pass into the function has to be map[string]IterableWithID. You could create a map of that type, assign values of type MyType to the map, and pass that to the function.
See https://play.golang.org/p/NfsTlunHkW
Also, you probably don't want to be returning a pointer to a slice in MapToList. Just return the slice itself. A slice contains a reference to the underlying array.