Somehow my error validations are duplicated when I use valid global variable like below
var (
valid validation.Validation
)
func validationInit() validation.Validation {
valid := validation.Validation{}
return valid
}
But when I move valid := validation.Validation{} to my model function it works fine without any duplicates like below:
func AddClub(name string) (id int64, error []*validation.ValidationError) {
club := Club{Name: name}
valid := validation.Validation{}
How am I able to not duplicate this valid across each function but reuse variable without results being incremented and duplicated?
Since your validationInit() func returns a validation.Validation value and not a pointer to it, you cannot return the same global variable from multiple functions or from multiple invocations of the same function.
If you really want this, you have to return a pointer to the global variable, else a copy of the value of the global variable will be returned.
Example:
var valid validation.Validation
func someFunc() *valid.Validation {
// You can access the global variable valid here, you can also modify it
return &valid
}
But this is most likely not what you want. This would not allow you to have 2 different validation.Validation values exist at the same time returned by your functions.
I suggest you to leave out the global variable, and just create a new validation.Validation value each time it is needed and return that new value (either by value or a pointer to it).
Related
This question already has answers here:
Multiple variables of different types in one line in Go (without short variable declaration syntax)
(2 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I want to declare two variables of different datatypes(string and error) in a single statement in Go. I do not want to use the short declaration(:=) operator because I like specifying the type of the variable at declaration.
I am following a Go tutorial from the Go docs. I have a function called greetings.Hello() that I am calling from another module. The greetings.Hello() function looks like this:
package greetings
import (
"errors"
"fmt"
)
func Hello(name string) (string, error) {
// If no name was given, return an error with a message
if name == "" {
return "", errors.New("empty name")
}
// If a name was received, return a value
var message string = fmt.Sprintf("Welcome %v!", name)
return message, nil
}
So as you can see, this function returns two values(a string and an error). So ultimately, I would have to assign the result of this function to two variables in the caller. I am calling the greetings.Hello() function from a module named hello. The main function of the hello module's main package looks like this:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"log"
"creating_modules/greetings"
)
func main() {
log.SetPrefix("greetings: ")
log.SetFlags(0)
var message string, err error = greetings.Hello("")
if err !=nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
fmt.Println(message)
}
The creating_modules/greetings is the greetings module that contains the function Hello(). Most of the gophers tackle it like this:
message, error := greetings.Hello()
But I want to declare the variables along with their datatypes in a single statement. Also the two variables should be assigned the return values of greetings.Hello(). The above mentioned main function of the hello module returns an error when it is run because of the incorrect assignment, referring to this line:
var message string, err error = greetings.Hello("")
The Go compiler returns this error when this code is run using go run:
.\hello.go:14:20: syntax error: unexpected comma at end of statement
This issue can simply be reproduced by copy-pasting the code above(note that the greetings module is a local module so you will need to set the reference path for go tools using go edit -replace)
Another thing to be noted is that my question is different from this question because that question is about declaring variables with the same data type in a single statement whereas mine is about declaring multiple variables with different data types in a single statement.
P.S i won't be surprised to know that Golang does not have this feature
declare the variables along with their datatypes in a single statement
Not possible
Supporting clause from the language spec under Variable declarations
If a type is present, each variable is given that type. Otherwise, each variable is given the type of the corresponding initialization value in the assignment. If that value is an untyped constant, it is first implicitly converted to its default type;
So something like below could work by not specifying either of the types, but you could very well use short variable declarations using := instead
var message, error = greetings.Hello()
But you can declare the variables explicitly with their type information and use the = assignment.
var message string
var err error
if message, err = greetings.Hello(""); err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
I'm struggling to understand why I have a bug in my code in one state but not the other. It's been a while since I've covered pointers, so I'm probably rusty!
Basically I have a repository structure I'm using to store an object in memory, that has a Store function.
type chartsRepository struct {
mtx sync.RWMutex
charts map[ChartName]*Chart
}
func (r *chartsRepository) Store(c *Chart) error {
r.mtx.Lock()
defer r.mtx.Unlock()
r.charts[c.Name] = c
return nil
}
So all it does is put a RW mutex lock on and adds the pointer to a map, referenced by an identifier.
Then I've got a function that will basically loop through a slice of these objects, storing them all in the repository.
type service struct {
charts Repository
}
func (svc *service) StoreCharts(arr []Chart) error {
hasError := false
for _, chart := range arr {
err := svc.repo.Store(&chart)
// ... error handling
}
if hasError {
// ... Deals with the error object
return me
}
return nil
}
The above doesn't work, it looks like everything works fine at first, but on trying to access the data later, the entries in the map all point to the same Chart object, despite having different keys.
If I do the following and move the pointer reference to another function, everything works as expected:
func (svc *service) StoreCharts(arr []Chart) error {
// ...
for _, chart := range arr {
err := svc.storeChart(chart)
}
// ...
}
func (svc *service) storeChart(c Chart) error {
return svc.charts.Store(&c)
}
I'm assuming the issue is that because the loop overwrites the reference to the chart in the for loop, the pointer reference also changes. When the pointer is generated in an independent function, that reference is never overwritten. Is that right?
I feel like I'm being stupid, but shouldn't the pointer be generated by &chart and that's independent of the chart reference? I also tried creating a new variable for the pointer p := &chart in the for loop and that didn't work either.
Should I just avoid generating pointers in loops?
This is because there is only a single loop variable chart, and in each iteration just a new value is assigned to it. So if you attempt to take the address of the loop variable, it will be the same in each iteration, so you will store the same pointer, and the pointed object (the loop variable) is overwritten in each iteration (and after the loop it will hold the value assigned in the last iteration).
This is mentioned in Spec: For statements: For statements with range clause:
The iteration variables may be declared by the "range" clause using a form of short variable declaration (:=). In this case their types are set to the types of the respective iteration values and their scope is the block of the "for" statement; they are re-used in each iteration. If the iteration variables are declared outside the "for" statement, after execution their values will be those of the last iteration.
Your second version works, because you pass the loop variable to a function, so a copy will be made of it, and then you store the address of the copy (which is detached from the loop variable).
You can achieve the same effect without a function though: just create a local copy and use the address of that:
for _, chart := range arr {
chart2 := chart
err := svc.repo.Store(&chart2) // Address of the local var
// ... error handling
}
Also note that you may also store the address of the slice elements:
for i := range arr {
err := svc.repo.Store(&arr[i]) // Address of the slice element
// ... error handling
}
The disadvantage of this is that since you store pointers to the slice elements, the whole backing array of the slice would have to be kept in memory for as long as you keep any of the pointers (the array cannot be garbage collected). Moreover, the pointers you store would share the same Chart values as the slice, so if someone would modify a chart value of the passed slice, that would effect the charts whose pointers you stored.
See related questions:
Golang: Register multiple routes using range for loop slices/map
Why do these two for loop variations give me different behavior?
I faced a similar issue today and creating this simple example helped me understand the problem.
// Input array of string values
inputList := []string {"1", "2", "3"}
// instantiate empty list
outputList := make([]*string, 0)
for _, value := range inputList {
// print memory address on each iteration
fmt.Printf("address of %v: %v\n", value, &value)
outputList = append(outputList, &value)
}
// show memory address of all variables
fmt.Printf("%v", outputList)
This printed out:
address of 1: 0xc00008e1e0
address of 2: 0xc00008e1e0
address of 3: 0xc00008e1e0
[0xc00008e1e0 0xc00008e1e0 0xc00008e1e0]
As you can see, the address of value in each iteration was always the same even though the actual value was different ("1", "2", and "3"). This is because value was getting reassigned.
In the end, every value in the outputList was pointing to the same address which is now storing the value "3".
This question already has answers here:
How does defer and named return value work?
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I was reading some code written in Golang on Github and found a very interesting piece of code. I simplified it to be clear.
func Insert(docs ...interface{}) (err error) {
for i := 0; i < 3; i++ {
err = fmt.Errorf("")
if err.Error()!="EOF" {
return
}
}
return
}
I'm very confused about empty return here... How it works? Does he return nil as error or breaks for loop? I understand that this question looks dummy, but I cannot find any info on this in go docs... Also, I don't understand how we can return err, which is, as I understood, declared somehow in return. Does (err error) means that we already have an error variable available in our func which is used as default return value if none specified? Why then we implicitly make return err at the end of func?
I'll be very gratefull for explanation.
The function uses a "named" return value.
From the spec on return statements:
The expression list may be empty if the function's result type
specifies names for its result parameters. The result parameters act
as ordinary local variables and the function may assign values to them
as necessary. The "return" statement returns the values of these
variables.
Regardless of how they are declared, all the result values are
initialized to the zero values for their type upon entry to the
function. A "return" statement that specifies results sets the result
parameters before any deferred functions are executed.
Using named returns allows you to save some code on manually allocating local variables, and can sometimes clean up messy if/else statements or long lists of return values.
func a()(x []string, err error){
return
}
is really just shorthand for
func a() ([]string,error){
var x []string
var err error
return x,err
}
Its a bit shorter, and I agree that it may be less obvious.
Named returns are sometimes needed, as it allows things like accessing them inside a deferred function, but the naked return is just syntactic sugar as far as I can tell, and is never strictly required.
One place I see it commonly is in error return cases in functions that have many return values.
if(err != nil){
return
}
return a,b,c,nil
is easier than
if(err != nil){
return nil,nil,nil,err
}
return a,b,c,nil
when you have to write it a bunch of times. And you don't have to modify those returns if you change the signature to have additional "real" return values.
Most places I am using them in the codebase I just searched, they definitely seem to be hiding other smells, like overly complex multi-purpose functions, too deep if/else nesting and stuff like that.
Go's return values may be named. If so, they are treated as variables defined at the top of the function.
package main
import "fmt"
func split(sum int) (x, y int) {
x = sum * 4 / 9
y = sum - x
return
}
func main() {
fmt.Println(split(17))
}
https://tour.golang.org/basics/7
When you have a named return value (err here):
func Insert(docs ...interface{}) (err error) {
This creates a function-local variable by that name, and if you just call return with no parameters, it returns the local variable. So in this function,
return
Is the same as, and implies,
return err
This is detailed in the tour and in the spec.
I'm developing in Go and I run the following for loop:
// Define Initial Value
i := 0
for {
// Get random data based on iteration
data, i := GiveRandomData(i)
// Save to database
response, err := SaveToDatabase(data)
if err != nil { log.Fatal(err) }
fmt.Println(response)
}
However, when compiling this program, I get the following error:
.\main.go:26: i declared and not used
The Go compiler doesn't seem to recognise that the i variable is given back to the function in the next loop. Inside this function, the I variable changes value.
What should I do to get rid of this compilation error or to let Go understand that this variable is not unused, but used in the next iteration of this endless for loop?
The Go compiler doesn't seem to recognise that the i variable is given back to the function in the next loop. Inside this function, the I variable changes value.
No, i does not change value; := declares a new i. (Go allows you to do this because data is also new.) To assign to it instead, you’ll need to declare data separately:
var data RandomDataType
data, i = GiveRandomData(i)
Or give the new i a temporary name:
data, next := GiveRandomData(i)
i = next
Why does go sometimes allow you to call functions without catching both return values? Such as:
func TestGolang() {
myMap := make(map[string]string)
test := myMap["value"]
// or
test, success := myMap["value"]
}
While at other times, you are required to catch all the return results and use a blank identifier if you do not want to use the value?
test := os.Stat("test") // fails
test, _ := os.Stat("test") // only way to make it work
I thought golang does not support different method signatures for a single function. How does the first example work? Can I implement my own functions that optionally return an error or a status flag but does not error out if the 2nd return value is not caught?
In fact, golang doesn't support function overloading, so you can't define different signatures for a function. But some operations from the language definition (like the channel receiver or obtaining data from a map) are 'blessed' with overloading-like behavior.