search

konform-kt / konform

Portable validations for Kotlin
https://www.konform.io
MIT License
651 stars 39 forks source link

Reimplementation of konform #55

Closed floatdrop closed 1 year ago

floatdrop commented 1 year ago

This is PR for solving multiple issues at once (so it will be messy for a white). I will write detailed resume of proposed changes and issues, that should be affected/fixed by this PR. Also API's are not final and are subject for discussion.

data class Person(val name: String, val email: String?, val age: Int, val parent: Person? = null)

data class Event(
    val organizer: Person,
    val attendees: List<Person>,
    val ticketPrices: Map<String, Double?>
)

val validateEvent = Validation<Event, ValidationError> {
    Event::organizer {
        // even though the email is nullable you can force it to be set in the validation
        require(Person::email) {
            pattern(".+@bigcorp.com") { Error("Organizers must have a BigCorp email address") }
        }
    }

    // validation on the attendees list
    Event::attendees {
        maxItems(100)
    }

    // validation on individual attendees
    Event::attendees onEach {
        // If any validation fails – do not check rest of them
        eager {
            Person::name {
                minLength(2)
            }
            // Age affects internal checks
            Person::age affects { age ->
                if (age < 18) {
                    require(Person::parent)
                }
            }
            // Email is optional but if it is set it must be valid
            Person::email ifPresent {
                pattern(".+@.+\..+") { Error("Please provide a valid email address (optional)") }
            }
        }
    }

    // validation on the ticketPrices Map as a whole
    Event::ticketPrices {
        minItems(1) { Error("Provide at least one ticket price") }
    }

    // validations for the individual entries
    Event::ticketPrices onEach {
        // Tickets may be free in which case they are null
        Entry<String, Double?>::value ifPresent {
            minimum(0.01)
        }
    }
}

For now these issues should be affected by this PR:

nlochschmidt commented 1 year ago

I must say I am a bit surprised by this PR. If you choose to reimplement the whole thing why not create a new library and become maintainer?

floatdrop commented 1 year ago

I must say I am a bit surprised by this PR. If you choose to reimplement the whole thing why not create a new library and become maintainer?

I think Konform has very nice API and there is no need to fracture kotlin ecosystem of validation libraries. At least I would like to try improve Konform as much as I can before that. On the other hand I understand, that this PR has a lot of major changes and could be hard to digest at one go.

Another point to make a PR - I tried to keep API as close to Konform as I can, so it would be awkward to publish another library with similar API as another project.

Would it be ok to talk about these changes, when this PR will be ready to be published?

floatdrop commented 1 year ago

Turns out it quite hard to pull out all major changes after a couple of month, but I will try anyway.

Change of execution pattern

0.4.0 version constructs Constraints before validation and grouping them for fields. It can be useful for performance, but blocks eager implementation (or I don't see how it could be implemented). New implementation runs validation block every time invoke is called and executes all code, that can change behavior between calls. This also opens door for affects, that gets value of property, that should affect validation.

Introduce error subclassing

For attaching properties and explicit error types Validation now parameterized with two generic parameters: T - object under validation and E – error class. This leads to some boilerplate code for checks (you must specify, what error should check return), but there are ValidationError interface on which many helpers in errors package can be implemented and boilerplate should be minimal.

Unfortunately infix required now must accept two parameters (error and block) – this can not work with infix, so for now required looses infix, but require helper on validation builder with ValidationError error type introduced (see readme).

Rework of dataPath

dataPath was detached from ValidationError and was converted to own type Path (from String) – this can be useful for introspection and traversing objects with reflection after validation returns errors with list of KProperty to traverse.

List of properties for validation

invoke now accept second parameter, which can filter properties under validation. This is useful, when you have objects in DB, that were validated with older version of validation and you need to validate only fields, that were changed by user.

Dependency on NonEmptyList

Invalid state of validation returns non-empty list of ErrorWithPath. I think it is quite useful to mark lists as non-empty by type, but this can be reverted to List easily.

nlochschmidt commented 1 year ago

I've finally spend some time to have a look at the rewrite. It was actually fun to explore and an interesting approach to the problem that Konform is trying to solve. Thanks for taking the time. Especially the change of execution pattern was interesting, as I was trying the same thing a couple of years ago, but ultimately decided to not follow (see below).

I might try to integrate some of the things in this PR into Konform, but the chance of me merging this PR is becoming very small. In fact, the bigger the PR, the less likely it's going to get merged. I am more open to accept individual changes in separate PRs.

With the main problem of this being to big of a PR to merge I can tell you why else I am hesitant to accept this PR.

Change to the execution mode

Konform was originally designed to be declarative. I broke this design by invoking build at the end of creating a Validation and also by introducing run. This was done in order to make progress. I was never actually happy with this direction. I would rather prefer Konform to build a validation structure that can be inspected and then build functionality that allows the validation structure to become dynamic once the value is known, by way of an interpreter of the validation structure. I've done a couple of experiments around this so I know it's possible (with some minor possibly non-breaking changes to the API).

If I understand it correctly, the approach in this PR where the builder needs the value in order to build up the validation structure, goes in the exact opposite direction.

Breaking changes to the API

This PR is raking up some breaking changes that are convenient for the rewrite, but not from the user-perspective. Existing users would need to migrate and for new users there is going to be a strange mix of styles in the DSL. Like that most functions are extension functions or infix functions, but some like required and ifPresent are not. The additional error type parameter that is probably irrelevant for most is another thing.

I'd love to get more focused contributions for Konform, but also I am not opposed to you starting a fork from konform with a similar API. In fact I would see that as a compliment 😊

In addition to the above there are some smaller things. This is more FYI:

Introduction of 3rd party libraries

As much as possible Konform should stay dependency free. This reduces maintenance and lowers the chance of transitive supply chain attacks. As you already said, the introduction of NonEmptyList can be reversed and definitely should.

Removal of existing tests

I have seen the outstanding task of reimplementing the deleted test cases, but it is in my opinion not a good idea to do so when the goal is a rewrite.

No tests for new functionality

Think this one is pretty self-explanatory. Many functions currently don't have a single use. Having at least a single simple test would help immensely with building confidence without having to try every new functionality

floatdrop commented 1 year ago

Thanks for reviewing PR! I wasn’t hoping, that this PR would be merged as is (that’s why I omitted reimplementing test cases - only readme example). All the points you made about konform direction making perfect sense, so feel free to close it.

2 сент. 2022 г., в 15:01, Niklas Lochschmidt @.***> написал(а):

 I've finally spend some time to have a look at the rewrite. It was actually fun to explore and an interesting approach to the problem that Konform is trying to solve. Thanks for taking the time. Especially the change of execution pattern was interesting, as I was trying the same thing a couple of years ago, but ultimately decided to not follow (see below).

I might try to integrate some of the things in this PR into Konform, but the chance of me merging this PR is becoming very small. In fact, the bigger the PR, the less likely it's going to get merged. I am more open to accept individual changes in separate PRs.

With the main problem of this being to big of a PR to merge I can tell you why else I am hesitant to accept this PR.

Change to the execution mode

Konform was originally designed to be declarative. I broke this design by invoking build at the end of creating a Validation and also by introducing run. This was done in order to make progress. I was never actually happy with this direction. I would rather prefer Konform to build a validation structure that can be inspected and then build functionality that allows the validation structure to become dynamic once the value is known, by way of an interpreter of the validation structure. I've done a couple of experiments around this so I know it's possible (with some minor possibly non-breaking changes to the API).

If I understand it correctly, the approach in this PR where the builder needs the value in order to build up the validation structure, goes in the exact opposite direction.

Breaking changes to the API

This PR is raking up some breaking changes that are convenient for the rewrite, but not from the user-perspective. Existing users would need to migrate and for new users there is going to be a strange mix of styles in the DSL. Like that most functions are extension functions or infix functions, but some like required and ifPresent are not. The additional error type parameter that is probably irrelevant for most is another thing.

I'd love to get more focused contributions for Konform, but also I am not opposed to you starting a fork from konform with a similar API. In fact I would see that as a compliment 😊

In addition to the above there are some smaller things. This is more FYI:

Introduction of 3rd party libraries

As much as possible Konform should stay dependency free. This reduces maintenance and lowers the chance of transitive supply chain attacks. As you already said, the introduction of NonEmptyList can be reversed and definitely should.

Removal of existing tests

I have seen the outstanding task of reimplementing the deleted test cases, but it is in my opinion not a good idea to do so when the goal is a rewrite.

No tests for new functionality

Think this one is pretty self-explanatory. Many functions currently don't have a single use. Having at least a single simple test would help immensely with building confidence without having to try every new functionality

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.