Has anyone explored using spec for “soft” failures? For example, if I’m writing an ETL system to migrate legacy customer account data, all I might require of a record’s :created field is that the value is a syntactically valid date-time string. If any record claimed that it was created on "1970-01-01T00:00:00.000Z", of course that would almost certainly be bad data; but instead of crashing the program or refusing to process the record, let’s say I want to log (at the WARN level) some of that record’s data, or perhaps even store the output of s/explain-data with the record in the target database. To describe it another way: I’m interested in taking spec beyond “application correctness” to also encode business/domain logic about data “smells”.
I’ve come up with two possible approaches to implementation: 1. Use different specs, potentially passing over the data multiple times. 2. Use a single spec, but have rules for what ::s/problems are acceptable. So, what do you think? Has anyone tried anything along these lines? Does this sound fundamentally wrongheaded, trying to make spec do something it’s ill-suited for? Cheers, Josh Tilles 79 Madison Ave, 4th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel: (646) 685-8379 <tel:+16466858379> signafire.com <http://www.signafire.com/> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
