fwiw, I vote for leaving it. It's extra flexibility and is afaict a fairly
easy error to catch. Here's a function that I think should give you every
qualified keyword that is used in a spec but that does not have a spec
defined for it:
boot.user=> (let [kws (atom #{})]
#_=> (clojure.walk/postwalk (fn [x] (when (qualified-keyword? x)
(swap! kws conj x)) x) (map s/form (vals (s/registry))))
(clojure.set/difference @kws (set (keys (s/registry))))
#_=> )
#{:clojure.spec.alpha/v :clojure.spec.alpha/k}
boot.user=>
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30:57 AM UTC-7, Leon Grapenthin wrote:
>
> I second this from my experience, using spec quite extensively since its
> release.
>
> We already had some invalid data passing silently because of this. It can
> easily happen if you have a typo in the spec.
>
> Also we never experienced benefits from being able to not spec keys
> required in s/keys. It appears to be a pretty obsolete feature, making
> vulnerabilities more likely.
>
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:37:31 PM UTC+2, Yuri Govorushchenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have some noobie questions for which I couldn't google the compelling
>> answers.
>>
>> 1) Is there any way to ensure that the keys I used in `s/keys` have the
>> associated specs defined? At compile time or at least at runtime. Maybe via
>> an additional library? I could imagine a macro (smt. like `s/keys-strict`
>> or `s/map-pairs`, as maps can also be viewed as sets of spec'ed pairs)
>> which additionally checks that all keys have specs registered. I'm OK with
>> sacrificing some flexibility (e.g. being able to define key specs after map
>> specs, dynamically, etc.) in favour of more strictness.
>>
>> Motivation: I don't fully trust my map validation code when using
>> `core.spec`. `s/keys` doesn't require that the key has the spec registered
>> to validate its value. Although this may be flexible but in practice can
>> lead to errors. Specifically, it's quite easy to forget to create a spec
>> for a key, mistype it or forget to require the namespace in which key spec
>> is defined (e.g. if the common key specs reside in a dedicated ns):
>>
>> ```
>> ; totally forgot to define a spec for ::foo
>> (s/def ::bar (s/keys :req [::foo]))
>>
>> ; fooo vs. foo typo
>> (s/def ::fooo string?)
>> (s/def ::bar (s/keys :req [::foo]))
>>
>> ; :common/foo vs. ::common/foo typo
>> (s/def ::bar (s/keys :req [:common/foo]))
>>
>> ; didn't require common.core ns (spec for :common.core/foo is not added
>> to global registry)
>> (s/def ::bar (s/keys :req [:common.core/foo]))
>> ```
>>
>> These subtle mistakes can lead to map validations passing silently (as
>> long as keysets are correct).
>>
>> Related to this: there're feature requests for Cursive IDE which try to
>> address typing and reading mistakes related to keywords, e.g.
>> https://github.com/cursive-ide/cursive/issues/1846 and
>> https://github.com/cursive-ide/cursive/issues/1864.
>>
>> After using Schema for a while it's difficult to appreciate the way
>> `core.spec` defines it's own global registry which uses keywords instead of
>> using spec instances and good old variables, especially since Cursive IDE
>> has quite a nice support for variables already. But I think this is another
>> topic which was already discussed, e.g. in
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/4jhSCZaFQFY ("Spec
>> without global registry?").
>>
>> 2) What is the motivation for library having a "loose" default behaviour
>> of `s/keys` and no "strict" variant at all for spec-ing both keys and
>> values at the same tome? I think in majority of cases I'd need to spec both
>> keys and values of the map instead of only keys and would expect the
>> library to have built-in API for this. Maybe for the future references it
>> would be beneficial to add concrete code examples into motivation in the
>> core.spec guide (
>> https://clojure.org/about/spec#_map_specs_should_be_of_keysets_only)
>> which would better illustrate the described benefits of the current lib
>> behaviour?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
--
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.
