On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Diego Augusto Molina
<diegoaugustomol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Very often I use the stringer command to generate lists of enumerated values,
> which is great btw.
> But one thing that I see myself also writing after this is a Parse method or
> function to validate strings that are received.
> The use case is that I have a list of possible values for a controlled field
> in a RESTful API. I receive and deliver string values from the API by I have
> a tight control inside the API itself.
> I declare a new type (generally an uint8 alias) and then declare a bunch of
> auto incremental constants, starting with the zero value that I always set to
> "Invalid" which is used as a control value.
> The stringer command makes the dull work but immediately after I write a
> Parse function or method. The following is a full example:
> //go:generate stringer -linecomment -output=enum_string.go -type=MyEnum
> package enum
>
> type MyEnum uint8
>
> const (
> // Reserved for internal use
> MyEnumInvalid MyEnum = iota // Invalid
>
> MyEnumValue1 // Value #1
> MyEnumValue2 // Value #2
> MyEnumValue3 // Value #3
> MyEnumValue4 // Value #4
> MyEnumValue5 // Value #5
> )
>
> func (e *MyEnum) Parse(value string) MyEnum {
> for lenIdx, lenVal, i := len(_MyEnum_index), uint8(len(value)), 1; i <
> lenIdx; i++ {
> if _MyEnum_index[i]-_MyEnum_index[i-1] == lenVal && // Maybe too
> small optimization to be perceptible/useful(?)
> _MyEnum_name[_MyEnum_index[i-1]:_MyEnum_index[i]] == value {
> *e = MyEnum(i - 1)
> return *e
> }
> }
> return MyEnum(0)
> }
>
> So this couples a lot to my workflow, of course. This way I can do something
> like:
> receivedVal = new(MyEnum).Parse(receivedStr)
> Or:
> var val *MyEnum
> for _, strVal := range strValues {
> if val.Parse(strVal) == MyEnumInvalid {
> return fmt.Errorf("Invalid value for enum: %v", strVal)
> }
> }
>
> So I started to write this function within the stringer command, which I
> modified to do so. So I don't know if this is for some use to the community.
> I know that in order for it to be useful to everyone it should be more
> general. So I'm looking at alternatives and, of course, if it's worth working
> on that. I it would be of some use there are two alternatives where this
> could live:
>
> As an option to the stringer command
> As a separate command (because it would exceed the stringer interface and
> would be misleading, since "Parse" is not part of the "Stringer" interface)
>
> And I'm only using here the stringer command to create series of consecutive
> numbers, so I would need to write extra code to fulfill the sparsiness of
> values (cases where stringer creates up to 10 different slices and after that
> just creates a map). It wouldn't be much work, actually, just read the code
> in the command.
> And instead of writing a new method for the type (breaking the idea of the
> "stringer" interface), I thought it could just be a "ParseT" function.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Should I keep it for myself (hahaha)?
There are many different possible enhancements that can be made to
stringer. We've decided to keep the tool simple rather than add
additional knobs. Thanks.
I encourage you to make your tool available for anybody who wants to use it.
Ian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcV8PwDGcf4Np5vr44TsFsSOv8tuJ3NpKOK1km%2B%2BFcPSJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
