[bv-dev] Value extraction open issue #13 and #14: Path and nodes

[Michael Nascimento]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> = 1. Type parameter information
>
> == 1.1 Should we add the type parameter to the node?
>
> Assume the example of a map:
> private Map<@Valid City (1), @Valid Statistics (2)> map;
>
> With the current way of doing things, you end up with the following paths:
> (1) (name = map, type = PROPERTY) -> (name = name, type = PROPERTY,
> isInIterable = true, key = city)
> (2) (name = map, type = PROPERTY) -> (name = count, type = PROPERTY,
> isInIterable = true, key = city)
>
> So you wouldn't be able to differentiate if the violations is coming from
> City or Statistics.
>
> One of the ideas we had is to integrate the TypeVariable<?> type parameter
> info into the last node. In the case of (1), you would have 2 nodes:
> (1) (name = map, type = PROPERTY) -> (name = name, type = PROPERTY,
> isInIterable = true, key = city, typeParameter = K)
> (2) (name = map, type = PROPERTY) -> (name = count, type = PROPERTY,
> isInIterable = true, key = city, typeParameter = V)
>
> WDYT?
>

Looks bad, type parameter names in Java are considered documentation and
not something you cannot change during class evolution. For Map, it won't
ever change, but for other domain classes, it can change.

Type parameter *order*, though, cannot change without change meaning, so
that's the best option we have left :-(


> == 1.2 If we add this information, what should it be?
>
> At first, Gunnar thought about using java.lang.reflect.TypeVariable for
> this type parameter information but we have an issue with it: it is not
> serializable and the path is supposed to be.
>
> Thus we need to either use a String with the name of the type parameter or
> introduce our own serializable structure.
>

Introduce a serializable structure. :-(

What's your take on this? If we go the structure route, which information
> should this structure contain apart from the name?
> java.lang.reflect.TypeVariable also has the generic declaration information.
>
> Do you foresee issues if we are not using java.lang.reflect.TypeVariable?
> Typically it would be harder to do additional reflection things.
>

Yeah, as the generics model evolve, we might paint ourselves in the corner.

= 2. Type argument constraints
>
> So, the discussion above also applies to type argument constraints but
> there are some specific questions for them.
>
> == 2.1 New node type
>
> Type argument constraints cover the following case, ZipCode being a
> constraint:
> Map<@ZipCode String, String> map;
>
> In this case, we envision the following node structure (assuming we would
> add the typeParameter discussed in 1.1):
> (name = map, type = property) -> (name = '<map key>', type =
> TYPE_ARGUMENT, isInIterable = true, key = myKey, typeParameter = K)
>
> TYPE_ARGUMENT is a new type introduced in javax.validation.ElementKind.
>
> Does it make sense?
>

My answer from above applies here as well.

== 2.2 Default node names
>
> The default extractors define the following node names for the added
> TYPE_ARGUMENT node:
> - arrays and Iterables (List included): <iterable element>
> - Map key: <map key>
> - Map value: <map value>
>
> This is similar to the nodes we created for "<return value>" or
> "<cross-parameter>" constraints.
>
> Question: should they have a node name? should it be the type parameter
> name instead (so E or K or V for instance)?
>
> Note that this might have consequences in the string representation we
> will discuss later.
>

If they must have a name, it will probably have to be named after the types
they apply to and type parameter order :-(


> == 2.3 Optional and ObservableValue
>
> In these 2 cases, we won't append a node.
>
> Note that while in the ObservableValue case, it might feel more natural as
> the constraint will probably be used like:
> @NotBlank StringProperty property;
> to apply a NotBlank constraint on the wrapped value so it's rather logical
> to not have a node.
>
> Just to be clear, for Optional, on the other hand, with our proposal, we
> won't have a node whereas the code looks like:
> Optional<@NotBlank String> optional;
>

Couldn't quite understand what comments I could make about it, so ok :-)

>
> = 3 String representation
>

> Note: this is implementation specific but we thought it might be
> interesting to discuss it here anyway.
>

Sorry, too many nuances and I don't have a strong opinion here.

Regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20170222/6f98a037/attachment-0001.html