Support `:db.type/keyword` in schema

[thedavidmeister]

I have an attribute that looks like this in my schema:

:foo/name {:db/unique :db.unique/identity
                  :db/valueType   :db.type/keyword}

I'm adding to it from quite a few different places in my code, but it's always a keyword. I was hoping to not have to write :pre conditions to enforce the keyword-ness, and let the enforcing happen at the db level, but the above schema does not work.

I get this error:

db.cljc:536Uncaught #error {:message "Bad attribute specification for {:foo/name {:db/valueType :db.type/keyword}}, expected one of #{:db.type/ref}", :data {:error :schema/validation, :attribute :foo/name, :key :db/valueType, :value :db.type/keyword}}

[tonsky]

The only value type supported ATM is :db.type/ref. For anything else, just
don’t specify :db/valueType

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:19 PM David Meister notifications@github.com
wrote:

I have an attribute that looks like this in my schema:

:foo/name {:db/unique :db.unique/identity
:db/valueType :db.type/keyword}

I'm adding to it from quite a few different places in my code, but it's
always a keyword. I was hoping to not have to write :pre conditions to
enforce the keyword-ness, and let the enforcing happen at the db level, but
the above schema does not work.

I get this error:

db.cljc:536Uncaught #error {:message "Bad attribute specification for
{:foo/name {:db/valueType :db.type/keyword}}, expected one of
#{:db.type/ref}", :data {:error :schema/validation, :attribute :foo/name,
:key :db/valueType, :value :db.type/keyword}}

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#152

[tonsky]

I mean, values of all types are supported, just don’t specify type of them
in a schema

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:32 PM Nikita Prokopov prokopov@gmail.com wrote:

The only value type supported ATM is :db.type/ref. For anything else, just
don’t specify :db/valueType

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:19 PM David Meister notifications@github.com
wrote:

I have an attribute that looks like this in my schema:

:foo/name {:db/unique :db.unique/identity
:db/valueType :db.type/keyword}

I'm adding to it from quite a few different places in my code, but it's
always a keyword. I was hoping to not have to write :pre conditions to
enforce the keyword-ness, and let the enforcing happen at the db level, but
the above schema does not work.

I get this error:

db.cljc:536Uncaught #error {:message "Bad attribute specification for
{:foo/name {:db/valueType :db.type/keyword}}, expected one of
#{:db.type/ref}", :data {:error :schema/validation, :attribute :foo/name,
:key :db/valueType, :value :db.type/keyword}}

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#152

[thedavidmeister]

@tonsky oh, is there a particular reason for that? it would be really helpful to support this.

[thedavidmeister]

@tonsky what would actually be involved in adding a few extra types? is it more than just doing a type check and maybe error on an attempted transact!?

[tonsky]

There’re few complications: see my comments #107

[thedavidmeister]

@tonsky well no, not complications, you just said in #107 that you're looking for a use case.

If not schemas directly ported from datomic, some kind of validation at the db level would be great!

My use case is that:

• I want to write some nicely named utility functions set-foo!, set-bar!, etc...
• Those functions do some transactions under the hood
• The functions are all working with the same type of data and the same bits of datoms in the db
• I don't really want to have to sprinkle the same validation calls through all my utility functions, I'd rather just have the db tell me when I screw up

[pangloss]

Hi David, what you are describing can easily be done without any change to
datascript using just a simple macro. Here is a quick example I threw
together just to get you started.

(def global-conn (d/create-conn {}))

(defmacro property-setter [validate-fn k]
`(let [k# ~k]

 (defn ~(symbol (str "set-" (name k))) [entity# new-value#]
   (when-not (~validate-fn new-value#)
     (throw (ex-info "invalid" {:property k# :value new-value#})))
   (d/transact global-conn [[(:db/id entity#) k# new-value#]]))))

(property-setter keyword? :my-keyword)

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:44 AM, David Meister notifications@github.com
wrote:

@tonsky https://github.com/tonsky well no, not complications, you just
said in #107 #107 that you're
looking for a use case.

If not schemas directly ported from datomic, some kind of validation at
the db level would be great!

My use case is that:

• I want to write some nicely named utility functions set-foo!,
  set-bar!, etc...
• Those functions do some transactions under the hood
• The functions are all working with the same type of data and the
  same bits of datoms in the db
• I don't really want to have to sprinkle the same validation calls
  through all my utility functions, I'd rather just have the db tell me when
  I screw up

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#152 (comment)