Re: [Configobj-develop] Using external list/tuple for parameters to option() validator

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

Same results running the Gist:

$ python config_fest.py
expected to fail: formatted: [(['bar'], 'category', VdtValueError('the
value "unknown" is unacceptable.',))]
expected to pass: formatted: []
expected to fail: unformatted: [(['bar'], 'category',
VdtUnknownCheckError('the check "allowed_category_options" is
unknown.',))]
expected to pass: unformatted: [(['bar'], 'category',
VdtUnknownCheckError('the check "allowed_category_options" is
unknown.',))]

I have to admit ignorance knowing quite how to interpret that though.

- Darren

(My turn to be sorry for a late reply).

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Rob Dennis <rd...@gm...> wrote:
> (sorry for the late reply; work situation came up when I started to reply
> earlier, but I had already checked off that I had responded)
>
> I've taken your brief example and made a gist that you can execute:
> https://gist.github.com/robdennis/bf13312a078fe8557101
> Unfortunately, I don't expect your example to work as written, since it'd
> need the constructed "option" string to be formatted into the configspec.
>
> You have a different error message though, so I'm assuming there's some
> other issue that's not obvious from what you included.
>
> the output I show for the test:
> ```
> expected to fail: formatted: [(['bar'], 'category', VdtValueError('the value
> "unknown" is unacceptable.',))]
> expected to pass: formatted: []
> expected to fail: unformatted: [(['bar'], 'category',
> VdtUnknownCheckError('the check "allowed_category_options" is unknown.',))]
> expected to pass: unformatted: [(['bar'], 'category',
> VdtUnknownCheckError('the check "allowed_category_options" is unknown.',))]
> ```
>
> Maybe give it a shot and see if that gets your closer?
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I think it's on the right track (repr() didn't occur to me
>> before), but although testing with Validator.check() works, I still
>> get validation failures when using the resulting code within a
>> configspec.
>>
>> BTW this is CPython 2.6.6.
>>
>>
>> # DEFAULTS['CATEGORIES'] is the list() of categories
>> allowed_category_options = "option({0})".format(
>>     ', '.join([repr(cat) for cat in DEFAULTS['CATEGORIES']])
>> )
>>
>> CONFIGSPEC = '''\
>> logfile = string
>> [foo]
>> user = string
>> pass = string
>> [bar]
>> [[__many__]]
>> category = allowed_category_options
>> '''
>>
>> config = ConfigObj(conf_file, configspec=CONFIGSPEC.splitlines())
>> validator = Validator()
>> results = config.validate(validator)
>>
>>
>> Results in:
>> The 'category' key in section 'bar, 2019761' failed validation
>>
>> Should this type of usage in a configspec (the way it's being parsed
>> in my case) work correctly?
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Rob Dennis <rd...@gm...> wrote:
>> > Hello Darren,
>> >
>> > I'm one of the current maintainers along with Eli, I'm modifying a
>> > slightly
>> > tweaked example from here:
>> >
>> > https://configobj.readthedocs.org/en/latest/validate.html#the-standard-functions
>> >
>> > I'm seeing the behavior I expect for handcrafting the options validator:
>> >>>> from validate import Validator
>> >>>> vtor = Validator()
>> >>>> checked_val = vtor.check("option('option 1', 'option 2', 'option
>> >>>> 3')",
>> >>>> 'option 1')
>> >>>> checked_val
>> > 'option 1'
>> >>>> checked_val = vtor.check("option('option 1', 'option 2', 'option
>> >>>> 3')",
>> >>>> 'option 4')
>> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>> >   File "validate.py", line 625, in check
>> >     return self._check_value(value, fun_name, fun_args, fun_kwargs)
>> >   File "validate.py", line 657, in _check_value
>> >     return fun(value, *fun_args, **fun_kwargs)
>> >   File "validate.py", line 1332, in is_option
>> >     raise VdtValueError(value)
>> > validate.VdtValueError: the value "option 4" is unacceptable.
>> >
>> >
>> > which if we tweak a bit more shows:
>> >>>> my_categories = 'option 1', 'option 2', 'option 3'
>> >>>> checked_val = vtor.check("option({})".format(', '.join(repr(cat) for
>> >>>> cat
>> >>>> in my_categories)), 'option 1')
>> >>>> checked_val
>> > 'option 1'
>> >
>> > note the example still does use join, but is also joining the repr of
>> > each
>> > element (to get the quotes around strings, mostly)
>> >>>> "option({})".format(', '.join(repr(cat) for cat in my_categories))
>> > "option('option 1', 'option 2', 'option 3')"
>> >
>> >
>> > Is this on the right track for what you need?
>> > I'm out of contact for the next ~6 hours, but could try and respond
>> > after
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have a case in a script where I have a data structure defined in an
>> >> external module, which is also a library we use in the script. I'd
>> >> like to use that data in a DRY fashion in this script (which uses
>> >> ConfigObj) by passing the structure (a list) as the argument to the
>> >> option() validator. The reason for this is that the data in the target
>> >> configuration field will ultimately be passed to the external module
>> >> and will be validated against it, so the external module is
>> >> essentially "authoritative" for the application.
>> >>
>> >> In the external module (mylib.py):
>> >>
>> >> CATEGORIES = ['WHITE', 'GREEN', 'AMBER', 'RED']
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In the script:
>> >>
>> >> from mylib import CATEGORIES as allowed_categories
>> >>
>> >> CONFIGSPEC = '''\
>> >> logfile = string
>> >> [foo]
>> >> user = string
>> >> pass = string
>> >> [bar]
>> >> [[__many__]]
>> >> category = string
>> >> '''
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As shown I currently validate the 'category' option with string(), but
>> >> I'd really like to use option() instead with the set of choices taken
>> >> from the list imported from mylib; something like the following:
>> >>
>> >> category = option(allowed_categories)
>> >>
>> >> That syntax doesn't work and various attempts to coerce the list into
>> >> a string that resembles a list of allowed values with join() hasn't
>> >> done the trick. Is there currently a way to get this to function as I
>> >> want? Any way to allow option() to accept a tuple or list as the
>> >> arguments to ease working with structured data for that validator?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Darren Spruell
>> >> pha...@gm...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
>> >> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
>> >> your
>> >> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>> >> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more.
>> >> Take a
>> >> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Configobj-develop mailing list
>> >> Con...@li...
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
>> > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
>> > your
>> > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>> > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take
>> > a
>> > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Configobj-develop mailing list
>> > Con...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darren Spruell
>> pha...@gm...
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
>> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
>> your
>> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
>> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
>> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Configobj-develop mailing list
>> Con...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
> Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
> _______________________________________________
> Configobj-develop mailing list
> Con...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop
>

-- 
Darren Spruell
pha...@gm...