configobj-develop — Support and development of ConfigObj

[Configobj-develop] how to define key/value at the top level following use of Sections

[Bob S. <Bob...@ou...>]

I have searched extensively and not found anything that answers the following:

In creating a config file with nested Sections, how can I later in the file return to defining items (i.e., key/value pairs) at the top-level section?

E.g., if in the following file:

# --------------- start thisFile.ini
top1 = 100
top2 = 200
[LEVEL1]
Level1A = 1000

[LEVEL2]
Level2A = 2000

# Now I want top3 to be defined in the top level, rather than in Section [LEVEL1][LEVEL2]
top3 = 200

# ---------------- end thisFile.ini


When the config file is processed, cfg=ConfigObj('thisFile.ini'), I'd like top3 to be cfg['top3'], instead of as cfg['LEVEL1']['LEVEL2']['top3'].  My only guess was to change the last 2 lines to:

[]    # hoping maybe return to top level ?
top3 = 200

...  but that does not work and causes  an exception.  So as best I can determine it seems that all top-level definitions must precede any use of a Section.
Is that actually correct, or is there a way to return to defining items at the top level?

Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

[Configobj-develop] They made fun of her and labelled her as stupid.

[R. J. <lea...@at...>]

 Good morning!

 I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you about my neighbour's
daughter.

 She had trouble learning as a child and no one knew what was wrong
with her.

 At school she was bullied and people called her stupid.

 They eventually discovered that she was dyslexic. But she's a smart
kid and taught herself how to recognize words.

 Her mom insisted that she read everything that she could, and
eventually while still in high school a few years ago, she started
reading a IM forum
http://sarahonlinemarketinglessons.com/index.php/campaigns/yd728cny393c4/track-url/ko395rfcyg34e/c00d99b642ed86aacc7283be2fd1078774a60b0c.
She read up how to start an online business and put what she learnt
into action.

 She managed to pay her own way through college
http://sarahonlinemarketinglessons.com/index.php/campaigns/yd728cny393c4/track-url/ko395rfcyg34e/c00d99b642ed86aacc7283be2fd1078774a60b0c
and funnily enough is now studying teaching as she wants to help teach
kids with learning disabilities.

 The methods she used to earn cash online are not new and in fact have
been tweaked to perfection over the years.

 You can see a similar method by visiting this link

-> CLICK HERE NOW
HTTP://SARAHONLINEMARKETINGLESSONS.COM/INDEX.PHP/CAMPAIGNS/YD728CNY393C4/TRACK-URL/KO395RFCYG34E/C00D99B642ED86AACC7283BE2FD1078774A60B0C
<-

 have a great day and best of luck to you!

MORAL STORY OF THE DAY:

Once upon a time, there lived a washerman who had a thin donkey. His
donkey used to carry loads of clothes to the river bank every day. The
donkey was not satisfied with the food that the washer man gave to
him, so he wandered in the fields nearby and ate the crops. 

One night, the donkey meta jackal and became his friend Both of them
went out in a field and found cucumbers. They ate them to full their
stomach. They were happy and decided to come daily to full up their
stomach. Once, after a tasty meal of cucumbers, the donkey thought to
sing a song. The jackal warned the donkey not to sing. The donkey did
not listen to the jackal and started singing. The jackal immediately
jumped over the fence and went away. On hearing a donkey braying in a
the field, the guard woke up and rushed out to beat the donkey The
donkey ran to save his life. The donkey realised his mistake and felt
sorry for not listening to the good advice of the jackal. 

MORAL :THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.

SUBSCRIPTION INFO:

If you no longer want to receive updates, use the unsubscribe link
that is at the very bottom of this email.
Stay subscribed you will receive carefully picked recommendations, no
cost gifts and marketing downloads and we can get a commission, if you
click and buy on links in this email.
If you feel that the content is inappropriate reply to this email.

 http://sarahonlinemarketinglessons.com/index.php/lists/ny799gr1k0d73/unsubscribe/ko395rfcyg34e/yd728cny393c4

 Rick Jones
 2530 Musgrave Street 
 Oklahoma City 73102
 United States

 

[Configobj-develop] You need help?

[Victoria X. <in...@ma...>]

Need Help ?





Look no further.

Your answer is just a click away.

There’s a new method on the block
that people are finding works for them.

And I figured out how to gain access.

Explore this tried and tested new method here.

Have a good day

Talk soon,
Victoria


Moral story of the day:
Once upon a time there lived a cat that loved to read. At night, when
everybody was asleep, she would put on the spectacles and read the BIG BOOK
FOR CATS.

One day, she read in the book: If you want a mouse for dinner, repeat the
following rhyme: In this house there is a mouse, where is the mouse, where
is the mouse? The cat looked up from the book and found that there was a
mouse on the top of the table. The cat repeated the rhyme and soon found
the same mouse on the bed. Then she jumped upon the bed to catch the mouse
and the mouse was gone!

The mouse was very clever. Suddenly he squeaked, “Oh, dear cat, run, run
fast! There is dog after you!” The cat left the mouse and was ready to
jump out of the window. The mouse sat near his hole and said, “Ha-ha-ha!
Dear cat that was the trick I learnt from the BIO BOOK FOR MICE!” And the
mouse ran into his hole!

MORAL :An intelligent person should not think that others are illiterate.



Subscription info:

If you no longer want to receive updates, use the unsubscribe link that is
at the very bottom of this email.
Stay subscribed you will receive carefully picked recommendations, no cost
gifts and marketing downloads and we can get a commission, if you click and
buy on links in this email.
If you feel that the content is inappropriate reply to this email.

Unsubscribe me from this list




To stop receiving these
emails:http://victorinoxusa.com/unsubscribe.php?M=227478&C=f1222d67c8f9b095affd3f67bb5b19fd&L=2&N=14

[Configobj-develop] Golden Nuggets That Produce Income

[Victoria X. <in...@ma...>]

Golden Nuggets That Produce Income


This will most likely shock you.

99% of the people reading this
won't be able to hand it.

Because they don't want the truth.

So I Show Them This Instead

There are some GOLDEN nuggets
in that link above.

Enjoy,
Victoria
Moral story of the day:
Once there lived a clever fox. One day, he boasted to a dog of his
cleverness for escaping his enemies."I have a whole bag of tricks," he
said, "which contains a hundred ways of escaping my enemies." The dog did
not come in his tricks and said, "I have only one, but I can generally
manage with that." Suddenly, they heard the roar of the lions. They heard
it carefully and seemed that they were coming towards them. The dog
immediately scampered up a tree and hid himself in the branches. The dog
said, "This is my plan. What are you going to do?" The fox thought first of
one way, then of another, and while he was debating the lions came nearer
and nearer. At last the fox in his confusion was caught up by the lions and
killed.

MORAL :Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon.

Subscription info:

If you no longer want to receive updates, use the unsubscribe link that is
at the very bottom of this email.
Stay subscribed you will receive carefully picked recommendations, no cost
gifts and marketing downloads and we can get a commission, if you click and
buy on links in this email.
If you feel that the content is inappropriate reply to this email.

Unsubscribe me from this list




To stop receiving these
emails:http://victorinoxusa.com/unsubscribe.php?M=227478&C=f1222d67c8f9b095affd3f67bb5b19fd&L=2&N=13

[Configobj-develop] Let us have a quick one..

[Victoria X. <in...@ma...>]

let us have a quick one

Let us have a quick one..

As it is getting late now. Instead of writing a lengthy
message, let me just write you a quick one here.
It is going to be worth your time, at this hour even.

You have to see this tonight before it is gone
the next morning.

To your success,
Victoria
Moral story of the day:
Once upon a time, there lived a washerman who had a thin donkey. His donkey
used to carry loads of clothes to the river bank every day. The donkey was
not satisfied with the food that the washer man gave to him, so he wandered
in the fields nearby and ate the crops.

One night, the donkey met a jackal and became his friend Both of them went
out in a field and found cucumbers. They ate them to full their stomach.
They were happy and decided to come daily to full up their stomach. Once,
after a tasty meal of cucumbers, the donkey thought to sing a song. The
jackal warned the donkey not to sing. The donkey did not listen to the
jackal and started singing. The jackal immediately jumped over the fence
and went away. On hearing a donkey braying in a the field, the guard woke
up and rushed out to beat the donkey The donkey ran to save his life. The
donkey realised his mistake and felt sorry for not listening to the good
advice of the jackal.

MORAL :Think before you act.




Subscription info:

If you no longer want to receive updates, use the unsubscribe link that is
at the very bottom of this email.
Stay subscribed you will receive carefully picked recommendations, no cost
gifts and marketing downloads and we can get a commission, if you click and
buy on links in this email.
If you feel that the content is inappropriate reply to this email.

Unsubscribe me from this list






To stop receiving these
emails:http://victorinoxusa.com/unsubscribe.php?M=227478&C=f1222d67c8f9b095affd3f67bb5b19fd&L=2&N=12

[Configobj-develop] ConfigObj 5 Introduction and Reference typo

[Arthur G. <art...@gm...>]

in 'Writing a Config File', the value\d+ should be quoted strings.

-- 
Arthur Goldberg
https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurgoldberg
art...@gm...

[Configobj-develop] How do I make Xenaccess.conf objects using ConfigObj

[D'Mita L. <dle...@fi...>]

Is it possible to create Xenaccess.conf files using the python ConfigObj
library? I have been tasked with this and their documentation is extensive
but it seems I can only make the INI type files. I wan to create an object
that looks like the one below.

WinVista { ostype = "Windows"; win_tasks = 0xa0; win_pdbase = 0x18; win_pid
= 0x9c; win_peb = 0x188; win_iba = 0x8; win_ph = 0x18; }
https://code.google.com/archive/p/xenaccess/wikis/ConfigurationEntries.wiki

Thanks,
D'Mita


-- 
D'Mita Levy
Cyber Fellow, Applied Research Center
Florida International University

[Configobj-develop] Find out about the unexpected arrival of the vehicle

[<in...@vi...>]

Your e-mail program can not read this letter.
In order to view it within your browser, click here:
http://www.e-siuntimai.lt/display.php?M=4726178&C=1be01eb8ac3b603416f737784aa1ecb4&S=1733&L=123&N=1360


If you do not want to receive our newsletter, click
here:http://www.e-siuntimai.lt/unsubscribe.php?M=4726178&C=1be01eb8ac3b603416f737784aa1ecb4&L=123&N=1733

[Configobj-develop] Problem with nested lists

[Martin <mar...@gm...>]

hi there,

I'm having problems with nested lists:

>>> from configobj import ConfigObj
>>> config = ConfigObj('test.config')
>>> nested_list = [5, [2,3], 6]
>>> config['nested_list'] = nested_list
>>> config.write()

this produces
   $ tail test.config
   nested_list = 5, "[2, 3]", 6

rereading that config-file gives me this:

>>> from configobj import ConfigObj
>>> config = ConfigObj('test.config')
>>> nested_list = config['nested_list']
>>> type(nested_list)
<type 'list'>
>>> type(nested_list[1])
<type 'str'>

what am I doing wrong? any help would be appreciated!

Re: [Configobj-develop] Optional Sections?

[Eli C. <el...@co...>]

I don't believe there's any way to make a section optional in the way you
want.  The reasoning is that when a section is defined in the configspec,
it always exists in your config even if it's not included in the config
file.  Therefore, in your example [[[Location]]] will always exist for each
of the __many__ subsections regardless of whether the config file defines
it.  In cases like this I would typically assign default values to all of
the options in that subsection.

 - Eli



On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Sumit's Mailing Lists <
li...@ba...> wrote:

> I've been looking through the docs and StackOverflow and I'm still a
> little stumped on this. Can I have an optional section in my config
> specification? For example, say I had this as my configspec:
>
>     config_specification = """
> [General]
>
> sample_rate = float
>
> [Data]
>   [[__many__]]
>     type = option('sense.xml')
>       [[[Identifier]]]
>         type = option("name", "mac", "uuid")
>         adapter = string(default='')
>         id   = string(default='')
>         file = string(default='')
>       [[[Location]]]
>         type = option("virtual", "gps")
>         longitude = string(default='')
>         latitude = string(default='')
>         altitude = string(default='')
>         speed = string(default='')
>         climb = string(default='')
>         track = string(default='')
>         longutide_error = string(default='')
>         latitude_error = string(default='')
>         altitude_error = string(default='')
>         speed_error = string(default='')
>         climb_track = string(default='')
>         track_error = string(default='')
> """
>
> Is there a way to make [[[Locaiton]]] optional, so it can be missing and
> still pass validation (assuming that I do validation like so):
>
>         cfg = ConfigObj(filename,
> configspec=BootStrap.config_specification.split('\n'))
>
>         test = cfg.validate(Validator())
>
>         valid = True
>         for (section_list, key, _) in flatten_errors(cfg, test):
>             if key is not None:
>                 logging.error('Invalid value for key {0} in section
> {1}'.format(key, ', '.join(section_list)))
>                 valid = False
>             else:
>                 logging.error('Section {0} failed validation'.format(',
> '.join(section_list)))
>                 valid = False
>         if not valid:
>             exit(3)
>
> Thanks
> Sumit
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Configobj-develop mailing list
> Con...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop
>

Re: [Configobj-develop] Optional Sections?

[pisymbol . <pis...@gm...>]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Sumit's Mailing Lists
<li...@ba...> wrote:
> I've been looking through the docs and StackOverflow and I'm still a
> little stumped on this. Can I have an optional section in my config
> specification? For example, say I had this as my configspec:
>
>     config_specification = """
> [General]
>
> sample_rate = float
>
> [Data]
>   [[__many__]]
>     type = option('sense.xml')
>       [[[Identifier]]]
>         type = option("name", "mac", "uuid")
>         adapter = string(default='')
>         id   = string(default='')
>         file = string(default='')
>       [[[Location]]]
>         type = option("virtual", "gps")
>         longitude = string(default='')
>         latitude = string(default='')
>         altitude = string(default='')
>         speed = string(default='')
>         climb = string(default='')
>         track = string(default='')
>         longutide_error = string(default='')
>         latitude_error = string(default='')
>         altitude_error = string(default='')
>         speed_error = string(default='')
>         climb_track = string(default='')
>         track_error = string(default='')
> """
>
> Is there a way to make [[[Locaiton]]] optional, so it can be missing and
> still pass validation (assuming that I do validation like so):
>

Why not just make it non-fatal?

for (section_list, key, _) in flatten_errors(config, test):
   if key == 'Location':
     pass

etc.

-aps

[Configobj-develop] Optional Sections?

[Sumit's M. L. <li...@ba...>]

I've been looking through the docs and StackOverflow and I'm still a
little stumped on this. Can I have an optional section in my config
specification? For example, say I had this as my configspec:

    config_specification = """
[General]

sample_rate = float

[Data]
  [[__many__]]
    type = option('sense.xml')
      [[[Identifier]]]
        type = option("name", "mac", "uuid")
        adapter = string(default='')
        id   = string(default='')
        file = string(default='')
      [[[Location]]]
        type = option("virtual", "gps")
        longitude = string(default='')
        latitude = string(default='')
        altitude = string(default='')
        speed = string(default='')
        climb = string(default='')
        track = string(default='')
        longutide_error = string(default='')
        latitude_error = string(default='')
        altitude_error = string(default='')
        speed_error = string(default='')
        climb_track = string(default='')
        track_error = string(default='')
"""

Is there a way to make [[[Locaiton]]] optional, so it can be missing and
still pass validation (assuming that I do validation like so):

        cfg = ConfigObj(filename,
configspec=BootStrap.config_specification.split('\n'))

        test = cfg.validate(Validator())

        valid = True
        for (section_list, key, _) in flatten_errors(cfg, test):
            if key is not None:
                logging.error('Invalid value for key {0} in section
{1}'.format(key, ', '.join(section_list)))
                valid = False
            else:
                logging.error('Section {0} failed validation'.format(',
'.join(section_list)))
                valid = False
        if not valid:
            exit(3)

Thanks
Sumit

[Configobj-develop] (no subject)

[Ame E. <ame...@gm...>]

Arlyss engebretson

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

[Eli C. <el...@co...>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
wrote:

> Before going down the road further on finding a working string
> formatted configspec that works for this case (which from my
> perspective has so far been more complex than a Python use case
> arguably should be), I wanted to detour first and ask: is it possible
> to modify the configspec support to allow simply passing a Python list
> as an argument to option()? In my opinion this is possibly the
> cleanest and most flexible idiom (and least surprise for users I
> suspect).
>

I have no ideological objection to that, but it's an area of the code which
I'm not super-familiar with, so I can't say offhand why it was implemented
that way to begin with.  It might have something to do with the fact that [
and ] characters are used specifically in sections, and therefore there was
a desire to avoid using them in other contexts.  That combined with the
fact that the current syntax works (though it is probably not what people
would intuitively guess the syntax to be) would be an argument against
changing it.  Though as I said, I'd need to look at the code to see if
there's any particular difficulties for the parser to use [ and ] to mean
two different things.

 - Eli

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

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

Took a bit of a holiday from this, wanted to come back to it.

Before going down the road further on finding a working string
formatted configspec that works for this case (which from my
perspective has so far been more complex than a Python use case
arguably should be), I wanted to detour first and ask: is it possible
to modify the configspec support to allow simply passing a Python list
as an argument to option()? In my opinion this is possibly the
cleanest and most flexible idiom (and least surprise for users I
suspect).

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Rob Dennis <rd...@gm...> wrote:
> Getting the same results implies that we're using the same version of
> Python/configobj, which is nice.
>
> The real reason I wrote that example up was to give you a string formatted
> configspec example that I believed should work, and one that appeared to be
> formatted the same way your example was (But with a different error message
> than what you had posted before).
>
> Is there a way to either link to your code repo, or at least paste the real
> config file and validation code to a gist?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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...

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

[Rob D. <rd...@gm...>]

Getting the same results implies that we're using the same version of Python/configobj, which is nice.


The real reason I wrote that example up was to give you a string formatted configspec example that I believed should work, and one that appeared to be formatted the same way your example was (But with a different error message than what you had posted before).





Is there a way to either link to your code repo, or at least paste the real config file and validation code to a gist?

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
wrote:

> 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...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

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...

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

[Rob D. <rd...@gm...>]

(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
>

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

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

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...

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

[Rob D. <rd...@gm...>]

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
>

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

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

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...

Re: [Configobj-develop] Applying validator to section/subsection names

[Eli C. <el...@co...>]

This is not currently possible, unfortunately.

Your suggestion seems good.  It reads well, though it's not technically
backwards-compatible, since it eliminates the ability for people to have
config options called __name__ within a section.  With that being said,
this might be an extreme-enough edge case that we'd be okay with it.  At
the very least it seems worth considering.

I've created an issue for this in our Github:
https://github.com/DiffSK/configobj/issues/81

 - Eli


On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Have been enjoying the validator functionality in ConfigObj greatly
> (configspecs).
>
> I have a case where my configuration has a section which may contain
> many subsections, and I'd like the ability to apply a validator to the
> name of the subsections (they should only be integers in the range of
> 100 to 10000000). Is this currently possible in ConfigObj? Otherwise,
> something that could be made possible?
>
> Thinking something along the lines of a key name in the configspec of
> __name__, e.g.:
>
> [foo]
> [[__many__]]
> __name__ = integer(100,10000000)
> field1 = string
> field2 = integer(0,100)
>
> --
> 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
>

Re: [Configobj-develop] string_list validator supporting single item lists?

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

Very nice, thank you! That works great.

DS

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Eli Courtwright <el...@co...> wrote:
> You can create a single-item list by ending your string with a trailing
> comma, e.g.
>
> notify = me...@ex...,
>
>  - Eli
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have a field in my configuration section that should be set with a
>> list of one or more email addresses for notification; i.e. either of
>> these configuration settings would be correct:
>>
>> notify = me...@ex...
>>
>> notify = me...@ex..., yo...@ex...
>>
>> What seems ideal would be for the string_list() validator to accept a
>> single list item (essentially, the same validation as string()) and
>> not *only* a list. I sampled it with a 'min' value of 1 but that also
>> resulted in validation failure with a single value in the field:
>>
>> notify = string_list(default=None, min=1)
>>
>> Is there a way to accomplish this with the string_list() validator, or
>> does this require a custom validator? Any chance to see a modification
>> string_list to support single-item lists if not?
>>
>> --
>> 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...

Re: [Configobj-develop] string_list validator supporting single item lists?

[Eli C. <el...@co...>]

You can create a single-item list by ending your string with a trailing
comma, e.g.

notify = me...@ex...,

 - Eli

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a field in my configuration section that should be set with a
> list of one or more email addresses for notification; i.e. either of
> these configuration settings would be correct:
>
> notify = me...@ex...
>
> notify = me...@ex..., yo...@ex...
>
> What seems ideal would be for the string_list() validator to accept a
> single list item (essentially, the same validation as string()) and
> not *only* a list. I sampled it with a 'min' value of 1 but that also
> resulted in validation failure with a single value in the field:
>
> notify = string_list(default=None, min=1)
>
> Is there a way to accomplish this with the string_list() validator, or
> does this require a custom validator? Any chance to see a modification
> string_list to support single-item lists if not?
>
> --
> 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
>

[Configobj-develop] string_list validator supporting single item lists?

[Darren S. <pha...@gm...>]

Greetings,

I have a field in my configuration section that should be set with a
list of one or more email addresses for notification; i.e. either of
these configuration settings would be correct:

notify = me...@ex...

notify = me...@ex..., yo...@ex...

What seems ideal would be for the string_list() validator to accept a
single list item (essentially, the same validation as string()) and
not *only* a list. I sampled it with a 'min' value of 1 but that also
resulted in validation failure with a single value in the field:

notify = string_list(default=None, min=1)

Is there a way to accomplish this with the string_list() validator, or
does this require a custom validator? Any chance to see a modification
string_list to support single-item lists if not?

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