Higher Kinded Option Parsing


May 4, 2019

Higher Kinded Data Types (HKDTs) have piqued my interest lately. They seem to have a lot of potential applications, however the ergonomics still aren't so great in most of these cases. Today we'll look at one case where I think the end result ends up quite nice! Let's parse some options!

First the problem; if you've worked on a non-trivial production app you've probably come across what I'll call the Configuration Conundrum. Specifically, this is when an app collects configuration values from many sources. Maybe it parses some options from CLI flags, some from Environment Variables, yet more come from a configuration file in JSON or YAML or TOML or or even worse it may pull from SEVERAL files. Working with these is a mess, option priority gets tricky, providing useful error messages gets even harder, and the code for managing all these sources is confusing, complicated, and spread out. Though we may not solve ALL these problems today, we'll build an approach that's modular and extensible enough that you can mix and match bits and pieces to get whatever you need.

Here's an example of some messy code which pulls options from the environment or from a JSON value file:

Here's a peek at how our configuration parsing code will end up:

This is slightly disingenuous as some of the logic is abstracted away behind the scenes in the second example; but the point here is that the logic CAN be abstracted, whereas it's very difficult to abstract over the steps in the first example without creating a bunch of intermediate types.

Kinds of Options

If you're unfamiliar with HKDTs (higher kinded data types); it's a very simple idea with some mind bending implications. Many data types are parameterized by a value type (e.g. [a] is a list is parameterized by the types of values it contains); however HKDTs are parameterized by some wrapper type (typically a functor, but not always) around the data of the record. Easiest to just show an example and see it in practice. Let's define a very simple type to contain all the options our app needs:

Notice that each field is wrapped in f. I use a _ suffix as a convention to denote that it's a HKDT. f could be anything at all of the kind Type -> Type; e.g. Maybe, IO, Either String, or even strange constructions like Compose Maybe (Join (Biff (,) IO Reader)) ! You'll discover the implications as we go along, so don't worry if you don't get it yet. For our first example we'll describe how to get options from Environment Variables!

Getting Environment Variables

Applications will often set configuration values using Environment Variables; it's an easy way to implicitly pass information into programs and is nice for sensitive data like secrets. We can describe the options in our HKDT in terms of Environment Variables which may or may not exist. First we'll need a way to lookup an option for a given key, and a way to convert it into the type we expect. You may want to use something more sophisticated in your app; but for the blog post I'll just lean on the Read typeclass to make a small helper.

This function looks up the given key in the environment, returning a Nothing if it doesn't exist or fails to parse. We'll talk about more civilized error handling later on, don't worry ;)

Now we can describe how to get each option in our type using this construct:

Close; but if you'll note earlier, each field should contain field's underlying type wrapped in some f. Here we've got IO (Maybe a), we can't assign f to IO (Maybe _) so we need to compose the two Functors somehow. We can employ Compose here to collect both IO and Maybe into a single Higher Kinded Type to serve as our f. Try the following instead:

I personally find it more readable to write Compose as infix like this, but some disagree. Very cool; we've got a version of our record where each field contains an action which gets and parses the right value from the environment! It's clear at a glance that we haven't forgotten to check any fields (if you have -Wall enabled you'd get a warning about missing fields)! We've effectively turned the traditional Options <$> ... <*> ... design inside out. It's much more declarative this way, and now that it's all collected as structured data it'll be easier for us to work with from now on too!

Let's build another one!

Parsing JSON/YAML Configs

JSON and YAML configuration files are pretty common these days. I won't bother to dive into where to store them or how we'll parse them, let's assume you've done that already and just pretend we've got ourselves an Aeson Value object from some config file and we want to dump the values into our options object.

We have two options here and I'll show both! The simplest is just to derive FromJSON and cast the value directly into our type!

Unfortunately it's not quite so easy as just tacking on a deriving FromJSON; Since GHC doesn't know what type f is it has a tough time figuring out what you want it to do. If you try you'll get an error like:

• No instance for (FromJSON (f String))

We need to help out GHC a bit. No worries though; someone thought of that! Time to pull in the barbies library. An incredibly useful tool for working with HKDT in general. Add the barbies library to your project, then we'll derive a few handy instances:

Okay! Let's step through some of that. First we derive Generic, it's used by both aeson and barbies for most of their type classes. We derive a bunch of handy *B helpers (B for Barbies) which also come from the barbies lib, we'll explain them as we use them. The important part right now is the deriving instance clauses. AllBF from barbies asserts that all the wrapped fields of the typeclass adhere to some type class. For example, AllBF Show f Options_ says that f a is Showable for every field in our product. More concretely, in our case AllBF Show f Options expands into something equivalent to (Show (f String), Show (f Int)) since we have fields of type String and Int. Nifty! So we can now derive type classes with behaviour dependent on the wrapping type. In most cases this works as expected, and can sometimes be really handy!

One example where this ends up being useful is FromJSON. The behaviour of our FromJSON instance will depend on the wrapper type; if we choose f ~ Maybe then all of our fields become optional! Let's use this behaviour to say that we want to parse our JSON file into an Options object, but it's okay if fields are missing.

A few things to point out here; we call fromJson :: FromJSON a => Value -> Result a here, but we don't really need the outer Result type; we'd prefer if the failure was localized at the individual field level; simply using Nothing for fields which are missing. So we use fromResult to unpack the result if successful, or to construct an Options_ Maybe filled completely with Nothing if the parsing fails for some reason (you'll probably want to come back an improve this error handling behaviour later). You'll notice that nothing we do really has much to do with Options_; so let's generalize this into a combinator we can re-use in the future:

buniq requires a ProductB constraint which asserts that the type we're constructing is a Record type or some other Product. This is required because buniq wouldn't know which constructor to instantiate if it were a Sum-type.

Okay, we've seen the generic version; here's a different approach where we can choose HOW to deserialize each option from the provided Value.

Some of these types get a bit funky; but IMHO they wouldn't be too terrible if this were all bundled up in some lib for readability. As I said earlier, some of the ergonomics still have room for improvement.

Let's talk about what this thing does! First we import a bunch of lensy stuff; then in each field of our options type we build a getter function from Value -> Maybe a which tries to extract the field from the JSON Value. preview mixed with Data.Aeson.Lens happens to be a handy way to do this. I pulled out the findField helper mainly to draw attention to the rather cryptic Compose ((->) A.Value) Maybe a type signature. This is just Compose wrapped around a function A.Value -> Maybe a; why do we need the Compose here? What we REALLY want is A.Value -> Option_ Maybe; but remember that every field MUST contain something that matches f a for some f. A function signature like A.Value -> Maybe a doesn't match this form, but Compose ((->) A.Value) Maybe a does (where f ~ Compose ((->) A.Value) Maybe)! Ideally we'd then like to pull the function bits to the outside since we'll be calling each field with the same argument. Conveniently; barbies provides us with bsequence; whose type looks like this:

Or if we specialize it to this particular case:

We use the -> applicative (also known as Reader) to extract the function Functor to the outside of the structure! This of course requires that the individual fields can be traversed; implying the TraversableB constraint. Hopefully this demonstrates the flexibility of this technique, we can provide an arbitrary lens chain to extract the value for each setting, maybe it's overkill in this case, but I can think of a few situations where it would be pretty handy.

While we're at it, let's bsequence our earlier Environment Variable object to get the IO on the outside!

This is dragging on a bit; let's see how we can actually use these things!

Combining Options Objects

Now that we've got two different ways to collect options for our program let's see how we can combine them. Let's write a simple action in IO for getting and combining our options parsers.

Let's try it out, then I'll explain it.

Now that we're combining sets of config values we need to decide what semantics we want when values overlap! I've decided to use <|> from Alternative to combine our Maybe values. This basically means "take the first non-Nothing value and ignore the rest". That means in our case that the first setting to be "set" wins out. bzipWith performs element-wise zipping of each element within our Options_ record, with the caveat that the function you give it must work over any possible a contained inside. In our case the type is specialized to:

Which does what we want. This end bit is going to get messy if we add any more sources though, let's see if we can't clean it up! My first thought is that I'd love to use <|> without any lifting/zipping, but the kinds don't line up; Options_ is kind (Type -> Type) -> Type whereas Type -> Type is required by Alternative. How do we lift Alternative to Higher Kinds? Well we could try something clever, OR we could go the opposite direction and use Alternative to build a Monoid instance for our type; then use that to combine our values!

Now we have a Monoid for Options_ whenever f is an Alternative such as Maybe! There are many possible Monoid instance for HKDTs, but in our case it works great! Alternative is actually just a Monoid in the category of Applicative Functors, so it makes sense that it makes a suitable Monoid if we apply it to values within an HKDT.

Let's see how we can refactor things.

Wait a minute; what about the IO? Here I'm actually employing IOs little known Monoid instance! IO is a Monoid whenever the result of the IO is a Monoid; it simply runs both IO actions then mappends the results (e.g. liftA2 (<>)). In this case it's perfect! As we get even more possible option parsers we could even just put them in a list and fold them together: fold [envOpts, jsonOptsCustom <$> readConfigFile, ...]

But wait! There's more!

Setting Default Values

We've seen how we can specify multiple partial configuration sources, but at the end of the day we're still left with an Options_ Maybe! What if we want to guarantee that we have a value for all required config values? Let's write a new helper.

This new helper uses our old friend bzipWith to lift a slightly altered fromMaybe to run over HKDTs! We have to do a little bit of annoying wrapping/unwrapping of Identity, but it's not too bad. This function will take the config value from any Just's in our Options_ Maybe and will choose the default for the Nothings!

We introduce the alias type Options = Options_ Identity as a convenience.

Better Errors

So far our system silently fails in a lot of places. Let's see how HKDTs can give us more expressive error handling!

The first cool thing is that we can store error messages directly alongside fields they pertain to!

If we use Const String in our HKDT we are saying that we actually don't care about the type of the field itself, we just want to store a string no matter what! If we turn on OverloadedStrings we can even leave out the Const constructor if we like! But I'll leave that choice up to you.

Now that we've got errors which relate to each field we can construct a helpful error message if we're missing required fields:

validateOptions takes any traversable product HKDT with Maybe fields and an HKDT filled with error messages inside Const and will return a Validation object containing either a summary of errors or a validated Identity HKDT. Just as before we use bzipWith with a function which operates at the level of functors as a Natural Transformation; i.e. it cares only about the containers, not the values. Note that Validation is very similar to the Either type, but accumulates all available errors rather than failing fast. We use bsequence' here, which is just like bsequence; but saves us the trouble of explicitly threading an Identity into our structure. Check the docs in barbies if you'd like to learn more.

Now if we end up with values missing we get a list of errors!

You can trust me that if we had more than one thing missing it would collect them all. That's a lot of content all at once, so I'll leave some other experiments for next time. Once you start to experiment a world of opportunities opens up; you can describe validation, forms, documentations, schemas, and a bunch of other stuff I haven't even though of yet!! A challenge for the reader: try writing a proper validator using HKDTs which validates that each field fulfills specific properties. For example, check that the number of threads is > 0; check that the host is non-empty, etc. You may find the following newtype helpful ;) newtype Checker a = Checker (a -> Maybe String)

Bonus: Parsing CLI Options

Just for fun here's a bonus config source for getting options from the Command Line using Optparse Applicative

Hopefully you learned something 🤞; If so, consider supporting more posts like this by pledging on my Patreon page! It takes quite a bit of work to put these things together, if I managed to teach your something or even just entertain you for a minute or two maybe send a few bucks my way for a coffee?


Become a Patron!