Request: Optional Collections about salat HOT 10 OPEN

Yes: sorry, options containing collections are not supported at present. They will be at some point in time, but....

Also, collections that contain options will be flattened when persisted.

from salat.

Thanks for the spec; I will try to look at it this weekend.

from salat.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I can certainly work around this, but figured it was worth reporting anyways.

from salat.

any update on this? It would be nice to have Optional collections as some fields may be optional for JSON.

from salat.

+1

from salat.

+1

from salat.

It seems unlikely that we are going to add support for optional collections Option[List[_]] (why not just use an empty list)?

If you really need this, and replacing your optional collection Option[List[_]] with just a List[_] that is sometimes Nil (or Map.empty...or equivalent) - please take a crack at a pull request.

Also, I don't quite understand the case for Option[List[_]] - can someone please elaborate why that type is necessary and just a List isn't sufficient?

from salat.

Not that this can't be worked around, but a couple scenarios where Option[List[_]] might be expected/preferred over List[_] = Nil

if you had a field that was being populated upstream by something like

Option(sourceDoc.fieldThatMightBeThere).map(extractValues)

to distinguish between cases where fieldThatMightBeThere was/wasn't there, vs. cases where you might need to tweak your extractValues functions or reevaluate assumptions about the content of the fieldThatMightBeThere when it is there

or

if you have a big document with a ton of fields, but often only need a subset, say

case class Dictionary(
name: String,
author: String,
language: String,
everyWordInTheLanguage: Option[List[String]]
)

maybe i'm doing some aggregation on the authors of all my dictionaries, i'd project out the everyWordInTheLanguage field, so the None value there could be a signal of this field was projected out as opposed to this field was asked for and was empty

I know these aren't insurmountable, but would be nice to have the . . .
(••)
( ••)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Option

P.S. Excited to see this project coming back to life!!

from salat.

I think empty list is the way to go. Thanks for the detailed explanation. You can close this if no-one objects.

from salat.

No hard objection, but i'd vote for keeping it around as a "nice to have"

from salat.