@hackage dep-t0.4.0.2

Reader-like monad transformer for dependency injection.

dep-t

DepT is a ReaderT-like monad transformer for dependency injection.

The difference with ReaderT is that DepT takes an enviroment whose type is parameterized by DepT itself.

Rationale

To perform dependency injection in Haskell, a common solution is to build a record of functions and pass it to the program logic using some variant of ReaderT.

To avoid becoming tied to a concrete reader environment, let's define some auxiliary typeclasses that extract functions from a generic environment:

type HasLogger :: (Type -> Type) -> Type -> Constraint
class HasLogger d e | e -> d where
  logger :: e -> String -> d ()

type HasRepository :: (Type -> Type) -> Type -> Constraint
class HasRepository d e | e -> d where
  repository :: e -> Int -> d ()

We see that the type e of the environment determines the monad d on which the effects take place.

Here's a monomorphic environment record with functions that have effects in IO:

type EnvIO :: Type
data EnvIO = EnvIO
  { _loggerIO :: String -> IO (),
    _repositoryIO :: Int -> IO ()
  }

instance HasLogger IO EnvIO where
  logger = _loggerIO

instance HasRepository IO EnvIO where
  repository = _repositoryIO

Record-of-functions-in-IO is a simple technique which works well in many situations. There are even specialized libraries that support it.

Here's a function which can get its dependencies from the monomorphic environment:

mkControllerIO :: (HasLogger IO e, HasRepository IO e) => Int -> ReaderT e IO String
mkControllerIO x = do
  e <- ask
  liftIO $ logger e "I'm going to insert in the db!"
  liftIO $ repository e x
  return "view"

That's all and well, but there are two issues that bug me:

  • We might want to write code that is innocent of IO and polymorphic over the monad, to ensure that the program logic can't do some unexpected missile launch, or to allow testing our app in a "pure" way.

  • What if the repository function needs access to the logger, too? The repository lives in the environment record, but isn't aware of it. That means it can't use the HasLogger typeclass for easy and convenient dependency injection. Why privilege the controller in such a way?

    In a sufficiently complex app, the diverse functions that comprise it will be organized in a big DAG of dependencies. And it would be nice if all the functions taking part in dependency injection were treated uniformly; if all of them had access to (some view of) the environment record.

To tackle these issues, we begin by giving the controller a more general signature:

mkControllerIO :: (HasLogger IO e, HasRepository IO e, MonadIO m, MonadReader e m) => Int -> m String

Now the function can work in other reader-like monads besides ReaderT.

Let's go one step further, and abstract away the IO, so that functions in the record can have effects in other monads:

mkController :: (HasLogger d e, HasRepository d e, LiftDep d m, MonadReader e m) => Int -> m String
mkController x = do
  e <- ask
  liftD $ logger e "I'm going to insert in the db!"
  liftD $ repository e x
  return "view"

Now both the signature and the implementation have changed:

  • There's a new type variable d, the monad in which functions taken from the environment e have their effects.

  • MonadIO has been replaced by LiftDep from Control.Monad.Dep.Class, a constraint that says we can lift d effects into m (though it could still make sense to require MonadIO m for effects not originating in the environment).

  • Uses of liftIO have been replaced by liftD.

If all those constraints prove annoying to write, there's a convenient shorthand using the MonadDep type family:

mkController :: MonadDep [HasLogger, HasRepository] d e m => Int -> m String

The new, more polymorphic mkController function can replace the original mkControllerIO:

mkControllerIO' :: (HasLogger IO e, HasRepository IO e) => Int -> ReaderT e IO String
mkControllerIO' = mkController

Now let's focus on the environment record. We'll parameterize its type by a monad:

type Env :: (Type -> Type) -> Type
data Env m = Env
  { _logger :: String -> m (),
    _repository :: Int -> m (),
    _controller :: Int -> m String
  }

instance HasLogger m (Env m) where
  logger = _logger

instance HasRepository m (Env m) where
  repository = _repository

Notice that the controller function is now part of the environment. No favorites here!

The following implementation of the logger function has no dependencies besides MonadIO:

mkStdoutLogger :: MonadIO m => String -> m ()
mkStdoutLogger msg = liftIO (putStrLn msg)

But look at this implementation of the repository function. It gets hold of the logger through HasLogger, just as the controller did:

mkStdoutRepository :: (MonadDep '[HasLogger] d e m, MonadIO m) => Int -> m ()
mkStdoutRepository entity = do
  e <- ask
  liftD $ logger e "I'm going to write the entity!"
  liftIO $ print entity

It's about time we choose a concrete monad and assemble an environment record:

envIO :: Env (DepT Env IO)
envIO =
  let _logger = mkStdoutLogger
      _repository = mkStdoutRepository
      _controller = mkController
   in Env {_logger,  _repository, _controller}

Not very complicated, except... what is that weird DepT Env IO doing there in the signature?

Well, that's the whole reason this library exists. For dependency injection to work for all functions, Env needs to be parameterized with a monad that provides that same Env environment. And trying to use a ReaderT (Env something) IO to parameterize Env won't fly; you'll get weird "infinite type" kind of errors. So I created the DepT newtype over ReaderT to mollify the compiler.

DepT has MonadReader and LiftDep instances, so the effects of mkController can take place on it.

So how do we invoke the controller now?

I suggest something like

runDepT (do e <- ask; _controller e 7) envIO 

or

(do e <- ask; _controller e 7) `runDepT` envIO 

The companion package dep-t-advice has some more functions for running DepT computations.

How to avoid using "ask" and "liftD" before invoking a dependency?

One possible workaround (at the cost of more boilerplate) is to define helper functions like:

loggerD :: MonadDep '[HasLogger] d e m => String -> m ()
loggerD msg = asks logger >>= \f -> liftD $ f msg

Which you can invoke like this:

usesLoggerD :: MonadDep [HasLogger, HasRepository] d e m => Int -> m String
usesLoggerD i = do
  loggerD "I'm calling the logger!"
  return "foo"

Though perhaps this isn't worth the hassle.

How to use "pure fakes" during testing?

The test suite has an example of using a Writer monad for collecting the outputs of functions working as "test doubles".

How to make a function "see" a different evironment from the one seen by its dependencies?

Sometimes we want a function in the environment to see a slightly different record from the record seen by the other functions, and in particular from the record seen by its own dependencies.

For example, the function might have a HasLogger constraint but we don't want it to use the default HasLogger instance of the environment.

The companion package dep-t-advice provides a deceive function that allows for this.

How to add AOP-ish "aspects" to functions in an environment?

The companion package dep-t-advice provides a general method of extending the behaviour of DepT-effectful functions, in a way reminiscent of aspect-oriented programming.

Caveats

The structure of the DepT type might be prone to trigger a known infelicity of the GHC simplifier.

  • This library was extracted from my answer to this Stack Overflow question.

  • The implementation of mapDepT was teased out in this other SO question.

  • An SO answer about records-of-functions and the "veil of polymorphism".

  • The answers to this SO question gave me the idea for how to "instrument" monadic functions (although the original motive of the question was different).

  • I'm unsure of the relationship between DepT and the technique described in Adventures assembling records of capabilities which relies on having "open" and "closed" versions of the environment record.

    It seems that, with DepT, functions in the environment obtain their dependencies anew every time they are invoked. If we change a function in the environment record, all other functions which depend on it will be affected in subsequent invocations. I don't think this happens with "Adventures..." at least when changing a "closed", already assembled record.

    With DepT a function might use local if it knows enough about the environment. That doesn't seem very useful for program logic; if fact it sounds like a recipe for confusion. It could perhaps be useful for AOP-ish things, to keep a synthetic "call stack", or to implement something like Logback's Mapped Diagnostic Context.

  • RIO is a featureful ReaderT-like / prelude replacement library which favors monomorphic environments.

  • Another exploration of dependency injection with ReaderT: ReaderT-OpenProduct-Environment.

  • The van Laarhoven Free Monad.

Swierstra notes that by summing together functors representing primitive I/O actions and taking the free monad of that sum, we can produce values use multiple I/O feature sets. Values defined on a subset of features can be lifted into the free monad generated by the sum. The equivalent process can be performed with the van Laarhoven free monad by taking the product of records of the primitive operations. Values defined on a subset of features can be lifted by composing the van Laarhoven free monad with suitable projection functions that pick out the requisite primitive operations.

  • registry is a package that implements an alternative approach to dependency injection, one different from the ReaderT-based one.