SYNOPSIS
In function Rinci metadata:
result => {
table => {
spec => {
summary => "Employee's' current salary",
fields => {
name => {
summary => "Employee's name",
schema => 'str*',
pos => 0,
},
position => {
summary => "Employee's current position",
schema => 'str*',
pos => 1,
},
salary => {
summary => "Employee's current monthly salary",
schema => 'float*',
pos => 2,
},
},
pk => 'name',
},
# allow_extra_fields => 0,
# allow_underscore_fields => 0,
},
...
}
DESCRIPTION
If your function returns table data, either in the form of array
(single-column rows):
["andi", "budi", "cinta", ...]
or array of arrays (CSV-like):
[
["andi" , "manager", 12_000_000],
["budi" , "staff", 5_000_000],
["cinta", "junior manager", 7_500_000],
# ...
]
or array of hashes (with field names):
[
{name=>"andi" , position=>"manager", salary=>12_000_000},
{name=>"budi" , position=>"staff", salary=> 5_000_000},
{name=>"cinta", position=>"junior manager", salary=> 7_500_000},
# ...
]
then you might want to add a table property inside your result property
of your function metadata. This module offers several things:
* When your function is run under Perinci::CmdLine, your tables will
look prettier. This is done via adding table.fields attribute to your
function result metadata, giving hints to the Data::Format::Pretty
formatter.
Also when you use --help (--verbose), the table structure is
described in the Result section.
* (NOT YET IMPLEMENTED) When you generate documentation, the table
specification is also included in the documentation.
* (NOT YET IMPLEMENTED, IDEA) The user can also perhaps request the
table specification, e.g. yourfunc --help=result-table-spec, yourfunc
--result-table-spec.
* (NOT YET IMPLEMENTED) The wrapper code can optionally validate your
function result, making sure that your resulting table conforms to
the table specification.
* (NOT YET IMPLEMENTED, IDEA) The wrapper code can optionally filter,
summarize, or sort the table on the fly before returning the final
result to the user.
(Alternatively, you can pipe the output to another tool like jq, just
like a la Unix toolbox philosophy).
SPECIFICATION
The value of the table property should be a DefHash. Known properties:
* spec => DEFHASH
Required. Table data specification, specified using TableDef.
* allow_extra_fields => BOOL (default: 0)
Whether to allow the function to return extra fields other than the
ones specified in spec. This is only relevant when function returns
array of hashes (i.e. when the field names are present). And this is
only relevant when validating the table data.
* allow_underscore_fields => BOOL (default: 0)
Like allow_extra_fields, but regulates whether to allow any extra
fields prefixed by an underscore. Underscore-prefixed keys is the
DefHash's convention of extra keys that can be ignored.
NOTES
If you return an array or array of arrays (i.e. no field names), you
might want to add table.fields result metadata so the wrapper code can
know which element belongs to which field. Example:
my $table = [];
push @$table, ["andi", 1];
push @$table, ["budi", 2];
return [200, "OK", $table, {"table.fields"=>[qw/name id/]}];
This is not needed if you return array of hashes, since the field names
are present as hash keys:
my $table = [];
push @$table, {name=>"andi", id=>1};
push @$table, {name=>"budi", id=>2};
return [200, "OK", $table];
RESULT METADATA
* attribute: table.fields => ARRAY OF STR
FAQ
Why not use the schema property in the result property?
That is, in your function metadata:
result => {
schema => ['array*', of => ['hash*' => keys => {
name => 'str*',
position => 'str',
salary => ['float*', min => 0],
...
}]],
},
First of all, table data can come in several forms, either a
1-dimensional array, an array of arrays, or an array of hashes.
Moreover, when returning an array of arrays, the order of fields can
sometimes be changed. The above schema will become more complex if it
has to handle all those cases.
With the table property, the intent becomes clearer that we want to
return table data. We can also specify more aspects aside from just the
schema.