# Mirror Mirror: Reflection and Encoding Via

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,

where is the skolem that escapes the forall?

This post is about reflection, reification, and (to get to the pragmatism) the use of the new DerivingVia mechanism to provide awesome codecs. What does reflection and reification have to do with any of this? Well, we’ll see, but first let’s dig into some code.

Encoding and decoding JSON is a common problem, and you very often need to massage the data a little bit in order to get what you want. Sometimes you need to maintain backwards compatibility with old services, and this means that you can’t just do whatever you want internally. What works best for your domain and codebase doesn’t necessarily play nicely with the boilerplate reducing deriving mechanisms or metaprogramming.

You can dispense with type classes and generic deriving. Writing encoders and decoders by hand is a great and declarative solution, and is often the right answer. However, the work can be boilerplate-y and error-prone, and some machine help is much appreciated.

Fortunately, DerivingVia can be used to handle much of this work safely, composably, and without boilerplate. Let’s dig into what I’ve been working on.

We’re going to need a boatload of language extensions to make this work.

{-# LANGUAGE AllowAmbiguousTypes  #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds            #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveAnyClass       #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveGeneric        #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DerivingStrategies   #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DerivingVia          #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts     #-}
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances    #-}
{-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures       #-}
{-# LANGUAGE NoStarIsType         #-}
{-# LANGUAGE PolyKinds            #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables  #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeApplications     #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TypeOperators        #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}


Don’t worry about them if you don’t understand them. For some more boilerplate, we’re going to define the most common domain type: User.

data User = User
, userAge            :: Int
, userFavoriteAnimal :: String
}
deriving (Show, Generic)

bob :: User
bob = User "Bob" 32 "cats"


Now, User does not have a ToJSON instance. But we want to convert it to JSON anyway. We can write a newtype wrapper that delegates to the Generic stuff with JSON, as a way to provide a ToJSON instance for a type that doesn’t have one.

newtype GenericToJSON value = GenericToJSON value

instance ToJSON (GenericToJSON value) where
toJSON (GenericToJSON value) =
genericToJSON defaultOptions value


GHC is definitely not going to like this, because we need some constraints. So let’s have GHC compile this and complain!

/home/matt/Projects/encoding-via/src/Lib.hs:74:24: error:
• No instance for (Generic a) arising from a use of ‘genericToJSON’
Possible fix:
add (Generic a) to the context of the instance declaration
• In the expression: genericToJSON defaultOptions a
In an equation for ‘toJSON’:
toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a
In the instance declaration for ‘ToJSON (GenericToJSON a)’
|
74 |     toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a
|                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


instance Generic a => ToJSON (GenericToJSON a) where
toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a


Now we get another error:

/home/matt/Projects/encoding-via/src/Lib.hs:75:24: error:
• Could not deduce (aeson-1.4.6.0:Data.Aeson.Types.ToJSON.GToJSON
Value Zero (Rep a))
arising from a use of ‘genericToJSON’
from the context: Generic a
bound by the instance declaration at src/Lib.hs:(72,5)-(73,32)
• In the expression: genericToJSON defaultOptions a
In an equation for ‘toJSON’:
toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a
In the instance declaration for ‘ToJSON (GenericToJSON a)’
|
75 |     toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a
|                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Another type class constraint to paste in. However, there’s something tricky here: GHC is reporting a fully qualified name for the GToJSON class. That means it isn’t in scope. Let’s Hoogle the GToJSON class. Looks like there are two types here with the same name. We’ve got type GToJSON = Internal.GToJSON Value. So I think we can just use that in the constraint:

instance
(Generic a, GToJSON Zero (Rep a))
=>
ToJSON (GenericToJSON a)
where
toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a


Sure enough, this compiles! Can we use it to convert a User to JSON, now? Yes.

>>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode (GenericToJSON bob))


OK, that may not be the encoding we want, but it does work.

# DerivingVia

OK, OK, but now we actually need to provide a ToJSON instance for the User. We have a bunch of options:

### Manual

BORING

instance ToJSON User where
toJSON user = object
, "userAge" .= userAge user
, "userFavorateAnimal" .= userFavoriteAnimal user
]


Also, HWOOPS, you may have noticed the typo. That’s unfortunately already been released and is now part of the Public API which we will embarrassingly support for the next decade or two. Referer has some company, at least.

Anyway this is boring, error-prone, and full of repetition. But! Importantly, it gives us a tremendous amount of control over the representation. We specify exactly what we want and how we want it. Want to special case a field name? Easy! Just write it. Want to special case a value representation? Easy! Just do it.

### DeriveAnyClass

All you have to do is throw a deriving clause on User for this to work out.

data User = User ...
deriving (Generic, ToJSON)


This is easy. But it requires a lot of work from GHC and the library author. GHC needs a feature to permit library authors to provide specialized defaults for type class methods, and library authors must then provide those specialized defaults. Library authors have to pick a single default set that is privileged for DeriveAnyClass, which is unfortunate.

Fortunately for users, this is very easy. There’s nothing to it. But we also don’t have any control over it. So let’s look at a slightly more flexible way:

### Generic Deriving

instance ToJSON User where
toJSON = genericToJSON defaultOptions


The value defaultOptions gives us tools and hooks to modify field labels and constructor values and other ways that the JSON encoding can be handled. This is good and convenient. The aeson-casing gives us a function snakeCase that we can use to snake case the fields instead of using the text of the field that we’re given.

instance ToJSON User where
toJSON = genericToJSON options
where
options = defaultOptions
{ fieldLabelModifier =
\fieldLabel -> snakeCase fieldLabel
}

>>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode bob)
{"user_name":"Bob","user_age":32,"user_favorite_animal":"cats"}


Cool. And finally we can drop the type name, because we want prettier fields.

instance ToJSON User where
toJSON = genericToJSON options
where
options = defaultOptions
{ fieldLabelModifier =
\fieldLabel -> snakeCase (drop (length "user") fieldLabel)
}

>>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode bob)
{"name":"Bob","age":32,"favorite_animal":"cats"}


Nice. That’s what we want.

### DerivingVia

We can derive a Generic-based instance using our newtype from earlier:

data User = User
, userAge            :: Int
, userFavoriteAnimal :: String
}
deriving (Show, Generic)
deriving ToJSON via GenericToJSON User


The via keyword allows us to specify a newtype wrapper that might contain additional information to use in deriving. This will generate an instance that looks like this:

instance ToJSON User where
toJSON user = toJSON (coerce user :: GenericToJSON User)


Basically, we’re delegating to this instance under-the-hood:

instance
(Generic a, GToJSON Zero (Rep a))
=>
ToJSON (GenericToJSON a)
where
toJSON (GenericToJSON a) = genericToJSON defaultOptions a


• It subsumes default methods and democratizes them - library authors are no longer required to provide these default methods, and library users can supply them as well.
• Because it uses type classes, it is completely canonical - there can only be one instance for a type, and it should be pretty easy to find either the type or the instance.
• We can customize and reuse these values easily

Indeed, GenericToJSON is too strict of a name - we can use that wrapper for anything that just delegates to the Generic instance. This type is canonically available as Generically.

### DerivingVia + Customization?

But, how can we customize?

If we write the instance by hand, then we can customize the options passed in. But the language in DerivingVia doesn’t allow for mere values - only types can be talked about.

Fortunately, we have ways of communicating across the type-value divide.

# Functions on Values and Types

In Haskell, we are very familiar with functions from values to values. It’s functional programming!

But we also have types. Can we have functions from values to types? What about functions from types to types? Or functions from types to values?

Value-to-value functions are ordinary functions. And we have type-to-type functions using TypeFamilies. Value-to-type functions are the realm of dependent types, and Haskell can only sorta simulate these sometimes in a limited and weird way.

But we want type-to-value functions. Given a type, return a value. We have these - they are called “type classes.”

## what??

It’s a bit of a mindbender! For sure. And the syntax is a little awkward. Don’t worry. Let’s make a type class that make this super evident.

class TypeToInt a where
typeToInt :: Int


The class TypeToInt is a function that accepts a type and provides a value. We can define an instance like this:

instance TypeToInt Int where
typeToInt = 1

instance TypeToInt String where
typeToInt = 2

instance TypeToInt Char where
typeToInt = 3


We can use the type function like this

>>> typeToInt @Int
1
>>> typeToInt @Char
3


The @ is a TypeApplications syntax - it allows us to explicitly pass the type to the value.

Typical type classes, like Monoid, are similar. Consider mempty - it’s a value, all alone. If we use it unadorned, it looks like this:

mempty :: (Monoid a) => a


If we view this as a function from types to values, then we can pass a type and receive a value:

>>> mempty @(Sum Int)
Sum { getSum = 0 }


Anyway, to get back on track, we’re going to need to build a type-level language for modifying JSON options, and then we’re going to need to use type classes to get a value level modifier. If that sounds scary, then, well, it kind of is. But no worries - you’ll get the hang of it!

# Modify Options

newtype
Codec
(tag :: k)
(val :: Type)
=
Codec val


The type that we’ll use to hang our hat is this. The Codec type takes a type parameter tag that can be of any kind k, and it contains a single value of type val. This allows us to use it with DerivingVia.

Now, we’ll define an instance of ToJSON for Codec, which modifies the options based on tag.

instance
( GToJSON Zero (Rep a), Generic a
, ModifyOptions tag
)
=>
ToJSON (Codec tag a)
where
toJSON (Codec a) =
genericToJSON (modifyOptions @tag defaultOptions) a


ModifyOptions is a function from a type to a value - in this case, a function which modifies options. We’ll start with the base case - do nothing! For this, we can use the () type, but we’ll alias it for readability:

type AsIs = ()

class ModifyOptions tag where
modifyOptions :: Options -> Options

instance ModifyOptions AsIs where
modifyOptions = id


This gives us the same thing as deriving ToJSON via Generically User, and we can verify this:

>>> encode (Codec bob :: Codec AsIs User)


Now, we want the ability to snake_case the options. So we’ll create a type:

data SnakeCase


The purpose of this type is to “reflect” the value snakeCase :: String -> String and modify the field labels with that function.

instance ModifyOptions SnakeCase where
modifyOptions options = options
{ fieldLabelModifier = \fieldLabel ->
snakeCase (fieldLabelModifier options fieldLabel)
}


Oof, record update, how nasty. Let’s factor that out into it’s own pattern: we want to take an Options and compose a function with the existing fieldLabelModifier.

addFieldLabelModifier :: (String -> String) -> Options -> Options
{ fieldLabelModifier = f . fieldLabelModifier options
}

instance ModifyOptions SnakeCase where


Much nicer. Excellent. Does this work? Let’s try!

>>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode (Codec bob :: Codec SnakeCase User))
{"user_name":"Bob","user_age":32,"user_favorite_animal":"cats"}


Nice.

Now, let’s drop that type name from the front. We’ll write a combinator that lets you specify that you want to Drop something from the front.

data Drop something


And, here’s our instance:

instance (KnownSymbol symbol) => ModifyOptions (Drop symbol) where
modifyOptions =
addFieldLabelModifier $\fieldLabel -> case List.stripPrefix prefix fieldLabel of Just stripped -> stripped Nothing -> fieldLabel where prefix = symbolVal (Proxy @symbol)  There’s a bit to unpack here. This type class is matching on two types: one visibly (Drop symbol), and one invisibly. It’s matching on the inferred kind of symbolsymbol :: Symbol. It’s real easy to get tripped up when GHC starts inferring stuff about kinds, so if you get confused here, you’re in good company - this stuff confuses me all the time. A Symbol is a String at the type level. The function symbolVal is used to get a String from a Symbol. It’s another function from types to values that we’ve been using. So we’d say that we’re “reflecting” the symbol into the prefix variable, and then using it normally. This works! >>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode (Codec bob :: Codec (Drop "user") User)) {"Name":"Bob","Age":32,"FavoriteAnimal":"cats"}  But we want to do both of these at the same time, without writing a bunch of boilerplatey code. # Composing We need a type to compose these functions. We can’t use . as a type operator. So that leaves us with $ and &. $ has a useful type operator already - you can feasibly use it to write IO$ Either String Char and remove brackets there. So we’ll use &.

data a & b

infixr 6 &


Now, we’ll write an instance of ModifyOptions for this type.

instance
()
=>
ModifyOptions (a & b)
where
modifyOptions = undefined


Just kidding, we put in a dummy/skeleton implementation. So the idea is that we want to have a symmetry with &, which is defined like:

(&) :: a -> (a -> b) -> b
a & f = f a


You use it like [1,2,3] & map (+1). It’s similar to Elm, F#, and Elixir’s |> operator.

With this understanding, we can stitch together the instance. We need for a and b to have an instance of ModifyOptions, and then we’ll compose those functions.

instance
(ModifyOptions a, ModifyOptions b)
=>
ModifyOptions (a & b)
where
modifyOptions = modifyOptions @b . modifyOptions @a


Now, we can write our Codec that will do both of these operations.

>>> let val = Codec bob :: Codec (Drop "user" & SnakeCase) User
>>> BS8.putStrLn (Aeson.encode val)
{"name":"Bob","age":32,"favorite_animal":"cats"}


Armed with this, we can now derive that instance:

data User = User ...
deriving stock
Generic
deriving
ToJSON
via
Codec (Drop "user" & SnakeCase) User


# DerivingVia: Reflecting Types to Values to Control Classes

DerivingVia gives us a powerful language for deriving instances, but it requires that we write at the type level. Fortunately, we can reflect our types into functions, and use those to drive behavior.

These newtype wrappers aren’t useful only for deriving. We can also use it to specify alternative behaviors easily. We’ve needed this recently at my company to load results in a JSONB array.

Postgresql has an aggregation function jsonb_agg that will take an expression, convert it to JSONB, and collect the results in a JSONB list. However, there’s no way to control the JSONB representation - postgresql uses the column names for the keys, as-is.

persistent can automatically derive JSON instances for you, but it can potentially pick different encoder/decoder than what postgresql uses. This is the default behavior with most of the settings.

Furthermore, you may not even have derived JSON instances for these types! So how are you going to make the communication work, without a ton of error-prone boilerplate?

We’ll use the exact same newtype and reflection tricks. We’ll point these techniques at FromJSON instead, which should be able to reuse all of the combinators we’re building here to modify the requisite options.

In the interest of brevity, though, that particular exposition will have to wait for another post. In the meantime, you can look at code on my encoding-via repository.