--- slug: merging --- # Merging records In Nickel, the basic building blocks for data are records (objects in JSON or attribute sets in Nix). Merging is a fundamental built-in operation whose role is to combine records together. Fields common to several records will be themselves recursively merged if possible, following the semantics described in this document. Merging is useful to compose small and logical blocks into a potentially complex final configuration, making it more manageable. A merge is performed by the `&` operator. Merge is a **symmetric** operation. More pedantically, it is commutative. In practice, this means that order doesn't matter, and `left & right` is the same thing as `right & left`. When the operands need to be distinguished, as we will see for default values for example, the idea is to use special annotations (metadata) instead of relying on the order of the operands. **Warning**: At the time of writing, Nickel's version is 1.0. Custom merge functions are planned for a future version. They are not detailed here yet. See the associated technical document [RFC001][rfc001]. The section describes the behavior and use-cases of merge, by considering the following situations: - [Merging records without common fields](#simple-merge-no-common-fields) - [Merging records with common fields](#recursive-merge-with-common-fields) - [Merging records with metadata](#merging-records-with-metadata) - [Optional fields](#optional-fields) - [Default values](#default-values) - [Contracts](#contracts) - [Documentation](#documentation) - [Not exported](#not-exported) - [Recursive overriding](#recursive-overriding) ## Simple merge (no common fields) Merging two records with no common fields results in a record with the fields from both operands. For example, `{foo = 1, bar = "bar"} & {baz =false}` evaluates to `{foo = 1, bar = "bar", baz = false}`. ### Specification Formally, if we write the left operand as ```nickel left = { field_left_1 = value_left_1, .., field_left_n = value_left_n, } ``` and the right operand as ```nickel right = { field_right_1 = value_right_1, .., field_right_k = value_right_k } ``` then the merge `left & right` evaluates to the record: ```nickel { field_left_1 = value_left_1, .., field_left_n = value_left_n, field_right_1 = value_right_1, .., field_right_k = value_right_k } ``` In other words, `left & right` is the union of `left` and `right`. ### Examples #### Split You can split a configuration into subdomains: ```nickel # file: server.ncl { host_name = "example", host = "example.org", ip_addr = "0.0.0.0", } # file: firewall.ncl { enable_firewall = true, open_ports = [23, 80, 443], } # file: network.ncl let server = import "server.ncl" in let firewall = import "firewall.ncl" in server & firewall ``` This gives: ```nickel { host_name = "example", host = "example.org", ip_addr = "0.0.0.0", enable_firewall = true, open_ports = [23, 80, 443], } ``` #### Extension Given a configuration, you can use merge to add new fields: ```nickel # file: safe-network.ncl let base = import "network.ncl" in base & {use_iptables = true} ``` ## Recursive merge (with common fields) When the two operands have fields in common, those fields are recursively merged. For example: ```nickel { top_left = 1, common = {left = "left"}} & { top_right = 2, common = {right = "right"} } ``` Evaluates to the record: ```nickel { top_left = 1, top_right = 2, common = {left = "left", right = "right"} } ``` When one or both of the common fields are not records, the merge will fail unless one of the following condition hold: - They are both of the same primitive data type (`Number`, `Bool`, `Enum`, or `String`) and they are equal - They are both arrays, and they are equal (checked by generating an application of the lazy contract `std.contract.Equal`) - They are both equal to `null` ### Specification Formally, let's write the left operand as ```nickel left = { field_left_1 = value_left_1, .., field_left_n = value_left_n, common_1 = common_vleft_1, .., common_m = common_vleft_m, } ``` and the right operand as ```nickel right = { field_right_1 = value_right_1, .., field_right_k = value_right_k common_1 = common_vright_1, .., common_m = common_vright_m, } ``` where the `field_left_i` and `field_right_j` are distinct for all `i` and `j`. Then the merge `left & right` evaluates to the record: ```nickel { field_left_1 = value_left_1, .., field_left_n = value_left_n, field_right_1 = value_right_1, .., field_right_k = value_right_k common_1 = common_vleft_1 & common_vright_1, .., common_m = common_vleft_m & common_vright_m, } ``` For two values `v1` and `v2`, if at least one value is not a record, then ```text v1 & v2 = v1 if (type_of(v1) is Number, Bool, String, Enum or v1 == null) AND v1 == v2 v2 | Equal v1 if type_of(v1) is Array and type_of(v2) is Array _|_ otherwise (indicates failure) ``` ### Example ```nickel # file: udp.ncl { # same as firewall = {open_ports = {udp = [...]}}, firewall.open_ports.udp = [12345,12346], } # file: tcp.ncl { # same as firewall = {open_ports = {tcp = [...]}}, firewall.open_ports.tcp = [23, 80, 443], } # firewall.ncl let udp = import "udp.ncl" in let tcp = import "tcp.ncl" in udp & tcp ``` In the above example, we merge two records, both with a field `firewall`. On both sides, the value of `firewall` is again a record, which is therefore merged. The same process happens one layer below, on the common field `open_ports`, to result in the final record: ```nickel { firewall = { open_ports = { udp = [12345, 12346], tcp = [23, 80, 443], } } } ``` ## Merging records with metadata Metadata can be attached to values thanks to the `|` operator. Metadata currently include contract annotation, default value, merge priority, optionality annotation, and documentation. We describe in this section how metadata interact with merging. Note that metadata can only be syntactically attached to record fields, except for type and contract annotations, which can appear anywhere in a freestanding expression such as `(x | Num) + 1`. However, a contract annotation outside a record field isn't considered metadata (it's a mere contract check) and doesn't behave the same with respect to merging. **In particular, `{foo | Num = 1}` can behave differently from `{foo = (1 | Num)}` when merged**. See [the contracts section](#contracts) for more details. ### Optional fields A field can be marked as optional using the `optional` annotation: ```nickel # schema.ncl { Command = { command | String, arg_type | [| 'String, 'Number |], alias | String | optional, }, } ``` Optional fields are intended to be used in record contracts to mean that a field might be defined, but is not mandatory. An optional field initially doesn't have a definition [^optional-with-value]. A value is provided by applying the contract to - or merging it with - a record which defines a value for this field: ```nickel { command = "exit", arg_type = 'String, alias = "e", } | Command ``` Once an optional field becomes defined, it acts just like a regular field. Any attached contract will be applied as well (here, `String` on `alias`). An optional field also becomes a regular field as soon as it is merged with the same field that doesn't have the `optional` annotation. This holds **even if the other field doesn't have a definition**: ```nickel nickel> {foo = 1, bar | optional} & {bar | optional} { foo = 1 } nickel> {foo = 1, bar | optional} & {bar} error: missing definition for `bar` ┌─ repl-input-4:1:1 │ 1 │ {foo = 1, bar | optional} & {bar, baz = bar + 1} │ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ │ │ │ │ │ defined here │ in this record ``` In the second example, `bar` isn't optional on the right-hand side of the merge. Although the right-hand side `bar` doesn't have a definition, the resulting `bar` field isn't optional anymore. As long as an optional field doesn't have a value, it will be invisible to record operations. Optional fields without a value don't show up in `std.record.fields`, they won't make `std.record.values` throw a missing field definition error, etc. ```nickel nickel> let Contract = {foo = 1, bar | optional} nickel> std.record.values Contract [ 1 ] nickel> std.record.has_field "bar" Contract false ``` Optional fields can still be discovered through metadata queries (run `nickel help query` or type `:help query` in the REPL for more information) or generated documentation. [^optional-with-value]: You can actually provide a value (default or not) for an optional field, but this nullifies the effect of `optional`: what you get is just a regular field ### Merge priorities Priorities are specified using the `priority` annotation, followed by a number literal. There are also two other special priority annotations, the lowest priority `default`, and the highest priority `force`. Both are written without the `priority` keyword. Priorities dictate which values take precedence over other values. By default, values are given the priority `0`. Values with the same priority are recursively merged as specified in this document, which can mean failure if the values can't be meaningfully combined: ```nickel nickel> {foo = 1} & {foo = 2} error: non mergeable terms ┌─ repl-input-1:1:8 │ 1 │ {foo = 1} & {foo = 2} │ ^ ^ with this expression │ │ │ cannot merge this expression │ = Both values have the same merge priority but they can't be combined ``` If the priorities differ, the value with the highest priority simply erases the other: ```nickel nickel> {foo | priority 1 = 1} & {foo = 2} { foo = 1 } nickel> {foo | priority -1 = 1} & {foo = 2} { foo = 2 } ``` The priorities are ordered in the following way: - `default` is the lowest priority - numeral priorities are ordered as usual numbers (priorities can be any valid Nickel number, including fractions and negative values) - `force` is the highest priority #### Default values A `default` annotation can be used to provide a base value, but have it be overridable through merging. For example, `{foo | default = 1} & {foo = 2}` evaluates to `{foo = 2}`. A default value is just a special case of a priority: the lowest possible one. #### Forcing values Dually, values with the `force` annotation are given the highest priority. Such a value can never be overridden, and will either take precedence over another value or be tentatively merged if the other value has priority `force` as well. #### Specification Each field definition `foo = val` is assigned a priority `p(val)`. When merging two common fields `value_left` and `value_right`, the result is either the one with the highest priority (which overrides the other), or the two are tentatively recursively merged if the priorities are equal. Without loss of generality, consider the simple case of two records with only one common field: ```text {common = left} & {common = right} = { common = left if p(left) > p(right) right if p(left) < p(right) left & right if p(left) = p(right) } ``` #### Example Let us stick to our firewall example. Thanks to default values, we can set the most restrictive configuration by default, but have it still be overridden if needed. Let us first try without default values: ```nickel let base = { firewall.enabled = true, firewall.type = "iptables", firewall.open_ports = [21, 80, 443], } in let patch = { firewall.enabled = false, server.host.options = "TLS", } in base & patch ``` Because merging is meant to be symmetric, Nickel is unable to know which value to pick between `enabled = true` and `enabled = false` for the firewall, and thus it will fail: ```text error: non mergeable terms ┌─ repl-input-8:2:22 │ 2 │ firewall.enabled = true, │ ^^^^ cannot merge this expression · 7 │ firewall.enabled = false, │ ^^^^^ with this expression · 10 │ base & patch │ ------------ originally merged here │ = Both values have the same merge priority but they can't be combined = Primitive values (Number, String, and Bool) or arrays can be merged only if they are equal. = Functions can never be merged. ``` We can use default values to give the priority to the right side: ```nickel let base = { firewall.enabled | default = true, firewall.type | default = "iptables", firewall.open_ports | default = [21, 80, 443], } in let patch = { firewall.enabled = false, server.host.options = "TLS", } in base & patch ``` This evaluates to: ```nickel { firewall = { enabled = false, open_ports = [21, 80, 443], type = "iptables", }, server = { host = { "options": "TLS" } } } ``` ### Contracts *Note*: see the [correctness section](./correctness.md) and the [contracts section](./contracts.md) for a thorough introduction to contracts in Nickel. Fields may have contracts attached, either directly, as in `{foo | Number = 1}`, or propagated from an annotation higher up, as in `{foo = 1} | {foo | Number}`. In both cases, `foo` must satisfy the contract `Number`. What happens if the value of `foo` is altered in a subsequent merge? For example: - Should `{foo | default | Number = 1} & {foo = "bar"}` succeed, although `foo` would be a string in the final result? - Should `{foo | {subfield | String} = {subfield = "a"}} & {foo.other_subfield = 1}` succeed, although a closed contract `{subfield | String}` is attached to `foo`, and the final result would have an additional field `other_subfield` ? Nickel chooses to answer **no** to both. In general, when a contract is attached to a field `foo`, merging ensures that whatever this field is merged with, including being dropped in favor of another value, the final value for `foo` has to respect the contract as well or the evaluation will fail accordingly. This is only true for *contracts attached directly to record fields* (either directly, or coming from an enclosing record contract). In particular, `{foo | Number = 1} & {foo | force = "bar"}` will fail, but `{foo = (1 | Number)} & {foo | force = "bar"}` will succeed. In the latter case, the contract is not considered to be field metadata, but a local contract check, which is not propagated by merging. #### Specification Consider two operands with one field each, which is the same on both side, and respective contracts `Left1, .., Leftn` and `Right1, .., Rightk` attached ```nickel left = { common | Left1 | .. | Leftn } ``` and ```nickel right = { common | Right1 | .. | Rightk } ``` Then the `common` field of `left & right` will be checked against `Left1, .., Leftn, Right1, .., Rightk`. The accumulated contracts are applied lazily: as long as the field's value isn't requested, contracts are accumulated but not yet applied. This makes it possible to build a value piecewise, whereas the intermediate values don't necessarily satisfy the contract. For example: ```nickel let FooContract = { required_field1, required_field2, } in { foo | FooContract} & { foo.required_field1 = "here" } & { foo.required_field2 = "here" } ``` Running the above program succeeds, even though the intermediate value `{foo.required_field1 = "here"}` doesn't respect `FooContract` (it misses the field `required_field2`). If we try to observe the intermediate result (`deep_seq` recursively forces the evaluation of its first argument and proceeds with evaluating the second argument), we do get a contract violation error: ```nickel let FooContract = { required_field1, required_field2, } in let intermediate = { foo | FooContract } & { foo.required_field1 = "here" } in intermediate & { foo.required_field2 = "here" } |> std.deep_seq intermediate ``` Result: ```text error: missing definition for `required_field2` ┌─ /home/yago/Pro/Tweag/projects/nickel/nickel/doc/manual/foo.ncl:3:3 │ 3 │ required_field2, │ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ defined here · 8 │ & { foo.required_field1 = "here" } │ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in this record │ ┌─ :2448:18 │ 2448 │ = fun x y => %deep_seq% x y, │ ------------ accessed here ``` #### Example We might want to require that only non-privileged port numbers are used in a configuration. This could for example be done as follows: ```nickel let Port | doc "A valid port number" = std.contract.from_predicate ( fun value => std.is_number value && value % 1 == 0 && value >= 0 && value <= 65535 ) in let GreaterThan | doc "A number greater than the parameter" = fun x => std.contract.from_predicate (fun value => value > x) in { port | GreaterThan 1024 | default = 8080, } & { port | Port = 80, } ``` Because 80 would be less than 1024, this fails at evaluation: ```text error: contract broken by a value ┌─ example.ncl:26:17 │ 21 │ | GreaterThan 1024 │ ---------------- expected type · 26 │ port | Port = 80, │ ^^ applied to this expression ``` ### Not exported A field can be marked as not exported, using the `not_exported` annotation. Such a field will behave like a regular field during evaluation, but it will be ignored during serialization: such a field won't appear in the output of `nickel export` nor in the output of `std.serialize`. It won't be evaluated upon serialization either. For example, say we want to add some high-level configuration field to a modular configuration, from which other fields are derived: ```nickel # hello-service.ncl { greeter | String | not_exported | default = "world", systemd.services.hello = { wantedBy = ["multi-user.target"], serviceConfig.ExecStart = "/usr/bin/hello -g'Hello, %{greeter}!'", }, } ``` `greeter` can then be customized without interfering with the final output: ```console $ nickel export <<< '(import "hello-service.ncl") & {greeter = "country"}' { "systemd": { "services": { "hello": { "serviceConfig": { "ExecStart": "/usr/bin/hello -g'Hello, country!'" }, "wantedBy": [ "multi-user.target" ] } } } } ``` ### Documentation Documentation is attached via the `doc` keyword. Merging propagates documentation. Documentation can be retrieved through `nickel query`, the `:query` command inside the REPL, or when using the LSP. For example, we can query `foo` by running `nickel -f config.ncl query foo` on: ```nickel # config.ncl { foo | doc "Some documentation" | = {} } & { foo.field = null, } ``` ```console $ nickel -f config.ncl query foo • documentation: Some documentation Available fields • field ``` If both sides have documentation, the behavior is unspecified, as merging two distinct blobs of text doesn't make sense in general. Currently, Nickel will randomly keep one of the two. ## Recursive overriding We've seen that default values are useful to override a single field with a different value. The combo of merging, recursive records and merge priorities together provides the capability of *recursive overriding*, which is a powerful tool, and the subject of this section. In Nickel, records are recursive by default, in order to easily express dependencies between the different fields of a configuration. Concretely, you can refer to other fields of a record from within the same record: ```nickel let base_config = { version | default = "20.09", input.url | default = "nixpkgs/nixos-%{version}", } in base_config ``` Here, `version` references the `input` field transparently. This configuration evaluates to: ```nickel { version = "20.09", input = {url = "nixpkgs/nixos-20.09"}, } ``` In this case, when we override the default value of `version`, *the fields that depend on `version` -- here, `input` -- will also be updated automatically*. This is what we mean by recursive overriding. For example, `base_config & {version = "unstable"}` will evaluate to: ```nickel { version = "unstable", input = {url = "nixpkgs/nixos-unstable"}, } ``` ### Example Here is another variation of recursive overriding on the `firewall` example: ```nickel let security = { firewall.open_proto.http | default = true, firewall.open_proto.https | default = true, firewall.open_proto.ftp | default = true, firewall.open_ports = [] @ (if firewall.open_proto.ftp then [21] else []) @ (if firewall.open_proto.http then [80] else []) @ (if firewall.open_proto.https then [443] else []), } in # => security.firewall.open_ports = [21, 80, 443] security & { firewall.open_proto.ftp = false } # => firewall.open_ports = [80, 443] ``` Here, `security.firewall.open_ports` is `[21, 80, 443]`. But in the final configuration, `firewall.open_ports` will be `[80, 443]`. [rfc001]: https://github.com/tweag/nickel/blob/c21cf280dc610821fceed4c2caafedb60ce7177c/rfcs/001-overriding.md