larshei
After doing the Ash Livebook Getting started for several times over the last 2? years,
I finally have a small project that I dare to tackle with Ash.
Loving it so far.
However, sometimes I am not quite sure what to do when receiving an error.
Basic Idea / Context
- The system is meant to collect “Proposals”.
- Proposals can be handed in, updated, accepted and rejected during a given timespan.
- Each given timespan is called a Proposal Round.
- All Proposals are related to a Proposal Round. They can only be interacted with while the Proposal Round is active.
- The Proposal Round being active is checked in a custom validation
The custom validation
defmodule Validations.OpenForProposals do
use Ash.Resource.Validation
@impl true
# is this how we would properly check the round_id?
def validate(%{attributes: %{round_id: id}}, _opts, _context) when not is_nil(id) do
validate_open(id)
end
def validate(%{data: %{round_id: id}}, _opts, _context) when not is_nil(id) do
validate_open(id)
end
def validate(_changeset, _opts, _context) do
{:error, field: :round_id, message: "No proposal round was set."}
end
def validate_open(round_id) do
with {:ok, round} <- Ash.get(Proposal, round_id),
true <- round.is_open == true do
IO.puts("OPEN FOR PROPOSALS") # ---- THIS IS PRINTED :) --------
:ok
else
false -> {:error, field: :round_id, message: "Not currently open for proposals."}
e -> e
end
end
end
Domain Module
defmodule Proposals do
use Ash.Domain
resources do
resource Proposal do
define :propose,
args: [:employee_id, :round_id, :text],
action: :propose
define :accept,
args: [:comment],
action: :accept
define :reject,
args: [:comment],
action: :reject
end
end
end
Resource Module
defmodule Proposal do
use Ash.Resource, domain: Proposals, data_layer: AshPostgres.DataLayer
actions do
defaults [:read, :destroy, update: :*]
create :propose do
accept [:employee_id, :round_id, :text]
validate {Validations.OpenForProposals, []}
end
update :accept do
accept [:comment]
validate {Validations.OpenForProposals, []}
change set_attribute(:status, :accepted)
change set_attribute(:comment, arg(:comment), set_when_nil?: false)
end
update :reject do
accept [:comment]
validate {Validations.OpenForProposals, []}
change set_attribute(:status, :rejected)
change set_attribute(:comment, arg(:comment), set_when_nil?: false)
end
end
attributes do
# ...
end
relationships do
# ...
end
postgres do
# ..
end
end
The error
The current error is the following:
iex> {:ok, proposal} = Proposals.propose(me.id, 1, "Add 5 more chairs to the break room.")
{:ok,
#Proposal<
...
>}
iex > Proposals.accept(proposal, "Good idea. Matthew will take care of it.")
%Ash.Error.framework{
errors: [
%Ash.Error.Framework.MustBeAtomic{
resource: Proposal,
action: :accept,
reason: "Validations.OpenForProposals does not implement `atomic/3`",
splode: Ash.Error,
bread_crumbs: [],
vars: [],
path: [],
stacktrace: #Splode.Stacktrace<>,
class: :framework
}]}
So the validation works on :propose, but not on :accept.
I have read Basic bulk actions, atomics, new stream options, `error/2` expression and Update Actions — ash v3.29.3, but I do not understand what to do or what the error actually means (and why it occurs on the validation?!) ![]()
What am I not seeing / understanding and where I could I learn about it?
Trending in Questions
I’m aware of 2 such projects, are there others?
git: GitHub - team-alembic/realworld: A fullstack Phoenix LiveView application with back...
New
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
Hi everyone.
My team and I have been working on a fairly modest app based around video streaming and chat, but we’ve landed a customer t...
New
I really like the adapter patterns that ecto, nebulex, waffle, etc. use and would love find something similar for a key management servic...
New
Hello folks!
So at work, we are seeing some situations where we have to define some “fixed” strings that are used across the codebase in...
New
How Can I Optimise Compile Time Dependencies
I have been building an elixir application for about 2 years now. Many modules and files ha...
New
Hi,
we run different LLM models across a cluster, with each node loading a configurable subset. Model-specific queues let nodes consume ...
New
Other Trending Topics
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders.
I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New
Hey. Is there anyone here who creates agents in their apps? Not talking about using agents, but creating them. I’m finding it pretty diff...
New
I fully migrated to my own harness from Anthropic/Gemini and I think it’s time to share it. Welcome DSH, the DeepSeek Harness, fully writ...
New
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
There has been a thread to discuss the Stack Overflow Developer Survey on this forum every year since 2018, so here’s yet another one for...
New
I love Elixir. It’s one of 2 programming languages I’ve ever fallen in love with.
But I don’t use it anymore.
Serverless was the promis...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #ai
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #blog-post
- #elixirconf-us
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #security
- #performance










Showing Posts 1 to 7- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
03juan
As far as I can tell, in the info block for Fully Atomic Updates it states
Since you’re fetching the record from the data layer and asserting on
is_openinvalidate_open, there could be a race condition between application processes where one reads and acts on what it sees is a valid state in the data layer but before the write happens another process also changed the data so that the first process’s data is actually not valid any more.So Ash is expecting you to tell it how the update could be done atomically using the
atomic/3callback.See Validations without an atomic callback a little further down.
I think the first case works because it’s a create action, not an update
zachdaniel
Exactly correct
If this can’t be done atomically, you can add
require_atomic? falseto the action definition.03juan
This is probably easier to do in the action with
present/2validate present([:round_id])larshei
Alright, thanks!
in this scenario, race conditions do not really matter, cause all the steps are manual anyway, and the worst thing that could happen is someone submitting a proposal 5 ms after the round is being closed, which is not a big deal.
However, I have to admin I have no idea what I would need to do if race conditions actually mattered
03juan
For that you’d have to figure out how to do a explicit blocking lock on the row, which would run your operation to validate the open status and then update the approval in a transaction. So any other processes are made to wait for the row to unlock before they can go on.
zachdaniel
In Ash, this can be placed in your update action
change get_and_lock(:for_update)03juan
Beautiful. Love your work!