I would like to implement a rule that checks if the new data entered in the current node is lower than the one in another node that I update in the same request.
I explain myself with some code:
// x1 and x2 are some Integer
let update : [String : Any] = [
"/Users/\(userId!)/A" : ServerValue.increment(NSNumber(value : x1)),
"/Feedback/\(userId!)/B" : x2
]
dbRef.updateChildValues(update)
And here is the rule:
".validate" : "newData.isNumber() && (root.child('Users').child('$uid').child('A').val() >= newData.val())"
I have two questions:
Since the safety rule of B depends on the new value of A, am I sure that A has been modified before the update of B (since, in the code, the update of A is placed before that of B).
Why my rule for B just doesn't work (regardless of whether B is updated before or after A, because the difference in my tests is so great that it shouldn't reject the request), I've seen examples similar to mine on the net and the syntax looks good.
Thanks for your attention !
The newData variable contains the data as it will exist after the write operation is completed (assuming it is allowed).
So your newData.isNumber() checks the new value of the node.
But your root.child('Users')... is checking the current data in the database, so before the write operation. Since you want to check the post-write value, you have to navigate from newData to the root by calling parent() as many times as needed. So if the rule in your question is defined on /Feedback/$uid/B, that'd be:
newData.parent().parent().child('Users')...
This also looks like a mistake:
child('$uid')
This tries to use the literal string '$uid', while you more likely want to use the value of the $uid variable. That'd be:
child($uid)
Related
I have a SOAP node, that retrieve information from a URL in a tree structure.
Then i have a compute node to define each environment variable to each namespace variable of the SOAP retrieve.
And finally, i have a mapping node, to move the content to my message assembly structure in XML.
The error its giving me it's this (IN THE COMPUTE NODE):
I have a structure like this:
ListDocs
Description
DocType
ListTypes
Attribute
Lenght
Description
Nature
Required
ListDocs
Description
DocType
ListTypes
Attribute
Lenght
Description
Nature
Required
ListDocs
Description
DocType
ListTypes
Attribute
Lenght
Description
Nature
Required
The problem is that, when i do the definition of the variables, I do it like the code below, in the COMPUTE NODE:
WHILE I < InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns:obterTiposDocProcessosResponse.ns:return.ns75:processo.ns75:listaTiposDocumentos
DO
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:description;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.tipoDocumento = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:DocType;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.attribute = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:listTypes.ns75:atribbute;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.lenght = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:listTypes.ns75:lenght;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:listTypes.ns75:description;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.nature = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:listTypes.ns75:nature;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.required = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs.ns75:listTypes.ns75:required;
SET I = I+1;
END WHILE;
BUT, in my XML final structure, it only prints the values of my first listDocs, and i want to print all of my listDocs structures.
NOTE: WITH THE WHILE LIKE THIS, IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK. I HAVE TO REMOVE THE WHILE TO PRINT THE FIRST listDocs like i said Above.
Any help?
I NEED HELP TO LOOP THE STRUCTURES, WITH A WHILE OR SOMETHING.
You should try to use the following synthax :
DECLARE I INTEGER 1;
DECLARE J INTEGER;
J = CARDINALITY(InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns:obterTiposDocProcessosResponse.ns:return.ns75:processo.ns75:listaTiposDocumentos[])
WHILE I <= J DO
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:description;
....
END WHILE;
You only missed the CARDINALITY function to get the number of elements, and also the [] to define the table, and then using this [I] while accessing the elements
Note : in my sample above, the environment will be overridden at each iteration of the loop, so only the last record will be printed. You can use the [I] in the output as well if you want to construct a table in output, or you can use the following code to push each message to the output terminal (this means you have one message in input, and 3 message coming out of the output terminal)
PROPAGATE TO TERMINAL 'Out';
So for example, based on your code, if you want to generate 3 messages based on your input containing multiple element :
DECLARE I INTEGER 1;
DECLARE J INTEGER;
J = CARDINALITY(InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns:obterTiposDocProcessosResponse.ns:return.ns75:processo.ns75:listaTiposDocumentos[])
WHILE I <= J DO
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:description;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.tipoDocumento = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:DocType;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.attribute = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:atribbute;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.lenght = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:lenght;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:description;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.nature = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:nature;
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs.listTypes.required = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:required;
PROPAGATE TO TERMINAL 'Out';
END WHILE;
RETURN FALSE;
For your global information, the RETURN TRUE is the instruction "pushing" the message built in the ESQL code to the output terminal. If you use PROPAGATE instruction (same effect), you should RETURN FALSE to avoid sending an empty message after looping on your records. Another way to do it is to propagate on another terminal (i.e : 'out1'), and keep the return true. In this case, you would have all you records coming out from the out1 terminal, and a message going out of the output temrinal (due to the return true) once all the messages have been propagated (this might be useful in many situations)
So the key to understanding IIB and ESQL is that you are looking at in memory Trees built from nodes.
Each Node has pointers/REFERENCEs to PARENT, NEXTSIBLING, PREVSIBLING, FIRSTCHILD and LASTCHILD Nodes.
Nodes also have FIELDNAME, FIELDNAMESPACE, FIELDTYPE and FIELDVALUE attributes.
And last but not least that you are building Output Trees by navigating Input Trees. The Environment Tree, which you are using, is a special long lasting Tree that you can both read from and write to.
So in your code InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs can be thought of as shorthand for instructions to navigate to the ns75:listDocs Node. The dots '.' tell ESQL interpreter the name of the child Node of the current Node. If you were telling someone how to navigate the Nodes it would go something like this.
Start at InputRoot. InputRoot is a special Node that is automatically available to you in your ESQL Modules code.
Navigate to the first child Node of InputRoot that has the name SOAP
Navigate to the first child Node of SOAP that has the name Body
Navigate to the first child Node of Body that has the name listDocs and is in the ns75 namespace.
In the absence of a subscript ESQL assumes you want the first Node that matches the specified name ns75:listDocs and ns75:listDocs[1] both refer to the same Node.
This explains what was happening in your code. You were always navigating to the same listDocs[1] node in the InputRoot and Environment Trees.
#Jerem's code improves on what you were doing by at least navigating across the listDocs nodes in the Input tree.
For each iteration of the loop the subscript [I] gets incremented and thus it chooses a different listDocs Node. The listDocs Nodes are siblings and thus the code will access the first, second and third instance of the listDocs Nodes.
InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[1] <-- Iteration I=1
InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[2] <-- Iteration I=2
InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[3] <-- Iteration I=3
To correct #Jerem's answer you'd need to use subscripts on the lefthand side of the statement as well. Picking the description field as an example you'd need to change your code as follows.
SET Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process.listDocs[I].listTypes.description = InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs[I].ns75:listTypes.ns75:description;
Using subscripts is regarded as a performance no no. Imagine you had 10,000 listDocs this would result in each and every iteration of the loop walking down the tree over the InputRoot, SOAP, Body, ns75:processo Nodes and then across the listDocs sibling nodes until it found the ns75:listDocs[I] Node.
This means by the time we get round to processing ns75:listDocs[10000] it will have had to repetetively walked over all the other listDocs Nodes time and time again, In fact we can calculate it would have walked over (4 x 10,000) + ((10,000 x (10,000 + 1)) / 2) = 50,045,000 Nodes
So it's REFERENCE's to the rescue and also the answer to your question. Try a loop like this.
DECLARE ns75 NAMESPACE 'http://something.or.other.from.your.wsdl';
DECLARE InListDocsRef REFERENCE TO
InputRoot.SOAP.Body.ns75:processo.ns75:listDocs;
WHILE LASTMOVE(InListDocsRef) DO
DECLARE EnvListDocsRef REFERENCE TO Environment;
CREATE LASTCHILD OF Environment.Variables.XMLMessage.return.process AS EnvListDocsRef NAME 'listDocs';
SET EnvListDocsRef.description = InListDocsRef.ns75:description;
SET EnvListDocsRef.tipoDocumento = InListDocsRef.ns75:DocType;
SET EnvListDocsRef.listTypes.attribute = InListDocsRef.ns75:listTypes.ns75:atribbute;
SET EnvListDocsRef.listTypes.lenght = InListDocsRef.ns75:listTypes.ns75:lenght;
SET EnvListDocsRef.listTypes.description = InListDocsRef.ns75:listTypes.ns75:description;
SET EnvListDocsRef.listTypes.nature = InListDocsRef.ns75:listTypes.ns75:nature;
SET EnvListDocsRef.listTypes.required = InListDocsRef.ns75:listTypes.ns75:required;
MOVE InListDocsRef NEXTSIBLING REPEAT NAME;
END WHILE;
The code above only walks over 4 + 10,000 Nodes i.e. 10 thousand Nodes vs 50 million Nodes.
A couple of other useful things to know about setting references are:
To point to the last element you can use a subscript of [<]. So to point to the last ListItem in the aggregate MyList you would code Environment.MyList.ListItem[<]
You can use an asterisk * to set a reference to an element in the tree that you don't know the name of e.g. Environment.MyAggregate.* points to the first child of MyAggregate regardless of it's name.
You can also use asterisks * to choose an element irregardless of it's namespace InListDocsRef.*:listTypes.*:description
For anonymous namespaced elements use *:* but be very careful * and *:* are not the same thing the first means no namespace any element and the second means any namespace any element.
To process lists in reverse combine the [<] subscript with the PREVIOUSSIBLING option of MOVE.
So a chunk of code for reversing a list might go something like:
DECLARE MyReverseListItemWalkingRef REFERENCE TO Environment.MyList.ListItem[<];
WHILE LASTMOVE(MyReverseListItemWalkingRef) DO
CREATE LASTCHILD OF OuputRoot.ReversedList.Item NAME 'Description' VALUE MyReverseListItemWalkingRef.Desc;
MOVE MyReverseListItemWalkingRef PREVIOUSSIBLING REPEAT NAME;
END WHILE;
Learn how to use REFERENCES they are extremely powerful and one of your simplest options when it comes to performance.
I am using Triq (erlang quickcheck) and I am having trouble generating a set of nice rules for my program.
What I want to generate are things that looks like this:
A -> B
where I would like to provide A and the size of B, with latter not having any dupicates.
For example, if I say generate me rules with L.H.S. of [a] and R.H.S. of size 4 (ie. A = [a] and size(B) = 4) I would like to get something like this:
{rule, [a], [1,2,4,5]}
{rule, [a], [a,d,c,e]}
{rule, [a], [q,d,3,4]}
Note, I don't want any dupicates in B (this is the part I'm having trouble with). Also, it doesn't really matter what B is made up of - it can be anything as long as it is distinct and without dupicates.
My spec is far too messy to show here, so I'd rather not.
I am not familiar with Triq, but in PropEr and Quviq's Qickcheck you can use ?SUCHTHAT conditions that filter 'bad' instances.
If a generated instance does not satisfy a ?SUCHTHAT constraint it is discarded and not counted as a valid test. You could use this mechanism to generate lists of the specified size (i.e. what PropEr calls 'vectors') and then discard those that have duplicates, but I think that too many instances would then be discarded (see also the link).
It is usually more efficient to tinker with the generator so that all instances are valid, in your case by e.g. generating (3) X-times as many elements, removing duplicates and keeping as many as you need. This can still fail, and it will fail, so you need to guard against it.
Here is a generator for your case, in PropEr, together with a dummy property:
-module(dummy).
-export([rule_prop/0]).
-include_lib("proper/include/proper.hrl").
-define(X, 5).
rule_prop() ->
?FORALL(_, rule_gen(integer(), 4, integer()), true).
rule_gen(A, SizeB, TypeB) ->
?LET(
EnoughB,
?SUCHTHAT(
NoDupB,
?LET(
ManyB,
vector(?X * SizeB, TypeB),
no_dups(ManyB)
),
length(NoDupB) >= SizeB
),
begin
B = lists:sublist(EnoughB, SizeB),
{rule, A, B}
end).
no_dups([]) ->
[];
no_dups([A|B]) ->
[A | no_dups([X || X <- B, X =/= A])].
I have an object that can be neatly described by a discriminated union. The tree that it represents has some properties that can be easily updated when the tree is modified (but remaining immutable) but that are relatively expensive to recalculate.
I would like to store those properties along with the object as cached values but I don't want to put them into each of the discriminated union cases so I figured a member variable would fit here.
The question is then, how do I change the member value (when I modify the tree) without mutating the actual object? I know I could modify the tree and then mutate that copy without ruining purity but that seems like a wrong way to go about it to me. It would make sense to me if there was some predefined way to change a property but so that the result of the operation is a new object with that property changed.
To clarify, when I say modify I mean doing it in a functional way. Like (::) "appends" to the beginning of a list. I'm not sure what the correct terminology is here.
F# actually has syntax for copy and update records.
The syntax looks like this:
let myRecord3 = { myRecord2 with Y = 100; Z = 2 }
(example from the MSDN records page - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233184.aspx).
This allows the record type to be immutable, and for large parts of it to be preserved, whilst only a small part is updated.
The cleanest way to go about it would really be to carry the 'cached' value attached to the DU (as part of the case) in one way or another. I could think of several ways to implement this, I'll just give you one, where there are separate cases for the cached and non-cached modes:
type Fraction =
| Frac of int * int
| CachedFrac of (int * int) * decimal
member this.AsFrac =
match this with
| Frac _ -> this
| CachedFrac (tup, _) -> Frac tup
An entirely different option would be to keep the cached values in a separate dictionary, this is something that makes sense if all you want to do is save some time recalculating them.
module FracCache =
let cache = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<Fraction, decimal>()
let modify (oldFrac: Fraction) (newFrac: Fraction) =
cache.[newFrac] <- cache.[oldFrac] + 1 // need to check if oldFrac has a cached value as well.
Basically what memoize would give you plus you have more control over it.
Given the following two approaches, what would the cons and pros of both, when it comes to function composition?
Approach 1
let isNameTaken source name =
source |> Query.Exists(fun z -> z.Name = name)
let usage : Customer = isNameTaken source "Test"
Approach 2
let isNameTaken f name =
f(fun z -> z.Name = name)
let usage : Customer = isNameTaken (source |> Query.Exists) "Test"
Is it just silly to pass (source |> Query.Exists) in Approach 2 - is it too extreme?
It depends on the wider context. I would generally prefer the first approach, unless you have some really good reason for using the second style (e.g. there is a number of functions similar to Query.Exists that you need to apply in a similar style).
Aside - I think your second example has a couple of issues (e.g. the piping in source |> Query.Exists would have to be replaced with (fun pred -> source |> Query.Exists pred) which makes it uglier.
Even then, the second approach does not really give you much benefit - your isNameTaken is simply a function that tests whether a customer name equals a given name and then it passes that as an argument to some f - you could just define a function that tests name equality and write something like this:
let nameEquals name (customer:Customer) =
customer.Name = name
let usage = source |> Query.Exists (nameEquals "Test")
More generally, I think it is always preferable to write code so that the caller can compose the pieces that are available to them (like Query.Exists, nameEquals etc.) rather than In a way that requires the caller to fill some holes of a particular required shape (e.g. implement a function with specified signature).
I think the answer to your question has to do with two main criteria. Which is more important, the readability of the code or the decoupling of the query from isNameTaken. In this particular case, I'm not sure that you get much at all from decoupling the query and it also seems like your decoupling is partial.
The thing I don't like about this is that in both cases, you've got z.Name tightly coupled into isNameTaken, which means that isNameTaken needs to know about the type of z. If that's OK with you then fine.
I have a set S. It contains N subsets (which in turn contain some sub-subsets of various lengths):
1. [[a,b],[c,d],[*]]
2. [[c],[d],[e,f],[*]]
3. [[d,e],[f],[f,*]]
N. ...
I also have a list L of 'unique' elements that are contained in the set S:
a, b, c, d, e, f, *
I need to find all possible combinations between each sub-subset from each subset so, that each resulting combination has exactly one element from the list L, but any number of occurrences of the element [*] (it is a wildcard element).
So, the result of the needed function working with the above mentioned set S should be (not 100% accurate):
- [a,b],[c],[d,e],[f];
- [a,b],[c],[*],[d,e],[f];
- [a,b],[c],[d,e],[f],[*];
- [a,b],[c],[d,e],[f,*],[*];
So, basically I need an algorithm that does the following:
take a sub-subset from the subset 1,
add one more sub-subset from the subset 2 maintaining the list of 'unique' elements acquired so far (the check on the 'unique' list is skipped if the sub-subset contains the * element);
Repeat 2 until N is reached.
In other words, I need to generate all possible 'chains' (it is pairs, if N == 2, and triples if N==3), but each 'chain' should contain exactly one element from the list L except the wildcard element * that can occur many times in each generated chain.
I know how to do this with N == 2 (it is a simple pair generation), but I do not know how to enhance the algorithm to work with arbitrary values for N.
Maybe Stirling numbers of the second kind could help here, but I do not know how to apply them to get the desired result.
Note: The type of data structure to be used here is not important for me.
Note: This question has grown out from my previous similar question.
These are some pointers (not a complete code) that can take you to right direction probably:
I don't think you will need some advanced data structures here (make use of erlang list comprehensions). You must also explore erlang sets and lists module. Since you are dealing with sets and list of sub-sets, they seems like an ideal fit.
Here is how things with list comprehensions will get solved easily for you: [{X,Y} || X <- [[c],[d],[e,f]], Y <- [[a,b],[c,d]]]. Here i am simply generating a list of {X,Y} 2-tuples but for your use case you will have to put real logic here (including your star case)
Further note that with list comprehensions, you can use output of one generator as input of a later generator e.g. [{X,Y} || X1 <- [[c],[d],[e,f]], X <- X1, Y1 <- [[a,b],[c,d]], Y <- Y1].
Also for removing duplicates from a list of things L = ["a", "b", "a"]., you can anytime simply do sets:to_list(sets:from_list(L)).
With above tools you can easily generate all possible chains and also enforce your logic as these chains get generated.