For example, the groovy File class has a nice iterator that will filter out just directories and not files:
void eachDir(Closure closure)
When I use eachDir, I have to use the verbose method of creating the collection first and appending to it:
def collection = []
dir1.eachDir { dir ->
collection << dir
}
Any way to get it back to the nice compact collect syntax?
I don't know of any "idiomatic" way of doing this, nice riddle! =D
You can try passing the eachDir, or any similar function, to a function that will collect its iterations:
def collectIterations(fn) {
def col = []
fn {
col << it
}
col
}
And now you can use it as:
def dir = new File('/path/to/some/dir')
def subDirs = collectIterations(dir.&eachDir)
def file = new File('/path/to/some/file')
def lines = collectIterations(file.&eachLine)
(that last example is equivalent to file.readLines())
And only for bonus points, you may define this function as a method in the Closure class:
Closure.metaClass.collectIterations = {->
def col = []
delegate.call {
col << it
}
col
}
def dir = new File('/path/to/some/dir')
def subDirs = dir.&eachDir.collectIterations()
def file = new File('/path/to/some/file')
def lines = file.&eachLine.collectIterations()
Update: On the other hand, you might also do:
def col = []
someDir.eachDir col.&add
Which I think is quite less convoluted, but it's not leveraging the collect method as you requested :)
Not for the specific example that you're talking about. File.eachDir is sort of a weird implementation IMO. It would have been nice if they implemented iterator() on File so that you could use the normal iterator methods on them rather than the custom built ones that just execute a closure.
The easiest way to get a clean one liner that does what you're looking for is to use listFiles instead combined with findAll:
dir1.listFiles().findAll { it.directory }
If you look at the implementation of eachDir, you'll see that it's doing this (and a whole lot more that you don't care about for this instance) under the covers.
For many similar situations, inject is the method that you'd be looking for to have a starting value that you change as you iterate through a collection:
def sum = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].inject(0) { total, elem -> total + elem }
assert 15 == sum
Related
I know there has to be a GORMy way of doing this.
class A {
def foo
C c
}
class B {
def bar
C c
}
class C {
def x
def y
def z
}
I want to get all of C where A.foo == 'foo' and where B.bar == 'bar'.
I know I can do it from one or the other parent classes, eg:
def my_cs = A.withCriteria { eq('foo', 'foo') }*.c
...and I could separately grab all my B's where bar == 'bar' and loop through my_cs... but that seems inefficient and I feel like there must be a reasonable way to do it through the criteria syntax.
Is that possible, or is there another acceptable way of doing this?
Thanks.
-------- solution ----------
A.withCriteria {
createAlias('c.B', 'cb', CriteriaSpecification.LEFT_JOIN)
eq('foo', 'foo')
isNull('cb.c')
projections {
property 'c'
}
}
I found that I did not need to test bar for B.
If your C class doesn't have a reference back to As of Bs then I think getting the As and Bs separately and then combining them might be your only real option. However, I don't think it's really that bad.
If you want to make sure you have a collection of unique Cs then that's easy, too (no looping required). See http://groovy.codehaus.org/groovy-jdk/java/util/Collection.html#unique%28%29
e.g.
def my_cs = []
my_cs.addAll(A.withCriteria { eq('foo', 'foo') }*.c)
my_cs.addAll(B.withCriteria { eq('bar', 'bar') }*.c)
my_cs.unique(true) // Removes duplicates from the list
I have a function (the caller) that returns certain values. Before they are returned, they are added to by the result of calling another function (the callee), is there a neater way to add the callee function's resultant values to the caller function's resultant values before the are returned?
def funcA() { // Caller Function
def a,b,c
a = blah
b = blah blah
...
def (d,e) = funcB()
a += d // Is there a neater way to encapsulate
b += e // these additions somehow into the previous line? maybe kind of like
// (a,b) += funcB() ?
return [a,b,c]
}
def funcB() { // Callee Function
def d,e
...
return [d,e]
}
to bad we don't have a zip, then something like [a,b].zip()*.sum() would work.
transpose() only gives you the pairs (not the remainder). so this only works, if your lists are the same length:
assert [43,668]==[[1,2,3],[42,666]].transpose()*.sum()
One could attempt to fill shorter list with zeros in this case, so the sum is not influenced (at that point this depends on the type there).
So this function is a workaround:
def zipadd(a,b) {
def l = [a,b]
// iterate over the size of the longer of the two lists
(0..(l*.size().max()-1)).collect{
// get the pairs, filter null, sum both
l*.getAt(it).findAll{it!=null}.sum()
}
}
assert [43,668,3]==zipadd([1,2,3],[42,666])
assert [43,668,3]==zipadd([42,666],[1,2,3])
assert [24,93,0,1]==zipadd([1,0,0,1], [23,93])
If you use pass l directly (a list of lists) instead of a and b this should also work with more than two elements.
When using projection on the properties, the result is returned as the list with the elements in the same sequence as that defined in the projections block. At the same time the property names are missing from the list and that is really disadvantageous to the developer as the result would be passed along and the caller needs to know what value belongs to which property. Is there a way to return a map from the Criteria query with property name as the key to the value?
so, the following code:
def c = Trade.createCriteria()
def remicTrades = c.list {
projections {
property('title', 'title')
property('author.name', 'author')
}
def now = new Date()
between('publishedDate', now-365, now)
}
This returns:
[['book1', 'author1']['book2', 'author2']]
Instead I would like it to return:
[[book:'book1', author:'author1'][book:'book2', author:'author2']]
I know I can arrange this way after getting the result but I earnestly feel that the property alias should have been used by the criteria to return a list of map that mimics the result of the SQL query and not a bland list.
Duplicate: Grails queries with criteria: how to get back a map with column?
And the corresponding answer (and solution): https://stackoverflow.com/a/16409512/1263227
Use resultTransformer.
import org.hibernate.criterion.CriteriaSpecification
Trade.withCriteria {
resultTransformer(CriteriaSpecification.ALIAS_TO_ENTITY_MAP)
projections {
property('title', 'title')
property('author.name', 'author')
}
def now = new Date()
between('publishedDate', now-365, now)
}
Agree with your question reasoning, this really should be part of the core GORM solution. That said, here's my workaround;
def props = ['name','phone']
def query = Person.where {}.projections {
props.each{
property(it)
}
}
def people = query.list().collect{ row->
def cols = [:]
row.eachWithIndex{colVal, ind->
cols[props[ind]] = colVal
}
cols
}
println people // shows [['name':'John','phone':'5551212'],['name':'Magdalena','phone':'5552423']]
Really my question is "Can the code sample below be even smaller? Basically the code sample is designed to first look through a list of objects, find the most granular (in this case it is branch) and then query backwards depending on what object it finds.
1 - If it finds a branch, return the findAllBy against the branch
2 - If it finds a department, return the findAllBy against the department
3 - If it finds an organization, return the findAllBy against the organization
The goal is to find the most granular object (which is why order is important), but do I need to have two separate blocks (one to define the objects, the other to check if they exist)? Or can those two executions be made into one command...
def resp
def srt = [sort:"name", order:"asc"]
def branch = listObjects.find{it instanceof Branch}
def department = listObjects.find{it instanceof Department}
def organization = listObjects.find{it instanceof Organization}
resp = !resp && branch ? Employees.findAllByBranch(branch,srt) : resp
resp = !resp && department ? Employees.findAllByDepartment(department,srt) : resp
resp = !resp && organization ? Employees.findAllByOrganization(organization,srt) : resp
return resp
What I'm thinking is something along the lines of this:
def resp
resp = Employees.findAllByBranch(listObjects.find{it instanceof Branch})
resp = !resp ? Employees.findAllByDepartment(listObjects.find{it instanceof Department}) : resp
resp = !resp ? Employees.findAllByOrganization(listObjects.find{it instanceof Organization}) : resp
But I believe that will throw an exception since those objects might be null
You can shorten it up a bit more with findResult instead of a for in loop with a variable you need to def outside:
def listObjects // = some predetermined list that you've apparently created
def srt = [sort:"name", order:"asc"]
def result = [Branch, Department, Organization].findResult { clazz ->
listObjects?.find { it.class.isAssignableFrom(clazz) }?.with { foundObj ->
Employees."findAllBy${clazz.name}"(foundObj, srt)
}
}
findResult is similar to find, but it returns the result from the first non-null item rather than the item itself. It avoids the need for a separate collection variable outside of the loop.
Edit: what I had previously didn't quite match the behavior that I think you were looking for (I don't think the other answers do either, but I could be misunderstanding). You have to ensure that there's something found in the list before doing the findAllBy or else you could pull back null items which is not what you're looking for.
In real, production code, I'd actually do things a bit differently though. I'd leverage the JVM type system to only have to spin through the listObjects once and short circuit when it found the first Branch/Department/Organization like this:
def listObjects
def sort = [sort:"name", order:"asc"]
def result = listObjects?.findResult { findEmployeesFor(it, sort) }
... // then have these methods to actually exercise the type specific findEmployeesFor
def findEmployeesFor(Branch branch, sort) { Employees.findAllByBranch(branch, sort) }
def findEmployeesFor(Department department, sort { Employees.findAllByDepartment(department, sort)}
def findEmployeesFor(Organization organization, sort { Employees.findAllByOrganization(organization, sort)}
def findEmployeesFor(Object obj, sort) { return null } // if listObjects can hold non/branch/department/organization objects
I think that this code is actually clearer and it reduces the number of times we iterate over the list and the number of reflection calls we need to make.
Edit:
A for in loop is more efficient, since you want to break processing on first non-null result (i.e. in Groovy we cannot break out of a closure iteration with "return" or "break").
def resp
for(clazz in [Branch,Department,Organization]) {
resp = Employees."findAllBy${clazz.name}"(listObjects?.find{it instanceof $clazz})
if(resp) return
}
if(resp) // do something...
Original:
List results = [Branch,Department,Organization].collect{clazz->
Employees."findAllBy${clazz.name}"(listObjects?.find{it instanceof $clazz})
}
Enjoy Groovy ;--)
I think #virtualeyes nearly had it, but instead of a collect (which as he says you can't break out of), you want to use a find, as that stops running the first valid result it gets:
List results = [Branch,Department,Organization].find { clazz->
Employees."findAllBy${clazz.name}"(listObjects?.find{it instanceof clazz})
}
I have two very similar methods in Grails, something like "calculate statistics by os" and "calculate statistics by browser" - effectively both prepare some things, then run a similar query on the DB, then do things with the results. The only part where the methods differ is the query they run in the middle of my method -
def summary = c.list {
eq('browser', Browser.get(1)) // OR eq('os', OS.get(1))
between('date', dates.start, dates.end)
}
It occurred to me that the ideal way to refactor it would be to pass in the first line of the closure as a method parameter. Like
doStats (Closure query) {
...
def summary = c.list {
query
between('date', dates.start, dates.end)
}
}
I tried this but "query" gets ignored. I tried query() instead but then the query clause is executed where defined, so this doesn't work either. I suppose I could just pass the whole closure as a parameter but that seems wrong - the query might also get more complicated in future.
Anyone have any better ideas?
I found leftShift operator useful for composing closure from two separate ones. What you can do is:
Closure a = { /*...*/ }
Closure b = { /*...*/ }
Closure c = a << b
Take a look at this example:
def criteria = {
projection Projections.distinct(Projections.property('id'))
and {
eq 'owner.id', userDetails.id
if (filter.groupId) {
eq 'group.id', filter.groupId
}
}
}
List<Long> ids = Contact.createCriteria().list(criteria << {
maxResults filter.max
firstResult filter.offset
})
Integer totalCount = Contact.createCriteria().count(criteria)
What you can see here is that I'm creating a criteria for listing ant counting GORM objects. Criterias for both cases are almost the same, but for listing purposes I also need to include limit and offset from command object.
You're using the criteria DSL which might be different than plain groovy closures.
To do what you're asking, you can use the method described here -
http://mrhaki.blogspot.com/2010/06/grails-goodness-refactoring-criteria.html
and put your query in to private method.
The more elegant solution for this is to use named queries in grails -
http://grails.org/doc/latest/ref/Domain%20Classes/namedQueries.html
Look at the
recentPublicationsWithBookInTitle {
// calls to other named queries…
recentPublications()
publicationsWithBookInTitle()
}
example -
Not sure about with the Grails Criteria builder, but with other builders, you can do something like:
doStats (Closure query) {
def summary = c.list {
query( it )
between('date', dates.start, dates.end)
}
}
And call this via:
def f = { criteria ->
criteria.eq( 'browser', Browser.get( 1 ) )
}
doStats( f )
If not, you're probably best looking at named queries like tomas says