I wrote a method that takes six names then generates an array of seven random numbers using four 6-sided dice. The lowest value of the four 6-sided dice is dropped, then the remainder is summed to create the value. The value is then added to an array.
Once seven numbers have been generated, the array is then ordered from highest to lowest and the lowest value is dropped. Then the array of names and the array of values are zipped together to create a hash.
This method ensures that the first name in the array of names receives the highest value, and the last name receives the lowest.
This is the result of calling the method:
{:strength=>1, :dexterity=>1, :constitution=>0, :intelligence=>0, :wisdom=>0, :charisma=>1}
As you can see, all the values I receive are either "1" or "0". I have no idea how this is happening.
Here is the code:
module PriorityStatGenerator
def self.roll_stats(first_stat, second_stat, third_stat, fourth_stat, fifth_stat, sixth_stat)
stats_priority = [first_stat, second_stat, third_stat, fourth_stat, fifth_stat, sixth_stat].map(&:to_sym)
roll_array = self.roll
return Hash[stats_priority.zip(roll_array)]
end
private
def self.roll
roll_array = []
7.times {
roll_array << Array.new(4).map{ 1 + rand(6) }.sort.drop(1).sum
}
roll_array.reverse.delete_at(6)
end
end
This is how I'm calling the method while I'm testing:
render plain: PriorityStatGenerator.roll_stats(params[:prioritize][:first_stat], params[:prioritize][:second_stat], params[:prioritize][:third_stat], params[:prioritize][:fourth_stat], params[:prioritize][:fifth_stat], params[:prioritize][:sixth_stat])
I added require 'priority_stat_generator' where I'm calling the method, so it is properly calling it.
Can someone help me make it return proper values between 1 and 18?
Here's a refactoring to simplify things and use an actually random number generator, as rand is notoriously terrible:
require 'securerandom'
module PriorityStatGenerator
def self.roll_stats(*stats)
Hash[
stats.map(&:to_sym).zip(self.roll(stats.length).reverse)
]
end
private
def self.roll(n = 7)
(n + 1).times.map do
4.times.map { 1 + SecureRandom.random_number(6) }.sort.drop(1).inject(:+)
end.sort.last(n)
end
end
This makes use of inject(:+) so it works in plain Ruby, no ActiveSupport required.
The use of *stats makes the roll_stats function way more flexible. Your version has a very rigid number of parameters, which is confusing and often obnoxious to use. Treating the arguments as an array avoids a lot of the binding on the expectation that there's six of them.
As a note it's not clear why you're making N+1 roles and then discarding the last. That's the same as generating N and discarding none. Maybe you meant to sort them and take the N best?
Update: Added sort and reverse to properly map in terms of priority.
You need to learn to use IRB or PRY to test snippets of your code, or better, learn to use a debugger. They give you insight into what your code is doing.
In IRB:
[7,6,5,4,3,2,1].delete_at(6)
1
In other words, delete_at(6) is doing what it's supposed to, but that's not what you want. Instead, perhaps slicing the array will behave more like you expect:
>> [7,6,5,4,3,2,1][0..-2]
[
[0] 7,
[1] 6,
[2] 5,
[3] 4,
[4] 3,
[5] 2
]
Also, in your code, it's not necessary to return a value when that operation is the last logical step in a method. Ruby will return the last value seen:
Hash[stats_priority.zip(roll_array)]
As amadan said, I can't see how you are getting the results you are, but their is a definite bug in your code.
The last line in self.roll is the return value.
roll_array.reverse.delete_at(6)
Which is going to return the value that was deleted. You need to add a new lines to return the roll_array instead of the delete_at value. You are also not sorting your array prior to removing that last item which will give you the wrong values as well.
def self.roll
roll_array = []
7.times {
roll_array << Array.new(4).map{ 1 + rand(6) }.sort.drop(1).sum
}
roll_array.sort.drop(1)
roll_array
end
Related
I am trying to solve a dynamic problem finding the subsets i have written the code but i didn't know why i am not getting anything it just blinks after running Todos.sum_of_one(arr_of_digits, sum_val), I think the problem is in the terminating case when n==0, can anyone please tell me where is the mistake
def Todos do
#find all the subsets whose sum is equal to sum_val
def sumofone(arr_of_digits,n,v,sum)do
if(sum==0) do
for i <- v do
i
end
end
#return if n becomes 0
if(n==0) do
v
end
sumofone(arr_of_digits,n-1,v,sum)
k = Enum.at(arr_of_digits,n-1)
#inserting the element in the list
[k | v]
sumofone(arr_of_digits,n-1,v,sum - arr_of_digits[n-1]);
end
def sum_of_one(arr_of_digits, sum_val) do
v = []
sumofone(arr_of_digits,l,v,sum_val)
end
end
It looks like you're trying to return from the function in the two if expressions. Elixir doesn't work that way - it always* runs through the entire function and returns the value of the last expression in the function.
One way to get around this is to break up the code into different function clauses, where each clause matches one of the conditions you're testing for:
# This clause executes when the fourth argument is 0
def sumofone(_arr_of_digits,_n,v,0) do
for i <- v do
i
end
end
# This clause executes when the second argument is 0
def sumofone(_arr_of_digits,0,v,_sum) do
v
end
# This clause executes in all other cases, as long as n is greater than 0
def sumofone(arr_of_digits,n,v,sum) when n > 0 do
sumofone(arr_of_digits,n-1,v,sum)
k = Enum.at(arr_of_digits,n-1)
#inserting the element in the list
[k | v]
sumofone(arr_of_digits,n-1,v,sum - arr_of_digits[n-1]);
end
With this change, it's guaranteed that the function will actually terminate. It still won't do what you expect it to do, since there are two lines that calculate a value but throw it away. In Elixir, if you want to update the value of a variable, you need to do so explicitly. Did you mean something like this?
sum = sumofone(arr_of_digits,n-1,v,sum)
and
#inserting the element in the list
v = [k | v]
But I'll leave that for you to debug.
Note that I prefixed some of the argument names with an underscore. Without that, the compiler would give a warning about the variable being unused. With the underscore, it's clear that this is in fact intended.
* Except if you're using errors, throws and exits. But try not to use them - it's often clearer not to.
I need to create functionality which is going to process the dictionary (dictionary.txt file). The goal is to find all six-letter words that are built of two concatenated smaller words e.g.:
con + vex => convex
tail + or => tailor
we + aver => weaver
Of course, there may be some words inside the file that are not 6 letters long, but these can be easily sifted out using a simple method:
def cleanup_file
file_data = File.read('dictrionary.txt').split
file_data.reject! { |word| word.size < 6 }
end
But now comes the problem - how to find if the other strings in the array are made of two connected smaller words ?
[Edit]
Sample dictionary.txt file here
Thinking just in a pseudo code solution, but you should:
Iterate every line of the dictionary and store the words in 6 different arrays by the length of each word.
Make sure that all words are downcased, there are no duplicates and all the values are sorted, so later you could properly use .bsearch in the arrays.
Iterate the length-6 array (for example convex) and look for a match of the first character of the current word in the length-1 array (c for the given example) and in the length-5 array (onvex). If there's a match, save the words.
Then keep looking in the length-2 and length-4 arrays for matches (co and nvex correspondingly) and save a match.
Finally, look both parts of the string in the length-3 array (con and vex) and save any match
Look for the next 6 characters string until you've finished.
Most likely there are better ways to solve this, like in the first iteration inserting each word in its corresponding array using .bsearch_index to sort and not inserting duplicates in the same iteration, but most of the workload is going to be in the 2nd iteration and binary searches work in O(log n) time, so I guess it should work quick enough.
Suppose the dictionary is as follows.
dictionary = [
"a", "abased", "act", "action", "animal", "ape", "apeman",
"art", "assertion", "bar", "barbed", "barhop", "based", "be",
"become", "bed", "come", "hop", "ion", "man"
]
I assume that, like most dictionaries, dictionary is sorted.
First compute the following hash.
by_len = dictionary.each_with_object({}) do |w,h|
len = w.length
(h[len] ||= []) << w if len < 7
end
#=> {1=>["a"],
# 6=>["abased", "action", "animal", "apeman", "barbed",
# "barhop", "become"],
# 3=>["act", "ape", "art", "bar", "bed", "hop", "ion", "man"],
# 5=>["based"],
# 2=>["be"],
# 4=>["come"]}
Each key is a word length (1-6) and each value is an array of words from dictionary whose length is the value of the key.
Next I will define a helper function that returns true or false depending on whether a given array of words (list) contains a given word (word).
def found?(list, word)
w = list.bsearch { |w| w >= word }
w && w == word
end
For example:
found?(by_len[3], "art")
#=> true
found?(by_len[3], "any")
#=> false
See Array#bsearch.
We now extract the words of interest:
by_len[6].select { |w| (1..5).any? { |i|
found?(by_len[i], w[0,i]) && found?(by_len[6-i], w[i..-1]) } }
#=> ["abased", "action", "apeman", "barbed", "barhop", "become"]
I'm looking for a way to simplify the code for the following logic:
Take a value that is either a nil or an empty string
Convert that value to an integer
Set zero values to the maximum value (empty string/nil are converted to 0 when cast as an int)
.clamp the value between a minimum and a maximum
Here's the long form that works:
minimum = 1
maximum = 10_000
value = value.to_i
value = maximum if value.zero?
value = value.clamp(minimum, maximum)
So for example, if value is "", I should get 10,000. If value is "15", I should get 15. If value is "45000", I should get 10000.
Is there a way to shorten this logic, assuming that minimum and maximum are defined and that the default value is the maximum?
The biggest problem I've had in shortening it is that null-coalescing doesn't work on the zero, since Ruby considers zero a truthy value. Otherwise, it could be a one-liner.
you could still do a one-liner with your current logic
minimum, maximum = 1, 10_000
value = ( value.to_i.zero? ? maximum: value.to_i ).clamp(minimum, maximum)
but not sure if your issue is that if you enter '0' you want 1 and not 10_000 if so then try this
minimum, maximum = 1, 10_000
value = (value.to_i if Float(value) rescue maximum).clamp(minimum, maximum)
Consider Fixing the Input Object or Method
If you're messing with String objects when you expect an Integer, you're probably dealing with user input. If that's the case, the problem should really be solved through input validation and/or looping over an input prompt elsewhere in your program rather than trying to perform input transformations inline.
Duck-typing is great, but I suspect you have a broken contract between methods or objects. As a general rule, it's better to fix the source of the mismatch unless you're deliberately wrapping some piece of code that shouldn't be modified. There are a number of possible refactorings and patterns if that's the case.
One such solution is to use a collaborator object or method for information hiding. This enables you to perform your input transformations without complicating your inline logic, and allowing you to access the transformed value as a simple method call such as user_input.value.
Turning a Value into a Collaborator Object
If you are just trying to tighten up your current method you can aim for shorter code, but I'd personally recommend aiming for maintainability instead. Pragmatically, that means sending your value to the constructor of a specialized object, and then asking that object for a result. As a bonus, this allows you to use a default variable assignment to handle nil. Consider the following:
class MaximizeUnsetInputValue
MIN = 1
MAX = 10_000
def initialize value=MAX
#value = value
set_empty_to_max
end
def set_empty_to_max
#value = MAX if #value.to_i.zero?
end
def value
#value.clamp MIN, MAX
end
end
You can easily validate that this handles your various use cases while hiding the implementation details inside the collaborator object's methods. For example:
inputs_and_expected_outputs = [
[0, 10000],
[1, 1],
[10, 10],
[10001, 10000],
[nil, 10000],
['', 10000]
]
inputs_and_expected_outputs.map do |input, expected|
MaximizeUnsetInputValue.new(input).value == expected
end
#=> [true, true, true, true, true, true]
There are certainly other approaches, but this is the one I'd recommend based on your posted code. It isn't shorter, but I think it's readable, maintainable, adaptable, and reusable. Your mileage may vary.
I have this code
notebooks.inject([]) do |res, nb|
res << nb.guid if Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name)
end
The first nb has matches the condition and res looks like this
["xxx1234"]
The second nb does not match the condition which then delete/clears res
nil
From my understanding, the first value should remain in the array.
I'm also assigning this to a variable and want it to be a one liner.
inject works a little differently from how you're imagining. It simply returns the last return value of the loop as it loops through each item. An easy way to fix this is:
notebooks.inject([]) do |res, nb|
res << nb.guid if Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name)
res # Returns the res array
end
That said, you should probably use select for your use case as you seem to be just filtering down which set of notebooks you want.. That is:
notebooks.select{|nb| Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name)}.map(&:guid)
Generally, I've used inject when I need to run math on a group of items. e.g.
[1,2,3,4].inject(0) {|res, x| x * 2 + res}
If you're open to two loops, but cleaner and still one-liner:
notebooks.select { |nb| Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name) }.map(&:guid)
The accumulator must be returned on each loop iteration:
notebooks.inject([]) do |res, nb|
Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name) ? res << nb.guid : res
end
Actually, on each subsequent loop iteration, the accumulator passed to res block parameter is exactly what was returned from the previous iteration.
In your example, on the second iteration if returns false and
res << nb.guid if Recipe::NOTEBOOKS.include?(nb.name)
line is not executed at all. That said, after the second iteration, the accumulator takes a brand new value, that is apparently nil.
I was looking through some Rails source code and came across
# File vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/vendor/builder-2.1.2/builder/css.rb, line 129
129: def target!
130: #target * ''
131: end
What does the * '' do? Is that multiplication by an empty string...? And why would you do that.
This is a bizarre syntax. These are equivalent:
>> [1, 2, 3] * 'joiner'
=> "1joiner2joiner3"
>> [1, 2, 3].join 'joiner'
=> "1joiner2joiner3"
so in this case it joins all the entries of #target into one string, with nothing between the entries.
Note: if you do something like [1, 2, 3] * 3 (using an int instead of a str), you'll get three concatenated copies of the array instead.
It does the same thing as:
["foo","bar","baz"].join
http://ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Array.html#M002210
Per Z.E.D.'s suggestion, you would use it if you want to confuse people and make your code more error prone.
Really cryptic code indeed.
After checking the source code, I realized that #target is actually an Array instance, I know you can do stuff like this
[5] * 5 # => [5,5,5,5,5]
I don't know where Array#* is defined (maybe in ActiveSupport), but what I can tell you is that, this is the behaviour when it gets multiplied by a String
[1,2,3] * 'comma' # => "1comma2comma3"
[1,2,3] * '' # => '123'
So I can infer it is concatanating all the elements of the array without any separators.
Array#* with a String argument is equivalent to Array#join.
Two comments:
Having a ! end a method name implies that it's a mutating operation, which this example doesn't seem to be.
As others have stated it's indeed cryptic. I would go for #target.to_s or #target.join
The only reason I'd see someone wanting to use * to join an array of strings is if they want to avoid the word join, which is also used on threads.
With the following:
strings = ["John", "Smith"]
threads = [Thread.new{puts "hai"}, Thread.new{ puts "world!"}]
strings.join(" ") # Legit
threads.each {|thread| thread.join} # Legit
you could make the mistake of doing
threads.join # Not legit, but won't raise an error
If you replaced strings.join with strings.*, then you'd have fewer joins in your code. Now you could do a grep for them, and check that each one is being done to a thread, not to an array. In fact, you could choose to make Array#join throw an exception.