Rails provides a very convenient construct for allowing the summation of elements of an array.
foo = [1,2,3]
foo.sum
=> 6
However, you aren't always sure if your array will have non nil values, in that case the above method fails
bar = [1,2,nil,4]
bar.sum
TypeError: nil can't be coerced into Fixnum
Is there anything like a safe_sum that ignores the nil values?
You can use Array#compact method:
bar.compact.sum
# => 7
or, you can go with Enumerable#inject:
bar.inject(0) { |sum, el| el ? sum + el : sum }
# => 7
Although the first approach looks much prettier and more convenient to me.
You can even use compact
bar.compact.sum
module Enumerable
def safe_sum(identity = 0, &block)
if block_given?
map(&block).compact.sum(identity)
else
reduce { |sum, element| sum + element.to_f } || identity
end
end
end
Related
I want to convert all the values in a nested hash to a utf8 compatible string. I initially thought this would be easy and something like deep_apply should be available for me to use, but I am unable to find anything this simple on a quick google and SO search.
I do not want to write (maintain) a method similar to the lines of Change values in a nested hash . Is there a native API implementation or a shorthand available for this or do I have to write my own method?
I ended up implementing my own approach, that is in no way perfect but works well for my use case and should be easy to maintain. Posting it here for reference to anyone who wants to try it out
def deep_apply object, klasses, &blk
if object.is_a? Array
object.map { |obj_ele| deep_apply(obj_ele, klasses, &blk) }
elsif object.is_a? Hash
object.update(object) {|_, value| deep_apply(value, klasses, &blk) }
elsif klasses.any? { |klass| object.is_a? klass }
blk.call(object)
else
object
end
end
usage:
=> pry(main)> deep_apply({a: [1, 2, "sadsad"]}, [String, Integer]) { |v| v.to_s + "asd" }
=> {:a=>["1asd", "2asd", "sadsadasd"]}
Interesting to learn of the deep_merge approach taken in the answer by "The F". Here is another approach which requires adding a few helper methods.
First, the helper methods:
From the top answer here (converting-a-nested-hash-into-a-flat-hash):
def flat_hash(h,f=[],g={})
return g.update({ f=>h }) unless h.is_a? Hash
h.each { |k,r| flat_hash(r,f+[k],g) }
g
end
From a Github repo called ruby-bury (this functionality was proposed to Ruby core, but rejected)
class Hash
def bury *args
if args.count < 2
raise ArgumentError.new("2 or more arguments required")
elsif args.count == 2
self[args[0]] = args[1]
else
arg = args.shift
self[arg] = {} unless self[arg]
self[arg].bury(*args) unless args.empty?
end
self
end
end
And then a method tying it together:
def change_all_values(hash, &blk)
# the next line makes the method "pure functional"
# but can be removed otherwise.
hash = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(hash))
flat_hash(hash).each { |k,v| hash.bury(*(k + [blk.call(v)])) }
hash
end
A usage example:
irb(main):063:0> a = {a: 1, b: { c: 1 } }
=> {:a=>1, :b=>{:c=>1}}
irb(main):064:0> b = change_all_values(a) { |val| val + 1 }
=> {:a=>2, :b=>{:c=>2}}
irb(main):066:0> a
=> {:a=>1, :b=>{:c=>1}}
There is deep_merge
yourhash.deep_merge(yourhash) {|_,_,v| v.to_s}
Merge the hash with itself, inspect the value and call to_s on it.
This method requires require 'active_support/core_ext/hash' at the top of file if you are not using ruby on rails.
Obviously, you may handle the conversion of v inside the deep_merge as you like to meet your requirements.
In rails console:
2.3.0 :001 > h1 = { a: true, b: { c: [1, 2, 3] } }
=> {:a=>true, :b=>{:c=>[1, 2, 3]}}
2.3.0 :002 > h1.deep_merge(h1) { |_,_,v| v.to_s}
=> {:a=>"true", :b=>{:c=>"[1, 2, 3]"}}
Well, it's quite simple to write it - so why don't write your own and be absolutely sure how does it behave in all situations ;)
def to_utf8(h)
if h.is_a? String
return h.force_encoding('utf-8')
elsif h.is_a? Symbol
return h.to_s.force_encoding('utf-8').to_sym
elsif h.is_a? Numeric
return h
elsif h.is_a? Array
return h.map { |e| to_utf8(e) }.to_s
else
return h.to_s.force_encoding('utf-8')
end
return hash.to_a.map { |e| result.push(to_utf8(e[0], e[1])) }.to_h
end
You may want to check if all behavior and conversions are correct - and change it if necessary.
I need to count the number of values that both arrays have.
def process_2arrays(arr1, arr2)
length1 = arr1.count
length2 = arr2.count
arr3 = []
i = 0
while length1 >= i do
ci = arr1[i]
if arr2.include?(ci)
arr3 << ci
damn = arr3.count
i = i + 1
end
return [(damn), (2), (3), (4)]
end
end
When I pass the values to the function it returns [nil, 2, 3, 4]
Whats the problem here?
To find elements that exist in both arrays, use the set intersection method &.
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.0/Array.html#method-i-26
def count_same_elements(a1,a2)
(array1 & array2).length
end
Example
count_same_elements([1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5])
=> 3
damn is initialized within a do .. end block, specifically the while block. Therefore, its value will live within that scope, and when you call the variable outside the block its value is nil.
If you want to preserve the value, you must initialize the variable to nil outside the block.
i = 0
damn = nil
...
As a side note, your code is lacking the most basic Ruby standards. In Ruby you generally use an iterator, not the while. Moreover, you don't use the return at the end of a method.
This is how you would write your method in Ruby using the iterators and taking advantage of some methods from the core library.
def process_2arrays(arr1, arr2)
arr3 = arr1.select { |e| arr2.include?(e) }
[arr3.size, 2, 3, 4]
end
Changing completely approach, you can use
def process_2arrays(arr1, arr2)
(arr1 & arr2).size
end
I'm new in rails and need to clear one question:
for example my method return such data:
#<Article ART_ID: 1151754, ART_ARTICLE_NR: "0 281 002 757", ART_SUP_ID: 30, ART_DES_ID: nil, ART_COMPLETE_DES_ID: 62395, ART_CTM: nil, ART_PACK_SELFSERVICE: 0, ART_MATERIAL_MARK: 0, ART_REPLACEMENT: 0, ART_ACCESSORY: 0, ART_BATCH_SIZE1: nil, ART_BATCH_SIZE2: nil, datetime_of_update: "2012-09-25 17:49:18">
or array, not only one object: how could use each func then?
for example:
articles = ArtLookup.search_strong_any_kind_without_brand(params[:article_nr].gsub(/[^0-9A-Za-z]/, ''))
binding.pry
if articles.present?
articles.each do |a|
#all_parts_result <<
{
analogue_manufacturer_name: a.supplier.SUP_BRAND,
analogue_code: a.ART_ARTICLE_NR,
delivery_time_min: '',
delivery_time_max: '',
min_quantity: '',
product_name: a.art_name,
quantity: '',
price: '',
distributor_id: '',
link_to_tecdoc: a.ART_ID
}
end
end
now i get errors like
`undefined method `each' for `#<Article:0x007f6554701640>
i think it is becouse i have sometimes one object, sometimes 10, and sometime 0.
how is it beatifull and right to do in rails?
Your search_strong_any_kind_without_brand method is looping through your articles based on the search condition. If the article matches then you are setting #art_concret to the match and then returning the match. However, you're not finding all matches, just the last one.
.
loop
#art_concret = art
end
.
return #art_concret
If you set the #art_concret as an array and inject results into this instance variable, then you will have the resulting search in array form. However, keep in mind that this does kind of break the ActiveRecord ORM as you would be returning a simple array and not an ActiveRecord Relation array.
def self.search_strong_any_kind_without_brand(search)
search_condition = search.upcase
#art_concret = []
#search = find(:all, :conditions => ['MATCH (ARL_SEARCH_NUMBER) AGAINST(? IN BOOLEAN MODE)', search_condition])
#articles = Article.find(:all, :conditions => ["ART_ID in (?)", #search.map(&:ARL_ART_ID)])
#binding.pry
#articles.each do |art|
if art.ART_ARTICLE_NR.gsub(/[^0-9A-Za-z]/, '') == search
#art_concret << art
end
end
return #art_concret
end
If you want to keep the code a bit cleaner then use select on your matching condition instead of looping through each article in #articles.
def self.search_strong_any_kind_without_brand(search)
search_condition = search.upcase
#search = find(:all, :conditions => ['MATCH (ARL_SEARCH_NUMBER) AGAINST(? IN BOOLEAN MODE)', search_condition])
#articles = Article.find(:all, :conditions => ["ART_ID in (?)", #search.map(&:ARL_ART_ID)])
#binding.pry
return #articles.select { |art| art.ART_ARTICLE_NR.gsub(/[^0-9A-Za-z]/, '') == search }
end
Unrelated: is there a reason why you're using instance variables in search_strong_any_kind_without_brand?
I think the right thing to do is to make sure your method always returns an array (or enumerable).
looking at the code you posted in to pastebin I would recommend you use Array#select in your method
for example you might be able to just return this:
#articles.select { |art| art.ART_ARTICLE_NR.gsub(/[^0-9A-Za-z]/, '') == search }
assuming #articles is an array or collection you will always get an array back, even if it is 0, or 1 element
This answer would be a bit offtopic, but I would like to mention a splat operator:
[*val]
will produce array, consisting of either single val value whether it’s not an array, or the array itself whether val is an array:
▶ def array_or_single param
▷ [*param].reduce &:+ # HERE WE GO
▷ end
=> :array_or_single
▶ array_or_single [1,2,3]
=> 6
▶ array_or_single 5
=> 5
That said, you code would work with this tiny improvement:
- articles.each do |a|
+ [*articles].each do |a|
Hope it gives a hint on how one might handle the data, coming from the 3rd party. As an answer to your particular question, please follow the advises in the other answers here.
I have a loop building a hash for use in a select field. The intention is to end up with a hash:
{ object.id => "object name", object.id => "object name" }
Using:
#hash = {}
loop_over.each do |ac|
#hash[ac.name] = ac.id
end
I think that the map method is meant for this type of situation but just need some help understanding it and how it works. Is map the right method to refactor this each loop?
Data transformations like this are better suited to each_with_object:
#hash = loop_over.each_with_object({}) { |ac, h| h[ac.name] = ac.id }
If your brain is telling you to use map but you don't want an array as the result, then you usually want to use each_with_object. If you want to feed the block's return value back into itself, then you want inject but in cases like this, inject requires a funny looking and artificial ;h in the block:
#hash = loop_over.inject({}) { |h, ac| h[ac.name] = ac.id; h }
# -------------------- yuck -----------------------------^^^
The presence of the artificial return value is the signal that you want to use each_with_object instead.
Try:
Hash[loop_over.map { |ac| [ac[:name], ac[:id]] }]
Or if you are running on Ruby 2:
loop_over.map { |ac| [ac[:name], ac[:id]] }.to_h
#hash = Hash[loop_over.map { |ac| {ac.name => ac.id} }.map(&:flatten)]
Edit, a simpler solution as per suggestion in a comment.
#hash = Hash[ loop_over.map { |ac| [ac.name, ac.id] } ]
You can simply do this by injecting a blank new Hash and performing your operation:
loop_over.inject({}){ |h, ac| h[ac.name] = ac.id; h }
Ruby FTW
No a map isn't the correct tool for this.
The general use-case of a map is to take in an array, perform an operation on each element, and spit out a (possibly) new array (not a hashmap) of the same length, with the individual element modifications.
Here's an example of a map
x = [1, 2, 3, 4].map do |i|
i+1 #transform each element by adding 1
end
p x # will print out [2, 3, 4, 5]
Your code:
#hash = {}
loop_over.each do |ac|
#hash[ac.name] = ac.id
end
There is nothing wrong with this example. You are iterating over a list, and populating a hashmap exactly as you wished.
Ruby 2.1.0 introduces brand new method to generate hashes:
h = { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 }
h.map { |k, v| [k, v+1] }.to_h # => {:a=>2, :b=>3, :c=>4}
I would go for the inject version, but use update in the block to avoid the easy to miss (and therefore error prone) ;h suffix:
#hash = loop_over.inject({}) { |h, ac| h.update(ac.name: ac.id) }
I want to make a loop on a variable that can be altered inside of the loop.
first_var.sort.each do |first_id, first_value|
second_var.sort.each do |second_id, second_value_value|
difference = first_value - second_value
if difference >= 0
second_var.delete(second_id)
else
second_var[second_id] += first_value
if second_var[second_id] == 0
second_var.delete(second_id)
end
first_var.delete(first_id)
end
end
end
The idea behind this code is that I want to use it for calculating how much money a certain user is going to give some other user. Both of the variables contain hashes. The first_var is containing the users that will get money, and the second_var is containing the users that are going to pay. The loop is supposed to "fill up" a user that should get money, and when a user gets full, or a user is out of money, to just take it out of the loop, and continue filling up the rest of the users.
How do I do this, because this doesn't work?
Okay. What it looks like you have is two hashes, hence the "id, value" split.
If you are looping through arrays and you want to use the index of the array, you would want to use Array.each_index.
If you are looping through an Array of objects, and 'id' and 'value' are attributes, you only need to call some arbitrary block variable, not two.
Lets assume these are two hashes, H1 and H2, of equal length, with common keys. You want to do the following: if H1[key]value is > than H2[key]:value, remove key from H2, else, sum H1:value to H2:value and put the result in H2[key].
H1.each_key do |k|
if H1[k] > H2[k] then
H2.delete(k)
else
H2[k] = H2[k]+H1[k]
end
end
Assume you are looping through two arrays, and you want to sort them by value, and then if the value in A1[x] is greater than the value in A2[x], remove A2[x]. Else, sum A1[x] with A2[x].
b = a2.sort
a1.sort.each_index do |k|
if a1[k] > b[k]
b[k] = nil
else
b[k] = a1[k] + b[k]
end
end
a2 = b.compact
Based on the new info: you have a hash for payees and a hash for payers. Lets call them ees and ers just for convenience. The difficult part of this is that as you modify the ers hash, you might confuse the loop. One way to do this--poorly--is as follows.
e_keys = ees.keys
r_keys = ers.keys
e = 0
r = 0
until e == e_keys.length or r == r_keys.length
ees[e_keys[e]] = ees[e_keys[e]] + ers[r_keys[r]]
x = max_value - ees[e_keys[e]]
ers[r_keys[r]] = x >= 0 ? 0 : x.abs
ees[e_keys[e]] = [ees[e_keys[e]], max_value].min
if ers[r_keys[r]] == 0 then r+= 1 end
if ees[e_keys[e]] == max_value then e+=1 end
end
The reason I say that this is not a great solution is that I think there is a more "ruby" way to do this, but I'm not sure what it is. This does avoid any problems that modifying the hash you are iterating through might cause, however.
Do you mean?
some_value = 5
arrarr = [[],[1,2,5],[5,3],[2,5,7],[5,6,2,5]]
arrarr.each do |a|
a.delete(some_value)
end
arrarr now has the value [[], [1, 2], [3], [2, 7], [6, 2]]
I think you can sort of alter a variable inside such a loop but I would highly recommend against it. I'm guessing it's undefined behaviour.
here is what happened when I tried it
a.each do |x|
p x
a = []
end
prints
1
2
3
4
5
and a is [] at the end
while
a.each do |x|
p x
a = []
end
prints nothing
and a is [] at the end
If you can I'd try using
each/map/filter/select.ect. otherwise make a new array and looping through list a normally.
Or loop over numbers from x to y
1.upto(5).each do |n|
do_stuff_with(arr[n])
end
Assuming:
some_var = [1,2,3,4]
delete_if sounds like a viable candidate for this:
some_var.delete_if { |a| a == 1 }
p some_var
=> [2,3,4]