I have a path delimited by /and an expectation to have multiple ids I want to replace with a constant value. The issue I am facing is that once it validates the first id, it performs the replacement and stops. My assumption is that I should be having some sort of do while in Golang (see this resource - I know there is no such a construct in Go) and I have attempted at using:
for true {
// do something
}
but still only the first id is replaced. Any idea? Thank you
Here is my Go Playground example with the original implementation
The problem is you early return after first match. Since you iterating parts of path you should assign result of strings.Replace() to a variable and return after for loop. Assign to path instead of returning and it should work as expected.
func SubstituteById(path string, repl string) string {
ids := strings.Split(path, "/")
for _, id := range ids {
if fastuuid.ValidHex128(id) {
path = strings.Replace(path, id, repl, -1)
}
}
return path
}
Related
In Golang, everything is passed by value. If I pass an array "directly" (as opposed as passing it by pointer), then any modification made in the function will be found outside of it
func f(a []int) {
a[0] = 10
}
func main() {
a := []int{2,3,4}
f(a)
fmt.Println(a)
}
Output: [10 3 4]
This is because, to my understanding, an array constitutes (among other things) of a pointer to the underlying data array.
Unless I am mistaken (see here) strings also constitute (along with a "len" object) of a pointer (a unsafe.Pointer) to the underlying data. Hence, I was expecting the same behaviour as above but, apparently, I was wrong.
func f(s string) {
s = "bar"
}
func main() {
s := "foo"
f(s)
fmt.Println(s)
}
Output: "foo"
What is happening here with the string? Seems like the underlying data is being copied when the string is passed as argument.
Related question: When we do not wish our function to modify the string, is it still recommended to pass large strings by pointer for performance reasons?
A string has two values in it: pointer to an array, and the string length. When you pass string as an argument, those two values are copied, not the underlying array.
There is no way to modify the contents of string other than using unsafe. When you pass a *string to a function and that function modifies the string, the function simply modifies the string to point to a different array.
I want to check if the result from a request is having any issue. I categorize it into two: i) server error, ii) something else that is not a success. The third category is, result actually being a success. However, in the third category, I don't want to do anything.
So, my desirable code is:
if res.status().is_server_error() {
panic!("server error!");
} else if !(res.status.is_success()){
panic!("Something else happened. Status: {:?}", res.status());
} else{
pass;
}
I am aware of other ways to achieve this result: using match, ifs instead of if else if. But I wanted to learn what is the corresponding keyword of pass, like we have in Python. My aim is: if result is successful, just move along, if not, there are two ways to handle that panic.
Behold!
if predicate {
do_things();
} else {
// pass
}
Or even better
if predicate {
do_things();
} // pass
Or as I’ve recently taken to calling it the implicit + pass system
if predicate {
do_things();
}
In all seriousness there is no pass and no need for a pass in rust. As for why it exists in python, check out this answer
Python needs pass because it uses indentation-based blocks, so it requires some syntax to "do nothing". For example, this would be a syntax error in a Python program:
# syntax error - function definition cannot be empty
def ignore(_doc):
# do nothing
count = process_docs(docs, ignore) # just count the docs
The ignore function has to contain a block, which in turn must contain at least one statement. We could insert a dummy statement like None, but Python provides pass which compiles to nothing and signals the intention (to do nothing) to the human reader.
This is not needed in Rust because Rust uses braces for blocks, so one can always create an empty block simply using {}:
// no error - empty blocks are fine
fn ignore(_doc: &Document) {
// do nothing
}
let count = process_docs(docs, ignore); // just count the docs
Of course, in both idiomatic Python and Rust, one would use a closure for something as simple as the above ignore function, but there are still situations where pass and empty blocks are genuinely useful.
I'm trying to generate HashMap object that will have properties and values set from parsed text input. Working fine with simple assigned, but wanted to make it more clever and use inject.
def result = new HashMap();
def buildLog = """
BuildDir:
MSBuildProjectFile:test.csproj
TargetName: test
Compile:
Reference:
""".trim().readLines()*.trim()
buildLog.each {
def (k,v) = it.tokenize(':')
result."${k.trim()}"=v?.trim()
}
println "\nResult:\n${result.collect { k,v -> "\t$k='$v'\n" }.join()}"
generates expected output:
Result:
Reference='null'
MSBuildProjectFile='test.csproj'
BuildDir='null'
TargetName='test'
Compile='null'
after replacing the insides of .each { } closure with injection:
it.tokenize(':').inject({ key, value -> result."${key}" = value?.trim()})
the results generated are missing unset values
Result:
MSBuildProjectFile='test.csproj'
TargetName='test'
Am I doing something wrong, tried with inject ("", {...}) but it seems to push may keys into values.
inject is basically a reduce. The reducing function takes two arguments, the result of the previous iteration or the initial value (e.g. the accumulator) and the next value from the sequence. So it could be made to work, but since you only expect one sequence value, it just convolutes the code.
I do see a great use for collectEntries here, as it allows you to create a Map using either small key/values map, or lists of two elements. And the latter you have:
result = buildLog.collectEntries {
it.split(":",2)*.trim()
}
should work for your code instead of buildLog.each
"When you've found the treasure, stop digging!"
I'm wanting to use more functional programming in Groovy, and thought rewriting the following method would be good training. It's harder than it looks because Groovy doesn't appear to build short-circuiting into its more functional features.
Here's an imperative function to do the job:
fullyQualifiedNames = ['a/b/c/d/e', 'f/g/h/i/j', 'f/g/h/d/e']
String shortestUniqueName(String nameToShorten) {
def currentLevel = 1
String shortName = ''
def separator = '/'
while (fullyQualifiedNames.findAll { fqName ->
shortName = nameToShorten.tokenize(separator)[-currentLevel..-1].join(separator)
fqName.endsWith(shortName)
}.size() > 1) {
++currentLevel
}
return shortName
}
println shortestUniqueName('a/b/c/d/e')
Result: c/d/e
It scans a list of fully-qualified filenames and returns the shortest unique form. There are potentially hundreds of fully-qualified names.
As soon as the method finds a short name with only one match, that short name is the right answer, and the iteration can stop. There's no need to scan the rest of the name or do any more expensive list searches.
But turning to a more functional flow in Groovy, neither return nor break can drop you out of the iteration:
return simply returns from the present iteration, not from the whole .each so it doesn't short-circuit.
break isn't allowed outside of a loop, and .each {} and .eachWithIndex {} are not considered loop constructs.
I can't use .find() instead of .findAll() because my program logic requires that I scan all elements of the list, nut just stop at the first.
There are plenty of reasons not to use try..catch blocks, but the best I've read is from here:
Exceptions are basically non-local goto statements with all the
consequences of the latter. Using exceptions for flow control
violates the principle of least astonishment, make programs hard to read
(remember that programs are written for programmers first).
Some of the usual ways around this problem are detailed here including a solution based on a new flavour of .each. This is the closest to a solution I've found so far, but I need to use .eachWithIndex() for my use case (in progress.)
Here's my own poor attempt at a short-circuiting functional solution:
fullyQualifiedNames = ['a/b/c/d/e', 'f/g/h/i/j', 'f/g/h/d/e']
def shortestUniqueName(String nameToShorten) {
def found = ''
def final separator = '/'
def nameComponents = nameToShorten.tokenize(separator).reverse()
nameComponents.eachWithIndex { String _, int i ->
if (!found) {
def candidate = nameComponents[0..i].reverse().join(separator)
def matches = fullyQualifiedNames.findAll { String fqName ->
fqName.endsWith candidate
}
if (matches.size() == 1) {
found = candidate
}
}
}
return found
}
println shortestUniqueName('a/b/c/d/e')
Result: c/d/e
Please shoot me down if there is a more idiomatic way to short-circuit in Groovy that I haven't thought of. Thank you!
There's probably a cleaner looking (and easier to read) solution, but you can do this sort of thing:
String shortestUniqueName(String nameToShorten) {
// Split the name to shorten, and make a list of all sequential combinations of elements
nameToShorten.split('/').reverse().inject([]) { agg, l ->
if(agg) agg + [agg[-1] + l] else agg << [l]
}
// Starting with the smallest element
.find { elements ->
fullyQualifiedNames.findAll { name ->
name.endsWith(elements.reverse().join('/'))
}.size() == 1
}
?.reverse()
?.join('/')
?: ''
}
im doing something stupid to try to send html email and not really understanding what im doing but I want to send a multiline string to a function and get the same string back with something appended to each line - what am i doing wrong?
def htmlizetext(intext: String) {
for(line <- intext.linesWithSeparators) {
<br>line<br/>
}
}
def htmlizetext(intext: String): String = {
for(line <- intext.linesWithSeparators) {
line + "<br/>"
}
}
Neither of the above work
You need yield, = (without = the method will still return Unit) and some form of concatenation:
def htmlizetext(intext: String) = {
for (line <- intext.linesWithSeparators) yield {
line + "<br/>
}
}.mkString
or the shorter equivalent:
def htmlizetext(intext: String) =
intext.linesWithSeparators.map(_ + "<br/>").mkString
Have a look at yield, that is probably what you are looking for.
def htmlizetext(intext: String) = {
for(line <- intext.linesWithSeparators) yield {
<br>line<br/>
}
}
You might additionally want to join all the elements from the returning list for returning a single String instead of a list of such strings
You are currently not returning a thing from your method as you do not return anything from your for statement which is the last method of your statement. Therefore, the Scala compiler infers that you are returning Unit.
Because for does't have a return value, unless you use yield...
A better solution would be to "map" your collection as follows:
intext.linesWithSeparators.map(line=> s"$line<br/>").mkString("")
this will turn your string in the desired format and then join all of them using mkString. If you need it, you can specify a separator instead of empty string