The Hack Set has a difference method but I don't see a method called intersect or any similar one.
How to get an intersection of two sets?
$set1 = Set { 'a', 'x' };
$set2 = Set { 'b', 'c', 'x', 'y' };
$intersection = ??? // Set { 'x' }
Docs: https://docs.hhvm.com/hack/reference/class/HH.Set/
I'm not sure why that function doesn't exist, but you can put this code in some utility function:
$intersection = Set {};
foreach ($other as $v) {
if ($set->contains($v)) {
$intersection->add($v);
}
}
Additionally, you can add a check so you iterate the smaller set.
OR, if you like one liners, this also works :)
$set1->filter($x ==> $set2->contains($x))
Related
I want to do the following:
When the property "mobile" is changed, check to see if X is true, if so, set set a variable Y and call requestUpdate to re-render the element. The element will render something different based on variable X.
so shouldUpdate function could be:
shouldUpdate(changedProperties) {
if (changedProperties.has("mobile")) {
this._showDialog = true;
this.requestUpdate();
await this.updateComplete;
}
return this.openingDialog;
}
What's the best way to do this without using the shouldUpdate function?
You can use willUpdate to compute Y variable. willUpdate used to compute values needed during the update.
willUpdate(changedProperties) {
if (changedProperties.has("mobile")) {
this._showDialog = true;
}
}
I want to ask a question, what is it, I have three files, if there is a Word COMMON in those files then it should be printed like this [1,2 3], otherwise, if there is a word in 1 and 2 then it should be printed like this [1 2] , I Tried to PUSH ARRAY but it's not happening
Here Is My Code:
let Page1data = filtered.map((val) => {
let data = {};
if (Page1.includes(val)) {
data[val] = ["1"];
}
if (Page2.includes(val)) {
data[val] = ["2"];
}
if (Page3.includes(val)) {
data[val] = ["3"];
}
return data;
});
console.log(Page1data);
If I get it right, the problem is with your declaration.
.push() is for arrays not for objects. You have declared your data variable as an object.
You should use:
let data = [];
instead of
let data = {};
So it's going to look like this:
let data = [];
if (Page1.includes(val)) {
data.push("1");
}
etc...
I'm trying to select certain keys from an JSON array, and filter the rest.
var json = JSON.stringify(body);
which is:
{
"FirstName":"foo",
"typeform_form_submits":{
"foo":true,
"bar":true,
"baz":true
},
"more keys": "foo",
"unwanted key": "foo"
}
Want I want:
{
"FirstName":"foo",
"typeform_form_submits":{
"foo":true,
"bar":true,
"baz":true
}
}
I've checked out How to filter JSON data in node.js?, but I'm looking to do this without any packages.
Now you can use Object.fromEntries like so:
Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(raw).filter(([key]) => wantedKeys.includes(key)))
You need to filter your obj before passing it to json stringify:
const rawJson = {
"FirstName":"foo",
"typeform_form_submits":{
"foo":true,
"bar":true,
"baz":true
},
"more keys": "foo",
"unwanted key": "foo"
};
// This array will serve as a whitelist to select keys you want to keep in rawJson
const filterArray = [
"FirstName",
"typeform_form_submits",
];
// this function filters source keys (one level deep) according to whitelist
function filterObj(source, whiteList) {
const res = {};
// iterate over each keys of source
Object.keys(source).forEach((key) => {
// if whiteList contains the current key, add this key to res
if (whiteList.indexOf(key) !== -1) {
res[key] = source[key];
}
});
return res;
}
// outputs the desired result
console.log(JSON.stringify(filterObj(rawJson, filterArray)));
var raw = {
"FirstName":"foo",
"typeform_form_submits":{
"foo":true,
"bar":true,
"baz":true
},
"more keys": "foo",
"unwanted key": "foo"
}
var wantedKeys =["FirstName","typeform_form_submits" ]
var opObj = {}
Object.keys(raw).forEach( key => {
if(wantedKeys.includes(key)){
opObj[key] = raw[key]
}
})
console.log(JSON.stringify(opObj))
I know this question was asked aways back, but I wanted to just toss out there, since nobody else did:
If you're bound and determined to do this with stringify, one of its less-well-known capabilities involves replacer, it's second parameter. For example:
// Creating a demo data set
let dataToReduce = {a:1, b:2, c:3, d:4, e:5};
console.log('Demo data:', dataToReduce);
// Providing an array to reduce the results down to only those specified.
let reducedData = JSON.stringify(dataToReduce, ['a','c','e']);
console.log('Using [reducer] as an array of IDs:', reducedData);
// Running a function against the key/value pairs to reduce the results down to those desired.
let processedData = JSON.stringify(dataToReduce, (key, value) => (value%2 === 0) ? undefined: value);
console.log('Using [reducer] as an operation on the values:', processedData);
// And, of course, restoring them back to their original object format:
console.log('Restoration of the results:', '\nreducedData:', JSON.parse(reducedData), '\nprocessedData:', JSON.parse(processedData));
In the above code snippet, the key value pairs are filtered using stringify exclusively:
In the first case, by providing an array of strings, representing the keys you wish to preserve (as you were requesting)
In the second, by running a function against the values, and dynamically determining those to keep (which you didn't request, but is part of the same property, and may help someone else)
In the third, their respective conversions back to JSON (using .parse()).
Now, I want to stress that I'm not advocating this as the appropriate method to reduce an object (though it will make a clean SHALLOW copy of said object, and is actually surprisingly performant), if only from an obscurity/readability standpoint, but it IS a totally-effective (and mainstream; that is: it's built into the language, not a hack) option/tool to add to the arsenal.
How can I check if multiple strings are empty in an elegant way? This is how I currently do it:
//if one required field is empty, close the connection
if (registerRequest.Email == "") ||
(registerRequest.PhoneNumber == "")||
(registerRequest.NachName =="") ||
(registerRequest.VorName =="") ||
(registerRequest.Password =="") ||
(registerRequest.VerificationId ==""){
//Could not proceed
w.WriteHeader(UNABLE_TO_PROCEED)
w.Write([]byte("Unable to register account."))
return
}
Note: You may use the solution below if you keep the "is-valid" condition in your handler, and also if you separate your condition into another function or method.
You can create a simple helper function, which has a variadic parameter, and you can call it with any number of string values:
func containsEmpty(ss ...string) bool {
for _, s := range ss {
if s == "" {
return true
}
}
return false
}
Example using it:
if containsEmpty("one", "two", "") {
fmt.Println("One is empty!")
} else {
fmt.Println("All is non-empty.")
}
if containsEmpty("one", "two", "three") {
fmt.Println("One is empty!")
} else {
fmt.Println("All is non-empty.")
}
Output of the above (try it on the Go Playground):
One is empty!
All is non-empty.
Your example would look like this:
if containsEmpty(registerRequest.Email,
registerRequest.PhoneNumber,
registerRequest.NachName,
registerRequest.VorName,
registerRequest.Password,
registerRequest.VerificationId) {
// One of the listed strings is empty
}
Also registerRequest is a kinda long name, it could be shortened to like r. If you can't or don't want to rename it in the surrounding code and if you want to shorten the condition, you could also do something like this:
If registerRequest is a pointer (or interface), you could also write:
if r := registerRequest; containsEmpty(r.Email,
r.PhoneNumber,
r.NachName,
r.VorName,
r.Password,
r.VerificationId) {
// One of the listed strings is empty
}
Actually you can do this even if registerRequest is not a pointer, but then the struct will be copied. If registerRequest is a struct, then you can take its address to avoid having to copy it like this:
if r := ®isterRequest; containsEmpty(r.Email,
r.PhoneNumber,
r.NachName,
r.VorName,
r.Password,
r.VerificationId) {
// One of the listed strings is empty
}
As Mario Santini mentioned in comment, a way to increase testability, encapsulate this logic, and decouple it from your handler method (which judging by the number of fields looks like it is at risk of changing at a different rate than your handler) could be to put this logic in a function:
func validRequest(registerRequest ?) bool {
return registerRequest.Email == "" ||
registerRequest.PhoneNumber == "" ||
registerRequest.NachName == "" ||
registerRequest.VorName == "" ||
registerRequest.Password == "" ||
registerRequest.VerificationId == ""
}
This now supports very focused, table driven tests, that can exercise what it means to be a valid request independent of any method involving writing headers.
It allows you to verify the valid/invalid path of your enclosing function, but to have very focused tests here. It also allows you to change what it means to be a valid request and verify it independent of your enclosing function.
You can use a switch:
switch "" {
case registerRequest.Email,
registerRequest.NachName,
registerRequest.Password,
registerRequest.PhoneNumber,
registerRequest.VerificationId,
registerRequest.VorName:
w.WriteHeader(UNABLE_TO_PROCEED)
w.Write([]byte("Unable to register account."))
return
}
https://golang.org/ref/spec#Switch_statements
I would like to return from a closure, like one would if using a break statement in a loop.
For example:
largeListOfElements.each{ element->
if(element == specificElement){
// do some work
return // but this will only leave this iteration and start the next
}
}
In the above if statement I would like to stop iterating through the list and leave the closure to avoid unnecessary iterations.
I've seen a solution where an exception is thrown within the closure and caught outside, but I'm not too fond of that solution.
Are there any solutions to this, other than changing the code to avoid this kind of algorithm?
I think you want to use find instead of each (at least for the specified example). Closures don't directly support break.
Under the covers, groovy doesn't actually use a closure either for find, it uses a for loop.
Alternatively, you could write your own enhanced version of find/each iterator that takes a conditional test closure, and another closure to call if a match is found, having it break if a match is met.
Here's an example:
Object.metaClass.eachBreak = { ifClosure, workClosure ->
for (Iterator iter = delegate.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
def value = iter.next()
if (ifClosure.call(value)) {
workClosure.call(value)
break
}
}
}
def a = ["foo", "bar", "baz", "qux"]
a.eachBreak( { it.startsWith("b") } ) {
println "working on $it"
}
// prints "working on bar"
I think you're working on the wrong level of abstraction. The .each block does exactly what it says: it executes the closure once for each element. What you probably want instead is to use List.indexOf to find the right specificElement, and then do the work you need to do on it.
If you want to process all elements until a specific one was found you could also do something like this:
largeListOfElements.find { element ->
// do some work
element == specificElement
}
Although you can use this with any kind of "break condition".
I just used this to process the first n elements of a collection by returning
counter++ >= n
at the end of the closure.
As I understand groovy, the way to shortcut these kinds of loops would be to throw a user-defined exception. I don't know what the syntax would be (not a grrovy programmer), but groovy runs on the JVM so it would be something something like:
class ThisOne extends Exception {Object foo; ThisOne(Object foo) {this.foo=foo;}}
try { x.each{ if(it.isOk()) throw new ThisOne(it); false} }
catch(ThisOne x) { print x.foo + " is ok"; }
After paulmurray's answer I wasn't sure myself what would happen with an Exception thrown from within a closure, so I whipped up a JUnit Test Case that is easy to think about:
class TestCaseForThrowingExceptionFromInsideClosure {
#Test
void testEearlyReturnViaException() {
try {
[ 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' ].each {
System.out.println(it)
if (it == 'c') {
throw new Exception("Found c")
}
}
}
catch (Exception exe) {
System.out.println(exe.message)
}
}
}
The output of the above is:
a
b
c
Found c
But remember that "one should NOT use Exceptions for flow control", see in particular this Stack Overflow question: Why not use exceptions as regular flow of control?
So the above solution is less than ideal in any case. Just use:
class TestCaseForThrowingExceptionFromInsideClosure {
#Test
void testEarlyReturnViaFind() {
def curSolution
[ 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' ].find {
System.out.println(it)
curSolution = it
return (it == 'c') // if true is returned, find() stops
}
System.out.println("Found ${curSolution}")
}
}
The output of the above is also:
a
b
c
Found c
Today I faced a similar problem while working with each closure. I wanted to break the flow of execution based on my condition but couldn't do it.
The easiest way to do in groovy is to use any() on a list instead of each if you wish to return a boolean based on some condition.
Good ole for loop still works in Groovy for your use case
for (element in largeListOfElements) {
if(element == specificElement){
// do some work
return
}
}