I want remove the red box so u dont need a job to do this
Im new to scripting but im trying to learn maybe hard to understand but i want players to be able to search without them needing a job.
i think it can be like this
RegisterNetEvent("disc-inventoryhud:search2")
AddEventHandler("disc-inventoryhud:sealrch2",function()
local plaver = ESX.GetPlayerData()
local closestPlayer, closestDistance = ESX.Game.GetClosestPlayer()
if closestPlayer ~= -1 and closestDistance <= 3.0 then
local searchPlayerPed = GetPlayerPed(closestPlayer)
ESX.TriggerServerCallback("disc-inventoryhud:getIdentifier",function(identifier)
secondarySearchInventory.owner = identifier
openInventory(secondarySearchInventory)
end,
GetPlayerServerId(closestPlayer)
)
end
end
)```
Related
I have data from a 2x2x3 experiment. For this dataset I have 3 manipulation questions. I created three embedded data fields in the survey for these questions with the labels "Correct" and "Wrong".
Now, I would like to split my file in four versions to see if answering the 3 manipulation questions has an influence on my outcome.
To capture the correct/ wrong manipulation questions (ResponseReason, Attribution, Measure), I tried to create a filter variable - without success.
My code for the filter variable:
Do
if (ResponseAttribution = "Correct" and ResponseMeasure = "Correct" and ResponseReason = "Correct").
FilterVar = 3.
ELSE if ((ResponseAttribution = "Correct" and ResponseMeasure = "Correct") or (ResponseAttribution = "Correct" and ResponseReason = "Correct") or (ResponseMeasure = "Correct" and ResponseReason = "Correct")).
FilterVar = 2.
Else if ResponseAttribution = "Correct" or ResponseMeasure = "Correct" or ResponseReason = "Correct".
FilterVar = 1.
else.
FilterVar = 0.
end if.
EXECUTE.
Try this:
compute FilterVar = sum(ResponseAttribution="Correct",
ResponseMeasure="Correct", ResponseReason="Correct").
Alternatively you can create new variables and use them to calculate the filter as follows (this way will make it easier if you later want to make alterations to the filter based on other combinations):
recode ResponseAttribution ResponseMeasure ResponseReason (convert) ("Correct"=1)
into Att Msr Rsn.
compute FilterVar=sum(Att, Msr, Rsn).
Say I have a log file looking like this:
# time, count
2016-09-07 23:00:00, 1108731
2016-09-07 23:00:02, 1108733
2016-09-07 23:00:03, 1108734
Now, every next row contains a sum of all events that occurred in the past. I would like to use it in kibana and the natural way would be to have a count as a deltafied number.
So I expect an effect of:
# time, count, deltaCount
2016-09-07 23:00:00, 1108731, 0
2016-09-07 23:00:02, 1108733, 2
2016-09-07 23:00:03, 1108734, 1
How to achieve this in logstash. I know I could edit this files beforehand.
Thanks!
Solution #1: Write your plugin
One way to do it would be to create a plugin. The same problem is solved here. However, the filter that is posted there is not publicly available and, what is worse, it is actually 5 lines of code.
Solution #2: Ruby code snippet
I have found a solution in this thread on elastic forums: Keeping global variables in LS?!. The title says it all.
Cutting long story short, the solution goes as follows:
filter {
...
ruby {
init => "##previous_count = -1"
code => "
if (##previous_count == -1)
delta = 0
else
delta = event.get('count') - ##previous_count
end
event.set('requests', delta)
# remember event for next time
##previous_count = event.get('count')
"
}
}
Was not that hard after all.
So, What I'm trying to do is make calls to a Reporting API to filter by all possible breakdowns (breakdown the reports by site, avertiser, ad type, campaign, etc...). But, one issue is that the breakdowns can be unique to each login.
Example:
user1: alice123's reporting breakdowns are ["site","advertiser","ad_type","campaign","line_items"]
user2: bob789's reporting breakdowns are ["campaign","position","line_items"]
When I first built the code for this reporting API, I only had one login to test with, so I hard coded the loops for the dimensions (["site","advertiser","ad_type","campaign","line_items"]). So what I did was pinged the API for a report by sites. Then for each site, pinged for advertisers, and each advertiser, I pinged for the next dimension and so on..., leaving me with a nested loop of ~6 layers.
basically what I'm doing:
sites = mechanize.get "#{base_ur}/report?dim=sites"
sites = Yajl::Parser.parse(sites.body) # json parser
sites.each do |site|
advertisers = mechanize.get "#{base_ur}/report?site=#{site.fetch("id")}&dim=advertiser"
advertisers = Yajl::Parser.parse(advertisers.body) # json parser
advertisers.each do |advertiser|
ad_types = mechanize.get "#{base_ur}/report?site=#{site.fetch("id")}&advertiser=#{advertiser.fetch("id")}&dim=ad_type"
ad_types = Yajl::Parser.parse(ad_types.body) # json parser
ad_types.each do |ad_type|
...and so on...
end
end
end
GET <api_url>/?dim=<dimension to breakdown>&site=<filter by site id>&advertiser=<filter by advertiser id>...etc...
At the end of the nested loop, I'm left with a report that's broken down as much granularity as possible.
This works now since I only thought that there was one path of breaking down, but apparently each account could have different dimensions breakdowns.
So what I'm asking is if given an array of breakdowns, how can I set up a nested loop to traverse down dynamically do the granularity singularity?
Thanks.
I'm not sure what your JSON/GET returns exactly but for a problem like this you would need recursion.
Something like this perhaps? It's not very elegant and can definitely be optimised further but should hopefully give you an idea.
some_hash = {:id=>"site-id", :body=>{:id=>"advertiser-id", :body=>{:id=>"ad_type-id", :body=>{:id=>"something-id"}}}}
#breakdowns = ["site", "advertiser", "ad_type", "something"]
def recursive(some_hash, str = nil, i = 0)
if #breakdowns[i+1].nil?
str += "#{#breakdowns[i]}=#{some_hash[:id]}"
else
str += "#{#breakdowns[i]}=#{some_hash[:id]}&dim=#{#breakdowns[i + 1]}"
end
p str
some_hash[:body].is_a?(Hash) ? recursive(some_hash[:body], str.gsub(/dim.*/, ''), i + 1) : return
end
recursive(some_hash, 'base-url/report?')
=> "base-url/report?site=site-id&dim=advertiser"
=> "base-url/report?site=site-id&advertiser=advertiser-id&dim=ad_type"
=> "base-url/report?site=site-id&advertiser=advertiser-id&ad_type=ad_type-id&dim=something"
=> "base-url/report?site=site-id&advertiser=advertiser-id&ad_type=ad_type-id&something=something-id"
If you are just looking to map your data, you can recursively map to a hash as another user pointed out. If you are actually looking to do something with this data while within the loop and want to dynamically recreate the loop structure you listed in your question (though I would advise coming up with a different solution), you can use metaprogramming as follows:
require 'active_support/inflector'
# Assume we are given an input of breakdowns
# I put 'testarr' in place of the operations you perform on each local variable
# for brevity and so you can see that the code works.
# You will have to modify to suit your needs
result = []
testarr = [1,2,3]
b = binding
breakdowns.each do |breakdown|
snippet = <<-END
eval("#{breakdown.pluralize} = testarr", b)
eval("#{breakdown.pluralize}", b).each do |#{breakdown}|
END
result << snippet
end
result << "end\n"*breakdowns.length
eval(result.join)
Note: This method is probably frowned upon, and as I've said I'm sure there are other methods of accomplishing what you are trying to do.
Alright, someone must know easier ways to do this than me.
I'm trying to write a random number generator using a fairly common formula.
--Random Number Generator
local X0=os.time()
local A1=710425941047
local B1=813633012810
local M1=711719770602
local X1=(((A1*X0)+B1)%M1)
local X2=(((A1*X1)+B1)%M1) --then I basically take the vaiable X1 and feed
--it back into itself.
print(X2)
local X3=(((A1*X2)+B1)%M1)
print(X3)
local X4=(((A1*X3)+B1)%M1)
print(X4)
local X5=(((A1*X4)+B1)%M1)
print(X5)
local X6=(((A1*X5)+B1)%M1)
print(X6)
local X7=(((A1*X6)+B1)%M1)
print(X7)
Etc Etc.
Does anybody know a faster way to do this?
I would love to be able to fit it into something along the lines of a:
for i=1,Number do
local X[loop count]=(((A1*X[Loop count-1])+B1)%M1)
math.randomseed(X[loop count])
local roll=math.random(1,20)
print("You rolled a "..roll)
end
io.read()
Type of string.
I'm using it to generate random numbers for pieces of track I'm making in a tabletop game.
Example hunk of code:
if trackclass == "S" then
for i=1,S do --Stated earlier that S=25
local roll=math.random(1,5)
local SP=math.random(1,3)
local Count= roll
if Count == 1 then
local Track = "Straightaway"
p(Track.." Of SP "..SP)
else
end
if Count == 2 then
local Track = "Curve"
p(Track.." of SP "..SP)
else
end
if Count == 3 then
local Track = "Hill"
p(Track.." of SP "..SP)
else
end
if Count == 4 then
local Track = "Water"
p(Track.." of SP "..SP)
else
end
if Count == 5 then
local Track = "Jump"
p(Track.." of SP "..SP)
else
end
end
end
Unfortunately this seems to generate a pretty poor set of random number distribution when I use it and I would really like it to work out better. Any possible assistance in fleshing out the variable loop cycle would be greatly appreciated.
Even something like a call so that every time math.random() is called, it adds one to the X[loop count]] so that every generated number is actually a better pseudo-random number distribution.
Please forgive my semi-rambling. My mind is not necessarily thinking in order right now.
Does anybody know a faster way to do this?
Each XN in the expression is always the previous X, so just restructure the code to use the previous X rather than creating new ones:
local X = os.time()
local A1 = 710425941047
local B1 = 813633012810
local M1 = 711719770602
function myrandomseed(val)
X = val
end
function myrandom()
X = (A1 * X + B1) % M1
return X
end
Now you can call myrandom to your heart's content:
for i=1,100 do
print(myrandom())
end
Another way of packaging it, to avoid static scope, would be generating random number generators as closures, which bind to their state variables:
function getrandom(seed)
local X = seed or os.time()
local A1 = 710425941047
local B1 = 813633012810
local M1 = 711719770602
return function()
X = (A1 * X + B1) % M1
return X
end
end
Now you call getrandom to get a random number generator for a given seed:
local rand = getrandom()
for i=1,100 do
print(rand())
end
I would love to be able to fit it into something along the lines of a:
math.randomseed(X[loop count])
local roll=math.random(1,20)
If you're calling randomseed every time you call random, you're not using Lua's (i.e. C's) random number generator at all. You can see why this is true by looking at myrandomseed above. Why are you funneling your numbers through Lua's random in the first place? Why not just use math.random and be done with it.
Just make to sure to call math.randomseed once rather than every time you call math.random and you'll be fine.
I'm using it to generate random numbers for pieces of track I'm making in a tabletop game. Example hunk of code:
When you see tons of nearly identical code, you should refactor it. When you see variables names like foo1, foo2, etc. you're either naming variables poorly or should be using a list. In your case you have a bunch of branches Count == 1, Count == 2, etc. when we could be using a list. For instance, this does the same thing as your code:
local trackTypes = { 'Straightaway', 'Curve', 'Hill', 'Water', 'Jump' }
for i=1,S do
local trackTypeIndex = math.random(1, #trackTypes)
local SP = math.random(1, 3)
p(trackTypes[trackTypeIndex]..' of SP '..SP)
end
Note that you can probably guess what trackTypes is just by reading the variable name. I have no idea what S and SP are. They are probably not good names.
I need to create a syntax loop that runs a series of transformation
This is a simplified example of what I need to do
I would like to create five fruit variables
apple_variable
banana_variable
mango_variable
papaya_variable
orange_variable
in V1
apple=1
banana=2
mango=3
papaya=4
orange=5
First loop
IF (V1={number}) {fruit}_variable = VX.
IF (V2={number}) {fruit}_variable = VY.
IF (V3={number}) {fruit}_variable = VZ.
Run loop for next fruit
So what I would like is the scripte to check if V1, V2 or V3 contains the fruit number. If one of them does (only one can) The new {fruit}_variable should get the value from VX, VY or VZ.
Is this possible? The script need to create over 200 variables so a bit to time consuming to do manually
The first loop can be put within a DO REPEAT command. Essentially you define your two lists of variables and you can loop over the set of if statements.
DO REPEAT V# = V1 V2 V3
/VA = VX VY VZ.
if V# = 1 apple_variable = VA.
END REPEAT.
Now 1 and apple_variable are hard coded in the example above, but we can roll this up into a simple macro statement to take arbitrary parameters.
DEFINE !fruit (!POSITIONAL = !TOKENS(1)
/!POSITIONAL = !TOKENS(1)).
DO REPEAT V# = V1 V2 V3
/VA = VX VY VZ.
if V# = !1 !2 = VA.
END REPEAT.
!ENDDEFINE.
!fruit 1 apple_variable.
Now this will still be a bit tedious for over 200 variables, but should greatly simplify the task. After I get this far I typically just do text editing to my list to call the macro 200 times, which in this instance all that it would take is inserting !fruit before the number and the resulting variable name. This works well especially if the list is static.
Other approaches using the in-built SPSS facilities (mainly looping within the defined MACRO) IMO tend to be ugly, can greatly complicate the code and frequently not worth the time (although certainly doable). Although that is somewhat mitigated if you are willing to accept a solution utilizing python commands.
DO REPEAT is a good solution here, but I'm wondering what the ultimate goal is. This smells like a problem that might be solved by using the multiple response facilities in Statistics without the need to go through these transformations. Multiple response functionality is available in the old MULTIPLE RESPONSE procedure and in the newer CTABLES and Chart Builder facilities.
HTH,
Jon Peck
combination of loop statements: for,while, do while with nested if..else and switch case will do the trick. just make sure you have your initial value and final value for the loop to go
let's say:
for (initial; final; increment)
{
if (x == value) {
statements;
}else{
...
}