chained java.util.function.Predicate call to compare predicates - java-8

I'm trying to get this working :
Predicate<Integer> predicateInteger = i -> i>0;
System.out.println(predicateInteger.test(1)); // works and prints true
Now I'm trying to define another predicate like on predicateInteger using equals :
// stmt below DOES NOT COMPILE : Target type of a lambda conversion must be an interface
Predicate<Integer> predicateEq = predicateInteger.equals(i -> new Boolean(true));
System.out.println(predicateEq.test(8));// I want this to print "TRUE" on equals .
What am I doing wrong here ?

This is not how predicates and functional interfaces (lambda expressions) in general. The Predicate class has the only method boolean test(T t). The lambda expression is nothing different from an anonymous class implementation. Notice there is no equals method, therefore the lambda expressions are not comparable (in terms of equality).
Predicate<Integer> predicateInteger = i -> i > 0;
Predicate<Integer> predicateInteger = new Predicate<Integer>() {
#Override
public boolean test(Integer i) {
return i > 0;
}
}
Actually, the Predicate#test returns boolean which can be directly printed out:
Predicate<Integer> integerPredicate = i -> i > 0;
System.out.println(integerPredicate.test(8)); // true
Seems you want to compare the result value to something else, defined with another Predicate.
Predicate<Integer> integerPredicate = i -> i > 0;
Predicate<Object> resultPredicate = i -> true;
boolean result = integerPredicate.test(8) == resultPredicate.test("whatever");
System.out.println(result); // true
Note that, in fact, Predicate<Object> predicate = i -> true is practically a Supplier which returns a constant value regardless the input (actually, it has no input).
Predicate<Integer> integerPredicate = i -> i > 0;
Supplier<Boolean> resultSupplier = () -> true;
boolean result = integerPredicate.test(8) == resultSupplier.get();
System.out.println(result); // true
However, this makes no sense as long as the integerPredicate can be printed out directly with no resultSupplier.
Predicate<Integer> integerPredicate = i -> i > 0;
System.out.println(integerPredicate.test(8)); // true
... and we are back at the beginning.
The last thing that comes to my mind is to print out the result always on the method test call. All you need is to define a decorator, that wraps the Predicate delegate and submits an action on the test method call using Consumer<Boolean where Boolean is the former predicate's result.
#AllArgsConstructor // constructor omitted (Lombok) for sake of brevity
public class CallbackPredicate<T> implements Predicate<T> {
private final Predicate<T> delegate;
private final Consumer<Boolean> callback;
#Override
public final boolean test(final T t) {
boolean result = delegate.test(t);
callback.accept(result);
return result;
}
}
Predicate<Integer> integerPredicate = new CallbackPredicate<>(
i -> i > 0, // Predicate<Integer>
System.out::println); // Callback
integerPredicate.test(8); // prints true
The predicates can be also chained using the AND clause represented by the Predicate#and method:
Predicate<Integer> largerThanZero = i -> i > 0;
Predicate<Integer> smallerThanSix = i -> i < 6;
Predicate<Integer> betweenZeroAndSix = largerThanZero.and(smallerThanSix);
System.out.println(betweenZeroAndSix.test(-5)); // false
System.out.println(betweenZeroAndSix.test(5)); // true
System.out.println(betweenZeroAndSix.test(15)); // false

This helped me achieve what I want :
// when this is the first predicate:
Predicate<Integer> predicateInteger = i -> i>0;
// and when this second predicate compares with the first,
Predicate<Integer> predicateEq = predicateInteger.and(i -> i<6);
// then :
System.out.println(predicateEq.test(5));// prints true

Related

Map first element of stream differently than rest

Is there a way in Java's Stream API to map first element of stream differently than other?
Equivalent of this code:
List<Bar> barList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i=0; i<fooList.size(); i++) {
Foo foo = fooList.get(i);
Foo modifiedFoo = foo.getModifiedFoo();
if (i == 0) {
barList.add(new Bar(modifiedFoo, false));
}else {
barList.add(new Bar(modifiedFoo, true));
}
}
Stream<Bar> = barList.stream();
Note: I already have a stream setup and I would want some operation after first mapping
fooList.stream()
.map(Foo::getModifiedFoo)
.(May be Some operation here to get different new Bar for first modifiedFoo)
.map(modifiedFoo -> new Bar(modifiedFoo, true));
I would get the first element, create a Stream out of it and apply the needed mappings. Then, I'd take the rest of the list, create a stream out of it and apply the different mappings. Then concat the streams. Something like this:
Stream<Bar> first = Stream.of(fooList.get(0))
.map(Foo::getModifiedFoo)
.map(modifiedFoo -> new Bar(modifiedFoo, false));
Stream<Bar> others = fooList.subList(1, fooList.size()).stream()
.map(Foo::getModifiedFoo)
.map(modifiedFoo -> new Bar(modifiedFoo, true));
Stream<Bar> bars = Stream.concat(first, others).flatMap(s -> s);
Another approach:
Stream<Bar> bars = IntStream.range(0, fooList.size())
.mapToObj(i -> new Bar(fooList.get(i).getModifiedFoo(), i > 0));
This way is succinct and does the job pretty well.
Use an IntStream to iterate over the indices, then mapToObj to create an object for that index, and finally collect into a list:
List<Bar> barList = IntStream.range(0, fooList.size())
.mapToObj(i -> (i == 0 ? new Bar (fooList.get(i), false) :
new Bar(fooList.get(i),true)))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
What would be more readable though, is doing the first item handling outside the loop, and using IntStream starting with 1.
Here is a demo using simple lists.
I can propose two ways but I find your way straighter.
With IntStream such as :
List<Bar> barList = new ArrayList<>();
IntStream.range(0, fooList.size())
.forEach(i->{
if (i == 0) {
barList.add(new Bar(foo, false));
}else {
barList.add(new Bar(foo, true));
}
}
);
It is not a real functional approach (forEach() use and no Collector) because it maintains the current index of the List.
As alternative, you could use a more functional approach but I don't find it straighter either :
List<Bar> barList = IntStream.range(0, fooList.size())
.mapToObj(i->{
Foo foo = fooList.get(i);
if (i == 0) {
return new Bar(foo, false);
}
return new Bar(foo, true));
})
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Although I think the accepted answer is better, here is an alternate approach.
int[] counter = {-1};
Stream<Bar> barListStream = fooList.stream().map(foo -> {
counter[0]++;
return new Bar(mfoo.getModifiedFoo(), counter[0]>0);
}).collect(Collectors.toList()).stream();
You can have an object to hold a flag e.g. AtomicBoolean or AtomicInteger - that you can reset on first or nth iteration (you would need something like AtomicInteger or some Integer holder to reset on nth iteration) e.g. following code using HashMap as the holder class - will print first line of the stream differently than the other lines:
Map<String, Boolean> firstTime = new HashMap<>(Map.of("firstTime", true)); // to make the map modifiable
try (Stream<String> lines = Files.lines(Paths.get(filename), Charset.defaultCharset())) {
lines.forEachOrdered(line -> System.out.println(firstTime.remove("firstTime") != null ? ("firstTime: " + line) : line));
}
Use an AtomicBoolean initially set to true to determine when is the first item.
final AtomicBoolean first = new AtomicBoolean(true);
System.out.println("** Print all numbers 1..10");
IntStream.range(1, 11).forEach(number -> {
System.out.print((first.get() ? "" : ",") + number);
first.set(false);
});
System.out.println();

Conditional method call in the map method java 8

Persons = personDao.getFileInformation(filePath)
.skip(1)
.map(this::getPerson)
.filter(person -> person != null)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
getFileInformation(filePath) returns Stream<String>
after reading lines in a file.
I would like to replace the getPerson method with a getMale or getFemale method based on the value of an enum
public enum gender {
male,female
}
How can this be achieved used lambda expressions?
If you just want to filter by gender (assuming there is an accessor like Person.getGender), then you only need to add a filter:
List<Person> malePeople;
malePeople = personDao.getFileInformation(filePath)
.skip(1)
.map(this::getPerson)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.filter(p -> p.getGender() == gender.male) // or gender.female
.collect(Collectors.toList());
If you rather want to group your results, the following will help you:
Map<gender, List<Person>> peopleByGender;
peopleByGender = personDao.getFileInformation(filePath)
.skip(1)
.map(this::getPerson)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.collect(Collectors.groupingBy(Person::getGender));
now access all your female people with:
List<Person> femalePeople = peopleByGender.get(gender.female);
and the male ones with:
List<Person> malePeople = peopleByGender.get(gender.male);
If you just wanted to use a method to simplify the filter-predicate (p -> p.getGender() == gender.male), then you could use one of the following:
.filter(this::getMale) // or: YourClass::getMale for a static method
where this::getMale refers to the following method:
boolean getMale(Person p) {
return p.getGender() == gender.male;
}
or
.filter(getMale())
where getMale() refers to the following method:
Predicate<Person> getMale() {
return p -> p.getGender() == gender.male;
}

How can I write the following method in Java 8 streams?

How can I write the following method in Java 8 streams? I couldn't find a way to do it. This is my code:
public static List<ObjectB> getFilteredList(List<ObjectA> list, LocalTime startTime, LocalTime endTime, int quantity) {
List<ObjectA> objectAList = new LinkedList<>();
List<ObjectB> objectBList = new LinkedList<>();
for (ObjectA object : list) {
if (object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isAfter(startTime) && object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isBefore(endTime)) {
objectAList.add(object);
}
}
for (ObjectA objectA : objectAList) {
int total = 0;
for (ObjectA object : list) {
if (object.getDateTime().toLocalDate().equals(objectA.getDateTime().toLocalDate())) {
total += object.getQuantity();
}
}
if (total > quantity) {
objectBList.add(new ObjectB(objectA.getDateTime(), objectA.getDescription(), objectA.getQuantity(), true));
} else {
objectBList.add(new ObjectB(objectA.getDateTime(), objectA.getDescription(), objectA.getQuantity(), false));
}
}
return objectBList;}
I have a list of objects with two fields: date and quantity. I need to return a list with one object for each date, but with one more feild - boolean, which should be true if the total sum of all quantites per day is more than 16, and false if it's not.
Let's do this step-by-step.
for (ObjectA object : list) {: a for loop is usually replaced with stream(), so start with list.stream().
if (...) {: condition is usually replaced with filter(), so continue with .filter(object -> object.getDateTime()...)
objectAList.add(object);: adding the results to the container is usually replaced with collect(). You are using LinkedList(), but any other List would be fine here, so we will simply use collect(Collectors.toList()).
So here's first loop:
List<ObjectA> objectAList = list.stream()
.filter(object -> object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isAfter(startTime) &&
object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isBefore(endTime))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Now let's look into the inner loop which calculates the total:
int total = 0;
for (ObjectA object : list) {
if (object.getDateTime().toLocalDate().equals(objectA.getDateTime().toLocalDate())) {
total += object.getQuantity();
}
}
It's also stream-filter-collect sequence, but here you want to collect the sum. So you may use IntStream here which already has the sum() method:
int total = list.stream()
.filter(object -> object.getDateTime().toLocalDate().equals(
objectA.getDateTime().toLocalDate())
.mapToInt(ObjectA::getQuantity).sum();
To make your code less crowded I would extract this to the separate method:
private static int getQuantityByDate(List<ObjectA> list, LocalDate date) {
return list.stream().filter(object -> object.getDateTime().toLocalDate().equals(date))
.mapToInt(ObjectA::getQuantity).sum();
}
Now the next if statement. It just changes the last boolean argument, so I would rewrite it (even without Stream API):
objectBList.add(new ObjectB(objectA.getDateTime(), objectA.getDescription(),
objectA.getQuantity(), total > quantity));
So now we see that the outer loop becomes stream-map-collect chain and could be rewritten this way:
List<ObjectB> objectBList = objectAList.stream()
.map(objectA ->
new ObjectB(objectA.getDateTime(), objectA.getDescription(), objectA.getQuantity(),
getQuantityByDate(list, objectA.getDateTime().toLocalDate()) > quantity))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Now you can notice that collecting into objectAList is unnecessary as we just use it to create another stream. So we can merge both loops into single pipeline, resulting in the following final code:
private static int getQuantityByDate(List<ObjectA> list, LocalDate date) {
return list.stream().filter(object -> object.getDateTime().toLocalDate().equals(date))
.mapToInt(ObjectA::getQuantity).sum();
}
public static List<ObjectB> getFilteredList(
List<ObjectA> list, LocalTime startTime, LocalTime endTime, int quantity) {
return list.stream()
.filter(object -> object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isAfter(startTime) &&
object.getDateTime().toLocalTime().isBefore(endTime))
.map(objectA -> new ObjectB(
objectA.getDateTime(), objectA.getDescription(), objectA.getQuantity(),
getQuantityByDate(list, objectA.getDateTime().toLocalDate()) > quantity))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}

Compare each string in datatable with that of list takes longer time.poor performance

I have a datatable of 200,000 rows and want to validate each row with that of list and return that string codesList..
It is taking very long time..I want to improve the performance.
for (int i = 0; i < dataTable.Rows.Count; i++)
{
bool isCodeValid = CheckIfValidCode(codevar, codesList,out CodesCount);
}
private bool CheckIfValidCode(string codevar, List<Codes> codesList, out int count)
{
List<Codes> tempcodes= codesList.Where(code => code.StdCode.Equals(codevar)).ToList();
if (tempcodes.Count == 0)
{
RetVal = false;
for (int i = 0; i < dataTable.Rows.Count; i++)
{
bool isCodeValid = CheckIfValidCode(codevar, codesList,out CodesCount);
}
}
}
private bool CheckIfValidCode(string codevar, List<Codes> codesList, out int count)
{
List<Codes> tempcodes= codesList.Where(code => code.StdCode.Equals(codevar)).ToList();
if (tempcodes.Count == 0)
{
RetVal = false;
}
else
{
RetVal=true;
}
return bRetVal;
}
codelist is a list which also contains 200000 records. Please suggest. I used findAll which takes same time and also used LINQ query which also takes same time.
A few optimizations come to mind:
You could start by removing the Tolist() altogether
replace the Count() with .Any(), which returns true if there are items in the result
It's probably also a lot faster when you replace the List with a HashSet<Codes> (this requires your Codes class to implement HashCode and Equals properly. Alternatively you could populate a HashSet<string> with the contents of Codes.StdCode
It looks like you're not using the out count at all. Removing it would make this method a lot faster. Computing a count requires you to check all codes.
You could also split the List into a Dictionary> which you populate with by taking the first character of the code. That would reduce the number of codes to check drastically, since you can exclude 95% of the codes by their first character.
Tell string.Equals to use a StringComparison of type Ordinal or OrdinalIgnoreCase to speed up the comparison.
It looks like you can stop processing a lot earlier as well, the use of .Any takes care of that in the second method. A similar construct can be used in the first, instead of using for and looping through each row, you could short-circuit after the first failure is found (unless this code is incomplete and you mark each row as invalid individually).
Something like:
private bool CheckIfValidCode(string codevar, List<Codes> codesList)
{
Hashset<string> codes = new Hashset(codesList.Select(c ==> code.StdCode));
return codes.Contains(codevar);
// or: return codes.Any(c => string.Equals(codevar, c, StringComparison.Ordinal);
}
If you're adamant about the count:
private bool CheckIfValidCode(string codevar, List<Codes> codesList, out int count)
{
Hashset<string> codes = new Hashset(codesList.Select(c ==> code.StdCode));
count = codes.Count(codevar);
// or: count = codes.Count(c => string.Equals(codevar, c, StringComparison.Ordinal);
return count > 0;
}
You can optimize further by creating the HashSet outside of the call and re-use the instance:
InCallingCode
{
...
Hashset<string> codes = new Hashset(codesList.Select(c ==> code.StdCode));
for (/*loop*/) {
bool isValid = CheckIfValidCode(codevar, codes, out int count)
}
....
}
private bool CheckIfValidCode(string codevar, List<Codes> codesList, out int count)
{
count = codes.Count(codevar);
// or: count = codes.Count(c => string.Equals(codevar, c, StringComparison.Ordinal);
return count > 0;
}

What does ExpressionVisitor.Visit<T> Do?

Before someone shouts out the answer, please read the question through.
What is the purpose of the method in .NET 4.0's ExpressionVisitor:
public static ReadOnlyCollection<T> Visit<T>(ReadOnlyCollection<T> nodes, Func<T, T> elementVisitor)
My first guess as to the purpose of this method was that it would visit each node in each tree specified by the nodes parameter and rewrite the tree using the result of the elementVisitor function.
This does not appear to be the case. Actually this method appears to do a little more than nothing, unless I'm missing something here, which I strongly suspect I am...
I tried to use this method in my code and when things didn't work out as expected, I reflectored the method and found:
public static ReadOnlyCollection<T> Visit<T>(ReadOnlyCollection<T> nodes, Func<T, T> elementVisitor)
{
T[] list = null;
int index = 0;
int count = nodes.Count;
while (index < count)
{
T objA = elementVisitor(nodes[index]);
if (list != null)
{
list[index] = objA;
}
else if (!object.ReferenceEquals(objA, nodes[index]))
{
list = new T[count];
for (int i = 0; i < index; i++)
{
list[i] = nodes[i];
}
list[index] = objA;
}
index++;
}
if (list == null)
{
return nodes;
}
return new TrueReadOnlyCollection<T>(list);
}
So where would someone actually go about using this method? What am I missing here?
Thanks.
It looks to me like a convenience method to apply an aribitrary transform function to an expression tree, and return the resulting transformed tree, or the original tree if there is no change.
I can't see how this is any different of a pattern that a standard expression visitor, other than except for using a visitor type, it uses a function.
As for usage:
Expression<Func<int, int, int>> addLambdaExpression= (a, b) => a + b;
// Change add to subtract
Func<Expression, Expression> changeToSubtract = e =>
{
if (e is BinaryExpression)
{
return Expression.Subtract((e as BinaryExpression).Left,
(e as BinaryExpression).Right);
}
else
{
return e;
}
};
var nodes = new Expression[] { addLambdaExpression.Body }.ToList().AsReadOnly();
var subtractExpression = ExpressionVisitor.Visit(nodes, changeToSubtract);
You don't explain how you expected it to behave and why therefore you think it does little more than nothing.

Resources