I'm taking a bootcamp course and I know line 4 (zip_code = zip_code) isn't necessarily needed but I've been told it's useful for a simple reason, but I'm not sure what that is. Anyone know why? Thanks so much.
class AdoptADog::Scraper
def self.scrape_dogs(zip_code)
base_url = "https://www.petsmartcharities.org/find-a-pet-results?city_or_zip="
zip_code = zip_code
last_url = "&species=dog&color_id&geo_range=50&pet_size_range_id&sex&age=&breed_id=69"
full_url = base_url + zip_code + last_url
html = open(full_url)
doc = Nokogiri::HTML(html)
doc.css(".pet-result").each do |dog|
name = dog.css(".pet-name").text
breed = dog.css(".pet-breed").text
sex = dog.css(".pet-sex").text
location = dog.css(".pet-addr-city-state").text
url = dog.css("a").attribute("href").value
AdoptADog::Dogs.new(name, breed, sex, location, url)
end
end
end
No, and the initial premise that it is useful is incorrect.
There is no functional reason for this, and I would argue against even the loose case one could make that it "increases readability".
This is pretty much bad practice in EVERY language.
The one and only possible reason for this would be to demonstrate variables to someone who is just starting to learn the core fundamentals of programming. Even that would be a bad example though, as it could be misunderstood to be good practice, when it most definitely is not, and there are FAR better ways to illustrate that without any risk of misconception.
maybe zip_code = zip_code.dup ?, you should not change the passed params in your function.
Could it be that you missed .dup or .clone ?
something = something.dup can be useful if you work with mutable object and don't wanna mess with original one.
Anyway, if you have been told that it is useful for some reason, why don't you just ask that person to elaborate?
Related
I know that with Descriptive programming you can do something like this:
Browser("StackOverflow").Page("StackOverflow").Link("text:=Go To Next Page ", "html tag:=A").Click
But is it possible to create some kind of string so I can assign more than one data value and pass it as single variable? I've tried many combinations using escape characters and I always get error.
For example in the case above, let's say I have more properties in the Page object, so I'd normally have to do something like this:
Browser("StackOverflow").Page("name:=StackOverflow", "html id:=PageID")...etc...
But I'd like to pass "name:=StackOverflow", "html id:=PageID" as a single variable, so when writing many objects I'd only have to write:
Browser(BrowserString).Page(PageString).WebEdit("name:=asdfgh")
And the first part would remain static, so if the parents' data needs to be modified I'd only have to modify two variables and not all the objects created in all libraries.
Is it possible?
If I was not clear enough please let me know.
Thank you in advance!
I think what you're looking for is UFT's Description object
This allows you finer grained control on the description since in descriptive programming all values are regular expressions but with Description you can turn the regular expression functionality off for a specific property.
Set desc = Description.Create()
desc("html tag").Value = "A"
desc("innertext").Value = "More information..."
desc("innertext").RegularExpression = False
Browser("Example Domain").Navigate "www.example.com"
Browser("Example Domain").Page("Example Domain").WebElement(desc).Click
If you want to represent this with plain string then it's a bit more of a problem, you can write a helper function but I'm not sure I would recommend it.
Function Desc(descString)
Set ret = Description.Create()
values = Split(descString, "::")
For Each value In values
keyVal = Split(value, ":=")
ret(keyVal(0)).Value = keyVal(1)
Next
Set Desc = ret
End Function
' Usage
Browser("StackOverflow").Page("StackOverflow").WebElement(Desc("html tag:=H2::innertext:=some text")).Click
Further reading about descriptive programming.
As an alternative to Motti's excellent answer, you could also Set a variable to match your initial descriptive object and then extend it as required:
Set myPage = Browser("StackOverflow").Page("name:=StackOverflow", "html id:=PageID")
after which you can then use
myPage.WebEdit("name:=asdfgh")
throughout the rest of the code, so long as the myPage object stays in scope...
Method find_something may return nil. In the following code,
something = find_something(id) ? find_something(id) : create_something(foo)
find_something(id) is called twice. This is a smell that I want to avoid. Is there a way to avoid redundancy in this expression?
Anything like this?
something = find_something(id) || create_something(foo)
There's not quite enough detail given to say this with confidence, though it might be this is a case for find_or_create_by.
If this does suit, you would just do:
something = YourModel.find_or_create_by(id: id)
You can also provide a block to this, which is passed to the create method if no record is found. For example:
something = YourModel.find_or_create_by(id: id) do |instance|
# this block only gets executed on create
instance.some_new_attribute = 'goes here'
end
Hope that's useful - let me know if it suits your use case.
My question model holds the prompt and the answer choices for questions that students can answer. It includes columns named :choice_0, :choice_1, :choice_2, :choice_3, :choice_4, and :choice_5.
In one section of my controller, I've used the following code:
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_0]) if !these_params[:choice_0].blank?
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_1]) if !these_params[:choice_1].blank?
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_2]) if !these_params[:choice_2].blank?
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_3]) if !these_params[:choice_3].blank?
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_4]) if !these_params[:choice_4].blank?
correct_array.push(these_params[:choice_5]) if !these_params[:choice_5].blank?
In other areas of my app, I've used the #{} syntax, for example:
params[:choice_#{n}]
But that doesn't work within a params hash for some reason. I'm sure that there is a drier way to accomplish these five lines.
Thank you in advance for any insight.
A more Ruby way to do this is:
correct_array = (0..5).map { |i| these_params["choice_#{i}".to_sym] }.select(&:present?)
Or as a method:
def correct_array
(0..5).map { |i| these_params["choice_#{i}".to_sym] }.select(&:present?)
end
In either case, you have the added bonus of not having to initialize correct_array as it is created on the fly.
You may try this
(0..5).each do |i|
param_i = these_params["choice_#{i}".to_sym]
correct_array.push(param_i) if param_i.present?
end
I am new to Ruby, so let me describe the context of my problem first:
I have a json as input which has the following key / value pair:
{
"service": "update"
}
The value has many different values for example: insert,delete etc.
Next there is a method x which handles the different requests:
def x(input)
case input[:service]
services = GenericService.new
when "update"
result = services.service(UpdateService.new,input)
when "insert"
result = services.service(InsertService.new,input)
when "delete"
result = services.service(DeleteService.new,input)
....
....
else
raise "Unknown service"
end
puts JSON.pretty_generate(result)
end
What is bothering me is that I still need to use a switch statement to check the String values (reminds me of 'instance of' ugh..). Is there a cleaner way (not need to use a switch)?
Finally I tried to search for an answer to my question and did not succeed, if however I missed it feel free to comment the related question.
Update: I was thinking to maybe cast the string to the related class name as follows: How do I create a class instance from a string name in ruby? and then call result = services.services(x.constantize.new,input) , then the class names ofcourse needs to match the input of the json.
You can try something like:
def x(input)
service_class_name = "#{input[:service].capitalize}Service"
service_class = Kernel.const_get(service_class_name)
service_class.new(input).process
end
In addition you might want to check if this is a valid Service class name at all.
I don't understand why you want to pass the service to GenericService this seems strange. let the service do it's job.
If you're trying to instatiate a class by it's name you're actually speaking about Reflection rather than Polymorphism.
In Ruby you can achieve this in this way:
byName = Object.const_get('YourClassName')
or if you are in a Rails app
byName= 'YourClassName'.constantize
Hope this helps
Just first thoughts, but you can do:
eval(services.service("#{input[:service].capitalize}Service.new, #{input})") if valid_service? input[:service]
def valid_service?
w%(delete update insert).include? input[:service]
end
As folks will no doubt shout, eval needs to be used with alot of care
Well, I've finally decided that I'm not crazy. So, that leaves DataMapper.
Here's what I'm doing. I have a model Msrun which has 1 Metric.
tmp = Msrun.first_or_create # I'll skip the boring details
tmp.metric = Metric.first_or_create( {msrun_id: tmp.id}, {metric_input_file: #metricsfile} )
p tmp.metric # => #<Metric #metric_input_file=nil #msrun_id=1>
tmp.metric.metric_input_file = #metricsfile
p tmp.metric # => #<Metric #metric_input_file=#<Pathname:/home/ryanmt/Dropbox/coding/rails/metrics_site/spec/tfiles/single_metric.txt> #msrun_id=1>
So, why doesn't this work? I'm reading http://datamapper.org/docs/create_and_destroy and doing what it shows working. This has been terribly arduous. Thanks for any help.
Update:
I still can't figure out what is going on, but to prove I'm not insane...
puts Metric.all # => []
tmp.metric = Metric.first_or_create( {msrun_id: tmp.id}, {metric_input_file: #metricsfile} )
puts Metric.all # => [] #??????????????
tmp.metric.metric_input_file = #metricsfile
p tmp.metric # => #<Metric #metric_input_file=#<Pathname:/home/ryanmt/Dropbox/coding/rails/metrics_site/spec/tfiles/single_metric.txt> #msrun_id=1>
tmp.metric.save
puts Metric.all # => [#<Metric #metric_input_file=#<Pathname:/home/ryanmt/Dropbox/coding/rails/metrics_site/spec/tfiles/single_metric.txt> #msrun_id=1>]
So, not only is first_or_create not delivering on the behavior I expect by reading the source
def first_or_create(conditions = {}, attributes = {})
first(conditions) || create(conditions.merge(attributes))
end
but it is also not even creating.
I'm probably missing something here (more of those boring details might help) but if the metric exists, it's metric_input_file shouldn't be updated, i.e., it's only set when new. If you're after updating then you can do
.first_or_create(msrun_id: tmp.id).update(metric_input_file: #metricsfile)
Or if not hitting the database twice is relevant, then
m = Metric.first_or_new(msrun_id: tmp.id)
[set..save..assign]
But if it's not being set on new models, I don't see what would cause that from the code posted so far, more..?
[UPDATED]
Based on your new code, I'd say this is "a classic case" of a false DM save. I usually add the following line to an initialization section, e.g., application.rb in Rails.
DataMapper::Model.raise_on_save_failure = true
Unfortunately, the exception raised never tells you why (there's a special place in hell for that choice, right next to people who talk in theaters.) But it's typically one of:
a slightly incorrect association definition
a has/belongs_to that isn't "required: false" and isn't set
putting the wrong datatype into a field, e.g., a string into a decimal
a validation failing
If you want to post your model definitions, the problem may be spottable there.
In addition to the answer above, I've seen this call die (like, literally halt all execution) with no error when I was doing a find_or_create that would have created an object that violated the primary key constraint. This is because the datamapper model was not in sync with the actual database schema.