I want to compare values from hash and Sting.
successful_response = {
'00' => { error_message: 'TESTMODE: No real money will be transferred!'}
}
if error = successful_response[response_code]
if successful_response[response_code] != current_technical_message
raise "\n\nWrong tecnical message for code #{response_code}. It should be #{successful_response[response_code]}"
end
else
UnknownResponseError.new(technical_message, response_code)
end
Every time I error. Looks like this is not the proper way to compare the values successful_response[response_code] and current_technical_message
When I print the values I get
{:error_message=>"TESTMODE: No real money will be transferred!"} and
TESTMODE: No real money will be transferred!
What is the proper way to compare them?
Your problem is that successful_response[response_code] points at another hash. The easiest — but potentially error-prone — way to fix your problem is to use the following:
successful_response[response_code][:error_message]
If you Ruby version is new enough, Hash#dig is a good alternative:
successful_response.dig(response_code, :error_message)
Related
I'm using EJ Holme's rather excellent restforce gem to speak to my salesforce instance.
It's returning a hashie mash for a client record. I'd like to do a bit of built-in-method fu, but I'm getting stuck.
The hash returns around 550 array pairs of values. For instance Restforce_hash.last would return something like:
["field_title", "field_content">]
So far so great, I want to put a summary box at the top that displays a metric for how many fields are in use for the record.
If I call Restforce_hash.length I get the total number returned just fine.
However what I really want is the number of record pairs where the second item in the array (ie.. the "field_content" is not nil.
I was hoping there would be some great neat one-line ruby method for this like:
Restforce_hash.not_nil.length
But i'm not having just joy tracking something down... is there a way or do i have to iterate over the hash and count the number of != nil records?
Try this:
restforce_hash.count { |key, val| !val.nil? }
Restforce_hash.select{|key,value| value.present? }
will return all the elements after excluding all the NIL + blank elements.
if
Restforce_hash={:a=> "sss", :b=>"cvcxc",:c=>"",:f=>nil}
then
Restforce_hash.select{|key,value| value.present? }
will return
{:a=>"sss", :b=>"cvcxc"}
If you want to know how many nil values there are in a hash, just use:
hash = {a:1, b:nil, c:2}
hash.values.count{ |v| !v } # => 1
Currently trying to generate a random number in a specific range;
and ensure that it would be unique against others stored records.
Using Mysql. Could be like an id, incremented; but can't be it.
Currently testing other existing records in an 'expensive' manner;
but I'm pretty sure that there would be a clean 1/2 lines of code to use
Currently using :
test = 0
Order.all.each do |ord|
test = (0..899999).to_a.sample.to_s.rjust(6, '0')
if Order.find_by_number(test).nil? then
break
end
end
return test
Thanks for any help
Here your are my one-line solution. It is also the quicker one since calls .pluck to retrieve the numbers from the Order table. .select instantiates an "Order" object for every record (that is very costly and unnecessary) while .pluck does not. It also avoids to iterate again each object with a .map to get the "number" field. We can avoid the second .map as well if we convert, using CAST in this case, to a numeric value from the database.
(Array(0...899999) - Order.pluck("CAST('number' AS UNSIGNED)")).sample.to_s.rjust(6, '0')
I would do something like this:
# gets all existing IDs
existing_ids = Order.all.select(:number).map(&:number).map(&:to_i)
# removes them from the acceptable range
available_numbers = (0..899999).to_a - existing_ids
# choose one (which is not in the DB)
available_numbers.sample.to_s.rjust(6, '0')
I think, you can do something like below :
def uniq_num_add(arr)
loop do
rndm = rand(1..15) # I took this range as an example
# random number will be added to the array, when the number will
# not be present
break arr<< "%02d" % rndm unless arr.include?(rndm)
end
end
array = []
3.times do
uniq_num_add(array)
end
array # => ["02", "15", "04"]
I'm trying to display total calls from a twilio object as well as unique calls.
The total calls is simple enough:
# set up a client to talk to the Twilio REST API
#sub_account_client = Twilio::REST::Client.new(#account_sid, #auth_token)
#subaccount = #sub_account_client.account
#calls = #subaccount.calls
#total_calls = #calls.list.count
However, I'm really struggling to figure out how to display unique calls (people sometimes call back form the same number and I only want to count calls from the same number once). I'm thinking this is a pretty simple method or two but I've burnt quite a few hours trying to figure it out (still a ruby noob).
Currently I've been working it in the console as follows:
#sub_account_client = Twilio::REST::Client.new(#account_sid, #auth_token)
#subaccount = #sub_account_client.account
#subaccount.calls.list({})each do |call|
#"from" returns the phone number that called
print call.from
end
This returns the following strings:
+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615+13304567890+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615
There are only two unique numbers there so I'd like to be able to return '2' for this.
Calling class on that output shows strings. I've used "insert" to add a space then have done a split(" ") to turn them into arrays but the output is the following:
[+13304833615][+13304833615][+13304833615][+13304833615][+13304567890][+13304833615][+13304833615][+13304833615]
I can't call 'uniq' on that and I've tried to 'flatten' as well.
Please enlighten me! Thanks!
If what you have is a string that you want to manipulate the below works:
%{+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615+13304567890+13304833615+13304833615+13304833615}.split("+").uniq.reject { |x| x.empty? }.count
=> 2
However this is more ideal:
#subaccount.calls.list({}).map(&:from).uniq.count
Can you build an array directly instead of converting it into a string first? Try something like this perhaps?
#calllist = []
#subaccount.calls.list({})each do |call|
#"from" returns the phone number that called
#calllist.push call.from
end
you should then be able to call uniq on #calllist to shorten it to the unique members.
Edit: What type of object is #subaccount.calls.list anyway?
uniq should work for creating a unique list of strings. I think you may be getting confused by other non-related things. You don't want .split, that's for turning a single string into an array of word strings (default splits by spaces). Which has turned each single number string, into an array containing only that number. You may also have been confused by performing your each call in the irb console, which will return the full array iterated on, even if your inner loop did the right thing. Try the following:
unique_numbers = #subaccount.calls.list({}).map {|call| call.from }.uniq
puts unique_numbers.inspect
I know this code is not optimal, any ideas on how to improve it?
job_and_cost_code_found = false
timberline_db['SELECT Job, Cost_Code FROM [JCM_MASTER__COST_CODE] WHERE [Job] = ? AND [Cost_Code] = ?', job, clean_cost_code].each do |row|
job_and_cost_code_found = true
end
if job_and_cost_code_found == false then
info = linenum + "," + id + ",,Employees default job and cost code do not exist in timberline. job:#{job} cost code:#{clean_cost_code}"
add_to_exception_output_file(info)
end
You're breaking a lot of simple rules here.
Don't select what you don't use.
You select a number of columns, then completely ignore the result data. What you probably want is a count:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS cost_code_count FROM [JCM_MASTER__COST_CODE] WHERE [Job] = ? AND [Cost_Code] = ?'
Then you'll get one row that will have either a zero or non-zero value in it. Save this into a variable like:
job_and_cost_codes_found = timberline_db[...][0]['cost_code_count']
Don't compare against false unless you need to differentiate between that and nil
In Ruby only two things evaluate as false, nil and false. Most of the time you will not be concerned about the difference. On rare occasions you might want to have different logic for set true, set false or not set (nil), and only then would you test so specifically.
However, keep in mind that 0 is not a false value, so you will need to compare against that.
Taking into account the previous optimization, your if could be:
if job_and_cost_codes_found == 0
# ...
end
Don't use then or other bits of redundant syntax
Most Ruby style-guides spurn useless syntax like then, just as they recommend avoiding for and instead use the Enumerable class which is far more flexible.
Manipulate data, not strings
You're assembling some kind of CSV-like line in the end there. Ideally you'd be using the built-in CSV library to do the correct encoding, and libraries like that want data, not a string they'd have to parse.
One step closer to that is this:
line = [
linenum,
id,
nil,
"Employees default job and cost code do not exist in timberline. job:#{job} cost code:#{clean_cost_code}"
].join(',')
add_to_exception_output_file(line)
You'd presumably replace join(',') with the proper CSV encoding method that applies here. The library is more efficient when you can compile all of the data ahead of time into an array-of-arrays, so I'd recommend doing that if this is the end goal.
For example:
lines = [ ]
# ...
if (...)
# Append an array to the lines to write to the CSV file.
lines << [ ... ]
end
Keep your data in a standard structure like an Array, a Hash, or a custom object, until you're prepared to commit it to its final formatted or encoded form. That way you can perform additional operations on it if you need to do things like filtering.
It's hard to refactor this when I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to be doing, but assuming that you want to log an error when there's no entry matching a job & code pair, here's what I've come up with:
def fetch_by_job_and_cost_code(job, cost_code)
timberline_db['SELECT Job, Cost_Code FROM [JCM_MASTER__COST_CODE] WHERE [Job] = ? AND [Cost_Code] = ?', job, cost_code]
end
if fetch_by_job_and_cost_code(job, clean_cost_code).none?
add_to_exception_output_file "#{linenum},#{id},,Employees default job and cost code do not exist in timberline. job:#{job} cost code:#{clean_cost_code}"
end
Ok, so say you have a really big Range in ruby. I want to find a way to get the max value in the Range.
The Range is exclusive (defined with three dots) meaning that it does not include the end object in it's results. It could be made up of Integer, String, Time, or really any object that responds to #<=> and #succ. (which are the only requirements for the start/end object in Range)
Here's an example of an exclusive range:
past = Time.local(2010, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)
now = Time.now
range = past...now
range.include?(now) # => false
Now I know I could just do something like this to get the max value:
range.max # => returns 1 second before "now" using Enumerable#max
But this will take a non-trivial amount of time to execute. I also know that I could subtract 1 second from whatever the end object is is. However, the object may be something other than Time, and it may not even support #-. I would prefer to find an efficient general solution, but I am willing to combine special case code with a fallback to a general solution (more on that later).
As mentioned above using Range#last won't work either, because it's an exclusive range and does not include the last value in it's results.
The fastest approach I could think of was this:
max = nil
range.each { |value| max = value }
# max now contains nil if the range is empty, or the max value
This is similar to what Enumerable#max does (which Range inherits), except that it exploits the fact that each value is going to be greater than the previous, so we can skip using #<=> to compare the each value with the previous (the way Range#max does) saving a tiny bit of time.
The other approach I was thinking about was to have special case code for common ruby types like Integer, String, Time, Date, DateTime, and then use the above code as a fallback. It'd be a bit ugly, but probably much more efficient when those object types are encountered because I could use subtraction from Range#last to get the max value without any iterating.
Can anyone think of a more efficient/faster approach than this?
The simplest solution that I can think of, which will work for inclusive as well as exclusive ranges:
range.max
Some other possible solutions:
range.entries.last
range.entries[-1]
These solutions are all O(n), and will be very slow for large ranges. The problem in principle is that range values in Ruby are enumerated using the succ method iteratively on all values, starting at the beginning. The elements do not have to implement a method to return the previous value (i.e. pred).
The fastest method would be to find the predecessor of the last item (an O(1) solution):
range.exclude_end? ? range.last.pred : range.last
This works only for ranges that have elements which implement pred. Later versions of Ruby implement pred for integers. You have to add the method yourself if it does not exist (essentially equivalent to special case code you suggested, but slightly simpler to implement).
Some quick benchmarking shows that this last method is the fastest by many orders of magnitude for large ranges (in this case range = 1...1000000), because it is O(1):
user system total real
r.entries.last 11.760000 0.880000 12.640000 ( 12.963178)
r.entries[-1] 11.650000 0.800000 12.450000 ( 12.627440)
last = nil; r.each { |v| last = v } 20.750000 0.020000 20.770000 ( 20.910416)
r.max 17.590000 0.010000 17.600000 ( 17.633006)
r.exclude_end? ? r.last.pred : r.last 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 0.000062)
Benchmark code is here.
In the comments it is suggested to use range.last - (range.exclude_end? ? 1 : 0). It does work for dates without additional methods, but will never work for non-numeric ranges. String#- does not exist and makes no sense with integer arguments. String#pred, however, can be implented.
I'm not sure about the speed (and initial tests don't seem incredibly fast), but the following might do what you need:
past = Time.local(2010, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)
now = Time.now
range = past...now
range.to_a[-1]
Very basic testing (counting in my head) showed that it took about 4 seconds while the method you provided took about 5-6. Hope this helps.
Edit 1: Removed second solution as it was totally wrong.
I can't think there's any way to achieve this that doesn't involve enumerating the range, at least unless as already mentioned, you have other information about how the range will be constructed and therefore can infer the desired value without enumeration. Of all the suggestions, I'd go with #max, since it seems to be most expressive.
require 'benchmark'
N = 20
Benchmark.bm(30) do |r|
past, now = Time.local(2010, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0), Time.now
#range = past...now
r.report("range.max") do
N.times { last_in_range = #range.max }
end
r.report("explicit enumeration") do
N.times { #range.each { |value| last_in_range = value } }
end
r.report("range.entries.last") do
N.times { last_in_range = #range.entries.last }
end
r.report("range.to_a[-1]") do
N.times { last_in_range = #range.to_a[-1] }
end
end
user system total real
range.max 49.406000 1.515000 50.921000 ( 50.985000)
explicit enumeration 52.250000 1.719000 53.969000 ( 54.156000)
range.entries.last 53.422000 4.844000 58.266000 ( 58.390000)
range.to_a[-1] 49.187000 5.234000 54.421000 ( 54.500000)
I notice that the 3rd and 4th option have significantly increased system time. I expect that's related to the explicit creation of an array, which seems like a good reason to avoid them, even if they're not obviously more expensive in elapsed time.