var array = [{"id":"0", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"1", "stopDate":"10/06/2014"},
{"id":"2", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"3", "stopDate":"09/06/2014"}];
I have array of objects as above and want to sort by stop date using underscore. I am using following function to do so.
_.sortBy(array, "stopDate"); // asc
_.sortBy(array, "stopDate").reverse(); //desc
Above method sorts the date value properly but ignores null. So the output for asc is coming out to be
var actual= [{"id":"0", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"3", "stopDate":"09/06/2014"},
{"id":"2", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"1", "stopDate":"10/06/2014"}];
But I am expecting null to be grouped together and should appear one after other.
var expected= [{"id":"0", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"2", "stopDate":null},
{"id":"3","stopDate":"09/06/2014" },
{"id":"1", "stopDate":"10/06/2014"}];
Above method sorts the date value properly
Not really. A lexical string comparison on the format DD/MM/YYYY hardly will return the expected results.
but ignores "--"
There are no "--" values in your objects, there only are null values. And since null values are neither greater nor smaller than (non-numeric) strings (you can try in console, it always yields false), they are considered equal - which does however make an inconsistent comparison.
What you should do instead is parse those date strings into properly comparable timestamps, and the null values into either -Infinity or +Infinity so that they compare with the timestamps as expected:
_.sortBy(array, function(d) {
if (d.stopDate == null) return -Infinity;
var parts = d.stopDate.split("/");
return (new Date(+parts[2], parts[1]-1, +parts[0])).getTime();
});
Related
In My streamBuilder I have Array list contains dates having format(dd-MM-yyyy).
I want to arrange the list in ascending order.
The code I used in StreamBuilder after getting Datasnapshot
Map<dynamic, dynamic> data = snap.data.snapshot.value;
List item = [];
data.forEach(
(index, data) => item.add(
{"key": index, ...data}
)
);
item..sort((a,b)=>a['key'].compareTo(b['key']));
I am expecting result as
16-06-2020
17-06-2020
18-06-2020
19-06-2020
22-06-2020
04-07-2020
The result I am getting is
04-07-2020
16-06-2020
17-06-2020
18-06-2020
19-06-2020
22-06-2020
You'll need to parse your Strings to DateTimes. Since DateTime parse() method won't accept Strings in the format you provided, you can do something like this:
List<String> strings = ['04-07-2020', '17-06-2020', '16-06-2020', '19-06-2020', '18-06-2020', '22-06-2020'];
List<DateTime> dateTimes = [];
strings.forEach((string) {
var splitted = string.split('-');
var day = splitted[0];
var month = splitted[1];
var year = splitted[2];
var formatted = '$year-$month-$day';
dateTimes.add(DateTime.parse(formatted));
});
dateTimes.sort((a, b) => a.compareTo(b));
Just adapt it for your structure!
Storing the data as Timestamps in Firebase would make it much simpler, then you can sort it by this Timestamp.
If you need the dates formatted as a String (dd-MM-yyyy) you can just parse it to Datetime and use the Intl-Package to convert it to a formatted String.
I have a collection string date values some of which are empty strings ("").
when I use OrderBy clause, following statement
theList = theList.OrderBy(Function(x) x.age).ToList()
returns empty string collection.
However, if I use OrderByDescending operator, the result is correctly ordered by descending data values.
Sample date values are "2014-10-31 00:00:00.000", "2014-09-30 00:00:00.000", "2014-11-30 00:00:00.000", "", "2014-08-31 00:00:00.000".
What could be the problem please?
Thank you,
Piyush Varma
My first instinct would be that if x.billedthru is ever shorter than 10 characters, you could see this behavior. Does it return rows if you try this:
Dim returnCollection As List(Of FundedAccountsDetail) = New List(Of FundedAccountsDetail)
Select Case sortBy
Case "billedthru"
If Ascending = "ASC" Then
returnCollection = reportCollection.OrderBy(Function(x) x.BilledThru).ToList()
ElseIf Ascending = "DESC" Then
returnCollection = reportCollection.OrderByDescending(Function(x) x.BilledThru).ToList()
End If
Case Else
returnCollection = reportCollection
End Select
If it does, then the problem is the substring. If not, I admit that it is perplexing. What I'd probably try is then removing the order by from the first branch of the if and see if it returns rows. Basically work my way back until that branch of the if works and then rebuild it step by step until I start having the problem.
I have a spreadsheet that I update on a regular basis. I also have to re-sort the spreadsheet when finished because of the changes made. I need to sort with multiple criteria like the below settings. I have searched for examples but my Google search skills have failed me.
Sort range from A1:E59
[x] Data has header rows
sort by "Priority" A > Z
then by "Open" Z > A
then by "Project" A > Z
Mogsdad's answer works fine if none of your cells have values automatically calculated via a formula. If you do use formulas, though, then that solution will erase all of them and replace them with static values. And even so, it is more complicated than it needs to be, as there's now a built-in method for sorting based on multiple columns. Try this instead:
function onEdit(e) {
var priorityCol = 1;
var openCol = 2;
var projectCol = 3;
var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSheet();
var dataRange = sheet.getDataRange();
dataRange.sort([
{column: priorityCol, ascending: true},
{column: openCol, ascending: false},
{column: projectCol, ascending: true}
]);
}
Instead of making a separate function, you can use the built-in onEdit() function, and your data will automatically sort itself when you change any of the values. The sort() function accepts an array of criteria, which it applies one after the other, in order.
Note that with this solution, the first column in your spreadsheet is column 1, whereas if you're doing direct array accesses like in Mogsdad's answer, the first column is column 0. So your numbers will be different.
That is a nice specification, a great place to start!
Remember that Google Apps Script is, to a large extent, JavaScript. If you extend your searching into JavaScript solutions, you'll find plenty of examples of array sorts here on SO.
As it happens, much of what you need is in Script to copy and sort form submission data. You don't need the trigger part, but the approach to sorting can be easily adapted to handle multiple columns.
The workhorse here is the comparison function-parameter, which is used by the JavaScript Array.sort() method. It works through the three columns you've indicated, with ascending or descending comparisons. The comparisons used here are OK for Strings, Numbers and Dates. It could be improved with some cleaning up, or even generalized, but it should be pretty fast as-is.
function sortMySheet() {
var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSheet();
var dataRange = sourceSheet.getDataRange();
var data = dataRange.getValues();
var headers = data.splice(0,1)[0]; // remove headers from data
data.sort(compare); // Sort 2d array
data.splice(0,0,headers); // replace headers
// Replace with sorted values
dataRange.setValues(data);
};
// Comparison function for sorting two rows
// Returns -1 if 'a' comes before 'b',
// +1 if 'b' before 'a',
// 0 if they match.
function compare(a,b) {
var priorityCol = 0; // Column containing "Priority", 0 is A
var openCol = 1;
var projectCol = 2;
// First, compare "Priority" A > Z
var result = (a[priorityCol] > b[priorityCol] ) ?
(a[priorityCol] < b[priorityCol] ? -1 : 0) : 1;
if (result == 0) {
// "Priority" matched. Then compare "Open" Z > A
result = (b[openCol] > a[openCol] ) ?
(b[openCol] < a[openCol] ? -1 : 0) : 1;
}
if (result == 0) {
// "Open" matched. Finally, compare "Project" A > Z
result = (a[projectCol] > b[projectCol] ) ?
(a[projectCol] < b[projectCol] ? -1 : 0) : 1;
}
return result;
}
Try this using the Apps Script sort instead of the native JavaScript. I had the same issue with sorting the header row(s) and this solved the issue.
So I think something like this should work:
function onOpen() {
SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSpreadsheet()
.getSheetByName("Form Responses 1").sort(2);
}
Regarding sorting by multiple columns, you can chain that sort() method, with the final sort() having the highest priority, and the first sort() the lowest. So something like this should sort by Start date, then by End date:
function onOpen() {
SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSpreadsheet()
.getSheetByName("Form Responses 1").sort(3).sort(2);
}
Reference link:-
https://support.google.com/docs/thread/16556745/google-spreadsheet-script-how-to-sort-a-range-of-data?hl=en
Not sure if this is still relevant, but you can use the sort() function to define another tab as a sorted version of the original data.
Say your original data is in a tab named Sheet1; I'm also going to act as though your Priority, Open, and Project columns are A, B, and C, respectively.
Create a new tab, and in cell A1 type:
=sort(Sheet1!A1:E59, 1, TRUE, 2, FALSE, 3, TRUE)
The first argument specifies the sheet and range to be sorted, followed by three pairs: the first of each pair specifies the column (A=1, B=2, etc.), and the second specifies ascending (TRUE) or descending (FALSE).
I want to retrieve commissions with a certain order number.
This works:
var expression = from commission in db.Auftraege
where commission.Auftragsnummer == orderNbr
select new Commission() { EF_Commission = (commission as Auftrag) };
return expression.ToList();
However, if i transform this to use a dynamic where clause (because i want to apply some more filters), the where-clause does not seem to be applied. Instead, all commissions are returned instead of only those with a specific number:
//base query
var expression = from commission in db.Auftraege select new Commission() { EF_Commission = (commission as Auftrag) };
//now add a where clause if the input parameter was specified
if (orderNbr >= 0)
expression.Where(commission => commission.EF_Commission.Auftragsnummer == orderNbr);
return expression.ToList();
I have looked at a dozen examples but they all seem to do it this way. Does anybody have an idea why the second query ignores the where clause?
You need to assign the interim expression to something (perhaps to itself). expression.Where() does not alter the existing query - it returns a new one.
So:
expression = expression.Where(...);
I am trying to select some records using LINQ for Entities (EF4 Code First).
I have a table called Monitoring with a field called AnimalType which has values such as
"Lion,Tiger,Goat"
"Snake,Lion,Horse"
"Rattlesnake"
"Mountain Lion"
I want to pass in some values in a string array (animalValues) and have the rows returned from the Monitorings table where one or more values in the field AnimalType match the one or more values from the animalValues. The following code ALMOST works as I wanted but I've discovered a major flaw with the approach I've taken.
public IQueryable<Monitoring> GetMonitoringList(string[] animalValues)
{
var result = from m in db.Monitorings
where animalValues.Any(c => m.AnimalType.Contains(c))
select m;
return result;
}
To explain the problem, if I pass in animalValues = { "Lion", "Tiger" } I find that three rows are selected due to the fact that the 4th record "Mountain Lion" contains the word "Lion" which it regards as a match.
This isn't what I wanted to happen. I need "Lion" to only match "Lion" and not "Mountain Lion".
Another example is if I pass in "Snake" I get rows which include "Rattlesnake". I'm hoping somebody has a better bit of LINQ code that will allow for matches that match the exact comma delimited value and not just a part of it as in "Snake" matching "Rattlesnake".
This is a kind of hack that will do the work:
public IQueryable<Monitoring> GetMonitoringList(string[] animalValues)
{
var values = animalValues.Select(x => "," + x + ",");
var result = from m in db.Monitorings
where values.Any(c => ("," + m.AnimalType + ",").Contains(c))
select m;
return result;
}
This way, you will have
",Lion,Tiger,Goat,"
",Snake,Lion,Horse,"
",Rattlesnake,"
",Mountain Lion,"
And check for ",Lion," and "Mountain Lion" won't match.
It's dirty, I know.
Because the data in your field is comma delimited you really need to break those entries up individually. Since SQL doesn't really support a way to split strings, the option that I've come up with is to execute two queries.
The first query uses the code you started with to at least get you in the ballpark and minimize the amount of data you're retrieving. It converts it to a List<> to actually execute the query and bring the results into memory which will allow access to more extension methods like Split().
The second query uses the subset of data in memory and joins it with your database table to then pull out the exact matches:
public IQueryable<Monitoring> GetMonitoringList(string[] animalValues)
{
// execute a query that is greedy in its matches, but at least
// it's still only a subset of data. The ToList()
// brings the data into memory, so to speak
var subsetData = (from m in db.Monitorings
where animalValues.Any(c => m.AnimalType.Contains(c))
select m).ToList();
// given that subset of data in the List<>, join it against the DB again
// and get the exact matches this time
var result = from data in subsetData
join m in db.Monitorings on data.ID equals m.ID
where data.AnimalType.Split(',').Intersect(animalValues).Any ()
select m;
return result;
}