I got a question for implementation methods like get_item(index), or find(value) with used classes.
class SinglyLinkedListItem
attr_accessor :object, :next
attr_reader :list
def initialize(object, list)
#object = object
#list = list
end
end
class SinglyLinkedList
attr_reader :length
def initialize
#length = 0
#head = nil
#tail = nil
end
got some methods like
def each
if #length > 0
item = #head
begin
yield item.object
item = item.next
end until item.nil?
end
end
I tried with many ways, but im still getting this error:
NoMethodError: undefined method `object' for nil:NilClass
You have to define method #object on nil:
def nil.object; self end
The error will not appear that way.
I had this problem before with attr_accessor.
Try replacing the
##
with
self.#
And you might want to check the item class as a precaution.
yield item.object unless item.nil?
For Ex:
def each
if self.length > 0
item = self.head
begin
yield item.object unless item.nil? #Check if item turned nil or not
item = item.next
end until item.nil?
end
end
And there might be some more handling that you need to do, but your given data doesn't provide me enough information.
Related
I'm having issues understanding this encapsulation. I have instance variables defined with attr_accessor. I'm trying to access them outside class. But they are always nil and returns undefined method.
NoMethodError: undefined method `has_key?' for nil:NilClass
Please help me understand.
class TrieNode
attr_reader :value, :next, :children
def initalize
#value = nil
#children = Hash.new
#next = nil
end
end
class Trie
attr_accessor :root
def initialize
#root = TrieNode.new
end
def build_trie(strs)
cur = #root
strs.each do |str|
str.chars.each do |char|
if cur.children.has_key? char
cur = cur.children[char]
next
else
new_node = TrieNode.new
cur.children[char] = new_node
cur = new_node
end
end
cur = #root
end
end
end
Yes, it is not encapsulation, it is because your object is not instantiated properly, which is caused by a typo
def initalize
#value = nil
#children = Hash.new
#next = nil
end
should be initialize not initalize
I'm working to create a few Ruby builder objects, and thinking on how I could reuse some of Ruby's magic to reduce the logic of the builder to a single class/module. It's been ~10 years since my last dance with the language, so a bit rusty.
For example, I have this builder:
class Person
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
def initialize(**kwargs)
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("#{k}=", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
def build
output = {}
PROPERTIES.each do |prop|
if self.respond_to?(prop) and !self.send(prop).nil?
value = self.send(prop)
# if value itself is a builder, evalute it
output[prop] = value.respond_to?(:build) ? value.build : value
end
end
output
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
if m.to_s.start_with?("set_")
mm = m.to_s.gsub("set_", "")
if PROPERTIES.include?(mm.to_sym)
self.send("#{mm}=", *args)
return self
end
end
end
end
Which can be used like so:
Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).build
# => {name: "Joe", age: 30}
I would like to be able to refactor everything to a class and/or module so that I could create multiple such builders that'll only need to define attributes and inherit or include the rest (and possibly extend each other).
class BuilderBase
# define all/most relevant methods here for initialization,
# builder attributes and object construction
end
module BuilderHelper
# possibly throw some of the methods here for better scope access
end
class Person < BuilderBase
include BuilderHelper
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age, :email, :address]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
end
# Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).set_email("joe#mail.com").set_address("NYC").build
class Server < BuilderBase
include BuilderHelper
PROPERTIES = [:cpu, :memory, :disk_space]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
end
# Server.new.set_cpu("i9").set_memory("32GB").set_disk_space("1TB").build
I've been able to get this far:
class BuilderBase
def initialize(**kwargs)
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("#{k}=", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
end
class Person < BuilderBase
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
def build
...
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
...
end
end
Trying to extract method_missing and build into the base class or a module keeps throwing an error at me saying something like:
NameError: uninitialized constant BuilderHelper::PROPERTIES
OR
NameError: uninitialized constant BuilderBase::PROPERTIES
Essentially the neither the parent class nor the mixin are able to access the child class' attributes. For the parent this makes sense, but not sure why the mixin can't read the values inside the class it was included into. This being Ruby I'm sure there's some magical way to do this that I have missed.
Help appreciated - thanks!
I reduced your sample to the required parts and came up with:
module Mixin
def say_mixin
puts "Mixin: Value defined in #{self.class::VALUE}"
end
end
class Parent
def say_parent
puts "Parent: Value defined in #{self.class::VALUE}"
end
end
class Child < Parent
include Mixin
VALUE = "CHILD"
end
child = Child.new
child.say_mixin
child.say_parent
This is how you could access a CONSTANT that lives in the child/including class from the parent/included class.
But I don't see why you want to have this whole Builder thing in the first place. Would an OpenStruct not work for your case?
Interesting question. As mentioned by #Pascal, an OpenStruct might already do what you're looking for.
Still, it might be more concise to explicitly define the setter methods. It might also be clearer to replace the PROPERTIES constants by methods calls. And since I'd expect a build method to return a complete object and not just a Hash, I renamed it to to_h:
class BuilderBase
def self.properties(*ps)
ps.each do |property|
attr_reader property
define_method :"set_#{property}" do |value|
instance_variable_set(:"##{property}", value)
#hash[property] = value
self
end
end
end
def initialize(**kwargs)
#hash = {}
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("set_#{k}", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
def to_h
#hash
end
end
class Person < BuilderBase
properties :name, :age, :email, :address
end
p Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).set_email("joe#mail.com").set_address("NYC").to_h
# {:name=>"Joe", :age=>30, :email=>"joe#mail.com", :address=>"NYC"}
class Server < BuilderBase
properties :cpu, :memory, :disk_space
end
p Server.new.set_cpu("i9").set_memory("32GB").set_disk_space("1TB").to_h
# {:cpu=>"i9", :memory=>"32GB", :disk_space=>"1TB"}
I think no need to declare PROPERTIES, we can create a general builder like this:
class Builder
attr_reader :build
def initialize(clazz)
#build = clazz.new
end
def self.build(clazz, &block)
builder = Builder.new(clazz)
builder.instance_eval(&block)
builder.build
end
def set(attr, val)
#build.send("#{attr}=", val)
self
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
if #build.respond_to?("#{m}=")
set(m, *args)
else
#build.send("#{m}", *args, &block)
end
self
end
def respond_to_missing?(method_name, include_private = false)
#build.respond_to?(method_name) || super
end
end
Using
class Test
attr_accessor :x, :y, :z
attr_reader :w, :u, :v
def set_w(val)
#w = val&.even? ? val : 0
end
def add_u(val)
#u = val if val&.odd?
end
end
test1 = Builder.build(Test) {
x 1
y 2
z 3
} # <Test:0x000055b6b0fb2888 #x=1, #y=2, #z=3>
test2 = Builder.new(Test).set(:x, 1988).set_w(6).add_u(2).build
# <Test:0x000055b6b0fb23b0 #x=1988, #w=6>
When I was working on RubyMonk's online exercise "Ruby Primer : Ascent, 3.2 Stacks and Queues" to create a Stack class, I found that I'm not quite understanding the purpose of the self in function push.
class Stack
def initialize(size)
#size = size
#stack = Array.new(#size)
#top = -1
end
def pop
if empty?
return nil
else
result = #stack[#top]
#stack[#top] = nil
#top -= 1
return result
end
end
def push(element)
if full? || element.nil?
return nil
else
#top += 1
#stack[#top] = element
self
end
end
def size
#size
end
def look
#stack[#top]
end
private
def full?
#top == #size - 1
end
def empty?
#top == -1
end
end
It returns the object of class Stack itself, so you could chain method calls like this:
my_stack.push(1).push(2).push(3).size
#=> 3
Each call of push() will result in the original my_stack, so you can keep calling push().
I'm trying to learn ruby more in depth before I move on to rails dev, but I'm having some issues learning classes. I can't seem to understand why the following doesn't work.
#point.rb
class Point
attr_accessor :x, :y
def initialize(p = [0,0])
#x = p[0]
#y = p[1]
end
end
#shape.rb
require_relative 'point.rb'
class Shape
attr_accessor :points
def initialize *the_points
for p in the_points
#points.append Point.new(p)
end
end
end
s = Shape.new([3,2])
puts s.points
When I call the function I get a no method error for NilClass, which I'm assuming is referring to #point.append.
First, try this:
def initialize *the_points
#points = []
for p in the_points
#points << Point.new(p)
end
end
You get NilClass error because #points instance variable is Nil, and NilClass, which does not have append() method.
Better than creating an array and populating it in a loop would be to initialize it like so:
class Shape
attr_accessor :points
def initialize *the_points
#points = the_points.map{ |p| Point.new(p) }
end
end
If you had warnings on (ruby -w or $VERBOSE = true), it'd warn you that #points didn't exist.
See some other debugging tips in How do I debug Ruby scripts?
You need to initialize #points to be a new array. It starts off as nil.
def initialize *the_points
#points = [];
for p in the_points
#points.append Point.new(p)
end
end
I'm working on a class that reads some sensor information and returns it as a hash. I would like to use the hash keys as accessors, but I'm not having much luck getting it work. Here are the relevant parts of my code so far:
I've tried it both with method_missing and by using the :define_method method.
attr_reader :sensor_hash
def method_missing(name, *args, &blk)
if args.empty? && blk.nil? && #sensor_hash.has_key?(name.to_s)
#sensor_hash[name.to_s]
else
super
end
end
def sensor(*sensor_to_return)
sensor_output = run_command(this_method_name)
sensor_output = sensor_output.split("\n")
sensor_output.map! { |line| line.downcase! }
unless sensor_to_return.empty?
sensor_to_return = sensor_to_return.to_s.downcase
sensor_output = sensor_output.grep(/^#{sensor_to_return}\s/)
end
#sensor_hash = Hash.new
sensor_output.each { |stat| #sensor_hash[stat.split(/\s+\|\s?/)[0].gsub(' ','_').to_sym] = stat.split(/\s?\|\s?/)[1..-1].each { |v| v.strip! } }
#sensor_hash.each do |k,v|
puts v.join("\t")
self.class.send :define_method, k { v.join("\t") }
end
return #sensor_hash
The data returned is a hash with the sensor name as the key and and the value is an array of everything else returned. My goal is to be able to call Class.sensor.sensor_name and get the output of Class.sensor[:sensor_name]. Currently, all I'm able to get is an undefined method error. Anybody have any idea what I'm doing wrong here?
Maybe OpenStruct does what you want. From the doc :"It is like a hash with a different way to access the data. In fact, it is implemented with a hash, and you can initialize it with one."
require 'ostruct'
s=OpenStruct.new({:sensor_name=>'sensor1',:data=>['something',1,[1,2,3]]})
p s.sensor_name
#=> "sensor1"
Just a quick example. Do you have any reasons to not monkey-patch your Hash?
irb(main):001:0> class Hash
irb(main):002:1> def method_missing(name, *args, &blk)
irb(main):003:2> if self.keys.map(&:to_sym).include? name.to_sym
irb(main):004:3> return self[name.to_sym]
irb(main):005:3> else
irb(main):006:3* super
irb(main):007:3> end
irb(main):008:2> end
irb(main):009:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):012:0> h = {:hello => 'world'}
=> {:hello=>"world"}
irb(main):013:0> h.hello
=> "world"
You could use a wrapper class with method missing so you don't have to monkey patch Hash.
class AccessibleHash
def initialize(hash)
#hash = hash
end
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
sname = name.to_sym
if #hash.keys.include? sname
return #hash[sname]
else
super
end
end
end
Or, if you are working with Rails it has some nice built in object delegation with SimpleDelegator. That would allow you to define accessors on your hash as well as any nested hashes within it.
class AccessibleHash < SimpleDelegator
def initialize
define_accessors(self.keys)
end
def define_accessors(keys)
keys.each do |key|
defind_accessors(body[key].keys)
self.define_singleton_method(key) { self[key] }
end
end
end
ah = AccessibleHash.new({ some: 'hash', with: { recursive: 'accessors' })
ah.with.recursive == 'accessors'
=> true
This would be less performant at instantiation than method_missing, because it has to run recursively over your delegatee object as soon as it's created. However, it's definitely safer than method_missing, and certainly way safer than monkey patching your Hash class. Of course, safety is relative to your goals, If it's all your application does then monkey patch away.
And if you want the recursive, nested accessors without rails you could do something like this with a combination of the above...
class AccessibleHash
def initialize(hash)
#hash = hash
define_accessors(#hash.keys)
end
def define_accessors(keys)
keys.each do |key|
#hash[key] = self.class.new(#hash[key]) if #hash.keys.present?
self.define_singleton_method(key) { self[key] }
end
end
end
But at that point you're getting pretty crazy and it's probably worth reevaluating your solution in favor of something more Object Oriented. If I saw any of these in a code review it would definitely throw up a red flag. ;)