Does Ruby's Enumerable offer a better way to do the following?
output = things
.find { |thing| thing.expensive_transform.meets_condition? }
.expensive_transform
Enumerable#find is great for finding an element in an enumerable, but returns the original element, not the return value of the block, so any work done is lost.
Of course there are ugly ways of accomplishing this...
Side effects
def constly_find(things)
output = nil
things.each do |thing|
expensive_thing = thing.expensive_transform
if expensive_thing.meets_condition?
output = expensive_thing
break
end
end
output
end
Returning from a block
This is the alternative I'm trying to refactor
def costly_find(things)
things.each do |thing|
expensive_thing = thing.expensive_transform
return expensive_thing if expensive_thing.meets_condition?
end
nil
end
each.lazy.map.find
def costly_find(things)
things
.each
.lazy
.map(&:expensive_transform)
.find(&:meets_condition?)
end
Is there something better?
Of course there are ugly ways of accomplishing this...
If you had a cheap operation, you'd just use:
collection.map(&:operation).find(&:condition?)
To make Ruby call operation only "on a as-needed basis" (as the documentation says), you can simply prepend lazy:
collection.lazy.map(&:operation).find(&:condition?)
I don't think this is ugly at all—quite the contrary— it looks elegant to me.
Applied to your code:
def costly_find(things)
things.lazy.map(&:expensive_transform).find(&:meets_condition?)
end
I would be inclined to create an enumerator that generates values thing.expensive_transform and then make that the receiver for find with meets_condition? in find's block. For one, I like the way that reads.
Code
def costly_find(things)
Enumerator.new { |y| things.each { |thing| y << thing.expensive_transform } }.
find(&:meets_condition?)
end
Example
class Thing
attr_reader :value
def initialize(value)
#value = value
end
def expensive_transform
self.class.new(value*2)
end
def meets_condition?
value == 12
end
end
things = [1,3,6,4].map { |n| Thing.new(n) }
#=> [#<Thing:0x00000001e90b78 #value=1>, #<Thing:0x00000001e90b28 #value=3>,
# #<Thing:0x00000001e90ad8 #value=6>, #<Thing:0x00000001e90ab0 #value=4>]
costly_find(things)
#=> #<Thing:0x00000001e8a3b8 #value=12>
In the example I have assumed that expensive_things and things are instances of the same class, but if that is not the case the code would need to be modified in the obvious way.
I don't think there is a "obvious best general solution" for your problem, which is also simple to use. You have two procedures involved (expensive_transform and meets_condition?), and you also would need - if this were a library method to use - as a third parameter the value to return, if no transformed element meets the condition. You return nil in this case, but in a general solution, expensive_transform might also yield nil, and only the caller knows what unique value would indicate that the condition as not been met.
Hence, a possible solution within Enumerable would have the signature
class Enumerable
def find_transformed(default_return_value, transform_proc, condition_proc)
...
end
end
or something similar, so this is not particularily elegant either.
You could do it with a single block, if you agree to merge the semantics of the two procedures into one: You have only one procedure, which calculates the transformed value and tests it. If the test succeeds, it returns the transformed value, and if it fails, it returns the default value:
class Enumerable
def find_by(default_value, &block)
result = default_value
each do |element|
result = block.call(element)
break if result != default_value
end
end
result
end
You would use it in your case like this:
my_collection.find_by(nil) do |el|
transformed_value = expensive_transform(el)
meets_condition?(transformed_value) ? transformed_value : nil
end
I'm not sure whether this is really intuitive to use...
I was just reading a blog article and noticed that the author used tap in a snippet something like:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
My question is what exactly is the benefit or advantage of using tap? Couldn't I just do:
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
or better yet:
user = User.create! username: "foobar"
When readers encounter:
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
they would have to follow all the three lines and then recognize that it is just creating an instance named user.
If it were:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
then that would be immediately clear. A reader would not have to read what is inside the block to know that an instance user is created.
Another case to use tap is to make manipulation on object before returning it.
So instead of this:
def some_method
...
some_object.serialize
some_object
end
we can save extra line:
def some_method
...
some_object.tap{ |o| o.serialize }
end
In some situation this technique can save more then one line and make code more compact.
This can be useful with debugging a series of ActiveRecord chained scopes.
User
.active .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.non_admin .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.at_least_years_old(25) .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.residing_in('USA')
This makes it super easy to debug at any point in the chain without having to store anything in in a local variable nor requiring much altering of the original code.
And lastly, use it as a quick and unobtrusive way to debug without disrupting normal code execution:
def rockwell_retro_encabulate
provide_inverse_reactive_current
synchronize_cardinal_graham_meters
#result.tap(&method(:puts))
# Will debug `#result` just before returning it.
end
Using tap, as the blogger did, is simply a convenience method. It may have been overkill in your example, but in cases where you'd want to do a bunch of things with the user, tap can arguably provide a cleaner looking interface. So, perhaps it may be better in an example as follows:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.build_profile
u.process_credit_card
u.ship_out_item
u.send_email_confirmation
u.blahblahyougetmypoint
end
Using the above makes it easy to quickly see that all those methods are grouped together in that they all refer to the same object (the user in this example). The alternative would be:
user = User.new
user.build_profile
user.process_credit_card
user.ship_out_item
user.send_email_confirmation
user.blahblahyougetmypoint
Again, this is debatable - but the case can be made that the second version looks a little messier, and takes a little more human parsing to see that all the methods are being called on the same object.
If you wanted to return the user after setting the username you'd need to do
user = User.new
user.username = 'foobar'
user
With tap you could save that awkward return
User.new.tap do |user|
user.username = 'foobar'
end
It results in less-cluttered code as the scope of variable is limited only to the part where it is really needed. Also, the indentation within the block makes the code more readable by keeping relevant code together.
Description of tap says:
Yields self to the block, and then returns self. The primary purpose
of this method is to “tap into” a method chain, in order to perform
operations on intermediate results within the chain.
If we search rails source code for tap usage, we can find some interesting usages. Below are few items (not exhaustive list) that will give us few ideas on how to use them:
Append an element to an array based on certain conditions
%w(
annotations
...
routes
tmp
).tap { |arr|
arr << 'statistics' if Rake.application.current_scope.empty?
}.each do |task|
...
end
Initializing an array and returning it
[].tap do |msg|
msg << "EXPLAIN for: #{sql}"
...
msg << connection.explain(sql, bind)
end.join("\n")
As syntactic sugar to make code more readable - One can say, in below example, use of variables hash and server makes the intent of code clearer.
def select(*args, &block)
dup.tap { |hash| hash.select!(*args, &block) }
end
Initialize/invoke methods on newly created objects.
Rails::Server.new.tap do |server|
require APP_PATH
Dir.chdir(Rails.application.root)
server.start
end
Below is an example from test file
#pirate = Pirate.new.tap do |pirate|
pirate.catchphrase = "Don't call me!"
pirate.birds_attributes = [{:name => 'Bird1'},{:name => 'Bird2'}]
pirate.save!
end
To act on the result of a yield call without having to use a temporary variable.
yield.tap do |rendered_partial|
collection_cache.write(key, rendered_partial, cache_options)
end
Visualize your example within a function
def make_user(name)
user = User.new
user.username = name
user.save!
end
There is a big maintenance risk with that approach, basically the implicit return value.
In that code you do depend on save! returning the saved user. But if you use a different duck (or your current one evolves) you might get other stuff like a completion status report. Therefore changes to the duck might break the code, something that would not happen if you ensure the return value with a plain user or use tap.
I have seen accidents like this quite often, specially with functions where the return value is normally not used except for one dark buggy corner.
The implicit return value tends to be one of those things where newbies tend to break things adding new code after the last line without noticing the effect. They do not see what the above code really means:
def make_user(name)
user = User.new
user.username = name
return user.save! # notice something different now?
end
A variation on #sawa's answer:
As already noted, using tap helps figuring out the intent of your code (while not necessarily making it more compact).
The following two functions are equally long, but in the first one you have to read through the end to figure out why I initialized an empty Hash at the beginning.
def tapping1
# setting up a hash
h = {}
# working on it
h[:one] = 1
h[:two] = 2
# returning the hash
h
end
Here, on the other hand, you know right from the start that the hash being initialized will be the block's output (and, in this case, the function's return value).
def tapping2
# a hash will be returned at the end of this block;
# all work will occur inside
Hash.new.tap do |h|
h[:one] = 1
h[:two] = 2
end
end
It’s a helper for call chaining. It passes its object into the given block and, after the block finishes, returns the object:
an_object.tap do |o|
# do stuff with an_object, which is in o #
end ===> an_object
The benefit is that tap always returns the object it’s called on, even if the block returns some other result. Thus you can insert a tap block into the middle of an existing method pipeline without breaking the flow.
I would say that there is no advantage to using tap. The only potential benefit, as #sawa points out is, and I quote: "A reader would not have to read what is inside the block to know that an instance user is created." However, at that point the argument can be made that if you're doing non-simplistic record creation logic, your intent would be better communicated by extracting that logic into its own method.
I hold to the opinion that tap is an unnecessary burden on the readability of the code, and could be done without, or substituted with a better technique, like Extract Method.
While tap is a convenience method, it's also personal preference. Give tap a try. Then write some code without using tap, see if you like one way over another.
There is a tool called flog that measures how difficult it is to read a method. "The higher the score, the more pain the code is in."
def with_tap
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
end
def without_tap
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
end
def using_create
user = User.create! username: "foobar"
end
and according on flog's result the method with tap is the most difficult to read (and I agree with it)
4.5: main#with_tap temp.rb:1-4
2.4: assignment
1.3: save!
1.3: new
1.1: branch
1.1: tap
3.1: main#without_tap temp.rb:8-11
2.2: assignment
1.1: new
1.1: save!
1.6: main#using_create temp.rb:14-16
1.1: assignment
1.1: create!
There could be number of uses and places where we may be able to use tap. So far I have only found following 2 uses of tap.
1) The primary purpose of this method is to tap into a method chain, in order to perform operations on intermediate results within the chain. i.e
(1..10).tap { |x| puts "original: #{x.inspect}" }.to_a.
tap { |x| puts "array: #{x.inspect}" }.
select { |x| x%2 == 0 }.
tap { |x| puts "evens: #{x.inspect}" }.
map { |x| x*x }.
tap { |x| puts "squares: #{x.inspect}" }
2) Did you ever find yourself calling a method on some object, and the return value not being what you wanted it to? Maybe you wanted to add an arbitrary value to a set of parameters stored in a hash. You update it with Hash.[], but you get back bar instead of the params hash, so you have to return it explicitly. i.e
def update_params(params)
params[:foo] = 'bar'
params
end
In order to overcome this situation here, tap method comes into play. Just call it on the object, then pass tap a block with the code that you wanted to run. The object will be yielded to the block, then be returned. i.e
def update_params(params)
params.tap {|p| p[:foo] = 'bar' }
end
There are dozens of other use cases, try finding them yourself :)
Source:
1) API Dock Object tap
2) five-ruby-methods-you-should-be-using
You're right: the use of tap in your example is kind of pointless and probably less clean than your alternatives.
As Rebitzele notes, tap is just a convenience method, often used to create a shorter reference to the current object.
One good use case for tap is for debugging: you can modify the object, print the current state, then continue modifying the object in the same block. See here for example: http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-expressions.
I occasionally like to use tap inside methods to conditionally return early while returning the current object otherwise.
You can make your codes more modular using tap, and can achieve a better management of local variables. For example, in the following code, you don't need to assign a local variable to the newly created object, in the scope of the method. Note that the block variable, u, is scoped within the block. It is actually one of the beauties of ruby code.
def a_method
...
name = "foobar"
...
return User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = name
u.save!
end
end
In rails we can use tap to whitelist parameters explicitly:
def client_params
params.require(:client).permit(:name).tap do |whitelist|
whitelist[:name] = params[:client][:name]
end
end
I will give another example which I have used. I have a method user_params which returns the params needed to save for the user (this is a Rails project)
def user_params
params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
)
end
You can see I dont return anything but ruby return the output of the last line.
Then, after sometime, I needed to add a new attribute conditionally. So, I changed it to something like this:
def user_params
u_params = params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
)
u_params[:time_zone] = address_timezone if u_params[:address_attributes]
u_params
end
Here we can use tap to remove the local variable and remove the return:
def user_params
params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
).tap do |u_params|
u_params[:time_zone] = address_timezone if u_params[:address_attributes]
end
end
In the world where functional programming pattern is becoming a best practice (https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-to-functional-programming), you can see tap, as a map on a single value, indeed, to modify your data on a transformation chain.
transformed_array = array.map(&:first_transformation).map(&:second_transformation)
transformed_value = item.tap(&:first_transformation).tap(&:second_transformation)
No need to declare item multiple times here.
What is the difference?
The difference in terms of code readability is purely stylistic.
Code Walk through:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
Key points:
Notice how the u variable is now used as block parameter?
After the block is done, the user variable should now point to a User ( with a username: ‘foobar’, and who is also saved).
It's just pleasant and easier to read.
API Documentation
Here’s an easy to read version of the source code:
class Object
def tap
yield self
self
end
end
For more info, see these links:
https://apidock.com/ruby/Object/tap
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.3/Object.html#method-i-tap
Apart from the above answers, I have used tap in stubbing and mocking while writing RSpecs.
Scenario: When I have a complex query to stub and mock with multiple arguments which shouldn't go missed. The alternative here is to use receive_message_chain (but it lacks the details).
# Query
Product
.joins(:bill)
.where("products.availability = ?", 1)
.where("bills.status = ?", "paid")
.select("products.id", "bills.amount")
.first
# RSpecs
product_double = double('product')
expect(Product).to receive(:joins).with(:bill).and_return(product_double.tap do |product_scope|
expect(product_scope).to receive(:where).with("products.availability = ?", 1).and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:where).with("bills.status = ?", "paid").and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:select).with("products.id", "bills.amount").and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:first).and_return({ id: 1, amount: 100 })
end)
# Alternative way by using `receive_message_chain`
expect(Product).to receive_message_chain(:joins, :where, :where, :select).and_return({ id: 1, amount: 100 })
I have a ruby hash like this
h = {"a" => "1", "b" => "", "c" => "2"}
Now I have a ruby function which evaluates this hash and returns true if it finds a key with an empty value. I have the following function which always returns true even if all keys in the hash are not empty
def hash_has_blank(hsh)
hsh.each do |k,v|
if v.empty?
return true
end
end
return false
end
What am I doing wrong here?
Try this:
def hash_has_blank hsh
hsh.values.any? &:empty?
end
Or:
def hash_has_blank hsh
hsh.values.any?{|i|i.empty?}
end
If you are using an old 1.8.x Ruby
I hope you're ready to learn some ruby magic here. I wouldn't define such a function globally like you did. If it's an operation on a hash, than it should be an instance method on the Hash class you can do it like this:
class Hash
def has_blank?
self.reject{|k,v| !v.nil? || v.length > 0}.size > 0
end
end
reject will return a new hash with all the empty strings, and than it will be checked how big this new hash is.
a possibly more efficient way (it shouldn't traverse the whole array):
class Hash
def has_blank?
self.values.any?{|v| v.nil? || v.length == 0}
end
end
But this will still traverse the whole hash, if there is no empty value
I've changed the empty? to !nil? || length >0 because I don't know how your empty method works.
If you just want to check if any of the values is an empty string you could do
h.has_value?('')
but your function seems to work fine.
I'd consider refactoring your model domain. Obviously the hash represents something tangible. Why not make it an object? If the item can be completely represented by a hash, you may wish to subclass Hash. If it's more complicated, the hash can be an attribute.
Secondly, the reason for which you are checking blanks can be named to better reflect your domain. You haven't told us the "why", but let's assume that your Item is only valid if it doesn't have any blank values.
class MyItem < Hash
def valid?
!invalid?
end
def invalid?
values.any?{|i| i.empty?}
end
end
The point is, if you can establish a vocabulary that makes sense in your domain, your code will be cleaner and more understandable. Using a Hash is just a means to an end and you'd be better off using more descriptive, domain-specific terms.
Using the example above, you'd be able to do:
my_item = MyItem["a" => "1", "b" => "", "c" => "2"]
my_item.valid? #=> false
So I have a class like this:
def Word
end
and im looping thru an array like this
array.each do |value|
end
And inside that loop I want to instantiate an object, with a handle of the var
value = Word.new
Im sure there is an easy way to do this - I just dont know what it is!
Thanks!
To assign things to a dynamic variable name, you need to use something like eval:
array.each do |value|
eval "#{value} = Word.new"
end
but check this is what you want - you should avoid using eval to solve things that really require different data structures, since it's hard to debug errors created with eval, and can easily cause undesired behaviour. For example, what you might really want is a hash of words and associated objects, for example
words = {}
array.each do |value|
words[value] = Word.new
end
which won't pollute your namespace with tons of Word objects.
Depending on the data structure you want to work with, you could also do this:
# will give you an array:
words = array.map { |value| Word.new(value) }
# will give you a hash (as in Peter's example)
words = array.inject({}) { |hash, value| hash.merge value => Word.new }
# same as above, but more efficient, using monkey-lib (gem install monkey-lib)
words = array.construct_hash { |value| [value, Word.new ] }
Program I'm making has a simple configuration file looking something like this.
#overlays = {
:foo => "http://www.bar.com",
:bar => nil,
}
What I need to do is go through this hash and get the following output.
OverlayKey[0]='foo'
OverlayVal[0]='http://www.bar.com'
OverlayKey[1]='bar'
OverlayVal[1]='nil'
In order to keep my configuration like I want it I need some fake index numbers. Would rather not add numbers into the hash, it would make the configuration look a bit ugly. So I been playing around with artificially generating the numbers during output.
This is ugly but I"m just playing around with it currently.
def makenumbers
#numbers = []
length = #overlays.length - 1
(0..length).each do |num|
#numbers.push("#{num}")
end
end
makenumbers
#overlays.each do |key,val|
#numbers.each do |num|
puts "OverlayKey['#{num}']='#{key}'"
puts "OverlayVal['#{num}']='#{val}'"
end
end
Which is giving me something like this.
OverlayKey['0']='foo'
OverlayVal['0']='http://www.bar.com'
OverlayKey['1']='foo'
OverlayVal['1']='http://www.bar.com'
OverlayKey['0']='bar'
OverlayVal['0']=''
OverlayKey['1']='bar'
OverlayVal['1']=''
Understand why this doesn't give me the output I want, although after playing with it for a bit I'm not really sure how to do what I want without adding numbers into the hash during configuration. Sure this is pretty simple I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.
I don't know what the problem is other than Hashes are unsorted by default:
overlays = {
:foo => "http://www.bar.com",
:bar => nil,
}
overlays.each_with_index do |(k,v), i|
puts "OverlayKey['#{i}']=#{k.to_s.inspect}"
puts "OverlayVal['#{i}']=#{v.to_s.inspect}"
end
Output looks like this:
OverlayKey['0']="bar"
OverlayVal['0']=""
OverlayKey['1']="foo"
OverlayVal['1']="http://www.bar.com"
As a note:
# Instead of this:
"#{num}"
# Use this:
num.to_s