I have a string list (List) that contains delimited fields. An example would be:
List[0] = "7/1/2013,ABC,123456"
List[1] = "7/2/2013,DEF,234567"
I also have a DataTable where a record either will or will not contain the the values from the 2nd and 3rd column in the String List:
Example
Row[0][0]="ABC" <-----String
Row[0][1]=123456 <-----Int32
What I want to do is find any records (via Linq) in the DataTable that DO NOT have corresponding values in the String List.
I've been googling for a while, and can't quite find the right way to do this with Linq...can anyone help?
This code snippet should give you an enumeration of the indices that do not have the appropriate DataTable values:
var correspondingRecords =
from index in Enumerable.Range(0, List.Count)
let items = List[index].Split(',')
where !(item[1] == Row[index][0] && item[2] == Row[index][1])
select index;
The basic idea is to iterate over the indices in order to make sure that you're comparing the appropriate rows and list items to one another. Once you do that, it's simple enough to parse the list item and make the appropriate comparisons.
Related
I'm extremely new to Apps Script and trying to make my first thing. It's a shopping list.
I want to create a function that will activate and then sort (by Column 1, 'Aisle #') all rows where there are values in a given other column (Column 3, 'Qty'). The idea is to sort the items on the list for that week (i.e., with a value filled in for Qty) by aisle to give me the order I should be looking for things. I do not want to sort items which are in the spreadsheet but without
a value for Qty.
Here is what I've got so far:
var sheet = ss.getActiveSheet()
var range = sheet.getDataRange();
var rangeVals = range.getValues()
function orderList2(){
if(rangeVals[3] != ""){
sheet.activate().sort(1, ascending=true);
};
};
I'm trying to use "if" to define which rows to activate before doing the sort (as I don't want to sort the entire sheet—I only want to sort the items I will be buying that week, i.e., the items with a value in Column 3). The script runs but ends up sorting the entire sheet.
The closest thing I could find was an iteration, but when I did it, it ended up only activating the top-left cell.
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers,
Nick
Answer:
Use Range.sort() instead of Sheet.sort() if you don't want to sort the entire sheet.
Explanation:
You want to sort the data according to the value in column A (Aisle #), if the corresponding value in C (Qty) is not empty.
If my assumption is correct, the rows where Qty is empty should go below the rest of data, and they should not be sorted according to their Aisle #.
In this case, I'd suggest the following:
Sort the full range of data (headers excluded) according to Qty, so that the rows without a Qty are placed at the bottom, using Range.sort() (if you don't need to exclude the headers, you can use Sheet.sort() instead).
Use SpreadsheetApp.flush() to apply the sort to the spreadsheet.
Use getValues(), filter() and length to know how many rows in the initial range have their column C populated (variable QtyElements in the sample below).
Using QtyElements, retrieve the range of rows with a non-empty column C, and sort it according to column 1, using Range.sort().
Code sample:
function orderList2() {
var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSheet();
var firstRow = 2; // Range starts at row 2, header row excluded
var fullRange = sheet.getRange(firstRow, 1, sheet.getLastRow() - firstRow + 1, sheet.getLastColumn());
fullRange.sort(3); // Sort full range according to Qty
SpreadsheetApp.flush(); // Refresh spreadsheet
var QtyElements = fullRange.getValues().filter(row => row[2] !== "").length;
sheet.getRange(firstRow, 1, QtyElements, sheet.getLastColumn())
.sort(1); // If not specified, default ascending: true
//.sort({column: 1, ascending: false}); // Uncomment if you want descending sort
}
Reference:
Range.sort(sortSpecObj)
I have a spreadsheet (here's a copy) with the following (headered) columns:
A: Indices for a list of groceries;
B: Names for the groceries to be indexed by column A;
C: Check column with "x" for inactive items in column B, empty otherwise;
D: Sorting indices that I want to apply to column B;
Currently, I am getting the sorted AND filtered result with this formula:
=SORT(FILTER(B2:B; C2:C = ""); FILTER(D2:D; C2:C = ""); TRUE)
The problem is that I need to apply the filter two times: one for the items and one for the indices, otherwise I get a mismatch between elements for the Sort function.
I feel that this doesn't scale well since it creates duplication.
Is there a way to get the same results with a simpler formula or another arrangement of columns?
=SORT(FILTER({Itens!B2:B\Itens!G2:G}; Itens!D2:D=""))
=SORT(FILTER({Itens!B2:B\Itens!G2:G}; Itens!D2:D="");2;1)
or maybe: =SORT(FILTER(Itens!B2:B; Itens!D2:D="");2;1)
I am currently experiencing some issues regarding table view sorting from firebase. What I am trying to achieve is to list 5 different price tiers in a table view, all named (tier1, tier5, tier12, tier24, tierPermanent) - each containing a value (the price).
However, while fetching these values from the database, I find it rather difficult to show these in a table view - both containing text (the time) and the price tiers. What I am doing now, is that I am using observeEventType to display all the values, and then store each value in a dictionary. After that I append it to an array of dictionaries of type [[String:String]].
What I am struggling with, is to display this in a descending order in a table view. Please take note that all of these 5 values are optional, and therefore they might not contain any value - so instead of showing a value on the very first row, and a blank cell at the second, and then a new value on the third row - I want it to display descending compared to the values. (The permanent value will always be on top if it contains a value, or else tier24 will be on top, or else tier12.). For each cell.
I know I would access the unique value with cell.nameLabel.text = cell[indexPath.row]["tier.."] as? String - but the problem is that I need to have some sort of ordering, and make sure the data isn't displayed twice. (order with both key and value - to display both key and value in the same cell.).
Any ideas on how I would approach this?
Thanks in advance.
There's really not enough data to fully address the question but how about this:
A Firebase structure:
tiers
-Y0998uas9j
tier_type: tier_24
time: 20160705130100
sort_order: 1
-Ykja9s9js9
tier_type: tier_05
time: 20160705130300
sort_order: 3
-Yukl9jh8sj
tier_type: tier_permanent
time: 20160705130500
sort_order: 0
tiers have a sort order to keep them in the correct order.
tier_permanent = 0
tier_24 = 1
tier_12 = 2
tier_05 = 3
tier_01 = 4
and some code to read them in and keep the sorted, descending:
var myArray = [[String:String]]()
let tiersRef = self.myRootRef.child("tiers")
tiersRef.observeSingleEventOfType(.Value, withBlock: { snapshot in
for child in snapshot.children {
var dict = [String: String]()
dict["fbKey"] = child.key as String
dict["tier_type"] = child.value["tier_type"] as? String
dict["timestam"] = child.value["time"] as? String
dict["sort_order"] = child.value["sort_order"] as? String
myArray.append(dict)
}
myArray.sortInPlace( {$0["sort_order"] < $1["sort_order"]} )
self.mySuperTableView.reloadData()
for dict in myArray { //meh, print them so show they are sorted
print(dict)
}
})
This addresses: keeping them sorted, descending, and if the tires are not present in the database, they will obviously not be read in.
The issue is though, it's unclear from he question the correlation between the tier names and the value (time?). I'll update once more information has been presented.
I need to keep the original DataTable and filter it based on list values. I've tried to hide rows that don't match up to the list but it doesn't work instantly. I don't want to copy the list to another dataTable and bind my dataGridView to is cause i have too much tied up to the original DataTable. Filtering only works for a few conditions but the list is holds only the values that are needed. Is there a LINQ solution to this? C# only please. This is how I got my list. There is another dataGridView that holds primary key for the datatable that I need to filter. It's key is held in a comboBox.
DataTable MainTable = MainDataSet.Tables["MyTable"];
DataTable lookupTable = lookupDataSet.Tables["MyLookupTable"];
var List = (from x in lookupTable.AsEnumerable()
where x.Field<string>("kAutoInc") == comboBox.SelectedValue.ToString()
select x.Field<int>("Pct")).ToList();
var a = MainTable.AsEnumerable().Where(r =>
List .Any(id => id == r.Field<int>("Pct")));
This gives me values of int 30, 40, 50, 60...
The DataGridView has a matching column "Pct" that I need to filter rows that only contain these values. I know it seems easy but I just can't seem to get it to work.
Please use DataView instead.
dataview dv=new dataview(datatable);
dv.filter=string.format("column1={0}","value1");
Like that.
Say there's a list. Each item in the list has a unique id.
List [5, 2, 4, 3, 1]
When I remove an item from this list, the unique id from the item goes with it.
List [5, 2, 3, 1]
Now say I want to add another item to the list, and give it the least lowest unique id.
What's the easiest way to get the lowest unique id when adding a new item to the list?
Here's the restriction though: I'd prefer it if I didn't reassign the unique id of another item when deleting an item.
I realise it would be easy to find the unique id if I reassigned unique id 5 to unique id 4 when I deleted 4. Then I could get the length of the list (5) and creating the new item with the unique id with that number.
So is there another way, that doesn't involve iterating through the entire list?
EDIT:
Language is java, but I suppose I'm looking for a generic algorithm.
An easy fast way is to just put your deleted ids in a priority queue, and just pick the next id from there when you insert new ones (or use size() + 1 of the first list as id when the queue is empty). This would however require another list.
You could maintain a list of available ID's.
Declare a boolean array (pseudo code):
boolean register[3];
register[0] = false;
register[1] = false;
register[2] = false;
When you add an element, loop from the bottom of the register until a false value is found. Set the false value to true, assign that index as the unique identifier.
removeObject(index)
{
register[index] = false;
}
getsetLowestIndex()
{
for(i=0; i<register.size;i++)
{
if(register[i]==false)
{
register[i] = true;
return i;
}
}
// Array is full, increment register size
register.size = register.size + 1;
register[register.size] = true;
return register.size;
}
When you remove an element, simply set the index to false.
You can optimise this for larger lists by having continuality markers so you don't need to loop the entire thing.
This would work best for your example where the indexes are in no particular order, so you skip the need to sort them first.
Its equivalent to a search, just this time you search for a missing number. If your ID's are sorted integers, you can start going from bottom to top checking if the space between two ID's is 1.
If you know how many items in the list and its sorted you can implement a binary search.
I don't think you can do this without iterating through the list.
When you say
'Now say I want to add another item to
the list, and give it the least
highest unique id. '
I assume you mean you want to assign the lowest available ID that has not been used elsewhere.
You can do this:
private int GetLowestFreeID(List list){
for (int idx = 0; idx < list.Length; ++i){
if ( list[idx] == idx ) continue;
else return idx;
}
}
this returns the lowest free index.
This assumes your list is sorted, and is in C# but you get the idea.
The data structure that would be used to do this is a Priority Binary Heap that only allow unique values.
How about keeping the list sorted. and than you can remove it from one end easily.