I have this hash which I retrieve from a database:
original_hash = {
:name => "Luka",
:school => {
:id => "123",
:name => "Ieperman"
},
:testScores => [0.8, 0.5, 0.4, 0.9]
}
I'm writing an API and want to return a slightly different hash to the client:
result = {
:name => "Luka",
:schoolName => "Ieperman",
:averageScore => 0.65
}
This doesn't work because the method reshape doesn't exist. Does it exist by another name though?
result = original_hash.reshape do |hash|
{
:name => hash[:name],
:school => hash[:school][:name],
:averageScore => hash[:testScores].reduce(:+).to_f / hash[:testScores].count
}
end
I'm new to Ruby so thought I'd ask before I go off overriding core classes. I'm sure it must exist as I always find myself reshaping hashes when writing an API. Or am I totally missing something?
The implementation is dead simple but, like I said, I don't want to override Hash if I don't need to:
class Hash
def reshape
yield(self)
end
end
BTW, I know about this:
result = {
:name => original_hash[:name],
:school => original_hash[:school][:name],
:averageScore => original_hash[:testScores].reduce(:+).to_f / original_hash[:testScores].count
}
But sometimes I don't have an original_hash variable and instead I'm operating straight off a return value, or I'm inside a one liner where this block based approach would be convenient.
Real World example:
#get the relevant user settings from the database, and reshape the hash into the form we want
settings = users.find_one({:_id => oid(a[:userID])}, {:emailNotifications => 1, :newsletter => 1, :defaultSocialNetwork => 1}).reshape do |hash|
{
:emailNotifications => hash[:emailNotifications] == 1,
:newsletter => hash[:newsletter] == 1,
:defaultSocialNetwork => hash[:defaultSocialNetwork]
}
end rescue fail
If you're using Ruby >= 1.9, try a combination of Object#tap and Hash#replace
def foo(); { foo: "bar" }; end
foo().tap { |h| h.replace({original_foo: h[:foo]}) }
# => { :original_foo => "bar" }
Since Hash#replace works in-place, you might find this a bit safer:
foo().clone.tap { |h| h.replace({original_foo: h[:foo]}) }
But this is getting a bit noisy. I'd probably go ahead and monkey-patch Hash at this stage.
From an API perspective, you may be looking for a representer object to sit between your internal model, and the API representation (prior to format-based serialisation). This doesn't work using the shortest, convenient Ruby syntax inline for a hash, but is a nice declarative approach.
For instance, the Grape gem (other API frameworks are available!) might solve the same real-world problem as:
# In a route
get :user_settings do
settings = users.find_one({:_id => oid(a[:userID])}, {:emailNotifications => 1, :newsletter => 1, :defaultSocialNetwork => 1})
present settings, :with => SettingsEntity
end
# Wherever you define your entities:
class SettingsEntity < Grape::Entity
expose( :emailNotifications ) { |hash,options| hash[:emailNotifications] == 1 }
expose( :newsletter ) { |hash,options| hash[:newsletter] == 1 }
expose( :defaultSocialNetwork ) { |hash,options| hash[:defaultSocialNetwork] }
end
This syntax is more geared towards handling ActiveRecord, or similar models, and not hashes though. So not a direct answer to your question, but I think implied by you building up an API. If you put in a representer layer of some kind now (not necessarily grape-entity), you will be thankful for it later, as you'll be better able to manage your model-to-API data mappings when they need to change.
You can replace the call to "reshape" with the builtin method Object#instance_eval and it will work exactly as such. Note however that there may be some unexpected behavior since you evaluating code in the context of the receiving object (e.g. if using "self").
result = original_hash.instance_eval do |hash|
# ...
This abstraction does not exist in the core but people uses it (with different names, pipe, into, as, peg, chain, ...). Note that this let-abstraction is useful not only for hashes, so add it to the class Object.
Is there a `pipe` equivalent in ruby?
if you put your hashes in a array you could use the map function to convert the entries
I can't think of anything that will do this magically, since you're essentially wanting to remap an arbitrary data structure.
Something you may be able to do is:
require 'pp'
original_hash = {
:name=>'abc',
:school => {
:name=>'school name'
},
:testScores => [1,2,3,4,5]
}
result = {}
original_hash.each {|k,v| v.is_a?(Hash) ? v.each {|k1,v1| result[ [k.to_s, k1.to_s].join('_') ] = v1 } : result[k] = v}
result # {:name=>"abc", "school_name"=>"school name", :testScores=>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]}
but this is incredibly messy and I'd personally be unhappy with it. Performing a manual transform on known keys is probaby better and more maintainable.
Check Facets Hash extensions.
Related
I have a hash that looks like
{
"lt"=>"456",
"c"=>"123",
"system"=>{"pl"=>"valid-player-name", "plv"=>"player_version_1"},
"usage"=>{"trace"=>"1", "cq"=>"versionid", "stream"=>"od",
"uid"=>"9", "pst"=>[["0", "1", "10"]], "dur"=>"0", "vt"=>"2"}
}
How can I go about turning it into a hash that looks like
{
"lt"=>"456",
"c"=>"123",
"pl"=>"valid-player-name",
"plv"=>"player_version_1",
"trace"=>"1",
"cq"=>"versionid",
"stream"=>"od",
"uid"=>"9",
"pst"=>[["0", "1", "10"]], "dur"=>"0", "vt"=>"2"
}
I basically want to get rid of the keys system and usage and keep what's nested inside them
"Low-tech" version :)
h = { ... }
h.merge!(h.delete('system'))
h.merge!(h.delete('usage'))
Assuming no rails:
hash.reject { |key, _| %w(system usage).include? key }.merge(hash['system']).merge(hash['usage'])
With active support:
hash.except('system', 'usage').merge(hash['system']).merge(hash['usage'])
A more generic version.
Merge any key that contains a hash:
h = { ... }
hnew = h.inject(h.dup) { |h2, (k, v)|
h2.merge!(h2.delete(k)) if v.is_a?(Hash)
h2
}
Assuming that your data has the same structure each time, I might opt for something simple and easy to understand like this:
def manipulate_hash(h)
{
"lt" => h["lt"],
"c" => h["c"],
"pl" => h["system"]["pl"],
"plv" => h["system"]["plv"],
"trace" => h["usage"]["trace"],
"cq" => h["usage"]["cq"],
"stream" => h["usage"]["stream"],
"uid" => h["uid"],
"pst" => h["pst"],
"dur" => h["dur"],
"vt" => h["vt"]
}
end
I chose to make the hash using one big hash literal expression that spans multiple lines. If you don't like that, you could build it up on multiple lines like this:
def manipulate_hash
r = {}
r["lt"] = h["lt"]
r["c"] = h["c"]
...
r
end
You might consider using fetch instead of the [] angle brackets. That way, you'll get an exception if the expected key is missing from the hash. For example, replace h["lt"] with h.fetch("lt").
If you plan to have an arbitrarily large list of keys to merge, this is an easily scaleable method:
["system", "usage"].each_with_object(myhash) do |key|
myhash.merge!(myhash.delete(key))
end
I am currently having trouble writing a test that addresses the eligibility_settings of a record I have. I am having trouble pulling out one of the specific elements from this hash.
Specifically I want to test that by making a change elsewhere in a different function that changes the min age of a specific player, and so what I am really trying to test is the eligibility_settings.min_age. But i'm having trouble within my test isolating that out.
My hash looks like this
{
:name => "player1",
:label => "redTeam_1_1",
:group => "adult",
:teamId => 7,
:eligibility_settings => {
"min_age" => 18,
"player_gender" => "female",
"union_players_only" => true
}
}
However when I try looping through this hash, I am having trouble isolating that one element.
i've tried something like
team.get_players.first.map do |settings, value|
value.tap do |x, y|
y[3]
end
end
However It seems like what i've been trying, and my approach has not been working quite right.
Would anyone have any idea what I could do with this?
Although #SergioTulentsev gave the proper response, in the future if you are going to be looping through hashes, below is one way to iterate through the keys and grab the value you want.
hash = {
:name => "player1",
:label => "redTeam_1_1",
:group => "adult",
:teamId => 7,
:eligibility_settings => {
"min_age" => 18,
"player_gender" => "female",
"union_players_only" => true
}
}
hash.map do |settings, value|
p hash[:eligibility_settings]['min_age'] if settings == :eligibility_settings
end # output 18
Given the following code,
How would you refactor this so that the method search_word has access to issueid?
I would say that changing the function search_word so it accepts 3 arguments or making issueid an instance variable (#issueid) could be considered as an example of bad practices, but honestly I cannot find any other solution. If there's no solution aside from this, would you mind explaining the reason why there's no other solution?
Please bear in mind that it is a Ruby on Rails model.
def search_type_of_relation_in_text(issueid, type_of_causality)
relation_ocurrences = Array.new
keywords_list = {
:C => ['cause', 'causes'],
:I => ['prevent', 'inhibitors'],
:P => ['type','supersets'],
:E => ['effect', 'effects'],
:R => ['reduce', 'inhibited'],
:S => ['example', 'subsets']
}[type_of_causality.to_sym]
for keyword in keywords_list
relation_ocurrences + search_word(keyword, relation_type)
end
return relation_ocurrences
end
def search_word(keyword, relation_type)
relation_ocurrences = Array.new
#buffer.search('//p[text()*= "'+keyword+'"]/a').each { |relation|
relation_suggestion_url = 'http://en.wikipedia.org'+relation.attributes['href']
relation_suggestion_title = URI.unescape(relation.attributes['href'].gsub("_" , " ").gsub(/[\w\W]*\/wiki\//, ""))
if not #current_suggested[relation_type].include?(relation_suggestion_url)
if #accepted[relation_type].include?(relation_suggestion_url)
relation_ocurrences << {:title => relation_suggestion_title, :wiki_url => relation_suggestion_url, :causality => type_of_causality, :status => "A", :issue_id => issueid}
else
relation_ocurrences << {:title => relation_suggestion_title, :wiki_url => relation_suggestion_url, :causality => type_of_causality, :status => "N", :issue_id => issueid}
end
end
}
end
If you need additional context, pass it through as an additional argument. That's how it's supposed to work.
Setting #-type instance variables to pass context is bad form as you've identified.
There's a number of Ruby conventions you seem to be unaware of:
Instead of Array.new just use [ ], and instead of Hash.new use { }.
Use a case statement or a constant instead of defining a Hash and then retrieving only one of the elements, discarding the remainder.
Avoid using return unless strictly necessary, as the last operation is always returned by default.
Use array.each do |item| instead of for item in array
Use do ... end instead of { ... } for multi-line blocks, where the curly brace version is generally reserved for one-liners. Avoids confusion with hash declarations.
Try and avoid duplicating large chunks of code when the differences are minor. For instance, declare a temporary variable, conditionally manipulate it, then store it instead of defining multiple independent variables.
With that in mind, here's a reworking of it:
KEYWORDS = {
:C => ['cause', 'causes'],
:I => ['prevent', 'inhibitors'],
:P => ['type','supersets'],
:E => ['effect', 'effects'],
:R => ['reduce', 'inhibited'],
:S => ['example', 'subsets']
}
def search_type_of_relation_in_text(issue_id, type_of_causality)
KEYWORDS[type_of_causality.to_sym].collect do |keyword|
search_word(keyword, relation_type, issue_id)
end
end
def search_word(keyword, relation_type, issue_id)
relation_occurrences = [ ]
#buffer.search(%Q{//p[text()*= "#{keyword}'"]/a}).each do |relation|
relation_suggestion_url = "http://en.wikipedia.org#{relation.attributes['href']}"
relation_suggestion_title = URI.unescape(relation.attributes['href'].gsub("_" , " ").gsub(/[\w\W]*\/wiki\//, ""))
if (!#current_suggested[relation_type].include?(relation_suggestion_url))
occurrence = {
:title => relation_suggestion_title,
:wiki_url => relation_suggestion_url,
:causality => type_of_causality,
:issue_id => issue_id
}
occurrence[:status] =
if (#accepted[relation_type].include?(relation_suggestion_url))
'A'
else
'N'
end
relation_ocurrences << occurrence
end
end
relation_occurrences
end
I need a bidirectional Hash table in Ruby. For example:
h = {:abc => 123, :xyz => 789, :qaz => 789, :wsx => [888, 999]}
h.fetch(:xyz) # => 789
h.rfetch(123) # => abc
h.rfetch(789) # => [:xyz, :qaz]
h.rfetch(888) # => :wsx
Method rfetch means reversed fetch and is only my proposal.
Note three things:
If multiple keys map at the same value then rfetch returns all of them, packed in array.
If value is an array then rfetch looks for its param among elements of the array.
Bidirectional Hash means that both fetch and rfetch should execute in constant time.
Does such structure exists in Ruby (including external libraries)?
I thought about implementing it using two one-directional Hashes synchronized when one of them is modified (and packing it into class to avoid synchronization problems) but maybe I could use an already existing solution?
You could build something yourself pretty easily, just use a simple object that wraps two hashes (one for the forward direction, one for the reverse). For example:
class BiHash
def initialize
#forward = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = [ ] }
#reverse = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = [ ] }
end
def insert(k, v)
#forward[k].push(v)
#reverse[v].push(k)
v
end
def fetch(k)
fetch_from(#forward, k)
end
def rfetch(v)
fetch_from(#reverse, v)
end
protected
def fetch_from(h, k)
return nil if(!h.has_key?(k))
v = h[k]
v.length == 1 ? v.first : v.dup
end
end
Look ups will behave just like normal hash lookups (because they are normal hash lookups). Add some operators and maybe decent to_s and inspect implementations and you're good.
Such a thing works like this:
b = BiHash.new
b.insert(:a, 'a')
b.insert(:a, 'b')
b.insert(:a, 'c')
b.insert(:b, 'a')
b.insert(:c, 'x')
puts b.fetch(:a).inspect # ["a", "b", "c"]
puts b.fetch(:b).inspect # "a"
puts b.rfetch('a').inspect # [:a, :b]
puts b.rfetch('x').inspect # :c
puts b.fetch(:not_there).inspect # nil
puts b.rfetch('not there').inspect # nil
There's nothing wrong with building your tools when you need them.
There is no such structure built-in in Ruby.
Note that Hash#rassoc does something similar, but it returns only the first match and is linear-time:
h = {:abc => 123, :xyz => 789, :qaz => 789, :wsx => [888, 999]}
h.rassoc(123) # => [:abc, 123]
Also, it isn't possible to fullfill your requirements in Ruby in a perfectly safe manner, as you won't be able to detect changes in values that are arrays. E.g.:
h = MyBidirectionalArray.new(:foo => 42, :bar => [:hello, :world])
h.rfetch(:world) # => :bar
h[:bar].shift
h[:bar] # => [:world]
h.rfetch(:world) # => should be nil, but how to detect this??
Computing a hash everytime to detect a change will make your lookup linear-time. You could duplicate the array-values and freeze them, though (like Ruby does for Hash keys that are strings!)
What you seem to need is a Graph class, which could have a different API than a Hash, no? You can check out rgl or similar, but I don't know how they're implemented.
Good luck.
There is a Hash#invert method (http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html#method-i-invert) to achieve this. It won't map multiple values to an array though.
Try this:
class Hash
def rfetch val
select { |k,v| v.is_a?(Array) ? v.include?(val) : v == val }.map { |x| x[0] }
end
end
If you're not doing lots of updates to this hash, you might be able to use inverthash.
I've got an array of hashes representing objects as a response to an API call. I need to pull data from some of the hashes, and one particular key serves as an id for the hash object. I would like to convert the array into a hash with the keys as the ids, and the values as the original hash with that id.
Here's what I'm talking about:
api_response = [
{ :id => 1, :foo => 'bar' },
{ :id => 2, :foo => 'another bar' },
# ..
]
ideal_response = {
1 => { :id => 1, :foo => 'bar' },
2 => { :id => 2, :foo => 'another bar' },
# ..
}
There are two ways I could think of doing this.
Map the data to the ideal_response (below)
Use api_response.find { |x| x[:id] == i } for each record I need to access.
A method I'm unaware of, possibly involving a way of using map to build a hash, natively.
My method of mapping:
keys = data.map { |x| x[:id] }
mapped = Hash[*keys.zip(data).flatten]
I can't help but feel like there is a more performant, tidier way of doing this. Option 2 is very performant when there are a very minimal number of records that need to be accessed. Mapping excels here, but it starts to break down when there are a lot of records in the response. Thankfully, I don't expect there to be more than 50-100 records, so mapping is sufficient.
Is there a smarter, tidier, or more performant way of doing this in Ruby?
Ruby <= 2.0
> Hash[api_response.map { |r| [r[:id], r] }]
#=> {1=>{:id=>1, :foo=>"bar"}, 2=>{:id=>2, :foo=>"another bar"}}
However, Hash::[] is pretty ugly and breaks the usual left-to-right OOP flow. That's why Facets proposed Enumerable#mash:
> require 'facets'
> api_response.mash { |r| [r[:id], r] }
#=> {1=>{:id=>1, :foo=>"bar"}, 2=>{:id=>2, :foo=>"another bar"}}
This basic abstraction (convert enumerables to hashes) was asked to be included in Ruby long ago, alas, without luck.
Note that your use case is covered by Active Support: Enumerable#index_by
Ruby >= 2.1
[UPDATE] Still no love for Enumerable#mash, but now we have Array#to_h. It creates an intermediate array, but it's better than nothing:
> object = api_response.map { |r| [r[:id], r] }.to_h
Something like:
ideal_response = api_response.group_by{|i| i[:id]}
#=> {1=>[{:id=>1, :foo=>"bar"}], 2=>[{:id=>2, :foo=>"another bar"}]}
It uses Enumerable's group_by, which works on collections, returning matches for whatever key value you want. Because it expects to find multiple occurrences of matching key-value hits it appends them to arrays, so you end up with a hash of arrays of hashes. You could peel back the internal arrays if you wanted but could run a risk of overwriting content if two of your hash IDs collided. group_by avoids that with the inner array.
Accessing a particular element is easy:
ideal_response[1][0] #=> {:id=>1, :foo=>"bar"}
ideal_response[1][0][:foo] #=> "bar"
The way you show at the end of the question is another valid way of doing it. Both are reasonably fast and elegant.
For this I'd probably just go:
ideal_response = api_response.each_with_object(Hash.new) { |o, h| h[o[:id]] = o }
Not super pretty with the multiple brackets in the block but it does the trick with just a single iteration of the api_response.