I have some classes like
class Demo1 < Struct.new(:text, :text2)
end
class Demo2 < Struct.new(:text, :text2, :text3)
end
How can I call constructor of each class if I only have name and hash of parameters
I need to write method like this,
but this is wrong becasue after send(:new,args) Struct will contain :text which equal to args
def call_demo_object(demo_name, args={})
demo_name.to_s.constantize.send(:new,args)
end
The mian problem is calling constructor with random parameters from hash
variant one:
def call_demo_object(demo_name, args={})
z = [':new']
args.keys.each do |key|
z.push "args[:"+key.to_s+"]"
end
eval('demo_name.to_s.constantize.send(' + z.join(', ') +')' )
end
variant two:
def call_demo_object(demo_name, args={})
a = demo_name.to_s.constantize.send(:new)
args.each do |key, value|
a[key] = value if a.members.include?(key)
end
a
end
One possible variant:
def call_demo_object(demo_name, args={})
obj = demo_name.new
obj.members.each do |member|
obj[member] = args[member]
end
obj
end
It's pros:
args can be in any order
only availible structure members will be assigned
I see a couple of things wrong:
Not sure if your classes really look like that, but you'll need end at the end of them, otherwise you'll get syntax errors.
Also, constantize is not a method on strings in Ruby, it's something Rails defines. So you'll need to use
Kernel.const_get(demo_name.to_s)
to get the same functionality.
As pointed out in the comments I neglected to mention how to expand the parameters.
To do that you'll need to use what's called the "splat operator"
Kernel.const_get(demo_name.to_s).send(:new,*args) #notice the * in front of args
That will expand args out.
However, when args is a hash, say {:text=>"hello", :text2=>"hello2"}, it will expand it out to an array with 2 elements where each element is an array with they key in the first position and key in the second position.
Instead, if you pass an array in as args with the objects in order, you will get what you're looking for.
I think if you're going for what amounts to named parameters, you might have to try another route, but I don't know that for sure.
To go with optional or named parameters, you might look at how Rails does it: use a hash for the parameter, then pass in a hash with the keys. You can then keep a valid list of keys and check the passed-in hash and either reject them or raise an error.
Related
When given a string that is intended to be formatted with a hash of values to write into the string, is there a clean way to get all the keys that string is expecting values for?
I'm putting together text in a situation where there is a lot of room for customization, and several options for dynamic values to insert into the text. Some of the values are more expensive to get than others, so I'd like to be able to prepare my hash to send in to % to only include the values that are needed in the string.
Ideally I'd be able to query the system that performs the formatting on the string, but I'm not seeing any documentation of such an interface. What I'd like is something like:
"Your request for %{item} is at position %<pos>d".formatting_keys
>>> [:item, :pos]
When passing a hash to String#%, it will call the hash's default proc if a key is missing. You could utilize this behavior and make the proc sneakily collect the passed keys:
def format_keys(format_string)
keys = []
format_string % Hash.new { |_, k| keys << k ; 0 }
keys
end
format_keys("Your request for %{item} is at position %<pos>d")
#=> [:item, :pos]
Note that the proc's return value has to be a valid object for the various field types. I'm using 0 here which seems to work fine.
I'd like to be able to prepare my hash to send in to % to only include the values that are needed in the string.
Instead of a Hash, use an object that does the calculation on demand. That will be useful everywhere.
Use string interpolation to call the methods instead of format sequences.
class Whatever
def item
#item ||= calculate_item
end
def pos
#pos ||= calculate_pos
end
private
def calculate_item
# do something expensive
end
def calculate_pos
# do something expensive
end
end
obj = Whatever.new
puts "Your request for #{obj.item} is at position #{obj.pos.to_i}"
Using Ruby's own sequence parsing as per https://stackoverflow.com/a/74728162 is ideal, but you can also do your own:
class String
def format_keys
scan(
/
(?<!%) # don't match escaped sequence starts, e.g. "%%{"
(?:
(?<=%\{) [^\}]+ (?=\}) # contents of %{...}
| # OR
(?<=%\<) [^\>]+ (?=\>) # contents of %<...>
)
/x
)
end
end
Consider the following:
(1..10).inject{|memo, n| memo + n}
Question:
How does n know that it is supposed to store all the values from 1..10? I'm confused how Ruby is able to understand that n can automatically be associated with (1..10) right away, and memo is just memo.
I know Ruby code blocks aren't the same as the C or Java code blocks--Ruby code blocks work a bit differently. I'm confused as to how variables that are in between the upright pipes '|' will automatically be assigned to parts of an object. For example:
hash1 = {"a" => 111, "b" => 222}
hash2 = {"b" => 333, "c" => 444}
hash1.merge(hash2) {|key, old, new| old}
How do '|key, old, new|' automatically assign themselves in such a way such that when I type 'old' in the code block, it is automatically aware that 'old' refers to the older hash value? I never assigned 'old' to anything, just declared it. Can someone explain how this works?
The parameters for the block are determined by the method definition. The definition for reduce/inject is overloaded (docs) and defined in C, but if you wanted to define it, you could do it like so (note, this doesn't cover all the overloaded cases for the actual reduce definition):
module Enumerable
def my_reduce(memo=nil, &blk)
# if a starting memo is not given, it defaults to the first element
# in the list and that element is skipped for iteration
elements = memo ? self : self[1..-1]
memo ||= self[0]
elements.each { |element| memo = blk.call(memo, element) }
memo
end
end
This method definition determines what values to use for memo and element and calls the blk variable (a block passed to the method) with them in a specific order.
Note, however, that blocks are not like regular methods, because they don't check the number of arguments. For example: (note, this example shows the usage of yield which is another way to pass a block parameter)
def foo
yield 1
end
# The b and c variables here will be nil
foo { |a, b, c| [a,b,c].compact.sum } # => 1
You can also use deconstruction to define variables at the time you run the block, for example if you wanted to reduce over a hash you could do something like this:
# this just copies the hash
{a: 1}.reduce({}) { |memo, (key, val)| memo[key] = val; memo }
How this works is, calling reduce on a hash implicitly calls to_a, which converts it to a list of tuples (e.g. {a: 1}.to_a = [[:a, 1]]). reduce passes each tuple as the second argument to the block. In the place where the block is called, the tuple is deconstructed into separate key and value variables.
A code block is just a function with no name. Like any other function, it can be called multiple times with different arguments. If you have a method
def add(a, b)
a + b
end
How does add know that sometimes a is 5 and sometimes a is 7?
Enumerable#inject simply calls the function once for each element, passing the element as an argument.
It looks a bit like this:
module Enumerable
def inject(memo)
each do |el|
memo = yield memo, el
end
memo
end
end
And memo is just memo
what do you mean, "just memo"? memo and n take whatever values inject passes. And it is implemented to pass accumulator/memo as first argument and current collection element as second argument.
How do '|key, old, new|' automatically assign themselves
They don't "assign themselves". merge assigns them. Or rather, passes those values (key, old value, new value) in that order as block parameters.
If you instead write
hash1.merge(hash2) {|foo, bar, baz| bar}
It'll still work exactly as before. Parameter names mean nothing [here]. It's actual values that matter.
Just to simplify some of the other good answers here:
If you are struggling understanding blocks, an easy way to think of them is as a primitive and temporary method that you are creating and executing in place, and the values between the pipe characters |memo| is simply the argument signature.
There is no special special concept behind the arguments, they are simply there for the method you are invoking to pass a variable to, like calling any other method with an argument. Similar to a method, the arguments are "local" variables within the scope of the block (there are some nuances to this depending on the syntax you use to call the block, but I digress, that is another matter).
The method you pass the block to simply invokes this "temporary method" and passes the arguments to it that it is designed to do. Just like calling a method normally, with some slight differences, such as there are no "required" arguments. If you do not define any arguments to receive, it will happily just not pass them instead of raising an ArgumentError. Likewise, if you define too many arguments for the block to receive, they will simply be nil within the block, no errors for not being defined.
I have a class that calls different suppliers to find if an item is available. How do I execute the class that each constant returns?
class ItemProvider
ADAPTER_ONE = Providers::ItemFromSupplierOne
ADAPTER_TWO = Providers::ItemFromSupplierTwo
def get_item(item)
id = ItemDetail.new(item)
%w(ADAPTER_ONE ADAPTER_TWO).each do |provider|
item_detail = provider.new(id)
break if item_detail.valid?
end
item_detail
end
Your problem is that you aren't making an array that contains the constants' values; you're making an array with the strings "ADAPTER_ONE" and "ADAPTER_TWO". The %w() syntax always makes an array of strings — it doesn't resolve variable names.
What you want is to change your get_item code to something like this:
def get_item(item)
id = ItemDetail.new(item)
[ADAPTER_ONE, ADAPTER_TWO].each do |provider|
item_detail = provider.new(id)
break item_detail if item_detail.valid?
end or nil # break automatically makes the block return the value you break with
end
As an aside, personally, I think I'd rewrite it like this:
def get_item(item)
id = ItemDetail.new(item)
[ADAPTER_ONE, ADAPTER_TWO].map {|provider| provider.new(id) }.find &:valid?
end
Yup you have an array of strings not constants but if you want to go down that road in using classes from strings well it will be nice if you look at http://blog.sidu.in/2008/02/loading-classes-from-strings-in-ruby.html#.UuGdmGQ1i2w .Maybe it is not directly related to your problem but it is a good read.
I have a method met1 that takes hash values as parameters.
For example: met1('abc' => 'xyz')
What should be the syntax when I define the method? Can it be something like this?
def met1(options)
puts options
end
I know the above syntax works. But how can I access the individual hash key and value inside the met1? (where key is abc and value is xyz?) Thank you!
Thats easy
met1("abc" => "xyz")
def met1(options)
puts options
# with key
puts options["abc"]
end
I assume you know what the options might contain in terms of keys right? if not,
def met1(options)
puts options.keys # options is the hash you passed it, use it like one
end
Your syntax is correct. simply use options['key'] (in case 'key' is a string) in your method. It's customary to use symbols as keys, so in your example:
met1(:abc => 'xyz')
def met1(options)
puts options[:abc]
end
This is for an already existing public API that I cannot break, but I do wish to extend.
Currently the method takes a string or a symbol or anything else that makes sense when passed as the first parameter to send
I'd like to add the ability to send a list of strings, symbols, et cetera. I could just use is_a? Array, but there are other ways of sending lists, and that's not very ruby-ish.
I'll be calling map on the list, so the first inclination is to use respond_to? :map. But a string also responds to :map, so that won't work.
How about treating them all as Arrays? The behavior you want for Strings is the same as for an Array containing only that String:
def foo(obj, arg)
[*arg].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
The [*arg] trick works because the splat operator (*) turns a single element into itself or an Array into an inline list of its elements.
Later
This is basically just a syntactically sweetened version or Arnaud's answer, though there are subtle differences if you pass an Array containing other Arrays.
Later still
There's an additional difference having to do with foo's return value. If you call foo(bar, :baz), you might be surprised to get [baz] back. To solve this, you can add a Kestrel:
def foo(obj, arg)
returning(arg) do |args|
[*args].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
end
which will always return arg as passed. Or you could do returning(obj) so you could chain calls to foo. It's up to you what sort of return-value behavior you want.
A critical detail that was overlooked in all of the answers: strings do not respond to :map, so the simplest answer is in the original question: just use respond_to? :map.
Since Array and String are both Enumerables, there's not an elegant way to say "a thing that's an Enumberable, but not a String," at least not in the way being discussed.
What I would do is duck-type for Enumerable (responds_to? :[]) and then use a case statement, like so:
def foo(obj, arg)
if arg.respond_to?(:[])
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
else arg.each { |method_name| obj.send(method_name) }
end
end
end
or even cleaner:
def foo(obj, arg)
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
when Enumerable then arg.each { |method| obj.send(method) }
else nil
end
end
Perhaps the question wasn't clear enough, but a night's sleep showed me two clean ways to answer this question.
1: to_sym is available on String and Symbol and should be available on anything that quacks like a string.
if arg.respond_to? :to_sym
obj.send(arg, ...)
else
# do array stuff
end
2: send throws TypeError when passed an array.
begin
obj.send(arg, ...)
rescue TypeError
# do array stuff
end
I particularly like #2. I severely doubt any of the users of the old API are expecting TypeError to be raised by this method...
Let's say your function is named func
I would make an array from the parameters with
def func(param)
a = Array.new
a << param
a.flatten!
func_array(a)
end
You end up with implementing your function func_array for arrays only
with func("hello world") you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello world" ]
with func(["hello", "world"] ) you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello", "world" ]
Can you just switch behavior based on parameter.class.name? It's ugly, but if I understand correctly, you have a single method that you'll be passing multiple types to - you'll have to differentiate somehow.
Alternatively, just add a method that handles an array type parameter. It's slightly different behavior so an extra method might make sense.
Use Marshal to serialize your objects before sending these.
If you don't want to monkeypatch, just massage the list to an appropriate string before the send. If you don't mind monkeypatching or inheriting, but want to keep the same method signature:
class ToBePatched
alias_method :__old_takes_a_string, :takes_a_string
#since the old method wanted only a string, check for a string and call the old method
# otherwise do your business with the map on things that respond to a map.
def takes_a_string( string_or_mappable )
return __old_takes_a_string( string_or_mappable ) if String === string_or_mappable
raise ArgumentError unless string_or_mappable.responds_to?( :map )
# do whatever you wish to do
end
end
Between those 3 types I'd do this
is_array = var.respond_to?(:to_h)
is_string = var.respond_to?(:each_char)
is_symbol = var.respond_to?(:to_proc)
Should give a unique answer for [], :sym, 'str'