Nested hash defined?() [duplicate] - ruby

This question already has answers here:
How to avoid NoMethodError for missing elements in nested hashes, without repeated nil checks?
(16 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
What's the most concise way to determine if #hash[:key1][:key2] is defined, that does not throw an error if #hash or #hash[:key1] are nil?
defined?(#hash[:key1][:key2]) returns True if #hash[:key1] exists (it does not determine whether :key2 is defined)

When using ActiveSupport (Rails) or Backports, you can use try:
#hash[:key1].try(:fetch, :key2)
You could even handle #hash being nil:
#hash.try(:fetch, :key1).try(:fetch, :key2)
If you want #hash to always return a hash for a missing key:
#hash = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = {} }
#hash[:foo] # => {}
You could also define this recursive:
def recursive_hash
Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = recursive_hash }
end
#hash = recursive_hash
#hash[:foo][:bar][:blah] = 10
#hash # => {:foo => {:bar => {:blah => 10}}}
But to answer your question:
module HasNestedKey
Hash.send(:include, self)
def has_nested_key?(*args)
return false unless sub = self[args.shift]
return true if args.empty?
sub.respond_to?(:has_nested_key?) and sub.has_nested_key?(*args)
end
end
#hash.has_nested_key? :key1, :key2

Perhaps I am missing something, but if all you care about is concise...why not:
#hash && #hash[:key1] && #hash[:key1][:key2]
or if you want to save a few characters
#hash && (h = #hash[:key1]) && h[:key2]
if any part of this fails, it returns nil otherwise it returns the value associated with :key2 or true.
The reason the defined? returns true even if :key2 is not there is because it just checks whether the object you are referencing exists, which in that case is the method [] which is an alias for the method fetch which does exist on the hash #hash[:key1] but if that were to return nil, there is no fetch method on nil and it would return nil. That being said, if you had to go n deep into an embedded hash, at some point it would become more efficient to call:
defined?(#hash[:key1][:key2][:key3]) && #hash[:key1][:key2][:key3]

Using Hash#fetch
You can use the Hash#fetch method with a default of {} so that it is safe to call has_key? even if the first level key doesn't exist. e.g.
!hash.nil? && hash.fetch(key1, {}).has_key?(key2)
Alternative
Alternatively you can use the conditional operator e.g.
!hash.nil? && (hash.has_key?(key1) ? hash[key1].has_key?(key2) : false)
i.e. if hash doesn't have key key1 then just return false without looking for the second level key. If it does have key1 then return the result of checking key1's value for key2.
Also, if you want to check that hash[key1]'s value has a has_key? method before calling it:
!hash.nil? && (hash.has_key?(key1) ? hash[key1].respond_to?(:has_key?) &&
hash[key1].has_key?(key2) : false)

#hash[:key1].has_key? :key2

If you don't care about distinguishing nonexistent #hash[:key1][:key2] (at any of 3 levels) from #hash[:key1][:key2] == nil, this is quite clean and works for any depth:
[:key1,:key2].inject(hash){|h,k| h && h[k]}
If you want nil to be treated as existing, use this instead:
(hash[:key1].has_key?(:key2) rescue false)

Another option, one that I just discovered, is to extend Hash with a seek method. Technique comes from Corey O'Daniel.
Stick this in an initializer:
class Hash
def seek(*_keys_)
last_level = self
sought_value = nil
_keys_.each_with_index do |_key_, _idx_|
if last_level.is_a?(Hash) && last_level.has_key?(_key_)
if _idx_ + 1 == _keys_.length
sought_value = last_level[_key_]
else
last_level = last_level[_key_]
end
else
break
end
end
sought_value
end
end
Then just call:
#key_i_need = #hash.seek :one, :two, :three
You'll get the value, or nil if it doesn't exist.

Related

Working with Hashes that have a default value

Am learning to code with ruby. I am learning about hashes and i dont understand this code: count = Hash.new(0). It says that the 0 is a default value, but when i run it on irb it gives me an empty hash {}. If 0 is a default value why can't i see something like count ={0=>0}. Or is the zero an accumulator but doesn't go to the keys or values? Thanks
0 will be the fallback if you try to access a key in the hash that doesn't exist
For example:
count = Hash.new -> count['key'] => nil
vs
count = Hash.new(0) -> count['key'] => 0
To expand on the answer from #jeremy-ramos and comment from #mu-is-too-short.
There are two common gotcha's with defaulting hash values in this way.
1. Accidentally shared references.
Ruby uses the exact same object in memory that you pass in as the default value for every missed key.
For an immutable object (like 0), there is no problem. However you might want to write code like:
hash = Hash.new([])
hash[key] << value
or
hash = Hash.new({})
hash[key][second_key] = value
This will not do what you'd expect. Instead of hash[unknown_key] returning a new, empty array or hash it will return the exact same array/hash object for every key.
so doing:
hash = Hash.new([])
hash[key1] << value1
hash[key2] << value2
results in a hash where key1 and key2 both point to the same array object containing [value1, value2]
See related question here
Solution
To solve this you can create a hash with a default block argument instead (which is called whenever a missing key is accessed and lets you assign a value to the missed key)
hash = Hash.new{|h, key| h[key] = [] }
2. Assignment of missed keys with default values
When you access a missing key that returns the default value, you might expect that the hash will now contain that key with the value returned. It does not. Ruby does not modify the hash, it simply returns the default value. So, for example:
hash = Hash.new(0) #$> {}
hash.keys.empty? #$> true
hash[:foo] #$> 0
hash[:foo] == 0 #$> true
hash #$> {}
hash.keys.empty? #$> true
Solution
This confusion is also addressed using the block approach, where they keys value can be explicitly set.
The Hash.new docs are not very clear on this. I hope that the example below clarifies the difference and one of the frequent uses of Hash.new(0).
The first chunk of code uses Hash.new(0). The hash has a default value of 0, and when new keys are encountered, their value is 0. This method can be used to count the characters in the array.
The second chunk of code fails, because the default value for the key (when not assigned) is nil. This value cannot be used in addition (when counting), and generates an error.
count = Hash.new(0)
puts "count=#{count}"
# count={}
%w[a b b c c c].each do |char|
count[char] += 1
end
puts "count=#{count}"
# count={"a"=>1, "b"=>2, "c"=>3}
count = Hash.new
puts "count=#{count}"
%w[a b b c c c].each do |char|
count[char] += 1
# Fails: in `block in <main>': undefined method `+' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
end
puts "count=#{count}"
SEE ALSO:
What's the difference between "Hash.new(0)" and "{}"
TL;DR When you initialize hash using Hash.new you can setup default value or default proc (the value that would be returned if given key does not exist)
Regarding the question to understand this magic firstly you need to know that Ruby hashes have default values. To access default value you can use Hash#default method
This default value by default :) is nil
hash = {}
hash.default # => nil
hash[:key] # => nil
You can set default value with Hash#default=
hash = {}
hash.default = :some_value
hash[:key] # => :some_value
Very important note: it is dangerous to use mutable object as default because of side effect like this:
hash = {}
hash.default = []
hash[:key] # => []
hash[:other_key] << :some_item # will mutate default value
hash[:key] # => [:some_value]
hash.default # => [:some_value]
hash # => {}
To avoid this you can use Hash#default_proc and Hash#default_proc= methods
hash = {}
hash.default_proc # => nil
hash.default_proc = proc { [] }
hash[:key] # => []
hash[:other_key] << :some_item # will not mutate default value
hash[:other_key] # => [] # because there is no this key
hash[:other_key] = [:symbol]
hash[:other_key] << :some_item
hash[:other_key] # => [:symbol, :some_item]
hash[:key] # => [] # still empty array as default
Setting default cancels default_proc and vice versa
hash = {}
hash.default = :default
hash.default_proc = proc { :default_proc }
hash[:key] # => :default_proc
hash.default = :default
hash[:key] # => :default
hash.default_proc # => nil
Going back to Hash.new
When you pass argument to this method, you initialize default value
hash = Hash.new(0)
hash.default # => 0
hash.default_proc # => nil
When you pass block to this method, you initialize default proc
hash = Hash.new { 0 }
hash.default # => nil
hash[:key] # => 0

#dig wrapper method to accept a dynamic number of variables

I'm trying to write a method that accepts an unknown number of arguments and performs a Hash#dig on them.
def unknown_dig(hash, *args)
# do some magic?
hash.dig(non_array_args)
end
#example usage
unknown_dig(hash, 'a', 'b', 'c')
Is this possible?
Hash#dig was bestowed upon us in Ruby v2.3. To support earlier Ruby versions you can use Enumerable#reduce (aka inject). This is how we did it when I was a kid.
def dig_it(h,*keys)
keys.reduce(h) { |obj,k| obj && obj[k] }
end
h = { a: { b: 1 } }
dig_it(h, :a, :b)
#=> 1
dig_it(h, :a)
#=> {:b=>1}
dig_it(h, :a, :c)
#=> nil
dig_it(h, :c, :b)
#=> nil
If obj is a hash, as it is initially (h), when k is passed to the block obj[k] #=> nil if obj does not have a key k (or if obj has a key k whose value if nil), in which case obj && obj[k] #=> obj && nil #=> nil. The block calculation will therefore be obj && obj[k] #=> nil && obj[k] #=> nil for each of the remaining elements of keys that are passed to the block. (nil[k] would raise an exception but it is never executed.) If the hash obj has a key k with value false, the same outcome will result except false (rather than nil) will be returned.
Hash#dig (defined in Ruby 2.3) already does this:
hash = { a: { b: 1 } }
hash.dig(:a, :b) == hash.dig(*[:a, :b])
If you want to it more functional style (where you pass the hash as an argument instead of calling the method on it), it's easy:
def hash_dig(hash, *args)
hash.dig(*args)
end

How can I override Hash native brackets ([] access)

I want to override the Hash class native brackets in ruby.
Note I don't want to override them in a class that inherits from Hash (no subclassing), I want to actually override Hash itself, such that any hash anywhere will always inherit my behavior.
Specifically (bonus points for..) - I want this in order to natively emulate a hash with indifferent access. In JavaScript I would modify the prototype, Ruby is known for its metaprogramming, so I hope this is possible.
So what I am aiming for is:
>> # what do I do here to overload Hash's []?...
>> x = {a:123} # x is a native Hash
>> x[:a] # == 123, as usual
>> x['a'] # == 123, hooray!
I've tried:
1)
class Hash
define_method(:[]) { |other| puts "Hi, "; puts other }
end
and
class Hash
def []
puts 'bar'
end
end
Both crash irb.
This seems to get the job done.
class Hash
def [](key)
value = (fetch key, nil) || (fetch key.to_s, nil) || (fetch key.to_sym, nil)
end
def []=(key,val)
if (key.is_a? String) || (key.is_a? Symbol) #clear if setting str/sym
self.delete key.to_sym
self.delete key.to_s
end
merge!({key => val})
end
end
And now:
user = {name: 'Joe', 'age' => 20} #literal hash with both symbols and strings as keys
user['name'] == 'Joe' # cool!
user[:age] == 20 # cool!
For more details see: http://www.sellarafaeli.com/blog/ruby_monkeypatching_friendly_hashes
class Hash
def [] key
value = fetch key rescue
case key
when Symbol then "#{value}, as usual"
when String then "#{value}, hooray!"
else value end
end
end
If using Rails HashWithIndifferentAccess supports this functionality already, even if using Ruby you can weigh including Active Support to have this functionality.

Use case for `&&=`

I have seen and used by myself lots of ||= in Ruby code, but I have almost never seen or used &&= in practical application. Is there a use case for &&=?
Not to be glib, but the obvious use case is any time you would say x && foo and desire the result stored back into x. Here's one:
list = [[:foo,1],[:bar,2]]
result = list.find{ |e| e.first == term }
result &&= result.last # nil or the value part of the found tuple
any sort of iteration where you want to ensure that the evaluation of a boolean condition on all elements returns true for all the elements.
e.g.
result = true
array.each do |elem|
# ...
result &&= condition(elem) # boolean condition based on element value
end
# result is true only if all elements return true for the given condition
Validation of the document such as,
a = {'a' => ['string',123]}
where the element in a['a'] should be a String. To validate them, I think you can use,
def validate(doc, type)
valid = true
doc.each{|x|
valid &&= x.is_a? type
}
valid
end
1.9.3p392 :010 > validate(a['a'],String) => false

Accessing elements of nested hashes in ruby [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Ruby Style: How to check whether a nested hash element exists
(16 answers)
How to avoid NoMethodError for nil elements when accessing nested hashes? [duplicate]
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm working a little utility written in ruby that makes extensive use of nested hashes. Currently, I'm checking access to nested hash elements as follows:
structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
# I want structure[:a][:b]
value = nil
if structure.has_key?(:a) && structure[:a].has_key?(:b) then
value = structure[:a][:b]
end
Is there a better way to do this? I'd like to be able to say:
value = structure[:a][:b]
And get nil if :a is not a key in structure, etc.
Traditionally, you really had to do something like this:
structure[:a] && structure[:a][:b]
However, Ruby 2.3 added a method Hash#dig that makes this way more graceful:
structure.dig :a, :b # nil if it misses anywhere along the way
There is a gem called ruby_dig that will back-patch this for you.
Hash and Array have a method called dig.
value = structure.dig(:a, :b)
It returns nil if the key is missing at any level.
If you are using a version of Ruby older than 2.3, you can install a gem such as ruby_dig or hash_dig_and_collect, or implement this functionality yourself:
module RubyDig
def dig(key, *rest)
if value = (self[key] rescue nil)
if rest.empty?
value
elsif value.respond_to?(:dig)
value.dig(*rest)
end
end
end
end
if RUBY_VERSION < '2.3'
Array.send(:include, RubyDig)
Hash.send(:include, RubyDig)
end
The way I usually do this these days is:
h = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = {} }
This will give you a hash that creates a new hash as the entry for a missing key, but returns nil for the second level of key:
h['foo'] -> {}
h['foo']['bar'] -> nil
You can nest this to add multiple layers that can be addressed this way:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new { |hh, kk| hh[kk] = {} } }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['zar'] -> {}
h['scar']['far']['mar'] -> nil
You can also chain indefinitely by using the default_proc method:
h = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc) }
h['bar'] -> {}
h['tar']['star']['par'] -> {}
The above code creates a hash whose default proc creates a new Hash with the same default proc. So, a hash created as a default value when a lookup for an unseen key occurs will have the same default behavior.
EDIT: More details
Ruby hashes allow you to control how default values are created when a lookup occurs for a new key. When specified, this behavior is encapsulated as a Proc object and is reachable via the default_proc and default_proc= methods. The default proc can also be specified by passing a block to Hash.new.
Let's break this code down a little. This is not idiomatic ruby, but it's easier to break it out into multiple lines:
1. recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h, k|
2. h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
3. end
Line 1 declares a variable recursive_hash to be a new Hash and begins a block to be recursive_hash's default_proc. The block is passed two objects: h, which is the Hash instance the key lookup is being performed on, and k, the key being looked up.
Line 2 sets the default value in the hash to a new Hash instance. The default behavior for this hash is supplied by passing a Proc created from the default_proc of the hash the lookup is occurring in; ie, the default proc the block itself is defining.
Here's an example from an IRB session:
irb(main):011:0> recursive_hash = Hash.new do |h,k|
irb(main):012:1* h[k] = Hash.new(&h.default_proc)
irb(main):013:1> end
=> {}
irb(main):014:0> recursive_hash[:foo]
=> {}
irb(main):015:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{}}
When the hash at recursive_hash[:foo] was created, its default_proc was supplied by recursive_hash's default_proc. This has two effects:
The default behavior for recursive_hash[:foo] is the same as recursive_hash.
The default behavior for hashes created by recursive_hash[:foo]'s default_proc will be the same as recursive_hash.
So, continuing in IRB, we get the following:
irb(main):016:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar]
=> {}
irb(main):017:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{}}}
irb(main):018:0> recursive_hash[:foo][:bar][:zap]
=> {}
irb(main):019:0> recursive_hash
=> {:foo=>{:bar=>{:zap=>{}}}}
I made rubygem for this. Try vine.
Install:
gem install vine
Usage:
hash.access("a.b.c")
I think one of the most readable solutions is using Hashie:
require 'hashie'
myhash = Hashie::Mash.new({foo: {bar: "blah" }})
myhash.foo.bar
=> "blah"
myhash.foo?
=> true
# use "underscore dot" for multi-level testing
myhash.foo_.bar?
=> true
myhash.foo_.huh_.what?
=> false
value = structure[:a][:b] rescue nil
Solution 1
I suggested this in my question before:
class NilClass; def to_hash; {} end end
Hash#to_hash is already defined, and returns self. Then you can do:
value = structure[:a].to_hash[:b]
The to_hash ensures that you get an empty hash when the previous key search fails.
Solution2
This solution is similar in spirit to mu is too short's answer in that it uses a subclass, but still somewhat different. In case there is no value for a certain key, it does not use a default value, but rather creates a value of empty hash, so that it does not have the problem of confusion in assigment that DigitalRoss's answer has, as was pointed out by mu is too short.
class NilFreeHash < Hash
def [] key; key?(key) ? super(key) : self[key] = NilFreeHash.new end
end
structure = NilFreeHash.new
structure[:a][:b] = 3
p strucrture[:a][:b] # => 3
It departs from the specification given in the question, though. When an undefined key is given, it will return an empty hash instread of nil.
p structure[:c] # => {}
If you build an instance of this NilFreeHash from the beginning and assign the key-values, it will work, but if you want to convert a hash into an instance of this class, that may be a problem.
You could just build a Hash subclass with an extra variadic method for digging all the way down with appropriate checks along the way. Something like this (with a better name of course):
class Thing < Hash
def find(*path)
path.inject(self) { |h, x| return nil if(!h.is_a?(Thing) || h[x].nil?); h[x] }
end
end
Then just use Things instead of hashes:
>> x = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a] = Thing.new
=> {}
>> x[:a][:b] = 'k'
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a)
=> {:b=>"k"}
>> x.find(:a, :b)
=> "k"
>> x.find(:a, :b, :c)
=> nil
>> x.find(:a, :c, :d)
=> nil
This monkey patch function for Hash should be easiest (at least for me). It also doesn't alter structure i.e. changing nil's to {}. It would still also apply even if you're reading a tree from a raw source e.g. JSON. It also doesn't need to produce empty hash objects as it goes or parse a string. rescue nil was actually a good easy solution for me as I'm brave enough for such a low risk but I find it to essentially have a drawback with performance.
class ::Hash
def recurse(*keys)
v = self[keys.shift]
while keys.length > 0
return nil if not v.is_a? Hash
v = v[keys.shift]
end
v
end
end
Example:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure.recurse(:a, :b)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(:a, :x)
=> nil
What's also good is that you can play around saved arrays with it:
> keys = [:a, :b]
=> [:a, :b]
> structure.recurse(*keys)
=> "foo"
> structure.recurse(*keys, :x1, :x2)
=> nil
The XKeys gem will read and auto-vivify-on-write nested hashes (::Hash) or hashes and arrays (::Auto, based on the key/index type) with a simple, clear, readable, and compact syntax by enhancing #[] and #[]=. The sentinel symbol :[] will push onto the end of an array.
require 'xkeys'
structure = {}.extend XKeys::Hash
structure[:a, :b] # nil
structure[:a, :b, :else => 0] # 0 (contextual default)
structure[:a] # nil, even after above
structure[:a, :b] = 'foo'
structure[:a, :b] # foo
You can use the andand gem, but I'm becoming more and more wary of it:
>> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }} #=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
>> require 'andand' #=> true
>> structure[:a].andand[:b] #=> "foo"
>> structure[:c].andand[:b] #=> nil
There is the cute but wrong way to do this. Which is to monkey-patch NilClass to add a [] method that returns nil. I say it is the wrong approach because you have no idea what other software may have made a different version, or what behavior change in a future version of Ruby can be broken by this.
A better approach is to create a new object that works a lot like nil but supports this behavior. Make this new object the default return of your hashes. And then it will just work.
Alternately you can create a simple "nested lookup" function that you pass the hash and the keys to, which traverses the hashes in order, breaking out when it can.
I would personally prefer one of the latter two approaches. Though I think it would be cute if the first was integrated into the Ruby language. (But monkey-patching is a bad idea. Don't do that. Particularly not to demonstrate what a cool hacker you are.)
Not that I would do it, but you can Monkeypatch in NilClass#[]:
> structure = { :a => { :b => 'foo' }}
#=> {:a=>{:b=>"foo"}}
> structure[:x][:y]
NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass
from (irb):2
from C:/Ruby/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
> class NilClass; def [](*a); end; end
#=> nil
> structure[:x][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:y]
#=> nil
> structure[:a][:b]
#=> "foo"
Go with #DigitalRoss's answer. Yes, it's more typing, but that's because it's safer.
In my case, I needed a two-dimensional matrix where each cell is a list of items.
I found this technique which seems to work. It might work for the OP:
$all = Hash.new()
def $all.[](k)
v = fetch(k, nil)
return v if v
h = Hash.new()
def h.[](k2)
v = fetch(k2, nil)
return v if v
list = Array.new()
store(k2, list)
return list
end
store(k, h)
return h
end
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '1'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '2'
$all['g1-a']['g2-a'] << '3'
$all['g1-a']['g2-b'] << '4'
$all['g1-b']['g2-a'] << '5'
$all['g1-b']['g2-c'] << '6'
$all.keys.each do |group1|
$all[group1].keys.each do |group2|
$all[group1][group2].each do |item|
puts "#{group1} #{group2} #{item}"
end
end
end
The output is:
$ ruby -v && ruby t.rb
ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-linux]
g1-a g2-a 1
g1-a g2-a 2
g1-a g2-a 3
g1-a g2-b 4
g1-b g2-a 5
g1-b g2-c 6
I am currently trying out this:
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# System so that we chain methods together without worrying about nil
# values (a la Objective-c).
# Example:
# params[:foo].try?[:bar]
#
class Object
# Returns self, unless NilClass (see below)
def try?
self
end
end
class NilClass
class MethodMissingSink
include Singleton
def method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
end
end
def try?
MethodMissingSink.instance
end
end
I know the arguments against try, but it is useful when looking into things, like say, params.

Resources