I need a chunk of Ruby code to combine an array of contents like such:
[{:dim_location=>[{:dim_city=>:dim_state}]},
:dim_marital_status,
{:dim_location=>[:dim_zip, :dim_business]}]
into:
[{:dim_location => [:dim_business, {:dim_city=>:dim_state}, :dim_zip]},
:dim_marital_status]
It needs to support an arbitrary level of depth, though the depth will rarely be beyond 8 levels deep.
Revised after comment:
source = [{:dim_location=>[{:dim_city=>:dim_state}]}, :dim_marital_status, {:dim_location=>[:dim_zip, :dim_business]}]
expected = [{:dim_location => [:dim_business, {:dim_city=>:dim_state}, :dim_zip]}, :dim_marital_status]
source2 = [{:dim_location=>{:dim_city=>:dim_state}}, {:dim_location=>:dim_city}]
def merge_dim_locations(array)
return array unless array.is_a?(Array)
values = array.dup
dim_locations = values.select {|x| x.is_a?(Hash) && x.has_key?(:dim_location)}
old_index = values.index(dim_locations[0]) unless dim_locations.empty?
merged = dim_locations.inject({}) do |memo, obj|
values.delete(obj)
x = merge_dim_locations(obj[:dim_location])
if x.is_a?(Array)
memo[:dim_location] = (memo[:dim_location] || []) + x
else
memo[:dim_location] ||= []
memo[:dim_location] << x
end
memo
end
unless merged.empty?
values.insert(old_index, merged)
end
values
end
puts "source1:"
puts source.inspect
puts "result1:"
puts merge_dim_locations(source).inspect
puts "expected1:"
puts expected.inspect
puts "\nsource2:"
puts source2.inspect
puts "result2:"
puts merge_dim_locations(source2).inspect
I don't think there's enough detail in your question to give you a complete answer, but this might get you started:
class Hash
def recursive_merge!(other)
other.keys.each do |k|
if self[k].is_a?(Array) && other[k].is_a?(Array)
self[k] += other[k]
elsif self[k].is_a?(Hash) && other[k].is_a?(Hash)
self[k].recursive_merge!(other[k])
else
self[k] = other[k]
end
end
self
end
end
Related
I have a number of ranges that I want merge together if they overlap. The way I’m currently doing this is by using Sets.
This is working. However, when I attempt the same code with a larger ranges as follows, I get a `stack level too deep (SystemStackError).
require 'set'
ranges = [Range.new(73, 856), Range.new(82, 1145), Range.new(116, 2914), Range.new(3203, 3241)]
set = Set.new
ranges.each { |r| set << r.to_set }
set.flatten!
sets_subsets = set.divide { |i, j| (i - j).abs == 1 } # this line causes the error
puts sets_subsets
The line that is failing is taken directly from the Ruby Set Documentation.
I would appreciate it if anyone could suggest a fix or an alternative that works for the above example
EDIT
I have put the full code I’m using here:
Basically it is used to add html tags to an amino acid sequence according to some features.
require 'set'
def calculate_formatting_classes(hsps, signalp)
merged_hsps = merge_ranges(hsps)
sp = format_signalp(merged_hsps, signalp)
hsp_class = (merged_hsps - sp[1]) - sp[0]
rank_format_positions(sp, hsp_class)
end
def merge_ranges(ranges)
set = Set.new
ranges.each { |r| set << r.to_set }
set.flatten
end
def format_signalp(merged_hsps, sp)
sp_class = sp - merged_hsps
sp_hsp_class = sp & merged_hsps # overlap regions between sp & merged_hsp
[sp_class, sp_hsp_class]
end
def rank_format_positions(sp, hsp_class)
results = []
results += sets_to_hash(sp[0], 'sp')
results += sets_to_hash(sp[1], 'sphsp')
results += sets_to_hash(hsp_class, 'hsp')
results.sort_by { |s| s[:pos] }
end
def sets_to_hash(set = nil, cl)
return nil if set.nil?
hashes = []
merged_set = set.divide { |i, j| (i - j).abs == 1 }
merged_set.each do |s|
hashes << { pos: s.min.to_i - 1, insert: "<span class=#{cl}>" }
hashes << { pos: s.max.to_i - 0.1, insert: '</span>' } # for ordering
end
hashes
end
working_hsp = [Range.new(7, 136), Range.new(143, 178)]
not_working_hsp = [Range.new(73, 856), Range.new(82, 1145),
Range.new(116, 2914), Range.new(3203, 3241)]
sp = Range.new(1, 20).to_set
# working
results = calculate_formatting_classes(working_hsp, sp)
# Not Working
# results = calculate_formatting_classes(not_working_hsp, sp)
puts results
Here is one way to do this:
ranges = [Range.new(73, 856), Range.new(82, 1145),
Range.new(116, 2914), Range.new(3203, 3241)]
ranges.size.times do
ranges = ranges.sort_by(&:begin)
t = ranges.each_cons(2).to_a
t.each do |r1, r2|
if (r2.cover? r1.begin) || (r2.cover? r1.end) ||
(r1.cover? r2.begin) || (r1.cover? r2.end)
ranges << Range.new([r1.begin, r2.begin].min, [r1.end, r2.end].max)
ranges.delete(r1)
ranges.delete(r2)
t.delete [r1,r2]
end
end
end
p ranges
#=> [73..2914, 3203..3241]
The other answers aren't bad, but I prefer a simple recursive approach:
def merge_ranges(*ranges)
range, *rest = ranges
return if range.nil?
# Find the index of the first range in `rest` that overlaps this one
other_idx = rest.find_index do |other|
range.cover?(other.begin) || other.cover?(range.begin)
end
if other_idx
# An overlapping range was found; remove it from `rest` and merge
# it with this one
other = rest.slice!(other_idx)
merged = ([range.begin, other.begin].min)..([range.end, other.end].max)
# Try again with the merged range and the remaining `rest`
merge_ranges(merged, *rest)
else
# No overlapping range was found; move on
[ range, *merge_ranges(*rest) ]
end
end
Note: This code assumes each range is ascending (e.g. 10..5 will break it).
Usage:
ranges = [ 73..856, 82..1145, 116..2914, 3203..3241 ]
p merge_ranges(*ranges)
# => [73..2914, 3203..3241]
ranges = [ 0..10, 5..20, 30..50, 45..80, 50..90, 100..101, 101..200 ]
p merge_ranges(*ranges)
# => [0..20, 30..90, 100..200]
I believe your resulting set has too many items (2881) to be used with divide, which if I understood correctly, would require 2881^2881 iterations, which is such a big number (8,7927981983090337174360463368808e+9966) that running it would take nearly forever even if you didn't get stack level too deep error.
Without using sets, you can use this code to merge the ranges:
module RangeMerger
def merge(range_b)
if cover?(range_b.first) && cover?(range_b.last)
self
elsif cover?(range_b.first)
self.class.new(first, range_b.last)
elsif cover?(range_b.last)
self.class.new(range_b.first, last)
else
nil # Unmergable
end
end
end
module ArrayRangePusher
def <<(item)
if item.kind_of?(Range)
item.extend RangeMerger
each_with_index do |own_item, idx|
own_item.extend RangeMerger
if new_range = own_item.merge(item)
self[idx] = new_range
return self
end
end
end
super
end
end
ranges = [Range.new(73, 856), Range.new(82, 1145), Range.new(116, 2914), Range.new(3203, 3241)]
new_ranges = Array.new
new_ranges.extend ArrayRangePusher
ranges.each do |range|
new_ranges << range
end
puts ranges.inspect
puts new_ranges.inspect
This will output:
[73..856, 82..1145, 116..2914, 3203..3241]
[73..2914, 3203..3241]
which I believe is the intended output for your original problem. It's a bit ugly, but I'm a bit rusty at the moment.
Edit: I don't think this has anything to do with your original problem before the edits which was about merging ranges.
I am trying to reverse the words of a string in Ruby, without using the reverse method. I want to implement the known algorithm of:
Reverse the whole string
Reverse each word in the reversed string.
Here is what I have come up with:
class String
def custom_reverse(start, limit)
i_start = start
i_end = limit - 1
while (i_start <= i_end)
tmp = self[i_start]
self[i_start] = self[i_end]
self[i_end] = tmp
i_start += 1
i_end -= 1
end
return self
end
def custom_reverse_words
self.custom_reverse(0, self.size)
i_start = 0
i_end = 0
while (i_end <= self.length)
if (i_end == self.length || self[i_end] == ' ')
self.custom_reverse(i_start, i_end)
i_start += 1
end
i_end += 1
end
end
end
test_str = "hello there how are you"
p test_str.custom_reverse_words
But the results are "yahthello ow ou er ereh"
What am I missing?
The gist of any reverse operation is to iterate over elements in the reverse order of what you'd normally do. That is, where you'd usually use the set (0..N-1) you'd instead go through (N-1..0) or more specifically N-1-i where i is 0..N-1:
class String
def reverse_words
split(/\s+/).map{|w|wl=w.length-1;(0..wl).map{|i|w[wl-i]}.join}.join(' ')
end
end
puts "this is reverse test".reverse_words.inspect
# => "siht si esrever tset"
The same principle can be applied to the words in a given string.
Interview questions of this sort are of highly dubious value. Being "clever" in production code is usually a Very Bad Idea.
Here's one way to reverse an array without using the built-in reverse:
class Array
def reverse
tmp_ary = self.dup
ret_ary = []
self.size.times do
ret_ary << tmp_ary.pop
end
ret_ary
end
end
%w[a b c].reverse # => ["c", "b", "a"]
tmp_ary.pop is the secret. pop removes elements from the end of the array.
The cleanest solution I could think of is:
class Array
def my_reverse
sort_by.with_index {|_, i| -i}
end
end
class String
def words
split(/\W+/)
end
def revert_words
words.my_reverse.join(' ')
end
def revert_each_word
words.map {|w| w.chars.my_reverse.join}.join(' ')
end
end
Once you define a simple and efficient array reverser:
def reverse_array(a)
(a.length / 2).times {|i| a[i],a[-(i+1)] = a[-(i+1)],a[i]}
a
end
You can reverse a sentence pretty straightforwardly:
def reverse_sentence(s)
reverse_array(s.split('')).join.split(" ").map{|w| reverse_array(w.split('')).join}.join(" ")
end
reverse_sentence "Howdy pardner" # => "pardner Howdy"
Here's another way:
class String
def reverse_words
split.inject([]){|str, word| str.unshift word}.join(' ')
end
def reverse_chars
each_char.inject([]){|str, char| str.unshift char}.join('')
end
end
Revised
Carey raises a good point, reverse_chars can be simplified, since string is already an Enumerable:
class String
def reverse_chars
each_char.inject(""){|str, char| str.insert(0, char) }
end
end
One of the pre-work exercises for Dev Bootcamp is an RPN calculator. I made it work but would like refactoring feedback. Any and all help to make this code cleaner is greatly appreciated.
class RPNCalculator
def evaluate(rpn)
a = rpn.split(' ')
array = a.inject([]) do |array, i|
if i =~ /\d+/
array << i.to_i
else
b = array.pop(2)
case
when i == "+" then array << b[0] + b[1]
when i == '-' then array << b[0] - b[1]
when i == '*' then array << b[0] * b[1]
when i == '/' then array << b[0] / b[1]
end
end
end
p array.pop
end
end
calc = RPNCalculator.new
calc.evaluate('1 2 +') # => 3
calc.evaluate('2 5 *') # => 10
calc.evaluate('50 20 -') # => 30
calc.evaluate('70 10 4 + 5 * -') # => 0
class RPNCalculator
def evaluate rpn
array = rpn.split(" ").inject([]) do |array, i|
if i =~ /\d+/
array << i.to_i
else
b = array.pop(2)
array << b[0].send(i, b[1])
end
end
p array.pop
end
end
I tend to prefer avoiding case..when in favor of lookup tables. So I'd change your code to:
class RPNCalculator
def evaluate(rpn)
a = rpn.split(' ')
array = a.inject([]) do |array, i|
if i =~ /\d+/
array << i.to_i
else
array << array.pop(2).reduce(op(i))
end
end
p array.pop
end
private
def op(char)
{'+'=>:+, '-'=>:-, '/'=>:/, '*'=>:*}[char]
end
end
I also don't believe you should only be popping off 2 operands. "1 2 3 +" would be valid RPN, evaluating to 6. The entire stack should be reduced. This also avoids the mutation, which is a good thing, as it follows a more functional style.
class RPNCalculator
def evaluate(rpn)
a = rpn.split(' ')
array = a.inject([]) do |array, i|
if i =~ /\d+/
[*array, i.to_i]
else
[array.reduce(op(i))]
end
end
p array.pop
end
private
def op(char)
{'+'=>:+, '-'=>:-, '/'=>:/, '*'=>:*}[char]
end
end
I removed the other mutation here too, by using [*arr, value] instead of actually modifying the array.
Finally, I'd avoid printing directly from your #evaluate method and just return the number. I'd also (again) avoid the mutation:
class RPNCalculator
def evaluate(rpn)
a = rpn.split(' ')
stack = a.inject([]) do |stack, i|
if i =~ /\d+/
[*stack, i.to_i]
else
[stack.reduce(op(i))]
end
end
stack.last
end
private
def op(char)
{'+'=>:+, '-'=>:-, '/'=>:/, '*'=>:*}[char]
end
end
I renamed 'array' to 'stack', since it is a parser stack and is less generic than just array.
How can I have a hash of hash of hash?
My test returns
undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
Any tips?
found = Hash.new()
x = 1;
while x < 4 do
found[x] = Hash.new()
y = 1
while y < 4 do
found[x][y] = Hash.new()
found[x][y]['name1'] = 'abc1'
found[x][y]['name2'] = 'abc2'
found[x][y]['name3'] = 'abc3'
y += 1
end
x += 1
end
found.each do |k, v, y|
puts "k : #{k}"
puts " : #{v[y['name1']]}"
puts " : #{v[y['name2']]}"
puts " : #{v[y['name3']]}"
puts
end
I think you want something like this:
First of all create the data structure. You want nested hashes so you need to define default values for each hash key.
found = Hash.new do |hash,key|
hash[key] = Hash.new do |hash,key|
hash[key] = Hash.new
end
end
Run the search
(1..3).each do |x|
(1..3).each do |y|
found[x][y]['name1'] = 'abc1'
found[x][y]['name2'] = 'abc1'
found[x][y]['name3'] = 'abc1'
end
end
Then display the results
found.each do |x, y_hash|
y_hash.each do |y, name_hash|
name_hash.each do |name, value|
puts "#{x} => #{y} => #{name} => #{value}"
end
end
end
The way you build the hash seems to be functional. What probably causes the error is this loop:
found.each do |k, v, y|
Hash#each yields key/value pairs, so y will be assigned nil, thus causing the error two lines below. What you probably meant is a nested loop like
found.each do |x, h1|
h1.each do |y, h2|
puts h2['name1']
end
end
You should also be aware that you can write these kinds of counting loops more concisely in Ruby:
found = Hash.new { |h,k| h[k] = {} }
1.upto(3) do |x|
1.upto(3) do |y|
found[x][y] = {
'name1' => 'abc1',
'name2' => 'abc2',
'name3' => 'abc3',
}
end
end
For example, the words "stack", I want to get an array like:
['s', 'st', 'sta', ... 'stack', 't', 'ta', ... , 'c', 'ck', 'k']
I did this by such code:
def split_word(str)
result = []
chas = str.split("")
len = chas.size
(0..len-1).each do |i|
(i..len-1).each do |j|
result.push(chas[i..j].join)
end
end
result.uniq
end
Is there better and clean way to do that? Thanks.
def split_word s
(0..s.length).inject([]){|ai,i|
(1..s.length - i).inject(ai){|aj,j|
aj << s[i,j]
}
}.uniq
end
And you can also consider using Set instead of Array for the result.
PS: Here's another idea, based on array product:
def split_word s
indices = (0...s.length).to_a
indices.product(indices).reject{|i,j| i > j}.map{|i,j| s[i..j]}.uniq
end
I'd write:
def split_word(s)
0.upto(s.length - 1).flat_map do |start|
1.upto(s.length - start).map do |length|
s[start, length]
end
end.uniq
end
groups = split_word("stack")
# ["s", "st", "sta", "stac", "stack", "t", "ta", "tac", "tack", "a", "ac", "ack", "c", "ck", "k"]
It's usually more clear and more compact to use map (functional) instead of the pattern init empty + each + append + return (imperative).
def substrings(str)
output = []
(0...str.length).each do |i|
(i...str.length).each do |j|
output << str[i..j]
end
end
output
end
this is just a cleaned up version of your method and it works with less steps =)
Don't think so.
Here's my attempted version:
def split_word(str)
length = str.length - 1
[].tap do |result|
0.upto(length) do |i|
length.downto(i) do |j|
substring = str[i..j]
result << substring unless result.include?(substring)
end
end
end
end
def substrings(str)
(0...str.length).map do |i|
(i...str.length).each { |j| str[i..j]}
end
end
Just another way to do it, that reads a little clearer to me.
Here is the recursive way to get all the possible sub strings.
def substrings str
return [] if str.size < 1
((0..str.size-1).map do |pos|
str[0..pos]
end) + substrings(str[1..])
end
Way later, but this is what I got from reformatting your code a bit.
def substrings(string)
siz = string.length
answer = []
(0..siz-1).each do |n|
(n..siz-1).each do |i|
answer << string[n..i]
end
end
answer
end