Can someone tell me why these variables marked with red are not recognized as equal (==).
Google Apps Script is Javascript-based. In Javascript, you can not compare two arrays using ==.
One method is to loop over both arrays and to check that the values are the same. For example you can include the function:
function compareArrays(array1, array2) {
for (var i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
if (array1[i] instanceof Array) {
if (!(array2[i] instanceof Array) || compareArrays(array1[i], array2[i]) == false) {
return false;
}
}
else if (array2[i] != array1[i]) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
And then update the line in your code from if (responsables == gestPor) { to if (compareArrays(responsables, gestPor)) {
For other methods of comparing arrays in Javascript, see this answer.
It is because you are comparing arrays. If you are just getting a single cell value, use getValue() instead of getValues()
To make things work, change these:
var gestPor = hojaActivador.getRange(i,13,1,1).getValues();
var responsables = hojaConMails.getRange(1,n,1,1).getValues();
to:
var gestPor = hojaActivador.getRange(i,13).getValue();
var responsables = hojaConMails.getRange(1,n).getValue();
Do these to all getValues() where you're only extracting 1 cell/value.
See difference below:
Related
This question already has answers here:
How do I test for an empty JavaScript object?
(48 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
What is the fastest way to check if an object is empty or not?
Is there a faster and better way than this:
function count_obj(obj){
var i = 0;
for(var key in obj){
++i;
}
return i;
}
For ECMAScript5 (not supported in all browsers yet though), you can use:
Object.keys(obj).length === 0
I'm assuming that by empty you mean "has no properties of its own".
// Speed up calls to hasOwnProperty
var hasOwnProperty = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
function isEmpty(obj) {
// null and undefined are "empty"
if (obj == null) return true;
// Assume if it has a length property with a non-zero value
// that that property is correct.
if (obj.length > 0) return false;
if (obj.length === 0) return true;
// If it isn't an object at this point
// it is empty, but it can't be anything *but* empty
// Is it empty? Depends on your application.
if (typeof obj !== "object") return true;
// Otherwise, does it have any properties of its own?
// Note that this doesn't handle
// toString and valueOf enumeration bugs in IE < 9
for (var key in obj) {
if (hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) return false;
}
return true;
}
Examples:
isEmpty(""), // true
isEmpty(33), // true (arguably could be a TypeError)
isEmpty([]), // true
isEmpty({}), // true
isEmpty({length: 0, custom_property: []}), // true
isEmpty("Hello"), // false
isEmpty([1,2,3]), // false
isEmpty({test: 1}), // false
isEmpty({length: 3, custom_property: [1,2,3]}) // false
If you only need to handle ECMAScript5 browsers, you can use Object.getOwnPropertyNames instead of the hasOwnProperty loop:
if (Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).length > 0) return false;
This will ensure that even if the object only has non-enumerable properties isEmpty will still give you the correct results.
EDIT: Note that you should probably use ES5 solution instead of this since ES5 support is widespread these days. It still works for jQuery though.
Easy and cross-browser way is by using jQuery.isEmptyObject:
if ($.isEmptyObject(obj))
{
// do something
}
More: http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.isEmptyObject/
You need jquery though.
Underscore and lodash each have a convenient isEmpty() function, if you don't mind adding an extra library.
_.isEmpty({});
Lets put this baby to bed; tested under Node, Chrome, Firefox and IE 9, it becomes evident that for most use cases:
(for...in...) is the fastest option to use!
Object.keys(obj).length is 10 times slower for empty objects
JSON.stringify(obj).length is always the slowest (not surprising)
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).length takes longer than Object.keys(obj).length can be much longer on some systems.
Bottom line performance wise, use:
function isEmpty(obj) {
for (var x in obj) { return false; }
return true;
}
or
function isEmpty(obj) {
for (var x in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(x)) return false; }
return true;
}
Results under Node:
first result: return (Object.keys(obj).length === 0)
second result: for (var x in obj) { return false; }...
third result: for (var x in obj) { if (obj.hasOwnProperty(x)) return false; }...
forth result: return ('{}' === JSON.stringify(obj))
Testing for Object with 0 keys
0.00018
0.000015
0.000015
0.000324
Testing for Object with 1 keys
0.000346
0.000458
0.000577
0.000657
Testing for Object with 2 keys
0.000375
0.00046
0.000565
0.000773
Testing for Object with 3 keys
0.000406
0.000476
0.000577
0.000904
Testing for Object with 4 keys
0.000435
0.000487
0.000589
0.001031
Testing for Object with 5 keys
0.000465
0.000501
0.000604
0.001148
Testing for Object with 6 keys
0.000492
0.000511
0.000618
0.001269
Testing for Object with 7 keys
0.000528
0.000527
0.000637
0.00138
Testing for Object with 8 keys
0.000565
0.000538
0.000647
0.00159
Testing for Object with 100 keys
0.003718
0.00243
0.002535
0.01381
Testing for Object with 1000 keys
0.0337
0.0193
0.0194
0.1337
Note that if your typical use case tests a non empty object with few keys, and rarely do you get to test empty objects or objects with 10 or more keys, consider the Object.keys(obj).length option. - otherwise go with the more generic (for... in...) implementation.
Note that Firefox seem to have a faster support for Object.keys(obj).length and Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).length, making it a better choice for any non empty Object, but still when it comes to empty objects, the (for...in...) is simply 10 times faster.
My 2 cents is that Object.keys(obj).length is a poor idea since it creates an object of keys just to count how many keys are inside, than destroys it! In order to create that object he needs to loop overt the keys... so why use it and not the (for... in...) option :)
var a = {};
function timeit(func,count) {
if (!count) count = 100000;
var start = Date.now();
for (i=0;i<count;i++) func();
var end = Date.now();
var duration = end - start;
console.log(duration/count)
}
function isEmpty1() {
return (Object.keys(a).length === 0)
}
function isEmpty2() {
for (x in a) { return false; }
return true;
}
function isEmpty3() {
for (x in a) { if (a.hasOwnProperty(x)) return false; }
return true;
}
function isEmpty4() {
return ('{}' === JSON.stringify(a))
}
for (var j=0;j<10;j++) {
a = {}
for (var i=0;i<j;i++) a[i] = i;
console.log('Testing for Object with '+Object.keys(a).length+' keys')
timeit(isEmpty1);
timeit(isEmpty2);
timeit(isEmpty3);
timeit(isEmpty4);
}
a = {}
for (var i=0;i<100;i++) a[i] = i;
console.log('Testing for Object with '+Object.keys(a).length+' keys')
timeit(isEmpty1);
timeit(isEmpty2);
timeit(isEmpty3);
timeit(isEmpty4, 10000);
a = {}
for (var i=0;i<1000;i++) a[i] = i;
console.log('Testing for Object with '+Object.keys(a).length+' keys')
timeit(isEmpty1,10000);
timeit(isEmpty2,10000);
timeit(isEmpty3,10000);
timeit(isEmpty4,10000);
Elegant way - use keys
var myEmptyObj = {};
var myFullObj = {"key":"value"};
console.log(Object.keys(myEmptyObj).length); //0
console.log(Object.keys(myFullObj).length); //1
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/keys
function isEmpty( o ) {
for ( var p in o ) {
if ( o.hasOwnProperty( p ) ) { return false; }
}
return true;
}
var x= {}
var y= {x:'hi'}
console.log(Object.keys(x).length===0)
console.log(Object.keys(y).length===0)
true
false
http://jsfiddle.net/j7ona6hz/1/
Surprised to see so many weak answers on such a basic JS question... The top answer is no good too for these reasons:
it generates a global variable
returns true on undefined
uses for...in which is extremely slow by itself
function inside for...in is useless - return false without hasOwnProperty magic will work fine
In fact there's a simpler solution:
function isEmpty(value) {
return Boolean(value && typeof value === 'object') && !Object.keys(value).length;
}
https://lodash.com/docs#isEmpty comes in pretty handy:
_.isEmpty({}) // true
_.isEmpty() // true
_.isEmpty(null) // true
_.isEmpty("") // true
How bad is this?
function(obj){
for(var key in obj){
return false; // not empty
}
return true; // empty
}
No need for a library.
function(){ //must be within a function
var obj = {}; //the object to test
for(var isNotEmpty in obj) //will loop through once if there is a property of some sort, then
return alert('not empty')//what ever you are trying to do once
return alert('empty'); //nope obj was empty do this instead;
}
It might be a bit hacky. You can try this.
if (JSON.stringify(data).length === 2) {
// Do something
}
Not sure if there is any disadvantage of this method.
fast onliner for 'dictionary'-objects:
function isEmptyDict(d){for (var k in d) return false; return true}
You can write a fallback if Array.isArray and Object.getOwnPropertyNames is not available
XX.isEmpty = function(a){
if(Array.isArray(a)){
return (a.length==0);
}
if(!a){
return true;
}
if(a instanceof Object){
if(a instanceof Date){
return false;
}
if(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(a).length == 0){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Imagine you have the objects below:
var obj1= {};
var obj2= {test: "test"};
Don't forget we can NOT use === sign for testing an object equality as they get inheritance, so If you using ECMA 5 and upper version of javascript, the answer is easy, you can use the function below:
function isEmpty(obj) {
//check if it's an Obj first
var isObj = obj !== null
&& typeof obj === 'object'
&& Object.prototype.toString.call(obj) === '[object Object]';
if (isObj) {
for (var o in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(o)) {
return false;
break;
}
}
return true;
} else {
console.error("isEmpty function only accept an Object");
}
}
so the result as below:
isEmpty(obj1); //this returns true
isEmpty(obj2); //this returns false
isEmpty([]); // log in console: isEmpty function only accept an Object
funtion isEmpty(o,i)
{
for(i in o)
{
return!1
}
return!0
}
here's a good way to do it
function isEmpty(obj) {
if (Array.isArray(obj)) {
return obj.length === 0;
} else if (typeof obj === 'object') {
for (var i in obj) {
return false;
}
return true;
} else {
return !obj;
}
}
var hasOwnProperty = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
function isArray(a) {
return Object.prototype.toString.call(a) === '[object Array]'
}
function isObject(a) {
return Object.prototype.toString.call(a) === '[object Object]'
}
function isEmpty(a) {
if (null == a || "" == a)return!0;
if ("number" == typeof a || "string" == typeof a)return!1;
var b = !0;
if (isArray(a)) {
if (!a.length)return!0;
for (var c = 0; c < a.length; c++)isEmpty(a[c]) || (b = !1);
return b
}
if (isObject(a)) {
for (var d in a)hasOwnProperty.call(a, d) && (isEmpty(a[d]) || (b = !1));
return b
}
return!0
}
May be you can use this decision:
var isEmpty = function(obj) {
for (var key in obj)
if(obj.hasOwnProperty(key))
return false;
return true;
}
I modified Sean Vieira's code to suit my needs. null and undefined don't count as object at all, and numbers, boolean values and empty strings return false.
'use strict';
// Speed up calls to hasOwnProperty
var hasOwnProperty = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
var isObjectEmpty = function(obj) {
// null and undefined are not empty
if (obj == null) return false;
if(obj === false) return false;
if(obj === true) return false;
if(obj === "") return false;
if(typeof obj === "number") {
return false;
}
// Assume if it has a length property with a non-zero value
// that that property is correct.
if (obj.length > 0) return false;
if (obj.length === 0) return true;
// Otherwise, does it have any properties of its own?
// Note that this doesn't handle
// toString and valueOf enumeration bugs in IE < 9
for (var key in obj) {
if (hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)) return false;
}
return true;
};
exports.isObjectEmpty = isObjectEmpty;
here my solution
function isEmpty(value) {
if(Object.prototype.toString.call(value) === '[object Array]') {
return value.length == 0;
} else if(value != null && typeof value === 'object') {
return Object.getOwnPropertyNames(value).length == 0;
} else {
return !(value || (value === 0));
}
}
Chears
if (Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj1).length > 0)
{
alert('obj1 is empty!');
}
I have a Goggle Spreadsheet with some data, and I want to write a custom function to use in the sheet, which accepts a range of cells and a delimiter character, takes each cell value, splits it by the delimiter, and counts the total.
For example
Column A has the following values in rows 1-3: {"Sheep","Sheep,Dog","Cat"}
My function would be called like this: =CountDelimitedValues(A1:A3;",");
It should return the value: 4 (1+2+1)
The problem I am having is in my custom script I get errors like
"TypeError: cannot get function GetValues from type Sheep"
This is my current script:
function CountArrayList(arrayList, delimiter) {
var count = 0;
//for (i=0; i<array.length; i++)
//{
//count += array[i].split(delimiter).length;
//}
var newArray = arrayList.GetValues();
return newArray.ToString();
//return count;
}
I understand that the parameter arraylist is receiving an array of objects from the spreadsheet, however I don't know how to get the value out of those objects, or perhaps cast them into strings.
Alternatively I might be going about this in the wrong way? I have another script which extracts the text from a cell between two characters which works fine for a single cell. What is it about a range of cells that is different?
That's something you can achieve without using script but plain old formula's:
=SUM(ARRAYFORMULA(LEN(A1:A3)-LEN(SUBSTITUTE(A1:A3; ","; "")) + 1))
Credit goes here: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/q/37744/29140
something like this works :
function CountArrayList(arrayList) {
return arrayList.toString().split(',').length
}
wouldn't it be sufficient ?
edit Oooops, sorry I forgot the user defined delimiter, so like this
function CountArrayList(arrayList,del) {
return arrayList.toString().split(del).length
}
usage : =CountArrayList(A1:C1;",")
NOTE : in this example above it would be dangerous to use another delimiter than "," since the toString() joins the array elements with commas... if you really need to do so try using a regex to change the commas to what you use and apply the split on that.
try like this :
function CountArrayList(arrayList,del) {
return arrayList.toString().replace(/,/g,del).split(del).length
}
Another solution I have was that I needed to implicitly cast the objects in the array being passed as a string.
For example this function accepts the array of cells, and outputs their contents as a string with del as the delimiter (similar to the String.Split() function). Note the TrimString function and that it is being passed an element of the array.
function ArrayToString(array,del) {
var string = "";
for (i=0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i] != null) {
var trimmedString = TrimString(array[i]);
if (trimmedString != "") {
if (string.length > 0) {
string += del;
}
string += trimmedString;
}
}
}
return string;
}
Below is the TrimString function.
function TrimString(string) {
var value = "";
if (string != "" && string != null) {
var newString = "";
newString += string;
var frontStringTrimmed = newString.replace(/^\s*/,"");
var backStringTrimmed = frontStringTrimmed.replace(/\s*$/,"");
value = backStringTrimmed;
}
return value;
}
What I found is that this code threw a TypeError unless I included the declaration of the newString variable, and added the array element object to it, implicitly casting the array element object as a string. Otherwise the replace() functions could not be called.
I have a nested arrays with pairs of numbers:
_open = [[8,15], [9,16]];
from which i want to find a match using ArrayUtilities.findMatchIndex but it always returns -1 when looking for an element array. For example:
ArrayUtilities.findMatchIndex(_open, [8, 15])
I'm wondering if it is possible for AS3 to compare arrays, because comparing other types (strings, numbers, etc) just work fine
Here's findMatchIndex():
public static function findMatchIndex(aArray:Array, oElement:Object, ...rest):Number {
var nStartingIndex:Number = 0;
var bPartialMatch:Boolean = false;
if(typeof rest[0] == "number") {
nStartingIndex = rest[0];
}
else if(typeof rest[1] == "number") {
nStartingIndex = rest[1];
}
if(typeof rest[0] == "boolean") {
bPartialMatch = rest[0];
}
var bMatch:Boolean = false;
for(var i:Number = nStartingIndex; i < aArray.length; i++) {
if(bPartialMatch) {
bMatch = (aArray[i].indexOf(oElement) != -1);
}
else {
bMatch = (aArray[i] == oElement);
}
if(bMatch) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
Comparing other types (strings, numbers, etc) works fine, because they are so-called primitives, and are compared by values. Arrays, though, are objects, therefore they are compared by reference. Basically it means that [8,15] != [8,15].
One way around it is replacing this line...
else {
bMatch = (aArray[i] == oElement);
}
... with something like this ...
else {
bMatch = compareElements(aArray[i], oElement);
}
... where compareElements will try to check its arguments' types first, and if they're objects, will compare their values.
So basically I would like to create a function that when alerted, returns the URL from an array (in this case the array is declared as 'websites'). The function has two parameters 'websites' and 'searchTerm'.
I'm struggling to make the function behave, so that when i type yahoo or google or bing in the searchTerm parameter for the function; I want it to return the corresponding URL.
Any help or support would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry if I have not made myself clear in my explanation, if this is the case, let me know and I will try and be clearer in my explanation.
Thanks in advance!
Try something more like:
var websites = {google: 'www.google.com', yahoo: 'www.yahoo.com'};
function filterURL(websites,searchTerm)
{
return websites[searchTerm] || 'www.defaultsearchwebstirehere.com';
}
** Update following comment **
Build up your websites object like so (where input is your array of key values seperated by pipe characters):
var websites = {};
for (var i = 0; i < input.length; i++) {
var siteToSearchTerm = input[i].split('|');
websites[siteToSearchTerm[1]] = siteToSearchTerm[0];
}
Here is how:
var websites = ["www.google.com|Google" , "www.yahoo.com|Yahoo" , "www.bing.com|Bing"];
function filterURL(websites,searchTerm)
{
for (var i = 0; i < websites.length; i++) {
if (websites[i].split('|')[1] === searchTerm) {
return websites[i].split('|')[0];
}
}
}
Working Example
You can also validate and improve function:
function filterURL(websites,searchTerm)
{
if (typeof websites != 'Array' || ! searchTerm) return false;
for (var i = 0; i < websites.length; i++) {
if (websites[i].split('|')[1] === searchTerm) {
return websites[i].split('|')[0];
}
}
return false;
}
Why not just use an object?
var websites = {
Google: 'www.google.com',
Yahoo: 'www.yahoo.com'
};
function filterURL(sites, searchTerm) {
if (sites[searchTerm]) {
return sites[searchTerm];
} else {
// What do you want to do when it can't be found?
}
}
alert(filterURL(websites, 'Google')); // alerts 'www.google.com'
You should really be using a hash-table like structure so that you don't have to search through the whole array every time. Something like this:
var websites = {
"Google": "www.google.com",
"Yahoo": "www.yahoo.com",
"Bing": "www.bing.com"
};
function filterURL(websites, searchTerm) {
if (websites[searchTerm] !== undefined)
return websites[searchTerm];
else
return null;
}
I'm not sure why you want to use an array for this, as what you're really doing fits a key-value pair better; however, here's how I'd do it:
function filterURL(websites, searchTerm) {
var i = 0,
parts;
for (i = 0; i < websites.length; i++) {
parts = websites[i].split("|");
if (parts[1].toLowerCase() === searchTerm) {
return parts[0];
}
}
}
But consider if you used a proper JavaScript Object instead:
var websites = {
Google: "www.google.com",
Yahoo: "www.yahoo.com",
Bing: "www.bing.com"
}
// Now it's much simpler:
function filterURL(websites, searchTerm) {
// key has first letter capitalized…
return websites[searchTerm.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + searchTerm.slice(1).toLowerCase()];
}
how to compare two arraycollection
collectionArray1 = ({first: 'Dave', last: 'Matthews'},...........n values
collectionArray = ({first: 'Dave', last: 'Matthews'},...........n values
how to compare..if equal just alert nochange if not alert chaged
If you just want to know if they are different from each other, meaning by length, order or individual items, you can do the following, which first checks to see if the lengths are different, then checks to see if the individual elements are different. This isn't terribly reusable, it's left as an exercise for the reader to split this apart into cleaner chunks :)
public function foo(coll1:ArrayCollection, coll2:ArrayCollection):void {
if (coll1.length == coll2.length) {
for (var i:int = 0; i < coll1.length; i++) {
if (coll1[i].first != coll2[i].first || coll1[i].last != coll2[i].last) {
Alert.show("Different");
return;
}
}
}
Alert.show("Same");
}
/* elements need to implement valueOf
public function valueOf():Object{}
*/
public static function equalsByValueOf(
first:ArrayCollection,
seconde:ArrayCollection):Boolean{
if((first==null) != (seconde==null) ){
return false;
}else if(!first && !seconde){
return false;
}
if(first.length!=seconde.length){
return false;
}
var commonLength:int = first.length;
var dictionary:Dictionary = new Dictionary();
for(var i:int=0;i<commonLength;i++){
var item1:Object = first.getItemAt(i);
var item2:Object = seconde.getItemAt(i);
dictionary[item1.valueOf()]=i;
dictionary[item2.valueOf()]=i;
}
var count:int = 0;
for (var key:Object in dictionary)
{
count++;
}
return count==commonLength;
}
/* valueOf sample
* something like javaObject.hashCode()
* use non changing fields(recommended)
*/
public function valueOf():Object{
return "_"+nonChangeField1+"_"+nonChangeField2+"...";
}
I was going to say this.
if(collectionArray === collectionArray1)
But that wont work (not triple = signs). As === is used to see classes.
I would write a function called check if object exists in array.
Create an array to hold elements that are not found. eg notFound
in Collection1 go through all the element and see if they exist in Collection2, if an element does not exist, add it to the notFound array. Use the function your created in step1
Now check Collection2, if an element is not found add it to the notFound array.
There is no 5.
Dude, use the mx.utils.ObjectUtil... the creators of actionscript have already thought about this.
ObjectUtil.compare(collection1, collection2) == 0;