I'm generating methods of partial classes. Using T4 Text Template
At first, I'm looking for extra implemented methods in the interface.
After that, reading access type, calling CodeFunction.Access.
I need compare CodeFunction.Access result.
I tried:
if(extraMethod.Access == vsCMAccessPublic)
if(extraMethod.Access == "vsCMAccessPublic")
no result....
If withdraw <#= extraMethod.Access #> I get vsCMAccessPublic
Answer:
if(extraMethod.Access == EnvDTE.vsCMAccess.vsCMAccessPublic)
or
if(extraMethod.Access == vsCMAccess.vsCMAccessPublic)
Related
I've got an object like this one:
{
"content": {
"iteration_size": 1
}
}
I need a JSONPath which returns null if the value of next_item is exactly 1, or the value of iteration_size otherwise. So the above should return null and "iteration_size": 2 should return 2. Is this possible in JSONPath?
I've tried variations on $.content[?(#.iteration_size == 1)].iteration_size, but the two online evaluators I've tried even disagree on the results of several of my attempts.
The use case is the AWS Batch API, where the array size must be either null or a number between 2 and 10,000.
AWS Support suggested that this was not possible, and that I should instead use a branch in the step function. I ended up replacing this:
.next(batch_submit_job)
[…]
with this:
.next(
aws_stepfunctions.Choice(self, "check_maybe_array")
.when(
aws_stepfunctions.Condition.number_equals("$.content.iteration_size", 1),
single_batch_submit_job,
)
.otherwise(array_batch_submit_job)
.afterwards()
)
where only array_batch_submit_job has an array_size. Note how the rest of the step function ended up wrapped inside the last next() call rather than at the top level.
Is it possible to write a hash function in such a way that hash of a string is equal to the hash of the same string but reversed? e.g.
hash("life") == hash("efil")
hash("life") == hash("life")
It would most likely defeat the purpose of it being a good uniform hash function, but sure, you can define a function like that. Anything that maps data of arbitrary size to data of fixed size is a hash function.
You could e.g. sort the characters in the input before passing the string to some other hash function, example in Python:
def myhash(s):
return hash(''.join(sorted(s)))
myhash("life") == myhash("efil")
returns True.
Another option, as sketched before in the comments:
def myhash2(s):
return hash(''.join(sorted([s,''.join(reversed(s))])))
from itertools import permutations
for r in sorted(((myhash2(s),s) for s in (''.join(p) for p in permutations('life')))):
print r
returns
(-8040601677570703892, 'efil')
(-8040601677570703892, 'life')
(-7809799233501675124, 'feli')
(-7809799233501675124, 'ilef')
(-7087163641342373728, 'feil')
(-7087163641342373728, 'lief')
(-3309334617147859636, 'ifel')
(-3309334617147859636, 'lefi')
(-1342443318618769016, 'flei')
(-1342443318618769016, 'ielf')
(-1101501415991241164, 'elif')
(-1101501415991241164, 'file')
(-94298563527211992, 'elfi')
(-94298563527211992, 'ifle')
(1475311783909651192, 'efli')
(1475311783909651192, 'ilfe')
(1616670693919962800, 'eifl')
(1616670693919962800, 'lfie')
(1783747732969301136, 'iefl')
(1783747732969301136, 'lfei')
(1880557847288313568, 'fiel')
(1880557847288313568, 'leif')
(4933084291912123320, 'eilf')
(4933084291912123320, 'flie')
I still like the comment/solution of #deceze best...
//Please excuse my poor English.
Hello everyone, I am doing a project which is about a facebook comment spider.
then I find the Facebook Graph GUI. It will return a json file that's so complicated for me.
The json file is include so many parts
then I use json.loads to get all the json code
finally it return a dict for me.
and i dont know how to access the Value
for example i want get all the id or comment.
but i can only get the 2 key of dict "data" and "pading"
so, how can i get the next key? like "id" or "comment"
and how to process this complicated data.
code
Thank you very much.
Two ways I can think of, either you know what you're looking for and access it directly or you loop over the keys, look at the value of the keys and nest another loop until you reach the end of the tree.
You can do this using a self-calling function and with the appropriate usage of jQuery.
Here is an example:
function get_the_stuff(url)
{
$.getJSON(url, function ( data ) {
my_parser(data) });
}
function my_parser(node)
{
$.each(node, function(key, val) {
if ( val && typeof val == "object" ) { my_parser(val); }
else { console.log("key="+key+", val="+val); }
});
}
I omitted all the error checking. Also make sure the typeof check is appropriate. You might need some other elseif's to maybe treat numbers, strings, null or booleans in different ways. This is just an example.
EDIT: I might have slightly missed that the topic said "Python"... sorry. Feel free to translate to python, same principles apply.
EDIT2: Now lets' try in Python. I'm assuming your JSON is already imported into a variable.
def my_parser(node, depth=0):
if type(node) == "list":
for val in node:
my_parser(val,depth+1)
elif type(node) == "dict":
for key in node:
printf("level=%i key=%s" % ( depth, key ))
my_parser(node[key], depth+1)
elif type(node) == "str":
pritnf("level=%i value=%s" % ( depth, node ))
elsif type(node) == "int":
printf("level=%i value=%i % ( depth, node ))
else:
printf("level=%i value_unknown_type" % ( depth ))
I have a column named params in a table named reports which contains JSON.
I need to find which rows contain the text 'authVar' anywhere in the JSON array. I don't know the path or level in which the text could appear.
I want to just search through the JSON with a standard like operator.
Something like:
SELECT * FROM reports
WHERE params LIKE '%authVar%'
I have searched and googled and read the Postgres docs. I don't understand the JSON data type very well, and figure I am missing something easy.
The JSON looks something like this.
[
{
"tileId":18811,
"Params":{
"data":[
{
"name":"Week Ending",
"color":"#27B5E1",
"report":"report1",
"locations":{
"c1":0,
"c2":0,
"r1":"authVar",
"r2":66
}
}
]
}
}
]
In Postgres 11 or earlier it is possible to recursively walk through an unknown json structure, but it would be rather complex and costly. I would propose the brute force method which should work well:
select *
from reports
where params::text like '%authVar%';
-- or
-- where params::text like '%"authVar"%';
-- if you are looking for the exact value
The query is very fast but may return unexpected extra rows in cases when the searched string is a part of one of the keys.
In Postgres 12+ the recursive searching in JSONB is pretty comfortable with the new feature of jsonpath.
Find a string value containing authVar:
select *
from reports
where jsonb_path_exists(params, '$.** ? (#.type() == "string" && # like_regex "authVar")')
The jsonpath:
$.** find any value at any level (recursive processing)
? where
#.type() == "string" value is string
&& and
# like_regex "authVar" value contains 'authVar'
Or find the exact value:
select *
from reports
where jsonb_path_exists(params, '$.** ? (# == "authVar")')
Read in the documentation:
The SQL/JSON Path Language
jsonpath Type
I'm writing an R function, that is becoming quite big. It admit multiple choice, and I'm organizing it like so:
myfun <- function(y, type=c("aa", "bb", "cc", "dd" ... "zz")){
if (type == "aa") {
do something
- a lot of code here -
....
}
if (type == "bb") {
do something
- a lot of code here -
....
}
....
}
I have two questions:
Is there a better way, in order to not use the 'if' statement, for every choice of the parameter type?
Could it be more functional to write a sub-function for every "type" choice?
If I write subfunction, it would look like this:
myfun <- function(y, type=c("aa", "bb", "cc", "dd" ... "zz")){
if (type == "aa") result <- sub_fun_aa(y)
if (type == "bb") result <- sub_fun_bb(y)
if (type == "cc") result <- sub_fun_cc(y)
if (type == "dd") result <- sub_fun_dd(y)
....
}
Subfunction are of course defined elsewhere (in the top of myfun, or in another way).
I hope I was clear with my question. Thanks in Advance.
- Additional info -
I'm writing a function that applies some different filters to an image (different filter = different "type" parameter). Some filters share some code (for example, "aa" and "bb" are two gaussian filters, which differs only for one line code), while others are completely different.
So I'm forced to use a lot of if statement, i.e.
if(type == "aa" | type == "bb"){
- do something common to aa and bb -
if(type == "aa"){
- do something aa-related -
}
if(type == "bb"){
- do something bb-related -
}
}
if(type == "cc" | type == "dd"){
- do something common to cc and dd -
if(type == "cc"){
- do something cc-related -
}
if(type == "dd"){
- do something dd-related -
}
}
if(type == "zz"){
- do something zz-related -
}
And so on.
Furthermore, there are some if statement in the code "do something".
I'm looking for the best way to organize my code.
Option 1
One option is to use switch instead of multiple if statements:
myfun <- function(y, type=c("aa", "bb", "cc", "dd" ... "zz")){
switch(type,
"aa" = sub_fun_aa(y),
"bb" = sub_fun_bb(y),
"bb" = sub_fun_cc(y),
"dd" = sub_fun_dd(y)
)
}
Option 2
In your edited question you gave far more specific information. Here is a general design pattern that you might want to consider. The key element in this pattern is that there is not a single if in sight. I replace it with match.function, where the key idea is that the type in your function is itself a function (yes, since R supports functional programming, this is allowed).:
sharpening <- function(x){
paste(x, "General sharpening", sep=" - ")
}
unsharpMask <- function(x){
y <- sharpening(x)
#... Some specific stuff here...
paste(y, "Unsharp mask", sep=" - ")
}
hiPass <- function(x) {
y <- sharpening(x)
#... Some specific stuff here...
paste(y, "Hipass filter", sep=" - ")
}
generalMethod <- function(x, type=c(hiPass, unsharpMask, ...)){
match.fun(type)(x)
}
And call it like this:
> generalMethod("stuff", "unsharpMask")
[1] "stuff - General sharpening - Unsharp mask"
> hiPass("mystuff")
[1] "mystuff - General sharpening - Hipass filter"
There is hardly ever a reason not to refactor your code into smaller functions. In this case, besides the reorganisation, there is an extra advantage: the educated user of your function(s) can immediately call the subfunction if she knows where she's at.
If these functions have lots of parameters, a solution (to ease maintenance) could be to group them in a list of class "myFunctionParameters", but depends on your situation.
If code is shared between the different sub_fun_xxs, just plug that into another function that you use from within each of the sub_fun_xxs, or (if that's viable) calculate the stuff up front and pass it directly into each sub_fun_xx.
This is a much more general question about program design. There's no definitive answer, but there's almost certainly a better route than what you're currently doing.
Writing functions that handle the different types is a good route to go down. How effective it will be depends on several things - for example, how many different types are there? Are they at all related, e.g. could some of them be handled by the same function, with slightly different behavior depending on the input?
You should try to think about your code in a modular way. You have one big task to do overall. Can you break it down into a sequence of smaller tasks, and write functions that perform the smaller tasks? Can you generalize any of those tasks in a way that doesn't make the functions (much) more difficult to write, but does give them wider applicability?
If you give some more detail about what your program is supposed to be achieving, we will be able to help you more.
This is more of a general programming question than an R question. As such, you can follow basic guidelines of code quality. There are tools that can generate code quality reports from reading your code and give you guidelines on how to improve. One such example is Gendarme for .NET code. Here is a typical guideline that would appear in a report with too long methods:
AvoidLongMethodsRule