I have the following code snippet
val cachedNews = listOf(News(9, "https://009"), News(8, "https://234"), News(7, "https://345"))
val freshNews = listOf(News(1, "https://123"), News(2, "https://234"), News(3, "https://345"))
val result = freshNews.filter {fresh -> filter(cachedNews, fresh)}
private fun filter(cached: List<News>, fresh: News): Boolean {
cached.forEach { cachedItem ->
if (cachedItem.url == fresh.url) return true
}
return false }
When the code runs if cachedItem.url == fresh.url the list is filtered and the result is a list where the urls of the two lists are identical. However when i reverse equality like so cachedItem.url != fresh.url the list is not filtered at all. The sequence of execution changes.
When using the == sign, the first item of freshNews is compared with the first Item of cachedNews after that the secondItem of freshNews is compared with secondItem of cachedNews and so on.
When I use the != sign the all items of freshNews are compared against only the firstItem of cachedNews ??
Am I missing something or is my code just wrong?
I'm not sure what the specific problem is because your approach is quite confusing. Your custom filter function is actually more like a contains function.
What might be useful is to:
Extract the cached URLs to a set
Filter the new results by URLs that are not in the set.
fun main() {
val cachedNews = listOf(News(9, "https://009"), News(8, "https://234"), News(7, "https://345"))
val freshNews = listOf(News(1, "https://123"), News(2, "https://234"), News(3, "https://345"))
val cachedUrls = cachedNews.map { it.url }.toSet()
val result = freshNews.filterNot { cachedUrls.contains(it.url) }
println(result)
}
Result:
[News(id=1, url=https://123)]
Related
I have a class called Person
data class Person(
val id: Int,
val name: String
)
data class IDs(
val id : Int,
val active : Boolean )
and an array list that has numbers of ids and another list of Persons
val myStu = listOf<Person>(Person(1, "Name_1"), Person(2, "Name_2"), Person(3, "Name_3"))
var ids = listOf<IDs>(IDs(1,false),IDs(2,true),IDs(3,true))
var newIds = listOf<Int>(2,3,4,6)
First I want to apply two actions to the myStu, first is to have a list that include all the items from myStu that his id matches the id in the IDS and only if the active is true
myStu or the new list will have the values
Person(2, "Name_2"), Person(3, "Name_3"))
Then do action two , I need to add a new item to the new list that their id does not exist in the newIds , in another word we will add a new person Person(4,"None") and (6,"None) , 4 and 6 values come from newIds list
the final output will be :
id= 2 name = "Name_2", id= 3 name = "Name_3", id= 4 name = "None" , id =6 name="None"
I want to write the code with filter , I failed with first step because I don't know how to use contains() with the list inside the filter
val newArr = myStu.filter {
ids.contains(it.id)
}
The "easiest" way of doing that would be to use filter directly, there's no need for contains. If we were to use contains, then we would need to also search for which element contained the id, in order to get the status. We can just do a .any() to do both at the same time.
V1
val activeStu = myStu.filter { person -> ids.any { it.id == person.id && it.active } }
val result = newIds.map { newId ->
activeStu.find { it.id == newId } ?: Person(id = newId, name = "None")
}
Another method, that might work a bit better if we have big lists, would be to first transform the IDs list into a map. That way the second part of our code is a bit more efficient, since there is no search involved.
V2
val idsMap = ids.associate { it.id to it.active }
val activeStu = myStu.filter { idsMap[it.id] ?: false }
//the creation of the result list is the same
Version without creating 2 new lists. This works, but it might be quite ineficient processing wise, and also harder to understand what is going on IMO.
V3
val result = newIds.map { newId ->
//try to find an IDs with the current newId and status as true
when (ids.find { it.id == newId }?.active) {
//if found, then find the corresponding Person
true -> myStu.find { it.id == newId } ?: Person(newId, "None") // if this happens, it means that an IDs with status true existed and no Person had that id. Not sure what you want in this scenario, this version creates one of the "none" persons.
//if not found, then create a new one
else -> Person(newId, "None")
}
}
Note: depending on what version of kotlin you have, you might have to change the when statement to this:
when (ids.find { it.id == newId }?.active == true)
Since I think I remember that null didn't used to be treated as false in old versions (I've run this with version 1.4.20).
Btw, you can also use this version with the idsMap from V2, just replace the when(...) with when(idsMap[newId] or when(idsMap[newId] == true) depending on the kotlin version.
There is a data class as fruits.
data class Fruits(
val code: String, //Unique
val name: String
)
The base list indexed items with boolean variable is as below.
val indexList: MutableList<Boolean> = MutableList(baseFruitList.size) { false }
Now the Favourite Indexed list is as below
val favList: MutableList<Boolean> = MutableList(favFruitList.size) { true}
I want a combined full list which basically has the fav item indicated as true.
Ex:
baseFruitList = {[FT1,apple],[FT2,grapes],[FT3,banana],[FT4,mango],[FT5,pears]}
favList = {[FT2,grapes],[FT4,mango]}
The final index list should have
finalIndexed = {false,true,false,true,false}
How can we achieve in Kotlin, without iterating through each element.
You can do
val finalIndexed = baseFruitList.map { it in favList }
assuming, like #Tenfour04 is asking, that name is guaranteed to be a specific value (including matching case) for a specific code (since that combination is how a data class matches another, e.g. for checking if it's in another list)
If you can't guarantee that, this is safer:
val finalIndexed = baseFruitList.map { fruit ->
favList.any { fav.code == fruit.code }
}
but here you have to iterate over all the favs (at least until you find a match) looking to see if one has the code.
But really, if code is the unique identifier here, why not just store those in your favList?
favList = listOf("FT2", "FT4") // or a Set would be more efficient, and more correct!
val finalIndexed = baseFruitList.map { it.code in favList }
I don't know what you mean about "without iterating through each element" - if you mean without an explicit indexed for loop, then you can use these simple functions like I have here. But there's always some amount of iteration involved. Sets are always an option to help you minimise that
I have an enum class thats something like this:
enum class SomeType(val id: String) {
TYPE1("A"),
TYPE2("B"),
TYPE3("C"),
TYPE4("D")
}
Now, I need to filter a list of Something which has a String that's stated in SomeType enum. So Basically I have something like this:
class Something(val id: String)
// where the value of id is one of the value of the SomeType's id
I have a list of Something like so:
val somethingList = arrayListOf<Something>(
Something("A"),
Something("B"),
Something("A"),
Something("C"),
Something("D"),
Something("A"),
Something("D")
)
Now I need to filter that somethingList to by the given EnumSet<SomeType>.
So if I have a:
val someTypeSet = EnumSet.of(SomeType.Type3, SomeType.Type2)
the resulting filtered List should be,
val filteredList = arrayListOf<Something>(
Something("B"),
Something("C")
)
My idea is to convert the someTypeSet to a Set<String> and just do something like:
Set<String> setOfSomeTypeIds = convertToSet(someTypeSet)
val filteredList = somethingList.filter { something ->
setOfSomeTypeIds.contains(something.id)
}
Can someone guide me how to convert an EnumSet to a Set of its value?
I also explained the whole process just in case there is a better solution to the problem above.
Anything will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
You can use map on any collection to transform it to a new collection with the desired values... i.e. someTypeSet.map { it.id } will already return you a list of string. If you really want to have a Set you can also use something like mapTo. Regarding the filter that might also be simplifiable using the in-keyword, e.g.: somethingList.filter { it.id in setOfSomeTypeIds }.
So summarized:
val setOfSomeTypeIds = someTypeSet.map { it.id }
val filteredList = somethingList.filter { it.id in setOfSomeTypeIds }
You can use the map function after you filter the relevant types.
val filteredSomethings:List<Something> = someTypeSet.filter { something ->
setOfSomeTypeIds.contains(something.id) }.map { Something(it.id) }
It will return a List of Something with the relevant Ids.
I'm trying to convert my nested for loop to asSequence in Kotlin. Here, my goal is to get and update the value of all my object array from another object array with the same key.
nested for loop:
val myFields = getMyFields()
val otherFields = getOtherFields()
for (myField in myFields) { // loop tru the my fields
for (otherField in otherFields) { // find the same fields
if (myField.key == otherField.key) { // if the same, update the value
val updatedMyField = myField.copy(value = otherValue.value)
myFields[myFields.indexOf(myField)] = updatedMyField // update my field value
break
}
}
}
What I've tried:
val updatedMyFields = getMyFields().asSequence()
.map { myField ->
getOtherFields().asSequence()
.map { otherField ->
if (myField.key == otherField.key) {
return#map otherField.value
} else {
return#map ""
}
}
.filter { it?.isNotEmpty() == true }
.first()?.map { myField.copy(value = it.toString()) }
}
.toList()
but this does not compile as it will return List<List<MyField>>.
I'm just looking for something much cleaner for this.
As comments suggest, this would probably be much more efficient with a Map.
(More precisely, a map solution would take time proportional to the sum of the list lengths, while the nested for loop takes time proportional to their product — which gets bigger much faster.)
Here's one way of doing that:
val otherFields = getOtherFields().associate{ it.key to it.value }
val myFields = getMyFields().map {
val otherValue = otherFields[it.key]
if (otherValue != null) it.copy(value = otherValue) else it
}
The first line creates a Map from the ‘other fields’ keys to their values. The rest then uses it to create a new list from ‘my fields’, substituting the values from the ‘other fields’ where present.
I've had to make assumptions about the types &c, since the code in the question is incomplete, but this should do the same. Obviously, you can change how it merges the values by amending the it.copy().
There are likely to be even simpler and more efficient ways, depending on the surrounding code. If you expanded it into a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable Example — in particular, one that illustrates how you already use a Map, as per your comment — we might be able to suggest something better.
Why do you want to use asSequence() ? You can go for something like that:
val myFields = getMyFields()
val otherFields = getOtherFields()
myFields.forEach{firstField ->
otherFields.forEach{secondField ->
if (firstField.key == secondField.key) {
myFields[myFields.indexOf(firstField)] = secondField.value
}
}
}
This will do the same job than your nested for loop and it's easier to read, to understand and so to maintain than your nested asSequence().
Maybe a stupid question but I just don't get it.
I have a Set<Either<Failure, Success>> and want to output a Set<Success> with Arrow-kt.
You can map the set like this for right:
val successes = originalSet.mapNotNull { it.orNull() }.toSet()
or if you want the lefts:
val failures = originalSet.mapNotNull { it.swap().orNull() }.toSet()
The final toSet() is optional if you want to keep it as a Set as mapNotNull is an extension function on Iterable and always returns a List
PS: No stupid questions :)
Update:
It can be done avoiding nullables:
val successes = originalSet
.map { it.toOption() }
.filter { it is Some }
.toSet()
We could potentially add Iterable<Option<A>>.filterSome and Iterable<Either<A, B>.mapAsOptions functions.
Update 2:
That last example returns a Set<Option<Success>>. If you want to unwrap the results without using null then one thing you can try is to fold the Set:
val successes = originalSet
.fold(emptySet<Success>()) { acc, item ->
item.fold({ acc }, { acc + it })
}
This last option (unintended pun) doesn't require the use of Option.