Good afternoon, I want to make a universal sort for all tables. The idea is that the method will receive the name of the column as input and, through reflection, I will receive a link to the field of the same name.
val id = "id"
var a = JobSeekerTable::class
a.memberProperties.forEach { e ->
if (e.name == id) {
transaction {
JobSeeker.all().sortedBy { e.getter }
}
}
}
Unfortunately, this does not work. There was an option, through the fields field that the table has
JobSeekerTable.fields.forEach {v->
transaction {
JobSeeker.all().sortedBy { v }
}
}
but also unsuccessfully :(
If there is any way to refer to the required field through the name. Not using if and stuff like that?
First, you are probably looking for orderBy, not sortedBy. The former is to order SQL query results, the later is to sort a collection.
Second, you want to pass an instance of a column:
val id = "id"
JobSeekerTable.selectAll().orderBy(JobSeekerTable.columns.find {
it.name == id // Here I used the name you provided, although probably it should be named something like columnName
} !! to SortOrder.ASC)
Using "screaming" operator (!!) in Kotlin is a bad practice. So if all of your tables have ID column, for example, you can use "elvis" operator instead.
JobSeekerTable.selectAll().orderBy((JobSeekerTable.columns.find {
it.name == id
} ?: JobSeekerTable.id) to SortOrder.ASC)
Related
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 am kinda new using kotlin and I was wondering if I can do something like this.
I have a list with objects of type Person,
Person has properties like name, id but can be null.
So I made something like this:
return persons.filter {
it.name != null && it.id != null
}.map {
it.id to it.name
}.toMap()
I personally dont see the error but the compiler keeps telling me I should return a map of not nulls.
Is there any way I can do it using filter and map using lambdas functions?
Use mapNotNull to combine filter and map:
persons.mapNotNull {
val id = it.id
val name = it.name
if (id != null && name != null) Pair(id, name) else null
}.toMap()
Pulling id and name into local variables should make sure they'll get inferred as not-null in Pair(id, name) but may not be necessary.
The reason your approach doesn't work is that persons.filter { ... } just returns List<Person>, there's no way to say "list of Persons with non-null name and id" or to represent it internally in the compiler.
btw, you can even get rid of if in mapNotNull:
persons.mapNotNull {
val id = it.id ?: return#mapNotNull null
val name = it.name ?: return#mapNotNull null
id to name
}.toMap()
May be you can simply change
.map {
it.id to it.name
}
into
.map {
it.id!! to it.name!!
}
The suffix !! operator converts String? into String, throwing exception if the value with type String? is null, which in our case can't be true, due to the previously applied filter.
Use of !! should be limited to cases where you take responsibility of explicitly asserting that value can't be null: you're saying to the compiler that values are String even if the type is String? - and should be imho used with caution.
Compiler can't infer the type domain restriction from String? to String from the predicate passed to filter, but you can, so I think !! usage can be a valuable approach...
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().
Kotlin has some pretty cool functions for collections. However, I have come across a problem in which the solution is not apparent to me.
I have a List of Objects. Those Objects have an ID field which coincides with a SQLite database. SQL operations are performed on the database, and a new list is generated. How can the index of an item from the new list be found based on the "ID" field (or any other field for that matter)?
the Collection.find{} function return the object, but not the index.
indexOfFirst can find the index of the first element of a collection that satisfies a specified predicate.
We have a DB SQlite that a call is made to to retrieve parentList We can obtain the items in the ArrayList with this type of code
fun onDoIt(view: View){
initDB()
for (t in 0..X-1) {
var N:String = parentList[t].dept
// NOTE two syntax here [t] and get(t)
if(t == 1){
var B:String = parentList[0].idD.toString()
println("$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ====== "+B)
}
var I:String = parentList.get(t).idD.toString()
println("################### id "+I+" for "+N)
}
}
private fun initDB() {
parentList = db.querySPDept()
if (parentList.isEmpty()) {
title = "No Records in DB"
} else {
X = parentList.size
println("**************************************** SIZE " + X)
title = "SP View Activity"
}
}
I have list of table column names and it's values which will be determined # run time. Right now I am using following way to achieve the feet which requires casting Filed to TableField for every single column name. Is there any better way ?
override fun updateFields(job: Job, jsonObject: JsonObject, handler: Handler<AsyncResult<Job?>>): JobQService {
val updateFieldsDsl = dslContext.update(JOB)
var feildSetDsl: UpdateSetMoreStep<*>? = null
jsonObject.map.keys.forEach { column ->
feildSetDsl = if (feildSetDsl == null) {
updateFieldsDsl.set(JOB.field(column) as TableField<Record, Any>, jsonObject.getValue(column))
} else {
feildSetDsl!!.set(JOB.field(column) as TableField<Record, Any>, jsonObject.getValue(column))
}
}
val queryDsl = feildSetDsl!!.where(JOB.ID.eq(job.id))
jdbcClient.rxUpdateWithParams(queryDsl.sql, JsonArray(queryDsl.bindValues)).subscribeBy(
onSuccess = { handler.handle(Future.succeededFuture(job)) },
onError = { handler.handle(Future.failedFuture(it)) }
)
return this;
}
I'm not sure what you mean by "better" but there is a method UpdateSetStep.set(Map), which seems to be helpful for what you're trying to do. See the javadoc:
UpdateSetMoreStep set(Map<?,?> map)
Set a value for a field in the UPDATE statement.
Keys can either be of type String, Name, or Field.
Values can either be of type <T> or Field<T>. jOOQ will attempt to convert values to their corresponding field's type.