While adding scriptability to my Mac program, I am struggling with the common programming problem of deleting items from an indexed array where the item indexes shift due to removal of items.
Let's say my app maintains a data store in which objects of type "Person" are stored. In the sdef, I've define the Cocoa Key allPersons to access these elements. My app declares an NSArray *allPersons.
That far, it works well. E.g, this script works well:
repeat with p in every person
get name of p
end repeat
The problem starts when I want to support deletion of items, like this:
repeat with p in (get every person)
delete p
end repeat
(I realize that I could just write "delete every person", which works fine, but I want to show how "repeat" makes things more complicated).
This does not work because AppleScript keep using the original item numbers to reference the items even after deleting some of them, which naturally shifts the items and their numbering.
So, considering we have 3 Persons, "Adam", "Bonny" and "Clyde", this will happen:
get every person
--> {person 1, person 2, person 3}
delete person 1
delete person 2
delete person 3
--> error number -1719 from person 3
After deleting item 1 (Adam), the other items get renumbered to item 1 and 2. The second iteration deletes item 2 (which is now Clyde), and the third iteration attempts to delete item 3, which doesn't exist any more at that point.
How do I solve this?
Can I force the scripting engine to not address the items by their index number but instead by their unique ID so that this won't happen?
It's not your ObjC code, it's your misunderstanding of how repeat with VAR in EXPR loops work. (Not really your fault either: they're 1. counterintuitive, and 2. poorly explained.) When it first encounters your repeat statement, AppleScript sends your app a count event to get the number of items specified by EXPR, which in this case is an object specifier (query) that identifies all of the person elements in whatever. It then uses that information to generate its own sequence of by-index object specifiers, counting from 1 up to the result of the aforementioned count:
person 1 of whatever
person 2 of whatever
...
person N of whatever
What you need to realize is that an object specifier is a first-class query, not an object pointer (not that Apple tell you this either): it describes a request, not an object. Ignore the purloined jargon: Apple event IPC's nearest living relatives are RDBMSes, not Cocoa or SOAP or any of the OO messaging crud that modern developers so fixate on as The One True Way To Do... well, EVERYTHING.
It's only when that query is sent to your application in an Apple event that it's evaluated against the relational graph your Apple event IPC View-Controller – aka "Apple Event Object Model" – presents as an idealized, user-friendly representation of your Model's user date that it actually resolves to a specific Model object, or objects, with which the event handler should perform the requested operation.
Thus, when the delete command in your repeat loop tells your app to delete person 1 of whatever, all your remaining elements move down by one. But on the next iteration the repeat loop still generates the object specifier person 2 of whatever, which your script then sends off to your app, which resolves it to the second item in the collection – which was originally the third item, of course, until you shifted them all about.
Or, to borrow a phrase:
Nothing in AppleScript makes sense except in light of relational queries.
..
In fact, Apple events' query-based approach it actually makes a lot of sense considering it was originally designed to be efficient over very high-latency connections (i.e. System 7's abysmally inefficient process switcher), allowing a single Apple event carrying one or more complex queries to manipulate many objects at once. It's even quite elegant [when it works right], but is quite undone by idiots at Cupertino who think the best way to make programmers not hate the technology is to lie even harder about how it actually works.
So here, I suggest you go read this, which is not the best explanation either but still a damn sight better than anything you'll get from those muppets. And this, by its original designer that explains a lot of the rationale for creating a high-level coarse-grained query-based IPC system instead of the usual low-level fine-grained OO message passing crap.
Oh, and once you've done that, you might want to consider try running this instead:
delete every person whose name is "bob"
which is pretty much the whole point of creating a thick declarative-y abstraction that does all the work so the user doesn't have to.
And when nothing but an imperative client-side loop will do, you either want to get a list of by-ID object specifiers (which are the closest things to safe, persistent pointers that AEOMs can do) from the app first and then iterate over that, or at least use your own iterator loop that counts over elements in reverse:
repeat with i from (count every person) to 1 by -1
tell person i
..
end tell
end repeat
so that, assuming it's iterating over an ordered array on the server side, will delete from last to first, and so avoid the embarrassing off-by-N errors of your original script.
HTH
re: "If you want your scripable elements to be deletable, make sure you use NSUniqueIDSpecifiers to identify them."
Yes, Apple recommends using formUniqueId or formName for object specifiers, but you can't always do that. For instance, in the Text Suite, you really only have indexing to work with; e.g. character 1, word 3, paragraph 7, etc. You don't have unique IDs for text elements. In addition to deletion, ordering can be affected by other Standard Suite commands: open, close, duplicate, make, and move.
The app implementer is a programmer, but so is the scripter. So it is reasonable to expect the scripter to solve some problems themselves. For instance, if the app has 5 persons, and the scripter wants to delete persons 2 and 4, they can easily do so even with indexed deletion:
delete person 4
delete person 2
Deleting from the end of an ordered list forward solves the problem. AS also supports negative indexes, which can be used for the same purpose:
delete person -2
delete person -4
The key to solving this lies in implementing the objectSpecifier method correctly so that it does return an NSUniqueIDSpecifier.
My code did so far only return an index specifier and that was wrong for this purpose. I guess that had I posted my code (which is, unfortunately, too complex for that), someone may have noticed my mistake.
So, I guess the rule is: If you want your scripable elements to be deletable, make sure you use NSUniqueIDSpecifiers to identify them. For read-only element arrays, using an NSIndexSpecifier is (probably) safe, though, if your element array has persistent ordering behavior.
Update
As #foo points out, it's also important that the repeat command fetches the references to the items by using … in (get every person) and not just … in every person, because only the former leads to addressing the items by their id whereas the latter keeps indexing them as item N.
Related
Imagine a rail track, and my goal is to store every railcar that exists on that track. Each railcar has a position. Say there are 100 railcars on the track, so each railcar object would have a TrackPosition from 1-100.
That is essentially what we are doing right now, with a Track having child Railcars, and each Railcar has an integer TrackPosition.
When a new railcar is added, we simply take the # of cars in the track + 1 to save the position of the new car.
We are running into issues in a few different areas:
We would like to add cars concurrently using AWS Lambda. This presents a problem as two functions could hit the line of logic that calculates "total cars on track + 1" at the same time. When they go to save, both cars would have the same position. Locking that bit of code is not possible within AWS Lambda (as far as I can tell from what I've read). We've resolved this for the time being by setting the Lambdas to fire synchronously (concurrency set to 1), obviously not ideal for performance.
We would like to add a car into the middle of a track. This would involve taking any car with a greater position and incrementing them all. Not difficult to write some code to do this, but..
I'm wondering if I'm missing something fundamental within SQL that can achieve what I am after in a less error-prone way. The way I'm doing it seems naive. I've looked into Sequences, but I'm not sure if they would solve my concurrency issue.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. We are using Entity Framework Core 2 with SQL Server.
I successfully amended the nice CloudBalancing example to include the fact that I may only have a limited number of computers open at any given time (thanx optaplanner team - easy to do). I believe this is referred to as a bounded-space problem. It works dandy.
The processes come in groupwise, say 20 processes in a given order per group. I would like to amend the example to have optaplanner also change the order of these groups (not the processes within one group). I have therefore added a class ProcessGroup in the domain with a member List<Process>, the instances of ProcessGroup being stored in a List<ProcessGroup>. The desired optimisation would shuffle the members of this List, causing the instances of ProcessGroup to be placed at different indices of the List List<ProcessGroup>. The index of ProcessGroup should be ProcessGroup.index.
The documentation states that "if in doubt, the planning entity is the many side of the many-to-one relationsship." This would mean that ProcessGroup is the planning entity, the member index being a planning variable, getting assigned to (hopefully) different integers. After every new assignment of indices, I would have to resort the list List<ProcessGroup in ascending order of ProcessGroup.index. This seems very odd and cumbersome. Any better ideas?
Thank you in advance!
Philip.
The current design has a few disadvantages:
It requires 2 (genuine) entity classes (each with 1 planning variable): probably increases search space (= longer to solve, more difficult to find a good or even feasible solution) + it increases configuration complexity. Don't use multiple genuine entity classes if you can avoid it reasonably.
That Integer variable of GroupProcess need to be all different and somehow sequential. That smelled like a chained planning variable (see docs about chained variables and Vehicle Routing example), in which case the entire problem could be represented as a simple VRP with just 1 variable, but does that really apply here?
Train of thought: there's something off in this model:
ProcessGroup has in Integer variable: What does that Integer represent? Shouldn't that Integer variable be on Process instead? Are you ordering Processes or ProcessGroups? If it should be on Process instead, then both Process's variables can be replaced by a chained variable (like VRP) which will be far more efficient.
ProcessGroup has a list of Processes, but that a problem property: which means it doesn't change during planning. I suspect that's correct for your use case, but do assert it.
If none of the reasoning above applies (which would surprise me) than the original model might be valid nonetheless :)
I am making an application that represents a cell phone bill using Core Data. I have three entities: Bill, Line, and Calls. Bills can have many lines, and lines can have many calls. All of this is set up with relationships. Right now, I have a table view that displays all of the bills. When you double click on a bill, a sheet comes down with a popup box that lists all of the lines on the bill. Below the popup box is a box that has many labels that display various information about that line. Below that information I want to list the top 5 numbers called by that line in that month. Lines has a to-many relationship with Calls, which has two fields, number and minutes. I have all of the calls for the selected line loaded into an NSArrayController with a sort descriptor that properly arranges the values. How do I populate 5 labels with the top 5 values of this array controller?
EDIT: The array of calls is already unique, when I gather the data, I combine all the individual calls into total minutes per number for each month. I just need to sort and display the first 5 records of this combined array.
I may be wrong (and really hope I am), but it looks like you'll need to use brute force on this one. There are no set / array operators that can help, nor does NSPredicate appear to help.
I think this is actually a bit tricky and it looks like you'll have to do some coding. The Core Data Programming Guide says:
If you execute a fetch directly, you
should typically not add
Objective-C-based predicates or sort
descriptors to the fetch request.
Instead you should apply these to the
results of the fetch. If you use an
array controller, you may need to
subclass NSArrayController so you can
have it not pass the sort descriptors
to the persistent store and instead do
the sorting after your data has been
fetched.
I think this applies to your case because it's important to consider whether sorting or filtering takes place first in a fetch request (when the fetch requests predicate and sort descriptors are set). This is because you'll be tempted to use the #distinctUnionOfObjects set/array operator. If the list is collapsed to uniques before sorting, it won't help. If it's applied after sorting, you can just set the fetch request's limit to 5 and there're your results.
Given the documentation, I don't know that this is how it will work. Also, in this case, it might be easier to avoid NSArrayController for this particular problem and just use NSTableViewDataSource protocol, but that's beyond the scope of this Q&A.
So, here's one way to do it:
Create a predicate to filter for the
selected bill's line items.*
Create a sort descriptor to sort the
line items by their telephone number
(which are hopefully in a
standardized format internally, else
trouble awaits) via #"call.number" in your case.
Create a fetch request for the line
item entity, with the predicate and
sort descriptors then execute it**.
With those sorted results, it would be nice if you could collapse and "unique" them easily, and again, you'll be tempted to use #distinctUnionOfObjects. Unfortunately, set/array operators won't be any help here (you can't use them directly on NSArray/NSMutableArray or NSSet/NSMutableSet instances). Brute force it is, then.
I'd create a topFive array and loop through the results, adding the number to topFive if it's not there already, until topFive has 5 items or until I'm out of results.
Displaying it in your UI (using Bindings or not) is, as I said, beyond the scope of this Q&A, so I'll leave it there. I'd LOVE to hear if there's a better way to do this - it's definitely one of those "looks like it should be easy but it's not" kind of things. :-)
*You could also use #unionOfObjects in your key path during the fetch itself to get the numbers of the calls of the line items of the selected bill, which would probably be more efficient a fetch, but I'm getting tired of typing, and you get the idea. ;-)
**In practice I'd probably limit the fetch request to something reasonable - some bills (especially for businesses and teenagers) can be quite large.
I am using VB.NET and I am trying to come up with some algorithm or some pseudo-code, or some VB.NET code that will let me do the following (hopefully I can explain this well):
I have 2 collection objects, Cob1 and Cob2. These collection objects store objects that implement an interface called ICob. ICob has 3 properties. A boolean IsSelected property, a property called Length, which returns a TimeSpan, and a Rating property, which is a short integer.
OK, now Cob1 has about 100 objects stored in the collection and Cob2 is an empty collection. What I want to do is select objects from Cob1 and copy them over to Cob2. I want the following rules obeyed when selecting the objects though:
I want to be able to specify a timespan and I want enough objects to be selected to fit into the timespan I specify (based on the Length property). So for example, if I pass a 10 minute timespan to my function, it should pick enough objects that fill the entire 10 minute window, or come as close to filling it as possible.
No objects should be selected twice.
Objects that have a higher rating (via the Rating property) should have a better chance at being picked then other objects.
No object that has been selected in the last 30 minutes should be selected again (so that each object will eventually get selected at least once), regardless of rating.
Can anyone give me some tips on how to achieve this? The tips can be in the form of mental processes, VB.NET example code, Pseudo-code or just about anything else that might help me.
Thanks
EDIT:
Maybe It would help to everyone if I revealed what I'm trying to do in real life.
I am writing software for a radio station that will automatically select the music and advertisments to play, kinda of like a computerized program manager.
The length represents the length of the sound byte (either a song or an advertisement) and the rating is just that. If the song is popular, it gets more airtime. If an advertiser pays more money, then it also gets more airtime.
So my program should pick songs that play for 20 minutes or so, then pick some advertisements to play for about 5 minutes or so.
Hopefully this helps a little.
Thanks for the input from everyone!
Alan
Note that:
The restriction 1 is from the classical knapsack problem, which works on sets, as requested by restriction 2.
Restriction 3 is rather vague. It is better to have higher value or higher coverage of the lifespan? If you don't specify a objective function to maximaze (or, to be precise, there are two: lifespan itself and rate), there are some pareto optimal solutions.
Restriction 4 is implementable by making a map object -> last time selected., in the form of black list.
Long story short: first I'd filter the set by blacklisting the object by restriction 4, and then apply a knapsack algorithm.
In order to implement 4., I believe you'll need to save the date/time when the Cob was last selected. Then, I'd do it in the following steps:
Filter out the ones that have not been selected within the last 30 minutes.
Sort by rating and set your "cursor" on the first item in the list.
Check the item's timespan. If short enough to fit in the specified time, select it. If not, goto 3 and proceed with the next item.
Check if your timespan has been filled. If yes, you are done. If no, goto 3 and proceed with the next item.
I have a collection of objects in a database. Images in a photo gallery, products in a catalog, chapters in a book, etc. Each object is represented as a row. I want to be able to arbitrarily order these images, storing that ordering in the database so when I display the objects, they will be in the right order.
For example, let's say I'm writing a book, and each chapter is an object. I write my book, and put the chapters in the following order:
Introduction, Accessibility, Form vs. Function, Errors, Consistency, Conclusion, Index
It goes to the editor, and comes back with the following suggested order:
Introduction, Form, Function, Accessibility, Consistency, Errors, Conclusion, Index
How can I store this ordering in the database in a robust, efficient way?
I've had the following ideas, but I'm not thrilled with any of them:
Array. Each row has an ordering ID, when order is changed (via a removal followed by an insertion), the order IDs are updated. This makes retrieval easy, since it's just ORDER BY, but it seems easy to break.
// REMOVAL
UPDATE ... SET orderingID=NULL WHERE orderingID=removedID
UPDATE ... SET orderingID=orderingID-1 WHERE orderingID > removedID
// INSERTION
UPDATE ... SET orderingID=orderingID+1 WHERE orderingID > insertionID
UPDATE ... SET orderID=insertionID WHERE ID=addedID
Linked list. Each row has a column for the id of the next row in the ordering. Traversal seems costly here, though there may by some way to use ORDER BY that I'm not thinking of.
Spaced array. Set the orderingID (as used in #1) to be large, so the first object is 100, the second is 200, etc. Then when an insertion happens, you just place it at (objectBefore + objectAfter)/2. Of course, this would need to be rebalanced occasionally, so you don't have things too close together (even with floats, you'd eventually run into rounding errors).
None of these seem particularly elegant to me. Does anyone have a better way to do it?
An other alternative would be (if your RDBMS supports it) to use columns of type array. While this breaks the normalization rules, it can be useful in situations like this. One database which I know about that has arrays is PostgreSQL.
The acts_as_list mixin in Rails handles this basically the way you outlined in #1. It looks for an INTEGER column called position (of which you can override to name of course) and using that to do an ORDER BY. When you want to re-order things you update the positions. It has served me just fine every time I've used it.
As a side note, you can remove the need to always do re-positioning on INSERTS/DELETES by using sparse numbering -- kind of like basic back in the day... you can number your positions 10, 20, 30, etc. and if you need to insert something in between 10 and 20 you just insert it with a position of 15. Likewise when deleting you can just delete the row and leave the gap. You only need to do re-numbering when you actually change the order or if you try to do an insert and there is no appropriate gap to insert into.
Of course depending on your particular situation (e.g. whether you have the other rows already loaded into memory or not) it may or may not make sense to use the gap approach.
If the objects aren't heavily keyed by other tables, and the lists are short, deleting everything in the domain and just re-inserting the correct list is the easiest. But that's not practical if the lists are large and you have lots of constraints to slow down the delete. I think your first method is really the cleanest. If you run it in a transaction you can be sure nothing odd happens while you're in the middle of the update to screw up the order.
Just a thought considering option #1 vs #3: doesn't the spaced array option (#3) only postpone the problem of the normal array (#1)? Whatever algorithm you choose, either it's broken, and you'll run into problems with #3 later, or it works, and then #1 should work just as well.
I did this in my last project, but it was for a table that only occasionally needed to be specifically ordered, and wasn't accessed too often. I think the spaced array would be the best option, because it reordering would be cheapest in the average case, just involving a change to one value and a query on two).
Also, I would imagine ORDER BY would be pretty heavily optimized by database vendors, so leveraging that function would be advantageous for performance as opposed to the linked list implementation.
Use a floating point number to represent the position of each item:
Item 1 -> 0.0
Item 2 -> 1.0
Item 3 -> 2.0
Item 4 -> 3.0
You can place any item between any other two items by simple bisection:
Item 1 -> 0.0
Item 4 -> 0.5
Item 2 -> 1.0
Item 3 -> 2.0
(Moved item 4 between items 1 and 2).
The bisection process can continue almost indefinitely due to the way floating point numbers are encoded in a computer system.
Item 4 -> 0.5
Item 1 -> 0.75
Item 2 -> 1.0
Item 3 -> 2.0
(Move item 1 to the position just after Item 4)
Since I've mostly run into this with Django, I've found this solution to be the most workable. It seems that there isn't any "right way" to do this in a relational database.
I'd do a consecutive number, with a trigger on the table that "makes room" for a priority if it already exists.
I had this problem as well. I was under heavy time pressure (aren't we all) and I went with option #1, and only updated rows that changed.
If you swap item 1 with item 10, just do two updates to update the order numbers of item 1 and item 10. I know it is algorithmically simple, and it is O(n) worst case, but that worst case is when you have a total permutation of the list. How often is that going to happen? That's for you to answer.
I had the same issue and have probably spent at least a week concerning myself about the proper data modeling, but I think I've finally got it. Using the array datatype in PostgreSQL, you can store the primary key of each ordered item and update that array accordingly using insertions or deletions when your order changes. Referencing a single row will allow you to map all your objects based on the ordering in the array column.
It's still a bit choppy of a solution but it will likely work better than option #1, since option 1 requires updating the order number of all the other rows when ordering changes.
Scheme #1 and Scheme #3 have the same complexity in every operation except INSERT writes. Scheme #1 has O(n) writes on INSERT and Scheme #3 has O(1) writes on INSERT.
For every other database operation, the complexity is the same.
Scheme #2 should not even be considered because its DELETE requires O(n) reads and writes. Scheme #1 and Scheme #3 have O(1) DELETE for both read and write.
New method
If your elements have a distinct parent element (i.e. they share a foreign key row), then you can try the following ...
Django offers a database-agnostic solution to storing lists of integers within CharField(). One drawback is that the max length of the stored string can't be greater than max_length, which is DB-dependent.
In terms of complexity, this would give Scheme #1 O(1) writes for INSERT, because the ordering information would be stored as a single field in the parent element's row.
Another drawback is that a JOIN to the parent row is now required to update ordering.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/validators/#django.core.validators.validate_comma_separated_integer_list