I have some ruby code from my Ruby on Rails project.
I am formatting some data so I am calling attributes.extract! to get the fields I need from my model.
I noticed recently that every now and then the data wouldn't get extracted as expected. I realized that I needed a splat operator. But it is strange because I do notice that sometimes when the method is called in my Rails project it will sometimes extract the data without the use of the splat operator. But when I run the code from my Rails console it never extracts the data unless I add the splat operator.
Here is the code in question
# in a service file, let's call it service.rb
def self.format_user_home_address_data(user)
# This doesn't work in the console but sometimes works when run in my Rails project
home_address_data = user.attributes.extract!(User::HOME_ADDRESS_FIELDS)
home_address_data[:address_type] = "home"
home_address_data
end
# at the end this method will sometimes return { address_type: "home" } or
# sometimes it'll actually return the extracted attributes as expected
HOME_ADDRESS_FIELDS is just an array with the values ["address_line_1", "city", "state", "zip"]
Anyway I know that to get it to run correctly I need to do this
home_address_data = user.attributes.extract!(*User::HOME_ADDRESS_FIELDS)
But does anyone know why I was able to get away without adding the splat operator for so long? Is there some Ruby on Rails magic that is only sometimes happening? What's the deal?
Well, let's check it out. There is no any magic behind attributes.extract! in the end. Here is an actual implementation of this method from Rails source code:
def extract!(*keys)
keys.each_with_object(self.class.new) { |key, result|
result[key] = delete(key) if has_key?(key)
}
end
Link: click. As you can see, it creates new hash, goes over the keys one by one and moves value from self to this new array. So, if you give an Array argument to this method then key in the block will be an Array as well. So, it won't be found. So, no way it may work for array argument. The only one possibility is that something else is passed instead of User::HOME_ADDRESS_FIELDS.
Desired Behaviour
Populate Google Sheet with array of arrays from a Javascript file.
// in js file (within google apps script project)
var aoa = [["row_01_val01", "row_01_val02", "row_01_val03"],
["row_02_val01", "row_02_val02", "row_02_val03"]]; // etc
google.script.run.withSuccessHandler(console.log("success")).populateSpreadsheet(aoa);
// in code.gs
// define target_range (ignore discrepancies between example values above)
var target_range = active_sheet.getRange(2, 1, 834, 20);
// set values of target_range
target_range.setValues(aoa);
Current Behaviour
// chrome developer tools (firefox/firebug not supported at work)
Uncaught Cannot convert Array to Object[][]
Question
I'm unable to post more specific code due to work restrictions (cannot access SO from work, or take code home, hence the pseudo code), but are there any common 'gotchas' when it comes to passing an array of arrays from a Javascript file to Code.gs for use in setValues()?
What I've Tried
In the js file, console.log(typeof(aoa)) returns object just before passing it to populateSpreadsheet() within Code.gs, and then Logger.log(aoa) within populateSpreadsheet() also returns object
Example:
var outer_array = [];
inner_array = [1,2,3];
outer_array.push(inner_array);
typeof(outer_array);
"object"
I've tried to refactor the code several times, but am wondering if there are any common gotchas like size constraints, quotas, or timeouts or some other 'quirk' I haven't considered?
This question and answer, for example, required the array of arrays to be reconstructed before passing it to setValues() (I tried this but it didn't work in my instance):
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11066322/1063287
Another thing I considered is that I'm using splice()(MDN reference) to add some values to the inner array's within Code.gs, so I'm not sure if that somehow changes the type permissible to be passed to setValues()?
I have the following JavaScript/Angular code:
var a = {};
var b = {};
a.ref = b;
b.ref = a;
angular.copy(a);
When angular.copy fires, the browser locks up. I'm assuming this is because the copy function is doing a deep copy, and when it starts to copy a's reference of b, it goes into b and then wants to copy its reference of a, thus creating a circular copy, which will never end.
Is this assumption right? If so, is there a way to avoid this? I'm assuming the answer will involve changing the way my data looks, but I'm curious to hear another person's thoughts.
Your assumption is right, the problem is the circular reference. JSON.stringify will also complain about this structure. jQuery.extend detects circular references at a very basic level and can handle your basic example here, but jQuery.extend has its own issues as well. If you're already using jQuery, you can just use extend, but otherwise you may want to look at writing something yourself, or you can use this fancy cloneObject function I found via Google:
https://gist.github.com/NV/1396086
_.cloneDeep handles circular references. http://lodash.com/
I have a collection(arraylist) of Ref `s ,the objectify documentation says that I need to initialize collections for them to be persisted and hence modified in the future.....
Now , Ref points to an object but when I launch my app for the first time I dont have any objects in the data store...so whats the best way for me to initialize a dummy value......
Is my assumption that a Ref<> needs to point to a real object in the data store?
Two things:
You should just initialize an empty collection. You don't need to add anything to it. eg, field = new ArrayList<Ref<Thing>>();
It's actually not even required that you initialize the collection. It's just a good idea for reasons that will become apparent if you use the system for a while.
My project has classes which, unavoidably, contain hundreds upon hundreds of variables that I'm always having to keep straight. For example, I'm always having to keep track of specific kinds of variables for a recurring set of "items" that occur inside of a class, where placing those variables between multiple classes would cause a lot of confusion.
How do I better sort my variables to keep from going crazy, especially when it comes time to save my data?
Am I missing something? Actionscript is an Object Oriented language, so you might have hundreds of variables, but unless you've somehow treated it like a grab bag and dumped it all in one place, everything should be to hand. Without knowing what all you're keeping track of, it's hard to give concrete advice, but here's an example from a current project I'm working on, which is a platform for building pre-employment assessments.
The basic unit is a Question. A Question has a stem, text that can go in the status bar, a collection of answers, and a collection of measures of things we're tracking about what the user does in that particular type of questions.
The measures are, again, their own type of object, and come in two "flavors": one that is used to track a time limit and one that isn't. The measure has a name (so we know where to write back to the database) and a value (which tells us what). Timed ones also have a property for the time limit.
When we need to time the question, we hand that measure to yet another object that counts the time down and a separate object that displays the time (if appropriate for the situation). The answers, known as distractors, have a label and a value that they can impart to the appropriate measure based on the user selection. For example, if a user selects "d", its value, "4" is transferred to the measure that stores the user's selection.
Once the user submits his answer, we loop through all the measures for the question and send those to the database. If those were not treated as a collection (in this case, a Vector), we'd have to know exactly what specific measures are being stored for each question and each question would have a very different structure that we'd have to dig through. So if looping through collections is your issue, I think you should revisit that idea. It saves a lot of code and is FAR more efficient than "var1", "var2", "var3."
If the part you think is unweildy is the type checking you have to do because literally anything could be in there, then Vector could be a good solution for you as long as you're using at least Flash Player 10.
So, in summary:
When you have a lot of related properties, write a Class that keeps all of those related bits and pieces together (like my Question).
When objects have 0-n "things" that are all of the same or very similar, use a collection of some sort, such as an Array or Vector, to allow you to iterate through them as a group and perform the same operation on each (for example, each Question is part of a larger grouping that allows each question to be presented in turn, and each question has a collection of distractors and another of measures.
These two concepts, used together, should help keep your information tidy and organized.
While I'm certain there are numerous ways of keeping arrays straight, I have found a method that works well for me. Best of all, it collapses large amounts of information into a handful of arrays that I can parse to an XML file or other storage method. I call this method my "indexed array system".
There are actually multiple ways to do this: creating a handful of 1-dimensional arrays, or creating 2-dimensional (or higher) array(s). Both work equally well, so choose the one that works best for your code. I'm only going to show the 1-dimensional method here. Those of you who are familiar with arrays can probably figure out how to rewrite this to use higher dimensional arrays.
I use Actionscript 3, but this approach should work with almost any programming or scripting language.
In this example, I'm trying to keep various "properties" of different "activities" straight. In this case, we'll say these properties are Level, High Score, and Play Count. We'll call the activities Pinball, Word Search, Maze, and Memory.
This method involves creating multiple arrays, one for each property, and creating constants that hold the integer "key" used for each activity.
We'll start by creating the constants, as integers. Constants work for this, because we never change them after compile. The value we put into each constant is the index the corresponding data will always be stored at in the arrays.
const pinball:int = 0;
const wordsearch:int = 1;
const maze:int = 2;
const memory:int = 3;
Now, we create the arrays. Remember, arrays start counting from zero. Since we want to be able to modify the values, this should be a regular variable.
Note, I am constructing the array to be the specific length we need, with the default value for the desired data type in each slot. I've used all integers here, but you can use just about any data type you need.
var highscore:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
var level:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
var playcount:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
So, we have a consistent "address" for each property, and we only had to create four constants, and three arrays, instead of 12 variables.
Now we need to create the functions to read and write to the arrays using this system. This is where the real beauty of the system comes in. Be sure this function is written in public scope if you want to read/write the arrays from outside this class.
To create the function that gets data from the arrays, we need two arguments: the name of the activity and the name of the property. We also want to set up this function to return a value of any type.
GOTCHA WARNING: In Actionscript 3, this won't work in static classes or functions, as it relies on the "this" keyword.
public function fetchData(act:String, prop:String):*
{
var r:*;
r = this[prop][this[act]];
return r;
}
That queer bit of code, r = this[prop][this[act]], simply uses the provided strings "act" and "prop" as the names of the constant and array, and sets the resulting value to r. Thus, if you feed the function the parameters ("maze", "highscore"), that code will essentially act like r = highscore[2] (remember, this[act] returns the integer value assigned to it.)
The writing method works essentially the same way, except we need one additional argument, the data to be written. This argument needs to be able to accept any
GOTCHA WARNING: One significant drawback to this system with strict typing languages is that you must remember the data type for the array you're writing to. The compiler cannot catch these type errors, so your program will simply throw a fatal error if it tries to write the wrong value type.
One clever way around this is to create different functions for different data types, so passing the wrong data type in an argument will trigger a compile-time error.
public function writeData(act:String, prop:String, val:*):void
{
this[prop][this[act]] = val;
}
Now, we just have one additional problem. What happens if we pass an activity or property name that doesn't exist? To protect against this, we just need one more function.
This function will validate a provided constant or variable key by attempting to access it, and catching the resulting fatal error, returning false instead. If the key is valid, it will return true.
function validateName(ID:String):Boolean
{
var checkthis:*
var r:Boolean = true;
try
{
checkthis = this[ID];
}
catch (error:ReferenceError)
{
r = false;
}
return r;
}
Now, we just need to adjust our other two functions to take advantage of this. We'll wrap the function's code inside an if statement.
If one of the keys is invalid, the function will do nothing - it will fail silently. To get around this, just put a trace (a.k.a. print) statement or a non-fatal error in the else construct.
public function fetchData(act:String, prop:String):*
{
var r:*;
if(validateName(act) && validateName(prop))
{
r = this[prop][this[act]];
return r;
}
}
public function writeData(act:String, prop:String, val:*):void
{
if(validateName(act) && validateName(prop))
{
this[prop][this[act]] = val;
}
}
Now, to use these functions, you simply need to use one line of code each. For the example, we'll say we have a text object in the GUI that shows the high score, called txtHighScore. I've omitted the necessary typecasting for the sake of the example.
//Get the high score.
txtHighScore.text = fetchData("maze", "highscore");
//Write the new high score.
writeData("maze", "highscore", txtHighScore.text);
I hope ya'll will find this tutorial useful in sorting and managing your variables.
(Afternote: You can probably do something similar with dictionaries or databases, but I prefer the flexibility with this method.)