I have a key value arrays
String[] fields = {"firstName", "middleName", "id"};
String[] fieldValues = {"first name", "middle name", "student id"};
I have a method that compares two beans and returns a array of String with different field values.
public static String[] beanCompare(Object A, Object B,
String[] fields, String[] fieldValue);
Example If I pass a Studentbean with different firstName and id.
It will return
["first name", "student id"].
I need to compare 100's of beans.
The return value updates an activity log table. Let say, the firstName field is updated. We display
the first name has been updated
in the UI. It's for auditing.
Is there a readable and maintainable way to represent such key-value pair?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that (passing field names and field values this way) you're trying to build custom objects dynamically.
If that's your purpose, then you're in full XY problem, since you've figured out this solution to your problem, and then you're trying to tune up this solution, while you should go back to the problem, which has a standard, engineered, best practice solution: the Builder Pattern.
If you have many fields on an object, but you need to use only a portion of them in some cases and another portion in other cases, then use a Builder, set only the fields you need, then invoke the build() method, and get your object without the need to do what you're doing or permute all the constructors.
Here is an example of this pattern in Java.
So, enum worked for me.
public enum FieldEnum {
firstName("first name"), middleName("middle name"), id("student id");
String value;
FieldEnum(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
}
Its more readable and maintainable.
Related
I'm debating myself whether it is a bad practice to trim the input String arguments of a method? I personally don't like modifying the input arguments but wondering if trimming is Ok?
I've code something like below
private Order retrieveOrderDetails(String productId, String cardNumber, Date purchaseDate) {
validateInputs(trim(productId), trim(cardNumber), purchaseDate);
List<Order> orders = pullOrdersByCardNumber(trim(cardNumber));
return retrieveOrderDetails(orders, trim(productId), purchaseDate);
}
Instead of using trim() in multiple places, is it acceptable to do something like below?
private Order retrieveOrderDetails(String productId, String cardNumber, Date purchaseDate) {
productId = trim(productId);
cardNumber = trim(cardNumber);
validateInputs(productId, cardNumber, purchaseDate);
List<Order> orders = pullOrdersByCardNumber(cardNumber);
return retrieveOrderDetails(orders, productId, purchaseDate);
}
The strings should already be trimmed by the time they reach retrieveOrderDetails().
Needing to trim strings implies that they're coming from user input: form fields, a configuration file, etc. Trimming whitespace from user input is a job for user interface code or file reading code. You should not be mixing layers of abstraction, handling both UI and business logic in the same function.
Don't trim the strings here, and don't check that they're trimmed. Don't worry about trimming at all. It's the caller's problem, not this function's.
If you want to be really pure you could even replace the strings with domain-specific classes. You already have Date purchaseDate rather than String purchaseDate. Do the same thing for the other two parameters. Then where trimming belongs becomes clear: not here.
Order retrieveOrderDetails(ProductId productId, CardNumber cardNumber, Date purchaseDate) {
...
}
Orthogonal to John's point (which is "you shouldn't need to do this here"), you seem to be asking if it is acceptable to modify a method parameter variable.
It really comes down to readability. Which of these three versions do >>you<< think is more readable?
public void test(String arg) {
// repeat the trim computation
use(trim(arg));
use2(trim(arg));
}
public void test(String arg) {
// modify the argument
arg = trim(arg);
use(arg);
use2(arg);
}
public void test(String arg) {
// use a local variable
String trimmedArg = trim(arg);
use(trimmedArg);
use2(trimmedArg);
}
Your answer will probably depend on the context.
But really, it is up to you to make your own judgement. We can't tell you which version you will find more readable. It is readability for you and your colleagues that matters. After all, you will be the ones who (may) need to read this code in N years time.
There will be small performance differences, but that should not be your primary criteria or deciding, unless you have strong evidence that this code is performance critical.
If your business function doesn't change if the input is trimmed or not so trimming is fine.
But if there is a different logic between trim and with-out trim, so you can't do that by default.
I want to write a generic function that accepts two objects of same entity class and compares the fields that are different and returns List of all the changes made to particular fields along with time.
One among the many entity classes would be say Member as follows
public class Member {
String firstName;
String lastName;
String driverLicenseNumber;
Integer age;
LocalDateTime timestamp;
}
In the DB, I have a table called member_audit that gets populated with old data whenever there is a change in member table using triggers (Similarly for other entities).
The List of resource for each of the entity I would be returning is something like
public class MemberAuditsResource {
private String field;
private LocalDateTime on;
private String changeType;
private String oldValue;
private String newValue;
}
I can only think of writing a function for each entity separately like this
private List<MembeAuditsResource> memberCompare(Member obj1, Member obj2) {
//Compare every field in both the objects using if else and populate the resource.
}
And then calling the above function to compare every pair of record in the entity_audit table.
The code would be very large to compare every field and multiplied by different entities.
Is there a better and efficient way?
If you extend the ideas to compare the object graph , it is not a trivial problem. So, the efficient way is not to re-inventing the wheel but use an existing library such as JaVers :
Member oldMember = new Member("foo" ,"chan" ,"AB12" , 21 ,LocalDateTime.now());
Member newMember = new Member("bar" ,"chan" ,"AB12" , 22 ,LocalDateTime.now());
Diff diff = javers.compare(oldMember, newMember);
for(Change change: diff.getChanges()) {
System.out.println(change);
}
Then , you can get something like:
ValueChange{ 'firstName' changed from 'foo' to 'bar' }
ValueChange{ 'age' changed from '21' to '22' }
Convert both object to a Map using JSON objectMapper.convertValue method. Then you can easily compare the keys/values of the two maps and create a list of differences.
I am trying to replace element in collection with new modified version. Below is short code that aims to demonstrate what I'd like to achieve.
The whole idea is that I have one object that consists of collections of other objects. At some point in time I am expecting that this objects in collections (in my example phones) might require some modifications and I'd like to modify the code in one place only.
I know that in order to update the object's attributes I can use setters while iterating through the collection as demonstrated below. But maybe there is better, more general way to achieve that.
public class Customer {
private int id;
private Collection<Phone> phoneCollection;
public Customer() {
phoneCollection = new ArrayList<>();
}
//getters and setters
}
and Phone class
public class Phone {
private int id;
private String number;
private String name;
//getters and setters
}
and
public static void main(String[] args) {
Customer c = new Customer();
c.addPhone(new Phone(1, "12345", "aaa"));
c.addPhone(new Phone(2, "34567", "bbb"));
System.out.println(c);
Phone p = new Phone(2, "9999999", "new name");
Collection<Phone> col = c.getPhoneCollection();
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
// This is working fine
// phone.setNumber(p.getNumber());
// phone.setName(p.getName());
// But I'd like to replace whole object if possible and this is not working, at least not that way
phone = p;
}
}
System.out.println(c);
}
}
Is this possible to achieve what I want?
I tried copy constructor idea and other methods I found searching the net but none of them was working like I would expect.
EDIT 1
After reading some comments I got an idea
I added the following method to my Phone class
public static void replace(Phone org, Phone dst){
org.setName(dst.getName());
org.setNumber(dst.getNumber());
}
and now my foreach part looks like that
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
Phone.replace(phone, p);
}
}
And it does the job.
Now if I change the Phone class attributes I only need to change that method. Do you think it is OK solving the issue that way?
You should not modify the collection while you're iterating through it; that's likely to earn you a ConcurrentModificationException. You can scan the collection for the first object that matches your search criterion. Then you can exit the loop, remove the old object, and add the new one.
Collection<Phone> col = c.getPhoneCollection();
Phone original = null;
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
original = phone;
break;
}
}
if (original != null) {
Phone replacement = new Phone(original);
replacement.setNumber(p.getNumber());
replacement.setName(p.getName());
col.remove(original);
col.add(replacement);
}
Alternatively, you could declare a more specific type of collection, such as a List, that would allow you to work with indexes, which would make the replacement step much more efficient.
If your phone IDs are unique to each phone, you should consider using a Map<Integer, Phone> that maps each phone ID to the corresponding phone. (Alternatively, you could use some sort of third-party sparse array structure that doesn't involve boxing each ID into an Integer.) Of course, if your IDs aren't unique, then you might want to modify the above to gather a secondary collection of all matching phones (and reconsider the logic of your existing code as well).
You can also use a Set (HashSet), this is only when you don't want to do the way Mike suggested.
Use the Phone as an item in the set. Don't forget to implement hashCode() and equals() in Phone. hashCode() should return the id, as it is supposed to be unique.
Since you are concerned about replacing the item, here's how HashSet will help you :
Create an instance of your object.
Remove the object you want to replace from the set.
Add the new object (you created in step 1) back to the set.
Both these operations 2 & 3 are guaranteed in O(1) / constant time.
You don't need to maintain a map for this problem, that's redundant.
If you want to get the object from the collection itself and then modify it, then HashMap would be better, search is guaranteed in O(1) time.
Instead of a list, use a map with the Phone's id as the key. Then your code looks like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Customer c = new Customer();
c.addPhone(new Phone(1, "12345", "aaa"));
c.addPhone(new Phone(2, "34567", "bbb"));
System.out.println(c);
Phone p = new Phone(2, "9999999", "new name");
Map<Integer, Phone> phoneMap = c.getPhoneMap();
phoneMap.put(p.getId(), p);
System.out.println(c);
}
If you take the object out from the collection and update its properties, it will get reflected in the same object in collection too.. Hence, you dont have to technically replace object after updating it.
As "Mike M." pointed out, you can use hashmap to retrieve the object quickly without iteration and update the object values.
If order matters to you, you can change Collection to List (Since you're always using an ArrayList anyway) and then:
int index = col.indexOf(phone);
col.remove(phone);
col.add(p, index);
I have a method that takes in a JSON and takes out the data and distributes it to various strings so that they can be set in an entity and persisted. My example below is quite simple but for my actual code I have about 20+ fields
For example see
public Projects createProject(JsonObject jsonInst) {
Projects projectInst = new Projects();
String pId = jsonInst.get("proId").getAsString();
String pName = jsonInst.get("proName").getAsString();
String pStatus = jsonInst.get("proStatus").getAsString();
String pCustId = jsonInst.get("proCustId").getAsString();
String pStartDate = jsonInst.get("proStartDate").getAsString();
...
//Set the entity data
projectInst.setProjectId(pId);
projectInst.setProjectName(pName);
...
Notice if a varible dosent have a corrosponding entry in the Json this code will break with null pointer exception. Obviously I need to validate each parameter befopre calling .getAsString()
What is the best way to do this from a readability point of view I could create 2 varibles for each parameter and check and set for example.
if(jsonInst.get("proName")){
String pName = jsonInst.get("proName").getAsString();
}
Or should I wait for it to be set
if(!pName.isEmpty()){
projectInst.setName(pName)
}
...
Which of these do you think is the best parameter to use for preventing errors.
Is there a way to handle if something is set on a large scale so that I can reduce the amount of code I have to write before I use that varible?
You can create a method that will take field name as parameter and will return json value for that field :
private String getJSONData(String field,JsonObject json){
String data=null;
if(json.has(field)){
data=json.get(field).getAsString();
}
return data;
}
you can call this method for each of your field:
String pId = getJSONData("proId",jsonInst);
By this way you can not only escape NullPointerException, but also avoid code repetition.
So I have three important factors, filenames which there are many, there will also be duplicates, violation types which there are 6 of, and the data relating to them.
I was thinking of using a Map for this but it only accepts two types, so I want to sort the data by the filename and for every entry under that filename, i want to retrieve the violation type, from what i want it to retrieve all the matches from the data, so say it's a map I could of said map.get(filename, violation) and it will retrieve all the results that match that.
Is there a data structure that can allow me to do this? or am I being lazy and should just sort the data myself when it comes to outputting it.
One other way to approach this would be to use a custom Class for holding the needed data. Essentially 'building' your own node that you can iterate over.
For example! you could create the following class object: (Node.java)
import java.util.*;
public class Node
{
private String violationType;
private String dataInside;
public Node()
{
this("", "");
}
public Node(String violationType)
{
this(violationType, "");
}
public Node(String violationType, String dataInside)
{
this.violationType = violationType;
this.dataInside = dataInside;
}
public void setViolationType(String violationType)
{
this.violationType = violationType;
}
public void setDataInside(String dataInside)
{
this.dataInside = dataInside;
}
public String getViolationType()
{
return violationType;
}
public String getDataInside()
{
return dataInside;
}
}
ok, great, so we have this 'node' thing with some setters, some getters, and some constructors for ease of use. Cool. Now lets see how to use it:
import java.util.*;
public class main{
public static void main(String[] args){
Map<String, Node> customMap = new HashMap<String, Node>();
customMap.put("MyFilename", new Node("Violation 1", "Some Data"));
System.out.println("This is a test of the custom Node: " + customMap.get("MyFilename").getViolationType());
}
}
Now we have a map that relates all of the data you need it to. Now, you'll get a lot of people saying 'Don't reinvent the wheel" when it comes to things like this, because built in libraries are far more optimized. That is true! If you can find a data structure that is built into java that suits your needs, USE IT. That's always a good policy to follow. That being said, if you have a pretty custom situation, sometimes it calls for a custom approach. Don't be afraid to make your own objects like this, it's easy to do in Java, and it could save you a lot of time and headache!
EDIT
So, after re-reading the OP's question, I realize you want an entire list of associated data for the given violation of a given filename. In which case, you would switch the private String dataInside to something like private ArrayList<String> dataInside; which would allow you to associate as much data as you wanted, still inside that node, just inside of an arraylist. Also note, you'd have to switch up the getters/setters a little to accomodate a list, but that's not too bad.
You could use a custom class for a mapkey which contains the two fields filename and violation type. When doing so you need to implement equals() and hashCode() methods do ensure instances of that class can be used as key for map.
You can use TreeMap. TreeMap is sorted according to the natural ordering of its keys.
TreeMap<String, List<String>> map = new TreeMap<String, List<String>>();