I'm iterating a set object to find a particular value. Is there any short way to fetch instead of iterating it? Here is my code
for(Tree t : assignedTrees) {
println t.treeName;
}
The above code will return the expected value.
assignedTrees is the set object
Set<Tree> assignedTrees = new HashSet<Tree>()
println assignedTrees will return
[Tree{id=null, treeName=Mango}]
Can I fetch the treeName instead of iterating?
You can fetch an object from a set by calling mySet.get(object). However, in your case you wish to fetch an object based on one of its attributes. The best way to do this is with a map - e.g.
Map<String, Tree> trees = new HashMap<>();
trees.put(treeObject.treeName, treeObject);
Tree myTree = trees.get("myTreeName");
Note that if you're putting your own objects into sets or maps, you must override the equals and hashcode methods, or very strange things will happen.
In general you can use lambda to find any/first element that fullfils any condition. For example:
Set<Integer> coolStrings = new HashSet<String>();
coolStrings.add("HEHE")
coolStrings.add("NOPE")
coolStrings.add("JP2GMD")
coolStrings.add("1234")
try{
String nice =
coolStrings.stream().filter(
(str) -> { return str.equals("JP2GMD") ||
str.equals("2137"); }
}).findFirst().get();
)
System.out.println("Yay, i found a REALLY cool string! : " + nice);
}
catch(NoSuchElementException e){
System.out.println("Not even one awesome string was found :(");
}
It will print "JP2GMD"
(I didn't compile it, there might be some minor syntax errors)
Working with Stream class is extremally handy (as for java standards)
Related
I couldn't wrap my head around writing the below condition using Java Streams. Let's assume that I have a list of elements from the periodic table. I've to write a method that returns a String by checking whether the list has Silicon or Radium or Both. If it has only Silicon, method has to return Silicon. If it has only Radium, method has to return Radium. If it has both, method has to return Both. If none of them are available, method returns "" (default value).
Currently, the code that I've written is below.
String resolve(List<Element> elements) {
AtomicReference<String> value = new AtomicReference<>("");
elements.stream()
.map(Element::getName)
.forEach(name -> {
if (name.equalsIgnoreCase("RADIUM")) {
if (value.get().equals("")) {
value.set("RADIUM");
} else {
value.set("BOTH");
}
} else if (name.equalsIgnoreCase("SILICON")) {
if (value.get().equals("")) {
value.set("SILICON");
} else {
value.set("BOTH");
}
}
});
return value.get();
}
I understand the code looks messier and looks more imperative than functional. But I don't know how to write it in a better manner using streams. I've also considered the possibility of going through the list couple of times to filter elements Silicon and Radium and finalizing based on that. But it doesn't seem efficient going through a list twice.
NOTE : I also understand that this could be written in an imperative manner rather than complicating with streams and atomic variables. I just want to know how to write the same logic using streams.
Please share your suggestions on better ways to achieve the same goal using Java Streams.
It could be done with Stream IPA in a single statement and without multiline lambdas, nested conditions and impure function that changes the state outside the lambda.
My approach is to introduce an enum which elements correspond to all possible outcomes with its constants EMPTY, SILICON, RADIUM, BOTH.
All the return values apart from empty string can be obtained by invoking the method name() derived from the java.lang.Enum. And only to caver the case with empty string, I've added getName() method.
Note that since Java 16 enums can be declared locally inside a method.
The logic of the stream pipeline is the following:
stream elements turns into a stream of string;
gets filtered and transformed into a stream of enum constants;
reduction is done on the enum members;
optional of enum turs into an optional of string.
Implementation can look like this:
public static String resolve(List<Element> elements) {
return elements.stream()
.map(Element::getName)
.map(String::toUpperCase)
.filter(str -> str.equals("SILICON") || str.equals("RADIUM"))
.map(Elements::valueOf)
.reduce((result, next) -> result == Elements.BOTH || result != next ? Elements.BOTH : next)
.map(Elements::getName)
.orElse("");
}
enum
enum Elements {EMPTY, SILICON, RADIUM, BOTH;
String getName() {
return this == EMPTY ? "" : name(); // note name() declared in the java.lang.Enum as final and can't be overridden
}
}
main
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(resolve(List.of(new Element("Silicon"), new Element("Lithium"))));
System.out.println(resolve(List.of(new Element("Silicon"), new Element("Radium"))));
System.out.println(resolve(List.of(new Element("Ferrum"), new Element("Oxygen"), new Element("Aurum")))
.isEmpty() + " - no target elements"); // output is an empty string
}
output
SILICON
BOTH
true - no target elements
Note:
Although with streams you can produce the result in O(n) time iterative approach might be better for this task. Think about it this way: if you have a list of 10.000 elements in the list and it starts with "SILICON" and "RADIUM". You could easily break the loop and return "BOTH".
Stateful operations in the streams has to be avoided according to the documentation, also to understand why javadoc warns against stateful streams you might take a look at this question. If you want to play around with AtomicReference it's totally fine, just keep in mind that this approach is not considered to be good practice.
I guess if I had implemented such a method with streams, the overall logic would be the same as above, but without utilizing an enum. Since only a single object is needed it's a reduction, so I'll apply reduce() on a stream of strings, extract the reduction logic with all the conditions to a separate method. Normally, lambdas have to be well-readable one-liners.
Collect the strings to a unique set. Then check containment in constant time.
Set<String> names = elements.stream().map(Element::getName).map(String::toLowerCase).collect(toSet());
boolean hasSilicon = names.contains("silicon");
boolean hasRadium = names.contains("radium");
String result = "";
if (hasSilicon && hasRadium) {
result = "BOTH";
} else if (hasSilicon) {
result = "SILICON";
} else if (hasRadium) {
result = "RADIUM";
}
return result;
i have used predicate in filter to for radium and silicon and using the resulted set i am printing the result.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Element> elementss = new ArrayList<>();
Set<String> stringSet = elementss.stream().map(e -> e.getName())
.filter(string -> (string.equals("Radium") || string.equals("Silicon")))
.collect(Collectors.toSet());
if(stringSet.size()==2){
System.out.println("both");
}else if(stringSet.size()==1){
System.out.println(stringSet);
}else{
System.out.println(" ");
}
}
}
You could save a few lines if you use regex, but I doubt if it is better than the other answers:
String resolve(List<Element> elements) {
String result = elements.stream()
.map(Element::getName)
.map(String::toUpperCase)
.filter(str -> str.matches("RADIUM|SILICON"))
.sorted()
.collect(Collectors.joining());
return result.matches("RADIUMSILICON") ? "BOTH" : result;
}
I have a java class with 3 boolean property like this
boolean isActive;
boolean isEnable;
boolean isNew;
every property is related to an enum (e.g. ACTIVE,ENABLE,NEW).
I want to have 2 lists of enum. One which has only the enums related to true property value and one for the false one.
just to be clear. using if-else statement I could have
Set<FlagEnum> flagSet = new HashSet<>();
Set<FlagEnum> falseFlagSet = new HashSet<>();
if (object.isActive()) {
flagSet.add(ACTIVE);
} else {
falseFlagSet.add(ACTIVE);
}
if (object.isEnable()) {
flagSet.add(ENABLE);
} else {
falseFlagSet.add(ENABLE);
}
if (object.isNew()) {
flagSet.add(NEW);
} else {
falseFlagSet.add(NEW);
}
is there a way to avoid all these if-else?
I tried with something like
Map<boolean, List<Pair<boolean, FlagEnum>>> res = Stream.of(
new Pair<>(object.isActive(), ACTIVE),
new Pair<>(object.isNew(), NEW),
new Pair<>(object.isEnable(), ENABLE))
.collect(Collectors.partitioningBy(Pair::getKey));
but the resulted structure is an additional complexity which I would like to avoid.
In my real case, I have more than 15 boolean properties...
You can simplify this in various ways. Which of them make sense, depends on your exact requirements.
You can derive the falseFlagSet trivially from the flagSet using EnumSet.complementOf after populating the flagSet:
EnumSet<FlagEnum> falseFlagSet = EnumSet.complementOf(flagSet);
This assumes that all FlagEnum values have corresponding flags. If that's not the case then you need to construct a EnumSet with all enums that have flags and subtract flagSet from that using removeAll.
#1 already removes the need for the else in your cascade, simplifying the code to
if (object.isActive()) {
flagSet.add(ACTIVE);
}
if (object.isEnable()) {
flagSet.add(ENABLE);
}
if (object.isNew()) {
flagSet.add(NEW);
}
If you have enough different flags, then you can create a mapping from getter method to FlagEnum value like this:
Map<Function<YourClass,Boolean>,FlagEnum> GETTERS = Map.of(
YourClass::isActive, FlagEnum.ACTIVE,
YourClass::isNew, FlagEnum.NEW,
YourClass::isEnable, FlagEnum.ENABLE);
Then you can use this to make the whole process data-driven:
EnumSet<FlagEnum> getFlagSet(YourClass yourObject) {
EnumSet<FlagEnum> result = EnumSet.noneOf(FlagEnum.class);
for (Map.Entry<Function<YourClass,Boolean>, FlagEnum> getter : GETTERS.entrySet()) {
if (getter.getKey().apply(yourObject)) {
result.add(getter.getValue());
}
}
return result;
}
If the number of flags is very big, then you could switch entirely to reflection and detect the flags and matching getters dynamically using string comparison, but I would not suggest that approach. If you need something like that then you probably should switch to a framework that supports that kind of feature and not implement it yourself.
That last two obviously only makes sense when the number of flags is big. If it's actually just 3 flags, then I wouldn't mind and just have 3 simple if statements.
As a slight tangent: GETTERS above should definitely be an immutable map (wrap it in Collections.unmodifiableMap or use something like Guava ImmutableMap) and it could be argued that the same applies to the return value of the getFlagSet method. I've left those out for succinctness.
You can use a private helper method for this.
private void addFlagSet(boolean condition, FlagEnum flagEnum,
Set<FlagEnum> flagSet, Set<FlagEnum> falseFlagSet) {
Set<FlagEnum> chosenFlagSet = condition ? flagSet: falseFlagSet;
chosenFlagSet.add(flagEnum);
}
Call it as:
addFlagSet(object.isActive(), FlagEnum.ACIVE, flagSet, falseFlagSet);
addFlagSet(object.isNew(), FlagEnum.NEW, flagSet, falseFlagSet);
addFlagSet(object.isEnable(), FlagEnum.ENABLE, flagSet, falseFlagSet);
You could probably use Reflection to get all methods, then check if a getReturnType() == boolean.class. Problem is the connection between the method's name and the enum. If every single one is named like the method without the 'is', you could use FlagEnum.valueOf() to retrieve the enum value from the method name and use it.
I think this could be the easiest and clearest way to do what I need
Map<Boolean, Set<FlagEnum>> flagMap = new HashMap<>();
flagMap.computeIfAbsent(object.isActive(), h -> new HashSet()).add(ACTIVE);
flagMap.computeIfAbsent(object.isEnabled(), h -> new HashSet()).add(ENABLE);
flagMap.computeIfAbsent(object.isNew(), h -> new HashSet()).add(NEW);
//to get TRUE set simply :
flagMap.get(true);
what do you think?
So I have two sets: A and B. I need to check if set B contains anything that is not in the set A. There are maybe intersections, so I cannot just check if set A contains set B.
I can obviously do this:
for (String string : setA) {
if (!setB.contains(string) {
break;
}
}
or using the Guava library:
Sets.intersection(setA, setB).containsAll(setB); // returns false if there are elements outside.
But is there any way that would perform better or may be just cleaner or more elegant?
Thanks.
“B contains an element not in A” is the exact opposite of “A contains all elements of B”, therefore, the already existing method containsAll is sufficient to answer that question.
if(!setA.containsAll(setB)) {
System.out.println("setB contains an element not in setA");
}
You may shortcut using setB.size()>setA.size() || !setA.containsAll(setB), but this requires that the sets agree on the definition of equality, e.g. if one set is a SortedSet using String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER as comparator and the other is a HashSet, this won’t work (but the definition of the correct outcome is tricky with such combinations anyway).
If setB is really large, you might get a benefit from using a parallel stream like
if(!setB.parallelStream().allMatch(setA::contains)) {
System.out.println("setB contains an element not in setA");
}
but this is rather rare.
Merge all elements into another set and compare the total elements:
Set ab = new Set(a);
ab.addAll(b);
if (ab.size() != b.size()) break; // that means `a` had some element that was not in b
Another way to use streams (parallel) and functional mix
setB.parallelStream().filter(((Predicate<String>)setA::contains).negate()).findFirst();
same as
setB.parallelStream().filter(bi -> { return !setA.contains(bi);}).findFirst();
Straight Java
Duplicate the "target" set.
duplicateSet.removeAll(otherSet)
If duplicateSet is not empty, then the target contains one or more elements that are not in the "otherSet"
Apache SetUtils
xyz = SetUtils.difference(seta, setb);
if xyz.size() > 0 then seta contains one or more elements that are not in setb.
You can try algorithm with removing elements from setB:
if (setB.size() > setA.size()) {
return true;
}
for (String s : setA) {
//boolean contains = setB.contains(s);
boolean contains = setB.remove(s);
if (contains) return true;
}
I'm running a test to see if the values I've inputed into a file are the same values I generate from my API. So I have actual values which are generated from my API and I have another list of expected values. The problem I have is that I am not able to make apple to apple comparisons.
Example:
Actual = {red, bleu, yellow, purple}
expected = {bleu, red, purple, yellow}
failure: red != bleu, bleu != red, yellow != purple, purple != yellow
I'm not sure how else to better describe what I'm saying other than showing you my code.
Here is my code:
TreeSet<String> hashSet = (TreeSet<String>) calcGraph.getInputs();
boolean success = true;
String error="";
for(String xpath : hashSet) {
String actual = someApi(response, expression, xpath);
for ( String values : data.getDataOutputs().keySet() ) {
String expected = data.getDataOutputs().get(expectedXpath);
if ( !expected.equals(actual)) {
error+= "\nExpected : " + expected +"\nActual: " +actual+"\n";
success = false;
} if ( !success ) Assert.fail(error);
}
}
How can I compare these lists within 1 foreach loop or equivalent? Any help or assistance would be appreciated.
Edit:
Iterator<String> expectation = expectedList.iterator();
Iterator<String> actuation = actualList.iterator();
while((expectation.hasNext()) && (actuation.hasNext())) {
String exp = expectation.next();
String act = actuation.next();
logger.info("Expected: "+exp);
logger.info("Actual: "+act);
// Validation check
if ( !exp.equals(act)) {
error+= "\nExpected : " + exp +"\nActual: " +act+"\n";
success = false;
} if ( !success ) Assert.fail(error);
}
Order matters, so this will fail...
The question is just so weird. In the title you said HashSet vs HashSet comparison, and in the content you are using TreeSet.
From the question, it seems that you have a Set of actual results, and you want to compare against a Set of expected result, regardless of the iteration order, am I right?
Using contains is surely wrong, as well as using iterator to do comparison.
The solution is in fact straight-forward. From javadoc of Set:
boolean equals(Object o)
Compares the specified object with this set for equality. Returns true
if the specified object is also a set, the two sets have the same
size, and every member of the specified set is contained in this set
(or equivalently, every member of this set is contained in the
specified set). This definition ensures that the equals method works
properly across different implementations of the set interface.
What you need to do is simply
expectedResultSet.equals(actaulResultSet)
You can use
Set.contains(value)
to check if an actual value is in expected value, you only need one for loop to achieve this
See this
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Set.html#contains(java.lang.Object)
I have a HashSet that I created and this is what it contains. It will contain more later on, this is pasted from standard out when I did a toString on it. Just to show the contents.
foo.toString(): Abstractfoo [id=2, serial=1d21d, value=1.25, date=2012-09-02 12:00:00.0]
INFO [STDOUT] price.toString(): Abstractfoo [id=1, serial=1d24d, value=1.30, date=2012-09-19 12:00:00.0]
I have a List that I also have and I need to compare the two. One of the elements in List is:
Bar.toString(): Bar [id=1d21d, name=Dell, description=Laptop, ownerId=null]
Here is what I am trying to do...
Bar contains all of the elements I want foo to have. There will only be one unique serial. I would like my program to see if an element in the list that is in HashSet contains the id for bar. So serial == id.
Here is what I've been trying to do
Removed code and added clearer code below
I've verified the data is getting entered into the HashSet and List correctly by viewing it through the debugger.
foo is being pulled from a database through hibernate, and bar is coming from a different source. If there is an element in bar I need to add it to a list and I'm passing it back to my UI where I'll enter some additional data and then commit it to the database.
Let me know if this makes sense and if I can provide anymore information.
Thanks
EDIT: Here is the class
#RequestMapping(value = "/system", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public #ResponseBody
List<AbstractSystem> SystemList() {
// Retrieve system list from database
HashSet<AbstractSystem> systemData = new HashSet<AbstractSystem>(
systemService.getSystemData());
// Retrieve system info from cloud API
List<SystemName> systemName= null;
try {
systemName = cloudClass.getImages();
} catch (Exception e) {
LOG.warn("Unable to get status", e);
}
// Tried this but, iter2 only has two items and iter has many more.
// In production it will be the other way around, but I need to not
// Have to worry about that
Iterator<SystemName> iter = systemName.iterator();
Iterator<AbstractSystem> iter2 = systemData .iterator();
while(iter.hasNext()){
Image temp = iter.next();
while(iter2.hasNext()){
AbstractPricing temp2 = iter2.next();
System.out.println("temp2.getSerial(): " + temp2.getSerial());
System.out.println("temp.getId(): " + temp.getId());
if(temp2.getSerial().equals(temp.getId())){
System.out.println("This will be slow...");
}
}
}
return systemData;
}
If N is the number of items in systemName and M is the number of items in systemData, then you've effectively built an O(N*M) method.
If you instead represent your systemData as a HashMap of AbstractSystem by AbstractSystem.getSerial() values, then you just loop through the systemName collection and lookup by systemName.getId(). This becomes more like O(N+M).
(You might want to avoid variables like iter, iter2, temp2, etc., since those make the code harder to read.)
EDIT - here's what I mean:
// Retrieve system list from database
HashMap<Integer, AbstractSystem> systemDataMap = new HashMap<AbstractSystem>(
systemService.getSystemDataMap());
// Retrieve system info from cloud API
List<SystemName> systemNames = cloudClass.getImages();
for (SystemName systemName : systemNames) {
if (systemDataMap.containsKey(systemName.getId()) {
System.out.println("This will be slow...");
}
}
I used Integer because I can't tell from your code what the type of AbstractSystem.getSerial() or SystemName.getId() are. This assumes that you store the system data as a Map elsewhere. If not, you could construct the map yourself here.