Develop Reference

Comparing An Entry In A Map With An Object

I have a Map in Java like so,
private HashMap<String, Object[][]> theMap;
Where the key is a String and the entry is going to be something along the line of,
theMap = new HashMap<>();
Object[][] theData = {
{Boolean.FALSE, "Text"}
};
theMap.put("Key1", theData);
Somewhere along the line I would like to check if an entry in the map is equivalent to another object. Currently I am doing it like this,
Object[][] tempData = {
{Boolean.FALSE, "Text"}
};
for(Object key: entries.keySet()) {
if(entries.get(key).equals(tempData)) {
entries.remove(key);
}
}
And it is not working.
I would prefer the comparison to be done with an object rather than with another map. I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong with this comparison here?

The reason you are not getting equality is that arrays inherit Object#equals() which is based on identity, not equality of contents. You could consider using java.util.Arrays.deepEquals(Object[], Object[]) to compare.
That is the answer to the immediate question. However, using a 2-dimensional array of Object to hold a boolean and a String is really bad code smell and indicates you need to encapsulate what you are putting in the array.

Identity vs Equivalence
Please make sure that you understand that by default the equals() method of Object checks on whether two object references are referring to the same object (identity), which is not what your code is checking.
Instead, your code is checking whether the two objects (the values you put on the map) are having the same value (equivalence).
Here are two articles about this topic:
What is the difference between identity and equality in OOP?
Overriding equals method in Java
In this particular problem of yours, I think the solution involves two steps:
Your tempData and theData does not seems to be an array
of elements of the same type (it does not appear to be a 2-dimensional
array either). Instead, it contains a Boolean value and then a
String value. In this case, I think you really should think
through what this thingy is and design a class for it (I am showing
an example below)
The class should override the equals() (and hashCode()) methods
so that you can use its equals() for equivalence checking.
Note also that your IDE (e.g. Eclipse) probably can generate a template for equals() and hashCode() for you.
Example: (here I assume your Boolean represents a condition, and your String represents a message)
class MyRecord {
private Boolean condition;
private String message;
public Boolean getCondition() {
return condition;
}
public void setCondition(Boolean condition) {
this.condition = condition;
}
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
public void setMessage(String message) {
this.message = message;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result
+ ((condition == null) ? 0 : condition.hashCode());
result = prime * result
+ ((message == null) ? 0 : message.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
MyRecord other = (MyRecord) obj;
if (condition == null) {
if (other.condition != null)
return false;
} else if (!condition.equals(other.condition))
return false;
if (message == null) {
if (other.message != null)
return false;
} else if (!message.equals(other.message))
return false;
return true;
}
}

Comparators and HashMaps for Markov Chain

I am trying to make a markov chain in Java/Processing, that will read a book then be able to cut it up in probabilistic ways. Programming is a hobby…
I had the idea that the way to do it was to use a HashMap, and store a Word Object within it. I could easily do this with a String, but within each unique Word it needs to have another HashMap that will store more yet more Word Objects for the Words that follow it, and so on until we have made a model with a sufficient level of complexity.
The problems are that I can’t seem to be able to check whether or not a Word Object is already within the Map by its String name.
Through looking around on SO I can see that it is likely that I will need a Comparator — but all the examples that I have seen use compare or compareTo, when I think that I need something that is more like equals? I don’t need anything at all to do with Sorting, the order will be worked out in the second part of the program.
The code below is pretty horrible — I have been hacking away at this problem for ages but I can’t find an explanation that is sufficiently dumbed down enough for me to understand it.
In Pseudo:
read book
If the Word is not in the Map, put it in there
If the Word is in the Map, iterate the key
Check the Words that follow this Word, and check in the same way if they are within the first Word’s Map, adding as necessary… repeat…
When this is complete
Using the Integer values as probabilities, pick a word
from that Word’s Map, find a Word that is probable to follow it
repeat until desired length is achieved
Code so far:
///markovs
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Comparator;
HashMap<Word, Integer> book;
void setup()
{
book = new HashMap<Word, Integer>();
String[] rows = loadStrings("crash.txt");
for (int i = 0; i < rows.length; i++)
{
if (trim(rows[i]).length() == 0)
{
continue;
}
String[] pieces = split(rows[i], " ");
for (int j = 0; j<pieces.length; j++)
{
Word temp = new Word(pieces[j]);
//c++;
if (book.compare(temp)) {
println("this worked for once");
//iterate here
} else {
book.put(temp, 1);
println("didn’t work");
//book.add(temp);
book.put(temp, 1);
}
}
}
println(book.size());
//println(c);
//println(book);
}
class WordComparator implements Comparator<Word> {
#Override
public int compare(Word w1, Word w2) {
String w1name = w1.name;
String w2name = w2.name;
if (w1name.equals(w2name)) {
return 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
}
class Word
{
String name;
int value=1;
int depth;
HashMap<String, Integer> list;
Word(String name_)
{
this.name = name_;
}
int compareTo(Word w) {
if (w.name.equals(this.name)) {
return 0;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
Word(Word w)
{
this.depth = w.depth+1;
}
void nextWord(String word)
{
}
void count() {
value++;
}
void makeHash()
{
list = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
}
}

To use an Object as a key in a HashMap, you need to override two methods: equals() and hashCode(). I'm not exactly sure what you're going for, but a simple example that just uses the name variable would look like this:
public boolean equals(Object other){
if(other instanceof Word){
return this.name.equals(((Word)other).name);
}
return false;
}
public int hashCode(){
return name.hashCode();
}
However, if you're just using the name variable anyway, you might be looking for a multimap, which is just a Map that contains a Map that contains...
HashMap<String, HashMap<String, Integer>> bookMap;
Furthermore, while HashMap does not use the compareTo function, the way you've implemented it seems off. First of all, you need to implement Comparable on your class:
class Word implements Comparable<Word>{
And secondly, the compareTo function should return one of 3 values: negative, zero, or positive. Right now you're only returning zero or negative, which doesn't make any sense.
I think you might be better off taking a step back and describing what you're actually trying to do, as your code contains a lot of confusing logic right now.

As for comparing, you can override Object's inherited equals method, something like:
# Override
boolean equals(Object o) {
return o instanceof Word
? o.name.equals(name) : false;
}

Be aware of using your own types as keys for the HashMap, in this case Word. That only works out well if you provide a sensible implementation of .hashCode() and .equals() on Word.
Here it looks like you could just use String instead. String already has the required method implementations. If you really do want to use Word, you could use those methods from String. e.g.
class Word {
String letters;
public int hashCode() {
return letters.hashCode();
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o == null || o.getClass() != getClass()) return false;
return letters.equals(((Word) o).letters);
}
}
You don't need a compare or compareTo, just these two.

Comparing Array Values and HashMap

I was making a rock paper scissors game and I'm supposed to save the last four throws of the user into a HashMap. The last four throws will be inside a Pattern class. I have it so that if the pattern is already in the HashMap, then the value will be incremented by one, showing that the user have repeated that pattern one time. The patterns will be used to predict the user next move. However, when I compare the two patterns, the one in the HashMap and the one I just passed in, even though they are not the same, it returns that they are the same. I have tried looking into this for a while but I couldn't find out what's wrong. Some help would be greatly appreciated! The error comes right at the second input. If I input R, it will save it in the HashMapbut when I input anything else, it will throw a NullPointerException, which I think because the new pattern is not stored inside the hashmap but I tried to get the value of it since the program thinks that it is equal to the one already inside the HashMap. I think the problem is inside the equals() in Pattern but I'm not entirely sure.
import java.util.*;
public class RockPaperScisors{
public static void main(String[] args){
Scanner key = new Scanner(System.in);
Pattern pattern = new Pattern();
Pattern pattern1;
Computer comp = new Computer();
boolean stop = false;
int full=0;;
while ( !stop ){
System.out.println("Enter R P S. Enter Q to quit.");
char a = key.next().charAt(0);
if ( a == 'Q' ){
stop = true;
break;
}
pattern.newPattern(a);
char[] patt = pattern.getPattern();
for ( int i = 0; i < patt.length; i++ ){
System.out.print(patt[i] + " ");
}
pattern1 = new Pattern(patt);
comp.storePattern(pattern1);
System.out.println();
System.out.println("Patterns: " + comp.getSize());
full++;
}
}
}
import java.util.*;
public class Pattern{
private char[] pattern;
private int full = 0;
public Pattern(){
pattern = new char[4];
}
public Pattern(char[] patt){
pattern = patt;
}
public char[] getPattern(){
return pattern;
}
public void newPattern(char p){
if ( full <= 3 ){
pattern[full] = p;
full ++;
}
else{
for (int i = 0; i <= pattern.length-2; i++) {
pattern[i] = pattern[i+1];
}
pattern[pattern.length-1] = p;
}
}
public int HashCode(){
char[] a = pattern;
return a.hashCode();
}
public boolean equals( Object o ) {
if( o == this ) { return true; }
if(!(o instanceof Pattern)){ return false; }
Pattern s = (Pattern) o;
if (Arrays.equals(s.getPattern(), pattern))
System.out.println("Yes");
return Arrays.equals(s.getPattern(), pattern);
}
}
import java.util.*;
import java.util.Map.Entry;
public class Computer{
private HashMap<Pattern, Integer> map;
public Computer(){
map = new HashMap <Pattern, Integer>();
}
public void storePattern(Pattern p){
boolean contains = false;
for (Entry<Pattern, Integer> entry : map.entrySet())
{
Pattern patt = entry.getKey();
if ( p.equals(patt) ){
contains = true;
}
}
if ( contains ){
int time = map.get(p);
time++;
map.put(p, time);
}
else
map.put(p, 0);
}
public int getSize(){
return map.size();
}
}

Your HashCode is wrong.
It should be written in lower case.
public int hashCode()
In order to make sure that the method is overwritten, use the #Override annotation.

As noted by another answer, the first thing to do is rename and annotate your hashcode() method.
And then, you also have to fix it. It uses
char[] a = pattern;
return a.hashCode();
This means it uses the char[] object's hashCode() function. But that function is inherited directly from Object, and gives you a different hash code for two equal character arrays. For example, try this:
char[] c = { 'a','b','c' };
char[] d = { 'a','b','c' };
System.out.printf("%d %d%n", c.hashCode(), d.hashCode());
And you'll see that it prints two different numbers.
So you need to use a better hash code function. You can make your own, or use Arrays.hashCode(pattern) (there is no need for the local a variable). The important thing is that when two Patterns are equal according to the equals() method, they should have the same hash code.
What happens in your case is that you look up the HashCode by testing equality of all the entry keys (I'll get to that in a minute, it's a bad thing to do), so equals tell you you have the same key in the hash map. But the hash map itself uses the hashCode() method in get() to locate the object. And according to the hashCode() method, there is no object in the hash map that has the same key!
So they must always agree when the objects are equal.
Now, as for your method of looking up the object:
boolean contains = false;
for (Entry<Pattern, Integer> entry : map.entrySet())
{
Pattern patt = entry.getKey();
if ( p.equals(patt) ){
contains = true;
}
}
if ( contains ){
int time = map.get(p);
time++;
map.put(p, time);
} else
map.put(p, 0);
This is not how you use a Map. The whole point of a HashMap is that you can see if it contains a certain key or not in O(1). What you are doing is iterating it and comparing - and that`s O(N), very wasteful.
If you implement your hashCode() properly, you can just look it up by doing map.containsKey(p) instead of that loop. And if you are certain that you are not putting null values in the map, you can simply use get() to get your pattern:
Integer time = map.get(p);
if ( time == null ) {
map.put( p, 0 );
} else {
map.put( p, time+1);
}
(You don't need to use ++, because you are not actually using time after you put it in the map).

It's entirely possible that the issue in Pattern#HashCode.
The first issue is that it's not being used (it should be Pattern#hashCode), the second is that it's not calculating what you think it is.
You may find java.util.Arrays#hashCode very useful, changing the backing from an array to a List would also work.
As a side note, Pattern is not a great choice for the name of that class, as it clashes with java.util.regex.Pattern. This is more of a problem in this case than it might be otherwise, as it can be used with Scanner.

Best way to check NULL for objects in Java

I have a solution to check NULL values extracted from object, However i feel there might be best approach than i am doing here. So please suggest me the best ways with code snippet :)
I will be passing my xml Content to unmarshalling method & then pass the unmarshalledValues to null check method (i.e ValidateInputFiled )
Contents unmarshalledValues = unmarshalingContent( xml );
inputCheck = ValidateInputField( unmarshalledValues );
I have a POJO for my XML elements as mentioned below,
#XmlRootElement( name = "contents" )
public class Contents
{
#XmlElement
String A;
#XmlElement
String B;
#XmlElement
String C;
#XmlAttribute
String D;
public String getA()
{
return A;
}
public String getB()
{
return B;
}
public String getC()
{
return C;
}
public String getD()
{
return D;
}
}
I have defined ValidateInputFiled as mentioned below
public Boolean ValidateInputField( Contents unmarshalledValues )
{
int checker = 0;
Boolean listCheck = false;
// Extracting unmarshalled values from xml
String A= unmarshalledValues.getA();
String B= unmarshalledValues.getB();
String C = unmarshalledValues.getC();
String D= unmarshalledValues.getD();
if ( A== null || A.isEmpty() )
{
checker++;
}
if ( B== null || B.isEmpty() )
{
checker++;
}
if ( C== null || C.isEmpty() )
{
checker++;
}
if ( D== null || D.isEmpty() )
{
checker++;
}
if ( checker == 0 )
{
listCheck = true;
}
return listCheck;
}
Here i am looking to avoid NULL check for each String Values ( i.e A, B, C, D ) instead can i just do null check for Contents or for unmarshalledValues using collection or list ?

public static boolean isNullOrEmpty(String a) {
return a == null || a.isEmpty();
}
Call that for each value. You may want to think about adding them all to a list and then iterating through them, incrementing checker if they're !isNullOrEmpty to save code bloat if you have lots for fields.
PS: Make your fields private to preserve encapsulation.
pps: don't bother with a seperate boolean just return checker == 0; to keep the code neat.

Is that what you are looking for ?
public Boolean ValidateInputField(Contents unmarshalledValues) {
// Extracting unmarshalled values from xml
String A = unmarshalledValues.getA();
String B = unmarshalledValues.getB();
String C = unmarshalledValues.getC();
String D = unmarshalledValues.getD();
return checkNull(A, B, C, D);
}
private static boolean checkNull(String... strings) {
for (String string : strings) {
if (string == null || string.isEmpty()) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}

I use the apache commons StringUtils library for this type of thing. It has a check that includes null or empty spaces, plus other combinations depending on how you treat empty spaces. Pretty much code like Jeff here gave you, but i like having other methods they include.
You can also avoid nulls alltogether by coding your getters to return "" if a value == null. Then you would not have to check each field for null.

commons-lang has a Validate class you could use:
Validate.notNull( unmarshalledValues.getA() );

Non-reflective solution for Java 8, without using a series of if's, would be to stream all fields and check for nullness:
return Stream.of(id, name).allMatch(Objects::isNull);
This remains quite easy to maintain while avoiding the reflection hammer. This will return true for null attributes.

TreeMap returning null for value that should exist for some object keys

I have an issue with a TreeMap that we have defined a custom key object for. The issue is that after putting a few objects into the map, and trying to retrieve with the same key used to put on the map, I get a null. I believe this is caused by the fact that we have 2 data points on the key. One value is always populated and one value is not always populated. So it seems like the issue lies with the use of compareTo and equals. Unfortunately the business requirement for how our keys determine equality needs to be implemented this way.
I think this is best illustrated with code.
public class Key implements Comparable<Key> {
private String sometimesPopulated;
private String alwaysPopulated;
public int compareTo(Key aKey){
if(this.equals(aKey)){
return 0;
}
if(StringUtils.isNotBlank(sometimesPopulated) && StringUtils.isNotBlank(aKey.getSometimesPopulated())){
return sometimesPopulated.compareTo(aKey.getSometimesPopulated());
}
if(StringUtils.isNotBlank(alwaysPopulated) && StringUtils.isNotBlank(aKey.getAlwaysPopulated())){
return alwaysPopulated.compareTo(aKey.getAlwaysPopulated());
}
return 1;
}
public boolean equals(Object aObject){
if (this == aObject) {
return true;
}
final Key aKey = (Key) aObject;
if(StringUtils.isNotBlank(sometimesPopulated) && StringUtils.isNotBlank(aKey.getSometimesPopulated())){
return sometimesPopulated.equals(aKey.getSometimesPopulated());
}
if(StringUtils.isNotBlank(alwaysPopulated) && StringUtils.isNotBlank(aKey.getAlwaysPopulated())){
return alwaysPopulated.equals(aKey.getAlwaysPopulated());
}
return false;
}
So the issue occurs when trying to get a value off the map after putting some items on it.
Map<Key, String> map = new TreeMap<Key, String>();
Key aKey = new Key(null, "Hello");
map.put(aKey, "world");
//Put some more things on the map...
//they may have a value for sometimesPopulated or not
String value = map.get(aKey); // this = null
So why is the value null after just putting it in? I think the algorithm used by the TreeMap is sorting the map in an inconsistent manner because of the way I'm using compareTo and equals. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this code. Thanks

Your comparator violates the transitivity requirement.
Consider three objects:
Object A: sometimesPopulated="X" and alwaysPopulated="3".
Object B: sometimesPopulated="Y" and alwaysPopulated="1".
Object C: sometimesPopulated is blank and alwaysPopulated="2".
Using your comparator, A<B and B<C. Transitivity requires that A<C. However, using your comparator, A>C.
Since the comparator doesn't fulfil its contract, TreeMap is unable to do its job correctly.

I think the problem is that you are returning 1 from your compareTo if either of the sometimesPopulated values is blank or either of the alwaysPopulated values is blank. Remember that compareTo can be thought of returning the value of a subtraction operation and your's is not transitive. (a - b) can == (b - a) even when a != b.
I would return -1 if the aKey sometimesPopulated is not blank and the local sometimesPopulated is blank. If they are the same then I would do the same with alwaysPopulated.
I think your logic should be something like:
public int compareTo(Key aKey){
if(this.equals(aKey)){
return 0;
}
if (StringUtils.isBlank(sometimesPopulated)) {
if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(aKey.getSometimesPopulated())) {
return -1;
}
} else if (StringUtils.isBlank(aKey.getSometimesPopulated())) {
return 1;
} else {
int result = sometimesPopulated.compareTo(aKey.getSometimesPopulated());
if (result != 0) {
return result;
}
}
// same logic with alwaysPopulated
return 0;
}

I believe the problem is that you are treating two keys with both blank fields as greater than each other which could confuse the structure.
class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
Map<Key, String> map = new TreeMap<Key, String>();
Key aKey = new Key(null, "Hello");
map.put(aKey, "world");
//Put some more things on the map...
//they may have a value for sometimesPopulated or not
String value = map.get(aKey); // this = "world"
System.out.println(value);
}
}
class Key implements Comparable<Key> {
private final String sometimesPopulated;
private final String alwaysPopulated;
Key(String alwaysPopulated, String sometimesPopulated) {
this.alwaysPopulated = defaultIfBlank(alwaysPopulated, "");
this.sometimesPopulated = defaultIfBlank(sometimesPopulated, "");
}
static String defaultIfBlank(String s, String defaultString) {
return s == null || s.trim().isEmpty() ? defaultString : s;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Key o) {
int cmp = sometimesPopulated.compareTo(o.sometimesPopulated);
if (cmp == 0)
cmp = alwaysPopulated.compareTo(o.alwaysPopulated);
return cmp;
}
}

I think your equals, hashCode and compareTo methods should only use the field that is always populated. It's the only way to ensure the same object will always be found in the map regardless of if its optional field is set or not.
Second option, you could write an utility method that tries to find the value in the map, and if no value is found, tries again with the same key but with (or without) the optional field set.