array list stream find index and update a value - java

How can I update an item the arraylist using stream, example I want to update item 1 from 100 to 1000:
List<PayList> payList = new ArrayList<>();
payList.add(new PayList(1, 100));
payList.add(new PayList(2, 200));
I am able to find the index, but how can I find the index and then update the value?
int indexOf = IntStream.range(0, payList.size())
.filter(p -> trx.getTransactionId() ==
payList.get(p).getTransactionId())
.findFirst().orElse(-1);

A couple of options:
Using the index you have already obtained, you can use paylist.get(index) again. However you must handle the missing -1 case:
int indexOf = IntStream.range(0, payList.size())
.filter(p -> trx.getTransactionId() ==
payList.get(p).getTransactionId())
.findFirst().orElse(-1);
if(indexOf == -1) {
// handle missing
}else {
payList.get(indexOf).setAmount(1000);
}
If you don't need to handle the missing case you could stream over the lists like this:
final Stream<PayList> filtered = payList.stream().filter(p -> trx.getTransactionId() == p.getTransactionId());
final Optional<PayList> first = filtered.findFirst();
first.ifPresent(i -> i.setAmount(1000));
Or you could use similar orElse, ifPresentOrElse, orElseThrow type logic on the optional to handle the missing case.

Related

How do I turn this expression into a lambda expression?

I'd like to turn what I'm doing into lambda, in which case it would be I scroll through a list (listRegistrationTypeWork) within the other, check if the child list (getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors) is != null, if it is, scroll through it looking for an authorCoautor = type, and increment a count, to find out how many records within the lists have this same type.
public int qtyMaximumWorksByAuthorCoauthor(AuthorCoauthor type) {
int count = 0;
for (RegistrationTypeWork tab : listRegistrationTypeWork) {
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(tab.getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors())) {
for (RegistrationTypeWorkAuthors author : tab.getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors()) {
if (author.getAuthorCoauthor().equals(type))
count++;
}
}
}
return count;
}
Although your statement is not clear enough on what transforming to lambda expression would mean, but I am assuming you would like to turn your imperative looping step to a functional stream and lambda based one.
This should be straightforward using:
filter to filter out the unwanted values from both of your collections
flatMap to flatten all inner collections into a single stream so that you can operate your count on it as a single source
public int qtyMaximumWorksByAuthorCoauthor(AuthorCoauthor type) {
return listRegistrationTypeWork.stream()
.filter(tab -> tab.getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors() != null)
.flatMap(tab -> tab.getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors().stream())
.filter(author -> type.equals(author.getAuthorCoauthor()))
.count();
}
In addition to Thomas fine comment I think you would want to write your stream something like this.
long count = listRegistrationTypeWork.stream()
// to make sure no lists that are actual null are mapped.
// map all RegistrationTypeWork into optionals of lists of RegistrationTypeWorkAuthors
.map(registrationTypeWork -> Optional.ofNullable(registrationTypeWork.getRegistrationTypeWorkAuthors()))
// this removes all empty Optionals from the stream
.flatMap(Optional::stream)
// this turns the stream of lists of RegistrationTypeWorkAuthors into a stream of plain RegistrationTypeWorkAuthors
.flatMap(Collection::stream)
// this filters out RegistrationTypeWorkAuthors which are of a different type
.filter(registrationTypeWorkAuthors -> type.equals(registrationTypeWorkAuthors.getAuthorCoauthor()))
.count();
// count returns a long so you either need to return a long in your method signature or cast the long to an integer.
return (int) count;

Given an array, find the integer that appears an odd number of times in Java.

I am trying to find the integer that appears an odd numbers of time, but somehow the tests on qualified.io are not returning true. May be there is something wrong with my logic?
The problem is that in an array [5,1,1,5,2,2,5] the number 5 appears 3 times, therefore the answer is 5. The method signature wants me to use List<>. So my code is below.
public static List<Integer> findOdd( List<Integer> integers ) {
int temp = integers.size();
if (integers.size() % 2 == 0) {
//Do something here.
}
return integers;
}
}
I need to understand couple things. What is the best way to check all elements inside integers list, and iterate over to see if any similar element is present, if yes, return that element.
If you are allowed to use java 8, you can use streams and collectors for this:
Map<Integer, Long> collect = list.stream()
.collect(Collectors.groupingBy(Function.identity(), Collectors.counting()));
Given a list with integers, this code will generate a map, where the key is the actual number and value is number of repetitions.
You just have to iterate through map and find out what are you interested in.
You want to set up a data structure that will let you count every integer that appears in the list. Then iterate through your list and do the counting. When you're done, check your data structure for all integers that occur an odd number of times and add them to your list to return.
Something like:
public static List<Integer> findOdd(List<Integer> integers) {
Map<Integer, MutableInt> occurrences = new HashMap<>(); // Count occurrences of each integer
for (Integer i : integers) {
if (occurrences.containsKey(i)) {
occurrences.get(i).increment();
} else {
occurrences.put(i, new MutableInt(1));
}
}
List<Integer> answer = new ArrayList<>();
for (Integer i : occurrences.keySet()) {
if ((occurrences.get(i) % 2) == 1) { // It's odd
answer.add(i)
}
}
return answer;
}
MutableInt is an Apache Commons class. You can do it with plain Integers, but you have to replace the value each time.
If you've encountered streams before you can change the second half of the answer above (the odd number check) to something like:
return occurrences.entrySet().stream()
.filter(i -> i % 2 == 1)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Note: I haven't compiled any of this myself so you may need to tweak it a bit.
int findOdd(int[] nums) {
Map<Integer, Boolean>evenNumbers = new HashMap<>();
nums.forEach(num -> {
Boolean status = evenNumbers.get(num);
if(status == null) {
evenNumbers.put(num, false);
}else{
evenNumbers.put(num, !status);
}
});
// Map holds true for all values with even occurrences
Iterator<Integer> it = evenNumbers.keySet().iterator();
while(it.hasNext()){
Integer key = it.next();
Boolean next = evenNumbers.get(key);
if(next == false){
return key;
}
}
}
You could use the reduce method from the IntStream package.
Example:
stream(ints).reduce(0, (x, y) -> x ^ y);

Kotlin Destructuring when/if statement

So I have a String i would want to check if I should split into two, or return some default value. Like this:
val myString = "firstPart-secondPart"
val (first, second) = when (myString.contains("-")) {
true -> myString.split('-', limit = 2)
else -> ?? <-- How would i return ("Default1", "Default2") so the destructuring still works?
}
So my question is, how do i return two default strings, so that the deconstructing works? I've used String.split() before in order to deconstruct and it's really nice.
How to return 2 values for destructuring
You need to return a type matching the above type, split returns a list, so you could use this:
listOf("Default1", "Default2")
Full code
val myString = "firstPart-secondPart"
val (first, second) = when (myString.contains("-")) {
true -> myString.split('-', limit = 2)
else -> listOf("Default1", "Default2")
}
Why this works
As both branches return List<String> you can treat the whole when block as a List<String>, so it can be destructured to get the values from it.
Possible cleanup
val myString = "firstPart-secondPart"
val (first, second) = when {
myString.contains("-") -> myString.split('-', limit = 2)
else -> listOf("Default1", "Default2")
}
This may make more sense, assuming you are going to add more conditions, otherwise an if may make more sense.
As an alternative to the good and correct answer of jrtapsell, you could use destructured Pairs:
val (first, second) = when (myString.contains("-")) {
true -> myString.split('-', limit = 2).let { it[0] to it[1] }
else -> "Default1" to "Default2"
}
Note 1: The resulting list with two elements is transformed to a Pair with the help of let.
Note 2: The infix function to is used to create Pairs here.

Limit a stream and find out if there are pending elements

I have the following code that I want to translate to Java 8 streams:
public ReleaseResult releaseReources() {
List<String> releasedNames = new ArrayList<>();
Stream<SomeResource> stream = this.someResources();
Iterator<SomeResource> it = stream.iterator();
while (it.hasNext() && releasedNames.size() < MAX_TO_RELEASE) {
SomeResource resource = it.next();
if (!resource.isTaken()) {
resource.release();
releasedNames.add(resource.getName());
}
}
return new ReleaseResult(releasedNames, it.hasNext(), MAX_TO_RELEASE);
}
Method someResources() returns a Stream<SomeResource> and ReleaseResult class is as follows:
public class ReleaseResult {
private int releasedCount;
private List<String> releasedNames;
private boolean hasMoreItems;
private int releaseLimit;
public ReleaseResult(List<String> releasedNames,
boolean hasMoreItems, int releaseLimit) {
this.releasedNames = releasedNames;
this.releasedCount = releasedNames.size();
this.hasMoreItems = hasMoreItems;
this.releaseLimit = releaseLimit;
}
// getters & setters
}
My attempt so far:
public ReleaseResult releaseReources() {
List<String> releasedNames = this.someResources()
.filter(resource -> !resource.isTaken())
.limit(MAX_TO_RELEASE)
.peek(SomeResource::release)
.map(SomeResource::getName)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
return new ReleasedResult(releasedNames, ???, MAX_TO_RELEASE);
}
The problem is that I can't find a way to know if there are pending resources to process. I've thought of using releasedNames.size() == MAX_TO_RELEASE, but this doesn't take into account the case where the stream of resources has exactly MAX_TO_RELEASE elements.
Is there a way to do the same with Java 8 streams?
Note: I'm not looking for answers like "you don't have to do everything with streams" or "using loops and iterators is fine". I'm OK if using an iterator and a loop is the only way or just the best way. It's just that I'd like to know if there's a non-murky way to do the same.
Since you don’t wanna hear that you don’t need streams for everything and loops and iterators are fine, let’s demonstrate it by showing a clean solution, not relying on peek:
public ReleaseResult releaseReources() {
return this.someResources()
.filter(resource -> !resource.isTaken())
.limit(MAX_TO_RELEASE+1)
.collect(
() -> new ReleaseResult(new ArrayList<>(), false, MAX_TO_RELEASE),
(result, resource) -> {
List<String> names = result.getReleasedNames();
if(names.size() == MAX_TO_RELEASE) result.setHasMoreItems(true);
else {
resource.release();
names.add(resource.getName());
}
},
(r1, r2) -> {
List<String> names = r1.getReleasedNames();
names.addAll(r2.getReleasedNames());
if(names.size() > MAX_TO_RELEASE) {
r1.setHasMoreItems(true);
names.remove(MAX_TO_RELEASE);
}
}
);
}
This assumes that // getters & setters includes getters and setters for all non-final fields of your ReleaseResult. And that getReleasedNames() returns the list by reference. Otherwise you would have to rewrite it to provide a specialized Collector having special non-public access to ReleaseResult (implementing another builder type or temporary storage would be an unnecessary complication, it looks like ReleaseResult is already designed exactly for that use case).
We could conclude that for any nontrivial loop code that doesn’t fit into the stream’s intrinsic operations, you can find a collector solution that basically does the same as the loop in its accumulator function, but suffers from the requirement of always having to provide a combiner function. Ok, in this case we can prepend a filter(…).limit(…) so it’s not that bad…
I just noticed, if you ever dare to use that with a parallel stream, you need a way to reverse the effect of releasing the last element in the combiner in case the combined size exceeds MAX_TO_RELEASE. Generally, limits and parallel processing never play well.
I don't think there's a nice way to do this. I've found a hack that does it lazily. What you can do is convert the Stream to an Iterator, convert the Iterator back to another Stream, do the Stream operations, then finally test the Iterator for a next element!
Iterator<SomeResource> it = this.someResource().iterator();
List<String> list = StreamSupport.stream(Spliterators.spliteratorUnknownSize(it, Spliterator.ORDERED), false)
.filter(resource -> !resource.isTaken())
.limit(MAX_TO_RELEASE)
.peek(SomeResource::release)
.map(SomeResource::getName)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
return new ReleaseResult(list, it.hasNext(), MAX_TO_RELEASE);
The only thing I can think of is
List<SomeResource> list = someResources(); // A List, rather than a Stream, is required
List<Integer> indices = IntStream.range(0, list.size())
.filter(i -> !list.get(i).isTaken())
.limit(MAX_TO_RELEASE)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
List<String> names = indices.stream()
.map(list::get)
.peek(SomeResource::release)
.map(SomeResource::getName)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Then (I think) there are unprocessed elements if
names.size() == MAX_TO_RELEASE
&& (indices.isEmpty() || indices.get(indices.size() - 1) < list.size() - 1)

How should I check whether a Stream<T> is sorted?

With an Iterable<T>, it's easy:
T last = null;
for (T t : iterable) {
if (last != null && last.compareTo(t) > 0) {
return false;
}
last = t;
}
return true;
But I can't think of a clean way to do the same thing for a Stream<T> that avoids consuming all the elements when it doesn't have to.
There are several methods to iterate over the successive pairs of the stream. For example, you can check this question. Of course my favourite method is to use the library I wrote:
boolean unsorted = StreamEx.of(sourceStream)
.pairMap((a, b) -> a.compareTo(b) > 0)
.has(true);
It's short-circuit operation: it will finish as soon as it find the misorder. Also it works fine with parallel streams.
This is a sequential, state holding solution:
IntStream stream = IntStream.of(3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 9, 10);
final AtomicInteger max = new AtomicInteger(Integer.MIN_VALUE);
boolean sorted = stream.allMatch(n -> n >= max.getAndSet(n));
Parallelizing would need to introduce ranges. The state, max might be dealt with otherwise, but the above seems most simple.
You can grab the Stream's underlying spliterator and check it it has the SORTED characteristic. Since it's a terminal operation, you can't use the Stream after (but you can create another one from this spliterator, see also Convert Iterable to Stream using Java 8 JDK).
For example:
Stream<Integer> st = Stream.of(1, 2, 3);
//false
boolean isSorted = st.spliterator().hasCharacteristics(Spliterator.SORTED);
Stream<Integer> st = Stream.of(1, 2, 3).sorted();
//true
boolean isSorted = st.spliterator().hasCharacteristics(Spliterator.SORTED);
My example shows that the SORTED characteristic appears only if you get the Stream from a source's that reports the SORTED characteristic or you call sorted() at a point on the pipeline.
One could argue that Stream.iterate(0, x -> x + 1); creates a SORTED stream, but there is no knowledge about the semantic of the function applied iteratively. The same applies for Stream.of(...).
If the pipeline is infinite then it's the only way to know. If not, and that the spliterator does not report this characteristic, you'd need to go through the elements and see if it does not satisfy the sorted characteristic you are looking for.
This is what you already done with your iterator approach but then you need to consume some elements of the Stream (in the worst case, all elements). You can make the task parallelizable with some extra code, then it's up to you to see if it's worth it or not...
You could hijack a reduction operation to save the last value and compare it to the current value and throw an exception if it isn't sorted:
.stream().reduce((last, curr) -> {
if (((Comparable)curr).compareTo(last) < 0) {
throw new Exception();
}
return curr;
});
EDIT: I forked another answer's example and replaced it with my code to show it only does the requisite number of checks.
http://ideone.com/ZMGnVW
You could use allMatch with a multi-line lambda, checking the current value against the previous one. You'll have to wrap the last value into an array, though, so the lambda can modify it.
// infinite stream with one pair of unsorted numbers
IntStream s = IntStream.iterate(0, x -> x != 1000 ? x + 2 : x - 1);
// terminates as soon as the first unsorted pair is found
int[] last = {Integer.MIN_VALUE};
boolean sorted = s.allMatch(x -> {
boolean b = x >= last[0]; last[0] = x; return b;
});
Alternatively, just get the iterator from the stream and use a simple loop.
A naive solution uses the stream's Iterator:
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> boolean isSorted(Stream<T> stream) {
Iterator<T> i = stream.iterator();
if(!i.hasNext()) return true;
T current = i.next();
while(i.hasNext()) {
T next = i.next();
if(current == null || current.compareTo(next) > 0) return false;
current = next;
}
return true;
}
Edit: It would also be possible to use a spliterator to parallelize the task, but the gains would be questionable and the increase in complexity is probably not worth it.
I don't know how good it is , but i have just got an idea:
Make a list out of your Stream , Integer or Strings or anything.
i have written this for a List<String> listOfStream:
long countSorted = IntStream.range(1, listOfStream.size())
.map(
index -> {
if (listOfStream.get(index).compareTo(listOfStream.get(index-1)) > 0) {
return 0;
}
return index;
})
.sum();

Categories