I'd like to convert the following code, which breaks from the outer loop, into Java 8 Streams.
private CPBTuple getTuple(Collection<ConsignmentAlert> alertsOnCpdDay)
{
CPBTuple cpbTuple=null;
OUTER:
for (ConsignmentAlert consignmentAlert : alertsOnCpdDay) {
List<AlertAction> alertActions = consignmentAlert.getAlertActions();
for (AlertAction alertAction : alertActions) {
cpbTuple = handleAlertAction(reportDTO, consignmentId, alertAction);
if (cpbTuple.isPresent()) {
break OUTER;
}
}
}
return cpbTuple;
}
Every answer here uses flatMap, which until java-10 is not lazy. In your case that would mean that alertActions is traversed entirely, while in the for loop example - not. Here is a simplified example:
static class User {
private final List<String> nickNames;
public User(List<String> nickNames) {
this.nickNames = nickNames;
}
public List<String> getNickNames() {
return nickNames;
}
}
And some usage:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Arrays.asList(new User(Arrays.asList("one", "uno")))
.stream()
.flatMap(x -> x.getNickNames().stream())
.peek(System.out::println)
.filter(x -> x.equalsIgnoreCase("one"))
.findFirst()
.get();
}
In java-8 this will print both one and uno, since flatMap is not lazy.
On the other hand in java-10 this will print one - and this is what you care about if you want to have your example translated to stream-based 1 to 1.
Something along the lines of this should suffice:
return alertsOnCpdDay.stream()
.flatMap(s-> s.getAlertActions().stream())
.map(s-> handleAlertAction(reportDTO, consignmentId, s))
.filter(s-> s.isPresent())
.findFirst().orElse(null);
That said, a better option would be to change the method return type to Optional<CPBTuple> and then simply return the result of findFirst(). e.g.
private Optional<CPBTuple> getTuple(Collection<ConsignmentAlert> alertsOnCpdDay) {
return alertsOnCpdDay.stream()
.flatMap(s-> s.getAlertActions().stream())
.map(s-> handleAlertAction(reportDTO, consignmentId, s))
.filter(s-> s.isPresent())
.findFirst();
}
This is better because it better documents the method and helps prevent the issues that arise when dealing with nullity.
Since you break out of the loops upon the first match, you can eliminate the loops with a Stream with flatMap, which returns the first available match:
private CPBTuple getTuple(Collection<ConsignmentAlert> alertsOnCpdDay) {
return alertsOnCpdDay.stream()
.flatMap(ca -> ca.getAlertActions().stream())
.map(aa -> handleAlertAction(reportDTO, consignmentId, aa))
.filter(CPBTuple::isPresent)
.findFirst()
.orElse(null);
}
Try this out,
alertsOnCpdDay.stream()
.map(ConsignmentAlert::getAlertActions)
.flatMap(List::stream)
.map(alertAction -> handleAlertAction(reportDTO, consignmentId, alertAction))
.filter(CPBTuple::isPresent)
.findFirst().orElse(null);
Related
How to convert the following nested forEach loop into functional code?
ABC abc = new ABC();
for (A a : aList) {
for (String b : bList) {
if (Objects.equals(a.getName(), b)) {
abc.setId(a.getId());
abc.setValue(a.getValue());
}
}
}
I've tried to convert it this way, but it didn't work:
aList.forEach(a -> {
bList.stream()
.filter(b -> Objects.equals(b, a.getName()));
abc.setId(a.getId());
abc.setValue(a.getValue());
});
Not sure what is considered a "functional code" and why that is needed here.
My approach, assuming bList is a List<String>:
var abc = aList
.stream()
.filter(this::isKnownName)
.map(this::abcFromA)
.findFirst() // see ¹ bellow
.orElseGet(ABC::new);
using the following helper functions - not really needed, we could use lambda expressions, but I think using this is a little bit more readable ² :
private boolean isKnownName(A a) {
return bList.contains(a.getName());
}
private ABC abcFromA(A a) {
var result = new ABC();
result.setId(a.getId());
result.setValue(a.getValue());
return result;
}
¹ this code is using the first match found in bList, code in question is using the last match
² I would struggle between using this solution at all and using a single loop (with bList.contains() instead of inner loop as posted in question).
You can try
aList.forEach(a -> {
if( bList.stream()
.anyMatch(b -> Objects.equals(b, a.getName()))){
abc.setId(a.getId());
abc.setValue(a.getValue());
}
});
or better
aList.stream().filter(a -> bList.stream()
.anyMatch(b -> Objects.equals(b,a.getName())))
.findAny()
.ifPresent(a -> {
abc.setId(a.getId());
abc.setValue(a.getValue());
});
Now I have an object:
public class Room{
private long roomId;
private long roomGroupId;
private String roomName;
... getter
... setter
}
I want sort list of rooms by 'roomId', but in the meantime while room objects has 'roomGroupId' greator than zero and has same value then make them close to each other.
Let me give you some example:
input:
[{"roomId":3,"roomGroupId":0},
{"roomId":6,"roomGroupId":0},
{"roomId":1,"roomGroupId":1},
{"roomId":2,"roomGroupId":0},
{"roomId":4,"roomGroupId":1}]
output:
[{"roomId":6,"roomGroupId":0},
{"roomId":4,"roomGroupId":1},
{"roomId":1,"roomGroupId":1},
{"roomId":3,"roomGroupId":0},
{"roomId":2,"roomGroupId":0}]
As shown above, the list sort by 'roomId', but 'roomId 4' and 'roomId 1' are close together, because they has the same roomGroupId.
This does not have easy nice solution (maybe I am wrong).
You can do this like this
TreeMap<Long, List<Room>> roomMap = new TreeMap<>();
rooms.stream()
.collect(Collectors.groupingBy(Room::getRoomGroupId))
.forEach((key, value) -> {
if (key.equals(0L)) {
value.forEach(room -> roomMap.put(room.getRoomId(), Arrays.asList(room)));
} else {
roomMap.put(
Collections.max(value, Comparator.comparing(Room::getRoomId))
.getRoomId(),
value
.stream()
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(Room::getRoomId)
.reversed())
.collect(Collectors.toList())
);
}
});
List<Room> result = roomMap.descendingMap()
.entrySet()
.stream()
.flatMap(entry -> entry.getValue()
.stream())
.collect(Collectors.toList());
If you're in Java 8, you can use code like this
Collections.sort(roomList, Comparator.comparing(Room::getRoomGroupId)
.thenComparing(Room::getRoomId));
If not, you should use a comparator
class SortRoom implements Comparator<Room>
{
public int compare(Room a, Room b)
{
if (a.getRoomGroupId().compareTo(b.getRoomGroupId()) == 0) {
return a.getRoomId().compareTo(b.getRoomId());
}
return a.getRoomGroupId().compareTo(b.getRoomGroupId();
}
}
and then use it like this
Collections.sort(roomList, new SortRoom());
I have a list of valid values for a type:
Set<String> validTypes = ImmutableSet.of("TypeA", "TypeB", "TypeC");
From a given list I want to extract the first value which has a valid type. In this scenario I would write something of this sort:
public class A{
private String type;
private String member;
}
List<A> classAList;
classAList.stream()
.filter(a -> validTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.findFirst();
However I would like to give preference to TypeA, i.e. if classAList has TypeA and TypeB, I want the object which has typeA. To do this one approach I've is:
Set<String> preferredValidTypes = ImmutableSet.of("TypeA");
classAList.stream()
.filter(a -> preferredValidTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.findFirst()
.orElseGet(() -> {
return classAList.stream()
.filter(a -> validTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.findFirst();
}
Is there a better approach?
filter list by type, order by type, collect to list, then just get first element
List<A> collect = classAList.stream()
.filter(a -> validTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(A::getType))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
System.out.println(collect.get(0));
You can use a custom comparator like:
Comparator<A> comparator = (o1, o2) -> {
if (preferredValidTypes.contains(o1.getType()) && !preferredValidTypes.contains(o2.getType())) {
return 1;
} else if (!preferredValidTypes.contains(o1.getType()) && preferredValidTypes.contains(o2.getType())) {
return -1;
} else {
return 0;
}
};
to sort the list and then findFirst from that list with your conditiion.
i don't like the answers already given which use Comparator. Sorting is an expensive operation. You can do it with one walk through the list. Once you find a preferred value, you can break out, otherwise you continue to the end to find a valid.
In this case anyMatch can provide the possibility to break out from the stream processing:
MyVerifier verifier=new MyVerifier(validTypes,preferredValidTypes);
classAList.stream()
.anyMatch(verifier);
System.out.println("Preferred found:"+verifier.preferred);
System.out.println("Valid found:"+verifier.valid);
public static class MyVerifier implements Predicate<A> {
private Set<String> validTypes;
private Set<String> preferredValidTypes;
A preferred=null;
A valid=null;
public MyVerifier(Set<String> validTypes, Set<String> preferredValidTypes) {
super();
this.validTypes = validTypes;
this.preferredValidTypes = preferredValidTypes;
}
#Override
public boolean test(A a) {
if(preferred==null && preferredValidTypes.contains(a.getType())) {
preferred=a;
// we can stop because we found the first preferred
return true;
} else if(valid==null && validTypes.contains(a.getType())) {
valid=a;
}
return false;
}
}
One can, of course, define two lists, one with all valid types, and one with the preferred types.
However, here is another approach. Define one list, or actually, a Map, with the keys being the valid types, and the boolean values being whether the type is preferred.
Map<String, Boolean> validTypes = ImmutableMap.of(
"TypeA", false,
"TypeB", false,
"TypeC", true
);
Using AtomicReference
One option is the following:
AtomicReference<A> ref = new AtomicReference<>();
listOfAs.stream()
.filter(t -> validTypes.containsKey(t.getType()))
.anyMatch(t -> validTypes.get(ref.updateAndGet(u -> t).getType()));
AtomicReference now contains a preferred A if available, or another valid A, or if the stream is empty, then it contains null. This stream operation short-circuits if an A with a preferred type is found.
The drawback of this option is that it creates side-effects, which is discouraged.
Using distinct()
Another suggestion would be the following. It uses the same map structure, using a boolean to indicate which values are preferred. However, it does not create side effects.
Map<Boolean, A> map = listOfAs.stream()
.filter(t -> validTypes.containsKey(t.getType()))
.map(t -> new Carrier<>(validTypes.get(t.getType()), t))
.distinct()
.limit(2)
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Carrier::getKey, Carrier::getValue));
It works as follows.
filter discards any element that is not a valid type.
Then, each element is mapped to a Carrier<Boolean, A> instance. A Carrier is a Map.Entry<K, V> which implements its equals and hashCode methods regarding only the key; the value does not matter. This is necessary for the following step,
distinct(), which discards any duplicate element. This way, only one preferred type and only one valid type is found.
We limit the stream to have 2 elements, one for each boolean. This is because the stream, which is lazy, stops evaluating after both booleans are found.
At last, we collect the Carrier elements into a Map.
The map contains now the following elements:
Boolean.TRUE => A with a preferred type
Boolean.FALSE => A with a valid type
Retrieve the appropriate element using
A a = map.getOrDefault(true, map.get(false)); // null if not found
Well you have to take care into account that sorting is stable, that is equal elements will appear in the same order as the initial source - and you need that to correctly get the first element from that List<A> that will satisfy your requirement, thus:
String priorityType = "TypeB";
Stream.of(new A("TypeA", "A"),
new A("TypeB", "B"),
new A("TypeC", "C"))
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(A::getType, Comparator.comparing(priorityType::equals)).reversed())
.filter(x -> validTypes.contains(priorityType))
.findFirst()
.orElseThrow(RuntimeException::new);
In Java8 you can use streams:
public static Carnet findByCodeIsIn(Collection<Carnet> listCarnet, String codeIsIn) {
return listCarnet.stream().filter(carnet -> codeIsIn.equals(carnet.getCodeIsin())).findFirst().orElse(null);
}
Additionally, in case you have many different objects (not only Carnet) or you want to find it by different properties (not only by cideIsin), you could build an utility class, to ecapsulate this logic in it:
public final class FindUtils {
public static <T> T findByProperty(Collection<T> col, Predicate<T> filter) {
return col.stream().filter(filter).findFirst().orElse(null);
}
}
public final class CarnetUtils {
public static Carnet findByCodeTitre(Collection<Carnet> listCarnet, String codeTitre) {
return FindUtils.findByProperty(listCarnet, carnet -> codeTitre.equals(carnet.getCodeTitre()));
}
public static Carnet findByNomTitre(Collection<Carnet> listCarnet, String nomTitre) {
return FindUtils.findByProperty(listCarnet, carnet -> nomTitre.equals(carnet.getNomTitre()));
}
public static Carnet findByCodeIsIn(Collection<Carnet> listCarnet, String codeIsin) {
return FindUtils.findByProperty(listCarnet, carnet -> codeIsin.equals(carnet.getCodeIsin()));
}
}
If you have preferred valid types in other collection so you can follow this code.
Map<String,A> groupByType = classAList
.stream()
/* additional filter to grouping by valid types.*/
//.filter(a->validTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.collect(Collectors.toMap(A::getType, Function.identity(),(v1, v2)->v1));
then use:
A result = preferredValidTypes
.stream()
.map(groupByType::get)
.findFirst()
.orElseThrow(RuntimeException::new);
or just group by preferred valid types
A result2 = classAList
.stream()
.filter(a -> preferredValidTypes.contains(a.getType()))
.collect(Collectors.toMap(A::getType, Function.identity(), (v1, v2) -> v1))
.entrySet()
.stream()
.findFirst()
.map(Map.Entry::getValue)
.orElseThrow(RuntimeException::new);
Based on some sports results data, I have a Fixture object which has getHome() and getAway() method. I'd like to shorten this method which I've written to only use a single lambda function (instead of creating a new list and two lambdas), is this possible?
private Collection<FixtureResult> finalResults(Team team) {
List<FixtureResult>finalResults = new ArrayList<>();
List<FixtureResult> homeResults = resultList.stream().filter(fixture ->
fixture.getHome().equals(team))
.collect(toList());
List<FixtureResult> awayResults = resultList.stream().filter(fixture ->
fixture.getAway().equals(team))
.collect(toList());
finalResults.addAll(homeResults);
finalResults.addAll(awayResults);
return finalResults;
}
Simple enough
resultList.stream()
.filter(fixture -> fixture.getHome().equals(team) || fixture.getAway().equals(team)))
.collect(toList());
EDIT: This is on the assumption that order does not matter to you. If your final list needs to have home result and then away, have a look at Elliott Frisch's answer.
If you wan to get fancy with lambdas:
Predicate<FixtureResult> isHome = fr -> fr.getHome().equals(team)
Predicate<FixtureResult> isAway = fr -> fr.getAway().equals(team)
resultList.stream()
.filter(isHome.or(isAway))
.collect(toList()));
You could even extract the compose predicate to test it in isolation, with no streams involved, which is good for more complex predicates:
Predicate<FixtureResult> isHomeOrAway = isHome.or(isAway)
assertTrue(isHomeOrAway(homeFixture));
...
Assuming the order doesn't matter, you can do it on one line. Like,
private Collection<FixtureResult> finalResults(Team team) {
return resultList.stream()
.filter(fixture -> fixture.getHome().equals(team)
|| fixture.getAway().equals(team))
.collect(toList());
}
If the order matters (home results and then away), you can do it with a single List like
private Collection<FixtureResult> finalResults(Team team) {
List<FixtureResult> al = new ArrayList<>(resultList.stream()
.filter(fixture -> fixture.getHome().equals(team)).collect(toList()));
al.addAll(resultList.stream()
.filter(fixture -> fixture.getAway().equals(team)).collect(toList()));
return al;
}
You can simply create a conditions concatenations or can concatenate multiple filter call
Conditions concatenations
myList.stream()
.filter(element -> (condition1 && condition2 && condition3))
Multiple filter call
myList.stream()
.filter(element -> condition1)
.filter(element -> condition2)
.filter(element -> condition3)
You can do the following
someStream.filter(((Predicate<SomeClass>) someObject-> someCondition).or(someObject-> someOtherCondition))
Or you can define your own "or" function that won't cause such a deep hierarchy
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
<R> Predicate<R> or(Predicate<R> ...predicates) {
return r -> Arrays.stream(predicates).anyMatch(p -> p.test(r));
}
That gives you a cleaner interface without casting and the nesting
.filter(or(
yourObject -> {
return false;
},
yourObject -> {
return false;
},
yourObject -> {
return false;
},
yourObject -> {
return false;
}
))
No "if" statements, please, unless you're explaining why it's impossible to do without one.
I'm seeing how far I can go operating on streams only. I have this nuisance:
List<Cube> revised =
cubes.filter(p)
.map(c -> f(c))
.map(c -> {
if(c.prop()) {
c.addComment(comment);
}
return c;
})
.collect(Collectors.toList());
My best idea for how to do this without an "if" is
List<Cube> revised =
cubes.filter(p)
.map(c -> f(c));
revised
.filter(Cube::prop)
.forEach(c -> c.addComment(comment)); // can also map still
Is there a way to do this in one chain only? A branch basically has to happen in the stream if so. A method like forSome(predicate, lambda) would work.
Do not want to "roll my own" anything. I can use an "if" but I'm trying to learn how expressive functional style can be.
There's no need to use map that returns the same element, when you have peek. The following code "cheats" by using a short-circuit operator:
cubes.filter(p)
.map(c -> f(c))
.peek(c -> c.prop() && c.addComment(comment))
I think the "modern" way using Optional is far less readable:
cubes.filter(p)
.map(c -> f(c))
.peek(c -> Optional.of(c).filter(Cube::prop).ifPresent(c -> c.addComment(comment)))
You can implement your forSome function in following way:
public static <T> T forSome(T c, Predicate<T> condition, Consumer<T> extraBehaviour) {
if (condition.test(c)) {
extraBehaviour.accept(c);
}
return c;
}
Than you can use map operator to inject this into stream:
List<Cube> revised = cubes.stream().filter(p)
.map(c -> f(c))
.map(c -> forSome(c, Cube::prop, cube -> cube.addComment("my comment 2")))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Just to give another example of usage we can take following example:
class StudentExam {
private final String studentName;
private final List<Character> answers;
private boolean passed = false;
StudentExam(String studentName, List<Character> answers) {
this.studentName = studentName;
this.answers = answers;
}
public void markAsPassed() {
this.passed = true;
}
public boolean isPassed() {
return passed;
}
public Character getAnswer(int index) {
return answers.get(index);
}
public String getStudentName() {
return studentName;
}
}
List<StudentExam> results = asList(
new StudentExam("John", asList(new Character[] {'A', 'B'})),
new StudentExam("Andy", asList(new Character[] {'A', 'C'})),
new StudentExam("Mary", asList(new Character[] {'B', 'B'})),
new StudentExam("Jane", asList(new Character[] {'C', 'D'}))
);
Now we can if correct answers are 'A' and 'B' than we can stream through the objects and set the appropriate status of exam.
results.stream()
.map(examResult -> forSome(
examResult,
er -> er.getAnswer(0).equals('A') || er.getAnswer(1).equals('B'),
StudentExam::markAsPassed))
.forEach(studentExam ->
studentExam.getStudentName() + " passed: " + studentExam.isPassed()));
prints:
John: passed true
Andy: passed true
Mary: passed true
Jane: passed false