We Keep Coding

Java - Checking for duplicates in arrayList and stop user from adding an order to the array

A GUI program that displays a label at the top with "Order not added -duplicate" when a duplicate order is attemped to be added by the user.
for the order in orderList to be considered duplicate all inputs in textfields (when the button is clicked) have to be the same.
I suppose that I have to use a for loop to check if the order is already in the arrayList but I'm not sure how, I'm pretty new to java.

Instead of an array you should be using a Set which is a collection specifically designed to prevent duplicates:
A Set is a Collection that cannot contain duplicate elements. It models the mathematical set abstraction. The Set interface contains only methods inherited from Collection and adds the restriction that duplicate elements are prohibited. Set also adds a stronger contract on the behavior of the equals and hashCode operations, allowing Set instances to be compared meaningfully even if their implementation types differ. Two Set instances are equal if they contain the same elements.
Since you are new to Java language take a step back and first learn about basic collections provided by the standard library: List, Set and Map. Once you understand this abstractions and their implementation variants you will be able to solve a lot of common day-to-day problems.

While a Set would be good in a real world scenario, this appears to be a homework assignment with arbitrary limitations so let's see how it can be done using an ArrayList.
First thing I would recommend doing is overriding your .equals() method on your Order object to properly compare field values. Something like...
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
//Same reference so same object in every sense of the word
if(obj == this)
return true;
//Not instanced nor the same class so clearly not equal
if(obj == null || obj.getClass() != getClass())
return false;
//Cast it to the same object type
Order o = (Order) obj;
//Start comparing every variable, will return false if any of them don't match
//Be sure to use the equals operation for any variable objects such as String
return this.name.equals(o.name) && this.value == o.value && this.someVar == o.someVar; //ect...
}
Then you just need to take your fields and turn it into a object like normal...
Order order = new Order(field1.getText(), field2.getText(), field3.getText()); //ect...
And run it in a compare against the existing values. I recommend making a separate method for this...
public static boolean orderExists(Order order) {
for(Order otherOrder : orderArrayList) {
if(order.equals(otherOrder))
return true;
}
return false;
}
From there, the orderExists() method will tell you if it's already in there and you can implement your code for displaying the error. Hope this helps you get set up enough to handle the rest on your own alright!

Check all values of object in list are unique [duplicate]

I want to remove duplicates from a list but what I am doing is not working:
List<Customer> listCustomer = new ArrayList<Customer>();
for (Customer customer: tmpListCustomer)
{
if (!listCustomer.contains(customer))
{
listCustomer.add(customer);
}
}

Assuming you want to keep the current order and don't want a Set, perhaps the easiest is:
List<Customer> depdupeCustomers =
new ArrayList<>(new LinkedHashSet<>(customers));
If you want to change the original list:
Set<Customer> depdupeCustomers = new LinkedHashSet<>(customers);
customers.clear();
customers.addAll(dedupeCustomers);

If the code in your question doesn't work, you probably have not implemented equals(Object) on the Customer class appropriately.
Presumably there is some key (let us call it customerId) that uniquely identifies a customer; e.g.
class Customer {
private String customerId;
...
An appropriate definition of equals(Object) would look like this:
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj == this) {
return true;
}
if (!(obj instanceof Customer)) {
return false;
}
Customer other = (Customer) obj;
return this.customerId.equals(other.customerId);
}
For completeness, you should also implement hashCode so that two Customer objects that are equal will return the same hash value. A matching hashCode for the above definition of equals would be:
public int hashCode() {
return customerId.hashCode();
}
It is also worth noting that this is not an efficient way to remove duplicates if the list is large. (For a list with N customers, you will need to perform N*(N-1)/2 comparisons in the worst case; i.e. when there are no duplicates.) For a more efficient solution you could use a HashSet to do the duplicate checking. Another option would be to use a LinkedHashSet as explained in Tom Hawtin's answer.

java 8 update
you can use stream of array as below:
Arrays.stream(yourArray).distinct()
.collect(Collectors.toList());

Does Customer implement the equals() contract?
If it doesn't implement equals() and hashCode(), then listCustomer.contains(customer) will check to see if the exact same instance already exists in the list (By instance I mean the exact same object--memory address, etc). If what you are looking for is to test whether or not the same Customer( perhaps it's the same customer if they have the same customer name, or customer number) is in the list already, then you would need to override equals() to ensure that it checks whether or not the relevant fields(e.g. customer names) match.
Note: Don't forget to override hashCode() if you are going to override equals()! Otherwise, you might get trouble with your HashMaps and other data structures. For a good coverage of why this is and what pitfalls to avoid, consider having a look at Josh Bloch's Effective Java chapters on equals() and hashCode() (The link only contains iformation about why you must implement hashCode() when you implement equals(), but there is good coverage about how to override equals() too).
By the way, is there an ordering restriction on your set? If there isn't, a slightly easier way to solve this problem is use a Set<Customer> like so:
Set<Customer> noDups = new HashSet<Customer>();
noDups.addAll(tmpListCustomer);
return new ArrayList<Customer>(noDups);
Which will nicely remove duplicates for you, since Sets don't allow duplicates. However, this will lose any ordering that was applied to tmpListCustomer, since HashSet has no explicit ordering (You can get around that by using a TreeSet, but that's not exactly related to your question). This can simplify your code a little bit.

List → Set → List (distinct)
Just add all your elements to a Set: it does not allow it's elements to be repeated. If you need a list afterwards, use new ArrayList(theSet) constructor afterwards (where theSet is your resulting set).

I suspect you might not have Customer.equals() implemented properly (or at all).
List.contains() uses equals() to verify whether any of its elements is identical to the object passed as parameter. However, the default implementation of equals tests for physical identity, not value identity. So if you have not overwritten it in Customer, it will return false for two distinct Customer objects having identical state.
Here are the nitty-gritty details of how to implement equals (and hashCode, which is its pair - you must practically always implement both if you need to implement either of them). Since you haven't shown us the Customer class, it is difficult to give more concrete advice.
As others have noted, you are better off using a Set rather than doing the job by hand, but even for that, you still need to implement those methods.

private void removeTheDuplicates(List<Customer>myList) {
for(ListIterator<Customer>iterator = myList.listIterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Customer customer = iterator.next();
if(Collections.frequency(myList, customer) > 1) {
iterator.remove();
}
}
System.out.println(myList.toString());
}

The "contains" method searched for whether the list contains an entry that returns true from Customer.equals(Object o). If you have not overridden equals(Object) in Customer or one of its parents then it will only search for an existing occurrence of the same object. It may be this was what you wanted, in which case your code should work. But if you were looking for not having two objects both representing the same customer, then you need to override equals(Object) to return true when that is the case.
It is also true that using one of the implementations of Set instead of List would give you duplicate removal automatically, and faster (for anything other than very small Lists). You will still need to provide code for equals.
You should also override hashCode() when you override equals().

Nearly all of the above answers are right but what I suggest is to use a Map or Set while creating the related list, not after to gain performance. Because converting a list to a Set or Map and then reconverting it to a List again is a trivial work.
Sample Code:
Set<String> stringsSet = new LinkedHashSet<String>();//A Linked hash set
//prevents the adding order of the elements
for (String string: stringsList) {
stringsSet.add(string);
}
return new ArrayList<String>(stringsSet);

Two suggestions:
Use a HashSet instead of an ArrayList. This will speed up the contains() checks considerably if you have a long list
Make sure Customer.equals() and Customer.hashCode() are implemented properly, i.e. they should be based on the combined values of the underlying fields in the customer object.

As others have mentioned, you are probably not implementing equals() correctly.
However, you should also note that this code is considered quite inefficient, since the runtime could be the number of elements squared.
You might want to consider using a Set structure instead of a List instead, or building a Set first and then turning it into a list.

The cleanest way is:
List<XXX> lstConsultada = dao.findByPropertyList(YYY);
List<XXX> lstFinal = new ArrayList<XXX>(new LinkedHashSet<GrupoOrigen>(XXX));
and override hascode and equals over the Id's properties of each entity

IMHO best way how to do it these days:
Suppose you have a Collection "dups" and you want to create another Collection containing the same elements but with all duplicates eliminated. The following one-liner does the trick.
Collection<collectionType> noDups = new HashSet<collectionType>(dups);
It works by creating a Set which, by definition, cannot contain duplicates.
Based on oracle doc.

The correct answer for Java is use a Set. If you already have a List<Customer> and want to de duplicate it
Set<Customer> s = new HashSet<Customer>(listCustomer);
Otherise just use a Set implemenation HashSet, TreeSet directly and skip the List construction phase.
You will need to override hashCode() and equals() on your domain classes that are put in the Set as well to make sure that the behavior you want actually what you get. equals() can be as simple as comparing unique ids of the objects to as complex as comparing every field. hashCode() can be as simple as returning the hashCode() of the unique id' String representation or the hashCode().

Using java 8 stream api.
List<String> list = new ArrayList<>();
list.add("one");
list.add("one");
list.add("two");
System.out.println(list);
Collection<String> c = list.stream().collect(Collectors.toSet());
System.out.println(c);
Output:
Before values : [one, one, two]
After Values : [one, two]

Why does Set.add not return an object?

Why does Set.add() not return the object you are trying to add, or an object that is equal to the one you are trying to add if it is already in the set?
I could have an object with two properties, but only one of these properties is considered in the hashcode()/equals() method (and then use the property I do not consider for hashcode()/equals().
A simple answer is that Set extends the Collection interface, but that is not satisfying; then the question is why Set does not have an additional method that accomplishes what I want it to do, e.g.: set.addObject().
I know I can use Map.getOrDefault, but then I need to specify the two parameters of the Map.

A simple answer is that Set extends the Collection interface, but that is not satisfying
Satisfying or not, that is the answer to why add returns a boolean rather than the Object already in the Set; Collection.add returns a boolean to indicate whether the underlying collection was changed.
In general, what would you return to indicate that the element wasn't added, bearing in mind that "already in the collection" isn't the only reason for not adding an element?
The question of why there is not addObject method is quite separate, and opinion-based: you might consider it useful, but the API designers either:
Didn't consider adding it, because they didn't see the need;
Considered it, but decided it didn't carry its weight, since you can do it by other means on the rare occasions when you want such functionality.
Considered that it might be useful, but were then unable to modify the interface to add a new method, as that would break existing implementations of Set.
This is obviously possible now that interfaces can have default method implementations; but then we're back to the other two reasons above.
Actually, I take back what I say above "that "already in the collection" isn't the only reason for not adding an element".
According to the Javadoc of Collection.add:
Returns true if this collection changed as a result of the call. (Returns false if this collection does not permit duplicates and already contains the specified element.)
So, OK, it should be the only reason. But then you've got to wonder why it would be useful, say, for a List to return the element you've just added.

It indeed would be nice.
A simple usecase would be a cache, so no duplicate instances are used:
This must currently be implemented as follows:
class Shared<T>
private final Map<T, T> map = new HashMap<>();
public T share(T obj) {
T old = map.get(obj);
if (old == null) {
map.put(obj, obj);
old = obj;
}
return old;
}
}
But when Set.addObject would return the old object or when null added object:
private final Set<T> set = new HashSet<>();
public T share(T obj) {
return set.addObject(obj);
}
The algebraic completeness of Set, having all operations available, indeed lacks that functionality.

Java List with Objects - find and replace (delete) entry if Object with certain attribute already exists

I've been working all day and I somehow can't get this probably easy task figured out - probably a lack of coffee...
I have a synchronizedList where some Objects are being stored. Those objects have a field which is something like an ID. These objects carry information about a user and his current state (simplified).
The point is, that I only want one object for each user. So when the state of this user changes, I'd like to remove the "old" entry and store a new one in the List.
protected static class Objects{
...
long time;
Object ID;
...
}
...
if (Objects.contains(ID)) {
Objects.remove(ID);
Objects.add(newObject);
} else {
Objects.add(newObject);
}
Obviously this is not the way to go but should illustrate what I'm looking for...
Maybe the data structure is not the best for this purpose but any help is welcome!
EDIT:
Added some information...
A Set does not really seem to fit my purpose. The Objects store some other fields besides the ID which change all the time. The purpose is, that the list will somehow represent the latest activities of a user. I only need to track the last state and only keep that object which describes this situation.
I think I will try out re-arranging my code with a Map and see if that works...

You could use a HashMap (or LinkedHashMap/TreeMap if order is important) with a key of ID and a value of Objects. With generics that would be HashMap<Object, Objects>();
Then you can use
if (map.containsKey(ID)) {
map.remove(ID);
}
map.put(newID, newObject);
Alternatively, you could continue to use a List, but we can't just modify the collection while iterating, so instead we can use an iterator to remove the existing item, and then add the new item outside the loop (now that you're sure the old item is gone):
List<Objects> syncList = ...
for (Iterator<Objects> iterator = syncList.iterator(); iterator.hasNext();) {
Objects current = iterator.next();
if (current.getID().equals(ID)) {
iterator.remove();
}
}
syncList.add(newObject);

And you can't use a Set to have only the first one stored ?
because it basically is precisely what you require.

You could use a HashSet to store the objects and then override the hashCode method in the class that the HashSet will contain to return the hashcode of your identifying field.

A Map is easiest, but a Set reflects your logic better. In that case I'd advice a Set.
There are 2 ways to use a set, depending on the equals and hashCode of your data object.
If YourObject already uses the ID object to determine equals (and hashCode obeys the contract) you can use any Set you want, a HashSet is probably best then.
If YourObjects business logic requires a different equals, taking into account multiple fields beside the ID field, then a custom comparator should be used. A TreeSet is a Set which can use such a Comparator.
An example:
Comparator<MyObject> comp = new Comparator<MyObject>{
public int compare(MyObject o1, MyObject o2) {
// NOTE this compare is not very good as it obeys the contract but
// is not consistent with equals. compare() == 0 -> equals() != true here
// Better to use some more fields
return o1.getId().hashCode() < o2.getId().hashCode();
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return 01.getId().equals(o2.getId());
}
}
Set<MyObject> myObjects = new TreeSet(comp);
EDIT
I have updated the code above to reflect that id is not an int, as suggested by the question.

My first option would be a HashSet, this would require that you override the hashCode and equals methods (don't forget: if you override one, override consistently the other !) so that objects with the same ID field are considered equal.
But this might break something if this assumption is NOT to be made in other parts of your application. In that case you might opt for using a HashMap (with the ID as key) or implement your own MyHashSet class (backed by such a HashMap).

HashSet.remove() and Iterator.remove() not working

I'm having problems with Iterator.remove() called on a HashSet.
I've a Set of time stamped objects. Before adding a new item to the Set, I loop through the set, identify an old version of that data object and remove it (before adding the new object). the timestamp is included in hashCode and equals(), but not equalsData().
for (Iterator<DataResult> i = allResults.iterator(); i.hasNext();)
{
DataResult oldData = i.next();
if (data.equalsData(oldData))
{
i.remove();
break;
}
}
allResults.add(data)
The odd thing is that i.remove() silently fails (no exception) for some of the items in the set. I've verified
The line i.remove() is actually called. I can call it from the debugger directly at the breakpoint in Eclipse and it still fails to change the state of Set
DataResult is an immutable object so it can't have changed after being added to the set originally.
The equals and hashCode() methods use #Override to ensure they are the correct methods. Unit tests verify these work.
This also fails if I just use a for statement and Set.remove instead. (e.g. loop through the items, find the item in the list, then call Set.remove(oldData) after the loop).
I've tested in JDK 5 and JDK 6.
I thought I must be missing something basic, but after spending some significant time on this my colleague and I are stumped. Any suggestions for things to check?
EDIT:
There have been questions - is DataResult truly immutable. Yes. There are no setters. And when the Date object is retrieved (which is a mutable object), it is done by creating a copy.
public Date getEntryTime()
{
return DateUtil.copyDate(entryTime);
}
public static Date copyDate(Date date)
{
return (date == null) ? null : new Date(date.getTime());
}
FURTHER EDIT (some time later):
For the record -- DataResult was not immutable! It referenced an object which had a hashcode which changed when persisted to the database (bad practice, I know). It turned out that if a DataResult was created with a transient subobject, and the subobject was persisted, the DataResult hashcode was changed.
Very subtle -- I looked at this many times and didn't notice the lack of immutability.

I was very curious about this one still, and wrote the following test:
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.Set;
public class HashCodeTest {
private int hashCode = 0;
#Override public int hashCode() {
return hashCode ++;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Set<HashCodeTest> set = new HashSet<HashCodeTest>();
set.add(new HashCodeTest());
System.out.println(set.size());
for (Iterator<HashCodeTest> iter = set.iterator();
iter.hasNext();) {
iter.next();
iter.remove();
}
System.out.println(set.size());
}
}
which results in:
1
1
If the hashCode() value of an object has changed since it was added to the HashSet, it seems to render the object unremovable.
I'm not sure if that's the problem you're running into, but it's something to look into if you decide to re-visit this.

Under the covers, HashSet uses HashMap, which calls HashMap.removeEntryForKey(Object) when either HashSet.remove(Object) or Iterator.remove() is called. This method uses both hashCode() and equals() to validate that it is removing the proper object from the collection.
If both Iterator.remove() and HashSet.remove(Object) are not working, then something is definitely wrong with your equals() or hashCode() methods. Posting the code for these would be helpful in diagnosis of your issue.

Are you absolutely certain that DataResult is immutable? What is the type of the timestamp? If it's a java.util.Date are you making copies of it when you're initializing the DataResult? Keep in mind that java.util.Date is mutable.
For instance:
Date timestamp = new Date();
DataResult d = new DataResult(timestamp);
System.out.println(d.getTimestamp());
timestamp.setTime(System.currentTimeMillis());
System.out.println(d.getTimestamp());
Would print two different times.
It would also help if you could post some source code.

You should all be careful of any Java Collection that fetches its children by hashcode, in the case that its child type's hashcode depends on its mutable state. An example:
HashSet<HashSet<?>> or HashSet<AbstaractSet<?>> or HashMap variant:
HashSet retrieves an item by its hashCode, but its item type
is a HashSet, and hashSet.hashCode depends on its item's state.
Code for that matter:
HashSet<HashSet<String>> coll = new HashSet<HashSet<String>>();
HashSet<String> set1 = new HashSet<String>();
set1.add("1");
coll.add(set1);
print(set1.hashCode()); //---> will output X
set1.add("2");
print(set1.hashCode()); //---> will output Y
coll.remove(set1) // WILL FAIL TO REMOVE (SILENTLY)
Reason being is HashSet's remove method uses HashMap and it identifies keys by hashCode, while AbstractSet's hashCode is dynamic and depends upon the mutable properties of itself.

Thanks for all the help. I suspect the problem must be with equals() and hashCode() as suggested by spencerk. I did check those in my debugger and with unit tests, but I've got to be missing something.
I ended up doing a workaround-- copying all the items except one to a new Set. For kicks, I used Apache Commons CollectionUtils.
Set<DataResult> tempResults = new HashSet<DataResult>();
CollectionUtils.select(allResults,
new Predicate()
{
public boolean evaluate(Object oldData)
{
return !data.equalsData((DataResult) oldData);
}
}
, tempResults);
allResults = tempResults;
I'm going to stop here-- too much work to simplify down to a simple test case. But the help is miuch appreciated.

It's almost certainly the case the hashcodes don't match for the old and new data that are "equals()". I've run into this kind of thing before and you essentially end up spewing hashcodes for every object and the string representation and trying to figure out why the mismatch is happening.
If you're comparing items pre/post database, sometimes it loses the nanoseconds (depending on your DB column type) which can cause hashcodes to change.

Have you tried something like
boolean removed = allResults.remove(oldData)
if (!removed) // COMPLAIN BITTERLY!
In other words, remove the object from the Set and break the loop. That won't cause the Iterator to complain. I don't think this is a long term solution but would probably give you some information about the hashCode, equals and equalsData methods

The Java HashSet has an issue in "remove()" method. Check the link below. I switched to TreeSet and it works fine. But I need the O(1) time complexity.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8154740

If there are two entries with the same data, only one of them is replaced... have you accounted for that? And just in case, have you tried another collection data structure that doesn't use a hashcode, say a List?

I'm not up to speed on my Java, but I know that you can't remove an item from a collection when you are iterating over that collection in .NET, although .NET will throw an exception if it catches this. Could this be the problem?