python switch code always matches even when it should not do so - python

I am trying to replace a largish if-elif block in python with something a bit more like java switch. My understanding is this should be a bit faster and we are parsing lots of data so if I can get speed improvement I will take it. However, what is happening is the code is always acting as if the key is 'deposits' even for entries that are not. The "func =" line is there to validate I am getting things correctly. I will probably not return a result to func since my goal is to fill a list with results.
What am I doing wrong that the switcher.get always finds a match even when one does not exist?
`def parsePollFile(thisFile):
line = ''
switcher = {
'deposits': deposits(line)
}
try:
reader = csv.reader(open(thisFile, 'r'))
for line in reader:
try:
if line[2] == "D":
func = switcher.get(line[0], lambda: 'invalid key')
print('key: {} -- {}\n'.format(line[0],func))
except IndexError:
continue
except Exception as e:
print("exception {}\n".format(e))
`

Your problem is that the code
switcher = {'deposits': deposits(line)}
Doesn't create a key in your dictionary with the value being the deposits function object. 'deposits': deposits(line) actually runs the deposits function, and stores the return value as the value of the 'deposits' key. You need to store a function object in the dictionary.
Since your function takes arguments, this is a bit tricky. There are several ways around this problem, but perhaps the simplest is to wrap your function call in another function
switcher = {'deposits': lambda: deposits(line)}
You would then use the dictionary like so
func = switcher.get(line[0], lambda: 'invalid key')
func()

My solution resulted from both the comment and the answer. I changed the 'deposits': deposits(line) to be 'deposits':deposits and then I run the func(line) when a match is found.
Thank you to the answers. I did not realize I was actually running the method instead of defining the value.

Related

I can't put "continue" command in a definition?

Let's say,
def sample():
if a==1:
print(a)
else:
continue
for i in language:
a=i
sample()
I want to use this function in a loop, but the continue command gives me an error because there is no loop. What can I do?
Return a boolean from the function and based on the return value make continue or not because continue must be within a loop
continue keyword in python is only available in for or while loops. Also block defined variables like a are not available on the global scope.
I don't know what you want to achieve but assuming your code, you want to extract a condition into a function, something like this:
def condition(a):
return a == 1
def sample(a):
print(a)
for i in language:
a=i
if condition(a):
sample(a)
else:
continue
There are several best-practice patterns of exactly how to do this, depending on your needs.
0. Factor your code better
Before doing any of the below, stop and ask yourself if you can just do this instead:
def sample(a):
print(a)
for i in language:
if i != 1:
continue
sample(i)
This is so much better:
it's clearer to the reader (everything you need to understand the loop's control flow is entirely local to the loop - it's right there in the loop, we don't have to look anywhere else farther away like a function definition to know when or why or how the loop will do the next thing),
it's cleaner (less boilerplate code than any of the solutions below),
it's more efficient, technically (not that this should matter until you measure a performance problem, but this might appeal to you; going into a function and coming back out of it, plus somehow telling the loop outside the function to continue - that's more work to achieve the same thing), and
it's simpler (objectively: there is less code complected together - the loop behavior is no longer tied to the body of the sample function, for example).
But, if you must:
1. Add boolean return
The simplest change that works with your example is to return a boolean:
def sample(a):
if a==1:
print(a)
else:
return True
return False
for i in language:
if sample(i):
continue
However, don't just mindlessly always use True for continue - for each function, use the one that fits with the function. In fact, in well-factored code, the boolean return value will make sense without even knowing that you are using it in some loop to continue or not.
For example, if you have a function called check_if_valid, then the boolean return value just makes sense without any loops - it tells you if the input is valid - and at the same time, either of these loops is sensible depending on context:
for thing in thing_list:
if check_if_valid(thing):
continue
... # do something to fix the invalid things
for thing in thing_list:
if not check_if_valid(thing):
continue
... # do something only with valid things
2. Reuse existing return
If your function already returns something, or you can rethink your code so that returns make sense, then you can ask yourself: is there a good way to decide to continue based on that return value?
For example, let's say inside your sample function you were actually trying to do something like this:
def sample(a):
record = select_from_database(a)
if record.status == 1:
print(record)
else:
continue
Well then you can rewrite it like this:
def sample(a):
record = select_from_database(a)
if record.status == 1:
print(record)
return record
for i in language:
record = sample(a)
if record.status != 1:
continue
Of course in this simple example, it's cleaner to just not have the sample function, but I am trusting that your sample function is justifiably more complex.
3. Special "continue" return
If no existing return value makes sense, or you don't want to couple the loop to the return value of your function, the next simplest pattern is to create and return a special unique "sentinel" object instance:
_continue = object()
def sample(a):
if a==1:
print(a)
else:
return _continue
for i in language:
result = sample(i):
if result = _continue:
continue
(If this is part of a module's API, which is something that you are saying if you name it like sample instead of like _sample, then I would name the sentinel value continue_ rather than _continue... But I also would not make something like this part of an API unless I absolutely had to.)
(If you're using a type checker and it complains about returning an object instance conflicting with your normal return value, you can make a Continue class and return an instance of that instead of an instance of object(). Then the type hinting for the function return value can be a type union between your normal return type and the Continue type. If you have multiple control flow constructs in your code that you want to smuggle across function call lines like this.)
4. Wrap return value (and "monads")
Sometimes, if the type union thing isn't good enough for some reason, you may want to create a wrapper object, and have it store either your original return value, or indicate control flow. I only mention this option for completeness, without examples, because I think the previous options are better most of the time in Python. But if you take the time to learn about "Option types" and "maybe monads", it's kinda like that.
(Also, notice that in all of my examples, I fixed your backdoor argument passing through a global variable to be an explicit clearly passed argument. This makes the code easier to understand, predict, and verify for correctness - you might not see that yet but keep an eye out for implicit state passing making code harder to follow and keep correct as you grow as a developer, read more code by others, and deal with bugs.)
It is because the scope of the function doesn't know we are in a loop. You have to put the continue keyword inside the loop
continue keyword cannot be used inside a function. It must be inside the loop. There is a similar question here. Maybe you can do something like the following.
language = [1,1,1,2,3]
a = 1
def sample():
if a == 1:
print(a)
return False
else:
return True
for i in language:
if sample():
continue
else:
a = i
OR something like this:
language = [1,1,1,2,3]
a = 1
def gen(base):
for item in base:
if a == 1:
yield a
else:
continue
for i in gen(language):
a = i
print(a)

In case of an exception during a loop: How to return the intermediate result before passing on the exception?

def store(self) -> list:
result = []
for url in self.urls():
if url.should_store():
stored_url = self.func_that_can_throw_errors(url)
if stored_url: result.append(stored_url)
return result
Preface: not actual method names. Silly names chosen to emphasize
During the loop errors may occur. In that case, I desire the intermediate result to be returned by store() and still raise the original exception for handling in a different place.
Doing something like
try:
<accumulating results ... might break>
except Exception:
return result
raise
sadly doesn't do the trick, since trivially the raise stmt won't be reached (and thus an empty list get's returned).
Do you guys have recommendations on how not to lose the intermediate result?
Thanks a lot in advance - Cheers!
It is not possible as you imagine it. You can't raise an exception and return a value.
So I think what you are asking for is a work around. There, I see two possibilities:
return a Flag/Exception along the actual return value:
Return flag:
except Exception:
return result, False
where False is the Flag telling that something went wrong
Return Exception:
except Exception as e:
return result, e
Since it appears, that store is a method of some class, you could raise the exception and retrieve the intermediary result with a second call like so:
def store(self):
result = []
try:
# something
except Exception:
self.intermediary_result = result
raise
def retrieve_intermediary(self):
return self.intermediary_result
The best answer I can come up with given my limited knowledge of Python would be to always return a pair, where the first part of the pair is the result and the second part of the pair is an optional exception value.
def store(self) -> list:
'''
TODO: Insert documentation here.
If an error occurs during the operation, a partial list of results along with
the exception value will be returned.
:return A tuple of [list of results, exception]. The exception part may be None.
'''
result = []
for url in self.urls():
if url.should_store():
try:
stored_url = self.func_that_can_throw_errors(url)
except Exception as e:
return result, e
if stored_url: result.append(stored_url)
return result, None
That said, as you have mentioned, if you have this call multiple places in your code, you would have to be careful to change it in all relevant places as well as possibly change the handling. Type checking might be helpful there, though I only have very limited knowledge of Python's type hints.
Meanwhile I had the idea to just use an accumulator which appears to be the 'quickest' fix for now with the least amount of changes in the project where store() is called.
The (intermediate) result is not needed everywhere (let's say it's optional). So...
I'd like to share that with you:
def store(self, result_accu=None) -> list:
if result_accu is None:
result_accu = []
for url in self.urls():
if url.should_store():
stored_url = self.func(url)
if stored_url: result_accu.append(stored_url)
return result_accu
Still returning a list but alongside the intermediate result is accessible by reference on the accu list.
Making the parameter optional enables to leave most statements in project as they are since the result is not needed everywhere.
store() is rather some kind of a command where the most work on data integrity is done within already. The result is nice-to-have for now.
But you guys also enabled me to notice that there's work to do in ordner to process the intermediate result anyway. Thanks! #attalos #MelvinWM

Using dictionary mapping to call functions from Keyboard Input

I have several pre-defined functions in a dictionary:
dict = {
'test1':test1(),
'test2':test2(),
'test3':test3()
}
At this point I already have a question: after creating the dictionary these functions run automatically - why is that and how can I avoid it?
Ultimately, my goal is to type in e.g. "test2" and get the function executed (just the one in a controlled manner, not everything at once like above). First I wanted to use eval, but everyone advised against it, which I understand now. But what is the alternative? I tried
def select_function():
try:
return dict[input("Type in function ")]
except KeyError:
raise ValueError('Invalid input!')
select_function()
as well as just
dict.get(input("Type in function "), 'Invalid input!')
But both return an empty line if I type in the correct function. If I type in a wrong one I get my error message, therefore my command should work in general. I also know my functions work because, as I said, they get executed after I create the dictionary and they only print a greeting (a different one for each function for testing).
Did I do something wrong? Is there some other way to call functions without eval()?Thanks in advance.
Do it like
dict = {
'test1':test1,
'test2':test2,
'test3':test3
}
Then
return dict[input("Type in function")]
If you want to call that function, Just
return dict[input("Type in function")]()

empty function object in python

I've heard that python functions are objects, similar to lists or dictionaries, etc. However, what would be a similar way of performing this type of action with a function?
# Assigning empty list to 'a'
a = list()
# Assigning empty function to 'a'
a = lambda: pass
# ???
How would you do this? Further, is it necessary or proper?
Here is the sense in which I would like to use it for better context:
I have a QListWidget for selecting items which are associated with keys in a dictionary. The values in this dictionary are also dictionaries, which hold certain properties of the items, which I can add. These certain properties are stored as keys, and the values in them are initialized or updated by calling different functions. So, I'm storing a variable in the window which gets updated when a button is pressed to tell this script which property to update.
As you can see, I would like to store the function to map to the data using the correct function based on the situation.
# Get selection from the list
name = selected_item
# Initialize an empty function
f = lambda: pass
# Use property that is being added now, which was updated by the specific button that was pushed
property_list = items[name][self.property_currently_being_added]
if self.property_currently_being_added == "prop1":
f = make_property1()
elif self.property_currently_being_added == "prop2":
f = make_property2()
elif self.property_currently_being_added == "prop3":
f = make_property3()
elif self.property_currently_being_added == "prop4":
f = make_property4()
# map the certain function to the data which was retrieved earlier
added_property = map(f, data)
property_list.append(added_property)
First, the reason this doesn't work:
a = lamdba: pass
… is that lambda only allows an expression, and defines a function that returns the value of the expression. Since pass is a statement, not an expression, this is illegal.
However, this works just fine:
a = lambda: None
In Python, a function that falls off the end without a return statement always returns None. So, these are equivalent:
def a(): return None
def a(): pass
However, I don't see why you want to write this as a lambda and an assignment anyway; the def is shorter, and more readable, and gives you an introspectable function object with a nice name (a instead of <lambda>), and so on. The only reasons to ever use lambda are when you don't want to give the function a name, or when you need to define the function inside an expression. Obviously neither of those are true, because you use the lambda directly inside an assignment statement. So, just use def.
Meanwhile, this is in a sense an "empty function", or at least as empty as possible (as you can see by, e.g., calling dis.dis(a), it still takes two bytecodes to do nothing but fall off the end and return None), but it's not useful for your case. You don't want an "empty function". If you try passing your a to map, you're just going to get a TypeError, because you're trying to call a function of no arguments with one argument. (Because that's what map does.)
What you might want is an identity function, which just returns its argument as-is. Like this:
def a(x): return x
But I'm not sure that's what you want. Did you want to append data as-is in that case? Or did you want to do something different, like return early, or raise an exception, or not append anything, or …?
Finally, I don't see why you want a function at all. Why not just not call map if you have nothing to map? You have a perfectly good else clause that already catches that case (especially handy if what you want to do is return early or raise…). Or, if you prefer, you can start with f = None, and then use an if f: do decide whether to map or not. Or, if you really want:
added_property = [f(element) if f else element for element in data]
… or …
added_property = map(f, data) if f else data
As one last note, instead of a long if/elif chain that repeats the same thing over and over again, you might want a dict:
propfuncs = {'prop1': make_property1(),
'prop2': make_property2(),
'prop3': make_property3(),
'prop4': make_property4()}
Then, all that cruft turns into these two lines:
f = propfuncs.get(self.property_currently_being_added)
added_property = map(f, data) if f else data
Or course an even better design might be to replace all those make_propertyN functions with a single function that you call as make_property(1) or make_property('prop1')… but without seeing what they actually do, I can't be sure of that.
For completeness and since the title is "empty function object in python", more general case is an empty function object that takes any number of parameters, so you can use it in any callback. It's this one:
callback = lambda *_, **__: None
Explanation is here: http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?t=64825
I am surprised to learn that you can even do...
def a(): "This is a test"
a()
this feels so much like you're looking for a Nothing functor, I am guessing that if you had knowledge of Monads you wouldn't even need an empty function , as inspiration PyMonad has a nice Nothing implementation, I usually like to create my own, but it's a good starting point.

More than one for-loop in a python while-loop

I'm a python/coding newbie and I'm trying to put a two for loops into a while loop? Can I do this? How can I print out the dictionary mydict to make sure I am doing this correctly?
I'm stuck.
40 minutes later. Not stuck anymore. Thanks everyone!
def runloop():
while uid<uidend:
for row in soup.findAll('h1'):
try:
name = row.findAll(text = True)
name = ''.join(name)
name = name.encode('ascii','ignore')
name = name.strip()
mydict['Name'] = name
except Exception:
continue
for row in soup.findAll('div', {'class':'profile-row clearfix'}):
try:
field = row.find('div', {'class':'profile-row-header'}).findAll$
field = ''.join(field)
field = field.encode('ascii','ignore')
field = field.strip()
except Exception:
continue
try:
value = row.find('div', {'class':'profile-information'}).findAl$
value = ''.join(value)
value = value.encode('ascii','ignore')
value = value.strip()
return mydict
mydict[field] = value
print mydict
except Exception:
continue
uid = uid + 1
runloop()
On nested loops:
You can nest for and while loops very deeply before python will give you an error, but it's usually bad form to go more than 4 deep. Make another function if you find yourself needing to do a lot of nesting. Your use is fine though.
Some problems with the code:
It will never reach the print statements because under the first for loop you have a return statement. When python sees a return inside a function, it will leave the function and present the return value.
I would avoid using try and except until you understand why you're getting the errors that you get without those.
Make sure the indentation is consistent. Maybe it's a copy and paste error, but it looks like the indentation of some lines is a character more than others. Make sure every tab is 4 spaces. Python, unlike most languages, will freak out if the indentation is off.
Not sure if you just didn't post the function call, but you would need to call runloop() to actually use the function.
You can put as many loops within other loops as you'd like. These are called nested loops.
Also, printing a dictionary is simple:
mydict = {}
print mydict
You are not helping yourself by having these all over the place
except Exception:
continue
That basically says, "if anything goes wrong, carry one and don't tell me about it."
Something like this lets you at least see the exception
except Exception as e:
print e
continue
Is mydict declared somewhere? That could be your problem

Categories

Resources