Develop Reference

HackerRank "filled orders" problem with Python

Recently HackerRank launched their own certifications. Among the tests they offer is "Problem Solving". The test contains 2 problems; they give you 90 minutes to solve them. Being inexperienced as I am, I failed, because it took me longer than that.
Specifically, I came up with the solution for the first problem (filled orders, see below) in, like 30 minutes, and spent the rest of the time trying to debugg it. The problem with it wasn't that the solution didn't work, but that it worked on only some of the test cases.
Out of 14 testcases the solution worked on 7 (including all the open ones and a bunch of closed ones), and didn't work on the remaining 7 (all closed). Closed means that the input data is not available, as well as expected output. (Which makes sense, because some of the lists there included 250K+ elements.)
But it drives me crazy; I can't figure out what might be wrong with it. I tried putting print statements all over the place, but the only thing I came to is that 1 too many elements get added to the list - hence, the last if statement (to drop the last added element), but it made no difference whatsoever, so it's probably wrong.
Here's the problem:
A widget manufacturer is facing unexpectedly high demand for its new product,. They would like to satisfy as many customers as possible. Given a number of widgets available and a list of customer orders, what is the maximum number of orders the manufacturer can fulfill in full?
Function Description
Complete the function filledOrders in the editor below. The function must return a single integer denoting the maximum possible number of fulfilled orders.
filledOrders has the following parameter(s):
    order :  an array of integers listing the orders
    k : an integer denoting widgets available for shipment
Constraints
1 ≤ n ≤  2 x 105
1 ≤  order[i] ≤  109
1 ≤ k ≤ 109
Sample Input For Custom Testing
2
10
30
40
Sample Output
2
And here's my function:
def filledOrders(order, k):
total = k
fulf = []
for r in order:
if r <= total:
fulf.append(r)
total -= r
else:
break
if sum(fulf) > k:
fulf.pop()
return len(fulf)

Java Solution
int count = 0;
Collections.sort(order);
for(int i=0; i<order.size(); i++) {
if(order.get(i)<=k) {
count++;
k = k - order.get(i);
}
}
return count;

Code Revision
def filledOrders(order, k):
total = 0
for i, v in enumerate(sorted(order)):
if total + v <= k:
total += v # total stays <= k
else:
return i # provides the count
else:
return len(order) # was able to place all orders
print(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 3)) # Out: 2
print(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 1)) # Out: 1
print(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 10)) # Out: 3
print(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 0)) # Out: 0

Advanced Javascript solution :
function filledOrders(order, k) {
// Write your code here
let count = 0; let total=0;
const ordersLength = order.length;
const sortedOrders = order.sort(function(a,b) {
return (+a) - (+b);
});
for (let i = 0; i < ordersLength; i++) {
if (total + sortedOrders[i] <= k) {
// if all orders able to be filled
if (total <= k && i === ordersLength - 1) return ordersLength;
total += sortedOrders[i];
count++;
} else {
return count;
}
}
}

Python code
def filledOrders(order, k):
orderfulfilled=0
for i in range(1,len(order)):
m=k-order[i]
if(m>=0):
orderfulfilled+=1
k-=order[i]
return(orderfulfilled)

Javascript solution
Option1:
function filledOrders(order, k) {
let count=0;
let arr= [];
arr = order.sort().filter((item, index) => {
if (item<=k) {
k = k - item;
return item
}
})
return arr.length
}
Option2:
function filledOrders(order, k) {
let count=0;
for(var i=0; i<order.sort().length; i++) {
if(order[i]<=k) {
count++;
k = k - order[i]
}
}
return count;
}

C#
using System.CodeDom.Compiler;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;
using System.Globalization;
using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.Serialization;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using System.Text;
using System;
using System.Reflection.Metadata.Ecma335;
class Result
{
/*
* Complete the 'filledOrders' function below.
*
* The function is expected to return an INTEGER.
* The function accepts following parameters:
* 1. INTEGER_ARRAY order
* 2. INTEGER k
*/
public static int filledOrders(List<int> order, int k)
{
if (order.Sum() <= k)
{
return order.Count();
}
else
{
int counter = 0;
foreach (int element in order)
{
if (element <= k)
{
counter++;
k = k - element;
}
}
return counter;
}
}
}
class Solution
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int orderCount = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine().Trim());
List<int> order = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < orderCount; i++)
{
int orderItem = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine().Trim());
order.Add(orderItem);
}
int k = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine().Trim());
var orderedList = order.OrderBy(a=>a).ToList();
int result = Result.filledOrders(orderedList, k);
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}

I think, the better way to approach (to decrease time complexity) is to solve without use of sorting. (Ofcourse, that comes that cost of readability)
Below is a solution without use of sort. (Not sure if I covered all edge cases.)
import os, sys
def max_fulfilled_orders(order_arr, k):
# track the max no.of orders in the arr.
max_num = 0
# order count, can be fulfilled.
order_count = 0
# iter over order array
for i in range(0, len(order_arr)):
# if remain value < 0 then
if k - order_arr[i] < 0:
# add the max no.of orders to total
k += max_num
if order_count > 0:
# decrease order_count
order_count -= 1
# if the remain value >= 0
if(k - order_arr[i] >= 0):
# subtract the current no.of orders from total.
k -= order_arr[i]
# increase the order count.
order_count += 1
# track the max no.of orders till the point.
if order_arr[i] > max_num:
max_num = order_arr[i]
return order_count
print(max_fulfilled_orders([3, 2, 1], 0)) # Out: 0
print(max_fulfilled_orders([3, 2, 1], 1)) # Out: 1
print(max_fulfilled_orders([3, 1, 1], 2)) # Out: 2
print(max_fulfilled_orders([3, 2, 4], 9)) # Out: 3
print(max_fulfilled_orders([3, 2, 1, 4], 10)) # Out: 4

In python,
def order_fillers(order,k):
if len(order)==0 or k==0:
return 0
order.sort()
max_orders=0
for item in order:
if k<=0:
return max_orders
if item<=k:
max_orders+=1
k-=item
return max_orders

JavaScript Solution
function filledOrders(order, k) {
let total = 0;
let count = 0;
const ordersLength = order.length;
const sortedOrders = order.sort();
for (let i = 0; i < ordersLength; i++) {
if (total + sortedOrders[i] <= k) {
// if all orders able to be filled
if (total <= k && i === ordersLength - 1) return ordersLength;
total += sortedOrders[i];
count++;
} else {
return count;
}
}
}
// Validation
console.log(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 3)); // 2
console.log(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 1)); // 1
console.log(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 10)); // 3
console.log(filledOrders([3, 2, 1], 0)); // 0
console.log(filledOrders([3, 2, 2], 1)); // 0

Maximum sum of subsequence of length L with a restriction

Given an array of positive integers. How to find a subsequence of length L with max sum which has the distance between any two of its neighboring elements that do not exceed K
I have the following solution but don't know how to take into account length L.
1 <= N <= 100000, 1 <= L <= 200, 1 <= K <= N
f[i] contains max sum of the subsequence that ends in i.
for i in range(K, N)
f[i] = INT_MIN
for j in range(1, K+1)
f[i] = max(f[i], f[i-j] + a[i])
return max(f)

(edit: slightly simplified non-recursive solution)
You can do it like this, just for each iteration consider if the item should be included or excluded.
def f(maxK,K, N, L, S):
if L == 0 or not N or K == 0:
return S
#either element is included
included = f(maxK,maxK, N[1:], L-1, S + N[0] )
#or excluded
excluded = f(maxK,K-1, N[1:], L, S )
return max(included, excluded)
assert f(2,2,[10,1,1,1,1,10],3,0) == 12
assert f(3,3,[8, 3, 7, 6, 2, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4],4,0) == 30
If N is very long you can consider changing to a table version, you could also change the input to tuples and use memoization.
Since OP later included the information that N can be 100 000, we can't really use recursive solutions like this. So here is a solution that runs in O(nKL), with same memory requirement:
import numpy as np
def f(n,K,L):
t = np.zeros((len(n),L+1))
for l in range(1,L+1):
for i in range(len(n)):
t[i,l] = n[i] + max( (t[i-k,l-1] for k in range(1,K+1) if i-k >= 0), default = 0 )
return np.max(t)
assert f([10,1,1,1,1,10],2,3) == 12
assert f([8, 3, 7, 6, 2, 1, 9],3,4) == 30
Explanation of the non recursive solution. Each cell in the table t[ i, l ] expresses the value of max subsequence with exactly l elements that use the element in position i and only elements in position i or lower where elements have at most K distance between each other.
subsequences of length n (those in t[i,1] have to have only one element, n[i] )
Longer subsequences have the n[i] + a subsequence of l-1 elements that starts at most k rows earlier, we pick the one with the maximal value. By iterating this way, we ensure that this value is already calculated.
Further improvements in memory is possible by considering that you only look at most K steps back.

Here is a bottom up (ie no recursion) dynamic solution in Python. It takes memory O(l * n) and time O(l * n * k).
def max_subseq_sum(k, l, values):
# table[i][j] will be the highest value from a sequence of length j
# ending at position i
table = []
for i in range(len(values)):
# We have no sum from 0, and i from len 1.
table.append([0, values[i]])
# By length of previous subsequence
for subseq_len in range(1, l):
# We look back up to k for the best.
prev_val = None
for last_i in range(i-k, i):
# We don't look back if the sequence was not that long.
if subseq_len <= last_i+1:
# Is this better?
this_val = table[last_i][subseq_len]
if prev_val is None or prev_val < this_val:
prev_val = this_val
# Do we have a best to offer?
if prev_val is not None:
table[i].append(prev_val + values[i])
# Now we look for the best entry of length l.
best_val = None
for row in table:
# If the row has entries for 0...l will have len > l.
if l < len(row):
if best_val is None or best_val < row[l]:
best_val = row[l]
return best_val
print(max_subseq_sum(2, 3, [10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10]))
print(max_subseq_sum(3, 4, [8, 3, 7, 6, 2, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4]))
If I wanted to be slightly clever I could make this memory O(n) pretty easily by calculating one layer at a time, throwing away the previous one. It takes a lot of cleverness to reduce running time to O(l*n*log(k)) but that is doable. (Use a priority queue for your best value in the last k. It is O(log(k)) to update it for each element but naturally grows. Every k values you throw it away and rebuild it for a O(k) cost incurred O(n/k) times for a total O(n) rebuild cost.)
And here is the clever version. Memory O(n). Time O(n*l*log(k)) worst case, and average case is O(n*l). You hit the worst case when it is sorted in ascending order.
import heapq
def max_subseq_sum(k, l, values):
count = 0
prev_best = [0 for _ in values]
# i represents how many in prev subsequences
# It ranges from 0..(l-1).
for i in range(l):
# We are building subsequences of length i+1.
# We will have no way to find one that ends
# before the i'th element at position i-1
best = [None for _ in range(i)]
# Our heap will be (-sum, index). It is a min_heap so the
# minimum element has the largest sum. We track the index
# so that we know when it is in the last k.
min_heap = [(-prev_best[i-1], i-1)]
for j in range(i, len(values)):
# Remove best elements that are more than k back.
while min_heap[0][-1] < j-k:
heapq.heappop(min_heap)
# We append this value + (best prev sum) using -(-..) = +.
best.append(values[j] - min_heap[0][0])
heapq.heappush(min_heap, (-prev_best[j], j))
# And now keep min_heap from growing too big.
if 2*k < len(min_heap):
# Filter out elements too far back.
min_heap = [_ for _ in min_heap if j - k < _[1]]
# And make into a heap again.
heapq.heapify(min_heap)
# And now finish this layer.
prev_best = best
return max(prev_best)

Extending the code for itertools.combinations shown at the docs, I built a version that includes an argument for the maximum index distance (K) between two values. It only needed an additional and indices[i] - indices[i-1] < K check in the iteration:
def combinations_with_max_dist(iterable, r, K):
# combinations('ABCD', 2) --> AB AC AD BC BD CD
# combinations(range(4), 3) --> 012 013 023 123
pool = tuple(iterable)
n = len(pool)
if r > n:
return
indices = list(range(r))
yield tuple(pool[i] for i in indices)
while True:
for i in reversed(range(r)):
if indices[i] != i + n - r and indices[i] - indices[i-1] < K:
break
else:
return
indices[i] += 1
for j in range(i+1, r):
indices[j] = indices[j-1] + 1
yield tuple(pool[i] for i in indices)
Using this you can bruteforce over all combinations with regards to K, and then find the one that has the maximum value sum:
def find_subseq(a, L, K):
return max((sum(values), values) for values in combinations_with_max_dist(a, L, K))
Results:
print(*find_subseq([10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10], L=3, K=2))
# 12 (10, 1, 1)
print(*find_subseq([8, 3, 7, 6, 2, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4], L=4, K=3))
# 30 (8, 7, 6, 9)
Not sure about the performance if your value lists become very long though...

Algorithm
Basic idea:
Iteration on input array, choose each index as the first taken element.
Then Recursion on each first taken element, mark the index as firstIdx.
The next possible index would be in range [firstIdx + 1, firstIdx + K], both inclusive.
Loop on the range to call each index recursively, with L - 1 as the new L.
Optionally, for each pair of (firstIndex, L), cache its max sum, for reuse.
Maybe this is necessary for large input.
Constraints:
array length <= 1 << 17 // 131072
K <= 1 << 6 // 64
L <= 1 << 8 // 256
Complexity:
Time: O(n * L * K)
Since each (firstIdx , L) pair only calculated once, and that contains a iteration of K.
Space: O(n * L)
For cache, and method stack in recursive call.
Tips:
Depth of recursion is related to L, not array length.
The defined constraints are not the actual limit, it could be larger, though I didn't test how large it can be.
Basically:
Both array length and K actually could be of any size as long as there are enough memory, since they are handled via iteration.
L is handled via recursion, thus it does has a limit.
Code - in Java
SubSumLimitedDistance.java:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class SubSumLimitedDistance {
public static final long NOT_ENOUGH_ELE = -1; // sum that indicate not enough element, should be < 0,
public static final int MAX_ARR_LEN = 1 << 17; // max length of input array,
public static final int MAX_K = 1 << 6; // max K, should not be too long, otherwise slow,
public static final int MAX_L = 1 << 8; // max L, should not be too long, otherwise stackoverflow,
/**
* Find max sum of sum array.
*
* #param arr
* #param K
* #param L
* #return max sum,
*/
public static long find(int[] arr, int K, int L) {
if (K < 1 || K > MAX_K)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("K should be between [1, " + MAX_K + "], but get: " + K);
if (L < 0 || L > MAX_L)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("L should be between [0, " + MAX_L + "], but get: " + L);
if (arr.length > MAX_ARR_LEN)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("input array length should <= " + MAX_ARR_LEN + ", but get: " + arr.length);
Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Long>> cache = new HashMap<>(); // cache,
long maxSum = NOT_ENOUGH_ELE;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
long sum = findTakeFirst(arr, K, L, i, cache);
if (sum == NOT_ENOUGH_ELE) break; // not enough elements,
if (sum > maxSum) maxSum = sum; // larger found,
}
return maxSum;
}
/**
* Find max sum of sum array, with index of first taken element specified,
*
* #param arr
* #param K
* #param L
* #param firstIdx index of first taken element,
* #param cache
* #return max sum,
*/
private static long findTakeFirst(int[] arr, int K, int L, int firstIdx, Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Long>> cache) {
// System.out.printf("findTakeFirst(): K = %d, L = %d, firstIdx = %d\n", K, L, firstIdx);
if (L == 0) return 0; // done,
if (firstIdx + L > arr.length) return NOT_ENOUGH_ELE; // not enough elements,
// check cache,
Map<Integer, Long> map = cache.get(firstIdx);
Long cachedResult;
if (map != null && (cachedResult = map.get(L)) != null) {
// System.out.printf("hit cache, cached result = %d\n", cachedResult);
return cachedResult;
}
// cache not exists, calculate,
long maxRemainSum = NOT_ENOUGH_ELE;
for (int i = firstIdx + 1; i <= firstIdx + K; i++) {
long remainSum = findTakeFirst(arr, K, L - 1, i, cache);
if (remainSum == NOT_ENOUGH_ELE) break; // not enough elements,
if (remainSum > maxRemainSum) maxRemainSum = remainSum;
}
if ((map = cache.get(firstIdx)) == null) cache.put(firstIdx, map = new HashMap<>());
if (maxRemainSum == NOT_ENOUGH_ELE) { // not enough elements,
map.put(L, NOT_ENOUGH_ELE); // cache - as not enough elements,
return NOT_ENOUGH_ELE;
}
long maxSum = arr[firstIdx] + maxRemainSum; // max sum,
map.put(L, maxSum); // cache - max sum,
return maxSum;
}
}
SubSumLimitedDistanceTest.java:
(test case, via TestNG)
import org.testng.Assert;
import org.testng.annotations.BeforeClass;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadLocalRandom;
public class SubSumLimitedDistanceTest {
private int[] arr;
private int K;
private int L;
private int maxSum;
private int[] arr2;
private int K2;
private int L2;
private int maxSum2;
private int[] arrMax;
private int KMax;
private int KMaxLargest;
private int LMax;
private int LMaxLargest;
#BeforeClass
private void setUp() {
// init - arr,
arr = new int[]{10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10};
K = 2;
L = 3;
maxSum = 12;
// init - arr2,
arr2 = new int[]{8, 3, 7, 6, 2, 1, 9, 2, 5, 4};
K2 = 3;
L2 = 4;
maxSum2 = 30;
// init - arrMax,
arrMax = new int[SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_ARR_LEN];
ThreadLocalRandom rd = ThreadLocalRandom.current();
long maxLongEle = Long.MAX_VALUE / SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_ARR_LEN;
int maxEle = maxLongEle > Integer.MAX_VALUE ? Integer.MAX_VALUE : (int) maxLongEle;
for (int i = 0; i < arrMax.length; i++) {
arrMax[i] = rd.nextInt(maxEle);
}
KMax = 5;
LMax = 10;
KMaxLargest = SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_K;
LMaxLargest = SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_L;
}
#Test
public void test() {
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(arr, K, L), maxSum);
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(arr2, K2, L2), maxSum2);
}
#Test(timeOut = 6000)
public void test_veryLargeArray() {
run_printDuring(arrMax, KMax, LMax);
}
#Test(timeOut = 60000) // takes seconds,
public void test_veryLargeArrayL() {
run_printDuring(arrMax, KMax, LMaxLargest);
}
#Test(timeOut = 60000) // takes seconds,
public void test_veryLargeArrayK() {
run_printDuring(arrMax, KMaxLargest, LMax);
}
// run find once, and print during,
private void run_printDuring(int[] arr, int K, int L) {
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
long sum = SubSumLimitedDistance.find(arr, K, L);
long during = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime; // during in milliseconds,
System.out.printf("arr length = %5d, K = %3d, L = %4d, max sum = %15d, running time = %.3f seconds\n", arr.length, K, L, sum, during / 1000.0);
}
#Test
public void test_corner_notEnoughEle() {
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1}, 2, 3), SubSumLimitedDistance.NOT_ENOUGH_ELE); // not enough element,
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{0}, 1, 3), SubSumLimitedDistance.NOT_ENOUGH_ELE); // not enough element,
}
#Test
public void test_corner_ZeroL() {
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, 2, 0), 0); // L = 0,
Assert.assertEquals(SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{0}, 1, 0), 0); // L = 0,
}
#Test(expectedExceptions = IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void test_invalid_K() {
// SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, 0, 2); // K = 0,
// SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, -1, 2); // K = -1,
SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_K + 1, 2); // K = SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_K+1,
}
#Test(expectedExceptions = IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void test_invalid_L() {
// SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, 2, -1); // L = -1,
SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[]{1, 2, 3}, 2, SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_L + 1); // L = SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_L+1,
}
#Test(expectedExceptions = IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void test_invalid_tooLong() {
SubSumLimitedDistance.find(new int[SubSumLimitedDistance.MAX_ARR_LEN + 1], 2, 3); // input array too long,
}
}
Output of test case for large input:
arr length = 131072, K = 5, L = 10, max sum = 20779205738, running time = 0.303 seconds
arr length = 131072, K = 64, L = 10, max sum = 21393422854, running time = 1.917 seconds
arr length = 131072, K = 5, L = 256, max sum = 461698553839, running time = 9.474 seconds

number of subsequences whose sum is divisible by k

I just did a coding challenge for a company and was unable to solve this problem. Problem statement goes like:
Given an array of integers, find the number of subsequences in the array whose sum is divisible by k, where k is some positive integer.
For example, for [4, 1, 3, 2] and k = 3, the solution is 5. [[3], [1, 2], [4,3,2], [4,2], [1,3,2]] are the subsequences whose sum is divisible by k, i.e. current_sum + nums[i] % k == 0, where nums[i] is the current element in the array.
I tried to solve this recursively, however, I was unable to pass any test cases. My recursive code followed something like this:
def kSum(nums, k):
def kSum(cur_sum, i):
if i == len(nums): return 0
sol = 1 if (cur_sum + nums[i]) % k == 0 else 0
return sol + kSum(cur_sum, i+1) + kSum(cur_sum + nums[i], i+1)
return kSum(0, 0)
What is wrong with this recursive approach, and how can I correct it? I'm not interested in an iterative solution, I just want to know why this recursive solution is wrong and how I can correct it.

Are you sure that is not the case test? For example:
[4, 1, 3, 2], k = 3
has
4+2 = 6, 1+2=3, 3, 1+2+3=6, 4+2+3 = 9
So, your function is right (it gives me 5) and I don't see a major problem with your function.

Here is a javascript reproduction of what you wrote with some console logs to help explain its behavior.
function kSum(nums, k) {
let recursive_depth = 1;
function _kSum(cur_sum, i) {
recursive_depth++;
if (i == nums.length) {
recursive_depth--;
return 0;
}
let sol = 0;
if (((cur_sum + nums[i]) % k) === 0) {
sol = 1;
console.log(`Found valid sequence ending with ${nums[i]} with sum = ${cur_sum + nums[i]} with partial sum ${cur_sum} at depth ${recursive_depth}`);
}
const _kSum1 = _kSum(cur_sum, i+1);
const _kSum2 = _kSum(cur_sum + nums[i], i+1);
const res = sol + _kSum1 + _kSum2;
recursive_depth--;
return res;
}
return _kSum(0, 0);
}
let arr = [4, 1, 3, 2], k = 3;
console.log(kSum(arr, k));
I think this code actually gets the right answer. I'm not fluent in Python, but I might have inadvertently fixed a bug in your code though by adding parenthesis around (cur_sum + nums[i]) % k

It seems to me that your solution is correct. It reaches the answer by trying all subsequences, which has 2^n complexity. We could formulate it recursively in an O(n*k) search space, although it could be more efficient to table. Let f(A, k, i, r) represent how many subsequences leave remainder r when their sum is divided by k, using elements up to A[i]. Then:
function f(A, k, i=A.length-1, r=0){
// A[i] leaves remainder r
// when divided by k
const c = A[i] % k == r ? 1 : 0;
if (i == 0)
return c;
return c +
// All previous subsequences
// who's sum leaves remainder r
// when divided by k
f(A, k, i - 1, r) +
// All previous subsequences who's
// sum when combined with A[i]
// leaves remainder r when
// divided by k
f(A, k, i - 1, (k + r - A[i]%k) % k);
}
console.log(f([1,2,1], 3));
console.log(f([2,3,5,8], 5));
console.log(f([4,1,3,2], 3));
console.log(f([3,3,3], 3));

Google Foobar Test Case Failing

I'm completing a google foobar challenge, but for the life of me, I can't pass the 4th test case, here is the challenge:
You need to figure out which sets of panels in any given array you can take offline to repair while still maintaining the maximum amount of power output per array, and to do THAT, you'll first need to figure out what the maximum output of each array actually is. Write a function answer(xs) that takes a list of integers representing the power output levels of each panel in an array, and returns the maximum product of some non-empty subset of those numbers. So for example, if an array contained panels with power output levels of [2, -3, 1, 0, -5], then the maximum product would be found by taking the subset:
xs[0] = 2, xs[1] = -3, xs[4] = -5, giving the product 2*(-3)*(-5) = 30. So answer([2,-3,1,0,-5]) will be "30".
Each array of solar panels contains at least 1 and no more than 50 panels, and each panel will have a power output level whose absolute value is no greater than 1000 (some panels are malfunctioning so badly that they're draining energy, but you know a trick with the panels' wave stabilizer that lets you combine two negative-output panels to produce the positive output of the multiple of their power values). The final products may be very large, so give the answer as a string representation of the number.
Here are some given test cases:
Test cases
Inputs:
(int list) xs = [2, 0, 2, 2, 0]
Output:
(string) "8"
Inputs:
(int list) xs = [-2, -3, 4, -5]
Output:
(string) "60"
And here is my code:
def product_of_values(lst):
product = 1
if len(lst) > 0:
for x in lst:
product *= x
return product
def answer(xs):
# two seperate list for positive and negative values
positive_list = [x for x in xs if x > 0]
negative_list = [x for x in xs if x < 0]
pos_product = product_of_values(pos_list)
# multiplication of an even number of negatives == positive value
if len(negative_list) % 2 == 0:
negative_product = product_of_values(negative_list)
# if length of negative_list is odd, pop value closest to zero
else:
neg_list.remove(max(neg_list))
neg_product = product_of_values(neg_list)
# If there is only one negative value in the negative_list, return 0.
if len(pos_list) < 1 and len(neg_list) <= 1:
return '0'
else:
return str(neg_product * pos_product)
am I missing something obvious?

#edi_allen I am also facing the same problem. I have written the code in java, visible test cases are passing in my compiler, but failing at foobar. How did you overcome this? Below is my code:
public static String solution(int[] xs) {
if(xs.length < 1 || xs.length > 50) {
return "0";
}
Arrays.parallelSort(xs);
for(int i = 1; i < xs.length ; i++) {
if(xs[i] < 0 && xs[i-1] < 0) {
xs[i-1] = Math.abs(xs[i-1]);
xs[i] = Math.abs(xs[i]);
}
}
BigInteger prod = null;
for(int i = 0; i < xs.length ; i++) {
if(Math.abs(xs[i]) > 1000) {
return "0";
}
else if(xs[i] <= 0) {
continue;
}
else if(prod == null){
prod = new BigInteger(String.valueOf(xs[i]));
}
else {
prod = prod.multiply(new BigInteger(String.valueOf(xs[i])));
}
}
if(prod == null) {
return "0";
}
return prod.toString();
}

Maybe its the time complexity that is problem here.
For the product try this -
from operator import mul
reduce(mul, list, 1)

How to implement/construct the following permutation, given two n-tuples, efficiently?

I am studying queuing theory in which I am frequently presented with the following situation.
Let x, y both be n-tuples of nonnegative integers (depicting lengths of the n queues). In addition, x and y each have distinguished queue called their "prime queue". For example,
x = [3, 6, 1, 9, 5, 2] with x' = 1
y = [6, 1, 5, 9, 5, 5] with y' = 5
(In accordance with Python terminology I am counting the queues 0-5.)
How can I implement/construct the following permutation f on {0,1,...,5} efficiently?
first set f(x') = y'. So here f(1) = 5.
then set f(i) = i for any i such that x[i] == y[i]. Clearly there is no need to consider the indices x' and y'. So here f(3) = 3 (both length 9) and f(4) = 4 (both length 5).
there are now equally sized sets of queues unpaired in x and in y. So here in x this is {0,2,5} and in y this is {0,1,2}.
rank these from from 1 to s, where s is the common size of the sets, by length with 1 == lowest rank == shortest queue and s == highest rank == longest queue. So here, s = 3, and in x rank(0) = 1, rank(2) = 3 and rank(5) = 2, and in y rank(0) = 1, rank(1) = 3, rank(2) = 2. If there is a tie, give the queue with the larger index the higher rank.
pair these s queues off by rank. So here f(0) = 0, f(2) = 1, f(5) = 2.
This should give the permutation [0, 5, 1, 3, 4, 2].
My solution consists of tracking the indices and loops over x and y multiple times, and is terribly inefficient. (Roughly looking at n >= 1,000,000 in my application.)
Any help would be most appreciated.

Since you must do the ranking, you can't get linear and will need to sort. So it looks pretty straightforward. You do 1. in O(1) and 2. in O(n) by just going over the n-tuples. At the same time, you can construct the copy of x and y with only those that are left for 3. but do not include only the value, but instead use tuple of value and its index in the original.
In your example, x-with-tuples-left would be [[3,0],[1,2],[2,5]] and y-with-tuples-left would be [[6,0],[1,1],[5,2]].
Then just sort both x-with-tuples-left and y-with-tuples-left (it will be O(n.log n)), and read the permutation from the second element of the corresponding tuples.
In your example, sorted x-with-... would be [[1,2],[2,5],[3,0]] and sorted y-with-... would be [[1,1],[5,2],[6,0]]. Now, you nicely see 5. from the second elements: f(2)=1, f(5)=2, f(0)=0.
EDIT: Including O(n+L) in Javascript:
function qperm (x, y, xprime, yprime) {
var i;
var n = x.length;
var qperm = new Array(n);
var countsx = [], countsy = []; // same as new Array()
qperm[xprime] = yprime; // doing 1.
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (x[i] == y[i] && i != xprime && i != yprime) { // doing 2.
qperm[i] = i; }
else { // preparing for 4. below
if (i != xprime) {
if (countsx[x[i]]) countsx[x[i]]++; else countsx[x[i]] = 1; }
if (i != yprime) {
if (countsy[y[i]]) countsy[y[i]]++; else countsy[y[i]] = 1; } }
// finishing countsx and countsy
var count, sum;
for (i = 0, count = 0; i < countsx.length; ++i) {
if (countsx[i]) {
sum = count + countsx[i];
countsx[i] = count;
count = sum; }
for (i = 0, count = 0; i < countsy.length; ++i) {
if (countsy[i]) {
sum = count + countsy[i];
countsy[i] = count;
count = sum; }
var yranked = new Array(count);
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (i != yprime && (x[i] != y[i] || i == xprime)) { // doing 4. for y
yranked[countsy[y[i]]] = y[i];
countsy[y[i]]++; } }
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (i != xprime && (x[i] != y[i] || i == yprime)) { // doing 4. for x and 5. at the same time
// this was here but was not right: qperm[x[i]] = yranked[countsx[x[i]]];
qperm[i] = yranked[countsx[x[i]]];
// this was here but was not right: countsy[y[i]]++; } } }
countsx[x[i]]++; } }
return qperm; }
Hopefully it's correct ;-)