I've been having a problem for a while with Ruby where accessing a hash
within a hash will fail if the first hash is nil. As an example, Rails
accepts XML input to an action by passing it through REXML. On an XML
document like this:
<body>
<user>
<name>
<given>Tony</given>
<family>Robbins</family>
</name>
</user>
</body>
You will receive a hash that looks like this (within the params hash):
"body" => { "user" => { "name" => { "given" => "Tony", "family" =>
"Robbins" } } }
Thus, you can access the elements like this:
params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"]
However, sometimes the "name" element might not come over the wire
(through no fault of Ruby's nor Rails' -- it's just a problem we have
to deal with in our system). In this case, Ruby will throw a
NoMethodError on nil.[] because we tried to access the value at "given"
on an element that does not exist. Furthermore, sometimes the "user"
element does not exist, either! This led me to code that looks like
this:
if params["body"]["user"]
if params["body"]["user"]["name"]
first_name = params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"]
end
end
That's not very elegant when you're doing it with many (15 - 30)
fields. I also tried doing it with exceptions:
begin
first_name = params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"]
rescue NoMethodError
end
Also, not very elegant.
Finally, I wrote a method to work around this problem:
def get_value(object, *path)
new_object = object
for item in path
item = item.to_s
if new_object
if new_object[item]
new_object = new_object[item]
else
new_object = nil
end
else
break
end
end
if new_object.kind_of?(String)
return new_object.strip
else
return new_object
end
end
This method can be called like this:
first_name = get_value(params, :body, :user, :name, :given)
It will traverse the hash and kick back a nil at the first problem it
finds instead of raising an exception, or will return the value if it
actually exists.
Here's my question, though: is this code efficient? Is there a better
way? Am I missing something fundamental in Ruby that would solve this
without the need for the new method?
on 2006-09-26 19:57
on 2006-09-26 20:29
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 02:55 +0900, atraver@gmail.com wrote: > > > > It will traverse the hash and kick back a nil at the first problem it > finds instead of raising an exception, or will return the value if it > actually exists. > > Here's my question, though: is this code efficient? Is there a better > way? Am I missing something fundamental in Ruby that would solve this > without the need for the new method? I think you can rewrite that method like this: def get_value(hash, *path) path.inject(hash) { |obj, item| obj[item] || break } end If you're up for some core-modifying mayhem, You could put it on Hash, and extend [] with 'path' capabilities: class Hash alias :__fetch :[] def traverse(*path) path.inject(self) { |obj, item| obj.__fetch(item) || break } end def [](*args) (args.length > 1) ? traverse(*args) : __fetch(*args) end end This way works like this: h = { :name => { :first => 'Ross', }, :contact => { :phone => { :office => '345345' } } } p h.traverse(:name, :first) # => "Ross" p h.traverse(:name, :middle) # => nil p h[:contact] # => {:phone=>{:office=>"345345"}} p h[:contact, :phone, :office] # => "345345" p h[:contact, :phone, :fax] # => nil Of course, there may be better ways to solve the underlying problem...
on 2006-09-27 01:30
atraver <at> gmail.com <atraver <at> gmail.com> writes: > first_name = params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"] > end > end > > That's not very elegant when you're doing it with many (15 - 30) > fields. I use something like the following, although it would also look unweildy when chained together a lot hsh.fetch(:key, {}) # returns either hsh[:key], or {} if !hsh.has_key?(:key) so hsh.fetch(:key1, {}).fetch(:key2, nil) # will work as expected, silently returning nil on error Gareth
on 2006-09-27 11:19
> Posted by Adam Traver > on 26.09.2006 19:57 > I've been having a problem for a while with Ruby where accessing a hash > within a hash will fail if the first hash is nil. > > ... > > You will receive a hash that looks like this (within the params hash): > > "body" => { "user" => { "name" => { "given" => "Tony", "family" => "Robbins" } } } > >Thus, you can access the elements like this: > > params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"] > > ... > > Here's my question, though: is this code efficient? Is there a better > way? Am I missing something fundamental in Ruby that would solve this > without the need for the new method? Yet another (though indirect) approach could be to first extract all keys from the nested hash! http://bigbold.com/snippets/posts/show/1908
on 2006-09-27 19:05
Thanks for all the responses.
Here is the method I ended up with after looking over everything, just
in case this topic is searched for in the future:
def get_value(object, *path)
for item in path
break unless object
object = object ? object[item.to_s] : nil
end
return object.kind_of?(String) ? object.strip : object
end
This might be a little more verbose than some of the solutions (also,
Ross, your "inject" solution didn't seem to work out although I'm sure
it would with some tweaking). However, it ends up doing exactly what I
need it to do: get the value or return nil, in a quick-and-dirty way.
-Adam
on 2006-09-27 19:37
On 9/26/06, atraver@gmail.com <atraver@gmail.com> wrote: > </name> > params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"] > if params["body"]["user"]["name"] > end What about: first_name = params["body"]["user"]["name"]["given"] rescue nil Hadley
on 2006-09-27 23:58
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 02:05 +0900, atraver@gmail.com wrote: > > return object.kind_of?(String) ? object.strip : object > end > > This might be a little more verbose than some of the solutions (also, > Ross, your "inject" solution didn't seem to work out although I'm sure > it would with some tweaking). However, it ends up doing exactly what I > need it to do: get the value or return nil, in a quick-and-dirty way. Hmm, out of interest, what didn't work out about it? Maybe I misunderstand what you're doing, but (if you ignore the Hash-extending silliness) it seems to work the same. require 'test/unit' def get_value(object, *path) for item in path break unless object object = object ? object[item.to_s] : nil end return object.kind_of?(String) ? object.strip : object end def my_get_value(hsh, *path) path.inject(hsh) { |obj, item| obj[item.to_s] || break } end class TestGetValue < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @h = { 'name' => { 'first' => 'Ross' }, 'contact' => { 'phone' => { 'office' => '345345' } } } end def test_it assert_equal get_value(@h, :name, :first), my_get_value(@h, :name, :first) assert_equal get_value(@h, :name, :middle), my_get_value(@h, :name, :middle) assert_equal get_value(@h, :contact), my_get_value(@h, :contact) assert_equal get_value(@h, :contact, :phone, :office), my_get_value(@h, :contact, :phone, :office) end end # -> 1 tests, 4 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors The only thing I changed here is adding to_s on the item in my version, so I could use the same hash to test both while keeping symbol keys.
on 2006-09-29 14:26
atraver@gmail.com wrote: > without the need for the new method? > I didn't really like the way that method is called, doesn't seem very "ruby" exactly. Came up with the following which is really dirty at the moment but I prefer how it's called. The method_missing in NilClass is kind of unforgivably dirty. Would like to see improvements I guess, but not sure there's really a way to do this nicely: So, yeah, don't use this, but possibly be amused by it anyway: require 'ostruct' class NestStruct < OpenStruct def self.fromNestedHash(h) struct = NestStruct.new(h) struct.marshal_dump.keys.each do |key| if struct.send(key).is_a? Hash struct.send(key.to_s + '=', fromNestedHash(struct.send(key))) end end return struct end def method_missing(m, *args) super(m, args) rescue NoMethodError nil end end class NilClass def method_missing(m, *args) nil end end h = { 'name' => { 'first' => 'Ross' }, 'contact' => { 'phone' => { 'office' => '345345' } } } s = NestStruct.fromNestedHash(h) puts s.contact.phone # => #<NestStruct office="345345"> puts s.contact.phone.office # => 345345 puts s.contact.phone.home # => nil puts s.foo.bar # => nil
Please log in before posting. Registration is free and takes only a minute.
Existing account
(Switch to SSL-encrypted connection)
NEW: Do you have a Google/GoogleMail or Yahoo account? No registration required!
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
No account? Register here.