Reputation: 19160
I'm using Ruby on Rails 5.0.1 with Ruby 2.4. I have an array of objects, stored in the array, "results." Each object has a numeric attribute
numeric_attr
I would like to know, given my array, how I can tell if I have exactly one object with a numeric attribute value of "1" and incrementing by one. Order is not important. So, for instance, if I have an array of three objects,
[MyObject(numeric_attr = 2), MyObject(numeric_attr = 1), MyObject(numeric_attr = 3)]
I want to know if I have exactly one object with numeric_attr = 1, another object with numeric_attr = 2, and another with numeric_attr = 3. So the above satisfies the condition. The below example does not
[MyObject(numeric_attr = 4), MyObject(numeric_attr = 1), MyObject(numeric_attr = 3)]
because although there is an object with numeric_attr = 1, there is no object with numeric_attr = 2. It is possible thet the numeric_attr field is nil. How can I figure this out?
Upvotes: 1
Views: 1063
Reputation: 5977
This one-liner should work:
results.map(&:numeric_attr).sort == (1..results.count).to_a
Explanation:
results
#=> [#<MyObject:... @attr=2>, #<MyObject:... @attr=3>, #<MyObject:... @attr=1>]
results.map(&:attr)
#=> [2, 3, 1]
results.map(&:attr).sort
#=> [1, 2, 3]
(1..results.length).to_a
#=> [1, 2, 3]
# therefore:
results.map(&:attr).sort == (1..results.count).to_a
#=> true
If there is a chance that numeric_attr
is nil
:
results.map(&:attr).compact.sort == (1..results.count).to_a
Of course, if there is even a single nil
value, the result is guaranteed to be false
.
If the sequence could start at any number, not just 1:
results.map(&:attr).sort == results.count.times.to_a.
map { |i| i + results.map(&:attr).sort.first }
This is not very efficient though, as it sorts the numbers twice.
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 2290
If they always start at 1 @Máté's solution works, if they can start at any arbitrary number then you could:
count = 0
array_objects.sort_by(&:numeric_attr).each_cons(2) {|a,b| count+=1 if a.numeric_attr==b.numeric_attr-1 }
count+1==array_objects.count
Not as elegant but handles a lot more situations
Upvotes: 0