Last active
July 11, 2020 08:40
-
-
Save formatc1702/688fc6047b8744d4c3ed6cafb098d7de to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Check if items in list alternatingly match keys in two dicts
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
# fake YAML input data (only keys matter) | |
connectors = {'A': [1,2,3], 'B': [1,2,4], 'C': [3,6,7]} | |
cables = {'X': [4,4,4], 'Y': [4,5,6], 'Z': [9,9,9]} | |
# list to check, should alternatingly contain connector and cable keys, may start with either | |
listy = ['A','X','B','Y','C'] | |
conkeys = list(connectors.keys()) | |
cblkeys = list(cables.keys()) | |
print('conkeys', conkeys) | |
print('cblkeys', cblkeys) | |
found_in_con = [item in conkeys for item in listy] # should contain alternating True and False | |
found_in_cbl = [item in cblkeys for item in listy] # should contain alternating False and True (reversed) | |
print('found_in_con', found_in_con) | |
print('found_in_cbl', found_in_cbl) | |
alternating = ([True, False] * ((len(listy)+1) // 2))[0:len(listy)] # generate alternating True and False list, with length = len(listy) | |
check1 = [item == check for (item, check) in zip(found_in_con, alternating)] # should contain all True if list starts with connector, all False if list starts with cable, both True and False if it does not alternate properly | |
check2 = [item != check for (item, check) in zip(found_in_con, alternating)] # same as above, but with inverted logic | |
print('check1', check1) | |
print('check2', check2) | |
starts_with_connector = all(check1) and not any(check2) | |
starts_with_cable = all(check2) and not any(check1) | |
OK = starts_with_connector or starts_with_cable | |
print('OK?', OK) |
Very good point!
See one alternative in my fork:
https://gist.github.com/kvid/5c4c0f65111b4c4569b2be875541e7c1
I like it! I'll build on that. Thanks!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
One drawback with the approach to test all items together by comparing lists, is that it might not be so easy to report the first item that is unexpected. A simple naive approach is to test the first item for all alternatives, and then in a loop, test for alternating item is connector or cable/wire. Then the first unexpected value is easy to report. As a user, I would prefer a report on the first unecpected value together with a description of what was expected.