I have a for loop and want to filter some nodes, which works fine:
matches($doc/abc/#def, $filterA)
matches($doc/qwert/#xyz, $filterB)
What also works is, when $filterA, $filterB or both are empty, to return every node. What does not work however is to return the node if node abc or qwert do not exist. For the default value i currently use "" (empty string), is there another default value or another function I can use to make it work?
You can test whether the abc and qwert elements exist with the fn:exists() function. If you want it to pass if either of those elements do not exist, you can use fn:not() to negate a test for abc and qwert existence:
fn:not(fn:exists($doc/abc) and fn:exists($doc/qwert))
If you want a condition to pass if either $filterA or $filterB is empty:
fn:not(fn:exists($filterA) and fn:exists($filterB))
You can consolidate the matches() expressions a predicate to avoid repeating $doc (not a huge savings, but something to think of more generally when writing XPath expressions.
$doc[matches(abc/#def, $filterA) and matches(qwert/#xyz, $filterB)]
Putting it all together:
let $filterA := "a"
let $filterB :="b"
let $doc := <doc><abc def="a"/><qwert xyz="b"/></doc>
return
if (fn:not(fn:exists($doc/abc) and fn:exists($doc/qwert))
or fn:not(fn:exists($filterA) and fn:exists($filterB))
or $doc[matches(abc/#def, $filterA) and matches(qwert/#xyz, $filterB)])
then "pass - copy nodes"
else "fail"
Related
How can i convert string into XPATH, below is the code
let $ti := "item/title"
let $tiValue := "Welcome to America"
return db:open('test')/*[ $tiValue = $ti]/base-uri()
Here is one way to solve it:
let $ti := "item/title"
let $tiValue := "Welcome to America"
let $input := db:open('test')
let $steps := tokenize($ti, '/')
let $process-step := function($input, $step) { $input/*[name() = $step] }
let $output := fold-left($input, $steps, $process-step)
let $test := $output[. = $tiValue]
return $test/base-uri()
The path string is split into single steps (item, title). With fold-left, all child nodes of the current input (initially db:open('test')) will be matched against the current step (initially, item). The result will be used as new input and matched against the next step (title), and so on. Finally, only those nodes with $tiValue as text value will be returned.
Your question is very unclear - the basic problem is that you've shown us some code that doesn't do what you want, and you're asking us to work out what you want by guessing what was going on in your head when you wrote the incorrect code.
I suspect -- I may be wrong -- that you were hoping this might somehow give you the result of
db:open('test')/*[item/title = $ti]/base-uri()
and presumably $ti might hold different path expressions on different occasions.
XQuery 3.0/3.1 doesn't have any standard way to evaluate an XPath expression supplied dynamically as a string (unless you count the rather devious approach of using fn:transform() to invoke an XSLT transformation that uses the xsl:evaluate instruction).
BaseX however has an query:eval() function that will do the job for you. See https://docs.basex.org/wiki/XQuery_Module
I am quite new to XQuery and I am trying to get a list of all elements and all attributes.
It should look like this:
element1 #attributex, #attribue y, ...
element 2 #attribute x, #attribute y, ...
element 3 #attribute x, #attribute y, ...
I am trying this so far, but the error "Item expected, sequence found":
for $x in collection("XYZ")
let $att := local-name(//#*)
let $ele := local-name(//*)
let $eleatt := string-join($ele, $att)
return $eleatt
I feel like I am turning an easy step into a complicated one. Please help.
Thanks in advance, Eleonore
//#* gives you a sequence of attribute nodes, //* a sequence of element nodes. In general to apply a function like local-name() to each item in a sequence, for nodes you have three options:
Use a final step /local-name() e.g. //#*/local-name() or //*/local-name()
In XQuery 3.1 use the map operator ! e.g. //#*!local-name()
Use a for .. return expression e.g. for $att in //#* return local-name($att)
The local-name() function takes a single node as its argument, not a sequence of nodes. To apply the same function to every node in a sequence, using the "!" operator: //*!local-name().
The string-join() function takes two arguments, a list of strings, and a separator. You're trying to pass two lists of strings. You want
string-join((//*!local-name(), //#*!local-name()), ',')
Of course you might also want to de-duplicate the list using distinct-values(), and to distinguish element from attribute names, or to associate attribute names with the element they appear on. That's all eminently possible. But for that, you'll have to ask a more precise question.
ans=readline(stdin)
function g(n)
if ans==a
return 1
else
return n
end
This is my code but the readline function only takes strings and i want it to take an expression which i can use in my function. What i want is to assign an expression (a) for variable ans.
You could try something like this:
julia> function check(x)
ans = readline()
val=Main.eval(Meta.parse(ans))
println("val == $x :", val==x)
end;
julia> check(5)
2+3
val == 5 :true
Remarks:
Your functions should not reference global variables (like ans in your example) - if you need to get the value of ans - pass it as parameter.
Parsing the expression is unsafe - a user might want for an example use this functionality to delete your data. Use with care! In some scenarios you might want for an example to use regular expressions to validate user's input.
let list p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
I have such a function to check if the list is well formatted or not. The list shouldn't have an empty string and nulls. I don't get what I am missing since Check.Verbose list returns falsifiable output.
How should I approach the problem?
I think you don't quite understand FsCheck yet. When you do Check.Verbose someFunction, FsCheck generates a bunch of random input for your function, and fails if the function ever returns false. The idea is that the function you pass to Check.Verbose should be a property that will always be true no matter what the input is. For example, if you reverse a list twice then it should return the original list no matter what the original list was. This property is usually expressed as follows:
let revTwiceIsSameList (lst : int list) =
List.rev (List.rev lst) = lst
Check.Verbose revTwiceIsSameList // This will pass
Your function, on the other hand, is a good, useful function that checks whether a list is well-formed in your data model... but it's not a property in the sense that FsCheck uses the term (that is, a function that should always return true no matter what the input is). To make an FsCheck-style property, you want to write a function that looks generally like:
let verifyMyFunc (input : string list) =
if (input is well-formed) then // TODO: Figure out how to check that
myFunc input = true
else
myFunc input = false
Check.Verbose verifyMyFunc
(Note that I've named your function myFunc instead of list, because as a general rule, you should never name a function list. The name list is a data type (e.g., string list or int list), and if you name a function list, you'll just confuse yourself later on when the same name has two different meanings.)
Now, the problem here is: how do you write the "input is well-formed" part of my verifyMyFunc example? You can't just use your function to check it, because that would be testing your function against itself, which is not a useful test. (The test would essentially become "myFunc input = myFunc input", which would always return true even if your function had a bug in it — unless your function returned random input, of course). So you'd have to write another function to check if the input is well-formed, and here the problem is that the function you've written is the best, most correct way to check for well-formed input. If you wrote another function to check, it would boil down to not (List.contains "" || List.contains null) in the end, and again, you'd be essentially checking your function against itself.
In this specific case, I don't think FsCheck is the right tool for the job, because your function is so simple. Is this a homework assignment, where your instructor is requiring you to use FsCheck? Or are you trying to learn FsCheck on your own, and using this exercise to teach yourself FsCheck? If it's the former, then I'd suggest pointing your instructor to this question and see what he says about my answer. If it's the latter, then I'd suggest finding some slightly more complicated function to use to learn FsCheck. A useful function here would be one where you can find some property that should always be true, like in the List.rev example (reversing a list twice should restore the original list, so that's a useful property to test with). Or if you're having trouble finding an always-true property, at least find a function that you can implement in at least two different ways, so that you can use FsCheck to check that both implementations return the same result for any given input.
Adding to #rmunn's excellent answer:
if you wanted to test myFunc (yes I also renamed your list function) you could do it by creating some fixed cases that you already know the answer to, like:
let myFunc p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
let tests =
testList "myFunc" [
testCase "empty list" <| fun()-> "empty" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ ])
testCase "nonempty list" <| fun()-> "hi" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ "hi" ])
testCase "null case" <| fun()-> "null" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ null ])
testCase "empty string" <| fun()-> "\"\"" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ "" ])
]
Tests.runTests config tests
Here I am using a testing library called Expecto.
If you run this you would see one of the tests fails:
Failed! myFunc/empty string:
"". Actual value was true but had expected it to be false.
because your original function has a bug; it checks for space " " instead of empty string "".
After you fix it all tests pass:
4 tests run in 00:00:00.0105346 for myFunc – 4 passed, 0 ignored, 0
failed, 0 errored. Success!
At this point you checked only 4 simple and obvious cases with zero or one element each. Many times functions fail when fed more complex data. The problem is how many more test cases can you add? The possibilities are literally infinite!
FsCheck
This is where FsCheck can help you. With FsCheck you can check for properties (or rules) that should always be true. It takes a little bit of creativity to think of good ones to test for and granted, sometimes it is not easy.
In your case we can test for concatenation. The rule would be like this:
If two lists are concatenated the result of MyFunc applied to the concatenation should be true if both lists are well formed and false if any of them is malformed.
You can express that as a function this way:
let myFuncConcatenation l1 l2 = myFunc (l1 # l2) = (myFunc l1 && myFunc l2)
l1 # l2 is the concatenation of both lists.
Now if you call FsCheck:
FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation
It tries a 100 different combinations trying to make it fail but in the end it gives you the Ok:
0:
["X"]
["^"; ""]
1:
["C"; ""; "M"]
[]
2:
[""; ""; ""]
[""; null; ""; ""]
3:
...
Ok, passed 100 tests.
This does not necessarily mean your function is correct, there still could be a failing combination that FsCheck did not try or it could be wrong in a different way. But it is a pretty good indication that it is correct in terms of the concatenation property.
Testing for the concatenation property with FsCheck actually allowed us to call myFunc 300 times with different values and prove that it did not crash or returned an unexpected value.
FsCheck does not replace case by case testing, it complements it:
Notice that if you had run FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation over the original function, which had a bug, it would still pass. The reason is the bug was independent of the concatenation property. This means that you should always have the case by case testing where you check the most important cases and you can complement that with FsCheck to test other situations.
Here are other properties you can check, these test the two false conditions independently:
let myFuncHasNulls l = if List.contains null l then myFunc l = false else true
let myFuncHasEmpty l = if List.contains "" l then myFunc l = false else true
Check.Quick myFuncHasNulls
Check.Quick myFuncHasEmpty
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
Like many, I'm tackling the Mondial database on XML. It would be a piece of cake, if XQuery syntax wasn't doing its best to sabotage.
let $inland := //province/#id
where every $sea in //sea satisfies
$sea/located/#province != $inland
return $inland
What I am trying to do in the above is find all "inland" provinces, the provinces that don't have a sea next to it. This, however, doesn't work, because the $sea/located/province is a big string, with every single province that it borders in it.
So I tried to modify into.
let $inland := //province/#id
where every $sea in //sea satisfies
not(contains($sea/located/#province, $inland))
return $inland
Where I would like it to only find the provinces that are a part of the sea's bordering provinces. Simple and straightforward.
Error message:
Stopped at C:/Users/saffekaffe/Desktop/mondial/xml/country_without_island.xml, 2/1:
[XPTY0004] Item expected, sequence found: (attribute id {"prov-Greece-2"},....
How do I get around this?
Example of //sea/located/province#
province="prov-France-5 prov-France-20 prov-France-89 prov-France-99"
Example of //province/#id
id="prov-Greece-2"
There are multiple ways in which XQuery works in a different way than you seem to expect.
The comparison operators = and != have existential semantics if at least one of their arguments is a sequence instead of a single item. This means that $seq1 = $seq2 is equivalent to some $x in $seq1, $y in $seq2 satisfies $x = $y. The query ('foo', 'bar') = ('bar', 'baz', 'quuz') returns true because there is at least one common item.
An XQuery exception like //province/#id evaluates to a sequence of all matching nodes. In your case that would be a sequence of over 1000 province IDs: (id="prov-cid-cia-Greece-2", id="prov-cid-cia-Greece-3", id="prov-cid-cia-Greece-4", [...]). This sequence is then bound to the variable $inland in your let clause. Since you don't iterate over individual items in $inland (for example using a for clause), the where condition then works on the whole sequence of all provinces worldwide at once. So your condition every $sea in //sea satisfies
$sea/located/#province != $inland now means:
"For every sea there is a province located next to it that has an #id that is not equal to at least one of all existing province IDs."
Th is returns false because there are seas with no located children, e.g.the Gulf of Aden.
contains($str, $sub) is not a good fit for checking if a substring is contained in a space-delimited string, because it also matches parts of entries: contains("foobar baz quux", "oob") returns true.
Instead you should either split the string into its parts using tokenize($str) and look through its parts, or use contains-token($str, $token).
Putting it all together, a correct query very similar to your original one is:
for $inland in //province/#id
where
every $sea in //sea
satisfies not(contains-token($sea/located/#province, $inland))
return $inland
Another approach would be to first gather all (unique) provinces that are next to seas and then return all provinces not in that sequence:
let $next-to-sea := distinct-values(//sea/located/#province/tokenize(.))
return //province/#id[not(. = $next-to-sea)]
Even more compact (but potentially less efficient):
//province/#id[not(. = //sea/located/#province/tokenize(.))]
On the other end of the spectrum you can use XQuery 3.0 maps to replace the potentially linear search through all seaside provinces by a single lookup:
let $seaside :=
map:merge(
for $id in //sea/located/#province/tokenize(.)
return map{ $id: () }
)
return //province/#id[not(map:contains($seaside, .))]