what is the prefered way to investigate or print out further detail (print input variable of a function, iteration number, etc.) of a failed #test inside a #testset?
I tried to wrap a try-catch-block around it. However, it doesn't seem to fire.
Here is a made-up example:
using Base.Test
rng = MersenneTwister(3231);
# define function that works different than expected
function compare(a,b)
if a == 3 && b == 3
return false
else
return a == b
end
end
# test function in a test set
#testset "Test Compare Function" begin
for iii = 1:10
number = rand(rng,1:10)
try
#test compare(number,number) == true
catch
#show(number)
end
end
end
Thank you very much!
You need to make sure it tests after the printing.
#testset "Test Compare Function" begin
for iii = 1:10
number = rand(rng,1:10)
#test begin
res = compare(number,number) == true
if !res
#show number
flush(STDOUT)
end
res
end
end
end
Related
I am trying to create a code which identifies if the elements in an array are monotonic or not.
I wrote the below code and got the error -
function isMonotonic(array)
if length(array) <= 2
return true
end
check_up = []
check_down = []
for i in range(2, length(array))
if array[i] <= array[i-1]
append!(check_up, 1)
end
if array[i] >= array[i - 1]
append!(check_down, 1)
end
end
if sum(check_up) == length(array) - 1 || sum(check_down) == length(array) - 1
return true
else
return false
end
end
isMonotonic([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7])
I am getting the below error
Error: Methoderror: no method matching zero(::Type{Any})
I think it is because I am trying to sum up the empth array, I want to understand how to overcome this problem in general, I have a solution for the above code, but in genral I want to know the reason and how to use it. I do not want to first check if the array is empty or not and then do the sum.
If you wanted to save yourself lots of effort, the simplest solution would just be:
my_ismonotonic(x) = issorted(x) || issorted(x ; rev=true)
This will return true if x is sorted either forwards, or in reverse, and false otherwise.
We could maybe make it a little more efficient using a check so we only need a single call to issorted.
function my_ismonotonic(x)
length(x) <= 2 && return true
for n = 2:length(x)
if x[n] > x[1]
return issorted(x)
elseif x[n] < x[1]
return issorted(x ; rev=true)
end
end
return true
end
# Alternatively, a neater version using findfirst
function my_ismonotonic(x)
length(x) <= 2 && return true
ii = findfirst(a -> a != x[1], x)
isnothing(ii) && return true # All elements in x are equal
if x[ii] > x[1]
return issorted(x)
else
return issorted(x ; rev=true)
end
end
The loop detects the first occurrence of an element greater than or less than the first element and then calls the appropriate issorted as soon as this occurs. If all elements in the array are equal then the loop runs over the whole array and returns true.
There are a few problems of efficiency in your approach, but the reason you are getting an actual error message is because given the input, either this expression sum(check_up) or this expression sum(check_down) will effectively result in the following call:
sum(Any[])
There is no obvious return value for this since the array could have any type, so instead you get an error. If you had used the following earlier in your function:
check_up = Int[]
check_down = Int[]
then you shouldn't have the same problem, because:
julia> sum(Int[])
0
Note also that append! is usually for appending a vector to a vector. If you just want to add a single element to a vector use push!.
I am using Julia and I've designed a for loop that takes the outputs of a function in one loop and uses them as the input of that function in the next loop (and over and over). When I run this code, Julia flags an "undefined" error, however, if I run the code in debug mode, it executes perfectly. For example, the code looks like this:
function do_command(a,b,c,d)
a = a + 1
b = split(b, keepempty=false)[1]
c = split(b, keepempty=false)[1]
if a == 1000
d = true
else
d = false
end
return a, b, c, d
end
for ii in 1:length(x)
if ii == 1
a = 0
b = "string something"
c = ""
d = false
end
a,b,c,d = do_command(a,b,c,d)
if d == true
print(string(b))
break
end
end
What am I doing wrong here?
An issue with your code is that for introduces a new scope for each iteration of the loop. That is to say: variable a created within the loop body at iteration 1 is not the same as variable a created within the loop body at iteration 2.
In order to fix your problem, you should declare variables outside the loop, so that at each iteration, references to them from within the loop body would actually refer to the same variables from the enclosing scope.
I'd go with something like this:
function do_command(a,b,c,d)
a = a + 1
b = split(b, keepempty=false)[1]
c = split(b, keepempty=false)[1]
if a == 1000
d = true
else
d = false
end
return a, b, c, d
end
# Let's create a local scope: it's good practice to avoid global variables
let
# All these variables are declared in the scope introduced by `let`
a = 0
b = "string something"
c = ""
d = false
for ii in 1:10 #length(x)
# now these names refer to the variables declared in the enclosing scope
a,b,c,d = do_command(a,b,c,d)
if d == true
print(string(b))
break
end
end
end
I have a function that optionally uses threads for its main loop, doing so when an argument usingthreads is true. At the moment, the code looks like this:
function dosomething(usingthreads::Bool)
n = 1000
if usingthreads
Threads.#threads for i = 1:n
#20 lines of code here
end
else
for i = 1:n
#same 20 lines of code repeated here
end
end
end
Less nasty than the above would be to put the "20 lines" in a separate function. Is there another way?
You could use a macro that changes its behavior depending on the result of Threads.nthreads():
macro maybe_threaded(ex)
if Threads.nthreads() == 1
return esc(ex)
else
return esc(:(Threads.#threads $ex))
end
end
Without threading, this macro will be a no-op:
julia> #macroexpand #maybe_threaded for i in 1:5
print(i)
end
:(for i = 1:5
#= REPL[2]:2 =#
print(i)
end)
But when threading is enabled and e.g. JULIA_NUM_THREADS=4 it will expand to the threaded version:
julia> #maybe_threaded for i in 1:5
print(i)
end
41325
Edit: Upon rereading the question, I realize this doesn't really answer it but it might be useful anyway.
You can use ThreadsX as suggested in this discourse link.
The answer from the thread (all credit to oxinabox):
using ThreadsX
function foo(multi_thread=true)
_foreach = multi_thread ? ThreadsX.foreach : Base.foreach
_foreach(1:10) do ii
#show ii
end
end
I have tried different operators <,>,etc. Nothing seems to work when I combine comparative operators with conditional operators.
e = readline()
if e == 0
println("e is equal to 0")
else
println("e is not equal to 0")
end
The expected result is obvious, if e = 0, prints e is equal to 0, if e != 0, prints e is not equal to 0.
However, it always prints the bottom line, e is not equal to 0.
That's because readline returns a string, which is never equal to an integer (by the definition of == Julia uses).
Here are some possible ways to achieve what you want:
Compare to a string literal instead: if e == "0"
Use tryparse: if tryparse(Int, e) == 0 (will return nothing if e is not a number literal)
Use parse, but with try/catch instead of an if:
try
p = parse(Int, e)
p == 0 ? println("e is 0") : println("e is not 0")
catch
println("not even an integer.")
end
The reason that the if returns the branch that you don't expect is those given to you by #phg (you got a String by readline()).
For my code I use the following function to parse user-provided data given in a terminal:
function getUserInput(T=String,msg="")
print("$msg ")
if T == String
return readline()
else
try
return parse(T,readline())
catch
println("Sorry, I could not interpret your answer. Please try again")
getUserInput(T,msg)
end
end
end
sentence = getUserInput(String,"Which sentence do you want to be repeated?");
n = getUserInput(Int64,"How many times do you want it to be repeated?");
[println(sentence) for i in 1:n]
println("Done!")
I have a generic function in julia that the aim is to say if a member of a vector of
a given dimension is negative or not. After a few variations I have:
function any(vec)
dim = size(vec)
for i in 1:dim[2]
fflag = vec[1,i] < 0
println("Inside any, fflag = ", fflag)
if fflag == true
result = 0
println("blabla ", result)
break
else
result =1
println("blabla ", result)
continue
end
end
println("hey, what is result? ")
println(result)
return result
end
If I run a test I found the following result:
Inside any, fflag = false
blabla 1
Inside any, fflag = false
blabla 1
Inside any, fflag = false
blabla 1
hey, what is result?
result not defined
at In[7]:57
I don't know why the compiler says me that 'result' is not defined. I know the variable exist but why does not live outside the for loop?
The documentation on variable scoping clearly states that a for loop defines a new scope. This means result is going out of scope when execution leaves the for loop. Hence it is undefined when you call println(result)
Defining result in advance of the for loop should give the behaviour you are expecting:
function any(vec)
dim = size(vec)
result = -1
for i in 1:dim[2]
...
Or if you do not wish to assign a default value, and are sure the for loop will set its value, you can do:
function any(vec)
dim = size(vec)
local result
for i in 1:dim[2]
...
In the first example, if the for loop does not set a value, result will be -1.
In the the second example, not setting a value in the for loop will leave result undefined.