Handlebars.js has some weird behavior. It renders a boolean with a value of true as the string "true", but a value of false as "".
var booleanTestTrue = true;
var booleanTestFalse = false;
Template:
True: {{booleanTestTrue}}
False: {{booleanTestFalse}}
Renders to:
True: true
False: (empty string)
Is there any way to fix this problem? Or do I have to write a helper?
You can use a simple block helper and implement #if like the following:
{{#if isTrue}}
true
{{else}}
false
{{/if}}
If you want to print a string, you should pass a string.
false.toString();
Otherwise, yeah you would need a helper (unless you use the #if|#unless helpers to output a string).
On a side note, if you wanted to print these values for debugging purpose, use the {{log booleanTestFalse}}.
I was surprised by this, and ended up writing a simple helper for it:
Handlebars.registerHelper( 'toString', function returnToString( x ){
return ( x === void 0 ) ? 'undefined' : x.toString();
} );
You would then invoke it as follows:
True: {{toString booleanTestTrue}}
False: {{toString booleanTestFalse}}
In most scenarios you could get away with simply return x.toString(). The extra checking avoids attempting to call toString on undefined values.
I used this, similar to Barney's answer but supports null too.
Handlebars.registerHelper('toString', function (v) {
return '' + v;
});
You would then invoke it as follows:
True: {{toString booleanTestTrue}}
False: {{toString booleanTestFalse}}
However if v is an object with a pretty toString method you need to do more coding.
Related
Map<String,bool> map= { "key1":true, "key2":false };
/*
* Flags following compilation error:
* A nullable expression can't be used as a condition.
* Try checking that the value isn't 'null' before using it as a condition.
*/
if(map["key1"]) {
//do sth
}
/*So I try checking value isn't null as specified in error
*Still flags same compilation error
*/
if(map!=null && map["key1"]) {
//do sth
}
//This works
if(map["key1"] == true) {
//do sth
}
}
Based on the following snippet, may I know why both the 1st and 2nd if blocks fail but not the 3rd?
You misunderstood the error message.
A nullable expression can't be used as a condition.
means that you can't do:
bool? condition;
if (condition) {
...
}
Map<K, V>'s operator[] returns a V?. It returns a nullable type as a way of indicating failure when the key isn't found, and you need to check that the returned value isn't null, not that map itself is not null. For example:
if (map["key"] ?? false) {
...
}
Your third approach (which checks == true) works because it will perform a null == true equality check if the lookup returns null. However, you should prefer using ?? false since it conveys the intent better, and equality checks against true or false are usually a code smell.
The [] operator on Map can return null which makes it nullable which is explained in details here: https://dart.dev/null-safety/understanding-null-safety#the-map-index-operator-is-nullable
So your first example is invalid since null is not a bool. So you cannot directly use the value from the [] operator for a Map.
Your second example is invalid for the same reason since map["key1"] is bool?.
Third example works since null == true is always false. So it is fully valid to make a comparison which involves something which can be null.
I have tried creating stacks for recursive inorder,preorder,postoreder traversal for binary tree and I was doing it pretty well. In other cases like, for example, for a test case my answer should be 'true',say.And, for example,
boolean method(root)
{
// more code
method(root.left());
method(root.right());
}
,somewhere,the call of method(root.left()) returns false and a call of method(root.right()) returns true that should be our answer. But since call of method(root.left() ) completes first and somewhere, in between it's execution, it might have returned false. then how do we get our result true from method(root.right())?? I think it is related to how stacks are formed and values from a method are returned when recursive calls ,in this way, happen.Explain it and correct me if I am wrong.
You need to return values. The method need to make use of the returned values in its logic to stop/continue the search.
You need to have that the base cases return either true of false. Then when doing the first recursive call you need only do the first if the result is true. The second recursive call would be the result of the method if it's needed. Thus you are looking at something like this:
boolean method(root)
{
if( root == null ) { // base case 1
return false;
}
if( root.value == someValue ) { // base case 2, what should be a positive
return true;
}
// default search left first and return true if true
if( method(root.left()) ) {
return true;
}
// default search right and return true if true
if( method(root.right()) ){
return true;
}
// return false since neither recursive calls were true
return false;
}
This is very verbose and can be written like this instead:
boolean method(root)
{
return root != null && ( root.value == someValue ||
method(root.left()) ||
method(root.right()));
}
I find the last more readable but novices might find the more verbose first one to be more clear.
In both the callee resumes operation after the first recursive call (which might have had it's share of calls as well) and continues it's logic and recurses on the right side if needed.
Don't care about the system stack. Care about the base case and test them. Then do the simplest of added complexity to do the default case so that you see the problem becoming smaller in the recursive call(s). It's much better going from simple to more complex than to try figuring this stuff out by starting at a large tree looking at whats happening with a very deep recursive round.
My code is working fine if I don't use function.
declare function local:samlefamily(
$pers as xs:string?) as xs:string?
{
some stuff
};
if (exists(/*/FamilyRec/Child/Link[#Ref = "IN0099"]))
then
for $family in doc("family.xml") /*/FamilyRec
where $family/Child/Link[#Ref = "IN0099"]
return if (local:samlefamily(data($family/HusbFath/Link/#Ref))) then local:samlefamily(data($family/HusbFath/Link/#Ref)) else "na1"
else "na2"
But problem occurs when I tried to define function
declare function local:giveParent($pers as xs:string) as xs:string
{if (exists(/*/FamilyRec/Child/Link[#Ref = $pers]))
then
for $family in doc("gedcom.xml") /*/FamilyRec
where $family/Child/Link[#Ref = $pers]
return if (local:samlefamily(data($family/HusbFath/Link/#Ref))) then local:samlefamily(data($family/HusbFath/Link/#Ref)) else "na1"
else "na2"
};
I am getting error:
Description: Unexpected token "< eof >" in path expression
It is not occurring for passing parameter($pers). Even I use static ("IN0099") parameter to it, same error I am getting.
Can anyone please help? Can't I use If ... else in user defined function? Advanced thanks for your support
You need to have at least one non-function statement in the xquery file, i.e. add anything after the last semicolon
Otherwise your code looks fine
This example can be easily tested in the groovy console.
var a is evaluated to not null while b is evaluated to null.
Both are instances of org.codehaus.groovy.runtim.NullObject
def b = null
println b.getClass()
println b == null
def a = null.getClass().newInstance()
println a.getClass()
println a == null
Does anyone knows why?
This is a tricky thing when dealing with reflection code.
Actually I am wondering if this is not a bug. As an explanation... NullObject is a runtime/intermediate kind of Object. If you do anything on null, then NullObject is used. This, and the the implementation of NullObject#equals speaks for a==null returning true. It returns fails, because there is some internal code before that, that is for example determining if compareTo is called instead of equals and such things. Now this piece of code starts with
if (left == right) return true;
if (left == null || right == null) return false;
so null==null will return true, but NullObject==null will return false. On the other hand NullObject should not leak out if possible. Maybe we should fix newInstance() to return null.
I filled http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-5769 for this
In the equals method of NullObject, it only returns true if you are comparing it to null
As an instance of NullObject is not strictly null, it returns false...
Whether NullObject should return true if you call equals against another NullObject is probably a question best asked on the mailing list... I'll have a look and see if I can find any previous question.
Not sure if this makes sense, but I need to check if a server value returned is actually a number. Right now I get ALL number values returned as strings
ie '7' instead of 7.
What's the simplest way to check if string values can actually be converted to numbers?
The easiest way to do this is to actually convert the string to a Number and test to see if it's NaN. If you look at the Flex API reference, the top-level Number() function says it will return NaN if the string passed to the method cannot be converted to a Number.
Fortunately, Flex (sort of) does this for you, with the isNaN() function. All you need to do is:
var testFlag:Boolean = isNaN( someStringThatMightBeANumber );
If testFlag is false, the string can be converted to a number, otherwise it can't be converted.
Edit
The above will not work if compiling in strict mode. Instead, you will need to first convert to Number and then check for NaN, as follows:
var testFlag:Boolean = isNaN( Number( someStringThatMightBeANumber ) );
Haven't tested this, but this should work:
if( isNaN(theString) ) {
trace("it is a string");
} else {
trace("it is a number");
}
If you are using AS3 and/or strict mode (as pointed out by back2dos), you will need to convert to number first in order for it to compile:
if( isNaN(Number(theString)) ) {
trace("it is a string");
} else {
trace("it is a number");
}
Most of the answers on this question have a major flaw in them. If you take Number(null) or Number(undefined) or Number(""), all will return 0 and will evaluate to "is a number". Try something like this instead:
function isANumber( val:* ):Boolean {
return !(val === null || val === "" || isNaN(val));
}
RegExp path :
function stringIsAValidNumber(s: String) : Boolean {
return Boolean(s.match(/^[0-9]+.?[0-9]+$/));
}
Here is another way to check if value can be converted to a number:
var ob:Object = {a:'2',b:3,c:'string'};
for( var v:* in ob){
var nr:Number = ob[v];
trace(ob[v]+" "+(nr === Number(nr)))
}
this will trace following:
2 true
3 true
string false
You can notice that in actionscript :
trace(int('7')); // will return 7
and
trace(int('a')); // will return 0
So except for zeros, you can actually now if a string is a number or not
this will try to convert your String to a Number, which essentially is a 64 bit floating point number:
var val:Number = Number(sourceString);
if sourceString is not a valid String representation of a Number, val will be NaN (not a number) ... you have check against that value with isNaN ... because val == NaN will return false for a reason that can't quite understand ... you can use int(val) == val to check, whether it is an integral value ...
greetz
back2dos
Put this into any function where you want only numbers to stayjoy_edit1 is a TextInput Object (spark)
//is a number check
if( isNaN(Number(joy_edit1.text)) ) {
joy_edit1.text = "";
return void;
}
function isANumber(__str:String):Boolean
{
return !isNaN(Number(__str));
}
You should use the native solution of Adobe:
parseInt and parseFloat methods.
Also read the isNaN description:
Returns true if the value is NaN(not a number). The isNaN() function
is useful for checking whether a mathematical expression evaluates
successfully to a number. The most common use of isNaN() is to check
the value returned from the parseInt() and parseFloat() functions. The
NaN value is a special member of the Number data type that represents
a value that is "not a number."
Here is a simple implementation:
function isANumber(value:String):Boolean {
return !isNaN(parseFloat(value));
}
typeof('7') == 'string'
typeof(7) == 'number'
Does that help?