I am a little confused as which way to test parameters. Here are two examples from source code posted below. First is this
if(!defined($DBHdl) || !defined($acct_no));
the way to test for undefined parameters?
Second, after assigning to a hashref
$ptMtrRecRef = $ptSelHdl->fetchrow_hashref;
is the best way to test for $ptMtrRecRef being defined to use
if(!$ptMtrRecRef)
or
if(!defined($ptMtrRecRef))?
###############################################################################
# Returns count of meters per account number.
# $PkNam -- package name discarded
# $DBHdl -- ICS database handle
# $acct_no -- water account number
sub mgbl_get_meter_count
{
my ($PkNam, $DBHdl, $acct_no) = #_;
die("mgbl_get_meter_count passed undef handles.\n")
if(!defined($DBHdl) || !defined($acct_no));
my $ptSelHdl;
my $ptMtrRecRef;
my $sql_statement =
"select count(*) from meter m where m.acct_no = ".$acct_no.";";
$ptSelHdl = $DBHdl->prepare($sql_statement);
die("Cannot prepare select count(*) from meter m\n")
if(!$ptSelHdl || !$ptSelHdl->execute);
$ptMtrRecRef = $ptSelHdl->fetchrow_hashref;
return $ptMtrRecRef;
}
$sth->fetchrow_hashref will either return undef or a reference to a hash. As such
if (defined($row))
and
if ($row)
are equivalent here. (undef is false, and reference is always true.) I opt for the simpler alternative.
Same idea for $dbh->prepare.
In the case of the code you posted, I would also do as ikegami said, and use the shorter form.
There are occasions when that isn't suitable, however, for example if a variable could have a legitimate value that would be treated as false if simply used in a true/false test. For example:
my $value = 0;
print "defined\n" if defined $value; # prints 'defined'
print "true\n" if $value; # does not print anything
Well , in perl script language, defined($a) is just a sub routine to test if $a is "undef",nothing else. So ,you will ask ,what is undef?
To be accurate, it is a perl subroutine ,the same as defined.But when it has no parameter, it can be considered as a perl-special scalar . For example , when you pop a value from an empty array ,it will return an undef.When you call subroutine "undef $b",then $b will become undef($b must be an left value),nothing else. Only in this case, defined($b) will return false.But if $c is an empty string like "" ,number zero ,or string "0" ,defined($c) will still return true;
But if you use a simple boolean expression instead of defined,it becomes totally different. A simple Boolean test will not distinguish among undef, zero, the empty string, and "0" .So , it absolutely depends on your pratical requirement when determining using defined() or just a boolean test.
Related
I have an existing function that checks if an input variable is defined, and returns true if it is equal to another variable, and returns false otherwise:
sub isVar1Valid {
my ($self, $var1) = #_;
my $var2 = "someValue";
return $var1 && $var1 eq $var2;
}
I'm writing unit tests for this function, and the expected output I'm looking for is false. In my unit test, I'm actually testing for 0. However, my test is failing because the above method is returning ' ', and that is not equal to 0.
My unit test looks something like.
my $actualOutput = isVar1Valid($input);
is($actualOutput, 0);
Should I be testing for ' ' as an expected output in my unit test instead? Or should I be returning 0 in my main function instead?
This is my first time working with Perl, so any guidance is appreciated.
If $var1 is false, the sub will return the value of $var1.
If $var1 is true, but different than $var2, the sub will return a scalar that contains the integer 0, the floating point number 0 and the empty string.
But I wouldn't check for any of those values explicitly. They're all legit values, and it's too complicated to check for each one.
Instead, you should normalize.
is(isVar1Valid($input) ? 1 : 0, 0);
Better yet, use ok instead of is.
ok(!isVar1Valid($input));
By the way, note that the following construct is a little weird:
$var1 && $var1 eq $var2
The purpose of the first check is probably to avoid an "uninitialized" warning. If so, it would be best to communicate that to the reader by using the following instead:
defined($var1) && $var1 eq $var2
This is important because the second version isn't equivalent to the second if $var2 can be false.
Hi I am writing a perl script to accomplish some task.In my script I am using one if loop to compare two strings as shown below.
if($feed_type eq "SE"){
...........}
The above code is not giving me any warning but the output is not as I expected.
Instead of 'eq' if I use '=' I am getting a warning saying expectng '==' but '=' is present. But I am getting the expected output.
Ideally for string comparison I must use 'eq' and for numbers '=='. In this case it's not working. Can anyone figure out what is the problem here?
More info:
This if loop is present in a subroutine. $feed_type is an input for this subroutine. I am reading the input as below:
my $feed_type=#_;
The problem is fixed. I just changed the assignemet statement of feed_type as below
my $feed_type=$_[0];
and it's reading the value as SE and the code is working.
but I still dont know why my $feed_type=$_[0]; didn't work.
= might well work in place of eq, but not for the reason you think.
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $test = "fish";
my $compare = "carrot";
if ( $test = $compare ) {
print "It worked\n";
}
Of course, the problem is - it'll always work, because you're testing the result of an assignment operation.*
* OK, sometimes assignment operations don't work - this is why some coding styles suggest testing if ( 2 == $result ) rather than the other way around.
This is about a core Perl concept: Context. Operators and functions work differently depending on context. In this case:
my $feed_type = #_;
You are assigning an array in scalar context to the variable. An array in scalar context returns its size, not the elements in it. For this assignment to work as you expect, you have to either directly access the scalar value you want, like you have suggested:
my $feed_type = $_[0];
...or you can put your variable in list context by adding parentheses:
my ($feed_type) = #_;
This has the benefit of allowing you to perform complex assignments, like this:
my ($first, $second, #rest) = #_;
So, in short, the problem was that your comparison that looked like this:
if($feed_type eq "SE")
Was actually doing this:
if(1 eq "SE")
And returning false. Which is true. Consider this self-documenting code:
sub foo {
my $size = #_;
if ($size == 1) {
warn "You passed 1 argument to 'foo'\n";
return;
}
}
Which demonstrates the functionality you inadvertently used.
= is used to assign the variable a value, so you would need '==' to compare numerical values and 'eq' for strings.
If it's complaining about not using '==', then it's because $feed_type is not a string.
I can't tell as there's no more code. Whatever $feed_type is set by you need to confirm it actually contains a string or if you're even referencing it correctly.
I am a little confused as which way to test parameters. Here are two examples from source code posted below. First is this
if(!defined($DBHdl) || !defined($acct_no));
the way to test for undefined parameters?
Second, after assigning to a hashref
$ptMtrRecRef = $ptSelHdl->fetchrow_hashref;
is the best way to test for $ptMtrRecRef being defined to use
if(!$ptMtrRecRef)
or
if(!defined($ptMtrRecRef))?
###############################################################################
# Returns count of meters per account number.
# $PkNam -- package name discarded
# $DBHdl -- ICS database handle
# $acct_no -- water account number
sub mgbl_get_meter_count
{
my ($PkNam, $DBHdl, $acct_no) = #_;
die("mgbl_get_meter_count passed undef handles.\n")
if(!defined($DBHdl) || !defined($acct_no));
my $ptSelHdl;
my $ptMtrRecRef;
my $sql_statement =
"select count(*) from meter m where m.acct_no = ".$acct_no.";";
$ptSelHdl = $DBHdl->prepare($sql_statement);
die("Cannot prepare select count(*) from meter m\n")
if(!$ptSelHdl || !$ptSelHdl->execute);
$ptMtrRecRef = $ptSelHdl->fetchrow_hashref;
return $ptMtrRecRef;
}
$sth->fetchrow_hashref will either return undef or a reference to a hash. As such
if (defined($row))
and
if ($row)
are equivalent here. (undef is false, and reference is always true.) I opt for the simpler alternative.
Same idea for $dbh->prepare.
In the case of the code you posted, I would also do as ikegami said, and use the shorter form.
There are occasions when that isn't suitable, however, for example if a variable could have a legitimate value that would be treated as false if simply used in a true/false test. For example:
my $value = 0;
print "defined\n" if defined $value; # prints 'defined'
print "true\n" if $value; # does not print anything
Well , in perl script language, defined($a) is just a sub routine to test if $a is "undef",nothing else. So ,you will ask ,what is undef?
To be accurate, it is a perl subroutine ,the same as defined.But when it has no parameter, it can be considered as a perl-special scalar . For example , when you pop a value from an empty array ,it will return an undef.When you call subroutine "undef $b",then $b will become undef($b must be an left value),nothing else. Only in this case, defined($b) will return false.But if $c is an empty string like "" ,number zero ,or string "0" ,defined($c) will still return true;
But if you use a simple boolean expression instead of defined,it becomes totally different. A simple Boolean test will not distinguish among undef, zero, the empty string, and "0" .So , it absolutely depends on your pratical requirement when determining using defined() or just a boolean test.
I am trying to fetch certain column from a table , some of the column might have the null value.Hence before filling my main data, I am checking the hash for null value.As some of the key is having null value and giving warning.
Is there any way to check if the hash key has no value in it to prevent warning.
my $counter = 1;
while ( my $hashRef = $queryHandle1->fetchrow_hashref) {
foreach my $key (keys %{$hashRef} ) {
if ( $hashRef->{$key} ne "" ) { #some of the coloumn of table has null value
#warning is coming for the if check
$dbData{$counter}{$key} = $hashRef->{$key};
}
else {
$dbData{$counter}{$key} = "";
}
}
$counter++;
}
Sure there is: the defined function.
if (defined $hashRef->{$key}) {...}
Or, since undef evaluates to false, you can use the short-circuiting OR operator to assign something else in one step without an explicit check.
$dbData{$counter}{$key} = $hashRef->{$key} || '';
Update:
As suggested by the comments, the one-liner is dangerous if you have 0 values which also evaluate to false. So you can do this instead:
$dbData{$counter}{$key} = defined $hashRef->{$key} ? $hashRef->{$key} : '';
If testing for the value behaves as you like and you simply want to silence the warning, you can use no warnings 'uninitialized' in a small scope around your test. This is one of the least important warnings categories IMO; in fact I would almost call this a debugging feature rather than a proper warning.
That said, if what you are testing for is if the value is defined, you should use the defined function as stevenl suggests.
Edit
I'm not sure what the downvote is for, but let me echo a sentiment that is common around some of the Perl world. warnings (and strict for that matter) are great and should always be used, except when you know why to turn some small part of them off for a certain reason. Sometimes uninitialized values should be falsey and silent and that's ok. When you know that's what you want, just turn it off rather than jumping through || '' hoops; its more self-documenting.
I had an earlier question that received the following response from the noted Perl expert, Perl author and Perl trainer brian d foy:
[If] you're looking for a fixed sequence of characters at the end of each filename. You want to know if that fixed sequence is in a list of sequences that interest you. Store all the extensions in a hash and look in that hash:
my( $extension ) = $filename =~ m/\.([^.]+)$/;
if( exists $hash{$extension} ) { ... }
You don't need to build up a regular expression, and you don't need to go through several possible regex alternations to check every extension you have to examine.
Thanks for the advice brian.
What I now want to know is what is the best practice in a case like the above. Should one only define the keys, which is all I need to achieve what's described above, or should one always define a value as well?
It's usually preferable to set a defined value for every key. The idiomatic value (when you don't care about the value) is 1.
my %hash = map { $_ => 1 } #array;
Doing it this way makes the code the uses the hash slightly simpler because you can use $hash{key} as a Boolean value. If the value can be undefined you need to use the more verbose exists $hash{key} instead.
That said, there are situations where a value of undef is desirable. For example: imagine that you're parsing C header files to extract preprocessor symbols. It would be logical to store these in a hash of name => value pairs.
#define FOO 1
#define BAR
In Perl, this would map to:
my %symbols = ( FOO => 1, BAR => undef);
In C a #define defines a symbol, not a value -- "defined" in C is mapped to "exists" in Perl.
You can't create a hash key without a value. The value can be undef but it will be there. How else would you construct a hash. Or was your question regarding whether the value can be undef? In which case I would say that the value you store there (undef, 1, 0...) is entirely up to you. If a lot of folks are using it then you probably want to store some true value though incase some one else uses if ($hash{$extension}) {...} instead of exists because they weren't paying attention.
undef is a value.
Of course, stuff like that is always depndent on what you are currently doing. But $foo{bar} is just a variable like $bar and I don't see any reason why either one should not be undef every now and then.
PS:
That's why exists exists.
As others have said, the idiomatic solution for a hashset (a hash that only contains keys, not values) is to use 1 as the value because this makes the testing for existence easy. However, there is something to be said for using undef as the value. It will force the users to test for existence with exists which is marginally faster. Of course, you could test for existence with exists even when the value is 1 and avoid the inevitable bugs from users who forget to use exists.
Using undef as a value in hash is more memory efficient than storing 1.
Storing '1' in a Set-hash Considered Harmful
I know using Considered Harmful is considered harmful, but this is bad, almost as bad as unrestrained goto usage.
Ok, I've harped on this in a few comments, but I think I need a full response to demonstrate the issue.
Let's say we have a daemon process that provides back-end inventory control for a shop that sells widgets.
my #items = qw(
widget
thingy
whozit
whatsit
);
my #items_in_stock = qw(
widget
thingy
);
my %in_stock;
my #in_stock(#items_in_stock) = (1) x #items_in_stock; #initialize all keys to 1
sub Process_Request {
my $request = shift;
if( $request eq REORDER ) {
Reorder_Items(\#items, \%in_stock);
}
else {
Error_Response( ILLEGAL_REQUEST );
}
}
sub Reorder_Items{
my $items = shift;
my $in_stock = shift;
# Order items we do not have in-stock.
for my $item ( #$items ) {
Reorder_Item( $item )
if not exists $in_stock->{$item};
}
}
The tool is great, it automatically keeps items in stock. Very nice. Now, the boss asks for automatically generated catalogs of in-stock items. So we modify Process_Request() and add catalog generation.
sub Process_Request {
my $request = shift;
if( $request eq REORDER ) {
Reorder_Items(\#items, \%in_stock);
}
if( $request eq CATALOG ) {
Build_Catalog(\#items, \%in_stock);
}
else {
Error_Response( ILLEGAL_REQUEST );
}
}
sub Build_Catalog {
my $items = shift;
my $in_stock = shift;
my $catalog_response = '';
foreach my $item ( #$items ) {
$catalog_response .= Catalog_Item($item)
if $in_stock->{$item};
}
return $catalog_response;
}
In testing, Build_Catalog() works fine. Hooray, we go live with the app.
Oops. For some reason nothing is being ordered, the company runs out of stock of everything.
The Build_Catalog() routine adds keys to %in_stock, so Reorder_Items() now sees everything as in stock and never makes an order.
Using Hash::Util's lock_hash can help prevent accidental hash modification. If we locked %in_stock before calling Build_Catalog() we would have gotten a fatal error and would never have gone live with the bug.
In summary, it is best to test existence of keys rather than truth of your set-hash values. If you are using existence as a signifier, don't set your values to '1' because that will mask bugs and make them harder to track. Using lock_hash can help catch these problems.
If you must check for the truth of the values, do so in every case.