odeits wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:07 pm, Scott David Daniels <scott.dani...@acm.org> wrote:
>> odeits wrote:
>> > I am looking to clean up this code... any help is much appreciated.
>> > Note: It works just fine, I just think it could be done cleaner.
>>
>> > The result is a stack of dictionaries. the query returns up to
>> > STACK_SIZE ads for a user. The check which i think is very ugly is
>> > putting another contraint saying that all of the ni have to be the
>> > same.
>>
>> Well, the obvious way to get your constraint is by changing your SQL,
>> but if you are going to do it by fetching rows, try:
>>
>> FIELDS = 'ni adid rundateid rundate city state status'.split()
>> ni = UNSET = object() # use None unless None might be the value
>> stack = []
>> rows = self.con.execute(adquerystring,
>> (user,STACK_SIZE)).fetchall()
>> for row in rows:
>> ad = dict()
>> for field in FIELDS:
>> ad[field] = row[field]
>> for field in 'city', 'state':
>> if ad[field] is None:
>> ad[field] = 'None'
>> if ni != ad['ni']:
>> if ni is UNSET:
>> ni = ad['ni']
>> else:
>> break
>> stack.append(ad)
>>
>> --Scott David Daniels
>> scott.dani...@acm.org
>
> Taking from several suggestions this is what i have come up with for
> now:
>
> for row in ifilter(lambda r: r['ni'] == rows[0]['ni'],rows):
not sure what version of python you're using, but it would be more natural
in recent python to write that as:
for row in (r for r in rows if r['ni'] == rows[0]['ni']):
(the () create a generator for you).
andrew
> ad = dict()
>
> keys = row.keys() # if python 2.6
> keys =
> ['ni','adid','rundateid','rundate','city','state','status'] # if
> python 2.5
>
> for index in row.keys():
> if row[index] is None:
> ad[index] = 'None'
> else:
> ad[index] = row[index]
> stack.append(ad)
> print row
>
> the test to see if the ad is valid is placed in the ifilter so that I
> dont build the dictionary unnecessarily. and the None special case is
> fairly simple to read now. The None case would even be irrelevant if i
> could get the damn xmlrpc to allow null. sigh. anyhow. thanks for all
> of your input, it is definitely better than it was ;)
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
