Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 months ago.
Improve this question
menu2:
WriteLine("New category");
WriteLine("***************************");
WriteLine();
Write("Name: ");
string categoryName = ReadLine();
WriteLine("Is this correct? (Y)es (N)o");
Category category = new Category(categoryName);
do
{
userInput = ReadKey(true);
invalidSelection = !(userInput.Key == ConsoleKey.Y ||
userInput.Key == ConsoleKey.N);
}
while (invalidSelection);
var categoryExist = categoryList.Any(x => x.CategoryName == categoryName);
switch (userInput.Key)
{
case ConsoleKey.Y:
{
if (!categoryExist)
{
categoryList.Add(category);
Clear();
WriteLine("Category created!");
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
else
{
Clear();
WriteLine("Category already exist");
Thread.Sleep(2000);
Clear();
}
break;
}
case ConsoleKey.N:
Clear();
goto menu2;
}
break;
I'm kinda new to programming and I've realized that people reaaalllyy don't like "goto"-methods. What else can i use? For example, in the code, the user inputs a category, and is then asked wether he/she typed in the category name correctly if YES then we add it if NO then u jump back to Name and have to type it in one more time. How could I do this without having to use go-to method?
You already use the same thing in your code - a do-while loop will do nicely.
It also helps to separate your code into logical blocks "hidden" in methods. That can help the readability of code like this, where you have distinct menus - instead of having a long block of code with multiple gotos, you can keep each level of the menu as its own method, and each call can be surrounded by a loop (or the method itself, depending on your preference).
Methods also give you the option to use return, which in many similar cases serves as a good replacement for goto-using code.
As you get deeper into understanding C#, new options for simplification and/or abstraction open up. For example, you can replace multiple occurrences of the same (logical) loop with functions or classes/interfaces. No rush, though :)
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I need to make a program that grades student tests. I'm trying to find a way to use loops and not write out a lot of variables. I thought I could use a switch statement then put an if statement inside of it.
For example, in the loop, if the student's answer for question one equals c then add 1 to the counter, but for some reason my code doesn't work.
int Counter = 0;
string StudAns;
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
Console.Write("Students answer for question {0}: ");
StudAns = Console.ReadLine();
switch (i)
{
case '1':
if (StudAns == "c")
{
Counter++;
}
default:
break;
}
}
There are many problems with your code, but answering the question itself, i is a number, not a character. Change your switch case to the following instead:
case 1: // not '1'
That will highlight the next problem, you're missing a break; before your default case.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I solved this codility test with the following code:
private static int lesson2_1(int[] A) {
if (!Isvalid(A))
{
return -1;
}
List<int> d = A.Distinct().ToList();
foreach (var item in d)
{
var q = from one in A where one == item select one;
if (q.Count() == 1)
{
return item;
}
}
return -1;
}
private static bool Isvalid(int[] a)
{
if (a.Length == 0)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
These are the results:
I do not know how to approach this, since I have not learned yet about complexity. Can someone please guide me to the right approach to this issue?
Many thanks
My advice - don't reinvent the wheel. .Net has a lot built into it. Chances are unless you have specialist requirements Microsoft will be able to implement it better than you. The following gets a 100% score:
using System;
using System.Linq;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
return A.GroupBy(a => a).First(a => a.Count() %2 == 1).Key;
}
}
There are a few issues with your solution.
1) You aren't following the test spec. It states
all but one of the values in A occur an even number of times.
That means that the number you are looking for could occur, 3,5,7,etc. times - you are just checking for 1.
2) The time complexity of your solution is poor. You are looping through every item and doing a search for each item within every loop. This isn't necessary if you think about it. You will have to go through every item in the list but if you process it as you go along you effectively only have to go through each item once and then the buckets of each item once.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am using C# with the Selenium Webdriver. I want to break the loop if the 'if' condition isn't met. My code is below. If the 'if' condition is met I want to continue the loop until it isn't.
for (int i = 0; i < Numara.Items.Count; i++)
{
driveri.Navigate().GoToUrl("https://web.whatsapp.com/send?phone=" + Numara.Items[i].ToString() + "&text=");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Actions act = new Actions(driveri);
Thread.Sleep(500);
IReadOnlyCollection<IWebElement> rows = driveri.FindElements(By.XPath("//*[#id=\"app\"]/div/span[3]/div/div/div/div/div/div/div[2]/div"));
if (rows == null)
{
...continuation
}
else
{
...if there is an error
rows.ElementAt(0).Click();
}
}
}
This is what you are asking for
if (rows == null)
{
continue;
}
else
{
rows.ElementAt(0).Click();
break;
}
However it'd be better code practice and more efficient to use a while loop implementation instead;
IReadOnlyCollection<IWebElement> rows = null;
bool rowsFound = false;
while (!rowsFound)
{
rows = driveri.FindElements(By.XPath("//*[#id=\"app\"]/div/span[3]/div/div/div/div/div/div/div[2]/div"));
if(rows!=null)
{
rowsFound = true;
}
}
rows.ElementAt(0).Click();
On an unrelated topic, it's also bad practice to be using Thread.Sleep(), unless absolutely necessary. Most, if not all the time you will want to use WebDriverWait implementation. You can find out more about that here: https://seleniumhq.github.io/selenium/docs/api/dotnet/html/T_OpenQA_Selenium_Support_UI_WebDriverWait.htm
The OP's issue description is quite confusing
I want to use selenium in c # to close the loop if it fails.
If the error comes out, I want to click on the link and continue the
loop.
If you want to end the loop immediately after encountering an error, use break.
Using continue on the other hand will skip the remaining statements and will go to the next iteration of your loop.
else
{
...if there is an error
rows.ElementAt(0).Click();
break;
}
Away from the topic though , I just noticed your Absolute XPATH usage. Using absolute is not really advisable, be better to use relative-concise and short xpath. An update to webapp, will surely break your xpath's of your script.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to assert whether two or more strings are evident. My code currently only looks for "Good". Is there a way to look for "Good" or "Bad"?
public class Test
{
public static bool FindText()
{
var conf = Driver.Instance.FindElement(By.Id("foo"));
if (conf.Text.Contains("Good"))
{
return true;
}
throw new Exception("Text not found");
}
}
I would use System.Linq and check against all elements of an array, if there could possibly be more than two valid strings.
public class Test
{
public static bool FindText()
{
var stringsToFind = new [] { "Good", "Bad" };
var conf = Driver.Instance.FindElement(By.Id("foo"));
if (stringsToFind.Any(s => conf.Text.Contains(s))
{
return true;
}
throw new Exception("Text not found");
}
}
for only two elements to check I would propably just extend the if condition with a second condition and an or.
When trying to find a string, always make the string variable to upper or lower case. Since it's case sensitive, when the text is "GoOd", you won't find a match looking for "Good"
if(conf.Text.ToUpper().Contains("GOOD")){
//do something
}
else if(conf.Text.ToUpper().Contains("BAD")){
//do something else
}
You could also put then in only one "if" statement, if you're only interested in finding out if there's any of those by using
if(conf.Text.ToUpper().Contains("GOOD") || conf.Text.ToUpper().Contains("BAD")){
//do something for both cases
}
|| is the operator for the OR operation
if (conf.Text.Contains("Good") || conf.Text.Contains("Bad"))
PD : Stop whatever you are doing and take a look to the language docs, you need to understand what are you doing.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
By seeing this solution specified in Divide Foreach into threads sample
I tried to implement it with this code:
foreach (Object vo in arrreclist)
{
msg = String.Empty;
objprocess.GetType().GetMethod("ProcessRecord").Invoke(objprocess, new Object[] { vo });
status = (StatusInfo)objprocess.GetType().GetProperty("status").GetValue(objprocess, null);
if (status.errcode != 0)
{
lngfailedcnt++;
WriteErrorLog();
}
else
{
lngsuccesscnt++;
lngInstanceSuccCount++;
}
lngcnt++;
if ((lngcnt % 10) == 0)
{
if (instanceId == 0)
{
schldr.ModifyJobhistoryForUploadFileRecCnt(Runid, (int)lngTotreccnt, lngfailedcnt, (int)(lngfailedcnt + lngsuccesscnt));
}
else
{
schldr.ModifyJobhistoryForUploadFileRecCnt(Runid, 0, lngfailedcnt, (int)(lngfailedcnt + lngsuccesscnt));
}
status = schldr.status;
if (status.errcode != 0)
{
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(Errorlogfile))
WriteErrorLog();
holdInstance = true;
break;
}
//Get Job Status
//If job was terminated then Update Batch and Job history with status as STOPPED
intstatus = schedulersvc.GetJobStatus(Runid);
status = schedulersvc.status;
if (status.errcode != 0)
{
WriteErrorLog();
holdInstance = true;
break;
}
if (intstatus == 1) //STOPPED
{
holdInstance = true;
break;
}
lngcnt = 0;
}
}
And error message is coming for break statement:
cannot leave the body of anonymous method or lambda expression
My major task is to parallelize the following line:
objprocess.GetType().GetMethod("ProcessRecord").Invoke(objprocess, new Object[] { vo })
But other are dependents so how to implement?
First, parallelization often doesn't make sense in ASP.NET. If you have many users accessing your site, you usually care more about scalability (how many users can you serve at the same time), than raw performance for single user.
If that's not your case, parallelization might make sense for you.
Second, you're getting that error, because Parallel.ForEach() is not a loop (as far as the language is concerned). And breaking out of a lambda doesn't make any sense.
To break out of Parallel.ForEach(), you can use ParallelLoopState.Break() or ParallelLoopState.Stop() (read the documentation to find out which one of those do you actually want). To do this, you will need to use an overload of Parallel.ForEach() that gives you that ParallelLoopState.
Third, there is a good reason why Parallel.ForEach() doesn't support ArrayList: it's because you should never use it. If you really want a list of objects, use List<object> to make it clear that you really don't know the type. If you can't (or don't want to) change the ArrayList, you can use .Cast<object>() to make Parallel.ForEach() (and other methods that work with IEnumerable<T>) accept it.
Fourth, I think that parallelizing just the ProcessRecord doesn't make sense. It looks like status returns the status for the last ProcessRecord. And if you execute ProcessRecord in parallel, then it's not clear anymore which one is the last.
Also, you shouldn't think that some method is not thread-safe. You should know that. If you parallelize something that you don't know is thread-safe, you're likely to get hard to debug bugs later on.
Fifth, if you want to parallelize just the first part of a loop, I think the best option is PLINQ. Something like:
var intermediateResults = source.AsParallel().Select(x => Process(x));
foreach (var intermediateResult in intermediateResults)
{
// the rest of the loop
}