Assigning projects in order of priority
$begingroup$
Let's assume we have the following situation:
- Multiple project topics exist, each corresponding to a natural number
n
, - students can sign in and choose two projects and give them either
priority_1
orpriority_2
, - The name and the time when they sign in is tracked as well.
With all of the information above assume you receive data in the from of a txt
-file looking like this
Martin 16:46:32 8 19
Alice 15:22:56 8 12
Alex 17:23:11 19 1
John 19:02:11 11 13
Phillip 19:03:11 11 13
Diego 15:23:57 14 5
Jack 16:46:45 8 3
where the columns represent the name
, time
, priority 1
and priority 2
in this order. You can assume that all of them signed in on the same day and students which signed in first have a higher priority in comparison to the others.
I wanted to write a program that takes this txt
-file as input and returns a txt
-file with output
Name Assigned Project
Alice 8
Diego 14
Martin 19
Jack 3
Alex 1
John 11
Phillip 13
The solution I came up with looks like this:
import numpy as np
dat = np.genfromtxt("data.txt", dtype="str")
class person:
def __init__(self, name, time, prio1, prio2):
self.name = name
sp = time.split(":")
t = sp[0]*3600 + sp[1]*60 + sp[2]
self.time = t
self.prio1 = prio1
self.prio2 = prio2
names = dat[:, 0]
time = dat[:, 1]
prio1 = dat[:, 2]
prio2 = dat[:, 3]
people =
for i,j,k,l in zip(names, time, prio1, prio2):
people.append(person(i,j,k,l))
people_sorted_time = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
for j in range(k + 1, len(people_sorted_time)):
if people_sorted_time[k].prio1 == people_sorted_time[j].prio1:
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
res = open("results","w")
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
res.write(people_sorted_time[k].name + "t"
+ people_sorted_time[k].prio1 + "n")
The code seems to work fine, but I'm not sure if I actually was able to take care of all edge-cases. I'm also not sure if this is really a efficient way to solve the problem, I rarely code stuff like that (mostly computational physics stuff), and would appreciate any kind of suggestions on how one could improve the code in general.
EDIT: What I realized after some thinking is that it would probably be quite hard do implement further priority
variables (like prio 3
, prio 4
, etc.). If someone could suggest a better way of deciding how to assign the projects in terms of priority, I'd be glad to see it.
python python-3.x
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume we have the following situation:
- Multiple project topics exist, each corresponding to a natural number
n
, - students can sign in and choose two projects and give them either
priority_1
orpriority_2
, - The name and the time when they sign in is tracked as well.
With all of the information above assume you receive data in the from of a txt
-file looking like this
Martin 16:46:32 8 19
Alice 15:22:56 8 12
Alex 17:23:11 19 1
John 19:02:11 11 13
Phillip 19:03:11 11 13
Diego 15:23:57 14 5
Jack 16:46:45 8 3
where the columns represent the name
, time
, priority 1
and priority 2
in this order. You can assume that all of them signed in on the same day and students which signed in first have a higher priority in comparison to the others.
I wanted to write a program that takes this txt
-file as input and returns a txt
-file with output
Name Assigned Project
Alice 8
Diego 14
Martin 19
Jack 3
Alex 1
John 11
Phillip 13
The solution I came up with looks like this:
import numpy as np
dat = np.genfromtxt("data.txt", dtype="str")
class person:
def __init__(self, name, time, prio1, prio2):
self.name = name
sp = time.split(":")
t = sp[0]*3600 + sp[1]*60 + sp[2]
self.time = t
self.prio1 = prio1
self.prio2 = prio2
names = dat[:, 0]
time = dat[:, 1]
prio1 = dat[:, 2]
prio2 = dat[:, 3]
people =
for i,j,k,l in zip(names, time, prio1, prio2):
people.append(person(i,j,k,l))
people_sorted_time = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
for j in range(k + 1, len(people_sorted_time)):
if people_sorted_time[k].prio1 == people_sorted_time[j].prio1:
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
res = open("results","w")
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
res.write(people_sorted_time[k].name + "t"
+ people_sorted_time[k].prio1 + "n")
The code seems to work fine, but I'm not sure if I actually was able to take care of all edge-cases. I'm also not sure if this is really a efficient way to solve the problem, I rarely code stuff like that (mostly computational physics stuff), and would appreciate any kind of suggestions on how one could improve the code in general.
EDIT: What I realized after some thinking is that it would probably be quite hard do implement further priority
variables (like prio 3
, prio 4
, etc.). If someone could suggest a better way of deciding how to assign the projects in terms of priority, I'd be glad to see it.
python python-3.x
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume we have the following situation:
- Multiple project topics exist, each corresponding to a natural number
n
, - students can sign in and choose two projects and give them either
priority_1
orpriority_2
, - The name and the time when they sign in is tracked as well.
With all of the information above assume you receive data in the from of a txt
-file looking like this
Martin 16:46:32 8 19
Alice 15:22:56 8 12
Alex 17:23:11 19 1
John 19:02:11 11 13
Phillip 19:03:11 11 13
Diego 15:23:57 14 5
Jack 16:46:45 8 3
where the columns represent the name
, time
, priority 1
and priority 2
in this order. You can assume that all of them signed in on the same day and students which signed in first have a higher priority in comparison to the others.
I wanted to write a program that takes this txt
-file as input and returns a txt
-file with output
Name Assigned Project
Alice 8
Diego 14
Martin 19
Jack 3
Alex 1
John 11
Phillip 13
The solution I came up with looks like this:
import numpy as np
dat = np.genfromtxt("data.txt", dtype="str")
class person:
def __init__(self, name, time, prio1, prio2):
self.name = name
sp = time.split(":")
t = sp[0]*3600 + sp[1]*60 + sp[2]
self.time = t
self.prio1 = prio1
self.prio2 = prio2
names = dat[:, 0]
time = dat[:, 1]
prio1 = dat[:, 2]
prio2 = dat[:, 3]
people =
for i,j,k,l in zip(names, time, prio1, prio2):
people.append(person(i,j,k,l))
people_sorted_time = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
for j in range(k + 1, len(people_sorted_time)):
if people_sorted_time[k].prio1 == people_sorted_time[j].prio1:
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
res = open("results","w")
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
res.write(people_sorted_time[k].name + "t"
+ people_sorted_time[k].prio1 + "n")
The code seems to work fine, but I'm not sure if I actually was able to take care of all edge-cases. I'm also not sure if this is really a efficient way to solve the problem, I rarely code stuff like that (mostly computational physics stuff), and would appreciate any kind of suggestions on how one could improve the code in general.
EDIT: What I realized after some thinking is that it would probably be quite hard do implement further priority
variables (like prio 3
, prio 4
, etc.). If someone could suggest a better way of deciding how to assign the projects in terms of priority, I'd be glad to see it.
python python-3.x
$endgroup$
Let's assume we have the following situation:
- Multiple project topics exist, each corresponding to a natural number
n
, - students can sign in and choose two projects and give them either
priority_1
orpriority_2
, - The name and the time when they sign in is tracked as well.
With all of the information above assume you receive data in the from of a txt
-file looking like this
Martin 16:46:32 8 19
Alice 15:22:56 8 12
Alex 17:23:11 19 1
John 19:02:11 11 13
Phillip 19:03:11 11 13
Diego 15:23:57 14 5
Jack 16:46:45 8 3
where the columns represent the name
, time
, priority 1
and priority 2
in this order. You can assume that all of them signed in on the same day and students which signed in first have a higher priority in comparison to the others.
I wanted to write a program that takes this txt
-file as input and returns a txt
-file with output
Name Assigned Project
Alice 8
Diego 14
Martin 19
Jack 3
Alex 1
John 11
Phillip 13
The solution I came up with looks like this:
import numpy as np
dat = np.genfromtxt("data.txt", dtype="str")
class person:
def __init__(self, name, time, prio1, prio2):
self.name = name
sp = time.split(":")
t = sp[0]*3600 + sp[1]*60 + sp[2]
self.time = t
self.prio1 = prio1
self.prio2 = prio2
names = dat[:, 0]
time = dat[:, 1]
prio1 = dat[:, 2]
prio2 = dat[:, 3]
people =
for i,j,k,l in zip(names, time, prio1, prio2):
people.append(person(i,j,k,l))
people_sorted_time = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
for j in range(k + 1, len(people_sorted_time)):
if people_sorted_time[k].prio1 == people_sorted_time[j].prio1:
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
res = open("results","w")
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for k in range(len(people_sorted_time)):
res.write(people_sorted_time[k].name + "t"
+ people_sorted_time[k].prio1 + "n")
The code seems to work fine, but I'm not sure if I actually was able to take care of all edge-cases. I'm also not sure if this is really a efficient way to solve the problem, I rarely code stuff like that (mostly computational physics stuff), and would appreciate any kind of suggestions on how one could improve the code in general.
EDIT: What I realized after some thinking is that it would probably be quite hard do implement further priority
variables (like prio 3
, prio 4
, etc.). If someone could suggest a better way of deciding how to assign the projects in terms of priority, I'd be glad to see it.
python python-3.x
python python-3.x
edited Dec 15 '18 at 21:34
Sito
asked Dec 15 '18 at 18:24
SitoSito
1405
1405
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are two issues I personally dislike very much.
Messing with date/time using homebrew algorithm and math
While looking easy to handle time/date are by far more complcated to handle than you ever can think of. Timezones, locals, leap years and so on. When doing time/date math and/or serialisation/deserialisation always(!) go for a library. For python this is datetime
When the code is lying to me when I'm reading it as natural language
With lying I mean your line
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
This is not true. The person clearly stated a first priority project. When you change that value as an algorithmic side effect you immediatly break data integrity. Your person suddenly has both priorities on the same project. You even got yourself tricked. What happens, when a person got the first prio project taken away and later the second one as well?
Other issues
There is no need to have people_sorted_time
, as you never refer to the read order again. Just do
people = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
Never loop over range(len(something)
, always try to loop over the elements directly. Your output loop rewrites (still lying about prio1) to
for p in people:
res.write(p.name + "t" + p.prio1 + "n")
You use numpy only for reading a file, then convert back to standard python. This is a fail. Read with python directly.
with open("data.txt") as infile:
lines = infile.readlines()
people = [Person(*line.split()) for line in lines]
You need time for comparison only. There is no need to mess with it, string comparison will do.
self.time = time
Do not modify the people data but maintain a set of available projects
prio1_projects = set(p.prio1 for p in people)
prio2_projects = set(p.prio2 for p in people)
projects_available = prio1_projects | prio2_projects
When assigning projects we do it like
people = sorted(people, key = lambda p: p.time)
assignments =
for p in people:
if p.prio1 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio1
elif p.prio2 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio2
else:
proj = None
assignments.append(proj)
if proj is not None:
projects_available.remove(proj)
Note the new None
case.
The output code
with open("results","w") as res:
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for p, a in zip(people, assignments):
res.write(p.name + "t" + str(a) + "n")
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop overrange(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is alist
(which is indexable, sorange(len(x))
would work), aset
(where you cannot use an index, but at leastlen(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even knowlen(x)
). Doingfor x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f209729%2fassigning-projects-in-order-of-priority%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are two issues I personally dislike very much.
Messing with date/time using homebrew algorithm and math
While looking easy to handle time/date are by far more complcated to handle than you ever can think of. Timezones, locals, leap years and so on. When doing time/date math and/or serialisation/deserialisation always(!) go for a library. For python this is datetime
When the code is lying to me when I'm reading it as natural language
With lying I mean your line
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
This is not true. The person clearly stated a first priority project. When you change that value as an algorithmic side effect you immediatly break data integrity. Your person suddenly has both priorities on the same project. You even got yourself tricked. What happens, when a person got the first prio project taken away and later the second one as well?
Other issues
There is no need to have people_sorted_time
, as you never refer to the read order again. Just do
people = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
Never loop over range(len(something)
, always try to loop over the elements directly. Your output loop rewrites (still lying about prio1) to
for p in people:
res.write(p.name + "t" + p.prio1 + "n")
You use numpy only for reading a file, then convert back to standard python. This is a fail. Read with python directly.
with open("data.txt") as infile:
lines = infile.readlines()
people = [Person(*line.split()) for line in lines]
You need time for comparison only. There is no need to mess with it, string comparison will do.
self.time = time
Do not modify the people data but maintain a set of available projects
prio1_projects = set(p.prio1 for p in people)
prio2_projects = set(p.prio2 for p in people)
projects_available = prio1_projects | prio2_projects
When assigning projects we do it like
people = sorted(people, key = lambda p: p.time)
assignments =
for p in people:
if p.prio1 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio1
elif p.prio2 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio2
else:
proj = None
assignments.append(proj)
if proj is not None:
projects_available.remove(proj)
Note the new None
case.
The output code
with open("results","w") as res:
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for p, a in zip(people, assignments):
res.write(p.name + "t" + str(a) + "n")
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop overrange(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is alist
(which is indexable, sorange(len(x))
would work), aset
(where you cannot use an index, but at leastlen(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even knowlen(x)
). Doingfor x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues I personally dislike very much.
Messing with date/time using homebrew algorithm and math
While looking easy to handle time/date are by far more complcated to handle than you ever can think of. Timezones, locals, leap years and so on. When doing time/date math and/or serialisation/deserialisation always(!) go for a library. For python this is datetime
When the code is lying to me when I'm reading it as natural language
With lying I mean your line
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
This is not true. The person clearly stated a first priority project. When you change that value as an algorithmic side effect you immediatly break data integrity. Your person suddenly has both priorities on the same project. You even got yourself tricked. What happens, when a person got the first prio project taken away and later the second one as well?
Other issues
There is no need to have people_sorted_time
, as you never refer to the read order again. Just do
people = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
Never loop over range(len(something)
, always try to loop over the elements directly. Your output loop rewrites (still lying about prio1) to
for p in people:
res.write(p.name + "t" + p.prio1 + "n")
You use numpy only for reading a file, then convert back to standard python. This is a fail. Read with python directly.
with open("data.txt") as infile:
lines = infile.readlines()
people = [Person(*line.split()) for line in lines]
You need time for comparison only. There is no need to mess with it, string comparison will do.
self.time = time
Do not modify the people data but maintain a set of available projects
prio1_projects = set(p.prio1 for p in people)
prio2_projects = set(p.prio2 for p in people)
projects_available = prio1_projects | prio2_projects
When assigning projects we do it like
people = sorted(people, key = lambda p: p.time)
assignments =
for p in people:
if p.prio1 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio1
elif p.prio2 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio2
else:
proj = None
assignments.append(proj)
if proj is not None:
projects_available.remove(proj)
Note the new None
case.
The output code
with open("results","w") as res:
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for p, a in zip(people, assignments):
res.write(p.name + "t" + str(a) + "n")
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop overrange(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is alist
(which is indexable, sorange(len(x))
would work), aset
(where you cannot use an index, but at leastlen(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even knowlen(x)
). Doingfor x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues I personally dislike very much.
Messing with date/time using homebrew algorithm and math
While looking easy to handle time/date are by far more complcated to handle than you ever can think of. Timezones, locals, leap years and so on. When doing time/date math and/or serialisation/deserialisation always(!) go for a library. For python this is datetime
When the code is lying to me when I'm reading it as natural language
With lying I mean your line
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
This is not true. The person clearly stated a first priority project. When you change that value as an algorithmic side effect you immediatly break data integrity. Your person suddenly has both priorities on the same project. You even got yourself tricked. What happens, when a person got the first prio project taken away and later the second one as well?
Other issues
There is no need to have people_sorted_time
, as you never refer to the read order again. Just do
people = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
Never loop over range(len(something)
, always try to loop over the elements directly. Your output loop rewrites (still lying about prio1) to
for p in people:
res.write(p.name + "t" + p.prio1 + "n")
You use numpy only for reading a file, then convert back to standard python. This is a fail. Read with python directly.
with open("data.txt") as infile:
lines = infile.readlines()
people = [Person(*line.split()) for line in lines]
You need time for comparison only. There is no need to mess with it, string comparison will do.
self.time = time
Do not modify the people data but maintain a set of available projects
prio1_projects = set(p.prio1 for p in people)
prio2_projects = set(p.prio2 for p in people)
projects_available = prio1_projects | prio2_projects
When assigning projects we do it like
people = sorted(people, key = lambda p: p.time)
assignments =
for p in people:
if p.prio1 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio1
elif p.prio2 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio2
else:
proj = None
assignments.append(proj)
if proj is not None:
projects_available.remove(proj)
Note the new None
case.
The output code
with open("results","w") as res:
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for p, a in zip(people, assignments):
res.write(p.name + "t" + str(a) + "n")
$endgroup$
There are two issues I personally dislike very much.
Messing with date/time using homebrew algorithm and math
While looking easy to handle time/date are by far more complcated to handle than you ever can think of. Timezones, locals, leap years and so on. When doing time/date math and/or serialisation/deserialisation always(!) go for a library. For python this is datetime
When the code is lying to me when I'm reading it as natural language
With lying I mean your line
people_sorted_time[j].prio1 = people_sorted_time[j].prio2
This is not true. The person clearly stated a first priority project. When you change that value as an algorithmic side effect you immediatly break data integrity. Your person suddenly has both priorities on the same project. You even got yourself tricked. What happens, when a person got the first prio project taken away and later the second one as well?
Other issues
There is no need to have people_sorted_time
, as you never refer to the read order again. Just do
people = sorted(people, key=lambda x: x.time)
Never loop over range(len(something)
, always try to loop over the elements directly. Your output loop rewrites (still lying about prio1) to
for p in people:
res.write(p.name + "t" + p.prio1 + "n")
You use numpy only for reading a file, then convert back to standard python. This is a fail. Read with python directly.
with open("data.txt") as infile:
lines = infile.readlines()
people = [Person(*line.split()) for line in lines]
You need time for comparison only. There is no need to mess with it, string comparison will do.
self.time = time
Do not modify the people data but maintain a set of available projects
prio1_projects = set(p.prio1 for p in people)
prio2_projects = set(p.prio2 for p in people)
projects_available = prio1_projects | prio2_projects
When assigning projects we do it like
people = sorted(people, key = lambda p: p.time)
assignments =
for p in people:
if p.prio1 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio1
elif p.prio2 in projects_available:
proj = p.prio2
else:
proj = None
assignments.append(proj)
if proj is not None:
projects_available.remove(proj)
Note the new None
case.
The output code
with open("results","w") as res:
res.write("Name"+"t"+"Assigned Project"+"n")
for p, a in zip(people, assignments):
res.write(p.name + "t" + str(a) + "n")
edited Dec 16 '18 at 14:36
answered Dec 15 '18 at 22:03
stefanstefan
1,531211
1,531211
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop overrange(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is alist
(which is indexable, sorange(len(x))
would work), aset
(where you cannot use an index, but at leastlen(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even knowlen(x)
). Doingfor x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop overrange(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is alist
(which is indexable, sorange(len(x))
would work), aset
(where you cannot use an index, but at leastlen(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even knowlen(x)
). Doingfor x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).
$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop over
range(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
$begingroup$
First of all, thank you very much for the comments! I think I understand most of them, or at least see why one should do it the way you suggest, but there when you say "Never loop over
range(len(something)
", could you maybe explain why? Is this just a convention, or are there downsides to doing this?$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:46
2
2
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@Sito It is considered pythonic. (Convention) The talk, "loop like a native" covers this.
$endgroup$
– Ludisposed
Dec 16 '18 at 12:07
1
1
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is a
list
(which is indexable, so range(len(x))
would work), a set
(where you cannot use an index, but at least len(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even know len(x)
). Doing for x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
$begingroup$
@Sito: It has the advantage that you can usually directly use your code whether or not what you iterate over is a
list
(which is indexable, so range(len(x))
would work), a set
(where you cannot use an index, but at least len(x)
still works) and a generator (which might be infinite so you don't even know len(x)
). Doing for x in foo
works for any iterable (by definition).$endgroup$
– Graipher
Dec 16 '18 at 12:19
1
1
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
$begingroup$
@Graipher Touché. I'll update my answer.
$endgroup$
– stefan
Dec 16 '18 at 14:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f209729%2fassigning-projects-in-order-of-priority%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Is there any reason to consider three students choosing the same pair? What about students in chronological order A(1,2), B(3,4), C(1,3) where a solution exists as long as you don’t choose greedily?
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Also, if a student waits until just after midnight, they are guaranteed first choice!
$endgroup$
– Ian MacDonald
Dec 16 '18 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald I‘m sorry, but I‘m having a hard time understandig what you mean by A(1,2), etc. To the forst question, well two students chosing the same pair was just a special case which I wanted to have for tests and since popular topics are often chosen multiple times this didn‘t seem to far fetched. Not sure if three and two times the same pair makes really any difference.. And what exactly do you mean by „choose greedily“?
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:52
$begingroup$
@IanMacDonald as written in the description you can assume that all students sign-in on the same day...
$endgroup$
– Sito
Dec 16 '18 at 0:53