test 'should not chosen default pipeline with related columns' do
I really hate stumbling upon test cases written by people with sub-par english proficiency. Makes it hard to evaluate.
Forum Index > General Forum |
Thread Rules 1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution. 2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20) 3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible. 4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
February 08 2018 13:31 GMT
#18861
test 'should not chosen default pipeline with related columns' do I really hate stumbling upon test cases written by people with sub-par english proficiency. Makes it hard to evaluate. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4601 Posts
February 08 2018 14:55 GMT
#18862
Be happy when its only spelling. | ||
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
February 08 2018 23:09 GMT
#18863
On February 08 2018 18:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2018 11:41 WarSame wrote: Well I figure if I can do this I can remove a substantial amount of code. Instead of opening, using, then closing the adapter I can just have it open the whole time, and use it when I want it. This means that I can make inline calls to the DB without either wrapping it in a pointless function or cluttering up my code. I'm wondering whether my proposal is bad design, though. If I recall, you've asked similar questions before, and the general theme seems to be that you're putting a lot of undue emphasis on "decluttering" your code. Clean code should come naturally no matter what you're programming, and hacking functionality together is the opposite of that. Long-short, always close your DB adapters. There may be niche cases where you will want to leave a connection open, but you should be able to clearly say why that's necessary from a system perspective. Also, when you say "without...wrapping it in a pointless function", I hope you're just wording that poorly, because encapsulation is a fundamental aspect of OOP. Yeah, I'm trying to learn how to code cleanly through this project, so sometimes I'm definitely going over the line. By "wrapping it" I meant pointless functions like this:
I would like to replace that with a single, in-line function call, maybe like:
Since I have functions like this fairly often it would save quite a lot of unnecessary code. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17041 Posts
February 09 2018 08:55 GMT
#18864
https://github.com/koudelka/visualixir amazing projects | ||
Silvanel
Poland4601 Posts
February 09 2018 17:32 GMT
#18865
| ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
February 09 2018 17:53 GMT
#18866
Or to come to such a conclusion would that require mathematical analysis of the code ? Also, does anyone have any experience with gnu gmp or redis? | ||
Lmui
Canada6155 Posts
February 09 2018 18:08 GMT
#18867
On February 10 2018 02:53 travis wrote: Is it possible to tell from analysis of runtime and/or function calls if asymptotic complexity is polynomial, rather than exponential? By exponential I mean including 2^1.00001, for example. Or to come to such a conclusion would that require mathematical analysis of the code ? Well with asymptotically large amounts of input size, you can get a dataset of runtimes for instance which will show you that it's exponential, since regardless of what the constants are, n^c < c^n. In practical terms though, c^(1.00000000000000000001n) for n = 10^1000000 for instance far outstrips (n*10^1000000)^c for c being any reasonable number Function calls, no, runtime, cpu cycles, or some other low level iteration metric yes, as long as it scales in some way with the input N | ||
Simberto
Germany11032 Posts
February 09 2018 18:21 GMT
#18868
It should be irrelevant where those data points are coming from, unless they are laden with too much uncertainty to produce a valid answer. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
February 09 2018 18:32 GMT
#18869
On February 09 2018 08:09 WarSame wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2018 18:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: On February 08 2018 11:41 WarSame wrote: Well I figure if I can do this I can remove a substantial amount of code. Instead of opening, using, then closing the adapter I can just have it open the whole time, and use it when I want it. This means that I can make inline calls to the DB without either wrapping it in a pointless function or cluttering up my code. I'm wondering whether my proposal is bad design, though. If I recall, you've asked similar questions before, and the general theme seems to be that you're putting a lot of undue emphasis on "decluttering" your code. Clean code should come naturally no matter what you're programming, and hacking functionality together is the opposite of that. Long-short, always close your DB adapters. There may be niche cases where you will want to leave a connection open, but you should be able to clearly say why that's necessary from a system perspective. Also, when you say "without...wrapping it in a pointless function", I hope you're just wording that poorly, because encapsulation is a fundamental aspect of OOP. Yeah, I'm trying to learn how to code cleanly through this project, so sometimes I'm definitely going over the line. By "wrapping it" I meant pointless functions like this:
I would like to replace that with a single, in-line function call, maybe like:
Since I have functions like this fairly often it would save quite a lot of unnecessary code. So, why do you feel that code is unnecessary? | ||
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
February 09 2018 19:28 GMT
#18870
On February 10 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: Show nested quote + On February 09 2018 08:09 WarSame wrote: On February 08 2018 18:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: On February 08 2018 11:41 WarSame wrote: Well I figure if I can do this I can remove a substantial amount of code. Instead of opening, using, then closing the adapter I can just have it open the whole time, and use it when I want it. This means that I can make inline calls to the DB without either wrapping it in a pointless function or cluttering up my code. I'm wondering whether my proposal is bad design, though. If I recall, you've asked similar questions before, and the general theme seems to be that you're putting a lot of undue emphasis on "decluttering" your code. Clean code should come naturally no matter what you're programming, and hacking functionality together is the opposite of that. Long-short, always close your DB adapters. There may be niche cases where you will want to leave a connection open, but you should be able to clearly say why that's necessary from a system perspective. Also, when you say "without...wrapping it in a pointless function", I hope you're just wording that poorly, because encapsulation is a fundamental aspect of OOP. Yeah, I'm trying to learn how to code cleanly through this project, so sometimes I'm definitely going over the line. By "wrapping it" I meant pointless functions like this:
I would like to replace that with a single, in-line function call, maybe like:
Since I have functions like this fairly often it would save quite a lot of unnecessary code. So, why do you feel that code is unnecessary? It seems like my code is repeating itself, making the intentions of the code less clear. | ||
Excludos
Norway7678 Posts
February 09 2018 19:33 GMT
#18871
On February 10 2018 04:28 WarSame wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2018 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: On February 09 2018 08:09 WarSame wrote: On February 08 2018 18:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: On February 08 2018 11:41 WarSame wrote: Well I figure if I can do this I can remove a substantial amount of code. Instead of opening, using, then closing the adapter I can just have it open the whole time, and use it when I want it. This means that I can make inline calls to the DB without either wrapping it in a pointless function or cluttering up my code. I'm wondering whether my proposal is bad design, though. If I recall, you've asked similar questions before, and the general theme seems to be that you're putting a lot of undue emphasis on "decluttering" your code. Clean code should come naturally no matter what you're programming, and hacking functionality together is the opposite of that. Long-short, always close your DB adapters. There may be niche cases where you will want to leave a connection open, but you should be able to clearly say why that's necessary from a system perspective. Also, when you say "without...wrapping it in a pointless function", I hope you're just wording that poorly, because encapsulation is a fundamental aspect of OOP. Yeah, I'm trying to learn how to code cleanly through this project, so sometimes I'm definitely going over the line. By "wrapping it" I meant pointless functions like this:
I would like to replace that with a single, in-line function call, maybe like:
Since I have functions like this fairly often it would save quite a lot of unnecessary code. So, why do you feel that code is unnecessary? It seems like my code is repeating itself, making the intentions of the code less clear. This is sensible and pretty core to having clean and proper code which can be easily read and fixed. At the best of your ability, try not to repeat any lines of code. Think about it this way: If you do a mistake in your often repeated code, you now have to go back and fix every occurance of it. If you set it aside and repeat the call instead, you only have to fix it once. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
February 10 2018 00:33 GMT
#18872
I tested it 1000 times vs a brute force solver at n=9 and it matched the brute force all 1000 times, I tested it 100 times vs a good greedy solver I found online for n = 20 and it beat or tied (almost always beat) the greedy solver 100/100 times. I tested it on two of the data sets here http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/world/countries.html, n=29 and n=39. It solved both of those, in 35 seconds and 50 seconds. For benchmarking on randomly generated matrices (which are more difficult than the typical matrices I can find online based on real data), I see times like this (some overhead probably presented by the profiler) (these are averages, there is quite a bit of variance) @n 11: .1 seconds (compared with the roughly ~1 minute of brute force) 12: .17 sec 13: .26 sec 14: .42 sec 15: .7 sec 16: 1.1 sec 24: 13 secs 32 55 secs this is on my desktop pc, which is probably average in terms of speed. it's in python, if I rewrote it in C (and if i was good enough to rewrite it in C), I could probably make it go much much faster. I of course need to test bigger datasets, but even if it messes up somewhere I am still very proud of what I have accomplished doing this stuff (my life has revolved around it for the last 3 months... ive been obsessed). I do think I still have a couple ways in mind to make it perform faster and lose less memory (it uses a lot). Right now it will soon approach the point where my 6gb of ram is not enough. | ||
Neshapotamus
United States163 Posts
February 10 2018 05:36 GMT
#18873
On February 10 2018 09:33 travis wrote: So, I still have been going hard on working to find a reasonable exact solver for the TSP, and even if I haven't solved it, I have improved my results to a point where I feel they are pretty impressive. I tested it 1000 times vs a brute force solver at n=9 and it matched the brute force all 1000 times, I tested it 100 times vs a good greedy solver I found online for n = 20 and it beat or tied (almost always beat) the greedy solver 100/100 times. I tested it on two of the data sets here http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/world/countries.html, n=29 and n=39. It solved both of those, in 35 seconds and 50 seconds. For benchmarking on randomly generated matrices (which are more difficult than the typical matrices I can find online based on real data), I see times like this (some overhead probably presented by the profiler) (these are averages, there is quite a bit of variance) @n 11: .1 seconds (compared with the roughly ~1 minute of brute force) 12: .17 sec 13: .26 sec 14: .42 sec 15: .7 sec 16: 1.1 sec 24: 13 secs 32 55 secs this is on my desktop pc, which is probably average in terms of speed. it's in python, if I rewrote it in C (and if i was good enough to rewrite it in C), I could probably make it go much much faster. I of course need to test bigger datasets, but even if it messes up somewhere I am still very proud of what I have accomplished doing this stuff (my life has revolved around it for the last 3 months... ive been obsessed). I do think I still have a couple ways in mind to make it perform faster and lose less memory (it uses a lot). Right now it will soon approach the point where my 6gb of ram is not enough. Here are some other ways people are solving TSP. https://github.com/DiegoVicen/ntnu-som The basic idea is to use a self-organing map (unsupervised neural network model). You should share your code with us and explain your approach! While building code is nice, writing and explaining your method should deepen your understanding of your algorithm. Most likely, you're applying techniques that people have already thought about. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17184 Posts
February 10 2018 08:16 GMT
#18874
On February 10 2018 14:36 Neshapotamus wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2018 09:33 travis wrote: So, I still have been going hard on working to find a reasonable exact solver for the TSP, and even if I haven't solved it, I have improved my results to a point where I feel they are pretty impressive. I tested it 1000 times vs a brute force solver at n=9 and it matched the brute force all 1000 times, I tested it 100 times vs a good greedy solver I found online for n = 20 and it beat or tied (almost always beat) the greedy solver 100/100 times. I tested it on two of the data sets here http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/world/countries.html, n=29 and n=39. It solved both of those, in 35 seconds and 50 seconds. For benchmarking on randomly generated matrices (which are more difficult than the typical matrices I can find online based on real data), I see times like this (some overhead probably presented by the profiler) (these are averages, there is quite a bit of variance) @n 11: .1 seconds (compared with the roughly ~1 minute of brute force) 12: .17 sec 13: .26 sec 14: .42 sec 15: .7 sec 16: 1.1 sec 24: 13 secs 32 55 secs this is on my desktop pc, which is probably average in terms of speed. it's in python, if I rewrote it in C (and if i was good enough to rewrite it in C), I could probably make it go much much faster. I of course need to test bigger datasets, but even if it messes up somewhere I am still very proud of what I have accomplished doing this stuff (my life has revolved around it for the last 3 months... ive been obsessed). I do think I still have a couple ways in mind to make it perform faster and lose less memory (it uses a lot). Right now it will soon approach the point where my 6gb of ram is not enough. Here are some other ways people are solving TSP. https://github.com/DiegoVicen/ntnu-som The basic idea is to use a self-organing map (unsupervised neural network model). You should share your code with us and explain your approach! While building code is nice, writing and explaining your method should deepen your understanding of your algorithm. Most likely, your applying techniques that people have already thought about. If you think you're really into something new, don't share. Depending on your goals, you can write a scientific article, or try to monetize your idea. But for it to be really good you need to be better than state-of-the-art approaches (such as those self-organizing maps), and not just better than brute force and greedy approaches. And it's a very popular problem to work on, so the competition is strong. I wouldn't get my hopes up that you have actually made a breakthrough. But it's always a (slight) possibility. However, if you haven't actually made a breakthrough, sharing with peers is indeed a great way to improve (it's also a great way if you have made a breakthrough, but then it's more important to first protect your idea from being stolen; assuming you care about getting credit for it). | ||
supereddie
Netherlands151 Posts
February 10 2018 08:56 GMT
#18875
On February 09 2018 08:09 WarSame wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2018 18:33 WolfintheSheep wrote: On February 08 2018 11:41 WarSame wrote: Well I figure if I can do this I can remove a substantial amount of code. Instead of opening, using, then closing the adapter I can just have it open the whole time, and use it when I want it. This means that I can make inline calls to the DB without either wrapping it in a pointless function or cluttering up my code. I'm wondering whether my proposal is bad design, though. If I recall, you've asked similar questions before, and the general theme seems to be that you're putting a lot of undue emphasis on "decluttering" your code. Clean code should come naturally no matter what you're programming, and hacking functionality together is the opposite of that. Long-short, always close your DB adapters. There may be niche cases where you will want to leave a connection open, but you should be able to clearly say why that's necessary from a system perspective. Also, when you say "without...wrapping it in a pointless function", I hope you're just wording that poorly, because encapsulation is a fundamental aspect of OOP. Yeah, I'm trying to learn how to code cleanly through this project, so sometimes I'm definitely going over the line. By "wrapping it" I meant pointless functions like this:
I would like to replace that with a single, in-line function call, maybe like:
Since I have functions like this fairly often it would save quite a lot of unnecessary code. For me the easiest way to do this would be to think about testability: write unit tests. This should give you an idea where to put certain code. | ||
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
February 10 2018 15:03 GMT
#18876
| ||
ShoCkeyy
7814 Posts
February 10 2018 16:00 GMT
#18877
| ||
Neshapotamus
United States163 Posts
February 10 2018 20:54 GMT
#18878
On February 10 2018 17:16 Acrofales wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2018 14:36 Neshapotamus wrote: On February 10 2018 09:33 travis wrote: So, I still have been going hard on working to find a reasonable exact solver for the TSP, and even if I haven't solved it, I have improved my results to a point where I feel they are pretty impressive. I tested it 1000 times vs a brute force solver at n=9 and it matched the brute force all 1000 times, I tested it 100 times vs a good greedy solver I found online for n = 20 and it beat or tied (almost always beat) the greedy solver 100/100 times. I tested it on two of the data sets here http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/world/countries.html, n=29 and n=39. It solved both of those, in 35 seconds and 50 seconds. For benchmarking on randomly generated matrices (which are more difficult than the typical matrices I can find online based on real data), I see times like this (some overhead probably presented by the profiler) (these are averages, there is quite a bit of variance) @n 11: .1 seconds (compared with the roughly ~1 minute of brute force) 12: .17 sec 13: .26 sec 14: .42 sec 15: .7 sec 16: 1.1 sec 24: 13 secs 32 55 secs this is on my desktop pc, which is probably average in terms of speed. it's in python, if I rewrote it in C (and if i was good enough to rewrite it in C), I could probably make it go much much faster. I of course need to test bigger datasets, but even if it messes up somewhere I am still very proud of what I have accomplished doing this stuff (my life has revolved around it for the last 3 months... ive been obsessed). I do think I still have a couple ways in mind to make it perform faster and lose less memory (it uses a lot). Right now it will soon approach the point where my 6gb of ram is not enough. Here are some other ways people are solving TSP. https://github.com/DiegoVicen/ntnu-som The basic idea is to use a self-organing map (unsupervised neural network model). You should share your code with us and explain your approach! While building code is nice, writing and explaining your method should deepen your understanding of your algorithm. Most likely, your applying techniques that people have already thought about. If you think you're really into something new, don't share. Depending on your goals, you can write a scientific article, or try to monetize your idea. But for it to be really good you need to be better than state-of-the-art approaches (such as those self-organizing maps), and not just better than brute force and greedy approaches. And it's a very popular problem to work on, so the competition is strong. I wouldn't get my hopes up that you have actually made a breakthrough. But it's always a (slight) possibility. However, if you haven't actually made a breakthrough, sharing with peers is indeed a great way to improve (it's also a great way if you have made a breakthrough, but then it's more important to first protect your idea from being stolen; assuming you care about getting credit for it). I would disagree about not sharing. Your idea and code is just one portion of a monetization strategy. If you had a novel solution, you still need to think about creating a product, execution of the product (how will you sell your solution), building a team, and supporting the product. Locking yourself up from feedback is probably the most dangerous strategy. Here are some reasons why you should feel ok: 1. You can always patent it afterward (even after publishing) 2. You might have made a mistake. 3. No one is going to steal your idea. Afterall, you didn't really provide a proof to why your method is superior. No one is the space of looking at amateur solutions. 4. Feedback will refine your idea 5. Consensus from your peers is how you drive innovation forward and legitimize your novel approach. | ||
phar
United States1080 Posts
February 11 2018 18:50 GMT
#18879
Walk into a job paying >$500k/yr at BigCorp. | ||
emperorchampion
Canada9494 Posts
February 11 2018 18:58 GMT
#18880
In seriousness, it's awesome that you're invested in a problem and good luck with it! | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Rogue vs CreatorLIVE!
Rogue vs Reynor
Reynor vs Solar
Reynor vs Dark
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Shuttle 2036 Dota 2Hyuk 420 Larva 352 Pusan 76 Shinee 58 IntoTheRainbow 15 yabsab 14 GoRush 7 NotJumperer 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH228 StarCraft: Brood War• practicex 50 • aXEnki • intothetv • Gussbus • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • Poblha League of Legends |
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
OSC
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
TerrOr vs Sziky
Nyoken vs Zhanhum
DaveTesta Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] BSL
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
DragOn vs MiStrZZZ
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Korean StarCraft League
|
|