Flatten Dictionary Python challenge
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a question about this coding challenge for "Flatten a Dictionary":
Given a dictionary dict, write a function flattenDictionary that
returns a flattened version of it .
If youâÂÂre using a compiled language such Java, C++, C#, Swift and Go,
you may want to use a Map/Dictionary/Hash Table that maps strings
(keys) to a generic type (e.g. Object in Java, AnyObject in Swift
etc.) to allow nested dictionaries.
Example:
Input:
dict =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
Output:
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2.a" : "2",
"Key2.b" : "3",
"Key2.c.d" : "3",
"Key2.c.e" : "1"
Important: when you concatenate keys, make sure to add the dot character between them. For instance concatenating Key2, c and d the result key would be Key2.c.d.
def flatten_dictionary(dictionary):
def items():
# loop through each item inside the dictionary k, v
#Appending
# check if the sub-key and sub-value are
# inside the flatten_dict(value)
# join on subkey array
# add to result
# clear out prev_keys
for key, value in dictionary.items():
if isinstance(value, dict):
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalue
else:
yield key, value
return dict(items())
# test cases 1
dictionary2 =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
# output:
# "Key1" : "1",
# "Key2.a" : "2",
# "Key2.b" : "3",
# "Key2.c.d" : "3",
# "Key2.c.e" : "1"
#
print(flatten_dictionary(dictionary2))
python interview-questions
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a question about this coding challenge for "Flatten a Dictionary":
Given a dictionary dict, write a function flattenDictionary that
returns a flattened version of it .
If youâÂÂre using a compiled language such Java, C++, C#, Swift and Go,
you may want to use a Map/Dictionary/Hash Table that maps strings
(keys) to a generic type (e.g. Object in Java, AnyObject in Swift
etc.) to allow nested dictionaries.
Example:
Input:
dict =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
Output:
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2.a" : "2",
"Key2.b" : "3",
"Key2.c.d" : "3",
"Key2.c.e" : "1"
Important: when you concatenate keys, make sure to add the dot character between them. For instance concatenating Key2, c and d the result key would be Key2.c.d.
def flatten_dictionary(dictionary):
def items():
# loop through each item inside the dictionary k, v
#Appending
# check if the sub-key and sub-value are
# inside the flatten_dict(value)
# join on subkey array
# add to result
# clear out prev_keys
for key, value in dictionary.items():
if isinstance(value, dict):
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalue
else:
yield key, value
return dict(items())
# test cases 1
dictionary2 =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
# output:
# "Key1" : "1",
# "Key2.a" : "2",
# "Key2.b" : "3",
# "Key2.c.d" : "3",
# "Key2.c.e" : "1"
#
print(flatten_dictionary(dictionary2))
python interview-questions
4
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe wheredict
behaves likeOrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Yourkey + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines__hash__
and__eq__
can be a key.
â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
1
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
3
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a question about this coding challenge for "Flatten a Dictionary":
Given a dictionary dict, write a function flattenDictionary that
returns a flattened version of it .
If youâÂÂre using a compiled language such Java, C++, C#, Swift and Go,
you may want to use a Map/Dictionary/Hash Table that maps strings
(keys) to a generic type (e.g. Object in Java, AnyObject in Swift
etc.) to allow nested dictionaries.
Example:
Input:
dict =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
Output:
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2.a" : "2",
"Key2.b" : "3",
"Key2.c.d" : "3",
"Key2.c.e" : "1"
Important: when you concatenate keys, make sure to add the dot character between them. For instance concatenating Key2, c and d the result key would be Key2.c.d.
def flatten_dictionary(dictionary):
def items():
# loop through each item inside the dictionary k, v
#Appending
# check if the sub-key and sub-value are
# inside the flatten_dict(value)
# join on subkey array
# add to result
# clear out prev_keys
for key, value in dictionary.items():
if isinstance(value, dict):
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalue
else:
yield key, value
return dict(items())
# test cases 1
dictionary2 =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
# output:
# "Key1" : "1",
# "Key2.a" : "2",
# "Key2.b" : "3",
# "Key2.c.d" : "3",
# "Key2.c.e" : "1"
#
print(flatten_dictionary(dictionary2))
python interview-questions
I have a question about this coding challenge for "Flatten a Dictionary":
Given a dictionary dict, write a function flattenDictionary that
returns a flattened version of it .
If youâÂÂre using a compiled language such Java, C++, C#, Swift and Go,
you may want to use a Map/Dictionary/Hash Table that maps strings
(keys) to a generic type (e.g. Object in Java, AnyObject in Swift
etc.) to allow nested dictionaries.
Example:
Input:
dict =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
Output:
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2.a" : "2",
"Key2.b" : "3",
"Key2.c.d" : "3",
"Key2.c.e" : "1"
Important: when you concatenate keys, make sure to add the dot character between them. For instance concatenating Key2, c and d the result key would be Key2.c.d.
def flatten_dictionary(dictionary):
def items():
# loop through each item inside the dictionary k, v
#Appending
# check if the sub-key and sub-value are
# inside the flatten_dict(value)
# join on subkey array
# add to result
# clear out prev_keys
for key, value in dictionary.items():
if isinstance(value, dict):
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalue
else:
yield key, value
return dict(items())
# test cases 1
dictionary2 =
"Key1" : "1",
"Key2" :
"a" : "2",
"b" : "3",
"c" :
"d" : "3",
"e" : "1"
# output:
# "Key1" : "1",
# "Key2.a" : "2",
# "Key2.b" : "3",
# "Key2.c.d" : "3",
# "Key2.c.e" : "1"
#
print(flatten_dictionary(dictionary2))
python interview-questions
edited Jan 26 at 23:30
Jamalâ¦
30.1k11114225
30.1k11114225
asked Jan 25 at 22:52
NinjaG
756221
756221
4
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe wheredict
behaves likeOrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Yourkey + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines__hash__
and__eq__
can be a key.
â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
1
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
3
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55
 |Â
show 1 more comment
4
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe wheredict
behaves likeOrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Yourkey + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines__hash__
and__eq__
can be a key.
â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
1
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
3
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55
4
4
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe where
dict
behaves like OrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Your key + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines __hash__
and __eq__
can be a key.â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe where
dict
behaves like OrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Your key + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines __hash__
and __eq__
can be a key.â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
1
1
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
3
3
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
1. Bugs
The special case for empty keys:
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalueis missing an
else:
and so leads to items appearing twice:>>> flatten_dictionary("": "a":1)
'a': 1, '.a': 1Even if we fix the bug by adding the
else:
, there's still a problem. Consider this example:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a.b': 2What happened to the
1
? Ignoring the empty string keys has led two different keys to be collapsed into one. It would be better to remove the special case for empty strings, so that:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a..b': 1, '.a.b': 2Python has a limited stack, but dictionaries can be nested arbitrarily deeply:
>>> d =
>>> for i in range(1000): d = 'a':d
...
>>> flatten_dictionary(d)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "cr186013.py", line 22, in flatten_dictionary
return dict(items())
[... many line omitted ...]
File "cr186013.py", line 13, in items
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceededThis problem can be avoided using the stack of iterators pattern.
2. Other review points
The comment does not match the code: there is nothing in the code corresponding to "check if the sub-key and sub-value are inside the flatten_dict(value)" or "join on subkey array" or "clear out prev_keys". Incorrect comments like this are worse than useless: they make it harder to understand and maintain the code.
Did this comment describe an earlier version of the code, and then you changed the code but forgot to edit the comment? It is worth getting into the habit of changing the comment first so that you don't forget.
The construction of the result keys has unnecessary quadratic runtime. For example, in this situation:
>>> flatten_dictionary('a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 1)
'a.a.a.a.a.a': 1there is only the need to concatenate one result key (
'a.a.a.a.a.a'
), but the code concatenates five result keys: not just the one that we need, but'a.a'
,'a.a.a'
, 'a.a.a.a
' and'a.a.a.a.a'
as well. The way to avoid this is to keep a stack of dictionary keys currently being visited, and usestr.join
on the stack when you need to concatenate the result key.
3. Revised code
def flatten_dictionary(d):
result =
stack = [iter(d.items())]
keys =
while stack:
for k, v in stack[-1]:
keys.append(k)
if isinstance(v, dict):
stack.append(iter(v.items()))
break
else:
result['.'.join(keys)] = v
keys.pop()
else:
if keys:
keys.pop()
stack.pop()
return result
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
1. Bugs
The special case for empty keys:
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalueis missing an
else:
and so leads to items appearing twice:>>> flatten_dictionary("": "a":1)
'a': 1, '.a': 1Even if we fix the bug by adding the
else:
, there's still a problem. Consider this example:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a.b': 2What happened to the
1
? Ignoring the empty string keys has led two different keys to be collapsed into one. It would be better to remove the special case for empty strings, so that:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a..b': 1, '.a.b': 2Python has a limited stack, but dictionaries can be nested arbitrarily deeply:
>>> d =
>>> for i in range(1000): d = 'a':d
...
>>> flatten_dictionary(d)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "cr186013.py", line 22, in flatten_dictionary
return dict(items())
[... many line omitted ...]
File "cr186013.py", line 13, in items
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceededThis problem can be avoided using the stack of iterators pattern.
2. Other review points
The comment does not match the code: there is nothing in the code corresponding to "check if the sub-key and sub-value are inside the flatten_dict(value)" or "join on subkey array" or "clear out prev_keys". Incorrect comments like this are worse than useless: they make it harder to understand and maintain the code.
Did this comment describe an earlier version of the code, and then you changed the code but forgot to edit the comment? It is worth getting into the habit of changing the comment first so that you don't forget.
The construction of the result keys has unnecessary quadratic runtime. For example, in this situation:
>>> flatten_dictionary('a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 1)
'a.a.a.a.a.a': 1there is only the need to concatenate one result key (
'a.a.a.a.a.a'
), but the code concatenates five result keys: not just the one that we need, but'a.a'
,'a.a.a'
, 'a.a.a.a
' and'a.a.a.a.a'
as well. The way to avoid this is to keep a stack of dictionary keys currently being visited, and usestr.join
on the stack when you need to concatenate the result key.
3. Revised code
def flatten_dictionary(d):
result =
stack = [iter(d.items())]
keys =
while stack:
for k, v in stack[-1]:
keys.append(k)
if isinstance(v, dict):
stack.append(iter(v.items()))
break
else:
result['.'.join(keys)] = v
keys.pop()
else:
if keys:
keys.pop()
stack.pop()
return result
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
1. Bugs
The special case for empty keys:
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalueis missing an
else:
and so leads to items appearing twice:>>> flatten_dictionary("": "a":1)
'a': 1, '.a': 1Even if we fix the bug by adding the
else:
, there's still a problem. Consider this example:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a.b': 2What happened to the
1
? Ignoring the empty string keys has led two different keys to be collapsed into one. It would be better to remove the special case for empty strings, so that:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a..b': 1, '.a.b': 2Python has a limited stack, but dictionaries can be nested arbitrarily deeply:
>>> d =
>>> for i in range(1000): d = 'a':d
...
>>> flatten_dictionary(d)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "cr186013.py", line 22, in flatten_dictionary
return dict(items())
[... many line omitted ...]
File "cr186013.py", line 13, in items
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceededThis problem can be avoided using the stack of iterators pattern.
2. Other review points
The comment does not match the code: there is nothing in the code corresponding to "check if the sub-key and sub-value are inside the flatten_dict(value)" or "join on subkey array" or "clear out prev_keys". Incorrect comments like this are worse than useless: they make it harder to understand and maintain the code.
Did this comment describe an earlier version of the code, and then you changed the code but forgot to edit the comment? It is worth getting into the habit of changing the comment first so that you don't forget.
The construction of the result keys has unnecessary quadratic runtime. For example, in this situation:
>>> flatten_dictionary('a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 1)
'a.a.a.a.a.a': 1there is only the need to concatenate one result key (
'a.a.a.a.a.a'
), but the code concatenates five result keys: not just the one that we need, but'a.a'
,'a.a.a'
, 'a.a.a.a
' and'a.a.a.a.a'
as well. The way to avoid this is to keep a stack of dictionary keys currently being visited, and usestr.join
on the stack when you need to concatenate the result key.
3. Revised code
def flatten_dictionary(d):
result =
stack = [iter(d.items())]
keys =
while stack:
for k, v in stack[-1]:
keys.append(k)
if isinstance(v, dict):
stack.append(iter(v.items()))
break
else:
result['.'.join(keys)] = v
keys.pop()
else:
if keys:
keys.pop()
stack.pop()
return result
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
1. Bugs
The special case for empty keys:
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalueis missing an
else:
and so leads to items appearing twice:>>> flatten_dictionary("": "a":1)
'a': 1, '.a': 1Even if we fix the bug by adding the
else:
, there's still a problem. Consider this example:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a.b': 2What happened to the
1
? Ignoring the empty string keys has led two different keys to be collapsed into one. It would be better to remove the special case for empty strings, so that:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a..b': 1, '.a.b': 2Python has a limited stack, but dictionaries can be nested arbitrarily deeply:
>>> d =
>>> for i in range(1000): d = 'a':d
...
>>> flatten_dictionary(d)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "cr186013.py", line 22, in flatten_dictionary
return dict(items())
[... many line omitted ...]
File "cr186013.py", line 13, in items
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceededThis problem can be avoided using the stack of iterators pattern.
2. Other review points
The comment does not match the code: there is nothing in the code corresponding to "check if the sub-key and sub-value are inside the flatten_dict(value)" or "join on subkey array" or "clear out prev_keys". Incorrect comments like this are worse than useless: they make it harder to understand and maintain the code.
Did this comment describe an earlier version of the code, and then you changed the code but forgot to edit the comment? It is worth getting into the habit of changing the comment first so that you don't forget.
The construction of the result keys has unnecessary quadratic runtime. For example, in this situation:
>>> flatten_dictionary('a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 1)
'a.a.a.a.a.a': 1there is only the need to concatenate one result key (
'a.a.a.a.a.a'
), but the code concatenates five result keys: not just the one that we need, but'a.a'
,'a.a.a'
, 'a.a.a.a
' and'a.a.a.a.a'
as well. The way to avoid this is to keep a stack of dictionary keys currently being visited, and usestr.join
on the stack when you need to concatenate the result key.
3. Revised code
def flatten_dictionary(d):
result =
stack = [iter(d.items())]
keys =
while stack:
for k, v in stack[-1]:
keys.append(k)
if isinstance(v, dict):
stack.append(iter(v.items()))
break
else:
result['.'.join(keys)] = v
keys.pop()
else:
if keys:
keys.pop()
stack.pop()
return result
1. Bugs
The special case for empty keys:
if key == "":
yield subkey, subvalue
yield key + "." + subkey, subvalueis missing an
else:
and so leads to items appearing twice:>>> flatten_dictionary("": "a":1)
'a': 1, '.a': 1Even if we fix the bug by adding the
else:
, there's still a problem. Consider this example:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a.b': 2What happened to the
1
? Ignoring the empty string keys has led two different keys to be collapsed into one. It would be better to remove the special case for empty strings, so that:>>> flatten_dictionary("a": "": "b": 1, "": "a": "b": 2)
'a..b': 1, '.a.b': 2Python has a limited stack, but dictionaries can be nested arbitrarily deeply:
>>> d =
>>> for i in range(1000): d = 'a':d
...
>>> flatten_dictionary(d)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "cr186013.py", line 22, in flatten_dictionary
return dict(items())
[... many line omitted ...]
File "cr186013.py", line 13, in items
for subkey, subvalue in flatten_dictionary(value).items():
RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceededThis problem can be avoided using the stack of iterators pattern.
2. Other review points
The comment does not match the code: there is nothing in the code corresponding to "check if the sub-key and sub-value are inside the flatten_dict(value)" or "join on subkey array" or "clear out prev_keys". Incorrect comments like this are worse than useless: they make it harder to understand and maintain the code.
Did this comment describe an earlier version of the code, and then you changed the code but forgot to edit the comment? It is worth getting into the habit of changing the comment first so that you don't forget.
The construction of the result keys has unnecessary quadratic runtime. For example, in this situation:
>>> flatten_dictionary('a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 'a': 1)
'a.a.a.a.a.a': 1there is only the need to concatenate one result key (
'a.a.a.a.a.a'
), but the code concatenates five result keys: not just the one that we need, but'a.a'
,'a.a.a'
, 'a.a.a.a
' and'a.a.a.a.a'
as well. The way to avoid this is to keep a stack of dictionary keys currently being visited, and usestr.join
on the stack when you need to concatenate the result key.
3. Revised code
def flatten_dictionary(d):
result =
stack = [iter(d.items())]
keys =
while stack:
for k, v in stack[-1]:
keys.append(k)
if isinstance(v, dict):
stack.append(iter(v.items()))
break
else:
result['.'.join(keys)] = v
keys.pop()
else:
if keys:
keys.pop()
stack.pop()
return result
answered Jan 27 at 13:07
Gareth Rees
41.1k394168
41.1k394168
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
add a comment |Â
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
I don't think it can pass this test cases: Input: "":"a":"1","b":"3" Expected: "a":"1","b":"3" Actual: '.a': '1', 'b': '3'
â NinjaG
Jan 28 at 4:38
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
See §1.2 for why special handling of empty strings is a bad idea.
â Gareth Rees
Jan 28 at 10:14
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f186013%2fflatten-dictionary-python-challenge%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
4
Flattening a dictionary is a weird request. How do you handle key collisions? Overwrites really don't make sense, because they are implementation dependent (at least before Python 3.4, I believe where
dict
behaves likeOrderedDict
), so you can't definitively say across python versions how it should behave. Yourkey + '.' + subkey
also doesn't generalize, but keys are not always strings. Anything immutable that defines__hash__
and__eq__
can be a key.â Bailey Parker
Jan 26 at 0:03
1
@BaileyParker Or the problem has to be properly described. The way it stands at the moment justifies all your concerns. This is what SO would classify as too broad. Imho always.
â Ev. Kounis
Jan 26 at 8:41
3
You should at least add a link to the problem description, where these ambiguities might be resolved already.
â Graipher
Jan 26 at 9:40
I updated the problem description so it is clear what the question is asking me to do.
â NinjaG
Jan 26 at 16:51
Your question currently leaves some things to be desired. I'd recommend taking a look at Simon's Guide to posting a good question. In particular, you could add a reason for why you are posting your code here, what do you want from a review? Also, how much have you tested this code?
â Simon Forsbergâ¦
Jan 26 at 16:55