Hello everyone,
Please have a look at below code:
local!array1: { a!map(id: 1, name: "Name1"), a!map(id: 2, name: "Name2") }, local!array2: a!forEach( items: enumerate(10), expression: concat("key", tostring(fv!index)) ),
here i want to extend array1 map key from array2, which is dynamically generated through array2 and values should be the value of id from array1.
so i am expecting the new array would be like this:
{ a!map( id: 1, name: "Name1", key1: 1, key2: 1, key3: 1, key4: 1, key5: 1, key6: 1, key7: 1, key8: 1, key9: 1, key10: 1 ), a!map( id: 2, name: "Name2", key1: 2, key2: 2, key3: 2, key4: 2, key5: 2, key6: 2, key7: 2, key8: 2, key9: 2, key10: 2 ) }
any easiest way to do this. Thanks in advance
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
Interesting exercise ...
a!localVariables( local!array1: { a!map(id: 1, name: "Name1"), a!map(id: 2, name: "Name2") }, a!forEach( items: local!array1, expression: a!update( fv!item, {"key1", "key2", "key3", "key4", "key5", "key6", "key7", "key8", "key9", "key10"}, repeat(10, fv!index) ) ) )
Hi Stefan Helzle you just hard coded the keys , in my case the number of keys can increase or decrease.
consider enumerate(n) instead enumerate(10) for array2
Can I win something here?
a!localVariables( local!array1: { a!map(id: 1, name: "Name1"), a!map(id: 2, name: "Name2") }, local!n: 10, a!forEach( items: local!array1, expression: a!update( fv!item, apply(concat(_,_), merge(repeat(local!n, "key"), 1+enumerate(local!n))), repeat(local!n, fv!index) ) ) )
BTW, the apply() can be replaced by a foreach().
Where is this challenge coming from?