Search for a command to run...
Notes on the #2 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
In this series I'll go deep explaining how I solved each of the challenges presented in the GFE 75 track of GreatFrontEnd.
Notes on the #3 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
Notes on the #6 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
Notes on the #7 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
Notes on the #5 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
Notes on the #4 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
Notes on the #3 challenge in GFE 75 by GreatFrontEnd
JavaScript has always amazed me with its internal workings and the built-in features that we have for free, especially with the evolutions the language has gone through in recent years.
I always wanted to dive deeper into the internals of the language, but due to my busy schedule and my curiosity about new features, I always had trouble getting back to the basics.
That's why I have recently focused so much on the GreatFrontEnd challenges that I want to solve. Not only does this platform give me a clear path on what I should work on to get ready for my next interview, but it also pushes me to know the tool I am using even better.
Enough about the praise for GFE. Let's get real and talk about today's challenge.
reduce methodIf you have never used it, let me tell you something, you're leaving something powerful on the table.
While the logic can seem hard to grasp, especially when you work with TypeScript, the power that it gives you is unmatched. The reduce method inside JavaScript allows you to iterate over an array, operate on its values with a callback function that you provide, and get a single value out of it most of the time.
I've used "most of the time because reduce is incredibly powerful. You can stretch it as you wish even though it probably could be better to use a different method provided by the language.
The signature of the function is straightforward; you need to pass a callback function and an initial value to it. The callback function accepts 4 arguments:
accumulator: the value that holds the current state of your loop and that will be returned at the end of the reduce lifecycle.
element: the current array element you're working on.
index: that, as in any other loop method, can tell you where you are in the loop.
this: the entire array you're looping through
More than reduce itself, when I explain it to a co-worker, I always find that the most challenging part to grasp about this method is the callback function 😅
But today, we're here to create our own reduce method, and I hope everything will be clear with the following explanation.
reduce signatureWhen I opened the second task of GFE75 this was the TypeScript code I had to work with:
interface Array<T> {
myReduce<U>(
callbackFn: (
previousValue: U,
currentValue: T,
currentIndex: number,
array: T[],
) => U,
initialValue?: U,
): U;
}
Array.prototype.myReduce = function (callbackFn, initialValue) {}
As you can see, the TypeScript definition of the callbackFn is the most complex part of its signature. But at the end of the day, the myReduce method that we're creating (that has this name to not conflict with the reduce built-in method) has to return a U typed value, that has to be the same of initialValue, if provided.
With the knowledge that the methods we add to the prototype of a standard object have access to the object that invokes them via the this keyword, I quickly started to code and came up with the following implementation:
Array.prototype.myReduce = function (callbackFn, initialValue) {
let value = initialValue !== undefined ? initialValue : this.pop()
for(let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
value = this.at(i) ? callbackFn(value, this.at(i), i, this) : value
}
return value
};
While I think that this version of my code is pretty short and straightforward, when I ran the submission tests, there was one use case that failed.
This was the failing test:
const add = (prev: any, curr: any) => prev + curr;
test('no initial value provided and array is empty', () => {
expect(() => {
[].myReduce(add);
}).toThrow();
});
The test was expecting to receive an error if myReduce method was used on an empty array without any initialValue specified. And that's more than correct because, based on reduce definition, in case we do not provide an initialValue, the method will use the first item in the array. However, since the array is empty, this cannot be done, and we have to return an error.
This was only my first mistake, though, as you can see with the this.pop() part I am mutating the array, and while this is possible, it can lead to unintended consequences.
So, while I was just an if away from solving this challenge, a thing that I did nonetheless. After passing all the tests, I checked the proposed solution:
Array.prototype.myReduce = function (callbackFn, initialValue) {
const noInitialValue = initialValue === undefined;
const len = this.length;
if (noInitialValue && len === 0) {
throw new TypeError('Reduce of empty array with no initial value');
}
let acc = noInitialValue ? this[0] : initialValue;
let startingIndex = noInitialValue ? 1 : 0;
for (let k = startingIndex; k < len; k++) {
if (Object.hasOwn(this, k)) {
acc = callbackFn(acc, this[k], k, this);
}
}
return acc;
};
First and foremost, the solution implements talking variable names. Instead of using initialValue === undefined or this.length as I did in my code, the developer who wrote it made clear the logic behind these checks with names like noInitialValue and len (for length).
He also did not mutate the array. Instead, he used a ternary operator to keep track of the startingIndex based on the noInitialValue check result.
Lastly, at least the last thing that's different from my code is the check to see if a value is held by the item at the current index. In my code snippet, I just quickly checked for the presence of a positive value with this.at(i), but you know as me that this check it can get hallucinated on falsy values.
The solution creator instead relied on Object.hasOwn(this, i) to have a more complete check.
That's because this.at(i) (or this[i]) will return false if, for example, the stored value at such index is 0. Instead, use Object.hasOwn to allow us to check if the array (remember, arrays are just Objects in JavaScript) has a value at that specific index.
That value could be 0, undefined, or any other falsy value. But it is still a value held by the item of our array, and as such, we need to use it inside out callbackFn.