Theo's Typesafe Cult•2y ago

Help me write a cleaner method?

Hi all, I'm writing a function to break a list of assets into chunks with a max size. I have an array of objects with the following signature: {url: string, size: number}. I want to end up with the following:

  {name: 'chunk-1', files: [url01, url01...]},
  {name: 'chunk-2', files: [url01, url01...]},
]

  {name: 'chunk-1', files: [url01, url01...]},
  {name: 'chunk-2', files: [url01, url01...]},
]

If I have a single chunk, I'd like it to just be named chunk.

  let acc = 0;
  const chunks = [];
  for (const song of songs) {
    if (acc + song.size > CHUNK_SIZE) {
      chunks.push({
        name: "chunk" + "-" + (chunks.length + 1),
        files: [song.url],
      });
      acc = 0;
    } else {
      if (chunks.length === 0) {
        chunks.push({
          filename: 'chunk' + "-" + (chunks.length + 1),
          files: [song.url],
        });
        acc = song.size;
      } else {
        chunks[chunks.length - 1].files.push(song.url);
        chunks[chunks.length - 1].size += song.size;
        acc += song.size;
      }
    }
  }
  if(chunks.length === 1) {
    chunks[0].filename = 'chunk';
  }

  let acc = 0;
  const chunks = [];
  for (const song of songs) {
    if (acc + song.size > CHUNK_SIZE) {
      chunks.push({
        name: "chunk" + "-" + (chunks.length + 1),
        files: [song.url],
      });
      acc = 0;
    } else {
      if (chunks.length === 0) {
        chunks.push({
          filename: 'chunk' + "-" + (chunks.length + 1),
          files: [song.url],
        });
        acc = song.size;
      } else {
        chunks[chunks.length - 1].files.push(song.url);
        chunks[chunks.length - 1].size += song.size;
        acc += song.size;
      }
    }
  }
  if(chunks.length === 1) {
    chunks[0].filename = 'chunk';
  }

The way I'm naming chunks is slightly more complicated but irrelevant to the question. I'm wondering if there is a cleaner way to do this. This works fine and is fast, but to me feels a bit hacky. I'm not sure if that's because it is, or if I'm just being overly self-conscious.

13 Replies

Amos•2y ago

Why does it feel hacky to you

well adjusted individual•2y ago

I think just because of the nested if/elses and logic duplication

Amos•2y ago

I think it's fine 🤷‍♂️ would just rename acc to chunkSize or w/e to make it more readable. Don't waste time on stuff that's not important 😛

well adjusted individual•2y ago

I appreciate that, I need to stop second guessing my code

Amos•2y ago

If it becomes a problem in the future (don't see why) then you can fix it then, if it works it works

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

well adjusted individual•2y ago

Yes you're right

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

well adjusted individual•2y ago

I ended up writing it as a reducer function and I think I prefer it

  const chunks = songs.reduce(
    (prev, curr) => {
      if (prev[prev.length -1].size + curr.size > MAX_CHUNK_SIZE) {
        prev.push({
          filename: uniqueName + "-" + (prev.length + 1),
          files: [curr.url],
          size: curr.size,
        });
        prev[0].filename = uniqueName + "-1"
      } else {
        prev[prev.length -1].files.push(curr.url);
        prev[prev.length -1].size += curr.size;
      }
      return prev
    },
    [{ filename: uniqueName, files: [], size: 0 }]
  );

  const chunks = songs.reduce(
    (prev, curr) => {
      if (prev[prev.length -1].size + curr.size > MAX_CHUNK_SIZE) {
        prev.push({
          filename: uniqueName + "-" + (prev.length + 1),
          files: [curr.url],
          size: curr.size,
        });
        prev[0].filename = uniqueName + "-1"
      } else {
        prev[prev.length -1].files.push(curr.url);
        prev[prev.length -1].size += curr.size;
      }
      return prev
    },
    [{ filename: uniqueName, files: [], size: 0 }]
  );

LOL we had the same idea

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

well adjusted individual•2y ago

Reducers are like 4x slower than for loops but considering my array is maxed at like 200 it won't be an issue

Unknown User•2y ago

Message Not Public

well adjusted individual•2y ago

I appreciate the help from both of you The first one was fine, but there was a cleaner way

Gaming

Programming

Help me write a cleaner method?