Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice job!
All waves are complete and all tests are passing! Your code is well organized, and you are generally using good, descriptive variable names. You are making good choices about which loops to use.
One thing to try would be to make use of some auxiliary data structure to speed up some of your in checks in loops. Especially since a lot of the lookups involve checking for titles, which are immutable, a sett would be a great way to achieve O(1) lookups, especially when nested in an outer loop already.
Another opportunity would have been to use a dict as a frequency map (Learn has an example in Nested Data and Nested Loops, Nested Loops) as opposed to using list count in a nested loop.
For the size of our sample data, it wasn't strictly necessary, but getting some practice now can help for in the future when we might need to take a similar approach for much larger data!
But overall, great job!
| @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ | |||
| # Viewing Party | |||
|
|
|||
| ?just testing git | |||
| @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ | |||
| # Wave 1 | |||
|
|
|||
| def create_movie(movie_title, genre, rating): | |||
| if not "watched" in user_data: | ||
| user_data["watched"] = [movie] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ooh. Fancy!
FWIW, the use of keys to access data related to the user is really a stand-in for objects, that we'll be getting to shortly! In that scenario, we can generally assume that required "keys" are present without needing to check for them, and since Python expects us to be responsible coders, making an assumption like that, and letting things crash if the user supplied a malformed data structure wouldn't be that unexpected. 😆
| return user_data | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def add_to_watchlist(user_data, movie): |
| movie_found = False | ||
| index_to_be_removed = -1 # set to -1 bcs invalid, can't set it to other bcs those would be valid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strictly speaking, -1 isn't invalid (since python allows negative indexing), but you can decide that it's invalid for this situation! Since you're using a sentinel value for the index, you could even do without movie_found, and when you want to decide whether you found something later on, simply check for index_to_be_removed >= 0
|
|
||
| def get_available_recs(user_data): | ||
|
|
||
| host_list = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
VSCode should be warning you about unused variables (they should appear sort of grayed out in the editor).
| host_list = [] | ||
| recommendation_list = [] | ||
| subscription_list = user_data["subscriptions"] | ||
| user_not_watched_list = get_friends_unique_watched(user_data) |
| user_not_watched_list = get_friends_unique_watched(user_data) | ||
|
|
||
| for movie_dict in user_not_watched_list: | ||
| if movie_dict["host"] in subscription_list: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We expect the subscription list to be short, so the list in is probably ok, but we could consider using a set.
| if len(friends_watched_list) == 0: | ||
| return new_rec_list |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a nice guard clause (does a quick check and bails out of the function so we don't need to worry about it during the rest of the function). But Notice that even without this check, if friends_watched_list was empty, the retuned value would still be an empty list.
Also, a more pythonic way to check for an empty list is
if not friends_watched_list:| friends_not_watched_list = get_unique_watched(user_data) | ||
|
|
||
| for movie_dict in favorites_list: | ||
| if movie_dict in friends_not_watched_list: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could consider making a helper data structure consisting of the set of all movie titles unique to the user. Then here we could perform an equivalent check by seeing whether the title of the movie_dict is in that set. O(1) lookup!
2 participants
No description provided.