Comment on The Legends is among us

underscores@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• CannedYeet@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I worked with chatgpt to since I’m not a python dev, and this is what I came up with

  from time import time
  
  class PlaySession:
      def __init__(self, data: dict):
          self.guild_id = int(data['guild_id'])
          self.user_id = int(data['user_id'])
          self.timestamp = data['time']
  
      def is_longer_than_half_hour(self) -> bool:
          return self.timestamp + 1800 < time()
  
      async def resolve_member(self, bot) -> "discord.Member | None":
          guild = bot.get_guild(self.guild_id)
          return guild.get_member(self.user_id) if guild else None
  
      @staticmethod
      def is_playing_league(member) -> bool:
          activity = getattr(member, 'activity', None)
          name = getattr(activity, 'name', None)
          return name and name.lower() == "league of legends"
  
  async def ban_for_league(member):
      await member.send("The 30 minutes has elapsed and you are still playing league, get banned.")
      await member.ban(delete_message_days=0, reason="playing league")
  
  async def process_entries(bot, entry_dicts):
      sessions = [PlaySession(d) for d in entry_dicts if PlaySession(d).is_longer_than_half_hour()]
      for session in sessions:
          member = await session.resolve_member(bot)
          if member and PlaySession.is_playing_league(member):
              await ban_for_league(member)
  

  source
• Tja@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not only nested ifs. It’s not even correct (doesn’t check for activities existing). And it’s not even pythonic (ask for forgiveness, not for permission). Just access the thing, catch the exception and be done with it.

  source
• REDACTED@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but the script works faster with nested IFs since if it fails at the first one, it won’t bother reading next ones, unless you kill/return from function.

  All in all, this feels like readibility argument, not correctness or efficienty argument

  source
• Jankatarch@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There are two types of programmers.

  // comment1
  if(condition1) {
    // comment2
    if(condition2) {
      // comment3
      if(condition3) {
        printf("hello, world\n");
      }
    }
  }
  

  and

  // comment1
  if(!condition!) {
    return;
  }
  
  // comment2
  if(!condition2) {
    return;
  }
  
  // comment3
  if(!condition3) {
    return;
  }
  
  printf("hello, world\n");
  

  source

  • veganpizza69@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Add the else branches to the nested version and log the failed conditions (to make it more obvious).

    source
  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    if(!condition) {  return;}: If(!condition1) {return;}; if(!condition2) {return;}; 
    

    source
  • undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m so the latter. The former drives me fucking crazy.

    source
  • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    // comment
    if(x < 10) {
      // comment1
      if(x < 20) {
        // comment2
        if(x < 30) {
          printf("hello, world\\n");
        }
      }
    }
    

    source

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      “Yeah x might be less than 10 but just in case check if it’s less than 30.”

      source
    • underscores@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This is the cursed case when you case the forbidden scroll of the ancients: switch (true) { }

      source
  • rothaine@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    if (condition && condition1 && condition2)
    

    source

    • kernelle@0d.gs ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The problem with this in the OP is the first ‘if’ checks if the object exists and the second gets a property of said object only if the original object exists.

      I’m not saying the OP is good code, but chaining them like this would result in exceptions.

      source

      • fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The language is python and it has short circuiting aka in an and condition, if the first block isn’t fulfilled the second one isn’t tested because it’s unnecessary.

        Same with or and the reverse.

        source
      • rothaine@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Not in a language with short circuiting.

        source

        • -> View More Comments