Merging two dictionaries

[Gary Herron]

On 08/01/2010 11:11 PM, Douglas Garstang wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Gary Herron<gherron at islandtraining.com>  wrote:
>    
>> On 08/01/2010 10:09 PM, Douglas Garstang wrote:
>>      
>>> Anyone,
>>>
>>> I have the two dictionaries below. How can I merge them, such that:
>>>
>>> 1. The cluster dictionary contains the additional elements from the
>>> default dictionary.
>>> 2. Nothing is removed from the cluster dictionary.
>>>
>>> The idea here is that the two dictionaries are read from different
>>> files where, if the value isn't found in the cluster dictionary, it's
>>> pulled from the default one, and I can have a new dictionary
>>> reflecting this. The update() method on dictionaries doesn't seem to
>>> work. The resulting dictionary always seems to be the one passed as a
>>> parameter.
>>>
>>> default = {
>>>      'cluster': {
>>>          'platform': {
>>>              'elements': {
>>>                  'data_sources': {
>>>                      'elements': {
>>>                          'db_min_pool_size': 10
>>>                      },
>>>                  },
>>>              },
>>>          },
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> cluster = {
>>>      'cluster': {
>>>          'name': 'Customer 1',
>>>          'description': 'Production',
>>>          'environment': 'production',
>>>          'platform': {
>>>              'elements': {
>>>                  'data_source': {
>>>                      'elements': {
>>>                          'username': 'username',
>>>                          'password': 'password'
>>>                      },
>>>                  },
>>>              },
>>>          },
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> The resulting dictionary would therefore look like this:
>>>
>>> new_dict = {
>>>      'cluster': {
>>>          'name': 'Customer 1',
>>>          'description': 'Production',
>>>          'environment': 'production',
>>>          'platform': {
>>>              'elements': {
>>>                  'data_source': {
>>>                      'elements': {
>>>                          'username': 'username',
>>>                          'password': 'password',
>>>                          'db_min_pool_size': 10 # This was added from
>>> the default.
>>>                      },
>>>                  },
>>>              },
>>>          },
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Doug.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Your dictionaries are annoyingly complicated -- making it hard to see what's
>> going on.  Here I've replaced all the distractions of your dictionary
>> nesting with a simple (string) value.  Now when you try to update
>>
>>      
>>>>> default = {'cluster': 'some_value'}
>>>>> cluster = {'cluster': 'another_value'}
>>>>> cluster.update(default)
>>>>> print cluster
>>>>>            
>> {'cluster': 'some_value'}
>>
>> If you read up on what update is supposed to do, this is correct -- keys in
>> default are inserted into cluster -- replacing values if they already exist.
>>
>> I believe update is not what you want for two reasons:
>>
>>   1.  It's doubtful that you want a default to replace an existing value, and
>> that's what update does.
>>
>>   2.  I get the distinct impression that you are expecting the update to be
>> applied recursively down through the hierarchy.  Such is not the case.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And I just have to ask: Of what use whatsoever is a dictionary (hierarchy)
>> that contains *one* single value which needs a sequence of 6 keys to access?
>>
>> print
>> default['cluster']['platform']['elements']['data_sources']['elements']['db_min_pool_size']
>>      
>>>>> 10
>>>>>            
>> Seems absurd unless there is lots more going on here.
>>      
> Thanks. Any particular reason you replied off-list?
>    

Huh?  Oh hell.  My mistake.  (This is now back on the list -- where it 
should have been to start with.)


> Anyway, I'm trying to model a cluster of servers in a yaml file that
> gets edited by humans and a tree structure makes it easier to
> understand the context of each invidual key. If it was arrange in a
> flat fashion, each key would have to be longer in order to make it
> unique and provide some context as to what the user was actually
> editing.
>
> I actually didn't paste the whole dictionary. I cut it down to make it
> easier to explain. When you see the full version, the multiple levels
> make more sense. Tried various approaches so far, and none work. I
> can't traverse the tree recursively because each time you recurse, you
> lose the absolute position of the key your currently at, and then
> there's no way to update the values.
>
> Doug.
>    

Ok.  Thanks for simplifying things before sending the question out to 
the list.  You probably wouldn't have gotten a response otherwise.

I'm not sure I believe the reasoning for the inability to recurse.  It 
seems rather simple to recurse through the structures in tandem, adding 
any key:value found in the default to the other if not already present.

Gary Herron