The operation on inactive entries
Recently I came across an unusual problem of maintaining active and inactive entries. It was unusual because there were two sets and they were updated differently and at different times. Both the sets were invoked separately and there was no sign whether the sets were mutually exclusive. Although we could assume the invocations of operations on the sets were from the same component, they were invoked in different iterations.  This meant that the operations taken on the set would be repeated several times.
The component only took actions on the active set. It needed to take an action on the entries that were inactive. This action was added subsequent to the action on the active set. However, the sets were not mutually exclusive so they had to be differentiated to see what was available in one but not the other. Instead this was overcome by delegating the sets to be separated at the source. This made it a lot easier to work with the actions on the sets because they would be fetched each time with some confidence that they would be mutually exclusive. There was no confirmation that the source was indeed giving up to date sets. This called for a validation on the entries in the set prior to taking the action. The validation was merely to check if the entry was active or not.
However, an entry does not remain in the same set forever. It could move from the active set to the inactive set and back. The active set and the inactive set would always correspond to their respective actions. This meant that the actions needed to be inverted between the entries so that they could flip their state between the two processing.
There were four cases for trying this out. The first case was when the active set was called twice. The second case was when the inactive set was called twice. The third case was when the active set was followed by the inactive set. The fourth case was when the inactive set was followed by the active set.
With these four cases, the active and the inactive set could have the same operations taken deterministically no matter how many times they were repeated and in what order.
The only task that remained now was to ensure that the sets returned from the source were good to begin with. The source was merely subscribed to events that added entries to the sets.  However, the events could be called in any order and for arbitrary number of times. The event handling did not all exercise the same logic so the entries did not appear final in all the cases. This contributed to the invalid entries in the set. When the methods used to retrieve the active and inactive set were made consistent, deterministic, robust and correct, it became easier to work with the operations on the set in the calling component.
This concluded the cleaning up of the logic to handle the active and inactive sets.
#codingexercise
Selecting four from a set of n:
double GetNChooseK(double n, double k)
{
if (k <0 || k > n || n = 0) return 0;
if ( k == 0 || k == n) return 1;
return Factorial(n) / (Factorial(n-k) * Factorial(k));
}

 

GetNChooseK (n, 4);