I have a project where we have been using simple, unversioned values for documents:
{
_id: <someid>,
prop1: 'foo',
prop2: 'bar',
prop3: 'baz'
}
I would like to update the method that saves prop values to start saving values as versions in an array, to look like this:
{
_id: <someid>,
prop1: [{ value: 'foo', createdAt: <someDate>}],
prop2: [{ value: 'bar', createdAt: <someDate>}, { value: 'barrrrr', createdAt: <someDate>}],
prop3: 'baz'
}
I would like, in my update query, to $push the new prop value object if it's already an array, or to $set it to `[{ value: 'newvalue', createdAt: +new Date()}] if not. Ideally, this would let me seamlessly transition the data to be versioned over time. On the retrieval side, if it's not an array we just treat the only value that's there as the reference version, and whenever anything gets updated, that prop is converted to the new format.
I've been struggling to find an example of that same use case: can anyone point me in the right direction?
UPDATE:
After being pointed in the right direction, I was able to use the aggregation pipeline in combination with update to do what I wanted. Part of the key was to abandon trying to pivot between setting and pulling--instead, I could use the helper method $concatArrays to accomplish the array addition a different way. Here's the basic shell code I got to work, purely to show the structure:
db.test.docs.update({ key: 2 }, [
{
$set: {
prop2: {
$cond: {
if: { $isArray: '$prop2' },
then: {
$concatArrays: [
'$prop2',
[
{
value: 'CONCAT!'
}
]
]
},
else: [
{
value: 'SET!'
}
]
}
}
}
}
]);
In MongoDB 4.2 you can use the pipeline form of update to use aggregation stages and operators to do that.
You would likely need to use $cond and $type to find out if the field already contains an array, and then $concatArrays to combine the values.
Related
I am building a React form component with TypeScript and want to type the data returned by my form.
My component accepts a prop called "fields" with the following structure:
const fields = [
{
name: "title",
default: "",
data: undefined,
size: 2
},
{
name: "users",
default: [],
data: [{id: 1, ...}]
size: 8
},
]
I would like to find a way to retrieve the type of the data returned by component based on the "field" variable. So, basically, I want to get something like that:
type FormData = {
title: string;
users: Array<{id: number, ...}>
}
The best solution would be to infer a different type depending on the "data" key. If "data" exists, then the field will have the same type as data, otherwise it is the type of the "default" key. All other keys should be ignored.
I believe I should be using generics to achieve this but I am not even sure this is something possible with TS and I have to admit that I can't figure it out...
Has anyone already faced this situation and found a solution to a similar issue ?
Thank you very much!
Based on the given array fields, we can create the type FormData with the following generic type as long as the fields variable was initialized with as const to stop TypeScript from widening the string literals.
const fields = [
{
name: "title",
default: "",
data: undefined,
size: 2
},
{
name: "users",
default: [],
data: [{id: 1}],
size: 8
},
] as const
type FormData<T extends readonly { name: st
[E in T[number] as E["name"]]: E["data"]
? E["default"]
: E["data"]
}
type Result = FormData<typeof fields>
// type Result = {
// title: "";
// users: readonly [{
// readonly id: 1;
// }];
// }
This might or might not work in the context of your component. But you did not show us the component itself. This is a solution based on the information given in your question.
Playground
I am having trouble with writing the following method on an Angular class. I don't know how to add values from arrayId to the data array in the series object.
getChartOptions() {
const arrayId=[];
const arrayTimestamp=[];
const arrayData=[];
const arrayData2=[];
var i=0;
this.httpClient.get<any>('http://prod.kaisens.fr:811/api/sleep/?deviceid=93debd97-6564-454b-be33-35bd377a2563&startdate=1612310400000&enddate=1614729600000').subscribe(
reponse => {
this.sleeps = reponse;
this.sleeps.forEach(element => { arrayId.push(this.sleeps[i]._id),arrayTimestamp.push(this.sleeps[i].timestamp),arrayData.push(this.sleeps[i].data[18]),arrayData2.push(this.sleeps[i].data[39])
i++;
});
console.log(arrayId);
console.log(arrayTimestamp);
console.log(arrayData);
console.log(arrayData2);
}
)
return {
series: [{
name: 'Id',
data: [35, 65, 75, 55, 45, 60, 55]
}]
}
}
I have two main pieces of advice for you:
Know the types of that data that you are dealing with.
Get familiar with all of the various array methods.
get<any>() is not a helpful type. If you understand what the response is then Typescript can help ensure that you are handling it correctly.
I checked out the URL and it looks like you get an array of objects like this:
{
"_id": 4,
"device_id": "93debd97-6564-454b-be33-35bd377a2563",
"timestamp": 1612310400000.0,
"data": "{'sleep_quality': 1, 'sleep_duration': 9}"
},
That data property is not properly encoded as an object or as a parseable JSON string. If you control this backend then you will want to fix that.
At first I thought that the data[18] and data[39] in your code were mistakes. Now I see that it as attempt to extract values from this malformed data. Accessing by index won't work if these numbers can be 10 or more.
The type that you have now is:
interface DataPoint {
_id: number;
device_id: string;
timestamp: number;
data: string;
}
The type that you want is:
interface DataPoint {
_id: number;
device_id: string;
timestamp: number;
data: {
sleep_quality: number;
sleep_duration: number;
}
}
You can type the request as this.httpClient.get<DataPoint[]>( and now you'll get autocomplete on the data.
It looks like what you are trying to do is basically to convert this from one array of rows to a separate array for each column.
You do not need the variable i because the .forEach loop handles the iteration. The element variable in the callback is the row that you want.
this.sleeps.forEach(element => {
arrayId.push(element._id);
arrayTimestamp.push(element.timestamp);
arrayData.push(element.data[18]);
arrayData2.push(element.data[39]);
});
The .forEach loop that you have now is efficient because it only loops through the array once. A .map for each column is technically less efficient because we have to loop through separately for each column, but I think it might make the code easier to read and understand. It also allows Typescript to infer the types of the arrays. Whereas with an empty array you would need to annotate it like const arrayId: number[] = [];.
const mapData = (response: DataPoint[]) => {
return [{
name: 'Id',
data: response.map(element => element._id)
}, {
name: 'Timestamp',
data: response.map(element => element.timestamp)
}, {
name: 'Sleep Quality',
data: response.map(element => parseInt(element.data[18])) // fix this
}, {
name: 'Sleep Duration',
data: response.map(element => parseInt(element.data[39])) // fix this
}]
}
The HTTP request is asynchronous. If you access your array outside of the subscribe callback then they are still empty. I'm not an angular person so this part I'm unsure of, but I think that you want to be updating a property on your class instead of returning the value?
Just follow this piece of code:
series: [{
name: 'Id',
data: arrayId
}]
I have the following structure in my Redux data store:
{
filterData: {
22421: {
filterId: 22421,
selectedFilters: [
{
filterName: 'gender',
text: 'Male',
value: 'male'
},
{
filterName: 'gender',
text: 'female',
value: 'female'
}
]
}
22422: {
filterId: 22422,
selectedFilters: [
{
filterName: 'colour',
text: 'Blue',
value: 'blue'
},
{
filterName: 'animal',
text: 'sheep',
value: 'Sheep'
}
]
}
Can someone point me towards using the correct way to update the selectedFilters array without mutating the state directly? i.e. How can I add/remove elements in the selectedFilters array for a given filterId?
Generally it's done by using non mutating (ie. returning a new object, rather than modifying the existing one) operators and function:
spread operator (...) for objects and arrays (for additions and edits),
filtering, mapping and reduction for arrays (for edits and removals),
assigning for object (for edits and additions).
You have to do this on each level leading to the final one—where your change happens. In your case, if you want to change the selectedFilters on one of those objects you'll have to do something like that:
// Assuming you're inside a reducer function.
case SOME_ACTION:
// Returning the new state object, since there's a change inside.
return {
// Prepend old values of the state to this new object.
...state,
// Create a new value for the filters property,
// since—again—there's a change inside.
filterData: {
// Once again, copy all the old values of the filters property…
...state.filters,
// … and create a new value for the filter you want to edit.
// This one will be about removal of the filter.
22421: {
// Here we go again with the copy of the previous value.
...state.filters[22421],
// Since it's an array and we want to remove a value,
// the filter method will work the best.
selectedFilters:
state.filters[22421].selectedFilters.filter(
// Let's say you're removing a filter by its name and the name
// that needs to be removed comes from the action's payload.
selectedFilter => selectedFilter.name !== action.payload
)
},
// This one could be about addition of a new filter.
22422: {
...state.filters[22422],
// Spread works best for additions. It returns a new array
// with the old values being placed inside a new one.
selectedFilters: [
// You know the drill.
...state.filters[22422].selectedFilters,
// Add this new filter object to the new array of filters.
{
filterName: 'SomeName',
text: 'some text',
value: action.value // Let's say the value comes form the action.
}
]
},
}
}
This constant "copy old values" is required to make sure the values from nested objects are preserved, since the spread operator copies properties in a shallow manner.
const someObj = {a: {b: 10}, c: 20}
const modifiedObj = {...someObj, a: {d: 30}}
// modifiedObj is {a: {d: 30}, c: 20}, instead of
// {a: {b: 10, d: 30}, c: 20} if spread created a deep copy.
As you can see, this is a bit mundane to do. One solution to that problem would be to create some kind of nested reducers functions that will work on separate trees of the state. However, sometimes it's better not to reinvent the wheal and use tools that are already available that were made to solve those kind of problems. Like Immutable.js.
If you want to use a dedicated library for managing the immutable state (like suggested in another answer) take a look at Immer.
I find that this library is simpler to be used than Immutable.js (and the bundle size will be smaller too)
Suppose I have a reducer defined which returns an array of objects which contain keys like an id or something. What is the a redux way of getting /finding a certain object with a certain id in the array. The array itself can contain several arrays:
{ items:[id:1,...],cases:{...}}
What is the redux way to go to find a record/ node by id?
The perfect redux way to store such a data would be to store them byId and allIds in an object in reducer.
In your case it would be:
{
items: {
byId : {
item1: {
id : 'item1',
details: {}
},
item2: {
id : 'item2',
details: {}
}
},
allIds: [ 'item1', 'item2' ],
},
cases: {
byId : {
case1: {
id : 'case1',
details: {}
},
case2: {
id : 'case2',
details: {}
}
},
allIds: [ 'case1', 'case2' ],
},
}
Ref: http://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/reducers/NormalizingStateShape.html
This helps in keeping state normalized for both maintaining as well as using data.
This way makes it easier for iterating through all the array and render it or if we need to get any object just by it's id, then it'll be an O(1) operation, instead of iterating every time in complete array.
I'd use a library like lodash:
var fred = _.find(users, function(user) { return user.id === 1001; });
fiddle
It might be worth noting that it is seen as good practice to 'prefer objects over arrays' in the store (especially for large state trees); in this case you'd store your items in an object with (say) id as the key:
{
'1000': { name: 'apple', price: 10 },
'1001': { name: 'banana', price: 40 },
'1002': { name: 'pear', price: 50 },
}
This makes selection easier, however you have to arrange the shape of the state when loading.
there is no special way of doing this with redux. This is a plain JS task. I suppose you use react as well:
function mapStoreToProps(store) {
function findMyInterestingThingy(result, key) {
// assign anything you want to result
return result;
}
return {
myInterestingThingy: Object.keys(store).reduce(findMyInterestingThingy, {})
// you dont really need to use reduce. you can have any logic you want
};
}
export default connect(mapStoreToProps)(MyComponent)
regards
I have a document in mongodb with 2 level deep nested array of objects that I need to update, something like this:
{
id: 1,
items: [
{
id: 2,
blocks: [
{
id: 3
txt: 'hello'
}
]
}
]
}
If there was only one level deep array I could use positional operator to update objects in it but for second level the only option I've came up is to use positional operator with nested object's index, like this:
db.objects.update({'items.id': 2}, {'$set': {'items.$.blocks.0.txt': 'hi'}})
This approach works but it seems dangerous to me since I'm building a web service and index number should come from client which can send say 100000 as index and this will force mongodb to create an array with 100000 indexes with null value.
Are there any other ways to update such nested objects where I can refer to object's ID instead of its position or maybe ways to check if supplied index is out of bounds before using it in query?
Here's the big question, do you need to leverage Mongo's "addToSet" and "push" operations? If you really plan to modify just individual items in the array, then you should probably build these arrays as objects.
Here's how I would structure this:
{
id: 1,
items:
{
"2" : { "blocks" : { "3" : { txt : 'hello' } } },
"5" : { "blocks" : { "1" : { txt : 'foo'}, "2" : { txt : 'bar'} } }
}
}
This basically transforms everything in to JSON objects instead of arrays. You lose the ability to use $push and $addToSet but I think this makes everything easier. For example, your query would look like this:
db.objects.update({'items.2': {$exists:true} }, {'$set': {'items.2.blocks.0.txt': 'hi'}})
You'll also notice that I've dumped the "IDs". When you're nesting things like this you can generally replace "ID" with simply using that number as an index. The "ID" concept is now implied.
This feature has been added in 3.6 with expressive updates.
db.objects.update( {id: 1 }, { $set: { 'items.$[itm].blocks.$[blk].txt': "hi", } }, { multi: false, arrayFilters: [ { 'itm.id': 2 }, { 'blk.id': 3} ] } )
The ids which you are using are linear number and it has to come from somewhere like an additional field such 'max_idx' or something similar.
This means one lookup for the id and then update. UUID/ObjectId can be used for ids which will ensure that you can use Distributed CRUD as well.
Building on Gates' answer, I came up with this solution which works with nested object arrays:
db.objects.updateOne({
["items.id"]: 2
}, {
$set: {
"items.$.blocks.$[block].txt": "hi",
},
}, {
arrayFilters: [{
"block.id": 3,
}],
});
MongoDB 3.6 added all positional operator $[] so if you know the id of block that need update, you can do something like:
db.objects.update({'items.blocks.id': id_here}, {'$set': {'items.$[].blocks.$.txt': 'hi'}})
db.col.update({"items.blocks.id": 3},
{ $set: {"items.$[].blocks.$[b].txt": "bonjour"}},
{ arrayFilters: [{"b.id": 3}] }
)
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/operator/update/positional-filtered/#update-nested-arrays-in-conjunction-with
This is pymongo function for find_one_and_update. I searched a lot to find the pymongo function. Hope this will be useful
find_one_and_update(filter, update, projection=None, sort=None, return_document=ReturnDocument.BEFORE, array_filters=None, hint=None, session=None, **kwargs)
Example
db.pymongo_object.find_one_and_update( filter = {'id' : 1}, update= {$set: {"items.$[array1].blocks.$[array2].txt": "hi"}}, array_filters =[{"array1.id" :2}, {"array2.id": 3}])
Also see pymongo documentation.