For my time-tracking app, I'm storing time entries in an array of objects each looking like this:
{
date: "20181206",
hours: "4",
projectId: "65WchP9X46HlOYUzmWrL",
taskId: "fJTU7wggJHbg1uRuRUdHjS5mn8J3"
}
I need to group, into separate arrays, all objects by unique combinations of ProjectId - TaskId properties, so that each resulting array gets all entries for one particular project and one particular task (an array for project #1 / task #1, another for project #1 / task #2, another for project #2 / task #1, etc).
I know how to do that with one property, but is there a simple way to achieve the same with two properties?
Note: my global array is initially populated like so:
weekTimes = [];
querySnapshot.forEach((doc) => {
weekTimes.push(doc.data());
});
Create a composite key from projectId and taskId:
grouped = {}
for (weekTime of weekTimes) {
var key = `${weekTime.projectId}/${weekTime.taskId}`
if (grouped[key] === undefined) {
// if the key doesn't exist, weekTime is the first item, create the key
// and assign an array with the first item to it
grouped[key] = [ weekTime ]
} else {
// if the key already exists in grouped, just push new item to that key
grouped[key].push(weekTime)
}
}
// if you don't need the keys
Object.values(grouped)
Or use lodash groupby:
const _ = require('lodash')
_.groupBy(weekTimes, x => x.projectId + '/' + x.taskId)
Related
I'm trying to filter a set of objects based on values in one of their elements based on another array. I've got it working with filter just fine if the search is "OR" - it returns give me all objects for which at least one of the strings in the search array is found.
But I can't figure out how to make it work as an AND search - returning only the objects that match ALL of the strings in the search array.
Example:
struct Schedule {
let title: String
let classTypes: [String]
}
let schedule1 = Schedule(title: "One", classTypes: ["math","english","chemistry","drama"])
let schedule2 = Schedule(title: "Two", classTypes: ["pe","math","biology"])
let schedule3 = Schedule(title: "Three", classTypes: ["english","history","math","art"])
let schedules = [schedule1, schedule2, schedule3]
let searchArray = ["math", "english"]
//works for OR - "math" or "english"
var filteredSchedules = schedules.filter { $0.classTypes.contains(where: { searchArray.contains($0) }) }
I'd like to find a way for it to use the same search array
let searchArray = ["math", "english"]
But only return items 1 & 3 - as they both have BOTH math and english in the list.
There are good examples of AND conditions when the AND is across different search criteria: car type and colour - but I've been unable to find an example where the criteria are dynamically based on items in an array. For context, I could have dozens of schedules with 20+ class types.
You can work with a Set, isSubset will return true if the schedules element contains all elements of the searchSet
let searchSet = Set(searchArray)
var filteredSchedules = schedules.filter { searchSet.isSubset(of: $0.classTypes) }
As suggested by #LeoDabus it might be worth changing the type of classTypes to Set instead of arrays (if order doesn't matter) since they seems to be unique and then the filtering can be done in the opposite way without the need to convert searchArray each time
var filteredSchedules = schedules.filter { $0.classTypes.isSuperset(of: searchArray) }
I have two arrays, one containing 200.000 product objects coming from a CSV file and one containing 200.000 product objects coming from a database.
Both arrays contains objects with the same fields, with one exception: the database objects have a unique ID as well.
I need to compare all 200.000 CSV objects with the 200.000 database objects. If the CSV object already exists in the database objects array I put it in an "update" array together with the ID from the match, and if it doesn't, then I put it in a "new" array.
When done, I update all the "update" objects in the database, and insert all the "new" ones. This goes fast (few seconds).
The compare step however takes hours. I need to compare three values: the channel (string), date (date) and time (string). If all three are the same, it's a match. If one of those isn't, then it's not a match.
This is the code I have:
const newProducts = [];
const updateProducts = [];
csvProducts.forEach((csvProduct) => {
// check if there is a match
const match = dbProducts.find((dbProduct) => {
return dbProduct.channel === csvProduct.channel && moment(dbProduct.date).isSame(moment(csvProduct.date), 'day') && dbProduct.start_time === csvProduct.start_time;
});
if (match) {
// we found a match, add it to updateProducts array
updateProducts.push({
id: match.id,
...csvProduct
});
// remove the match from the dbProducts array to speed things up
_.pull(dbProducts, match);
} else {
// no match, it's a new product
newProducts.push(csvProduct);
}
});
I am using lodash and moment.js libraries.
The bottleneck is in the check if there is a match, any ideas on how to speed this up?
This is a job for the Map collection class. Arrays are a hassle because they must be searched linearly. Maps (and Sets) can be searched fast. You want to do your matching in RAM rather than hitting your db for every single object in your incoming file.
So, first read every record in your database and construct a Map where the keys are objects like this {start_time, date, channel} and the values are id. (I put the time first because I guess it's the attribute with the most different values. It's an attempt to make lookup faster.)
Something like this pseudocode.
const productsInDb = new Map()
for (const entry in database) {
const key = { // make your keys EXACTLY the same when you load your Map ..
start_time: entry.start_time,
date: moment(entry.date),
entry.channel}
productsInDb.add(key, entry.id)
}
This will take a whole mess of RAM, but so what? It's what RAM is for.
Then do your matching more or less the way you did it in your example, but using your Map.
const newProducts = [];
const updateProducts = [];
csvProducts.forEach((csvProduct) => {
// check if there is a match
const key = { // ...and when you look up entries in the Map.
start_time: entry.start_time,
date: moment(entry.date),
entry.channel}
const id = productsInDb.get(key)
if (id) {
// we found a match, add it to updateProducts array
updateProducts.push({
id: match.id,
...csvProduct
});
// don't bother to update your Map here
// unless you need to do something about dups in your csv file
} else {
// no match, it's a new product
newProducts.push(csvProduct)
}
});
The problem with the ECMA standard for sort of Object.keys() is known:
Object.keys() handle all keys with integer (example: 168), including integer as strings (example: "168"), as a integer. The result is, both are the same (168 === "168"), and overwrite itself.
var object = {};
object["168"] = 'x';
object[168] = 'y';
Object.keys(object); // Array [ "168" ]
object[Object.keys(object)]; // "y"
Interestingly, all keys (including pure integer keys) are returned as a string.
The ecma262 wrote about this: All keys will be handle as a integer, expect the key is a String but is not an array index.
https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-ordinaryownpropertykeys
That should tell us: 168 === "168". A toString() do not solve the problem.
var object = {};
object[[3].toString()] = 'z';
object[[1].toString()] = 'x';
object[[2].toString()] = 'y';
Object.keys(object);
// Array(3) [ "1", "2", "3" ]
Paradoxically, in this case, only integer apply as "enumerable" (it's ignoring array.sort(), that sort also strings with letters.).
My question about this is simple: How can i prevent the sort function in Object.keys()? I have testet the Object.defineProperties(object, 1, {value: "a", enumerable: true/false}), but that mean not realy enumerable in the case of integer or string or integer-like string. It means only should it be counted with or not. It means "counted" like omit (if it false), not "enumerabled" like ascending or descending.
A answere like that is not a good answer: Please use only letters [a-zA-Z] or leastwise a letter at the first position of keyword.
What I want: That the keys are not sorted, but output in the order in which they were entered, whether integer, string or symbol.
Disclaimer: Please solutions only in JavaScript.
Javascript Objects are unordered by their nature. If you need an ordered object-like variable I would suggest using a map.
To achieve what you're looking for with a map instead of object you'd do something like the below:
var map1 = new Map();
map1.set("123", "c");
map1.set(123, "b");
var iterator1 = map1.keys();
var myarray = [];
for (var i = 0; i < map1.size; i++) {
myarray.push(iterator1.next().value);
}
console.log(myarray);
// Array ["123", 123]
Unfortunately it's not compatible with IE and I'm not sure how else you could achieve what you need without it. A quick Google did return something about jQuery maps, though.
If you don't want to use jQuery and still need to support IE some points are below:
Is there anything stopping you using an array rather than JS object to store the data you need? This will retain the order per your requirements unlike objects. You could have an object entry in each iteration which represents the key then use a traditional foreach to obtain them as an array. I.e.
The array:
var test_array = [
{key: 123, value: 'a value here'},
{key: "123", value: 'another value here'}
];
// console.log(test_array);
Getting the keys:
var test_array_keys = [];
test_array.forEach(function(obj) { test_array_keys.push(obj['key']); } );
// console.log(test_array_keys);
Then if you needed to check whether the key exists before adding a new entry (to prevent duplicates) you could do:
function key_exists(key, array)
{
return array.indexOf(key) !== -1;
}
if(key_exists('12345', test_array_keys))
{
// won't get here, this is just for example
console.log('Key 12345 exists in array');
}
else if(key_exists('123', test_array_keys))
{
console.log('Key 123 exists in array');
}
Would that work? If not then the only other suggestion would be keeping a separate array alongside the object which tracks the keys and is updated when an entry is added or removed to/from the object.
Object Keys sorted and store in array
First Creating student Object. then sort by key in object,last keys to store in array
const student={tamil:100, english:55, sci:85,soc:57}
const sortobj =Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(student).sort())
console.log(Object.keys(sortobj))
use map instead of an object.
let map = new Map()
map.set("a", 5)
map.set("d", 6)
map.set("b", 12)
to sort the keys (for example, to update a chart data)
let newMap = new Map([...map.entries()].sort())
let keys = Array.from(newMap.keys()) // ['a','b','d']
let values = Array.from(newMap.values()) // [5,12,6]
So I'm using ngrx for managing the state in my application. I tried to add a new property (selected shifts) which should look like this:
state: {
shifts: {
selectedShifts: [
[employeeId]: [
[shiftId]: shift
]
]
}
}
at the moment, my state looks like this:
state: {
selectedShifts: {
[employeeId]: {
[shiftId]: shift
}
}
}
so as you can see, my "selected shift" is a property, not an array - which makes it diffictult to add/remove/query the state.
How do I compose the state to look like I want it?
This is what I tried in the reducer:
return {
...state,
selectedShifts: {
...state.selectedShifts,
[action.payload.employeeId]: {
...state.selectedShifts[action.payload.employeeId],
[action.payload.shiftId]: action.payload[shift.shiftId]
}
}
};
Now when I try to return the state in the way I'd like to, this is the result:
state: {
selectedShifts: {
[action.payload.employeeId]:
[0]: {[action.payload.shiftId]: { shift }}
}
}
What am I missing here? When I try to replace the {} items which should be [] this error comes up: "," expected.
Oh yea, I would like the index of the array to be the id of the specific shift and not [0], [1]...
Is this possible at all?
Would it be a bad idea to change the index from numerics to the actual shift's id?
Array length kind of miss behaves when you add data at numeric index points. This might get you into problems with array methods using length join, slice, indexOf etc. & array methods altering length push, splice, etc.
var fruits = [];
fruits.push('banana', 'apple', 'peach');
console.log(fruits.length); // 3
When setting a property on a JavaScript array when the property is a valid array index and that index is outside the current bounds of the array, the engine will update the array's length property accordingly:
fruits[5] = 'mango';
console.log(fruits[5]); // 'mango'
console.log(Object.keys(fruits)); // ['0', '1', '2', '5']
console.log(fruits.length); // 6
There is no problem selecting / updating state from object, it's just a bit different from what you're probably used to. With straight hashmap { objectId: Object } finding the required object to update / remove is the fastest possible if changes are defined for object id.
I know your problem is related to NGRX but reading Redux immutable patterns is going to definitely help you out here for add / update / remove objects from the state. https://redux.js.org/recipes/structuring-reducers/immutable-update-patterns
Generally you don't want to have arrays in state ( at least large arrays ) object hashmaps are a lot better.
To get array of your selected user shifts for views you could do something like. Note this is not a shift indexed array just array of shifts under userId property. From original state form following state.
state: {
selectedShifts: {
[employeeId]: {
[shiftId]: shift
}
}
}
const getSelectedShiftsAsArray = this.store.select( getSelectedShifts() )
.map(
userShifts => {
// get array of object ids
const userIds = Object.keys( userShifts );
const ret = {};
for( const userId of userIds ) {
const collectedShifts = [];
// convert Dictionary<Shift> into a Shift[]
// get array of shift ids
const shiftIds = Object.keys( userShifts[userId] );
// map array of shift ids into shift object array
collectedShifts = shiftIds.map( shiftId => userShifts[shiftId] );
// return value for a userId
ret[userId] = collectedShifts;
}
return ret;
});
Code is completely untested and just for a reference one level up from pseudocode. You could easily convert that into a NGRX selector though. The state is there just for the storage, how you model it for use in components is upto selector functions & components themselves.
If you really really need it you could add.
ret[userId].shiftIds = shiftIds;
ret[userId].shifts = collectedShifts;
But it really depends on how you plan to use these.
From my personal experience I would separate shift entities from selectedShifts but how you organise your state is completely up to you.
state: {
shifts: {
// contains shift entities as object property map id: entity
entities: Dictionary<Shift>,
selectedShifts: [
[employeeId]: number[] // contains ids for shifts
]
}
}
Now updating / removing and adding a shift would just be setting updated data into path shifts.entities[entityId]
Also selectedShifts for employeeId would be about checking if id is already in there and appending it into an array if it wasn't. ( If these arrays are humongous I'd go with object hash here too for fast access. <employeeId>: {shiftId:shiftId} ).
Check also:
redux: state as array of objects vs object keyed by id
Looking to get info from an array inside an array, without having exact info basically.
local cfg_raids = {
[2] =
{
["10:17"] = {
raidName = "Rats - Thais",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1234,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
["10:20"] = {
raidName = "Testing this shit",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1235,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
},
[3] =
{
["12:00"] = {
raidName = "OrcsThais",
Event_Type = "Raid Activated",
Storage = 1236,
alreadyExecuted = false
},
},
Trying to Grab the time randomly without actually having the exact time stamp.
So like when the script activates the timestamp array ["10:17"] it grabs all the next arrays info ["10:20"] without actually knowing the ["10:20"]
OPEN TIBIA INFORMATION: http://otland.net/threads/looking-for-some-assistance-on-a-script.216303/
With non-integer keys like that you can't really do it. You can try using the next function to get the next key from your current key but you have no guarantees which next key you will get if there are more than two keys in the table (you can not even guarantee that it will be consistently the same next key).
You could use integer indices in that table and make time a field of the table and then simply use the next integer as your next key if that works however.
You could also store the times used as keys, in whatever order you want, in the integer indices in the table (or some other table) and use that without needing to redo the table itself (e.g. cfg_raids = { [2] = { "10:17", "10:20", ["10:17"] = {...}, ["10:20"] = {...} } }).