I have a many to many relation where TrainingPrograms can contain many Exercises. They are a linked via the linktable ExercisesTrainingPrograms.
I want to select certain fields from my exercises:
$trainingPrograms = $this->TrainingPrograms->find()
->contain(['Exercises' => function ($q) {
return $q
->select(['id','name','description']);
}
])
->select(['id','name','description'])
->where(['user_id' => $this->Auth->user('id')]);
The result i get looks like so:
"trainingPrograms": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Monday Madness",
"description": "hes",
"exercises": [
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Barbell Bench Press",
"description": "Medium grip ",
"exercise_categories_id": 2,
"exercise_difficulties_id": 1,
"created": "2015-09-16T07:07:01+0000",
"modified": "2015-09-16T07:07:01+0000",
"_joinData": {
"exercise_id": 2,
"id": 28,
"training_program_id": 1,
"created": "2015-10-07T15:45:49+0000"
}
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Barbell Bench Press",
"description": "Medium grip ",
"exercise_categories_id": 2,
"exercise_difficulties_id": 1,
"created": "2015-09-16T07:07:01+0000",
"modified": "2015-09-16T07:07:01+0000",
"_joinData": {
"exercise_id": 2,
"id": 35,
"training_program_id": 1,
"created": "2015-10-07T19:58:12+0000"
}
}
]
}]
As you can see i get all the fields of my exercises table, rather than the fields that i asked for. Why is that, what am I doing wrong?
belongsToMany associations do enable Query::autoFields() in case no fields have been defined via the fields option. This is necessary as the foreign key (exercise_id) is being added to the SELECT clause, which would otherwise cause no other fields to be selected (not sure in which context this is actually required).
See Source > \Cake\ORM\Association\BelongsToMany::_buildQuery()
The callbacks for the contained associations are being invoked at a later point, so that you'll have to disable autoFields() in order to be able restrict the selected fields via the query builder.
->contain(['Exercises' => function ($q) {
return $q
->select(['id','name','description'])
->autoFields(false);
}
I can't really tell whether this is the intended behavior. You may want to open an issue over at GitHub for clarification, or ask on IRC.
Related
I've recently started using normalizr with zustand in a new React app. It's been a very good experience so far, having solved most of the painful problems I've had in the past.
I've just bumped into an issue I can't think of a clean way of solving for the past few days.
Imagine I have a normalizr-normalized state looking like:
{
"entities": {
"triggers": {
"1": {
"id": 1,
"condition": "WHEN_CURRENCY_EXCHANGED",
"enabled": true,
"value": "TRY"
},
"2": {
"id": 2,
"condition": "WHEN_CURRENCY_EXCHANGED",
"enabled": true,
"value": "GBP"
},
"3": {
"id": 3,
"condition": "WHEN_TRANSACTION_CREATED",
"enabled": true,
"value": true
}
},
"campaigns": {
"19": {
"id": 19,
"name": "Some campaign name",
"triggers": [
1,
2,
3
]
}
}
},
"result": 19
}
And we have a page that allows a user to add one or more triggers to the campaign and then save them. The problem is that at the time of adding these triggers, they do not have an id until the user clicks the Save button (ids are generated by the database). When the Save button is clicked, the state is being denormalized (via normalizr's denormalize function) and sent as payload to the backend looking like the following:
{
"id": 19,
"name": "Some campaign name",
"triggers": [
{
"id": 1,
"condition": "WHEN_CURRENCY_EXCHANGED",
"enabled": true,
"value": "TRY"
},
{
"id": 2,
"condition": "WHEN_CURRENCY_EXCHANGED",
"enabled": true,
"value": "GBP"
},
{
"id": 3,
"condition": "WHEN_TRANSACTION_CREATED",
"enabled": true,
"value": true
}
]
}
The problem is that if the user adds an entity to the triggers, it does not have an id as ids are generated by the database and I cannot find a proper way to add it to the state (due to the id-based nature of normalized states).
The only workaround I can think of is generating some temporary IDs (e.g. uuid) when a trigger is added on the front-end but is not yet saved and then going over each entity upon denormalization, doing something like if (isUuid(trigger.id)) delete trigger.id, which seems too tedious and workaroundish.
Appreciate your help.
P.S. There is something similar explained here. The problem is that in our case the generateId('comment') logic is happening on the backend.
A simple solution is to split.
The create trigger API call and the add trigger to campaign API call.
Do the first, then save the trigger into the normalized store with the id generated by the backend.
Then add it to the campaign.
I have an Antd Table, with data coming from axios API
"data": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Package 1",
"services": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Evaluation Core",
}
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Package 2",
"services": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Evaluation BizCore",
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Certification Fizz"
}
]
}
],
"meta": {
"current_page": 1,
"last_page": 1,
"per_page": 20,
"total": 2,
"total_results": 2
}
}
In this Table I'm rendering one column with the name of the Package, and the second column I need to render any name property inside the Services array. That columns has this dataindex:
dataIndex: ['services', 'name'],
If there is more then one property name, should be render separated with ",". I tried differents approaches,but nothing seems to work.
Thanks!!
If I understand correctly you want to render a Services column where each package may have a different amount of services. Each service has a name and you want to display the name property of all services for package aggregated. e.g. Package has Service 1 and Service 2 and it should be displayed Service 1,Service 2.
The simple answer is to use render. The column for Services can look like.
{
title: "Services",
dataIndex: "services",
render: (services) => services.map(service => service.name).join(),
key: "services"
}
https://codesandbox.io/s/basic-antd-4-16-3-forked-q6ffo?file=/index.js
Please comment if this was not the intended result.
I am using Typescript in an Angular/Ionic project. I have an array of users that contain an array of skills. I have to filter users based on their online status as well as skills.
[
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Vikram Shah",
"online_status": "Online",
"skills": [{
"id": 2,
"title": "CSS"
},
{
"id": 3,
"title": "JavaScript"
},
{
"id": 4,
"title": "Python"
}
]
},
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Abhay Singh",
"online_status": "Online",
"skills": [{
"id": 1,
"title": "HTML"
},
{
"id": 2,
"title": "CSS"
},
{
"id": 3,
"title": "JavaScript"
},
{
"id": 4,
"title": "Python"
}
]
},
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Test Oberoi",
"online_status": "Online",
"skills": [{
"id": 1,
"title": "HTML"
},
{
"id": 2,
"title": "CSS"
},
{
"id": 3,
"title": "JavaScript"
},
{
"id": 4,
"title": "Python"
}
]
}
]
This is how all skills look like
this.skill_types = [
{"id":8,"title":"Cleaner", checked:false},
{"id":7,"title":"Painter", checked:false},
{"id":6,"title":"Plumber", checked:false},
{"id":5,"title":"Carpenter", checked:false},
{"id":4,"title":"Advisor", checked:false},
{"id":3,"title":"Team Leader", checked:false},
{"id":2,"title":"Management", checked:false},
{"id":1,"title":"Administrator", checked:false}
];
This array contains the IDs of skills that I want to filter
filterArr = [1, 3, 6];
This solution is almost working as expected. It is filtering well based on two criteria together.But not sure how to add condition for second filtering. The second filter should apply only if filterArr is not empty.
return this.items = this.items.filter((thisUser) => {
return thisUser.online_status.toLowerCase().indexOf(onlineStatus.toLowerCase()) > -1 &&
thisUser.skills.some(c => this.filterArr.includes(c.id))
});
The issue I am facing with code above is When there is no skill selected in the filter criteria, I would like to display all users. But it is not working that way. The logic here is to not apply any filter when the size of selected skills (filter condition) is greater than zero. So I tried this way....which looks similar to the way above...but this makes everything worse.
let filteredByStatus = [];
filteredByStatus = this.items.filter((thisUser) => {
return thisUser.online_status.toLowerCase().indexOf(onlineStatus.toLowerCase()) > -1
});
//Condition can be applied if filtering is separated
let filteredBySkills = [];
filteredBySkills = this.items.filter((thisUser) => {
return thisUser.skills.some(c => this.filterArr.includes(c.id))
});
//Expecting to join results from multiple filters
return this.items = filteredByStatus.concat(filteredBySkills);
But this is not working at all. Not sure what wrong is there. I am looking for a solution that enables to join arrays of similar objects without duplicating them.
Don't think you need to join arrays for your filtering. You can use something like rxjs filter.
return from(this.items)
.pipe(
filter(user => {
return user.online_status.toLowerCase().indexOf(onlineStatus.toLowerCase()) > -1
&& user.skills.some(c => filterArr.includes(c.id));
})
);
Or if you like to split it up you can just change it to like:
return from(this.items)
.pipe(
filter(user => user.online_status.toLowerCase().indexOf(onlineStatus.toLowerCase()) > -1),
filter(user => user.skills.some(c => filterArr.includes(c.id)))
);
Stackblitz: https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-pk3w8b
You can tweak your condition a bit and place !this.filterArr.length in your condition (in terms of OR condition AND with user status) to make your whole condition gets true so that user gets filter.
Imagine the following collection of city records:
{
"city": "London",
"inhabitants": [
{
"id": "34543534",
"user": {
"name": "Jonathan Deer",
"email": "john#btinternet.com"
}
},
{
"id": "0454534",
"user": {
"name": "Tanya Patel",
"email": "tanya#btinternet.com"
}
},
{
"id": "4345345",
"user": {
"name": "Catherine King",
"email": "catherine#gmail.com"
}
}
]
}
{
"city": "Manchester",
"inhabitants": [
{
"id": "980003",
"user": {
"name": "Benjamin Thaw",
"email": "benny#btinternet.com"
}
},
{
"id": "734488",
"user": {
"name": "Craig Longstone",
"email": "craig#gmail.com"
}
},
{
"id": "4400093",
"user": {
"name": "Arnold Greentree",
"email": "arnold#btinternet.com"
}
},
]
},
What I'm trying to do is loop through each inhabitants array of each city, and see if any of the people there has an email address containing btinternet.com in it. For those users I want to sent a new flag isBT: true and for everyone else (e.g., gmail.com users) isBT: false:
"user": {
"name": "Tanya Patel",
"email": "tanya#btinternet.com"
"isBT" true
}
I tried the following queries - first query sets all of them to isBT: false while the second one searches for "btinternet.com" in email address and sets isBT: true:
db.city.update({ "inhabitants.user.email": {$exists: true}}, {$set: { "inhabitants.$.user.isBT": false}}, {multi: true})
db.city.update({ "inhabitants.user.email": {$regex: "btinternet.com"}}, {$set: { "inhabitants.$.user.isBT": true}}, {multi: true})
The problem is that when I execute the second query, there are several inhabitants records that are left with isBT: false even though they contain the necessary "btinternet.com" email address. It almost seems like only the first user record that matches the criteria gets updated... Is there a way to update ALL user records for all "inhabitants" arrays?
I looked at using the positional operator $[], but our DB is on version 2.6.3 but this operator was introduced only in 3.6...
The short answer is "no".
The long answer is "no, because your MongoDB version doesn't support such an operation". You'll need to either...
1. retrieve all matching documents and perform a full array update through server-side processing of the data (e.g. use the MongoDB cursor.forEach()),
2. extend your match for "inhabitants.user.isBT": true (use
$elemMatch) and repeatedly perform the update query until the
number of modified documents is 0 (i.e. there are no more array
elements to update), or
3. update your MongoDB version and any
server-side code that relies on features of the current version that
have changed between 2.6 and 3.6.
Any solution to this problem will require more effort than a single query. There's no getting around it. It's a tough pill to swallow, but there really isn't a nice alternative.
I'm trying to figure out what the best schema is for a dating site like app. User's have a listing (possibly many) and they can view other user listings to 'like' and 'dislike' them.
Currently i'm just storing the other persons listing id in a likedBy and dislikedBy array. When a user 'likes' a listing, it puts their listing id into the 'liked' listings arrays. However I would now like to track the timestamp that a user likes a listing. This would be used for a user's 'history list' or for data analysis.
I would need to do two separate queries:
find all active listings that this user has not liked or disliked before
and for a user's history of 'liked'/'disliked' choices
find all the listings user X has liked in chronological order
My current schema is:
listings
_id: 'sdf3f'
likedBy: ['12ac', 'as3vd', 'sadf3']
dislikedBy: ['asdf', 'sdsdf', 'asdfas']
active: bool
Could I do something like this?
listings
_id: 'sdf3f'
likedBy: [{'12ac', date: Date}, {'ds3d', date: Date}]
dislikedBy: [{'s12ac', date: Date}, {'6fs3d', date: Date}]
active: bool
I was also thinking of making a new collection for choices.
choices
Id
userId // id of current user making the choice
userlistId // listing of the user making the choice
listingChoseId // the listing they chose yes/no
type
date
I'm not sure of the performance implications of having these choices in another collection when doing the find all active listings that this user has not liked or disliked before.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
Well you obviously thought it was a good idea to have these embedded in the "listings" documents so your additional usage patterns to the cases presented here worked properly. With that in mind there is no reason to throw that away.
To clarify though, the structure you seem to want is something like this:
{
"_id": "sdf3f",
"likedBy": [
{ "userId": "12ac", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") },
{ "userId": "as3vd", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") },
{ "userId": "sadf3", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") }
],
"dislikedBy": [
{ "userId": "asdf", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") },
{ "userId": "sdsdf", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") },
{ "userId": "asdfas", "date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z") }
],
"active": true
}
Which is all well and fine except that there is one catch. Because you have this content in two array fields you would not be able to create an index over both of those fields. That is a restriction where only one array type of field (or multikey) can be be included within a compound index.
So to solve the obvious problem with your first query not being able to use an index, you would structure like this instead:
{
"_id": "sdf3f",
"votes": [
{
"userId": "12ac",
"type": "like",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
},
{
"userId": "as3vd",
"type": "like",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
},
{
"userId": "sadf3",
"type": "like",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
},
{
"userId": "asdf",
"type": "dislike",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
},
{
"userId": "sdsdf",
"type": "dislike",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
},
{
"userId": "asdfas",
"type": "dislike",
"date": ISODate("2014-04-09T07:30:47.091Z")
}
],
"active": true
}
This allows an index that covers this form:
db.post.ensureIndex({
"active": 1,
"votes.userId": 1,
"votes.date": 1,
"votes.type": 1
})
Actually you will probably want a few indexes to suit your usage patterns, but the point is now can have indexes you can use.
Covering the first case you have this form of query:
db.post.find({ "active": true, "votes.userId": { "$ne": "12ac" } })
That makes sense considering that you clearly are not going to have both an like and dislike option for each user. By the order of that index, at least active can be used to filter because your negating condition needs to scan everything else. No way around that with any structure.
For the other case you probably want the userId to be in an index before the date and as the first element. Then your query is quite simple:
db.post.find({ "votes.userId": "12ac" })
.sort({ "votes.userId": 1, "votes.date": 1 })
But you may be wondering that you suddenly lost something in that getting the count of "likes" and "dislikes" was as easy as testing the size of the array before, but now it's a little different. Not a problem that cannot be solved using aggregate:
db.post.aggregate([
{ "$unwind": "$votes" },
{ "$group": {
"_id": {
"_id": "$_id",
"active": "$active"
},
"likes": { "$sum": { "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$votes.type", "like" ] },
1,
0
]}},
"dislikes": { "$sum": { "$cond": [
{ "$eq": [ "$votes.type", "dislike" ] },
1,
0
]}}
])
So whatever your actual usage form you can store any important parts of the document to keep in the grouping _id and then evaluate the count of "likes" and "dislikes" in an easy manner.
You may also not that changing an entry from like to dislike can also be done in a single atomic update.
There is much more you can do, but I would prefer this structure for the reasons as given.