Array object namespace meteor [duplicate] - arrays

This question already has answers here:
How to use Meteor methods inside of a template helper
(6 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
it seems like i can't display an array for my namespace
{{#each reports}}
{{_id}}
{{/each}}
my code looks like this
server method.
reports : function(){
var pipeline = [
{$group:{_id: "$activity.destination.name","count":{$sum:1 } } },
{$match:{_id:{$ne:null} }}];
var result = Reports.aggregate(pipeline);
console.log(result);
return result;
from helper
reports: function(){
Meteor.call("reports",function(err, data) {
arr =[];
data.forEach(function(doc){
arr.push(doc);
});
console.log(arr);
return arr;
});
}
in the browser console, the response looks like this
[Object]
0:Object
_id: "Balance Sheet and P&L Rates - Current Year"
count: 2 ..etc
im not sure if its the namespace or its an object array of non-cursors. but it doesn't give me an error. im not sure if what im doing is correct.

Meteor.call returns immediately, and the callback is called once the data is back from the server.
Your template is referencing a helper which in turn calls the server method then immediately returns nothing at all. The helper's callback, when it returns, cannot return the data to the template.
In your case you should:
Create a collection for your reports.
Subscribe to the reports collection when visiting the page in question (this is typically done from a route controller if you're using Iron Router.
Create a publish function to publish your reports to the collection.
The last point isn't as straightforwards as usual since you're aggregating the results, but it's still possible with something like this (untested):
Meteor.publish('reports', function(options) {
var sub = this;
var pipeline = [
{$group:{_id: "$activity.destination.name","count":{$sum:1 } } },
{$match:{_id:{$ne:null} }}];
var result = Reports.aggregate(pipeline);
var arrayLength = reports.length;
for (var i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++) {
var report = reports[i];
sub.added('reports', report._id, report);
}
})
Then you can just call find on the Reports collection from your helper:
reports: function() {
return Reports.find()
}
Or else return the that same cursor as part of your data context in your Iron Router controller and use the result directly in your template.

Related

backbone.js set in model initialize not effecting models in collection

While performing a fetch() on my backbone collection, and instantiating models as children of that collection, I want to add one more piece of information to each model.
I thought that I could do this using set in the model initialize. (My assumption is that fetch() is instantiating a new model for each object passed into it. And therefore as each initialize occurs the extra piece of data would be set.
To illustrate my problem I've pasted in four snippets, first from my collection class. Second the initialize function in my model class. Third, two functions that I use in the initialize function to get the needed information from the flickr api. Fourth, and finally, the app.js which performs the fetch().
First the collection class:
var ArmorApp = ArmorApp || {};
ArmorApp.ArmorCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: ArmorApp.singleArmor,
url: "https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/list/1SjHIBLTFb1XrlrpHxZ4SLE9lEJf4NyDVnKnbVejlL4w/1/public/values?alt=json",
//comparator: "Century",
parse: function(data){
var armorarray = [];
var entryarray = data.feed.entry;
for (var x in entryarray){
armorarray.push({"id": entryarray[x].gsx$id.$t,
"Filename": entryarray[x].gsx$filename.$t,
"Century": entryarray[x].gsx$century.$t,
"Date": entryarray[x].gsx$date.$t,
"Country": entryarray[x].gsx$country.$t,
"City": entryarray[x].gsx$city.$t,
"Type": entryarray[x].gsx$type.$t,
"Maker": entryarray[x].gsx$maker.$t,
"Recepient": entryarray[x].gsx$recipient.$t,
"Flickrid": entryarray[x].gsx$flickrid.$t,
"FlickrUrl": "", //entryarray[x].gsx$flickrurl.$t,
"FlickrUrlBig": ""//entryarray[x].gsx$flickrurlbig.$t,
});
}
return armorarray;
}
});
Second, the initialization in my model.
initialize: function(){
//console.log("A model instance named " + this.get("Filename"));
item = this;
var flickrapi = "https://api.flickr.com/services/rest/?&method=flickr.photos.getSizes&api_key=<my_apikey>&photo_id=" + this.get("Flickrid") + "&format=json&jsoncallback=?";
sources = getFlickrSources(flickrapi);
sources.then(function(data){
sourceArray = parseFlickrResponse(data);
FlickrSmall = sourceArray[0].FlickrSmall;
console.log (FlickrSmall);
item.set("FlickrUrl", FlickrSmall);
console.log(item);
});
Notice here how I'm getting the "Flickrid" and using to get one more piece of information and then trying to add it back into the model with item.set("FlickrUrl", FlickerSmall);
console.log confirms that the property "FlickrUrl" has been set to the desired value.
Third, these are the functions my model uses to get the information it needs for the flicker api.
var getFlickrSources = function(flickrapi){
flickrResponse = $.ajax({
url: flickrapi,
// The name of the callback parameter, as specified by the YQL service
jsonp: "callback",
// Tell jQuery we're expecting JSONP
dataType: "jsonp"})
return flickrResponse;
}
var parseFlickrResponse = function(data){
flickrSourceArray = []
if (data.stat == "ok"){
sizeArray = data.sizes.size;
for (var y in sizeArray){
if (sizeArray[y].label == "Small"){
flickrSourceArray.push({"FlickrSmall": sizeArray[y].source});
}
else if (sizeArray[y].label == "Large"){
flickrSourceArray.push({"FlickrLarge": sizeArray[y].source});
}
}
}
return flickrSourceArray
}
But, fourth, when I try to perform the fetch and render the collection, I only get objects in my collection without the FlickrUrl property set.
//create an array of models and then pass them in collection creation method
var armorGroup = new ArmorApp.ArmorCollection();
armorGroup.fetch().then(function(){
console.log(armorGroup.toJSON());
var armorGroupView = new ArmorApp.allArmorView({collection: armorGroup});
$("#allArmor").html(armorGroupView.render().el);
});
var armorRouter = new ArmorApp.Router();
Backbone.history.start();
The console.log in this last snippet prints out all the objects/models supposedly instantiated through the fetch. But none of them include the extra property that should have been set during the initialization.
Any ideas what is happening?
What is this function ? getFlickrSources(flickrapi)
Why are you using this.get in the initialize function. Honestly it looks over-complicated for what you are trying to do.
If you want to set some parameter when you instantiate your model then do this var model = new Model({ param:"someparam", url:"someurl",wtv:"somewtv"});
If the point is to update your model just write an update function in your model something like update: function (newparam) { this.set;... etc and call it when you need it.
If I read you well you just want to set some params when your model is instantiated, so just use what I specified above. Here is some more doc : http://backbonejs.org/#Model-constructor
I hope it helps.
edit:
Put your call outside your model, you shouldn't (imo) make call inside your model this way it seems kinda dirty.
Sources.then(function(flickrdata) {
var mymodel = new Model({flicker:flickrdata.wtv});
});
It would be cleaner in my opinion.

Modeling relational data from REST api via angularjs

I'm building an app, that is backed with node-mysql combo, and angularjs on the frontend part. The backend REST service is ready, but I'm struggling with modeling my relational data. There are some questions regarding this like : $resource relations in Angular.js or $resource relations in Angular.js [updated] . Are those approaches still the best approaches, or were there any significant changes in $resource ? Or maybe Restangular is the way to go?
Here is my technique:
I declare a factory called dataService, which is a wrapper around Restangular, extended with some other features.
First let me gave some code and then explain:
.factory('identityMap',
var identityMap = {};
return {
insert: function(className, object) {
if (object) {
var mappedObject;
if (identityMap[className]) {
mappedObject = identityMap[className][object.id];
if (mappedObject) {
extend(mappedObject, object);
} else {
identityMap[className][object.id] = object;
mappedObject = object;
}
} else {
identityMap[className] = {};
identityMap[className][object.id] = object;
mappedObject = object;
}
return mappedObject;
}
},
remove: function(className, object) {
if (identityMap[className] && identityMap[className][id]) delete identityMap[className][id];
},
get: function(className, id) {
return identityMap[className] && identityMap[className][id] ? identityMap[className][id] : null;
},
flush: function(){
identityMap = {};
}
};
}
.factory('modelService', ['Restangular', 'identityMap', '$rootScope', '$log', function(Restangular, identityMap, $rootScope, $log) {
var ENUM1 = {STATE:0, OTHER_STATE:1, OTHER_STATE2: 2},
ENUM2 = {OK:0, ERROR:1, UNKNOWN:2};
function extendModel(obj, modelExtension, modelName){
angular.extend(obj, modelExtension);
obj.initExtension();
obj = identityMap.insert(modelName, obj);
}
function broadcastRestEvent(resourceName, operation, data){
$rootScope.$broadcast(resourceName + $filter('capitalize')(operation), data);
}
var resource1Extension = {
_extensionFunction1: function() {
// ... do something internally ...
if (this.something){
// this.newValue ....
;
}
else {
// ....;
}
},
publicExtensionFunction: function(param1) {
// return something
},
initExtension: function() {
this._extensionFunction2();
extendModel(this.resource2, resource2Extension, 'resource2');
}
};
var resorce2Extension = {
_extensionFunction1: function() {
// do something internally
},
publicExtensionFunction = function(param1) {
// return something
},
initExtension: function(){
this._extensionFunction1;
}
};
var modelExtensions = {
'resource1': resource1Extension,
'resource2': resorce2Extension
};
var rest = Restangular.withConfig(function(RestangularConfigurer) {
RestangularConfigurer.setBaseUrl('/api');
RestangularConfigurer.setOnElemRestangularized(function(obj, isCollection, what, Restangular){
if (!isCollection) {
if (modelExtensions.hasOwnProperty(what)) {
extendModel(obj, modelExtensions[what], what);
}
else {
identityMap.insert(what, obj);
}
if (obj.metadata && obj.metadata.operation) {
broadcastRestEvent(what, obj.metadata.operation, obj);
}
}
return obj;
});
RestangularConfigurer.addResponseInterceptor(function(data, operation, what, url, response, deferred) {
var newData;
if (operation === 'getList') {
newData = data.objects;
newData.metadata = {
numResults: data.num_results,
page: data.page,
totalPages: data.total_pages,
operation: operation
};
data = newData;
}
else if (operation === 'remove') {
var splittedUrl = url.split('/');
var id = splittedUrl.pop();
var resource = splittedUrl.pop();
identityMap.remove(resource, id);
broadcastRestEvent(resource, operation, id);
}
else {
data.metadata = {operation: operation};
}
return data;
});
});
return {
rest: rest,
enums: {
ENUM1: ENUM1,
ENUM2: ENUM2
},
flush: identityMap.flush,
get: identityMap.get
}
}]);
1) Let me explain identityMap (it's the code from this blog post with some extended features):
Let's consider a REST model which looks like this (each resource represents a database table):
resource 1:
id = Integer
field1 = String
field2 = String
resource2s = [] (List of resources2 which points to this resource with their foreign key)
resource 2:
id = Integer
field1 = String
field2 = String
...
resource1_idfk = Foreign Key to resource 1
Resource API is so smart that it returns resource1 relationships with resources2 with GET /api/resource1/1 to save the overhead that you would get with GET to resource2 with some query parameters to resource1_idfk...
The problem is that if your app is doing the GET to resource1 and then somewhere later GET to resource2 and edits the resource2, the object representing the resource2 which is nested in resource1 would not know about the change (because it is not the same Javascript object reference)
The identity map solves this issue, so you hold only one reference to each resource's instance
So, for example, when you are doing an update in your controller the values automatically updates in the other object where this resource is nested
The drawback is that you have to do memory management yourself and flush the identity map content when you no longer need it. I personally use Angular Router UI, and define this in a controller which is the root of other nested states:
$scope.$on("$destroy", function() {
modelService.flush();
});
The other approach I use within the Angular Router UI is that I give the id of the resource which i want to edit/delete within that controller as the parameter of nested state and within the nested state i use:
$scope.resource1instance = modelService.get('resource1', $stateParams.id);
You can than use
resource1.put(...).then(
function(){
// you don't need to edit resource1 in list of resources1
$state.go('^');
}
function(error){
handleError(error);
});
2) When I need to use some new functionality over resources I use `Restangular's setOnElemRestangularized. I think the code above is self explanatory and very similar to the one mentioned in blog post I have mentioned above. My approach is slightly different from the one in that post, that I don't use the mixin initialization before, but after I mix it to the object, so one could reference the new functions in initializer. The other thing I don't use, for example, he creates single factory for every resource, for example Proposal for extended logic and the other factory ProposalSvc for manipulating the instances. For me that's a lot of code you don't have to write and personally I think that Javascript is not suited very well for this object oriented approach, so I return just the whole Restangular object and do operations with it.
3) Another thing I have there is the broadcast of events when something in my model changes with Restangular, this is something I needed when I used ng-table. For example, when the model changed and rows in my table needed to be updated to reference the changes, so in the controller which manages the table I use $scope.on('eventName') and then change appropriate row. These events are also great when you have a multiuser live application and you use websockets for server notifications (code not included here in modelService). For example somebody deletes something in a database, so the server sends a notification to everyone who is alive through websocket about the change, you then broadcast the same event as used in Restangular and the controller does the same edits on its data.
This blog post should help you make your choice http://sauceio.com/index.php/2014/07/angularjs-data-models-http-vs-resource-vs-restangular/
I agree that there are a lot of good practices using http headers in Restangular, but you can pick them in the source and use them directly.
What you have to wonder is, will you be able to wrap your nested resources within a $resource and make instance calls while modifying the parent object. And that's not a given.
Your question seems to be asking whether you should be using ngResource, Restangular or some other framework or drop down to the low-level and use $http directly.
$resource is still widely used because it's included in the official docs and in all the popular tutorials and articles but Restangular is fairly popular.
The website ngModules shows a listing of REST API modules for AngularJS.
If you have a simple REST API, go with $resource for now and then switch to Restangular if you're doing lots of custom coding and filtering. It is a much nicer framework and more extensible.

Pulling object properties out of arrays and converting to string

I am currently working on a chat app and am stuck on getting properties out of an array of objects. I first sent an ajax request with json as the datatype. When I check my (data) parameter in my success function in the console it shows an Array called results which has 9 objects each with 4 properties in them. It looks like this, except each has a different id and text etc.
results: Array[10]
0: Object
createdAt: "2013-05-22T00:41:24.394Z"
objectId: "2tzXVBpwQA"
text: "SYSTEM: I'll be back."
updatedAt: "2013-05
I want to just pull out text: for each of the objects, however I have no clue how to do this. I've searched and used many methods like $grep and for statements to get text out to no avail(I am new to programming)
Here is the sample code
function newFetch(newDisplay){
$.ajax({
url: 'https://api.parse.com/1/classes/chats',
data: null,
success: function(data){
/*alert('Load was performed.');*/
var text = $.grep(data, function(e) { return e.text == text});
newFetch(newDisplay(text));
}
,
dataType:"json"
});
};
NewDisplay in the callback is another function that appends the passed parameter to one of my .divs.
This code snippet so far seems to no grab the text but instead returns just [] when I use console. Any help is appreciated!
JSON.prase is your friend
success: function(data){
//...other success code you might want to run..
var newObjArray = {};
for (var i=0; i<data.length; i++) {
newObjArray[i] = JSON.parse(data[i]);
}
}
this should turn each entry in your array to an objects as well.
JSON.Parse on MDN

How do you properly display a Backbone marionette collection view based on a model javascript array property?

*UPDATE: See final answer code in the last code block below.*
Currently I am having an issue displaying a collection in a collection view. The collection is a property of an existing model like so (pseudo code)
ApplicationVersion { Id: 1, VersionName: "", ApplicationCategories[] }
So essentially ApplicationVersion has a property called ApplicationCategories that is a javascript array. Currently when I render the collection view associated with ApplicationCategories nothing is rendered. If I debug in Chrome's javascript debugger it appears that the categories have not been populated yet (so I assume ApplicationVersion has not been fetched yet). Here is my code as it stands currently
ApplicationCategory Model, Collection, and Views
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategory = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot:"/applicationcategories"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategories = Recruit.Collection.extend({
url:"/applicationcategories",
model:ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategory,
initialize: function(){
/*
* By default backbone does not bind the collection change event to the comparator
* for performance reasons. I am choosing to not preoptimize though and do the
* binding. This may need to change later if performance becomes an issue.
* See https://github.com/documentcloud/backbone/issues/689
*
* Note also this is only nescessary for the default sort. By using the
* SortableCollectionMixin in other sorting methods, we do the binding
* there as well.
*/
this.on("change", this.sort);
},
comparator: function(applicationCategory) {
return applicationCategory.get("order");
},
byName: function() {
return this.sortedBy(function(applicationCategory) {
return applicationCategory.get("name");
});
}
});
_.extend(ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategories.prototype, SortableCollectionMixin);
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoryView = Recruit.ItemView.extend({
template:"application/applicationcategory-view-template"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView = Recruit.CollectionView.extend({
itemView:ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoryView
});
ApplicationCategory template
<section id="<%=name%>">
<%=order%>
</section>
ApplicationVersion Model, Collection, and Views
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot:"/applicationversions"
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersions = Recruit.Collection.extend({
url:"/applicationversions",
model:ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout = Recruit.Layout.extend({
template:"application/applicationversion-view-template",
regions: {
applicationVersionHeader: "#applicationVersionHeader",
applicationVersionCategories: "#applicationVersionCategories",
applicationVersionFooter: "#applicationVersionFooter"
}
});
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionController = {
showApplicationVersion: function (applicationVersionId) {
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion = new ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion({id : applicationVersionId});
var applicationVersionLayout = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout({
model:ApplicationModule.applicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.fetch({success: function(){
var applicationVersionCategories = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView({
collection: ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.application_categories
});
applicationVersionLayout.applicationVersionCategories.show(applicationVersionCategories);
}});
// Fake server responds to the request
ApplicationModule.server.respond();
Recruit.layout.main.show(applicationVersionLayout);
}
};
Here is my ApplicationVersion template
<section id="applicationVersionOuterSection">
<header id="applicationVersionHeader">
Your Application Header <%= id %>
</header>
<section id="applicationVersionCategories">
</section>
<footer id="applicationVersionFooter">
Your footer
</footer>
One thing to note I am currently using Sinon to mock my server response, but I don't think this is causing the issues as it is responding with the information as I expect looking through the javascript debugger (and like I said it is displaying ApplicationVersion id correctly). I can provide this code as well if it helps
It is currently displaying the application version id (id in the template), so I know it is fetching the data correctly for normal properties, it just is not rendering my ApplicationCategories javascript array property.
So ultimately I am binding to the success of the fetch for ApplicationVersion, then setting up the view for the ApplicationCategories. Since this isn't working like I expect I am wondering if there is a better way to create this collection view?
Thanks for any help
UPDATE: Working code example that Derek Bailey lead me too.
ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionController = {
showApplicationVersion: function (applicationVersionId) {
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion = new ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersion({id : applicationVersionId});
var applicationVersionLayout = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationVersionLayout({
model:ApplicationModule.applicationVersion
});
ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.fetch();
// Fake server responds to the request
ApplicationModule.server.respond();
Recruit.layout.main.show(applicationVersionLayout);
var applicationVersionCategories = new Recruit.ApplicationModule.ApplicationCategoriesView({
collection: new Backbone.Collection(ApplicationModule.applicationVersion.get('application_categories'))
});
applicationVersionLayout.applicationVersionCategories.show(applicationVersionCategories);
}
};
Marionette's CollectionView requires a valid Backbone.Collection, not a simple array. You need to create a Backbone.Collection from your array when passing it to the view:
new MyView({
collection: new Backbone.Collection(MyModel.Something.ArrayOfThings)
});

Backbone.js only creating first model, then returning the rest as undefined when parsing with Google Calendar

Having some issues with pulling calendar events from Google Calendar using Backbone.
When I call collection.fetch() I am only getting a length of 1 returned, when there are 13 objects in the json.
I had a look at the parse:function(response) method that I am overriding in the Collection, and it is returning all 13 objects. I had a look at the add method in backbone.js, and the issue appears to occur on line 591:
models = _.isArray(models) ? models.slice() : [models];
When I wrap the line with console.log to check the status of the models variable:
console.log(models);
models = _.isArray(models) ? models.slice() : [models];
console.log(models);
I get the following result:
[Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object,Object] backbone.js:590
[child,undefined × 12]
I'm at a loss to explain why it would be failing on add. I have checked each model by changing the parse:function(response) method in the collection to return each object, and it works fine.:
parse: function(response) {
return response.feed.entry[5];
}
I have successfully parsed Google Calendar feeds with Backbone.js before, so I fear I am missing something really simple.
If I console.log response.feed the following is returned:
This is the full class:
/**
* Backbone
* #class
*/
var Gigs = Gigs || {};
Gigs.Backbone = {}
Gigs.Backbone.Model = Backbone.Model.extend();
Gigs.Backbone.Collection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: Gigs.Backbone.Model,
url: 'http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds/email#email.com/public/full?alt=json-in-script&orderby=starttime&callback=?',
sync: function(method, model, options) {
options.dataType = "jsonp";
return Backbone.sync(method, model, options);
},
parse: function(response) {
return response.feed.entry;
}
});
Gigs.Backbone.Controller = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function() {
var self = this;
this.collection = new Gigs.Backbone.Collection();
this.collection.on('reset', this.addElements, this);
this.collection.fetch();
},
addElements: function() {
log(this.collection);
}
});
var backbone = new Gigs.Backbone.Controller();
Apparently, Google Calendar provides its entries with an id wrapped in an object 1:
"id":{
"$t":"http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds/..."
}
which Backbone seems to dislike. A lot.
One simple solution would be to overwrite the id in your parse method:
parse: function(response) {
var entries=[];
_.each(response.feed.entry, function(entry,ix) {
entry.id=entry.id.$t;
entries.push(entry);
});
return entries;
}
And a Fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/bqzkT/
1 Check https://developers.google.com/gdata/docs/json to see how Google converts its XML data to JSON.
Edit : the problem comes from the way the data is returned with a straight XML to JSON conversion (requested via the alt=json-in-script parameter) wrapping the attributes in objects. Changing this parameter to alt=jsonc yields a much simpler JSON representation. Compare a jsonc output to the json-in-script equivalent.
See https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_jsonc#Comparing_JSON_and_JSONC for more info

Resources