In my Backbone app, on my collection I have numerous sorting methods, when rendering the views based on the collection I am currently using a global var set via the route (I do it with a global as other actions add to the collection and I want the last ordering to be used). For example
routes : {
"" : "index",
'/ordering/:order' : 'ordering'
},
ordering : function(theorder) {
ordering = theorder;
listView.render();
},
then in my view
if (typeof ordering === 'undefined') {
d = this.collection.ordered();
}
else if(ordering == 'owners') {
d = this.collection.owners();
}
_.each(d, function(model){
model.set({request : self.model.toJSON()});
var view = new TB_BB.OfferItemView({model : model});
els.push(view.render().el);
});
Where ordered and owners are the 2 ordering methods.
So my first question is, based on routes could someone advice a better way of implementing above? This view gets rendered in multiple places hence me using a global rather than passing a ordered var to the method?
Second question is - I would like to also add some filtering, so lets say I want to sort by 'price' but also do some filtering (lets say by multiple categories id). How could I add a flexible 'route' to deal with filtering.
I guess I could do
routes : {
"" : "index",
'/ordering/:order/:filter1/:filter2' : 'ordering'
},
So the filter1 and filter2 would be the subsequent filtering, but if the filters could be 0 or 100 this will not work. Could anyone offer a solution?
Well, first you should be using Backbone's built-in ability to auto-sort collections. You can take advantage of this by defining a comparator function on your collection. This gives you all kinds of wins right out of the box — for example, the collection will re-sort itself every time you add or remove something from it, based on your comparator. If you want to define multiple sort functions, just define them all as functions and then update comparator when you need to. Then you can ditch that ugly global var.
For your second question, I'm not totally sure what you mean by "if the filters could be 0 or 100 this will not work." If you mean that you'll run into trouble if you don't specifiy all of the filters, then that's true. But you can use a wildcard to fix that. Here's what that might look like:
// your routes look like this:
routes : {
'/ordering/:order/filters/*filters' : 'ordering' // your routes will look like: /ordering/price/filters/filter_one/filter_two/filter_three
},
ordering: function (order, filters) {
filters = filters.split('/'); // creates an array of filters: ['filter_one', 'filter_two', 'filter_three']
listView.render(filters); // pass your filters to the view
}
// listView.render() looks like this:
render: function(filters) {
collection = this.collection;
_.each(filters, function (filter) {
collection = collection.filter(function () {
// your actual filtering code based on what the filter is
});
});
}
Related
I know it's been asked million+1 times. But i've found no help in those questions/answers.
I have 2 arrays of 2 different objects one string property is used to uniquely identify them. This would be the key to sort about, but said object prop names are not equal (accessValue, modifiedOption). But their values are!
Object1: { ... accessValue, ... };
Object2: { ..., modifiedOption, ... };
array1:Object1[];
array2:Object2[];
I'd like to sort array1 based on the object indencies of array2.
So all of array1 items'd be in the same order as array2.
These two arrays are used to model a connected dropdown selection system, which can be added to are removed from. The Addition is screwing me over (lastly added item is appended to the first place and not the last) probably because of filter below?
What I use to add new dropdowns:
addFieldRow() {
this.fieldRows.push(0); // since desired selection is not known yet but need to populate the array that represents the 1st selection so a 2nd main selection dropdown will appear on screen
...
}
public onSelect() {
// if a selection is happened check the values of editOptions (contains data about all main selectable options)
this.fieldRows = this.editOptions.filter(
option => this.selectedOptions.some(el => el.modifiedOption === option.accessValue)
);
this.disableSelected(); // disable already selected items (not related to my issue)
this.optionSelected = true; // this is just for button disabled toggle
}
So either i need to figure out my addRow logic (if it has any flaws) or implement a sorting utility to make sure that the objects of fieldRows are in the same order as selectedOptions' -> since this models the selection directly.
I cannot really add a stackblitz since it's hard to model my current state.
Okay I am a complete idiot!
Since I know the current index (since i am looping through fieldRows).
All I had to do is replace this:
public onSelect() {
this.fieldRows = this.editOptions.filter(
option => this.selectedOptions.some(el => el.modifiedOption === option.accessValue)
);
With this:
public onSelect(index) {
this.fieldRows[index] = this.editOptions.find(option => this.selectedOptions[index].modifiedOption === option.accessValue);
this.disableSelected();
this.optionSelected = true;
}
Now it works correctly.
When I update a model, waterlock .update() always return an array of objects, even if I set on criteria a primaryKey.
on my code
Ad.update({ id: req.param('id') }, {
// desired attributed to be updated
}).exec(function(err, updatedRecord) {
// updatedRecord is always an array of objects
});
And in order to use the updatedRecord, I have to point out to 0 index like updatedRecord[0] which is something I consider not very clean. According to docs update() in sails, this is a common escenario.
Knowing that, I have 2 questions:
Wouldn't be better that when you find one model return just a updated object for that model, not an array?
If that is a convention, how could be overrided this function in order to return just an object instead of an array when .update() have only affected one record?
it is a convention that it will update all the records that matches the find criteria, but as you are probably using a unique validation on model, it will probably return an array of 1 or 0. You need to do it on hand.
You can override methods in model, by implementing a method with same name as waterline default. But as you will need to completely rewrite the code, it is not viable. Neither changing waterline underlying code.
A solution will be creating a new function on your Ad model:
module.exports = {
attributes: {
adid: {
unique: true,
required: true
},
updateMe: {
}
},
updateOne: function(adid, newUpdateMe, cb){
Ad.update({ id: req.param('id') }, {
// desired attributed to be updated
}).exec(function(err, updatedRecord) {
// updatedRecord is always an array of objects
if (updatedRecord.length == 1){
return cb(null, updatedRecord[0]);
}
return cb(null, {}); //also can error if not found.
});
}
};
Also. Avoid using id as an model attribute (use other name), as some databases like mongodb already add this attribute as default and may cause conflicts with your model.
I dont think its possible with waterline. Its because update method is a generalized one, passing a primary key in where condition is always not the case.
I have a dictionary of type {name: value}
A = {
name: x,
name: y,
name: z
}
I want to fetch a collection (consisting of models having one of their attribute as 'name'), but to be optimal I want to fetch such that the value of the attribute 'name' exists in my dictionary.
Is there a way to do specific filtering like that?
If you're doing the filtering client-side, overriding the filter method is really NOT the way to go.
Now you no longer have it available, should you need it later. Also, modifying the collection itself from within the filter method is an undesirable sideeffect.
Instead you should be using the parse method, which will automatically be called when fetching the collection.
Now as I understand it, you want to limit the fetched set to models with names matching the keys in your dictionary.
If so, I would do the following:
parse: function(response, options) {
// Do we want to filter the response?
if (options.filterNames) {
// Filter
response = _.filter(response, function(obj) {
// Check if this model name is one of the allowed names
return _.contains(options.filterNames, obj.name);
});
}
// Backbone will use the return value to create the collection
return response;
}
And then call fetch using
someCollection.fetch({filterNames: _.keys(someDictionary)});
If you're certain, you will always be filtering the collection on fetch, you can omit passing the option and just use the dictionary within parse.
Alternatively you could create a fetchFiltered() method on the collection, which would then invoke the line above.
After investigations and trials, here are the two ways this can be resolved:
1. Client side filtering after fetching the collection from the server. This is a less optimal method, especially when the collection is huge. In situations when you really want 5 models out of a 1000 model collection, it can be an overkill. But if the server side has no logic of accepting and using the filtering client side filtering should look something like:
Overload the collection filter code something like:
var filter = {
filter: function() {
var results = _.filter(this.models, function(model) {
// Perform the check on this model, like compare it to your local dict
if (checkPassed) {
return true;
}
return false;
});
results = _.map(results, function(model) {
return model.toJSON();
});
// Reset the existing collection to filtered models
this.reset(results) ;
};
var ExtendedCollection = OriginalCollection.extend(filter);
Pass a filter option in the fetch ajax call to the server, and the server should understand the filter and return the collection based off that.
I'm using a LayoutView to display a collection in table form. When a user clicks on a tr I swap the CompositeView for an ItemView that shows the details using the same region. It all works except the functionality of the back button is broken. Is there a way to trap the back event and switch views?
Or should I use two Views and pass the model id and then refetch the model? The problem with that though is the extra request and I lose the filter and sort values of the table unless I use local storage.
Including more code would be better, but in any case I will try to give some guidance for your problem.
To avoid fetching the data twice, you can keep a common object in a "parent" component, for example in the Router.
var theObject;
var router = Marionette.AppRouter.extend({
routes: {
"routeA/:id": "goToRouteA",
"routeB/:id": "goToRouteB"
},
goToRouteA: function(id) {
MyRegion.show(new myLayout({
model: this._getCommonObject(id)
}));
},
goToRouteB: function(id) {
MyRegion.show(new myLayout({
model: this._getCommonObject(id)
}));
},
/*Return the common object for the views*/
_getCommonObject: function(id) {
theObject = (theObject && theObject.get('id') == id) ? theObject : MyApp.request('getTheObject');
return theObject;
}
});
In this way, you can keep the reference to the same object without loosing information.
You just have to make sure to delete the object when it is not needed to avoid keeping old information, for example on the Region close event.
The base model of my application has a status attribute.
Let's assume, for simplicity, that status might be either pending or deleted.
I have an upper menu with these two status values, when you click one of them you see all objects with this status (I use router to trigger a filter).
My problem is that I need to draw a different template for each status.
deleted object has delete forever and recover buttons
pending object has delete, edit and some other buttons (also some textarea...)
I wonder what would be the best solution for this problem.
I thought of creating a different view for each status, but then I don't know how to deal with it in the collection level.
I also thought of creating different templates and deal with it in the model-view level, but again - I have no idea whether it is possible and if yes - how.
Finally, I can solve it with same template and view, hiding what is not necessary inside the view, but then the code becomes quite ugly in my point of view.
Ideas?? Thanks!
If you want to create a different view for each status, you do it this way :
Router {
clickDeletedMenu : {
var collection = new MyCollection();
var deletedView = new DeletedView({ model : collection });
collection.fetch({ status : 'deleted' }); // filter deleted objects
},
clickPendingMenu : {
var collection = new MyCollection();
var pendingView = new PendingView({ model : collection });
collection.fetch({ status : 'pending' }); // filter deleted objects
},
}
If you want to create differents templates, you do it this way :
View {
render : {
if (this.model.status == 'deleted') {
// render deleted template
} else {
// render pending template
}
}
}
Finally, in my point of view, you can use the same template and view, and hiding what is not necessary inside the template not the view.
nb : the code is used just to illustrate the idea, it's not going to execute :)