Develop Reference

pushing into an array inside an object using function it's returning Number instead of the value of pushed array [duplicate]

Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
I don't know if this has already been proposed or asked before; Google searches returned only a myriad number of questions related to the current functionality of Array.push().
Here's an example implementation of this functionality, feel free to correct it:
;(function() {
var _push = Array.prototype.push;
Array.prototype.push = function() {
return this[_push.apply(this, arguments) - 1];
}
}());
You would then be able to do something like this:
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Where someFunction modifies the object passed in as the second parameter, for example. Now the contents of someArray are [{"someKey": "hello world"}].
Are there any drawbacks to this approach?

See my detailed answer here
TLDR;
You can get the return value of the mutated array, when you instead add an element using array.concat[].
concat is a way of "adding" or "joining" two arrays together. The awesome thing about this method, is that it has a return value of the resultant array, so it can be chained.
newArray = oldArray.concat[newItem];
This also allows you to chain functions together
updatedArray = oldArray.filter((item) => {
item.id !== updatedItem.id).concat[updatedItem]};
Where item = {id: someID, value: someUpdatedValue}
The main thing to notice is, that you need to pass an array to concat.
So make sure that you put your value to be "pushed" inside a couple of square brackets, and you're good to go.
This will give you the functionality you expected from push()
You can use the + operator to "add" two arrays together, or by passing the arrays to join as parameters to concat().
let arrayAB = arrayA + arrayB;
let arrayCD = concat(arrayC, arrayD);
Note that by using the concat method, you can take advantage of "chaining" commands before and after concat.

Are there any substantial reasons why modifying Array.push() to return the object pushed rather than the length of the new array might be a bad idea?
Of course there is one: Other code will expect Array::push to behave as defined in the specification, i.e. to return the new length. And other developers will find your code incomprehensible if you did redefine builtin functions to behave unexpectedly.
At least choose a different name for the method.
You would then be able to do something like this: someFunction(value, someArray.push({}));
Uh, what? Yeah, my second point already strikes :-)
However, even if you didn't use push this does not get across what you want to do. The composition that you should express is "add an object which consist of a key and a value to an array". With a more functional style, let someFunction return this object, and you can write
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
return obj;
}
someArray.push(someFunction(value, {}));

Just as a historical note -- There was an older version of JavaScript -- JavaScript version 1.2 -- that handled a number of array functions quite differently.
In particular to this question, Array.push did return the item, not the length of the array.
That said, 1.2 has been not been used for decades now -- but some very old references might still refer to this behavior.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408055419/developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsguide/js1_2.htm

By the coming of ES6, it is recommended to extend array class in the proper way , then , override push method :
class XArray extends Array {
push() {
super.push(...arguments);
return (arguments.length === 1) ? arguments[0] : arguments;
}
}
//---- Application
let list = [1, 3, 7,5];
list = new XArray(...list);
console.log(
'Push one item : ',list.push(4)
);
console.log(
'Push multi-items :', list.push(-9, 2)
);
console.log(
'Check length :' , list.length
)

Method push() returns the last element added, which makes it very inconvenient when creating short functions/reducers. Also, push() - is a rather archaic stuff in JS. On ahother hand we have spread operator [...] which is faster and does what you needs: it exactly returns an array.
// to concat arrays
const a = [1,2,3];
const b = [...a, 4, 5];
console.log(b) // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
// to concat and get a length
const arrA = [1,2,3,4,5];
const arrB = [6,7,8];
console.log([0, ...arrA, ...arrB, 9].length); // 10
// to reduce
const arr = ["red", "green", "blue"];
const liArr = arr.reduce( (acc,cur) => [...acc, `<li style='color:${cur}'>${cur}</li>`],[]);
console.log(liArr);
//[ "<li style='color:red'>red</li>",
//"<li style='color:green'>green</li>",
//"<li style='color:blue'>blue</li>" ]

var arr = [];
var element = Math.random();
assert(element === arr[arr.push(element)-1]);

How about doing someArray[someArray.length]={} instead of someArray.push({})? The value of an assignment is the value being assigned.
var someArray = [],
value = "hello world";
function someFunction(value, obj) {
obj["someKey"] = value;
}
someFunction(value, someArray[someArray.length]={});
console.log(someArray)

JavaScript - Filter array with mutation

I want to filter a array by keeping the same array without creating a new one.
with Array.filter() :
getFiltersConfig() {
return this.config.filter((topLevelConfig) => topLevelConfig.name !== 'origin')
}
what is the best way to get the same result by filtering by value without returning a new array ?

For completeness, I thought it might make sense to show a mutated array variant.
Below is a snippet with a simple function mutationFilter, this will filter the array directly, notice in this function the loop goes in reverse, this is a technique for deleting items with a mutated array.
Also a couple of tests to show how Array.filter creates a new array, and mutationFilter does not.
Although in most cases creating a new array with Array.filter is normally what you want. One advantage of using a mutated array, is that you can pass the array by reference, without you would need to wrap the array inside another object. Another advantage of course is memory, if your array was huge, inline filtering would take less memory.
let arr = ['a','b','a'];
let ref = arr; //keep reference of original arr
function mutationFilter(arr, cb) {
for (let l = arr.length - 1; l >= 0; l -= 1) {
if (!cb(arr[l])) arr.splice(l, 1);
}
}
const cond = x => x !== 'a';
const filtered = arr.filter(cond);
mutationFilter(arr, cond);
console.log(`ref === array -> ${ref === arr}`);
console.log(arr);
console.log(`ref === filtered -> ${ref === filtered}`);
console.log(filtered);

I want to filter a array by keeping the same array without creating a new one.
what is the best way to get the same result by filtering by value without returning a new array ?
I have an answer for the second criterion, but violates the first. I suspect that you may want to "not create a new one" specifically because you only want to preserve the reference to the array, not because you don't want to create a new array, necessarily (e.g. for memory concerns).
What you could do is create a temp array of what you want
var temp = this.config.filter((topLevelConfig) => topLevelConfig.name !== 'origin')
Then set the length of the original array to 0 and push.apply() the values "in-place"
this.config.length = 0; //clears the array
this.config.push.apply(this.config, temp); //adds what you want to the array of the same reference

You could define you custom method like so:
if(!Array.prototype.filterThis){
Array.prototype.filterThis = function (callBack){
if(typeof callBack !== 'function')
throw new TypeError('Argument must of type <function>');
let t = [...this];
this.length = 0;
for(let e of t) if(callBack(e)) this.push(e);
return this;
}
}
let a = [1,2,3,4,5,5,1,5];
a.filterThis(x=>x!=5);
console.log(a);
Warning: Be very cautious in altering built in prototypes. I would even say unless your making a polyfill don't touch. The errors it can cause can be very subtle and very hard to debug.

Not sure why would you want to do mutation but if you really want to do it, maybe assign it back to itself?
let arr = ['a','b','a'];
arr = arr.filter(x => x !== 'a');
console.log(arr)

Taking the lowest number from a list of objects that have dynamic keys

I am creating an object with dynamic keys as seen here:
const myObject = [
{PINO: 1764},
{FANH: 2737},
{WQTR: 1268},
{CICO: 1228}
];
I want to get the key and value with the lowest value, in this case it's {CICO: 1228}.
How I create this object is like so:
let basic = [];
_.map(values, value => {
let result = value[Object.keys(value)].reduce((c, v) => {
// sum up the amounts per key
c[Object.keys(value)] = (c[Object.keys(value)] || 0) + parseInt(v.amount);
return c;
}, {});
basic.push(result);
})
console.log(basic) => [{PINO: 1764}, {FANH: 2737}, {WQTR: 1268}, {CICO: 1228}]
How can I get the lowest number with it's key from the basic object? I tried using sort and taking the lowest number but the keys are created dynamically so I don't think I have anything I can sort against.

This is a pretty inconvenient way to store data since the keys are more-or-less useless and you need to look at the values of each object to do anything. But you can do it if you need to with something like:
const myObject = [
{PINO: 1764},
{FANH: 2737},
{WQTR: 1268},
{CICO: 1228}
];
let least = myObject.reduce((least, current) => Object.values(least)[0] < Object.values(current)[0] ? least : current)
console.log(least)
If it was a large list, you might benefit from converting the array to a different format so you don't need to keep creating the Object.values array.

Iterate the array with Array.reduce(), get the values of the objects via Object.values(), and take the one with the lower number:
const myObject = [
{PINO: 1764},
{FANH: 2737},
{WQTR: 1268},
{CICO: 1228}
];
const result = myObject.reduce((r, o) =>
Object.values(o)[0] < Object.values(r)[0] ? o : r
);
console.log(result);

Creating a two-dimensional object from a string of values

In JavaScript, how would I create a two-dimensional object from a string of values, in which the first value would be the name, the last is the content, and all other values in between are properties?
For example, I have a string "capitals,Asia,China,Beijing" and I want the code to split this string into four values and create an object capitals["Asia","China"] = "Beijing";.
How could I do that?
In a complete code piece that would look like this:
<script>
Values = "capitals,Asia,China,Beijing";
Values = Values.split(",");
alert(capitals["Asia","China"]);
</script>
I want the alert box to show me the word Beijing.
How could I do that?

JavaScript does not have two-dimensional arrays or objects that you can access using array[index1, index2] as in some other languages. To do this, you have to use nested objects/arrays, such as
capitals["Asian"]["China"]
To create these, you can do something like:
function makeEntry(obj, str) {
const parts = str.split(','); // array of comma-delimited values
const value = parts.pop(); // final value ("Beijing")
const final = parts.pop(); // final property ("China")
// Find nested property, creating empty object if not there.
for (let i = 0; i < parts.length; i++) {
const part = parts[i];
if (!(parts in obj)) obj[part] = {};
obj = obj[part];
}
// Set final value.
obj[final] = value;
}
const data = {};
makeEntry(data, "capitals,Asian,China,Beijing");
console.log(data);
console.log(data.capitals["Asian"]["China"]);
This code will work even if there are more levels, such as "capitals,Asia,East Asia,China,Beijing".
Note that there is no way to create a variable in JS given a name. Therefore, we provide an initial object, and build the nest structure within it.
Another approach
Another approach is to create a single-level object with keys such as "capitals,Asian,China". That's easier to create, but might be more inconvenient to access. For example, there would be no easy way to find all the Asian capitals. Below, I'm using regexp to pick apart the input into the first part and the final value.
function makeEntry(obj, str) {
const [, key, value] = str.match(/(.*),([^,]+)$/);
obj[key] = value;
}
const data = {};
makeEntry(data, "capitals,Asian,China,Beijing");
console.log(data);
console.log(data["capitals,Asian,China"]);

You can use WeakMap to set the key of the WeakMap object to an object; Array.prototype.shift(), Array.prototype.splice(), Array.prototype.pop() to set the value of the WeakMap object instance.
let Values = "capitals,Asian,China,Beijing";
Values = Values.split(",");
const capitals = {[Values.shift()]:Values.splice(0, 2)};
const wm = new WeakMap;
wm.set(capitals, Values.pop());
console.log(wm.get(capitals));
You can alternatively set the property of an object to the result of JSON.stringify() called on Values.splice(1, 2)
let Values = "capitals,Asian,China,Beijing";
Values = Values.split(",");
const key = JSON.stringify(Values.splice(1, 2));
console.log(key);
const map = {[Values.shift()]:{[key]:Values.pop()}};
console.log(map.capitals[key]);

Getting Length of Object in Javascript / jQuery

I am trying to set up an array in jQuery and I then need to do a for loop on it. But it seems that I cant use an associative array for some reason?
var items = new Array();
items['foo'] = 123456;
items['bar'] = 789012;
items['baz'] = 345678;
items['bat'] = 901234;
alert(items.length);
This is just a test, but it return 0?

You can't make associative array in JavaScript like what you want, instead you can use Object.
For example:
var items = {
foo : 123456,
bar : 789012,
baz : 345678,
bat : 901234
}
And to calculate the length you can do:
var getObjectSize = function(obj) {
var len = 0, key;
for (key in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key)) len++;
}
return len;
};
Use: getObjectSize(items); // output: 4
For more see here.
Another one is:
Object.keys(items).length;
But not supported by all browsers.

var items = new Array();
items['foo'] = 123456;
The problem lies in the very first line. You believe that you are adding an item to the array at the index foo, but you are actually adding a property to the items variable with a key foo and value 123456. If you were to type items.foo it would give you back your 123456.
The problem with this approach is that adding a property to an array does not magically increase it's length.
If you want to have non-numeric indexes, you need to use an object instead of an array:
var items = {
foo: 123456,
bar: 789012,
baz: 345678,
bat: 901234
};

Another approach might be to set up two different arrays, which you construct in parallel:
var items = [], items2 = [];
items.push('foo');
items2.push(123456);
// etc.
alert(items2.length);​
The efficiency of this approach depends on how you'll use it. If you're only going to loop through the list of items and do something to each of them, this approach may be more efficient. But if you need to use it like an associative array (items['foo']), then you're better off building an object.

The .length property returns the highest numerical index of the array. Thus, in your case, there is no numerical index and it returns 0. Try
items[98] = "something";
items.length will be 98..! Use the .length property with caution, and if you also want to count the non-numerical indici, loop over the Object (an Array is also an Object) and count its ownProperties.