Related
i'm attempting to create a Tree Diagram with react-d3-js. It needs to be in a specific format. So i need to convert the initial data that i have to the format.
This is a diagram for a shop to see the distribution chain and who is allowed to make a purchase from specific nodes.
Initial Data:
store.name = 'Absolut Chocolat' //Main Parent
store.shopconditions: [
{
"role": "agent",
"condition": ["owner", "stokist"]
},
{
"role": "stokist",
"condition": ["owner", "master stokist"]
},
{
"role": "master stokist",
"condition": ["owner"]
}
]
// If role is agent, then they are allowed to buy from 'owner' and 'stokist'
Here's the hardcoded ideal output:
orgChart = {
name: 'Absolut Chocolat',
children: [
{ name: 'Agent' },
{
name: 'Stokist',
children: [
{
name: 'Agent',
},
],
},
{
name: 'Master Stokist',
children: [
{
name: 'Stokist',
children: [
{
name: 'Agent',
},
],
},
],
},
],
};
With a few for each loops, i've gotten to the first 2 layers of the intended output but i cannot find a way to get more than that.
Here is what i got so far:
Agent node is not under Master Stokist
Current code:
let chartData = { name: store.name, children: [] };
store.shopconditions.forEach((i) => {
i.condition.forEach((c) => {
if (c === 'owner') {
chartData.children.push({ name: i.role });
}
});
});
const chartDataParser = (data) => {
data.children.map((i) => {
for (const [k, v] of Object.entries(i)) {
store.shopconditions.forEach((c) => {
c.condition.forEach((o) => {
if (o === v) {
if (!i.children) {
i.children = [{ name: c.role }];
} else {
i.children.push({ name: c.role });
}
}
});
});
}
});
};
chartDataParser(chartData);
Current output:
{
name: 'Absolut Chocolat',
children: [
{ name: 'Agent' },
{
name: 'Stokist',
children: [
{
name: 'Agent',
},
],
},
{
name: 'Master Stokist',
children: [
{
name: 'Stokist',
// Missing children: Agent Node
},
],
},
],
};
What the tree diagram should look like:
As you can see under Master Stokist node, Agent is under Stokist
The Agent node is not reached under the stokist node in the right most chain. I need a fix to my current code so it can go to that extra layer. Thanks in advance. Looking forward to learn from your answers.
You can build an object that lists children by role and then use that to recursively build the nodes of the object. Possibly something like the following:
const store = {
name: 'Absolut Chocolat',
shopconditions: [
{ "role": "agent", "condition": ["owner", "stokist"], name: 'Agent' },
{ "role": "stokist", "condition": ["owner", "master stokist"], name: 'Stockist' },
{ "role": "master stokist", "condition": ["owner"], name: 'Master Stockist' },
]
};
const build_role_map = (store) => {
let role_map = Object.fromEntries(
store.shopconditions.map((v) => [v.role, { ...v, children: [] }])
);
role_map.owner = { "role": "owner", "condition": [], children: [], name: store.name };
store.shopconditions.forEach(
({ role, condition }) => {
condition.forEach((parent) => { role_map[parent].children.push(role) })
}
);
return role_map;
};
const build_node = (role_map, { name, children }) => {
let node = { name };
if(children.length > 0)
node.children = children.map((child) => build_node(role_map, role_map[child]));
return node;
};
const build_tree = (store) => {
const role_map = build_role_map(store);
return build_node(role_map, role_map.owner);
};
console.log(build_tree(store));
I have a reducer which holds tree data structure (more then 100_000 items total). This is what the data looks like
[
{
text: 'A',
expanded: false,
items:
[
{
text: 'AA',
expanded: false
},
{
text: 'AB',
expanded: false,
items:
[
{
text: 'ABA',
expanded: false,
},
{
text: 'ABB',
expanded: false,
}
]
}
]
},
{
text: 'B',
expanded: false,
items:
[
{
text: 'BA',
expanded: false
},
{
text: 'BB',
expanded: false
}
]
}
]
What I need to do is access this items really fast using text as an id (need to toggle expanded each time user clicks on item in a treeview). Should I just copy whole structure in to dictionary or is there a better way?
Maybe the following will help, let me know if you need more help but please create a runnable example (code snippet) that shows the problem:
const items = [
{
text: 'A',
expanded: false,
items: [
{
text: 'AA',
expanded: false,
},
{
text: 'AB',
expanded: false,
items: [
{
text: 'ABA',
expanded: false,
},
{
text: 'ABB',
expanded: false,
},
],
},
],
},
{
text: 'B',
expanded: false,
items: [
{
text: 'BA',
expanded: false,
},
{
text: 'BB',
expanded: false,
},
],
},
];
//in your reducer
const mapItems = new Map();
const createMap = (items) => {
const recur = (path) => (item, index) => {
const currentPath = path.concat(index);
mapItems.set(item.text, currentPath);
//no sub items not found in this path
if (!item.items) {
return;
}
//recursively set map
item.items.forEach(recur(currentPath));
};
//clear the map
mapItems.clear();
//re create the map
items.forEach(recur([]));
};
const recursiveUpdate = (path, items, update) => {
const recur = ([current, ...path]) => (item, index) => {
if (index === current && !path.length) {
//no more subitems to change
return { ...item, ...update };
}
if (index === current) {
//need to change an item in item.items
return {
...item,
items: item.items.map(recur(path)),
};
}
//nothing to do for this item
return item;
};
return items.map(recur(path));
};
const reducer = (state, action) => {
//if you set the data then create the map, this can make
// testing difficult since SET_ITEM works only when
// when you call SET_DATA first. You should not have
// side effects in your reducer (like creating the map)
// I broke this rule in favor of optimization
if (action.type === 'SET_DATA') {
createMap(action.payload); //create the map
return { ...state, items };
}
if (action.type === 'SET_ITEM') {
return {
...state,
items: recursiveUpdate(
mapItems.get(action.payload.text),
state.items,
action.payload
),
};
}
return state;
};
//crate a state
const state = reducer(
{},
{ type: 'SET_DATA', payload: items }
);
const changed1 = reducer(state, {
type: 'SET_ITEM',
payload: { text: 'A', changed: 'A' },
});
const {
items: gone,
...withoutSubItems
} = changed1.items[0];
console.log('1', withoutSubItems);
const changed2 = reducer(state, {
type: 'SET_ITEM',
payload: { text: 'ABB', changed: 'ABB' },
});
console.log('2', changed2.items[0].items[1].items[1]);
const changed3 = reducer(state, {
type: 'SET_ITEM',
payload: { text: 'BA', changed: 'BA' },
});
console.log('3', changed3.items[1].items[0]);
If all you wanted to do is toggle expanded then you should probably do that with local state and forget about storing expanded in redux unless you want to expand something outside of the component that renders the item because expanded is then shared between multiple components.
I think you may mean that the cost of handling a change of expansion is really high (because potentially you close/open a node with 100000 leaves and then 100000 UI items are notified).
However, this worries me as I hope only the expanded UI items exist at all (e.g. you don't have hidden React elements for everything, each sitting there and monitoring a Redux selector in case its part of the tree becomes visible).
So long as elements are non-existent when not expanded, then why is expansion a status known by anything but its immediate parent, and only the parent if it's also on screen?
I suggest that expansion state should be e.g. React state not Redux state at all. If they are on screen then they are expanded, optionally with their children expanded (with this held as state within the parent UI element) and if they are not on screen they don't exist.
Copy all the individual items into a Map<id, Node> to then access it by the ID.
const data = []// your data
// Build Map index
const itemsMap = new Map();
let itemsQueue = [...data];
let cursor = itemsQueue.pop();
while (cursor) {
itemsMap.set(cursor.text, cursor);
if (cursor.items)
for (let item of cursor.items) {
itemsQueue.push(item);
}
cursor = itemsQueue.pop();
}
// Retrieve by text id
console.log(map.get('ABB'));
// {
// text: 'ABB',
// expanded: false,
// }
I have developed a custom component which renders dropdown with a tree like structure inside it and allows the user to search for values inside the dropdown. Somehow the search works only after two levels of the tree structure.
We would be able to search only on the inside of NextJS label. The previous levels do not render results.
My function looks like this:
const searchFunction = (menu: treeData[], searchText: string) => {
debugger; //eslint-disable-line no-debugger
for (let i = 0; i < menu.length; i++) {
if (menu[i].name.includes(searchText)) {
setFound(true);
return menu[i].name;
} else if (!menu[i].name.includes(searchText)) {
if (menu[i].children !== undefined) {
return searchFunction(menu[i].children, searchText);
}
} else {
return 'Not Found';
}
}
};
And My data is like this:
import { treeData } from './DdrTreeDropdown.types';
export const menu: treeData[] = [
{
name: 'Web Project',
children: [
{
name: 'NextJS',
children: [
{
name: 'MongoDB',
},
{
name: 'Backend',
children: [
{
name: 'NodeJS',
},
],
},
],
},
{
name: 'ReactJS',
children: [
{
name: 'Express',
},
{
name: 'mysql',
children: [
{
name: 'jwt',
},
],
},
],
},
],
},
{
name: 'lorem project',
children: [
{
name: 'Vue Js',
children: [
{
name: 'Oracle Db',
},
{
name: 'JDBC',
children: [
{
name: 'Java',
},
],
},
],
},
{
name: 'ReactJS',
children: [
{
name: 'Express',
},
{
name: 'mysql',
children: [
{
name: 'jwt',
},
],
},
],
},
],
},
];
The sandbox link of the component is here:
https://codesandbox.io/s/upbeat-feynman-89ozi?file=/src/styles.ts
I haven't looked at the context that this is used in, so apologies if I'm missing something about how this is supposed to work. I've assumed that you can call setFound after running this function based on whether it finds anything or not and that it only needs to return one value. But hopefully this helps.
const menu = [{"name":"Web Project","children":[{"name":"NextJS","children":[{"name":"MongoDB"},{"name":"Backend","children":[{"name":"NodeJS"}]}]},{"name":"ReactJS","children":[{"name":"Express"},{"name":"mysql","children":[{"name":"jwt"}]}]}]},{"name":"lorem project","children":[{"name":"Vue Js","children":[{"name":"Oracle Db"},{"name":"JDBC","children":[{"name":"Java"}]}]},{"name":"ReactJS","children":[{"name":"Express"},{"name":"mysql","children":[{"name":"jwt"}]}]}]}];
const searchFunction = (menu, searchText) => {
let result;
for(let i = 0; i < menu.length; i++) {
if(menu[i].name.includes(searchText)) {
return menu[i].name;
} else if(menu[i].children !== undefined) {
result = searchFunction(menu[i].children, searchText);
if(result) return result;
}
}
return null;
};
console.log(searchFunction(menu, 'NextJS'));
console.log(searchFunction(menu, 'jwt'));
console.log(searchFunction(menu, 'foo'));
Looking at why the current version doesn't work, I think it goes something like this:
Let's take 'jwt' as the searchText.
We start in the 'Web Project' object, the name does not match, so we go to the else if block (BTW, we can never reach the else block as the else if condition is the opposite of the if condition).
The 'Web Project' object does have children so we will return from the new call to searchFunction; notice that 'lorem project' can never be reached as we will (regardless of the result) return the value of searchFunction and skip the rest of the loop.
Inside of our new and subsequent calls to searchFunction the same is going to happen until we find either a matching item or an item without children.
If we get to an item without children the the loop will successfully carry on to the siblings of the item.
If it doesn't find a match or an item with children it will exit the for loop and return undefined up the chain to the caller of the initial searchFunction.
Data Structure coming back from the server
[
{
id: 1,
type: "Pickup",
items: [
{
id: 1,
description: "Item 1"
}
]
},
{
id: 2,
type: "Drop",
items: [
{
id: 0,
description: "Item 0"
}
]
},
{
id: 3,
type: "Drop",
items: [
{
id: 1,
description: "Item 1"
},
{
id: 2,
description: "Item 2"
}
]
},
{
id: 0,
type: "Pickup",
items: [
{
id: 0,
description: "Item 0"
},
{
id: 2,
description: "Item 2"
}
]
}
];
Each element represents an event.
Each event is only a pickup or drop.
Each event can have one or more items.
Initial State
On initial load, loop over the response coming from the server and add an extra property called isSelected to each event, each item, and set it as false as default. -- Done.
This isSelected property is for UI purpose only and tells user(s) which event(s) and/or item(s) has/have been selected.
// shove the response coming from the server here and add extra property called isSelected and set it to default value (false)
const initialState = {
events: []
}
moveEvent method:
const moveEvent = ({ events }, selectedEventId) => {
// de-dupe selected items
const selectedItemIds = {};
// grab and find the selected event by id
let foundSelectedEvent = events.find(event => event.id === selectedEventId);
// update the found event and all its items' isSelected property to true
foundSelectedEvent = {
...foundSelectedEvent,
isSelected: true,
items: foundSelectedEvent.items.map(item => {
item = { ...item, isSelected: true };
// Keep track of the selected items to update the other events.
selectedItemIds[item.id] = item.id;
return item;
})
};
events = events.map(event => {
// update events array to have the found selected event
if(event.id === foundSelectedEvent.id) {
return foundSelectedEvent;
}
// Loop over the rest of the non selected events
event.items = event.items.map(item => {
// if the same item exists in the selected event's items, then set item's isSelected to true.
const foundItem = selectedItemIds[item.id];
// foundItem is the id of an item, so 0 is valid
if(foundItem >= 0) {
return { ...item, isSelected: true };
}
return item;
});
const itemCount = event.items.length;
const selectedItemCount = event.items.filter(item => item.isSelected).length;
// If all items in the event are set to isSelected true, then mark the event to isSelected true as well.
if(itemCount === selectedItemCount) {
event = { ...event, isSelected: true };
}
return event;
});
return { events }
}
Personally, I don't like the way I've implemented the moveEvent method, and it seems like an imperative approach even though I'm using find, filter, and map.
All this moveEvent method is doing is flipping the isSelected flag.
Is there a better solution?
Is there a way to reduce the amount of looping? Maybe events should be an object and even its items. At least, the lookup would be fast for finding an event, and I don't have to use Array.find initially. However, I still have to either loop over each other non selected events' properties or convert them back and forth using Object.entries and/or Object.values.
Is there more a functional approach? Can recursion resolve this?
Usage and Result
// found the event with id 0
const newState = moveEvent(initialState, 0);
// Expected results
[
{
id: 1,
type: 'Pickup',
isSelected: false,
items: [ { id: 1, isSelected: false, description: 'Item 1' } ]
}
{
id: 2,
type: 'Drop',
// becasue all items' isSelected properties are set to true (even though it is just one), then set this event's isSelected to true
isSelected: true,
// set this to true because event id 0 has the same item (id 1)
items: [ { id: 0, isSelected: true, description: 'Item 0' } ]
}
{
id: 3,
type: 'Drop',
// since all items' isSelected properties are not set to true, then this should remain false.
isSelected: false,
items: [
{ id: 1, isSelected: false, description: 'Item 1' },
// set this to true because event id 0 has the same item (id 2)
{ id: 2, isSelected: true, description: 'Item 2' }
]
}
{
id: 0,
type: 'Pickup',
// set isSelected to true because the selected event id is 0
isSelected: true,
items: [
// since this belongs to the selected event id of 0, then set all items' isSelected to true
{ id: 0, isSelected: true, description: 'Item 0' },
{ id: 2, isSelected: true, description: 'Item 2' }
]
}
]
One of the problems with the current solution is data duplication. You are basically trying to keep the data between the different items in sync. Instead of changing all items with the same id, make sure there are no duplicate items by using an approach closer to what you would find in a rational database.
Let's first normalize the data:
const response = [...]; // data returned by the server
let data = { eventIds: [], events: {}, items: {} };
for (const {id, items, ...event} of response) {
data.eventIds.push(id);
data.events[id] = event;
event.items = [];
for (const {id, ...item} of items) {
event.items.push(id);
data.items[id] = item;
}
}
This should result in:
const data {
eventIds: [1, 2, 3, 0], // original order
events: {
0: { type: "Pickup", items: [0, 2] },
1: { type: "Pickup", items: [1] },
2: { type: "Drop", items: [0] },
3: { type: "Drop", items: [1, 2] },
},
items: {
0: { description: "Item 0" },
1: { description: "Item 1" },
2: { description: "Item 2" },
},
};
The next thing to realize is that the isSelected property of an event is computed based on the isSelected property of its items. Storing this would mean more data duplication. Instead calculate it though a function.
const response = [{id:1,type:"Pickup",items:[{id:1,description:"Item 1"}]},{id:2,type:"Drop",items:[{id:0,description:"Item 0"}]},{id:3,type:"Drop",items:[{id:1,description:"Item 1"},{id:2,description:"Item 2"}]},{id:0,type:"Pickup",items:[{id:0,description:"Item 0"},{id:2,description:"Item 2"}]}];
// normalize incoming data
let data = { eventIds: [], events: {}, items: {} };
for (const {id, items, ...event} of response) {
data.eventIds.push(id);
data.events[id] = event;
event.items = [];
for (const {id, ...item} of items) {
event.items.push(id);
data.items[id] = item;
item.isSelected = false;
}
}
// don't copy isSelected into the event, calculate it with a function
const isEventSelected = ({events, items}, eventId) => {
return events[eventId].items.every(id => items[id].isSelected);
};
// log initial data
console.log(data);
for (const id of data.eventIds) {
console.log(`event ${id} selected?`, isEventSelected(data, id));
}
// moveEvent implementation with the normalized structure
const moveEvent = (data, eventId) => {
let { events, items } = data;
for (const id of events[eventId].items) {
items = {...items, [id]: {...items[id], isSelected: true}};
}
return { ...data, items };
};
data = moveEvent(data, 0);
// log after data applying `moveEvent(data, 0)`
console.log(data);
for (const id of data.eventIds) {
console.log(`event ${id} selected? `, isEventSelected(data, id));
}
// optional: convert structure back (if you still need it)
const convert = (data) => {
const { eventIds, events, items } = data;
return eventIds.map(id => ({
id,
...events[id],
isSelected: isEventSelected(data, id),
items: events[id].items.map(id => ({id, ...items[id]}))
}));
};
console.log(convert(data));
Check browser console, for better ouput readability.
I'm not sure if this answers solves your entire problem, but I hope you got something useful info out of it.
I've have a complex data structure with multiple nested arrays in place.
Below is the current structure
var contentData = {
data: {
content: [
{
type: "column",
sections: [
{
sub: [
{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text"
}
]
}
]
},
{
type: "acc-item",
sections: [
{
sub: [
{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text"
},
{
type: "ordered-item",
text: "Item 1"
},
{
type: "unordered-item",
text: "Item 2"
}
]
}
]
},
{
type: "acc-item",
sections: [
{
sub: [
{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text 2"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
}
So What I wanted is,
I wanted to group all the ordered-item & unordered-item into a new object like {type: 'list', items:[all list items]}.
I need to extract all items which are inside sub and push it to new object embedded and it should placed in the root level like below,
{type:"acc-item",embedded:[{type:"heading-1",text:"Heading Text 2"}]};
So What I've done so far,
I can able to group acc-item, but not the ordered-item & unordered-item.
So my final expected result should like this,
[{
"type": "column",
"embedded": [
{
"type": "heading-1",
"text": "Heading Text"
}
]
},
{
"type": "acc-group",
"items": [
{
"type": "acc-item",
"embedded": [
{
"type": "heading-1",
"text": "Heading Text"
},
{
"type": "list",
"items": [
{
"type": "ordered-item",
"text": "Item 1"
},
{
"type": "unordered-item",
"text": "Item 2"
}
]
}
]
},
{
"type": "acc-item",
"embedded": [
{
"type": "heading-1",
"text": "Heading Text 2"
}
]
}
]
}]
Below is my code,
var group,contentData={data:{content:[{type:"column",sections:[{sub:[{type:"heading-1",text:"Heading Text"}]}]},{type:"acc-item",sections:[{sub:[{type:"heading-1",text:"Heading Text"},{type:"ordered-item",text:"Item 1"},{type:"unordered-item",text:"Item 2"}]}]},{type:"acc-item",sections:[{sub:[{type:"heading-1",text:"Heading Text 2"}]}]}]}},types=[["list",["ordered-item","unordered-item"]],["accordion",["acc-item"]]];
var result = contentData.data.content.reduce((r, o) => {
var type = (types.find(({ 1: values }) => values.indexOf(o.type) > -1)|| {})[0];
if (!type) {
r.push(o);
group = undefined;
return r;
}
if (!group || group.type !== type) {
group = { type, items: [] };
r.push(group);
}
group.items.push(o);
return r;
}, []);
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(result, null, ' ') + '</pre>';
You could store the last items array as well as the last embedded array and use them until a column type is found.
var contentData = { data: { content: [{ type: "column", sections: [{ sub: [{ type: "heading-1", text: "Heading Text" }] }] }, { type: "acc-item", sections: [{ sub: [{ type: "heading-1", text: "Heading Text" }, { type: "ordered-item", text: "Item 1" }, { type: "unordered-item", text: "Item 2" }] }] }, { type: "acc-item", sections: [{ sub: [{ type: "heading-1", text: "Heading Text 2" }] }] }] } },
list = ["ordered-item", "unordered-item"],
lastItems, lastEmbedded,
result = contentData.data.content.reduce((r, { type, sections }) => {
if (type === 'column') {
r.push({ type, embedded: sections.reduce((q, { sub }) => q.concat(sub), []) });
lastItems = undefined;
lastEmbedded = undefined;
return r;
}
if (!lastItems) r.push({ type: "acc-group", items: lastItems = [] });
lastItems.push(...sections.map(({ sub }) => ({
type,
embedded: sub.reduce((q, o) => {
if (list.includes(o.type)) {
if (!lastEmbedded) q.push({ type: 'list', items: lastEmbedded = [] });
lastEmbedded.push(o);
} else {
q.push(o);
lastEmbedded = undefined;
}
return q;
}, [])
})));
return r;
}, []);
console.log(result);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
The Array.prototype and Object.prototype methods are perfect for this kind of thing.
And you're right that this is some complicated kind of logic.
I would suggest that you definitely need some unit tests for this, and try break in to separate pieces.
Here's how I'm thinking I'd do it.
1. Group By the type to create your groups..
I'm actually creating a more generic solution that you've asked for here. That is, I'm not just grouping the 'acc-item', but everything.
I did a quick search for 'array group by javascript' and it gives us this answer which suggests using Array.reduce, so let's do that.
const groupedData = contentData.data.content.reduce((acc, cur) => {
//Check if this indexed array already exists, if not create it.
const currentArray = (acc[`${cur.type}-group`] && acc[`${cur.type}-group`].items) || [];
return {
...acc,
[`${cur.type}-group`]: {
type: `${cur.type}-group`,
items: [...currentArray, cur]
}
}
}, {});
2. Now for each of those items, we need to look at their subs, and group just the list items.
To do this, we basically want to find all the `item -> sections -> sub -> types and filter them into two arrays. A quick google on how to create two arrays using a filter gives me this answer.
First though, we need to flatten that sections-> subs thing, so lets just do that.
function flattenSectionsAndSubs(item) {
return {
type: item.type,
subs: item.sections.reduce((acc, cur) => ([...acc, ...cur.sub]), [])
};
}
And I'll just copy paste that partition function in:
function partition(array, isValid) {
return array.reduce(([pass, fail], elem) => {
return isValid(elem) ? [[...pass, elem], fail] : [pass, [...fail, elem]];
}, [[], []]);
}
const listTypes = ['ordered-item', 'unordered-item'];
function createEmbeddedFromItem(item) {
const [lists, nonLists] = partition(item.subs, (v) => listTypes.includes(v.type);
return {
type: item.type,
embedded: [
...nonLists,
{
type: "list",
items: lists
}
]
}
}
Putting this all together and we get.
const contentData = {
data: {
content: [{
type: "column",
sections: [{
sub: [{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text"
}]
}]
},
{
type: "acc-item",
sections: [{
sub: [{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text"
},
{
type: "ordered-item",
text: "Item 1"
},
{
type: "unordered-item",
text: "Item 2"
}
]
}]
},
{
type: "acc-item",
sections: [{
sub: [{
type: "heading-1",
text: "Heading Text 2"
}]
}]
}
]
}
}
function partition(array, isValid) {
return array.reduce(([pass, fail], elem) => {
return isValid(elem) ? [
[...pass, elem], fail
] : [pass, [...fail, elem]];
}, [
[],
[]
]);
}
function flattenSectionsAndSubs(item) {
return {
type: item.type,
subs: item.sections.reduce((acc, cur) => ([...acc, ...cur.sub]), [])
};
}
const listTypes = ['ordered-item', 'unordered-item'];
function createEmbeddedFromItem(item) {
const [lists, nonLists] = partition(item.subs, (v) => listTypes.includes(v.type));
return {
type: item.type,
embedded: [
...nonLists,
{
type: "list",
items: lists
}
]
}
}
const groupedData = contentData.data.content.reduce((acc, cur) => {
//Check if this indexed array already exists, if not create it.
const currentArray = (acc[`${cur.type}-group`] && acc[`${cur.type}-group`].items) || [];
const flattenedItem = flattenSectionsAndSubs(cur);
const embeddedItem = createEmbeddedFromItem(flattenedItem);
return {
...acc,
[`${cur.type}-group`]: {
type: `${cur.type}-group`,
items: [...currentArray, embeddedItem]
}
}
}, {});
console.log(groupedData);
Now this doesn't exactly match what you've asked for - but it should probably work.
You can add your own bits into only add a list item, if the array isn't empty, and to stop the column from being in its own group.
The thing is - tbh it seems like a little bit of a red flag that you would create an array of items that don't having matching structures, which is why I've done it this way.