I'm trying to delete some data from a complex object.
The format of the original data is as follows.
let originData =
[
{
name : exampleDepth1,
depth1Data :
[
{
name : exampleDepth2,
depth2Data :
[
{
code: 1234///will be delete from that data
},
...
]
},
...
]
},
....
]
let willbeDeletecode = [ 3, 100, 1234, 1000];
The name of the array to be deleted is the code value in the depth2Data array of originData, The name of the array to delete is willbeDeletecode.
I'm sorry if you were uncomfortable.
I'm trying to erase it in two ways.
let deleteBook = {}
_.forEach(willbeDeletecode, (deleteCode) => {
deleteBook[`${deleteCode}`] = deleteCode;
})
_.remove(originData, (depth1) => {
_.remove(depth1.depth1Data, (depth2) => {
/*
// delete with object hash
_.remove(depth2.depth2Data, (eachDepth2Data) => {
return deleteBook[eachDepth2Data.code] === undefined
})
*/
/*
// delete with forEach
let ret = false;
_.remove(depth2.depth2Data, (eachDepth2Data) => {
_.forEach(willbeDeletecode, (deleteCode) => {
if(deleteCode === eachDepth2Data.code){
ret = true;
return false;
}
})
return ret
})
*/
return depth2.depth2Data.length === 0;
})
return depth1.depth1Data.length === 0;
})
I have two separate ways of annotating each one.
The first is to create an object(deleteBook) and insert the data of willbeDeletecode and use it in remove of lodash.
The second method is entirely a comparison of all through the forEach function.
The above method was repeated 1000 times to benchmark. As a result, the first method is 100 ~ 200ms and the second method is 500 ~ 700ms.
Of course, the willbeDeletecode is around 10 or so, but I thought Object hash was faster. But the result was the opposite.
If there are more variables in willbeDeletecode, will there be another conclusion? I want know why this results.
The object hash is to be preferred. You could also use an ES6 Set for such purpose.
Such a hash solution should be faster.
One reason that you did not see this in your case, is that the first variant of your code removes the opposite of what it should. The _remove callback should return a truthy value when the corresponding item should be removed, yet your code returns true when the value is not in the codes that should be deleted. You should use a !== comparison:
_.remove(depth2.depth2Data, (eachDepth2Data) => {
return deleteBook[eachDepth2Data.code] !== undefined
})
As you had a === there, you probably had a lot more removals going on, giving a longer time of execution.
Related
I have a data response that responds with different objects in an array.
I have tried a variety of different methods to determine if the key 'name' exists including:
const hasName = array.forEach(item => "name" in item )
const hasName = array.forEach(item => Object.keys(item).includes('name') )
const hasName = array[0].hasOwnProperty("name") ? true : null
const hasName = array => array.some(x => x.some(({ name }) => name));
// lodash 'has' method
const hasName = has(array, 'name')
Array1 returns objects like:
[
{
name: 'cool name'
}
]
Array2 returns objects like:
[
{
group: 'cool group'
}
]
All of the methods I tried have either returned undefined or nothing at all and I'm completely at a loss for why. I have scoured Stack Overflow and the internet trying to get a better direction or an answer but I haven't been able to find anything.
You're not returning anything from some of your calls on the array. forEach for example runs a callback, and always returns undefined see docs. Your code just isn't working because you're using the functions incorrectly.
The code below filters your array to get the elements with a name property, then counts them to see whether one or more exists, which results in a true or false being stored in the hasName variable.
let myArr = [
{
name: 'cool name'
}
]
const hasName =
myArr
.filter(a => a.hasOwnProperty("name")) // filter for elements in the array which have a name property
.length // get the number of filtered elements
> 0 // check whether the number of elements in array with name prop is more than 0
console.log(hasName)
If you are sure that the "response" is fully received before the check, THEN
Your latest variant of the check can be implemented as follows:
array.some(obj => (obj.name !== undefined)); // fast, but not define .name if it is "undefined"
array.some(obj => obj.hasOwnProperty("name")); // slower, but will define .name with any value
Your solutions are generally correct, but it looks like you're a little confused,
Array.forEach always returns "undefined":
array.forEach(obj => {
console.log("name" in obj); // true for 1st array
console.log("group" in obj); // true for 2nd array
}); // return "undefined"
array[0].hasOwnProperty() works fine, and can't return "undefined" at all.
console.log(
array[0].hasOwnProperty("name") ? true : null; // return ("true" for the 1st array) AND ("null" for the 2nd)
);
When you used the Lodash, maybe you forgot to point to the object index?
_.has(array[0], 'name'); // return ("true" for the 1st array) AND ("false" for the 2nd)
Try a for loop
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i].hasOwnProperty('name')) {
console.log(array[i].name); //do something here.
break;
}
}
I have an array of ~11,000 JavaScript dictionaries, each representing 1 row in an Excel file.
I want to loop through this array and parse each element into a new datastructure. For example, I might have a function that will count for {"foo": true} or something.
As I have multiple of these functions, my question is would it be better to loop through this array for each function, or have one single loop with functions that parse each element and store it in a global variable?
Ex. I'm currently doing one single loop, and parsing each element into a global variable
const arr = [...]; // array of ~11,000 dictionaries
// example parsing function
let count = 0;
function countFoos(el) {
if (el["foo"] === true) count++;
}
let count2 = 0;
function countBars(el) {
if (el["bar"] === false) count2++;
}
arr.forEach(el => {
countFoos(el);
countBars(el);
});
But would it be better to do it this way?
class Parse {
constructor(arr) {
this.arr = arr;
this.count = 0;
this.count2 = 0;
}
countFoos() {
this.arr.forEach((el) => {
if (el["foo"] === true) this.count++;
});
}
countBars() {
this.arr.forEach((el) => {
if (el["bar"] === false) this.count2++;
});
}
}
const arr = [...]; // array of ~11,000 dictionaries
let x = Parse();
x.countFoos();
x.countBars();
EDIT: I should've clarified early, the examples shown above are just very simplified examples of the production code. Approximately 20 'parsing functions' are being run on for each element, with each of its corresponding global variables being large dictionaries or arrays.
You should generally do just one iteration that calls both functions.
Iterating takes time, so doing two iterations will double the time taken to perform the iterations. How significant this is to the entire application depends on how much work is done in the body of the iteration. If the bodies are very expensive, the iteration time might fall into the noise. But if it's really simple, as in your examples of a simple test and variable increment, the iteration time will probably be significant.
If you are worried about performance, the first method is better as it only involves one iteration over the entire array while the second approach requires two.
If think using classes is more readable, you could simply put write that as one method in the class.
class Parse {
constructor(arr) {
this.arr = arr;
this.count = 0;
this.count2 = 0;
}
count() {
this.arr.forEach((el) => {
countFoos(el), countBars(el);
});
}
countFoos(el){
if(el.foo === true) this.count1++;
}
countBars() {
if(el.bar === false) this.count2++;
}
}
I would approach this by using the Array.prototype.reduce function, which would only require a single pass over the given array. I also would not use a class here as it would not really make sense, but you can if you really want!
function count(arr) {
return arr.reduce(([fooCount, barCount], next) => {
if (next.foo === true) {
fooCount = fooCount + 1
}
if (next.bar === false) {
barCount = barCount + 1
}
return [fooCount, barCount]
}, [0, 0]);
}
const [fooCount, barCount] = count(...);
You can also use generators to accomplish this, which is even better because it doesn't require that you to iterate the entire set of words in the dictionary, but it's a little more unwieldy to use.
This is actually easier to use than other examples that require if statements, because you could quite easily run a battery of functions over each result and add it to the accumulator.
Just remember though that you don't want to optimize before you prove something is a problem. Iterating 22000 objects is obviously more than iterating 11000, but it is still going to be quite fast!
Restricting the number of loops is your best option as it requires less overhead.
Also here is an idea, using the foreach to do the processing with if statements and using a single counter object to hold all of the values so they mean something and can be easily referenced later on.
const arr = [
{"foo" : true,"bar" : false},{"bar" : true,"foo" : false}
];
let counters = {};
function inc(field) {
if (counters[field] == undefined) {
counters[field] = 0;
}
counters[field]++;
}
arr.forEach(el => {
if (el["foo"] === true) {
inc("foo");
}
if (el["bar"] === true) {
inc("bar");
}
});
console.log(counters);
The problem isn't the code, it's that I don't understand why what I have works, although it does what I need it to do. I'm building an app that keeps track of jobs. The jobs, each an object, are stored in an array in a JSON file. I'm adding the functionality to edit a job's key/value pairs in the JSON file.
Anyway, my function editJob takes in an object as an argument that has an id and a variable amount of other properties. The goal is then to locate the job in JSON that matches the id, then update that job's properties based only on the editItems object.The code below allows for that. I just don't understand the line below the Object.keys code. Why would I not compare the located job's keys to the editItems keys?
I don't know why it works and am worried it will break at some point because it's not properly coded.
function editJob (editItems) {
// editItems is an object like this: ex. { id: 3, customer: 'Artemis', source: 'Google', description: 'Fixed toilet' }
return this.jobs.map(job => {
let editedJobs = Object.assign({}, job);
if (editedJobs.id === editItems.id) {
Object.keys(editItems).forEach(k => {
if (editedJobs[k] === job[k]) { // WHY DOES THIS WORK. why job[k] and not editItems[k]???
editedJobs[k] = editItems[k];
}
});
}
return editedJobs;
});
}
Since you just did editedJobs = Object.assign({}, job), the expression editedJobs[k] === job[k] will be true for every k. You can just omit it. You would achieve the same thing by
function editJob (editItems) {
return this.jobs.map(job => {
return job.id === editItems.id
? Object.assign({}, job, editItems)
: job;
});
}
I would like to create an object of arrays converting the single level key - (string) value relation to key - (array) keys collection.
Basically, the code must collect other keys and their values recursively starting from collecting self. At the end the object must be like this;
{
ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: [
'ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN',
'ROLE_ADMIN',
'ROLE_MODERATOR',
'ROLE_AUTHOR'
]
}
What i have achieved yet is;
export const roles = {
ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: 'ROLE_ADMIN',
ROLE_ADMIN: 'ROLE_MODERATOR',
ROLE_MODERATOR: 'ROLE_AUTHOR',
ROLE_AUTHOR: null,
ROLE_CLIENT: null
}
export function roleMapper() {
const roleArray = {}
const mapper = (key) => {
roleArray[key] = [key];
if (!roles[key] || Array.isArray(roles[key])) {
return;
} else if (!roles[roles[key]]) {
roleArray[key].push(roles[key])
} else {
if (roleArray.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
Object.keys(roles).filter(r => r !== key).forEach((role) => {
roleArray[key].push(mapper(role))
})
}
}
}
Object.keys(roles).forEach((key) => {
mapper(key)
});
console.log(roleArray);
}
I have completely lost solving this. Please help, thanks.
I would use a function generator for this, taking advantage of the easy recursion approach and taking advantage of Object.entries combined with Array.map.
The below method acquires all the siblings of a defined key from an object, assuming that each key value may be the child of the said key.
As a side note, you could technically do that in many other ways (without relying on function generators), I just think that the generator approach is clever and easier to maintain. Moreover, it allows you to re-use the method later and allows you to eventually iterate the values.
Code explanation is directly in the code below.
const roles = {
ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: 'ROLE_ADMIN',
ROLE_ADMIN: 'ROLE_MODERATOR',
ROLE_MODERATOR: 'ROLE_AUTHOR',
ROLE_AUTHOR: null,
ROLE_CLIENT: null
}
// Acquire all the siblings, where a sibling is a key whose value is the value of another key.
function* getSiblings(v, source) {
// if the desired key exists in source..
if (source[v]) {
// yield the value, which is a role in that case.
yield source[v];
// next, yield all the siblings of that value (role).
yield* [...getSiblings(source[v], source)];
}
}
// Map all roles by its siblings.
const res = Object.entries(roles).map(([key, role]) => {
// key is the main role, whereas role is the "child" role.
// Technically, [key] is not exactly a child role of [key], so we're injecting it manually below to avoid polluting the getSiblings method.
return {
[key]: [key, ...getSiblings(key, roles)] // <-- as mentioned above, the array is build by starting from the main role (key) and appending the child roles (siblings). [key] is a shorthand to set the key.
}
});
console.log(res);
I would separate out the recursive call necessary to fetch the list from the code that builds the output. That allows you to make both of them quite simple:
const listRoles = (rolls, name) => name in roles
? [name, ... listRoles (rolls, roles [name] )]
: []
const roleMapper = (roles) => Object .assign (
... Object.keys (roles) .map (name => ({ [name]: listRoles (roles, name) }))
)
const roles = {ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: 'ROLE_ADMIN', ROLE_ADMIN: 'ROLE_MODERATOR', ROLE_MODERATOR: 'ROLE_AUTHOR', ROLE_AUTHOR: null, ROLE_CLIENT: null}
console .log (
roleMapper (roles)
)
Here listRoles is the recursive bit, and it simply takes a roles object and a name and returns all the descendant names, so
listRoles(roles, 'ROLE_MODERATOR') //=> ["ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"]
roleMapper uses that function. It takes the roles object and calls listRoles on each of its keys, combining them into a new object.
Together, these yield the following output:
{
ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: ["ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN", "ROLE_ADMIN", "ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"],
ROLE_ADMIN: ["ROLE_ADMIN", "ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"],
ROLE_MODERATOR: ["ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"],
ROLE_AUTHOR: ["ROLE_AUTHOR"],
ROLE_CLIENT: ["ROLE_CLIENT"]
}
I see the accepted answer generates a structure more like this:
[
{ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN: ["ROLE_SUPER_ADMIN", "ROLE_ADMIN", "ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"]},
{ROLE_ADMIN: ["ROLE_ADMIN", "ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"]},
{ROLE_MODERATOR: ["ROLE_MODERATOR", "ROLE_AUTHOR"]},
{ROLE_AUTHOR: ["ROLE_AUTHOR"]},
{ROLE_CLIENT: ["ROLE_CLIENT"]}
]
(The difference is that mine was a single object, versus this one which was an array of single-property objects.)
While that feels less logical to me, it would be even easier to write:
const roleMapper = (roles) => Object.keys (roles) .map (n => ({ [n]: listRoles (roles, n) }))
I get from the server a list of objects
[{name:'test01', age:10},{name:'test02', age:20},{name:'test03', age:30}]
I load them into html controls for the user to edit.
Then there is a button to bulk save the entire list back to the database.
Instead of sending the whole list I only want to send the subset of objects that were changed.
It can be any number of items in the array. I want to do something similar to frameworks like Angular that mark an object property like "pristine" when no change has been done to it. Then use that flag to only post to the server the items that are not "pristine", the ones that were modified.
Here is a function down below that will return an array/object of changed objects when supplied with an old array/object of objects and a new array of objects:
// intended to compare objects of identical shape; ideally static.
//
// any top-level key with a primitive value which exists in `previous` but not
// in `current` returns `undefined` while vice versa yields a diff.
//
// in general, the input type determines the output type. that is if `previous`
// and `current` are objects then an object is returned. if arrays then an array
// is returned, etc.
const getChanges = (previous, current) => {
if (isPrimitive(previous) && isPrimitive(current)) {
if (previous === current) {
return "";
}
return current;
}
if (isObject(previous) && isObject(current)) {
const diff = getChanges(Object.entries(previous), Object.entries(current));
return diff.reduce((merged, [key, value]) => {
return {
...merged,
[key]: value
}
}, {});
}
const changes = [];
if (JSON.stringify(previous) === JSON.stringify(current)) {
return changes;
}
for (let i = 0; i < current.length; i++) {
const item = current[i];
if (JSON.stringify(item) !== JSON.stringify(previous[i])) {
changes.push(item);
}
}
return changes;
};
For Example:
const arr1 = [1, 2, 3, 4]
const arr2 = [4, 4, 2, 4]
console.log(getChanges(arr1, arr2)) // [4,4,2]
const obj1 = {
foo: "bar",
baz: [
1, 2, 3
],
qux: {
hello: "world"
},
bingo: "name-o",
}
const obj2 = {
foo: "barx",
baz: [
1, 2, 3, 4
],
qux: {
hello: null
},
bingo: "name-o",
}
console.log(getChanges(obj1.foo, obj2.foo)) // barx
console.log(getChanges(obj1.bingo, obj2.bingo)) // ""
console.log(getChanges(obj1.baz, obj2.baz)) // [4]
console.log(getChanges(obj1, obj2)) // {foo:'barx',baz:[1,2,3,4],qux:{hello:null}}
const obj3 = [{ name: 'test01', age: 10 }, { name: 'test02', age: 20 }, { name: 'test03', age: 30 }]
const obj4 = [{ name: 'test01', age: 10 }, { name: 'test02', age: 20 }, { name: 'test03', age: 20 }]
console.log(getChanges(obj3, obj4)) // [{name:'test03', age:20}]
Utility functions used:
// not required for this example but aid readability of the main function
const typeOf = o => Object.prototype.toString.call(o);
const isObject = o => o !== null && !Array.isArray(o) && typeOf(o).split(" ")[1].slice(0, -1) === "Object";
const isPrimitive = o => {
switch (typeof o) {
case "object": {
return false;
}
case "function": {
return false;
}
default: {
return true;
}
}
};
You would simply have to export the full list of edited values client side, compare it with the old list, and then send the list of changes off to the server.
Hope this helps!
Here are a few ideas.
Use a framework. You spoke of Angular.
Use Proxies, though Internet Explorer has no support for it.
Instead of using classic properties, maybe use Object.defineProperty's set/get to achieve some kind of change tracking.
Use getter/setting functions to store data instead of properties: getName() and setName() for example. Though this the older way of doing what defineProperty now does.
Whenever you bind your data to your form elements, set a special property that indicates if the property has changed. Something like __hasChanged. Set to true if any property on the object changes.
The old school bruteforce way: keep your original list of data that came from the server, deep copy it into another list, bind your form controls to the new list, then when the user clicks submit, compare the objects in the original list to the objects in the new list, plucking out the changed ones as you go. Probably the easiest, but not necessarily the cleanest.
A different take on #6: Attach a special property to each object that always returns the original version of the object:
var myData = [{name: "Larry", age: 47}];
var dataWithCopyOfSelf = myData.map(function(data) {
Object.assign({}, data, { original: data });
});
// now bind your form to dataWithCopyOfSelf.
Of course, this solution assumes a few things: (1) that your objects are flat and simple since Object.assign() doesn't deep copy, (2) that your original data set will never be changed, and (3) that nothing ever touches the contents of original.
There are a multitude of solutions out there.
With ES6 we can use Proxy
to accomplish this task: intercept an Object write, and mark it as dirty.
Proxy allows to create a handler Object that can trap, manipulate, and than forward changes to the original target Object, basically allowing to reconfigure its behavior.
The trap we're going to adopt to intercept Object writes is the handler set().
At this point we can add a non-enumerable property flag like i.e: _isDirty using Object.defineProperty() to mark our Object as modified, dirty.
When using traps (in our case the handler's set()) no changes are applied nor reflected to the Objects, therefore we need to forward the argument values to the target Object using Reflect.set().
Finally, to retrieve the modified objects, filter() the Array with our proxy Objects in search of those having its own Property "_isDirty".
// From server:
const dataOrg = [
{id:1, name:'a', age:10},
{id:2, name:'b', age:20},
{id:3, name:'c', age:30}
];
// Mirror data from server to observable Proxies:
const data = dataOrg.map(ob => new Proxy(ob, {
set() {
Object.defineProperty(ob, "_isDirty", {value: true}); // Flag
return Reflect.set(...arguments); // Forward trapped args to ob
}
}));
// From now on, use proxied data. Let's change some values:
data[0].name = "Lorem";
data[0].age = 42;
data[2].age = 31;
// Collect modified data
const dataMod = data.filter(ob => ob.hasOwnProperty("_isDirty"));
// Test what we're about to send back to server:
console.log(JSON.stringify(dataMod, null, 2));
Without using .defineProperty()
If for some reason you don't feel comfortable into tapping into the original object adding extra properties as flags, you could instead populate immediately
the dataMod (array with modified Objects) with references:
const dataOrg = [
{id:1, name:'a', age:10},
{id:2, name:'b', age:20},
{id:3, name:'c', age:30}
];
// Prepare array to hold references to the modified Objects
const dataMod = [];
const data = dataOrg.map(ob => new Proxy(ob, {
set() {
if (dataMod.indexOf(ob) < 0) dataMod.push(ob); // Push reference
return Reflect.set(...arguments);
}
}));
data[0].name = "Lorem";
data[0].age = 42;
data[2].age = 31;
console.log(JSON.stringify(dataMod, null, 2));
Can I Use - Proxy (IE)
Proxy - handler.set()
Global Objects - Reflect
Reflect.set()
Object.defineProperty()
Object.hasOwnProperty()
Without having to get fancy with prototype properties you could simply store them in another array whenever your form control element detects a change
Something along the lines of:
var modified = [];
data.forEach(function(item){
var domNode = // whatever you use to match data to form control element
domNode.addEventListener('input',function(){
if(modified.indexOf(item) === -1){
modified.push(item);
}
});
});
Then send the modified array to server when it's time to save
Why not use Ember.js observable properties ? You can use the Ember.observer function to get and set changes in your data.
Ember.Object.extend({
valueObserver: Ember.observer('value', function(sender, key, value, rev) {
// Executes whenever the "value" property changes
// See the addObserver method for more information about the callback arguments
})
});
The Ember.object actually does a lot of heavy lifting for you.
Once you define your object, add an observer like so:
object.addObserver('propertyKey', targetObject, targetAction)
My idea is to sort object keys and convert object to be string to compare:
// use this function to sort keys, and save key=>value in an array
function objectSerilize(obj) {
let keys = Object.keys(obj)
let results = []
keys.sort((a, b) => a > b ? -1 : a < b ? 1 : 0)
keys.forEach(key => {
let value = obj[key]
if (typeof value === 'object') {
value = objectSerilize(value)
}
results.push({
key,
value,
})
})
return results
}
// use this function to compare
function compareObject(a, b) {
let aStr = JSON.stringify(objectSerilize(a))
let bStr = JSON.stringify(objectSerilize(b))
return aStr === bStr
}
This is what I think up.
It would be cleanest, I’d think to have the object emit an event when a property is added or removed or modified.
A simplistic implementation could involve an array with the object keys; whenever a setter or heck the constructor returns this, it first calls a static function returning a promise; resolving: map with changed values in the array: things added, things removed, or neither. So one could get(‘changed’) or so forth; returning an array.
Similarly every setter can emit an event with arguments for initial value and new value.
Assuming classes are used, you could easily have a static method in a parent generic class that can be called through its constructor and so really you could simplify most of this by passing the object either to itself, or to the parent through super(checkMeProperty).