Essentially what I want
let schema = {
name: null,
lastname: null
}
let values = {
name: "John",
unwanted: "haxor"
}
to end up in:
console.log(sanitized); // {name: "John", lastname: null}
--
Using Object.assign(schema, values) ends up with the unwanted value.
Is there a simple way?
Edit: I should add, this is to avoid using a library like lodash or underscore, so if the solution is overly complex, they would be preferable solutions.
There is no builtin method which achieves that. However, there is a simple (almost trivial) way to do it:
const sanitized = {};
for (const p in schema)
sanitized[p] = (p in object ? object : schema)[p];
Just retrieve the same key from the other object:
Object.keys(schema).forEach(key => schema[key] = (key in values ? values : schema)[key]);
If you want to create a new object:
var newObj = {};
Object.keys(schema).forEach(key => newObj[key] = (key in values ? values : schema)[key]);
Also, this is compatible with previous version of ES as well (if you do not use arrow function, of course).
The (key in values ? values : schema)[key]) part assures properties that are only in first schema aren't set to undefined
Edited to OP's slightly more complicated request
Just map the value's and schema's keys to individual objects, and spread them. Prioritize values by placing them after:
Object.assign(
schema,
...Object.keys(schema).map(
(key) => ({[key]: schema[key]})
),
...Object.keys(schema).map(
(key) => ({[key]: values[key]})
)
);
If you don't want to overwrite schema, specify a different target for Object.assign():
let sanitized = Object.assign(
{},
...Object.keys(schema).map(
(key) => ({[key]: schema[key]})
),
...Object.keys(schema).map(
(key) => ({[key]: values[key]})
)
);
Following a pattern closer to #Bergi's answer, you could do something less verbose like this with Object.assign():
let sanitized = Object.assign({}, ...Object.keys(schema).map(
(key) => ({[key]: (key in values ? values : schema)[key]})
)
);
Related
I have a list of user submissions on different questions and whenever it is being updated, I have several properties I'm updating. I'm wondering if there is a better way perhaps by destructing or spreading to make this cleaner/shorter? Here's what I'm doing at the moment, I've lessened the number of properties in the example, but in the actual project I am updating around 5-6 properties one by one and I felt it is a little repetitive to set it one by one.
updateSubmission ( id, type, value ) {
const obj = state.submission.filter( el => el.id === id )[ 0 ]
obj.type = type
obj.value = value
}
Use .find to find the single matching object instead of .filter, then you can Object.assign both properties with shorthand:
updateSubmission ( id, type, value ) {
Object.assign(
state.submission.find( el => el.id === id ),
{ type, value }
);
}
If you can change the signature of updateSubmission then you can also make the code more generic.
updateSubmission ({ id, ...rest }) {
let obj = state.submission.find( el => el.id === id );
obj = { ...obj, ...rest };
}
Usage:
updateSubmission({id:'123', type:'abc', value:'xyz'})
Future Benefit:
If tomorrow, the sequence of params changes? then the code works without changing signature.
It doesn't matter how many argument you had earlier, with object destructuring, the code works without adding arguments to signature.
Please see code below. Is there a more succinct way to transform the originalObject into myObject?
The key is that I'm trying to set myObject's property names based on the id within each property in originalObject.
myObject = Object
.values( originalObject )
.reduce( (acc, x) => {
let propHolder = {}
propHolder[x.id] = false
return Object.assign( acc, propHolder )
}, {} )
Since you have let, you have computed properties:
myObject = Object.values(originalObject).reduce((acc, x)=>{
return Object.assign(acc, {[x.id]: false})
},{})
Now since the arrow function is just a return:
myObject =
Object.values(originalObject)
.reduce((acc, x) => Object.assign(acc, {[x.id]: false}), {})
and if you don’t mind making an array:
myObject =
Object.values(originalObject)
.map(x => ({[x.id]: false}))
.reduce(Object.assign, {});
I would prefer to have a fromPairs function on hand, though.
myObject = fromPairs(
Object.values(originalObject)
.map(x => [x.id, false])
);
If you use Lodash’s fromPairs, you can also use its map.
myObject = _.fromPairs(
_.map(originalObject, x => [x.id, false])
);
See Ryan’s answer for elegant but long one-liners. But since you were asking for a succinct way, here's the simple solution:
myObject = {};
for (const k in originalObject)
myObject[originalObject[k].id] = false;
Or possibly more interesting:
myObject = {};
for (const {id} of Object.values(originalObject))
myObject[id] = false;
You can make use of Javascript's spread syntax:
const myObject = Object
.values(originalObject)
.reduce((acc, x) => ({ ...acc, [x.id]: false }), {})
More reading: Spread syntax
My javascript object looks like this:
const someObj = {
arr1: ["str1", "str2"],
arr2: ["str3", "str4"]
}
In attempting to rename a key (e.g. arr1), I end up deleting the existing key and writing a new key with the original value. The order of obj changes.
someObj = {
arr2: ["str3", "str4"],
renamedarr1: ["str1", "str2"]
}
How do I rename a key while preserving the key order?
In the end it was solved in a js-vanila way rather than a react way.
In case somebody would look for a similar solution, I am posting the code I ended up using. Inspired by Luke's idea:
const renameObjKey = ({oldObj, oldKey, newKey}) => {
const keys = Object.keys(oldObj);
const newObj = keys.reduce((acc, val)=>{
if(val === oldKey){
acc[newKey] = oldObj[oldKey];
}
else {
acc[val] = oldObj[val];
}
return acc;
}, {});
return newObj;
};
You might want to consider reducing the array of keys into a new object.
To do this, you need also to know which key changed to what.
Reduce the array of keys
use a reducer which checks for a key change, and change it if necessary.
add the key to the object with the value
After that you have a Object with the order you had before, and possibly a changed key is still at the same position
Something like this might work (not tested)
const changedKeyMap = {"previousKey": "newKey"};
const keys = Object.keys(this.state.obj);
const content = e.target.value;
const result = keys.reduce((acc, val) => {
// modify key, if necessary
if (!!changedKeyMap[val]) {
val = changedKeyMap[val];
}
acc[val] = content;
// or acc[val] = this.state.obj[val] ?
return acc;
}, {});
As you can see, you need to keep track of how you changed a key (changedKeyMap).
The reduce function just iterates over all keys in correct order and adds them to a newly created object. if a key is changed, you can check it in the changedKeyMap and replace it. It will still be at the correct position
Have an array which contains a no of json .
[{linkValue:"value1"},{linkValue:"value2"},{linkValue:"value3"},{linkValue:"value4"},{linkValue:"value5"}]
Note that each Json have same key . I want to convert this array into a single json like
{linkValue1:"value1",linkValue2:"value2",linkValue3:"value3",linkValue4:"value4",linkValue5:"value5"}
one thing i also need to know . my array is also inside a json how i get this arry from that json ?
My initial json is
{name:"value",age:"value",linkValue:[[{linkValue:"value1"},{linkValue:"value2"},{linkValue:"value3"},{linkValue:"value4"},{linkValue:"value5"}]
]}
I'm expcting my final json look like :
{name:"value",age:"value",linkValue1:"value1",linkValue2:"value2",linkValue3:"value3",linkValue4:"value4",linkValue5:"value5"}
can anyone please help me
Use Array.forEach and add properties to an empty object:
let source = {name:"value",age:"value",linkValue:[[{linkValue:"value1"},{linkValue:"value2"},{linkValue:"value3"},{linkValue:"value4"},{linkValue:"value5"}]]};
// Copy the array in a variable
let yourArray = source.linkValue[0];
// Delete the original array in the source object
delete source.linkValue;
yourArray.forEach((item, index) => {
source["linkValue" + (index + 1)] = item.linkValue
});
console.log(source); // Should have what you want
Using reduce API,
let targetObj = srcArr.reduce((accumulator, value, index)=>{
accumulator['linkValue'+(index+1)] = value.linkValue;
return accumulator;
}, {});
[{linkValue:"value1"},{linkValue:"value2"},{linkValue:"value3"},{linkValue:"value4"},{linkValue:"value5"}]
This is javascript Array contains multiple javascript object.
{linkValue1:"value1",linkValue2:"value2",linkValue3:"value3",linkValue4:"value4",linkValue5:"value5"}
If you need structure like this,Then define a single javascript object and add linkvalue1,linkvalue2 etc. as a member of that object and then add it to javascript Array.
Give this a try.
myObj.linkValue = myObj.linkValue.map((obj, index) => ({ [`linkValue${index + 1}`]: obj.linkValue }))
Solution with reduce
// HELPER FUNCTIONS
// pick properties from object with default value
function pick (props, sourceObj, defaultValue) {
return props.reduce(
(obj, prop) =>
Object.assign(obj, { [prop]: sourceObj[prop] || defaultValue }),
{}
)
}
// get property value or default
function propOr (propName, obj, defaultValue) {
return obj[propName] || defaultValue
}
// flatten nested array
function flattern (nestedArray) {
return nestedArray.reduce((flat, innerArray) => flat.concat(innerArray), [])
}
// LINKS BUILDER based on REDUCE
function buildLinks (linksArray) {
return linksArray.reduce((accumulator, item, index) => {
accumulator['linkValue' + (index + 1)] = item.linkValue
return accumulator
}, {})
}
// TRANSFORMATION FUNCTION - takes json and produce required output
function transform(json) {
return Object.assign(
{},
pick(['name', 'age'], json, null),
buildLinks(flattern(propOr('linkValue', json, [])))
)
}
// EXECUTION
const result = transform(source)
PS> You can use libraries like Lodash or Ramda and replace helper functions defined by me with ones from library
I am learning functional programming in Javascript and using Ramda. I have this object
var fieldvalues = { name: "hello there", mobile: "1234",
meta: {status: "new"},
comments: [ {user: "john", comment: "hi"},
{user:"ram", comment: "hello"}]
};
to be converted like this:
{
comments.0.comment: "hi",
comments.0.user: "john",
comments.1.comment: "hello",
comments.1.user: "ram",
meta.status: "new",
mobile: "1234",
name: "hello there"
}
I have tried this Ramda source, which works.
var _toDotted = function(acc, obj) {
var key = obj[0], val = obj[1];
if(typeof(val) != "object") { // Matching name, mobile etc
acc[key] = val;
return acc;
}
if(!Array.isArray(val)) { // Matching meta
for(var k in val)
acc[key + "." + k] = val[k];
return acc;
}
// Matching comments
for(var idx in val) {
for(var k2 in val[idx]) {
acc[key + "." + idx + "." + k2] = val[idx][k2];
}
}
return acc;
};
// var toDotted = R.pipe(R.toPairs, R.reduce(_toDotted, {}));
var toDotted = R.pipe(R.toPairs, R.curry( function(obj) {
return R.reduce(_toDotted, {}, obj);
}));
console.log(toDotted(fieldvalues));
However, I am not sure if this is close to Functional programming methods. It just seems to be wrapped around some functional code.
Any ideas or pointers, where I can make this more functional way of writing this code.
The code snippet available here.
UPDATE 1
Updated the code to solve a problem, where the old data was getting tagged along.
Thanks
A functional approach would
use recursion to deal with arbitrarily shaped data
use multiple tiny functions as building blocks
use pattern matching on the data to choose the computation on a case-by-case basis
Whether you pass through a mutable object as an accumulator (for performance) or copy properties around (for purity) doesn't really matter, as long as the end result (on your public API) is immutable. Actually there's a nice third way that you already used: association lists (key-value pairs), which will simplify dealing with the object structure in Ramda.
const primitive = (keys, val) => [R.pair(keys.join("."), val)];
const array = (keys, arr) => R.addIndex(R.chain)((v, i) => dot(R.append(keys, i), v), arr);
const object = (keys, obj) => R.chain(([v, k]) => dot(R.append(keys, k), v), R.toPairs(obj));
const dot = (keys, val) =>
(Object(val) !== val
? primitive
: Array.isArray(val)
? array
: object
)(keys, val);
const toDotted = x => R.fromPairs(dot([], x))
Alternatively to concatenating the keys and passing them as arguments, you can also map R.prepend(key) over the result of each dot call.
Your solution is hard-coded to have inherent knowledge of the data structure (the nested for loops). A better solution would know nothing about the input data and still give you the expected result.
Either way, this is a pretty weird problem, but I was particularly bored so I figured I'd give it a shot. I mostly find this a completely pointless exercise because I cannot picture a scenario where the expected output could ever be better than the input.
This isn't a Rambda solution because there's no reason for it to be. You should understand the solution as a simple recursive procedure. If you can understand it, converting it to a sugary Rambda solution is trivial.
// determine if input is object
const isObject = x=> Object(x) === x
// flatten object
const oflatten = (data) => {
let loop = (namespace, acc, data) => {
if (Array.isArray(data))
data.forEach((v,k)=>
loop(namespace.concat([k]), acc, v))
else if (isObject(data))
Object.keys(data).forEach(k=>
loop(namespace.concat([k]), acc, data[k]))
else
Object.assign(acc, {[namespace.join('.')]: data})
return acc
}
return loop([], {}, data)
}
// example data
var fieldvalues = {
name: "hello there",
mobile: "1234",
meta: {status: "new"},
comments: [
{user: "john", comment: "hi"},
{user: "ram", comment: "hello"}
]
}
// show me the money ...
console.log(oflatten(fieldvalues))
Total function
oflatten is reasonably robust and will work on any input. Even when the input is an array, a primitive value, or undefined. You can be certain you will always get an object as output.
// array input example
console.log(oflatten(['a', 'b', 'c']))
// {
// "0": "a",
// "1": "b",
// "2": "c"
// }
// primitive value example
console.log(oflatten(5))
// {
// "": 5
// }
// undefined example
console.log(oflatten())
// {
// "": undefined
// }
How it works …
It takes an input of any kind, then …
It starts the loop with two state variables: namespace and acc . acc is your return value and is always initialized with an empty object {}. And namespace keeps track of the nesting keys and is always initialized with an empty array, []
notice I don't use a String to namespace the key because a root namespace of '' prepended to any key will always be .somekey. That is not the case when you use a root namespace of [].
Using the same example, [].concat(['somekey']).join('.') will give you the proper key, 'somekey'.
Similarly, ['meta'].concat(['status']).join('.') will give you 'meta.status'. See? Using an array for the key computation will make this a lot easier.
The loop has a third parameter, data, the current value we are processing. The first loop iteration will always be the original input
We do a simple case analysis on data's type. This is necessary because JavaScript doesn't have pattern matching. Just because were using a if/else doesn't mean it's not functional paradigm.
If data is an Array, we want to iterate through the array, and recursively call loop on each of the child values. We pass along the value's key as namespace.concat([k]) which will become the new namespace for the nested call. Notice, that nothing gets assigned to acc at this point. We only want to assign to acc when we have reached a value and until then, we're just building up the namespace.
If the data is an Object, we iterate through it just like we did with an Array. There's a separate case analysis for this because the looping syntax for objects is slightly different than arrays. Otherwise, it's doing the exact same thing.
If the data is neither an Array or an Object, we've reached a value. At this point we can assign the data value to the acc using the built up namespace as the key. Because we're done building the namespace for this key, all we have to do compute the final key is namespace.join('.') and everything works out.
The resulting object will always have as many pairs as values that were found in the original object.