I am trying to sort sets of associated key value pairs. They look like this:
{"word":"a","votes":9326,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
But organized into labeled subsets of preferably a string or perhaps an index if necessary.
The data-set is a vote-per-use table of most used english words being parsed into pages.
I will be appending them as text to other html elements due to the constraints my use case, makes it a bit tricky, however, for an example I could work with a simple console.log of the page value followed by the console.log of every word value stored within that page. I need the order preserved. so probably indexed. I will also need to be able to sort each page by the votes value, but I think I can figure the rest out for that.
I have found tutorials on how to search through key-value pairs, but I cannot find how to do all of the following with one solution:
A: access the value of word
B: maintain the order of the data-set, allowing me to append them to the matching html element
C: allows me the opportunity to change which set of elements I am appending to when i have finished looping through a single member of the parent index (the one recording the page)
I imagine it is some combination of for/of and for/in, but I'm getting a headache. Please help?
addl info:
function would run at app startup or when the dataset being examined is changed.
function would take a large dataset filled with around 200 page number values, each with 60+ sets of data like the one listed above, the contents of a single page index for example:
{"word":"a","votes":9326,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"aaron","votes":4129,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abandoned","votes":1289,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abc","votes":5449,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"aberdeen","votes":641,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abilities","votes":2210,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"ability","votes":7838,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"able","votes":8649,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"aboriginal","votes":1837,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abortion","votes":3232,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"about","votes":9295,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"above","votes":8818,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abraham","votes":867,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abroad","votes":4969,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abs","votes":2415,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"absence","votes":4934,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"absent","votes":2937,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"absolute","votes":5251,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"absolutely","votes":5936,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"absorption","votes":285,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abstract","votes":7946,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abstracts","votes":1907,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"abuse","votes":7238,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"academic","votes":7917,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"academics","votes":1706,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"academy","votes":6755,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"acc","votes":6469,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accent","votes":1020,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accept","votes":7547,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"acceptable","votes":4907,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"acceptance","votes":7273,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accepted","votes":7684,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accepting","votes":1789,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accepts","votes":1535,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"access","votes":9031,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessed","votes":2932,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessibility","votes":5702,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessible","votes":5662,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessing","votes":2096,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessories","votes":8875,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accessory","votes":5661,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accident","votes":5664,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accidents","votes":2991,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accommodate","votes":1807,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accommodation","votes":8059,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accommodations","votes":3885,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accompanied","votes":2532,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accompanying","votes":664,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accomplish","votes":1070,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accomplished","votes":2419,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accordance","votes":6434,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"according","votes":8282,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accordingly","votes":3003,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"account","votes":8996,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accountability","votes":3029,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accounting","votes":7459,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accounts","votes":7507,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accreditation","votes":1605,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accredited","votes":3027,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accuracy","votes":6779,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accurate","votes":6427,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accurately","votes":1493,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"accused","votes":2853,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"acdbentity","votes":1389,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
and the output would ultimately append the value paired with each word to a specific button through iteration, but also sorted by the page value.
each page is a set of buttons in a 3d object that looks like this:
the text is appended to each button which in turn is a 3d object embeded in an html object using aframe. I can make the appending code.
You can use Object.entries() to get the key value pairs of an object.
var words = [
{"word":"a","votes":9326,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"},
{"word":"aaron","votes":4129,"userMade":"FALSE","limiter":"FALSE"}
];
words.forEach((wordEntry) => {
var keyValuePairs = Object.entries(wordEntry);
keyValuePairs.forEach((kv) => {
console.log(`key: ${kv[0]} value: ${kv[1]}`);
});
});
my latest attempt looks like this:
for (let p=1; p<129; p++){
for (let b=1; b<68; b++){
let pTpl = (p).toLocaleString(undefined, {minimumIntegerDigits: 3});
let bDbl = (b).toLocaleString(undefined, {minimumIntegerDigits: 2});
var `#fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}` = document.createElement('a-text');
`fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`.setAttribute('value', 'engWordLib[p,b,0]');
`fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`.setAttribute('votes', 'engWordLib[p,b,1]');
`fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`.setAttribute('userMade', 'engWordLib[p,b,2]');
`fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`.setAttribute('limiter', 'engWordLib[p,b,3]');
`fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`.setAttribute('visible', 'false');
`fBtn${bDbl}`.appendChild(`#fCont${pTpl}${bDbl}`)
}
}
please note that I havent checked this for errors. I still think this code is to WET and I would prefer the key names for the properties be preserved in the datastructure rather than tacked on when it's appended to the page. I guess I could add a dimension to the array.... seems kind of messy when an object property value has the key value pairs right in it. cant get the iteration of objects in an array down though.... Will continue to persue a cleaner method.
I don't mean using a for loop using the keys.
For example if you had an array like:
var fruitArray = ["Apples", "Bananas", "Coconuts"],
curFruit = 0;
You could "iterate" over that using buttons, say you've got a prev/next button and all those buttons do is decrement/increment the curFruit index.
So if I'm on Bananas, I could get Apples using the prev button using:
fruitArray[0] // Apples
Where the index was at 1 for Bananas but the prev button drops the index by one.
So with an unknown-length object, and not using a numbered-index, how could you do that?
Say it's like this:
var fruitObject = {"Apples":"Red", "Bananas":"Yellow", "Coconuts":"Brown"};
I realize you could have set 0, 1, 2 and the fruit name, but just to show that you don't know what the object key/index might be.
So if I'm on Bananas using
fruitObject.Bananas // yellow
How could I get to Apples using the same decrement idea as the Array?
My question is not about the for in method
I don't know why that's not clear, it was literally the first line in my question.
I think I found a solution anyway though it might not be direct/the most effective way to do it where I'll create a temporary local "look up".
To explain:
Here's an object
var colorObject = {"red":"apple", "blue":"blueberries", "yellow":"banana"};
I don't want to use the for in method to go from left to right complete.
I want to be able to start/keep a current position like I'm at "blue":"berries" and I can jump to "red":"apple" without knowing what "red":"apple" is
My current solution in mind is, yes, though ironically I would use the for in method but to create a look up array.
Something like
var tempArray = [];
for (var key in colorObject) {
tempArray.push(key);
}
Then I can navigate the object starting from anywhere using the increment/decrement method.
tempArray[1] would return "blue" and I could go to "red" by doing tempArray[0] which is interpreted as
colorObject.blue // blueberries
Edit thanks to the editor for making my question more clear
I did poorly word it so that's on me.
This is not possible. JavaScript object properties do not have a defined order, so there is no concept of Y key comes after X key.
Excerpt from EnumerateObjectProperties section of ECMAScript 2017 Draft (ECMA-262) (emphasis added):
The mechanics and order of enumerating the properties is not specified but must conform to the rules specified below.
If you were to iterate over the properties of your fruitObject object, "Bananas" may or may not come before "Coconuts", this behavior simply is not defined by the specification. There does not even appear to be a guarantee the properties will come back in the same order each time you iterate over the properties.
The only way to have a consistent order would be to have an array. Optionally, you could do this by creating an array of the properties via Object.keys.
var fruitObject = {"Apples":"Red", "Bananas":"Yellow", "Coconuts":"Brown"};
// Get the property keys in an ordered list:
var fruitObjectKeys = Object.keys(fruitObject);
// An array of properties with a consistent order:
fruitObjectKeys.forEach(function(prop) {
console.log(prop, '=', fruitObject[prop]);
});
Note however that the JavaScript engine running the code will decide what the order of the resulting array of properties is if you do it this way.
Objects don't have order, so you can't say that the first element of fruitObject is "Apples", the second is "Bananas" and the third is "Cocounts".
You could get the keys as an array with Object.keys() and then do something like
var keys=Object.keys(fruitObject);
fruitObject[keys[0]];
Remember that in JS it's the obj.key is the same than obj["key"].
I'm calling a JavaScript function that wants an array of things to display. It displays a count, and displays the items one by one. Everything works when I pass it a normal JavaScript array.
But I have too many items to hold in memory at once. What I'd like to do, is pass it an object with the same interface as an array, and have my method(s) be called when the function tries to access the data. And in fact, if I pass the following:
var featureArray = {length: count, 0: func(0)};
then the count is displayed, and the first item is correctly displayed. But I don't want to assign all the entries, or I'll run out of memory. And the function currently crashes when the user tries to display the second item. I want to know when item 1 is accessed, and return func(1) for item 1, and func(2) for item 2, etc. (i.e., delaying the creation of the item until it is requested).
Is this possible in JavaScript?
If I understand correctly, this would help:
var object = {length: count, data: function (whatever) {
// create your item
}};
Then, instead of doing array[1], array[2], et cetera, you'd do object.data(1), object.data(2), and so on.
Since there seems to be a constraint that the data must be accessed using array indexing via normal array indexing arr[index] and that can't be changed, then the answer is that NO, you can't override array indexing in Javascript to change how it works and make some sort of virtual array that only fetches data upon demand. It was proposed for ECMAScript 4 and rejected as a feature.
See these two other posts for other discussion/confirmation:
How would you overload the [] operator in Javascript
In javascript, can I override the brackets to access characters in a string?
The usual way to solve this problem would be to switch to using a method such as .get(n) to request the data and then the implementor of .get() can virtualize however much they want.
P.S. Others indicate that you could use a Proxy object for this in Firefox (not supported in other browsers as far as I know), but I'm not personally familiar with Proxy objects as it's use seems rather limited to code that only targets Firefox right now.
Yes, generating items on the go is possible. You will want to have a look at Lazy.js, a library for producing lazily computed/loaded sequences.
However, you will need to change your function that accepts this sequence, it will need to be consumed differently than a plain array.
If you really need to fake an array interface, you'd use Proxies. Unfortunately, it is only a harmony draft and currently only supported in Firefox' Javascript 1.8.5.
Assuming that the array is only accessed in an iteration, i.e. starting with index 0, you might be able to do some crazy things with getters:
var featureArray = (function(func) {
var arr = {length: 0};
function makeGetter(i) {
arr.length = i+1;
Object.defineProperty(arr, i, {
get: function() {
var val = func(i);
Object.defineProperty(arr, i, {value:val});
makeGetter(i+1);
return val;
},
configurable: true,
enumerable: true
});
}
makeGetter(0);
return arr;
}(func));
However, I'd recommend to avoid that and rather switch the library that is expecting the array. This solution is very errorprone if anything else is done with the "array" but accessing its indices in order.
Thank you to everyone who has commented and answered my original question - it seems that this is not (currently) supported by JavaScript.
I was able to get around this limitation, and still do what I wanted. It uses an aspect of the program that I did not mention in my original question (I was trying to simplify the question), so it is understandable that other's couldn't recommend this. That is, it doesn't technically answer my original question, but I'm sharing it in case others find it useful.
It turns out that one member of the object in each array element is a callback function. That is (using the terminology from my original question), func(n) is returning an object, which contains a function in one member, which is called by the method being passed the data. Since this callback function knows the index it is associated with (at least, when being created by func(n)), it can add the next item in the array (or at least ensure that it is already there) when it is called. A more complicated solution might go a few ahead, and/or behind, and/or could cleanup items not near the current index to free memory. This all assumes that the items will be accessed consecutively (which is the case in my program).
E.g.,
1) Create a variable that will stay in scope (e.g., a global variable).
2) Call the function with an object like I gave as an example in my original question:
var featureArray = {length: count, 0: func(0)};
3) func() can be something like:
function func(r) {
return {
f : function() {featureArray[r + 1] = func(r + 1); DoOtherStuff(r); }
}
}
Assuming that f() is the member with the function that will be called by the external function.
I have an ajax call that returns a JSON object that is pretty complex and I'm having a hard time sorting it.
My call:
$.post('/reports-ajax',arguments, function(data) {}
The response:
{
"10001":{
"unitname":"Fort Worth",
"discounts":{"12-02-2012":"34.810000","12-03-2012":"20.810000","12-04-2012":"27.040000"},
"gross":{"12-02-2012":"56.730000","12-03-2012":"19.350000","12-04-2012":"66.390000"},
"net":{"12-02-2012":"61.920000","12-03-2012":"98.540000","12-04-2012":"39.350000"},
"discounts_total":82.66,
"gross_total":82.47,
"net_total":99.81,
"number":10001
},
"10002":{
"unitname":"Dallast",
"discounts":{"12-02-2012":"12.600000","12-03-2012":"25.780000","12-04-2012":"47.780000","12-05-2012":"45.210000"},
"gross":{"12-02-2012":"29.370000","12-03-2012":"91.110000","12-04-2012":"60.890000","12-05-2012":"51.870000"},
"net":{"12-02-2012":"16.770000","12-03-2012":"65.330000","12-04-2012":"13.110000","12-05-2012":"06.660000"},
"discounts_total":131.37,
"gross_total":33.24,
"net_total":101.87,
"number":10002
},
"32402":{
"unitname":"Austin",
"discounts":{"12-05-2012":"52.890000","12-02-2012":"22.430000","12-03-2012":"58.420000","12-04-2012":"53.130000"},
"gross":{"12-05-2012":"25.020000","12-02-2012":"2836.010000","12-03-2012":"54.740000","12-04-2012":"45.330000"},
"net":{"12-04-2012":"92.200000","12-05-2012":"72.130000","12-02-2012":"13.580000","12-03-2012":"96.320000"},
"discounts_total":186.87,
"gross_total":161.1,
"net_total":174.23,
"number":32402
}
}
I go over the function with a standard each call and do some awesome stuff with highcharts but now I'm trying to sort the responses by the net_total call and I can't figure it out.
I tried .sort() and it errors out that its not a function. I've been reading for a while but guess I'm not finding the right results. This looked promising: Sorting an array of JavaScript objects but it failed with the .sort is not a function. It seems most .sort are on [] arrays not full objects..
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Sorting objects doesn't make sense since object keys have no positional value. For example, this:
{ a:1, b:2 }
and this:
{ b:2, a:1 }
are exactly the same object. They're not just similar, they're the same.
Nothing in javascript per se gives object keys any positional value. Some people perhaps are mistaken in the belief that:
for (var key in obj) {
iterates through the object keys in a specific sequence. But this is wrong. You should always assume that the for .. in loop processes object keys in random order, always, all the time.
Obviously, if you're going to write a web browser, you're not going to implement a random number generator to parse a for .. in loop. Therefore most web browsers have an accidental stability to how the for .. in loop processes object keys.
Developers who learn javascript by playing around with the browser may figure out that their browser iterates through objects in alphabetical order for example, or the order the keys were added to the object. But this is totally accidental and cannot be relied upon. The browser vendor may change this behavior in the future without violating any backwards compatability (except with buggy scripts written by people who believe objects have a sort order). Not to mention that different browsers have different implementations of javascript and therefore not necessarily have the same internal key ordering of objects.
All the above is besides the point. "Key sort order" does not make any sense in javascript and any behavior observed is merely implementation detail. In short, javascript object does not have key order, just assume it's random.
Solution
Now, what you're really trying to do is not sort the object (you can't, it doesn't make sense). What you're really trying to do is process the object attributes in a specific order. The solution is to simply create an array (which has sorting order) of object keys and then process the object using that array:
// First create the array of keys/net_total so that we can sort it:
var sort_array = [];
for (var key in Response) {
sort_array.push({key:key,net_total:Response[key].net_total});
}
// Now sort it:
sort_array.sort(function(x,y){return x.net_total - y.net_total});
// Now process that object with it:
for (var i=0;i<sort_array.length;i++) {
var item = Response[sort_array[i].key];
// now do stuff with each item
}
What you have there isn't an array and has no order, so you'll have to transform it into an array so you can give it order.
Vaguely:
var array = [];
$.each(data, function(key, value) {
array.push(value);
});
array.sort(function(a, b) {
return a.net_total - b.net_total;
});
Live Example | Source
As GolezTroi points out in the comments, normally the above would lose the key that each entry is stored under in data and so you'd add it back in the first $.each loop above, but in this case the entries already have the key on them (as number), so there's no need.
Or you can replace the first $.each with $.map:
var array = $.map(data, function(entry) {
return entry;
});
// ...and then sort etc.
...whichever you prefer.