This is a follow-up to a question I posted earlier today. I'm going through this book on using AngularJS with Firebase, which lead me to post this question. I found a solution, but what I still don't understand is that the example in the API Documentation for a $firebaseArray doesn't seem to be handling it as an asynchronous request.
var list = $firebaseArray(new Firebase(URL));
// add an item
list.$add({ foo: "bar" }).then(...);
// remove an item
list.$remove(2).then(...);
// make the list available in the DOM
$scope.list = list;
Also, the example from the books seems to treat the request synchronously as well.
# Service
var buildingsUri = FIREBASE_URI + '/buildings';
var ref = new Firebase(buildingsUri);
var buildings = $firebaseArray(ref);
var getBuildings = function () {
return buildings;
};
...
# Controller
$scope.buildings = syncArraySvc.getBuildings();
How is it that $scope.list in the first example and $scope.buildings in the second example could be properly populated with data when they haven't checked to make sure the request has completed?
The $add and $remove methods return promises. The $firebaseArray() method returns an array with some special functions and properties added. Neither $add or $remove require the data to be loaded locally or depend on the state of the data, so they can be called synchronously. The data is still downloaded asynchronously, of course. So, for example:
var list = $firebaseArray(new Firebase(URL));
// add an item
list.$add({ foo: "bar" }).then(function(ref) {
console.log('added', ref.key());
});
// remove an item
list.$remove(2).then(function(ref) {
console.log('removed', ref.key());
});
console.log('list current contains', list.length, 'items');
list.$loaded(function() {
console.log('after loading initial data, the list contains', list.length, 'items');
});
Assuming the list contains 10 items at load time, and that list is not changed remotely during this code execution, we would see output similar to the following:
list currently contains 0 items
after loading initial state, the list contains 10 items
added abc123
removed xyz456
Additionally, I'd note that this code is probably superfluous. Usually when we see code like this, it's because devs are trying to turn Firebase into a CRUD model. You can probably just return $firebaseArray() there instead and use the existing methods like $getRecord(), et al, instead of artificially wrapping the API in your service.
Related
New to MongoDB, very new to Atlas. I'm trying to set up a trigger such that it reads all the data from a collection named Config. This is my attempt:
exports = function(changeEvent) {
const mongodb = context.services.get("Cluster0");
const db = mongodb.db("TestDB");
var collection = db.collection("Config");
config_docs = collection.find().toArray();
console.log(JSON.stringify(config_docs));
}
the function is part of an automatically created realm application called Triggers_RealmApp, which has Cluster0 as a named linked data source. When I go into Collections in Cluster0, TestDB.Config is one of the collections.
Some notes:
it's not throwing an error, but simply returning {}.
When I change context.services.get("Cluster0"); to something else, it throws an error
When I change "TestDB" to a db that doesnt exist, or "Config" to a collection which doesn't exist, I get the same output; {}
I've tried creating new Realm apps, manually creating services, creating new databases and new collections, etc. I keep bumping into the same issue.
The mongo docs reference promises and awaits, which I haven't seen in any examples (link). I tried experimenting with that a bit and got nowhere. From what I can tell, what I've already done is the typical way of doing it.
Images:
Collection:
Linked Data Source:
I ended up taking it up with MongoDB directly, .find() is asynchronous and I was handling it incorrectly. Here is the reply straight from the horses mouth:
As I understand it, you are not getting your expected results from the query you posted above. I know it can be confusing when you are just starting out with a new technology and can't get something to work!
The issue is that the collection.find() function is an asynchronous function. That means it sends out the request but does not wait for the reply before continuing. Instead, it returns a Promise, which is an object that describes the current status of the operation. Since a Promise really isn't an array, your statment collection.find().toArray() is returning an empty object. You write this empty object to the console.log and end your function, probably before the asynchronous call even returns with your data.
There are a couple of ways to deal with this. The first is to make your function an async function and use the await operator to tell your function to wait for the collection.find() function to return before continuing.
exports = async function(changeEvent) {
const mongodb = context.services.get("Cluster0");
const db = mongodb.db("TestDB");
var collection = db.collection("Config");
config_docs = await collection.find().toArray();
console.log(JSON.stringify(config_docs));
};
Notice the async keyword on the first line, and the await keyword on the second to last line.
The second method is to use the .then function to process the results when they return:
exports = function(changeEvent) {
const mongodb = context.services.get("Cluster0");
const db = mongodb.db("TestDB");
var collection = db.collection("Config");
collection.find().toArray().then(config_docs => {
console.log(JSON.stringify(config_docs));
});
};
The connection has to be a connection to the primary replica set and the user log in credentials are of a admin level user (needs to have a permission of cluster admin)
I been working on LokiJS on Node recently, And I could'nt find a command that deletes the entire Collection itself,
I tried with these commands with an assumption it would exist, I could not find any docs/ samples to delete a collection.
// let result = this.db.dropCollection(collectionName);
// let result = this.db.removeCollection(collectionName);
// let result = this.db.deleteCollection(collectionName);
Other way around I know I can achieve the same by reading the file and removing the entire object, But is there a built-in LokiJS function?
To delete a collection you need to use the removeCollection() method on the main Loki object. See docs here.
For example, if you have your Loki instance initialized like this:
const loki = require('lokijs');
const lokidb = new loki();
// Add a collection (that we will remove later)
let myCollection = lokidb.addCollection('myCollection');
Now lokidb is your main loki object, and this is the object that you need to execute the removeCollection() from.
// Let's remove the collection
lokidb.removeCollection('myCollection');
// * poof * ....
// myCollection is now gone
// To make sure that this deleting change is persisted (if necessary)
lokidb.saveDatabase();
I don't know exactly how you have your loki db set up, but hopefully this example helps.
Hopefully this question won't be flagged as too subjective but I'm newish to OOP and struggling a bit when it come to sharing data between parts of my code that I think should be separated to some extent.
I'm building a (non-geo) map thing (using leaflet.js which is superduper) which has a map (duh) and a sidebar that basically contains a UI (toggling markers both individually and en masse, searching said marker toggles as well as other standard UI behaviour). Slightly confused about organisation too (how modular is too modular but I can stumble through that myself I guess). I am using a simple JSON file for my settings for the time being.
I started with static methods stored in objects which is essentially unusable or rather un-reusable so I went for nested constructors (kinda) so I could pass the parent scope around for easier access to my settings and states properties:
function MainThing(settings) {
this.settings = options;
this.states = {};
}
function SubthingMaker(parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
SubthingMaker.prototype.method = function() {
var data = this.parent.settings.optionOne;
console.log(data);
this.parent.states.isVisible = true;
};
MainThing.prototype.init = function() {
this.subthing = new SubthingMaker(this);
// and some other fun stuff
};
And then I could just create and instance of MainThing and run MainThing.init() and it should all work lovely. Like so:
var options = {
"optionOne": "Hello",
"optionTwo": "Goodbye"
}
var test = new MainThing(options);
test.init();
test.subthing.method();
Should I really be nesting in this manner or will it cause me problems in some way? If this is indeed okay, should I keep going deeper if needed (maybe the search part of my ui wants its own section, maybe the map controls should be separate from DOM manipulation, I dunno) or should I stay at this depth? Should I just have separate constructors and store them in an object when I create an instance of them? Will that make it difficult to share/reference data stored elsewhere?
As regards my data storage, is this an okay way to handle it or should I be creating a controller for my data and sending requests and submissions to it when necessary, even if that data is then tucked away in simple JSON format? this.parent does really start to get annoying after a while, I suppose I should really be binding if I want to change my scope but it just doesn't seem to be an elegant way to access the overall state data of the application especially since the UI needs to check the state for almost everything it does.
Hope you can help and I hope I don't come across as a complete idiot, thanks!
P.S. I think the code I posted works but if it doesn't, its the general idea I was hoping to capture not this specific example. I created a much simpler version of my actual code because I don't want incur the wrath of the SO gods with my first post. (Yes, I did just use a postscript.)
An object may contain as many other objects as are appropriate for doing it's job. For example, an object may contain an Array as part of its instance data. Or, it may contain some other custom object. This is normal and common.
You can create/initialize these other objects that are part of your instance data in either your constructor or in some other method such as a .init() method whichever is more appropriate for your usage and design.
For example, you might have a Queue object:
function Queue() {
this.q = [];
}
Queue.prototype.add = function(item) {
this.q.push(item);
return this;
}
Queue.prototype.next = function() {
return this.q.shift();
}
var q = new Queue();
q.add(1);
q.add(2);
console.log(q.next()); // 1
This creates an Array object as part of its constructor and then uses that Array object in the performance of its function. There is no difference here whether this creates a built-in Array object or it calls new on some custom constructor. It's just another Javascript object that is being used by the host object to perform its function. This is normal and common.
One note is that what you are doing with your MainThing and SubthingMaker violates OOP principles, because they are too tightly coupled and have too wide access to each other internals:
SubthingMaker.prototype.method = function() {
// it reads something from parent's settings
var data = this.parent.settings.optionOne;
console.log(data);
// it changes parent state directly
this.parent.states.isVisible = true;
};
While better idea could be to make them less dependent.
It is probably OK for the MainThing to have several "subthings" as your main thing looks like a top-level object which will coordinate smaller things.
But it would be better to isolate these smaller things, ideally they should work even there is no MainThing or if you have some different main thing:
function SubthingMaker(options) {
// no 'parent' here, it just receives own options
this.options = options;
}
SubthingMaker.prototype.method = function() {
// use own options, instead of reading then through the MainThing
var data = this.options.optionOne;
console.log(data);
// return the data from the method instead of
// directly modifying something in MainThing
return true;
this.parent.states.isVisible = true;
};
MainThing.prototype.doSomething = function() {
// MainThing calls the subthing and modifies own data
this.parent.states.isVisible = this.subthing.method();
// and some other fun stuff
};
Also to avoid confusion, it is better not to use parent / child terms in this case. What you have here is aggregation or composition of objects, while parent / child are usually used to describe the inheritance.
I am trying to get a document from a collection, but it doesn't seem to be working.
when i use the find().fetch(), it returns only an empty array. my code is as follows.
var users = new Mongo.Collection("users");
console.log(users.find());
var userRecord = users.find().fetch();
var returnUserRecord = {};
if (userRecord.length >0){
returnUserRecord = {username:userRecord.username, loginHash:userRecord.loginHash};
console.log("if statement is not complete and the value of the return variable is");
console.log(returnUserRecord);
}
return returnUserRecord
I have checked the database directly and noticed that there is indeed a document in the collection with the command:
meteor mongo
if it makes any difference, all this code in the in the server js file, and is being called from from the client by: Meteor.Methods()/Meteor.call()
EDIT 1
i created another collections with new data from the client, and after selecting the correct database, and running the command:
meteor:PRIMARY> db.newCollection1.find()
i get:
{ "_id" : ObjectId("55d1fa4686ee75349cd73ffb"), "test1" : "asdasd", "test2" : "dsadsa", "test3" : "qweqwe" }
so this confirms that it is available in the database, but running the following in the client console, still doesnt return the result. (autopublish is installed. i tried removing autopublish and made the appropriate changes to subscribe to the table, but that didnt work either).
var coll = new Meteor.Collection('newCollection1');
coll.find().fetch()
this returned an empty array. i have also tried the same on the server.js code using:
meteor debug
but i am still getting an empty array. does anyone know what i might be doing wrong here?
SOLUTION
the solution for this was to create the collection variable in the Meteor object context. this way it can be accessed from the Meteor context.
i.e.
Meteor.coll = new Meteor.Collection('newCollection1');
Meteor.coll.find().fetch();
i hope this helps someone. depending on your code you may want to use a different context.
You don't wait for this subscription to complete, therefore you get empty array.
You should probably read this or this to better understand it.
The thing is you connect users variable to "users" collection, and when you call it, it isn't yet polluted with data (if you don't want to use subscription then maybe use helper - it's reactive so it will return proper value when subscrtiption is finished)
Did you subscribe your users collection somewhere?
if (Meteor.isServer) {
Meteor.publish("users", function(){
return Users.find({})
});
}
if (Meteor.isClient) {
Meteor.subscribe("users");
}
First of all some advice: you can not define a collection twice. If you call new Mongo.Collection("users") a second time you will get an error. Therefore, it should be a global variable an not inside a method.
What I can see in your code is that you are trying to use an array as if it were an object. userRecord.username wont work because userRecord has the value of the fetch() which returns an array.
You could either change your code to userRecord[0].username or loop over the results with forEach like so:
var users = new Mongo.Collection("users");
console.log(users.find());
users.find().forEach(function(singleUser){
console.log(EJSON.stringyfy(singleUser));
}
in order to return the first user, you would be better of using findOne which returns the first object in the result.
I'm building an application with Backbone.js and require.js. My collections get the data from the backend via the fetch() function. Now I have a case where the fetch function is expensive and the data for this specific collection won't change and I'll have such more collections. So I want to keep the data/collection in the memory. But I'm struggling by the implementation. I want to keep the lazy loading given by require.js. What are usual and "clean" ways to handle that?
Use javascript closures, something like:
var getCollection = (function(){
var coll;
return function(){
if( ! coll){
coll = new MyCollection();
coll.fetch();
}
return coll;
}
}());
The first time you call getCollection, the collection will be fetched. Then, each subsequent call will get the cached value.
For more on these kinds of patterns, take a look at "Javascript patterns" by Stoyan Stafanov (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596806767.do)