Develop Reference

Typescript, turn Array of functions into merged type of all returned values

So I have a an array of functions (or actually an object of functions but it doesn't matter) which returns a different objects such as this:
const arr = [
() => ({ a: "a" }),
() => ({ b: "b" })
]
and now I want to get a type that contains all the merged values such as:
{
a: string;
b: string;
}
If tried some reduce solutions but all I've gotten to is a type that looks like:
{ a: string } | { b: string }
which isn't what I'm looking for.
Any ideas?
Update 1
The array in the example is a simplification and the actual return values of the functions are unique and is therefore needed to be kept as is => I cannot use a generalized interface such as
interface ReturnValues {
[key: string]: string;
}
Update 2
The problem is not of a JS kind but of TS and it's types. Ultimately I want to achieve this kind of functionality:
const result = arr.reduce((sum, fn) => Object.assign(sum, fn()), {})
and I want the type of result to be { a: string, b: string } so that I can call result.a and typescript will know that this is a string. If the result is { a: string } | { b: string }, calling result.a typescript says this is of the type any.
Also, for the ease of it, one can assume that there is no overlapping of the returning values of the functions.

you can use Array.reduce
const arr = [
() => ({ a: "a" }),
() => ({ b: "b" })
]
const obj = arr.reduce((acc, cur) => ({ ...acc, ...cur() }), {});
console.log(obj);

Since TypeScript doesn't have proper variadic type support yet (See this issue), the only real way to achieve what you're looking for is this:
const a = [{a:1},{b:2}] as const;
function merge<TA, TB>(a: TA, b: TB): TA & TB;
function merge<TA, TB, TC>(a: TA, b: TB, c: TC): TA & TB & TC;
function merge<TA, TB, TC, TD>(a: TA, b: TB, c: TC, d: TD): TA & TB & TC & TD;
function merge(...list: Array<any>): any {}
const b = merge(...a);

There are 3 primary methods of "mixing" javascript objects.
The process your looking to achieve is called a "mixin".
The older and more widely used method is to use whats called an extend function.
There are many ways to write an extend function, but they mostly look something like this:
const extend = (obj, mixin) => {
Object.keys(mixin).forEach(key => obj[key] = mixin[key]);
return obj;
};
here "obj" is your first object, and "mixin" is the object you want to mix into "obj", the function returns an object that is a mix of the two.
The concept here is quite simple. You loop over the keys of one object, and incrementally assign them to another, a little bit like copying a file on your hard drive.
There is a BIG DRAWBACK with this method though, and that is any properties on the destination object that have a matching name WILL get overwritten.
You can only mix two objects at a time, but you do get control over the loop at every step in case you need to do extra processing (See later on in my answer).
Newer browsers make it somewhat easier with the Object.Assign call:
Object.assign(obj1, mix1, mix2);
Here "obj1" is the final mixed object, and "mix1", "mix2" are your source objects, "obj1" will be a result of "mix1" & "mix2" being combined together.
The MDN article on "Object.Assign" can be found here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign
Like the extend function above "Object Assign" WILL overwrite properties in the destination object, but it does have the advantage of doing many at a time. My example above only shows 2 "mix" objects, but you can in theory have as many as you like, and that comes in really useful when you have them all in array as you have.
In an array you can either map the objects into one function, and then use the spread operator available in newer browsers, or you can use for..in to loop over the collection.
If your using JQuery, you can use it's foreach method, and underscore.js has dozens of ways of looping.
Since your using TypeScript you can also combine a lot of this with typescripts looping operators too.
There is a 3rd way of merging objects, it's not widely used but it is gaining traction, and that's the "Flight-Mixin" approach that uses the Array prototype, it looks something like this:
const EnumerableFirstLast = (function () { // function based module pattern.
const first = function () {
return this[0];
},
last = function () {
return this[this.length - 1];
};
return function () { // function based Flight-Mixin mechanics ...
this.first = first; // ... referring to ...
this.last = last; // ... shared code.
};
}());
EnumerableFirstLast.call(Array.prototype);
The idea here is that the two objects all ready have the functionality you require on them, so instead of "mixing" them, your just providing a single interface that delegates to them behind the scenes.
Beacuse your adding to the array prototype, you can now do things like the following:
const a = [1, 2, 3];
a.first(); // 1
a.last(); // 3
This might seem as if it's of no use, until you consider what you've in effect just done is added two new functions to a datatype you cannot normally control, this MIGHT if applied to your own objects allow you to add functions dynamically, that simply just grab the values you need to merge in a loop without too much trouble, it would however require a bit of extra planning which is why I'm adding this as more of an idea for further exploration rather than part of the solution.
This method is better suited for objects that are largely function based rather than data based as your objects seem to be.
Irrespective of which mixin method you use though, you will still need to iterate over your array collection with a loop, and you will still need to use spread to get all the keys and properties in one place.
If you consider something like
const myarr = [
{name: "peter", surname: "shaw"},
{name: "schagler", surname: "kahn"}
]
The way the spread operator works is to bust those array entries out into individual parts. So for example, IF we had the following function:
function showTwoNames(entryOne, entryTwo) {
console.log(entryOne.name + " " + entryOne.surname);
console.log(entryTwo.name + " " + entryTwo.surname);
}
You could call that function with the spread operator as follows:
showTwoNames(...myarr);
If your array had more than 2 entries in it, then the rest would be ignored in this case, the number of entries taken from the array is directly proportional to the number of arguments for the function.
You could if you wanted to do the following:
function showTwoNames(entryOne, entryTwo, ...theRest) {
console.log(entryOne.name + " " + entryOne.surname);
console.log(entryTwo.name + " " + entryTwo.surname);
console.log("There are " + theRest.length + " extra entries in the array");
}
Please NOTE that I'm not checking for nulls and undefined or anything here, it should go without saying that you should ALWAYS error check function parameters especially in JavaScript/TypeScript code.
The spread operator can in it's own right be used to combine objects, it can be simpler to understand than other methods like "ObjectAssign" beacuse quite simply you use it as follows:
var destination = { ...source1, ...source2, ...source3); // for as many sources as needed.
Like the other methods this will overwrite properties with the same name.
If you need to preserve all properties, even identically named ones, then you have no choice but to use something like an extend function, but instead of just merging directly using a for-each as my first example shows, you'll need to examine the contents of "key" while also looking in the destination to see if "key" exists and renaming as required.
Update RE: the OP's updates
So being the curious kind I am, I just tried your updated notes on one of my Linux servers, Typescript version is 3.8.3, Node is 12.14.1 and it all seems to work just as you expect it to:
I'm using all the latest versions, so it makes me wonder if your problem is maybe a bug in an old version of TS, or a feature that has only just been added in the newest build and is not present in the version your using.
Maybe try an update see what happens.

It seems that TypeScript doesn't have a native solution for this. But I found a workaround.
As mentioned in the question, using the reduce-method one gets a TS type of { a: string } | { b: string } (and to be clear, of course also a resulting object of { a: "a", b: "b" }.
However, to get from { a: string } | { b: string } to { a: string, b: string } I used the following snippet to merge the types:
type UnionToIntersection<U> = (U extends any
? (k: U) => void
: never) extends (k: infer I) => void
? I
: never;
So this would be my resulting code:
const arr = [
() => ({ a: "a" }),
() => ({ b: "b" })
]
const result = arr.reduce((sum, fn) => Object.assign(sum, fn()))
// Result is now { a: "a", b: "b" }
// but the TS type is '() => ({ a: string } | { b: string })'
type ResultUnion = ReturnType<typeof result>
// ResultUnion = { a: string } | { b: string }
type ResultIntersection = UnionToIntersection<ResultUnion>
// This is where the magic happens
// ResultIntersection = { a: string } & { b: string}
// It's not _exactly_ what I wanted, but it does the trick.
// Done

Generic 2D hash in JavaScript?

In other languages it is possible to create a generic 2D hash. I know creating 2d hashes is possible in javascript as well as explained here, but I can't seem to find a generic way to achieve this.
As an example of what I am looking for. In Ruby you can do this:
2dhash = Hash.new{|h, k| h[k] = Hash.new }
puts 2dhash["test"]["yes"]
#=> nil
2dhash[1][2] = "hello"
puts 2dhash[1][2]
#=> "hello"
Notice that I have not initialized the second level of hash, it happens automatically.
Is it possible to somehow achieve the same in javascript? Specifically, a way to make a 2d hash without initializing the first level of hash (or hard-coding it to be even more specific). The 2dhash will be used dynamically, so I have no clue what the first level will be.

Looks like a nice data structure excercise, let me try :D
function Hash() {
this.hash = {};
}
Hash.prototype.set = function(val) {
var paths = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1) // all levels
var path = paths.shift() // first level
var hashed = this.hash[path]
if (paths.length) {
// still have deeper levels
if (!(hashed instanceof Hash)) {
hashed = this.hash[path] = new Hash()
}
Hash.prototype.set.apply(hashed, [val].concat(paths))
} else {
// last level
this.hash[path] = val
}
}
Hash.prototype.get = function() {
var paths = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0) // all levels
var path = paths.shift() // first level
var hashed = this.hash[path]
if (paths.length) {
// still have deeper levels
return Hash.prototype.get.apply(hashed, paths)
} else {
// last level
return hashed
}
}
Now, let's see if it works:
var trytry = new Hash()
trytry.set('the value to store', 'key1', 'key2')
trytry.get('key1') // Hash{key2: 'the value to store'}
trytry.get('key1', 'key2') // 'the value to store'
Hooray it works!
It also works for even deeper levels:
trytry.set('the value to store', 'key1', 'key2','key3', 'key4')
trytry.get('key1', 'key2','key3') // Hash{key4: 'the value to store'}
However, a disadvantage of this approach is that you have to use instance methods get and set, rather than native object literal getter/setter.
It's still incomplete. For production environment, we need to do more, e.g. methods and properties like contains, size, etc.

If you initialize the first level of the hash with objects, then you can reference the second level without typeErrors, even if the data was not defined before.
Example:
var _2dhash = {a: {}, b: {}, c:{}}
//Note you cannot start variable names with numbers in js
_2dhash['a']['missingElement'];
// > undefined
It works because you're accessing undefined properties of defined objects. If you try to access through a missing top-level object, ie.
_2dhash['d']['whatever'];
You will get a TypeError, because _2dhash.d was not defined, and the second lookup fails, trying to read the 'whatever' property of undefined.

Cast int to enum in javascript

How do you efficiently cast an int to enum in javascript?
Say I have this enum
enuTable = // Table enum
{
enuUnknown: 0,
enuPerson: 1,
enuItem: 2,
enuSalary: 3,
enuTax: 4,
enuZip: 5,
enuAddress: 6,
enuLocation: 7,
enuTasks: 8,
};
In part of the code I get a return value from an AJAX call that is a number corresponding to one of the above tables.
I can write a switch transforming the value, however is there a more efficient (briefer) way of casting an int to enum? One reason is, I don't want to constantly have to change the switch, in case I change the enum. I guess I could use an array with the enum names and construct an identifier to index into the enum, however again, I would need to change the array every time the enum is changed. I guess what I am looking for is a transparent method, that doesn't require beforehand knowledge of the enum.

Like this
var keys = Object.keys(enuTable).sort(function(a, b){
return enuTable[a] - enuTable[b];
}); //sorting is required since the order of keys is not guaranteed.
var getEnum = function(ordinal) {
return keys[ordinal];
}
UPD: Is some ordinal values are absent you can use
var keys = Object.keys(enuTable).reduce(function(acc, key) {
return acc[enuTable[key]] = key, acc;
}, {});

One option would be something like the following:
function toTableName(i) {
for(var p in enuTable) {
if(enuTable.hasOwnProperty(p) && enuTable[p] === i) {
return p;
}
}
throw new Error('that\'s no table...');
}

First of all, JavaScript doesn't have enumerations like C# has built-in.
Thus, I believe that if you receive an AJAX numeric-based identifier and you want to code a switch statement, you don't need to cast to Number in JavaScript, because your switch will compare your pseudo-enumeration property value:
switch(ajaxNumber) {
case enuTable.enuPerson:
break;
}
If you're looking for obtaining the enumeration value label (for example enuPerson) the following code should be enough (check out a working sample in jsFiddle):
// We're going to implement a basic enumeration prototype to generalize
// what you're looking for so you may re-use this code anywhere!
function Enum(valueMap) {
// We store the enumeration object
this._valueMap = valueMap;
this._valueToLabelMap = {};
var that = this;
// This will create an inverse map: values to labels
Object.keys(valueMap).forEach(function (label) {
that._valueToLabelMap[valueMap[label]] = label;
});
}
Enum.prototype = {
// Getting the whole label is as simple as accessing
// the inverse map where values are the object properties!
getLabel: function (value) {
if (this._valueToLabelMap.hasOwnProperty(value)) {
return this._valueToLabelMap[value];
} else {
throw Error("Enum instance has no defined '" + value + "' value");
}
}
};
var enuTable = new Enum({
enuUnknown: 0,
enuPerson: 1,
enuItem: 2,
enuSalary: 3,
enuTax: 4,
enuZip: 5,
enuAddress: 6,
enuLocation: 7,
enuTasks: 8,
});
// Now, if we provide a number, the fancy Enum prototype will handle it
// so you're going to get the whole enumeration value label!
var taxLabel = enuTable.getLabel(45);

I love Yury Tarabanko's solution, but it took me some time to understand what it does (including reading and understanding about reduce(). I can't comment on you #YuryTarabanko, but how did you come up with this?
The solution I whould come up with, is this one. You can access it the same as Yury's solution (keys[ajaxResponseNumber]). I tested it with jsPerf and this is faster in Firefox, but that's not relevant in this case.
var keys = {};
for (var x in enuTable) {
if (enuTable.hasOwnProperty(x)) { keys[enuTable[x]] = x; }
}

JavaScript, overwrite object without losing reference

Application
I am working on a simple web application that is built on top of AngularJS. The application should be able to work offline as well as online. When the user is offline, the changes to the data is stored locally. Therefore, the id's that is used within this application in offline mode is only temporary id's, they get replaced when uploaded to the server
Problem
The data that are used in the application consists of complex objects (with relations/references to other objects). When i am saving to the server, i wanted the views to get updated with the new "real" id's.
However, since JavaScript works with objects as references im not able to do what i want to: $scope.data = newdata
This is not overwriting $scope.data but creates a new object. The old reference to the old data is still there.
Simplified example
var x = {id: 1, name: "myObject"}
var c = x // c = {id: 1, name: "myObject"}
x = {id: 2, name: "myNewObject"}
// c = {id: 1, name: "myObject"}
As you can see, c is still a reference to the old object. In practice, this causes that my view isn't updated with new data since it's still bound to the old data.
What i need to is to overwrite the properties of, in this example, x. I need to do this recursively since my real objects are complex, however it shouldn't enter any circular references, since this will probably cause stack overflow. If i am overwriting a with b and a has properties that b hasn't got, those properties should be removed.
What i need
I need some sort of function that overwrites all properties in a (old object) with the properties in b (new object). All properties that exists in a but not in b should be removed.

If your environment supports ECMAScript 2015, you can use Object.assign():
'use strict'
let one = { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 };
let two = { b: 20, c: 30, d: 40 };
let three = Object.assign({}, one, two);
console.log(three);
// will output: Object {a: 1, b: 20, c: 30, d: 40}
(let is the new locally scoped version of var in ECMAScript 2015) more...
So in the case of your simple example:
var x = { id: 1, name: "myObject" };
Object.assign(x, { id: 2, name: "myNewObject" });
console.log(x);
// will output: Object {id: 2, name: "myNewObject"}

Using the "extend" method which is available in underscore and jquery:
//Clear all the 'old' properties from the object
for (prop in old_object) {delete old_object[prop]}
//Insert the new ones
$.extend(old_object, new_object)

I found a solution after some thinking. It's probably not the most efficient solution, but it does the job for me. The time complexity could probably be better, and all suggestions of improvement are welcome. First parameter is the object to be extended, the second the one to extend with. The third is supposed to be a boolean, indicating whether the properties in a that doesn't exist in b should be removed or not.
function extend(_a,_b,remove){
remove = remove === undefined ? false : remove;
var a_traversed = [],
b_traversed = [];
function _extend(a,b) {
if (a_traversed.indexOf(a) == -1 && b_traversed.indexOf(b) == -1){
a_traversed.push(a);
b_traversed.push(b);
if (a instanceof Array){
for (var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
if (a[i]){ // If element exists, keep going recursive so we don't lose the references
a[i] = _extend(a[i],b[i]);
} else {
a[i] = b[i]; // Object doesn't exist, no reference to lose
}
}
if (remove && b.length < a.length) { // Do we have fewer elements in the new object?
a.splice(b.length, a.length - b.length);
}
}
else if (a instanceof Object){
for (var x in b) {
if (a.hasOwnProperty(x)) {
a[x] = _extend(a[x], b[x]);
} else {
a[x] = b[x];
}
}
if (remove) for (var x in a) {
if (!b.hasOwnProperty(x)) {
delete a[x];
}
}
}
else{
return b;
}
return a;
}
}
_extend(_a,_b);
}

I'm adding an answer, even though everyone has explained both why and solutions.
The reason I'm adding answer, is because I've searched for this answer a few times over the years and always basically come to the same 2/3 SO questions. I put the solutions in the too-hard-basket, because the code I've been working with has many modules all following similar design patterns; it's just been too much work to try and resolve what boiled down to the same issue you were having.
What I've learned, and hopefully it holds some value for others out there now that I've actually re-factored our codebase to avoid this issue (sometimes maybe its unavoidable, but sometimes it definitely is), is to avoid using 'static private variables' to reference Objects.
This can probably be more genericised, but take for example:
var G = {
'someKey' : {
'foo' : 'bar'
}
};
G.MySingletonClass = (function () {
var _private_static_data = G.someKey; // referencing an Object
return {
/**
* a method that returns the value of _private_static_data
*
* #method log
**/
log: function () {
return _private_static_data;
} // eom - log()
}; // end of return block
}()); // end of Class
console.log(G.MySingletonClass.log());
G.someKey = {
'baz':'fubar'
};
console.log(G.MySingletonClass.log());
http://jsfiddle.net/goxdebfh/1/
As you can see, same problem experienced by the Questioner. In my case, and this use of private static variables referencing Objects was everywhere, all I needed to do was directly lookup G.someKey; instead of storing it as a convenience variable for my Class. The end result (though lengthier as a result of inconvenience) works very well:
var G = {
'someKey' : {
'foo' : 'bar'
}
};
G.MySingletonClass = (function () {
return {
/**
* a method that returns the value of _private_static_data
*
* #method log
**/
log: function () {
return G.someKey;
} // eom - log()
}; // end of return block
}()); // end of Class
console.log(G.MySingletonClass.log());
G.someKey = {
'baz':'fubar'
};
console.log(G.MySingletonClass.log());
http://jsfiddle.net/vv2d7juy/1/
So yeah, maybe nothing new given the question has been solved, but I felt compelled to share that because I was even lead to believe that the first example was the correct way to do things. Maybe in some cases it is, it definitely didn't turn out to be.
Hopefully that helps someone, somewhere!

JavaScript: Get first and only property name of object

If I want to enumerate the properties of an object and want to ignore prototypes, I would use:
var instance = { ... };
for (var prop in instance) {
if (instance.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
...
}
}
What if instance only has one property, and I want to get that property name? Is there an easier way than doing this:
var instance = { id: "foobar" };
var singleMember = (function() {
for (var prop in instance) {
if (instance.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
return prop;
}
}
})();

Maybe Object.keys can work for you. If its length returns 1, you can use yourObject[Object.keys[0]] to get the only property of the object. The MDN-link also shows a custom function for use in environments without the keys method1. Code like this:
var obj = {foo:'bar'},
kyz = Object.keys(obj);
if (kyz.length === 1){
alert(obj[kyz[0]]); //=> 'bar'
} else {
/* loop through obj */
}
1 Some older browsers don't support Object.keys. The MDN link supplies code to to make it work in these browsers too. See header Compatibility in the aforementioned MDN page

Shortest form:
instance[Object.keys(instance)[0]];
ES6+ function:
let first = v => v[Object.keys(v)[0]];
Use the function:
first({a:'first', b:'second'}) // return 'first'

var foo = {bar: 1};
console.log(Object.keys(foo).toString());
which will print the string
"bar"

Though my answer is downvoted, it's still worth to know that there is no such thing as order of keys in javascript object. Therefore, in theory, any code build on iterating values can be inconsistent. One approach could be creating an object and to define setter which actually provides counting, ordering and so on, and provide some methods to access this fields. This could be done in modern browsers.
So, to answer you question, in general you approach is still most closs-browser. You can iterate using lodash or any other modern framework wich will hide "hasOwnProperty" complexity from you. As of August'15 Object.keys can be accepted as cross-browser and universal. After all IE8 happened years ago. Still there are some cases when you just don't wont store all set of keys in array. But I'd go with Object.keys - it's more flexible compared to iteration.

Unfortunately, there is no, "list properties" function built in, and there certainly isn't a "getFirstProperty" (especially since there is no guarantee that any property will consistently be "first").
I think you're better off writing a function like this one:
/**
* A means to get all of the keys of a JSON-style object.
* #param obj The object to iterate
* #param count maximum length of returned list (defaults to Infinity).
*/
function getProperties( obj, count )
{
if( isNaN( count ) ) count = Infinity
var keys = []
for( var it in obj )
{
if( keys.length > count ) break;
keys.push( it );
}
return keys;
}
Then, you could access the name though:
instance = {"foo":"bar"}
// String() on an array of < 2 length returns the first value as a string
// or "" if there are no values.
var prop = String(getProperties(instance, 1));

This is an old post, but I ended up writing the following helper function based on Object.keys().
It returns the key and value of the first property.
getFirstPropertyKeyAndValue(sourceObject) {
var result = null;
var ownProperties = Object.keys(sourceObject);
if (ownProperties.length > 0) {
if (ownProperties.length > 1) {
console.warn('Getting first property of an object containing more than 1 own property may result in unexpected results. Ordering is not ensured.', sourceObject);
}
var firstPropertyName = ownProperties[0];
result = {key: firstPropertyName, value: sourceObject[firstPropertyName]};
}
return result;
}

Answers in here all good, and with the caveat that the order may be unreliable (although in practice it seems the order the properties are set tends to stay that way), this quick and dirty method also works:
var obj = {foo: 1, bar: 2};
for(var key in obj) {
//you could use key here if you like
break;
}
//key now contains your first key
or a shorter version should also do it:
for(var key in obj) break;
//key now contains your first key