Given a JavaScript object,
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }
and a string
"a.b"
how can I convert the string to dot notation so I can go
var val = obj.a.b
If the string was just 'a', I could use obj[a]. But this is more complex. I imagine there is some straightforward method, but it escapes me at present.
recent note: While I'm flattered that this answer has gotten many upvotes, I am also somewhat horrified. If one needs to convert dot-notation strings like "x.a.b.c" into references, it could (maybe) be a sign that there is something very wrong going on (unless maybe you're performing some strange deserialization).
That is to say, novices who find their way to this answer must ask themselves the question "why am I doing this?"
It is of course generally fine to do this if your use case is small and you will not run into performance issues, AND you won't need to build upon your abstraction to make it more complicated later. In fact, if this will reduce code complexity and keep things simple, you should probably go ahead and do what OP is asking for. However, if that's not the case, consider if any of these apply:
case 1: As the primary method of working with your data (e.g. as your app's default form of passing objects around and dereferencing them). Like asking "how can I look up a function or variable name from a string".
This is bad programming practice (unnecessary metaprogramming specifically, and kind of violates function side-effect-free coding style, and will have performance hits). Novices who find themselves in this case, should instead consider working with array representations, e.g. ['x','a','b','c'], or even something more direct/simple/straightforward if possible: like not losing track of the references themselves in the first place (most ideal if it's only client-side or only server-side), etc. (A pre-existing unique id would be inelegant to add, but could be used if the spec otherwise requires its existence regardless.)
case 2: Working with serialized data, or data that will be displayed to the user. Like using a date as a string "1999-12-30" rather than a Date object (which can cause timezone bugs or added serialization complexity if not careful). Or you know what you're doing.
This is maybe fine. Be careful that there are no dot strings "." in your sanitized input fragments.
If you find yourself using this answer all the time and converting back and forth between string and array, you may be in the bad case, and should consider an alternative.
Here's an elegant one-liner that's 10x shorter than the other solutions:
function index(obj,i) {return obj[i]}
'a.b.etc'.split('.').reduce(index, obj)
[edit] Or in ECMAScript 6:
'a.b.etc'.split('.').reduce((o,i)=> o[i], obj)
(Not that I think eval always bad like others suggest it is (though it usually is), nevertheless those people will be pleased that this method doesn't use eval. The above will find obj.a.b.etc given obj and the string "a.b.etc".)
In response to those who still are afraid of using reduce despite it being in the ECMA-262 standard (5th edition), here is a two-line recursive implementation:
function multiIndex(obj,is) { // obj,['1','2','3'] -> ((obj['1'])['2'])['3']
return is.length ? multiIndex(obj[is[0]],is.slice(1)) : obj
}
function pathIndex(obj,is) { // obj,'1.2.3' -> multiIndex(obj,['1','2','3'])
return multiIndex(obj,is.split('.'))
}
pathIndex('a.b.etc')
Depending on the optimizations the JS compiler is doing, you may want to make sure any nested functions are not re-defined on every call via the usual methods (placing them in a closure, object, or global namespace).
edit:
To answer an interesting question in the comments:
how would you turn this into a setter as well? Not only returning the values by path, but also setting them if a new value is sent into the function? – Swader Jun 28 at 21:42
(sidenote: sadly can't return an object with a Setter, as that would violate the calling convention; commenter seems to instead be referring to a general setter-style function with side-effects like index(obj,"a.b.etc", value) doing obj.a.b.etc = value.)
The reduce style is not really suitable to that, but we can modify the recursive implementation:
function index(obj,is, value) {
if (typeof is == 'string')
return index(obj,is.split('.'), value);
else if (is.length==1 && value!==undefined)
return obj[is[0]] = value;
else if (is.length==0)
return obj;
else
return index(obj[is[0]],is.slice(1), value);
}
Demo:
> obj = {a:{b:{etc:5}}}
> index(obj,'a.b.etc')
5
> index(obj,['a','b','etc']) #works with both strings and lists
5
> index(obj,'a.b.etc', 123) #setter-mode - third argument (possibly poor form)
123
> index(obj,'a.b.etc')
123
...though personally I'd recommend making a separate function setIndex(...). I would like to end on a side-note that the original poser of the question could (should?) be working with arrays of indices (which they can get from .split), rather than strings; though there's usually nothing wrong with a convenience function.
A commenter asked:
what about arrays? something like "a.b[4].c.d[1][2][3]" ? –AlexS
Javascript is a very weird language; in general objects can only have strings as their property keys, so for example if x was a generic object like x={}, then x[1] would become x["1"]... you read that right... yup...
Javascript Arrays (which are themselves instances of Object) specifically encourage integer keys, even though you could do something like x=[]; x["puppy"]=5;.
But in general (and there are exceptions), x["somestring"]===x.somestring (when it's allowed; you can't do x.123).
(Keep in mind that whatever JS compiler you're using might choose, maybe, to compile these down to saner representations if it can prove it would not violate the spec.)
So the answer to your question would depend on whether you're assuming those objects only accept integers (due to a restriction in your problem domain), or not. Let's assume not. Then a valid expression is a concatenation of a base identifier plus some .identifiers plus some ["stringindex"]s.
Let us ignore for a moment that we can of course do other things legitimately in the grammar like identifier[0xFA7C25DD].asdf[f(4)?.[5]+k][false][null][undefined][NaN]; integers are not (that) 'special'.
Commenter's statement would then be equivalent to a["b"][4]["c"]["d"][1][2][3], though we should probably also support a.b["c\"validjsstringliteral"][3]. You'd have to check the ecmascript grammar section on string literals to see how to parse a valid string literal. Technically you'd also want to check (unlike in my first answer) that a is a valid javascript identifier.
A simple answer to your question though, if your strings don't contain commas or brackets, would be just be to match length 1+ sequences of characters not in the set , or [ or ]:
> "abc[4].c.def[1][2][\"gh\"]".match(/[^\]\[.]+/g)
// ^^^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^^^^^
["abc", "4", "c", "def", "1", "2", ""gh""]
If your strings don't contain escape characters or " characters, and because IdentifierNames are a sublanguage of StringLiterals (I think???) you could first convert your dots to []:
> var R=[], demoString="abc[4].c.def[1][2][\"gh\"]";
> for(var match,matcher=/^([^\.\[]+)|\.([^\.\[]+)|\["([^"]+)"\]|\[(\d+)\]/g;
match=matcher.exec(demoString); ) {
R.push(Array.from(match).slice(1).filter(x=> x!==undefined)[0]);
// extremely bad code because js regexes are weird, don't use this
}
> R
["abc", "4", "c", "def", "1", "2", "gh"]
Of course, always be careful and never trust your data. Some bad ways to do this that might work for some use cases also include:
// hackish/wrongish; preprocess your string into "a.b.4.c.d.1.2.3", e.g.:
> yourstring.replace(/]/g,"").replace(/\[/g,".").split(".")
"a.b.4.c.d.1.2.3" //use code from before
Special 2018 edit:
Let's go full-circle and do the most inefficient, horribly-overmetaprogrammed solution we can come up with... in the interest of syntactical purityhamfistery. With ES6 Proxy objects!... Let's also define some properties which (imho are fine and wonderful but) may break improperly-written libraries. You should perhaps be wary of using this if you care about performance, sanity (yours or others'), your job, etc.
// [1,2,3][-1]==3 (or just use .slice(-1)[0])
if (![1][-1])
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, -1, {get() {return this[this.length-1]}}); //credit to caub
// WARNING: THIS XTREME™ RADICAL METHOD IS VERY INEFFICIENT,
// ESPECIALLY IF INDEXING INTO MULTIPLE OBJECTS,
// because you are constantly creating wrapper objects on-the-fly and,
// even worse, going through Proxy i.e. runtime ~reflection, which prevents
// compiler optimization
// Proxy handler to override obj[*]/obj.* and obj[*]=...
var hyperIndexProxyHandler = {
get: function(obj,key, proxy) {
return key.split('.').reduce((o,i)=> o[i], obj);
},
set: function(obj,key,value, proxy) {
var keys = key.split('.');
var beforeLast = keys.slice(0,-1).reduce((o,i)=> o[i], obj);
beforeLast[keys[-1]] = value;
},
has: function(obj,key) {
//etc
}
};
function hyperIndexOf(target) {
return new Proxy(target, hyperIndexProxyHandler);
}
Demo:
var obj = {a:{b:{c:1, d:2}}};
console.log("obj is:", JSON.stringify(obj));
var objHyper = hyperIndexOf(obj);
console.log("(proxy override get) objHyper['a.b.c'] is:", objHyper['a.b.c']);
objHyper['a.b.c'] = 3;
console.log("(proxy override set) objHyper['a.b.c']=3, now obj is:", JSON.stringify(obj));
console.log("(behind the scenes) objHyper is:", objHyper);
if (!({}).H)
Object.defineProperties(Object.prototype, {
H: {
get: function() {
return hyperIndexOf(this); // TODO:cache as a non-enumerable property for efficiency?
}
}
});
console.log("(shortcut) obj.H['a.b.c']=4");
obj.H['a.b.c'] = 4;
console.log("(shortcut) obj.H['a.b.c'] is obj['a']['b']['c'] is", obj.H['a.b.c']);
Output:
obj is: {"a":{"b":{"c":1,"d":2}}}
(proxy override get) objHyper['a.b.c'] is: 1
(proxy override set) objHyper['a.b.c']=3, now obj is: {"a":{"b":{"c":3,"d":2}}}
(behind the scenes) objHyper is: Proxy {a: {…}}
(shortcut) obj.H['a.b.c']=4
(shortcut) obj.H['a.b.c'] is obj['a']['b']['c'] is: 4
inefficient idea: You can modify the above to dispatch based on the input argument; either use the .match(/[^\]\[.]+/g) method to support obj['keys'].like[3]['this'], or if instanceof Array, then just accept an Array as input like keys = ['a','b','c']; obj.H[keys].
Per suggestion that maybe you want to handle undefined indices in a 'softer' NaN-style manner (e.g. index({a:{b:{c:...}}}, 'a.x.c') return undefined rather than uncaught TypeError)...:
This makes sense from the perspective of "we should return undefined rather than throw an error" in the 1-dimensional index situation ({})['e.g.']==undefined, so "we should return undefined rather than throw an error" in the N-dimensional situation.
This does not make sense from the perspective that we are doing x['a']['x']['c'], which would fail with a TypeError in the above example.
That said, you'd make this work by replacing your reducing function with either:
(o,i)=> o===undefined?undefined:o[i], or
(o,i)=> (o||{})[i].
(You can make this more efficient by using a for loop and breaking/returning whenever the subresult you'd next index into is undefined, or using a try-catch if you expect such failures to be sufficiently rare.)
If you can use Lodash, there is a function, which does exactly that:
_.get(object, path, [defaultValue])
var val = _.get(obj, "a.b");
You could use lodash.get
After installing (npm i lodash.get), use it like this:
const get = require('lodash.get');
const myObj = {
user: {
firstName: 'Stacky',
lastName: 'Overflowy',
list: ['zero', 'one', 'two']
},
id: 123
};
console.log(get(myObj, 'user.firstName')); // outputs Stacky
console.log(get(myObj, 'id')); // outputs 123
console.log(get(myObj, 'user.list[1]')); // outputs one
// You can also update values
get(myObj, 'user').firstName = 'John';
A little more involved example with recursion.
function recompose(obj, string) {
var parts = string.split('.');
var newObj = obj[parts[0]];
if (parts[1]) {
parts.splice(0, 1);
var newString = parts.join('.');
return recompose(newObj, newString);
}
return newObj;
}
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2', d:{a:{b:'blah'}}}};
console.log(recompose(obj, 'a.d.a.b')); //blah
2021
You don't need to pull in another dependency every time you wish for new capabilities in your program. Modern JS is very capable and the optional-chaining operator ?. is now widely supported and makes this kind of task easy as heck.
With a single line of code we can write get that takes an input object, t and string path. It works for object and arrays of any nesting level -
const get = (t, path) =>
path.split(".").reduce((r, k) => r?.[k], t)
const mydata =
{ a: { b: [ 0, { c: { d: [ "hello", "world" ] } } ] } }
console.log(get(mydata, "a.b.1.c.d.0"))
console.log(get(mydata, "a.b.1.c.d.1"))
console.log(get(mydata, "a.b.x.y.z"))
"hello"
"world"
undefined
I suggest to split the path and iterate it and reduce the object you have. This proposal works with a default value for missing properties.
const getValue = (object, keys) => keys.split('.').reduce((o, k) => (o || {})[k], object);
console.log(getValue({ a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }, 'a.b'));
console.log(getValue({ a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }, 'foo.bar.baz'));
Many years since the original post.
Now there is a great library called 'object-path'.
https://github.com/mariocasciaro/object-path
Available on NPM and BOWER
https://www.npmjs.com/package/object-path
It's as easy as:
objectPath.get(obj, "a.c.1"); //returns "f"
objectPath.set(obj, "a.j.0.f", "m");
And works for deeply nested properties and arrays.
If you expect to dereference the same path many times, building a function for each dot notation path actually has the best performance by far (expanding on the perf tests James Wilkins linked to in comments above).
var path = 'a.b.x';
var getter = new Function("obj", "return obj." + path + ";");
getter(obj);
Using the Function constructor has some of the same drawbacks as eval() in terms of security and worst-case performance, but IMO it's a badly underused tool for cases where you need a combination of extreme dynamism and high performance. I use this methodology to build array filter functions and call them inside an AngularJS digest loop. My profiles consistently show the array.filter() step taking less than 1ms to dereference and filter about 2000 complex objects, using dynamically-defined paths 3-4 levels deep.
A similar methodology could be used to create setter functions, of course:
var setter = new Function("obj", "newval", "obj." + path + " = newval;");
setter(obj, "some new val");
Other proposals are a little cryptic, so I thought I'd contribute:
Object.prop = function(obj, prop, val){
var props = prop.split('.')
, final = props.pop(), p
while(p = props.shift()){
if (typeof obj[p] === 'undefined')
return undefined;
obj = obj[p]
}
return val ? (obj[final] = val) : obj[final]
}
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }
// get
console.log(Object.prop(obj, 'a.c')) // -> 2
// set
Object.prop(obj, 'a.c', function(){})
console.log(obj) // -> { a: { b: '1', c: [Function] } }
var a = { b: { c: 9 } };
function value(layer, path, value) {
var i = 0,
path = path.split('.');
for (; i < path.length; i++)
if (value != null && i + 1 === path.length)
layer[path[i]] = value;
layer = layer[path[i]];
return layer;
};
value(a, 'b.c'); // 9
value(a, 'b.c', 4);
value(a, 'b.c'); // 4
This is a lot of code when compared to the much simpler eval way of doing it, but like Simon Willison says, you should never use eval.
Also, JSFiddle.
You can use the library available at npm, which simplifies this process. https://www.npmjs.com/package/dot-object
var dot = require('dot-object');
var obj = {
some: {
nested: {
value: 'Hi there!'
}
}
};
var val = dot.pick('some.nested.value', obj);
console.log(val);
// Result: Hi there!
Note if you're already using Lodash you can use the property or get functions:
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } };
_.property('a.b')(obj); // => 1
_.get(obj, 'a.b'); // => 1
Underscore.js also has a property function, but it doesn't support dot notation.
I have extended the elegant answer by ninjagecko so that the function handles both dotted and/or array style references, and so that an empty string causes the parent object to be returned.
Here you go:
string_to_ref = function (object, reference) {
function arr_deref(o, ref, i) { return !ref ? o : (o[ref.slice(0, i ? -1 : ref.length)]) }
function dot_deref(o, ref) { return ref.split('[').reduce(arr_deref, o); }
return !reference ? object : reference.split('.').reduce(dot_deref, object);
};
See my working jsFiddle example here: http://jsfiddle.net/sc0ttyd/q7zyd/
You can obtain value of an object member by dot notation with a single line of code:
new Function('_', 'return _.' + path)(obj);
In you case:
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }
var val = new Function('_', 'return _.a.b')(obj);
To make it simple you may write a function like this:
function objGet(obj, path){
return new Function('_', 'return _.' + path)(obj);
}
Explanation:
The Function constructor creates a new Function object. In JavaScript every function is actually a Function object. Syntax to create a function explicitly with Function constructor is:
new Function ([arg1[, arg2[, ...argN]],] functionBody)
where arguments(arg1 to argN) must be a string that corresponds to a valid javaScript identifier and functionBody is a string containing the javaScript statements comprising the function definition.
In our case we take the advantage of string function body to retrieve object member with dot notation.
Hope it helps.
var find = function(root, path) {
var segments = path.split('.'),
cursor = root,
target;
for (var i = 0; i < segments.length; ++i) {
target = cursor[segments[i]];
if (typeof target == "undefined") return void 0;
cursor = target;
}
return cursor;
};
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } }
find(obj, "a.b"); // 1
var set = function (root, path, value) {
var segments = path.split('.'),
cursor = root,
target;
for (var i = 0; i < segments.length - 1; ++i) {
cursor = cursor[segments[i]] || { };
}
cursor[segments[segments.length - 1]] = value;
};
set(obj, "a.k", function () { console.log("hello world"); });
find(obj, "a.k")(); // hello world
Use this function:
function dotToObject(data) {
function index(parent, key, value) {
const [mainKey, ...children] = key.split(".");
parent[mainKey] = parent[mainKey] || {};
if (children.length === 1) {
parent[mainKey][children[0]] = value;
} else {
index(parent[mainKey], children.join("."), value);
}
}
const result = Object.entries(data).reduce((acc, [key, value]) => {
if (key.includes(".")) {
index(acc, key, value);
} else {
acc[key] = value;
}
return acc;
}, {});
return result;
}
module.exports = { dotToObject };
Ex:
const user = {
id: 1,
name: 'My name',
'address.zipCode': '123',
'address.name': 'Some name',
'address.something.id': 1,
}
const mappedUser = dotToObject(user)
console.log(JSON.stringify(mappedUser, null, 2))
Output:
{
"id": 1,
"name": "My name",
"address": {
"zipCode": "123",
"name": "Some name",
"something": {
"id": 1
}
}
}
using Array Reduce function will get/set based on path provided.
I tested it with a.b.c and a.b.2.c {a:{b:[0,1,{c:7}]}} and its works for both getting key or mutating object to set value
function setOrGet(obj, path=[], newValue){
const l = typeof path === 'string' ? path.split('.') : path;
return l.reduce((carry,item, idx)=>{
const leaf = carry[item];
// is this last item in path ? cool lets set/get value
if( l.length-idx===1) {
// mutate object if newValue is set;
carry[item] = newValue===undefined ? leaf : newValue;
// return value if its a get/object if it was a set
return newValue===undefined ? leaf : obj ;
}
carry[item] = leaf || {}; // mutate if key not an object;
return carry[item]; // return object ref: to continue reduction;
}, obj)
}
console.log(
setOrGet({a: {b:1}},'a.b') === 1 ||
'Test Case: Direct read failed'
)
console.log(
setOrGet({a: {b:1}},'a.c',22).a.c===22 ||
'Test Case: Direct set failed'
)
console.log(
setOrGet({a: {b:[1,2]}},'a.b.1',22).a.b[1]===22 ||
'Test Case: Direct set on array failed'
)
console.log(
setOrGet({a: {b:{c: {e:1} }}},'a.b.c.e',22).a.b.c. e===22 ||
'Test Case: deep get failed'
)
// failed !. Thats your homework :)
console.log(
setOrGet({a: {b:{c: {e:[1,2,3,4,5]} }}},'a.b.c.e.3 ',22)
)
my personal recommendation.
do not use such a thing unless there is no other way!
i saw many examples people use it for translations for example from json; so you see function like locale('app.homepage.welcome') . this is just bad. if you already have data in an object/json; and you know path.. then just use it directly example locale().app.homepage.welcome by changing you function to return object you get typesafe, with autocomplete, less prone to typo's ..
I copied the following from Ricardo Tomasi's answer and modified to also create sub-objects that don't yet exist as necessary. It's a little less efficient (more ifs and creating of empty objects), but should be pretty good.
Also, it'll allow us to do Object.prop(obj, 'a.b', false) where we couldn't before. Unfortunately, it still won't let us assign undefined...Not sure how to go about that one yet.
/**
* Object.prop()
*
* Allows dot-notation access to object properties for both getting and setting.
*
* #param {Object} obj The object we're getting from or setting
* #param {string} prop The dot-notated string defining the property location
* #param {mixed} val For setting only; the value to set
*/
Object.prop = function(obj, prop, val){
var props = prop.split('.'),
final = props.pop(),
p;
for (var i = 0; i < props.length; i++) {
p = props[i];
if (typeof obj[p] === 'undefined') {
// If we're setting
if (typeof val !== 'undefined') {
// If we're not at the end of the props, keep adding new empty objects
if (i != props.length)
obj[p] = {};
}
else
return undefined;
}
obj = obj[p]
}
return typeof val !== "undefined" ? (obj[final] = val) : obj[final]
}
Few years later, I found this that handles scope and array. e.g. a['b']["c"].d.etc
function getScopedObj(scope, str) {
let obj=scope, arr;
try {
arr = str.split(/[\[\]\.]/) // split by [,],.
.filter(el => el) // filter out empty one
.map(el => el.replace(/^['"]+|['"]+$/g, '')); // remove string quotation
arr.forEach(el => obj = obj[el])
} catch(e) {
obj = undefined;
}
return obj;
}
window.a = {b: {c: {d: {etc: 'success'}}}}
getScopedObj(window, `a.b.c.d.etc`) // success
getScopedObj(window, `a['b']["c"].d.etc`) // success
getScopedObj(window, `a['INVALID']["c"].d.etc`) // undefined
If you wish to convert any object that contains dot notation keys into an arrayed version of those keys you can use this.
This will convert something like
{
name: 'Andy',
brothers.0: 'Bob'
brothers.1: 'Steve'
brothers.2: 'Jack'
sisters.0: 'Sally'
}
to
{
name: 'Andy',
brothers: ['Bob', 'Steve', 'Jack']
sisters: ['Sally']
}
convertDotNotationToArray(objectWithDotNotation) {
Object.entries(objectWithDotNotation).forEach(([key, val]) => {
// Is the key of dot notation
if (key.includes('.')) {
const [name, index] = key.split('.');
// If you have not created an array version, create one
if (!objectWithDotNotation[name]) {
objectWithDotNotation[name] = new Array();
}
// Save the value in the newly created array at the specific index
objectWithDotNotation[name][index] = val;
// Delete the current dot notation key val
delete objectWithDotNotation[key];
}
});
}
If you want to convert a string dot notation into an object, I've made a handy little helper than can turn a string like a.b.c.d with a value of e with dotPathToObject("a.b.c.d", "value") returning this:
{
"a": {
"b": {
"c": {
"d": "value"
}
}
}
}
https://gist.github.com/ahallora/9731d73efb15bd3d3db647efa3389c12
Solution:
function deepFind(key, data){
return key.split('.').reduce((ob,i)=> ob?.[i], data)
}
Usage:
const obj = {
company: "Pet Shop",
person: {
name: "John"
},
animal: {
name: "Lucky"
}
}
const company = deepFind("company", obj)
const personName = deepFind("person.name", obj)
const animalName = deepFind("animal.name", obj)
Here is my implementation
Implementation 1
Object.prototype.access = function() {
var ele = this[arguments[0]];
if(arguments.length === 1) return ele;
return ele.access.apply(ele, [].slice.call(arguments, 1));
}
Implementation 2 (using array reduce instead of slice)
Object.prototype.access = function() {
var self = this;
return [].reduce.call(arguments,function(prev,cur) {
return prev[cur];
}, self);
}
Examples:
var myobj = {'a':{'b':{'c':{'d':'abcd','e':[11,22,33]}}}};
myobj.access('a','b','c'); // returns: {'d':'abcd', e:[0,1,2,3]}
myobj.a.b.access('c','d'); // returns: 'abcd'
myobj.access('a','b','c','e',0); // returns: 11
it can also handle objects inside arrays as for
var myobj2 = {'a': {'b':[{'c':'ab0c'},{'d':'ab1d'}]}}
myobj2.access('a','b','1','d'); // returns: 'ab1d'
I used this code in my project
const getValue = (obj, arrPath) => (
arrPath.reduce((x, y) => {
if (y in x) return x[y]
return {}
}, obj)
)
Usage:
const obj = { id: { user: { local: 104 } } }
const path = [ 'id', 'user', 'local' ]
getValue(obj, path) // return 104
Using object-scan seems a bit overkill, but you can simply do
// const objectScan = require('object-scan');
const get = (obj, p) => objectScan([p], { abort: true, rtn: 'value' })(obj);
const obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2' } };
console.log(get(obj, 'a.b'));
// => 1
console.log(get(obj, '*.c'));
// => 2
.as-console-wrapper {max-height: 100% !important; top: 0}
<script src="https://bundle.run/object-scan#13.7.1"></script>
Disclaimer: I'm the author of object-scan
There are a lot more advanced examples in the readme.
This is one of those cases, where you ask 10 developers and you get 10 answers.
Below is my [simplified] solution for OP, using dynamic programming.
The idea is that you would pass an existing DTO object that you wish to UPDATE. This makes the method most useful in the case where you have a form with several input elements having name attributes set with dot (fluent) syntax.
Example use:
<input type="text" name="person.contact.firstName" />
Code snippet:
const setFluently = (obj, path, value) => {
if (typeof path === "string") {
return setFluently(obj, path.split("."), value);
}
if (path.length <= 1) {
obj[path[0]] = value;
return obj;
}
const key = path[0];
obj[key] = setFluently(obj[key] ? obj[key] : {}, path.slice(1), value);
return obj;
};
const origObj = {
a: {
b: "1",
c: "2"
}
};
setFluently(origObj, "a.b", "3");
setFluently(origObj, "a.c", "4");
console.log(JSON.stringify(origObj, null, 3));
function at(obj, path, val = undefined) {
// If path is an Array,
if (Array.isArray(path)) {
// it returns the mapped array for each result of the path
return path.map((path) => at(obj, path, val));
}
// Uniting several RegExps into one
const rx = new RegExp(
[
/(?:^(?:\.\s*)?([_a-zA-Z][_a-zA-Z0-9]*))/,
/(?:^\[\s*(\d+)\s*\])/,
/(?:^\[\s*'([^']*(?:\\'[^']*)*)'\s*\])/,
/(?:^\[\s*"([^"]*(?:\\"[^"]*)*)"\s*\])/,
/(?:^\[\s*`([^`]*(?:\\`[^`]*)*)`\s*\])/,
]
.map((r) => r.source)
.join("|")
);
let rm;
while (rm = rx.exec(path.trim())) {
// Matched resource
let [rf, rp] = rm.filter(Boolean);
// If no one matches found,
if (!rm[1] && !rm[2]) {
// it will replace escape-chars
rp = rp.replace(/\\(.)/g, "$1");
}
// If the new value is set,
if ("undefined" != typeof val && path.length == rf.length) {
// assign a value to the object property and return it
return (obj[rp] = val);
}
// Going one step deeper
obj = obj[rp];
// Removing a step from the path
path = path.substr(rf.length).trim();
}
if (path) {
throw new SyntaxError();
}
return obj;
}
// Test object schema
let o = { a: { b: [ [ { c: { d: { '"e"': { f: { g: "xxx" } } } } } ] ] } };
// Print source object
console.log(JSON.stringify(o));
// Set value
console.log(at(o, '.a["b"][0][0].c[`d`]["\\"e\\""][\'f\']["g"]', "zzz"));
// Get value
console.log(at(o, '.a["b"][0][0].c[`d`]["\\"e\\""][\'f\']["g"]'));
// Print result object
console.log(JSON.stringify(o));
Here is my code without using eval. It’s easy to understand too.
function value(obj, props) {
if (!props)
return obj;
var propsArr = props.split('.');
var prop = propsArr.splice(0, 1);
return value(obj[prop], propsArr.join('.'));
}
var obj = { a: { b: '1', c: '2', d:{a:{b:'blah'}}}};
console.log(value(obj, 'a.d.a.b')); // Returns blah
Yes, extending base prototypes is not usually good idea but, if you keep all extensions in one place, they might be useful.
So, here is my way to do this.
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, "getNestedProperty", {
value : function (propertyName) {
var result = this;
var arr = propertyName.split(".");
while (arr.length && result) {
result = result[arr.shift()];
}
return result;
},
enumerable: false
});
Now you will be able to get nested property everywhere without importing module with function or copy/pasting function.
Example:
{a:{b:11}}.getNestedProperty('a.b'); // Returns 11
The Next.js extension broke Mongoose in my project. Also I've read that it might break jQuery. So, never do it in the Next.js way:
Object.prototype.getNestedProperty = function (propertyName) {
var result = this;
var arr = propertyName.split(".");
while (arr.length && result) {
result = result[arr.shift()];
}
return result;
};
This is my extended solution proposed by ninjagecko.
For me, simple string notation was not enough, so the below version supports things like:
index(obj, 'data.accounts[0].address[0].postcode');
/**
* Get object by index
* #supported
* - arrays supported
* - array indexes supported
* #not-supported
* - multiple arrays
* #issues:
* index(myAccount, 'accounts[0].address[0].id') - works fine
* index(myAccount, 'accounts[].address[0].id') - doesnt work
* #Example:
* index(obj, 'data.accounts[].id') => returns array of id's
* index(obj, 'data.accounts[0].id') => returns id of 0 element from array
* index(obj, 'data.accounts[0].addresses.list[0].id') => error
* #param obj
* #param path
* #returns {any}
*/
var index = function(obj, path, isArray?, arrIndex?){
// is an array
if(typeof isArray === 'undefined') isArray = false;
// array index,
// if null, will take all indexes
if(typeof arrIndex === 'undefined') arrIndex = null;
var _arrIndex = null;
var reduceArrayTag = function(i, subArrIndex){
return i.replace(/(\[)([\d]{0,})(\])/, (i) => {
var tmp = i.match(/(\[)([\d]{0,})(\])/);
isArray = true;
if(subArrIndex){
_arrIndex = (tmp[2] !== '') ? tmp[2] : null;
}else{
arrIndex = (tmp[2] !== '') ? tmp[2] : null;
}
return '';
});
}
function byIndex(obj, i) {
// if is an array
if(isArray){
isArray = false;
i = reduceArrayTag(i, true);
// if array index is null,
// return an array of with values from every index
if(!arrIndex){
var arrValues = [];
_.forEach(obj, (el) => {
arrValues.push(index(el, i, isArray, arrIndex));
})
return arrValues;
}
// if array index is specified
var value = obj[arrIndex][i];
if(isArray){
arrIndex = _arrIndex;
}else{
arrIndex = null;
}
return value;
}else{
// remove [] from notation,
// if [] has been removed, check the index of array
i = reduceArrayTag(i, false);
return obj[i]
}
}
// reduce with the byIndex method
return path.split('.').reduce(byIndex, obj)
}
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.