Is there a function in the API of IFCJS to get the guid of the elements grouped in an ifcgroup?
for example, if I group a column with a wall
getElementsFromIfcGroup(guidGroup) ---> return [guidWall, guidColumn]
According to the IFC schema, IfcGroup instances group elements together using an indirect relationship object called IfcRelAssignsToGroup. This means that you can retrieve the elements contained within that group like this:
import { IFCRELASSIGNSTOGROUP as REL } from 'web-ifc';
async function getItemsOfGroup(modelID, groupID) {
const manager = ifcLoader.ifcManager;
const relIDs = await manager.getAllItemsOfType(modelID, REL);
for(relID of groupsIDs) {
const groupRel = await manager.getItemProperties(modelID, relID);
if(groupRel.RelatingGroup.value === groupID) {
return groupRel.RelatedObjects;
}
}
return [];
}
based on Antonio's answer, it looks like this:
async function getItemsOfGroup(modelID, groupID) {
const manager = viewer.IFC.loader.ifcManager
// Get all ifcgroups
const relIDs = await manager.getAllItemsOfType(modelID, IFCRELASSIGNSTOGROUP);
let relID, relObj, props;
var guIDs = [];
for(relID of relIDs) {
const groupRel = await manager.getItemProperties(modelID, relID);
// Find the groupID
if(groupRel.GlobalId.value === groupID) {
// Search all related objects
for(relObj of groupRel.RelatedObjects) {
//get object properties
props = await manager.getItemProperties(modelID, relObj.value);
//Add guid to array
guIDs[guIDs.length] = props.GlobalId.value;
}
return guIDs;
}
}
return guIDs;
}
Related
I'm struggling with a recursive loop and nested create/select statements. I'm receiving an object from a post request with the following structure:
11.6042
---11.6042_01
---11.6042_02
---11.6042_02
---14x10-100
------14x10-100_01
---14x10-100
------14x10-100_01
---14x10-100
------14x10-100_01
---M10-DIN929_14020
---M10-DIN929_14020
---11.6042_05
Wanted behaviour: travel through the structure recursive, add record to Part table, self join with parent part, join with PartLib table, if no match present create PartLib record and match created record. Process next part.
The problem: part 14x10-100 occurs three times in the structure. I want to create a record for part 14x10-100 in the part_lib table and refer to that record three times. What actually happens is that for each 14x10-100 part a corresponding record in the part_lib table is created in stead of one create and two matches. If I run it again it will match like excpected. I suspect I'm lost in the promise/async await parts of the code.
Below the relevant code. I've removed some attribute mappings for readability. My thoughts behind it: I'm not returning new promises like normal in a async function since Sequelize already returns a promise. When creating a part I'm awaiting (or at least I think so) the partLibController calls to ensure that all matching/creating/joining is done before proceeding to the next part in the structure.
Thanks a bunch!!
Recursive loop
function parseChild(child, modelId, parentId, userId, level) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
partController.create({
parent_id: parentId
, name: child.name
}, { id: userId }).then((part) => {
resolve({ child: child, level: level });
if (child.children) {
child.children.forEach(grandChild => {
parseChild(grandChild, modelId, part.part_id, userId, level + '---');
});
}
}).catch(error => { console.log(error); });
}).then((obj) => { console.log(`${obj.level} ${obj.child.name}`); });
}
PartController Create
async function create(partBody, currentUser) {
let { parent_id, name } = partBody;
const match = await partLibController.match(name);
let partLibId = null;
if (match.length == 0) {
const partLib = await partLibController.createFromPart(partBody, currentUser);
partLibId = partLib.part_lib_id;
} else {
partLibId = match[0].dataValues.part_lib_id
}
return ModelAssembly.create({
parent_id: parent_id
, name: name
, part_lib_id: partLibId
});
}
PartLibController Match
function match(name) {
return PartLib.findAll({
where: {
name: name
},
});
}
PartLibController CreateFromPart
function createFromPart(partBody, currentUser) {
let { name } = partBody;
return PartLib.create({
name,
});
}
Thanks to AKX I've solved the problem: hero
The problem was in the recursive call itself I suppose but here's the working code:
async function parseChild(child, modelId, parentId, userId, level) {
const body = {
parent_id: parentId
, name: child.name
};
const ma = await partController.create(body, { id: userId });
if (child.children) {
for (const grandChild of child.children) {
await parseChild(grandChild, modelId, ma.part_id, userId, level + '---');
}
}
return;
}
I have this helper function in my reducer, which has the given state:
type CustomerCollection = { [number]: Customer }
type CustomerState = {
+customers: ?CustomerCollection,
+newItem: ?(Customer | Review),
+searchResults: ?(Customer[]),
+error: ?string,
+isLoading: boolean
};
function customerWithReview(review: Review): Customer {
const id: number = review.customerId;
const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers[id];
const newReviews: Review[] = [review, ...oldCustomer.reviews];
return Object.assign(oldCustomer, { reviews: newReviews });
}
I get a Flow error on the id of const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers[id]; saying Cannot get state.customers[id] because an index signature declaring the expected key/value type is missing in null or undefined.
This is happening because of the nullable/optional ?CustomerCollection type of state.customers.
I can silence the error by making sure customers isn't null:
if (state.customers) {
const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers[id];
const newReviews: Review[] = [review, ...oldCustomer.reviews];
return Object.assign(oldCustomer, { reviews: newReviews });
}
But then the problem just goes up the chain because I don't have anything to return from the function.
I can certainly expand it to:
function customerWithReview(review: Review): Customer {
if (!state.customers) {
return new Customer();
} else {
const id: number = review.customerId;
const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers[id];
const newReviews: Review[] = [review, ...oldCustomer.reviews];
return Object.assign(oldCustomer, { reviews: newReviews });
}
}
But in actual practice, the action that gets us to this branch of the reducer will never be called if state.customers is null, and we'd never return new Customer() and would have no use for it if we did. state.customers is nullable in order to tell the difference between "we haven't fetched the customers yet (state.customers == null)" and "we've fetched the customers but there are none (state.customers == {}).
It would be a lot easier if I could just assert that state.customers would always exist in these cases, which in Swift I would do with force-unwrapping:
const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers![id];
Can I do anything like this with Flow?
Or, given that only my GET_CUSTOMERS_FAILURE action would ever deal with state.customers == null, is there some other way to restructure my reducer so that this is a little easier? An entirely separate fetchReducer that is has a nullable customer collection while the rest of the actions fall under a different reducer?
You can use invariant function (Check that it works here):
type Customer = { id: number, reviews: Array<Review> };
type Review = { customerId: number };
type CustomerCollection = { [number]: Customer }
type CustomerState = {
+customers: ?CustomerCollection,
+newItem: ?(Customer | Review),
+searchResults: ?(Customer[]),
+error: ?string,
+isLoading: boolean
};
declare var state: CustomerState;
declare function invariant(): void;
function customerWithReview(review: Review): Customer {
const id: number = review.customerId;
invariant(state.customers, 'No customers and I don\'t know why');
const oldCustomer: Customer = state.customers[id];
const newReviews: Review[] = [review, ...oldCustomer.reviews];
return Object.assign(oldCustomer, { reviews: newReviews });
}
You can implement it somewhere in your project and import when necessary.
You can implement it like this:
export function invariant<T>(value: ?T, falsyErrorMessage: string, errorParams?: Object): void {
if (!value) {
log.error(falsyErrorMessage, errorParams || {});
throw new Error(INVARIANT_ERROR_MESSAGE);
}
}
Unfortunately, the name of the function is hard-coded in flow.
Alternative variant is just to add an if and to throw an error in your customerWithReview function directly.
I want to query a Firestore database with multiple where clauses based on the parameters that are passed in. The following block of code works:
getProducts2(accountId: string, manufacturer?: string, materialType?: string): Promise<Product[]> {
return new Promise<Product[]>((resolve, reject) => {
const productCollection2: AngularFirestoreCollection<FreightRule> = this.afs.collection('products');
const query = productCollection2.ref
.where('materialType', '==', materialType)
.where('manufacturer', '==', manufacturer);
query.get().then(querySnapshot => {
if (querySnapshot.size > 0) {
const data = querySnapshot.docs.map(documentSnapshot => {
return documentSnapshot.data();
}) as Product[];
resolve(data);
} //todo else...
});
});
}
But what I really want to do is conditionally include the where clauses based on the optional parameters. The following is what I want, but it doesn't work:
getProducts2(accountId: string, manufacturer?: string, materialType?: string): Promise<Product[]> {
return new Promise<Product[]>((resolve, reject) => {
const productCollection2: AngularFirestoreCollection<FreightRule> = this.afs.collection('products');
const query = productCollection2.ref;
if (manufacturer) {
query.where('manufacturer', '==', manufacturer);
}
if (materialType) {
query.where('materialType', '==', materialType);
}
query.get().then(querySnapshot => {
if (querySnapshot.size > 0) {
const data = querySnapshot.docs.map(documentSnapshot => {
return documentSnapshot.data();
}) as Product[];
resolve(data);
} //todo else...
});
});
}
While valid, this code just returns all of the products with no filtering.
Is there a way to structure this so I can filter based on the optional parameters?
edit: I realize I can do something like:
let query;
if (manufacturer && materialType) {
query = productCollection2.ref.where(....).where(....)
} else if (manufacturer) {
query = productCollection2.ref.where(....)
} else if (materialType) {
query = productCollection2.ref.where(....)
}
I was just hoping for something a little more elegant.
Build upon the prior query, don't repeat the prior query:
let query = collection // initial query, no filters
if (condition1) {
// add a filter for condition1
query = query.where(...)
}
if (condition2) {
// add a filter for condition2
query = query.where(...)
}
// etc
If using different query structure, You can try below ways:
db.collection("subscriptions").where("email", '==', req.body.email,"&&","subscription_type","==","free").get();
OR
db.collection("subscriptions").where("email", '==', req.body.email).where("subscription_type", '==', 'free111').get();
I'm trying to add an object to /users/[userKey]/invitedTo but set deletes the existing data, so does update.
What I want to end up with is something like this:
users
-uniqueuserkey
--name: Name
--InvitedTo
---eventuniquekey1
----eventname: event name 1
----etc
---eventuniquekey2
----eventname: event name 2
----etc
-
// this.event.push(eventObj);
this.event.push(eventObj).then((item) => {
if (item) {
const itemKey = item.key;
for (const key in guests) {
if (guests.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
const invitedObj = {};
const invitedTo = this.db.object(`/users/${key}/invitedTo`);
invitedObj[itemKey] = eventObj;
invitedTo.set( { invitedObj } );
}
}
}
});
Update does exactly what I need, but it also deletes existing value:
for (const key in guests) {
if (guests.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
const invitedObj = {};
invitedObj[itemKey] = eventObj;
this.users.update(key, { invitedTo: invitedObj });
}
}
Should I just get the existing data and add to it?
If you want to add an object, you (usually) should use the push method instead of set or update:
const invitedTo = this.db.list(`/users/${key}/invitedTo`);
invitedTo.push(eventObj);
That way, Firebase will create a unique key and add it to the invitedTo node.
If you want to set the key yourself, then you could use the update method like this:
const invitedTo = this.db.object(`/users/${key}/invitedTo/${itemKey}`);
invitedTo.update(eventObj);
I want to add objects on my Firebase database that contains properties prefixed by _.
It seems only these properties are ignored when saved.
My code looks like this and is working fine:
.config(function($provide) {
$provide.decorator('$firebaseArray', function($delegate, $window) {
var add, timestamp, currentUser;
add = $delegate.prototype.$add;
timestamp = $window.firebase.database.ServerValue.TIMESTAMP;
currentUser = $window.firebase.auth().currentUser.uid;
$delegate.prototype.$add = function (newData) {
//works if remove '_'
newData['_createdAt'] = timestamp;
newData['_createdBy'] = currentUser;
return add.call(this, newData);
};
return $delegate;
});
})
.config(function($provide) {
$provide.decorator('$firebaseObject', function($delegate, $window) {
var save, timestamp, currentUser;
save = $delegate.prototype.$save;
timestamp = $window.firebase.database.ServerValue.TIMESTAMP;
currentUser = $window.firebase.auth().currentUser.uid;
$delegate.prototype.$save = function () {
//works if remove '_'
this['_modifiedAt'] = timestamp;
this['_modifiedBy'] = currentUser;
return save.call(this);
};
return $delegate;
});
})
The reason this is ocurring is because AngularFire builtin method $firebaseUtils.toJSON removes some prefixed properties.
I solved my problem adding .toJSON() to my object model.
MyObject.prototype = {
toJSON: function () {
return angular.copy(this);
}
};