We've been using SCORM in our previous e-learning 'engine' but we want to change the elements our Managed Learning Environment (MLE) tracks, namely each completable component in an e-learning module.
At runtime, we run the following code to set up our SCORM connection:
var vault = {}; //vault 'namespace' helps ensure no conflicts with possible other "SCORM" variables
vault.UTILS = {}; //For holding UTILS functions
vault.debug = { isActive: true }; //Enable (true) or disable (false) for debug mode
vault.SCORM = { //Define the SCORM object
version: null, //Store SCORM version.
handleCompletionStatus: true, //Whether or not the wrapper should automatically handle the initial completion status
handleExitMode: true, //Whether or not the wrapper should automatically handle the exit mode
API:{handle: null, isFound: false}, //Create API child object
connection: { isActive: false }, //Create connection child object
data: { completionStatus: null, exitStatus: null}, //Create data child object
debug:{} //Create debug child object
};
vault.SCORM.API.find('win');
vault.SCORM.connection.initialize();
if (vault.SCORM.data.get("cmi.core.lesson_status")=="not attempted") {
vault.SCORM.data.set("cmi.core.lesson_status" , "incomplete");
vault.SCORM.data.save();
}
There are many more functions in the SCORM.js file, but the point is this all works; When the module is loaded into our MLE, the following code triggers course completion:
vault.SCORM.data.set("cmi.core.lesson_status" , "completed");
So how would we register a completable component with SCORM? (Components in our 'engine' are jQuery objects usually called 'element'). Would something like the following work, or are custom calls in SCORM not possible?
vault.SCORM.data.set("cmi.interactions.n."+element.componentId() , "incomplete");
But then if I registered an interaction by specifying an id, as follows...
vault.SCORM.data.set("cmi.interactions.n.id", element.componentId());
...how do I then set or access 'completion' on that component?
I've been reading posts and pdf specs from various sites, but the explanations are sparse at best.
I know there aren't a lot of SCORM followers here, but if you have any info, I'd be keen to hear it.
FWIW, that's my pipwerks SCORM wrapper, but with the variable pipwerks changed to ncalt.
There is documentation on how to use my wrapper at http://pipwerks.com (search for "scorm wrapper" in the search field). The original source code can be found at https://github.com/pipwerks/scorm-api-wrapper.
Note your sample code is not using the wrapper the way it was intended to be used. For example, this:
ncalt.SCORM.data.set("cmi.core.lesson_status" , "completed");
should be this (data is an internal helper and not necessary):
ncalt.SCORM.set("cmi.core.lesson_status" , "completed");
You can shorten it even further via a reference variable, like so:
var scorm = ncalt.SCORM;
scorm.set("cmi.core.lesson_status" , "completed");
scorm.save();
scorm.get("cmi.core.lesson_status"); //returns "completed"
As for your 'components', if you'd like to use SCORM's cmi.interactions model, be sure you're using the correct syntax. The "n" in the SCORM documentation (cmi.interactions.n.id) is meant to represent a number, it's not a literal "n".
scorm.set("cmi.interactions.0.id", "myfirstinteraction");
scorm.save();
To retrieve data from that interaction, you need to specify the number in place of the n:
scorm.get("cmi.interactions.0.id"); //returns "myfirstinteraction"
Note the CMI data model doesn't provide a 'status' field for cmi.interactions. You'd need to use cmi.objectives.
scorm.set("cmi.objectives.0.status", "completed");
scorm.save();
scorm.get("cmi.objectives.0.status"); // returns "completed"
The CMI data model (as available in SCORM) is spelled out here: http://scorm.com/scorm-explained/technical-scorm/run-time/run-time-reference/
Related
I am trying to implement a search filter in my application which uses react/redux using redux-search. The first gotcha I get is when I try to add the store enhancer as in the example.
// Compose :reduxSearch with other store enhancers
const enhancer = compose(
applyMiddleware(...yourMiddleware),
reduxSearch({
// Configure redux-search by telling it which resources to index for searching
resourceIndexes: {
// In this example Books will be searchable by :title and :author
books: ['author', 'title']
},
// This selector is responsible for returning each collection of searchable resources
resourceSelector: (resourceName, state) => {
// In our example, all resources are stored in the state under a :resources Map
// For example "books" are stored under state.resources.books
return state.resources.get(resourceName)
}
})
)
I understand evarything up to the resourceSelector, when I tried to get a deep dive into the example to see how it works but I can barely see how they are generated and the last line returns an error, Cannot read property 'get' of undefined
My state object looks like this
state: {
//books is an array of objects...each object represents a book
books:[
//a book has these properties
{name, id, author, datePublished}
]
}
Any help from anyone who understands redux-search is helpful
If this line:
return state.resources.get(resourceName)
Is causing this error:
Cannot read property 'get' of undefined
That indicates that state.resources is not defined. And sure enough, your state doesn't define a resources attribute.
The examples were written with the idea in mind of using redux-search to index many types of resources, eg:
state: {
resources: {
books: [...],
authors: [...],
// etc
}
}
The solution to the issue you've reported would be to either:
A: Add an intermediary resources object (if you think you might want to index other things in the future and you like that organization).
B: Replace state.resources.get(resourceName) with state[resourceName] or similar.
Let's say that two users do changes to the same document while offline, but in different sections of the document. If user 2 goes back online after user 1, will the changes made by user 1 be lost?
In my database, each row contains a JS object, and one property of this object is an array. This array is bound to a series of check-boxes on the interface. What I would like is that if two users do changes to those check-boxes, the latest change is kept for each check-box individually, based on the time the when the change was made, not the time when the syncing occurred. Is GroundDB the appropriate tool to achieve this? Is there any mean to add an event handler in which I can add some logic that would be triggered when syncing occurs, and that would take care of the merging ?
The short answer is "yes" none of the ground db versions have conflict resolution since the logic is custom depending on the behaviour of conflict resolution eg. if you want to automate or involve the user.
The old Ground DB simply relied on Meteor's conflict resolution (latest data to the server wins) I'm guessing you can see some issues with that depending on the order of when which client comes online.
Ground db II doesn't have method resume it's more or less just a way to cache data offline. It's observing on an observable source.
I guess you could create a middleware observer for GDB II - one that checks the local data before doing the update and update the client or/and call the server to update the server data. This way you would have a way to handle conflicts.
I think to remember writing some code that supported "deletedAt"/"updatedAt" for some types of conflict handling, but again a conflict handler should be custom for the most part. (opening the door for reusable conflict handlers might be useful)
Especially knowing when data is removed can be tricky if you don't "soft" delete via something like using a "deletedAt" entity.
The "rc" branch is currently grounddb-caching-2016 version "2.0.0-rc.4",
I was thinking about something like:
(mind it's not tested, written directly in SO)
// Create the grounded collection
foo = new Ground.Collection('test');
// Make it observe a source (it's aware of createdAt/updatedAt and
// removedAt entities)
foo.observeSource(bar.find());
bar.find() returns a cursor with a function observe our middleware should do the same. Let's create a createMiddleWare helper for it:
function createMiddleWare(source, middleware) {
const cursor = (typeof (source||{}).observe === 'function') ? source : source.find();
return {
observe: function(observerHandle) {
const sourceObserverHandle = cursor.observe({
added: doc => {
middleware.added.call(observerHandle, doc);
},
updated: (doc, oldDoc) => {
middleware.updated.call(observerHandle, doc, oldDoc);
},
removed: doc => {
middleware.removed.call(observerHandle, doc);
},
});
// Return stop handle
return sourceObserverHandle;
}
};
}
Usage:
foo = new Ground.Collection('test');
foo.observeSource(createMiddleware(bar.find(), {
added: function(doc) {
// just pass it through
this.added(doc);
},
updated: function(doc, oldDoc) {
const fooDoc = foo.findOne(doc._id);
// Example of a simple conflict handler:
if (fooDoc && doc.updatedAt < fooDoc.updatedAt) {
// Seems like the foo doc is newer? lets update the server...
// (we'll just use the regular bar, since thats the meteor
// collection and foo is the grounded data
bar.update(doc._id, fooDoc);
} else {
// pass through
this.updated(doc, oldDoc);
}
},
removed: function(doc) {
// again just pass through for now
this.removed(doc);
}
}));
Suppose I write:
new Meteor.Collection("foos");
new Meteor.Collection("bars");
Is there an API for accessing those collections by name? Something like Meteor.Collection.get(name), where name is "foos" or "bars"? I know I could write something like
var MyCollections = {
foos: new Meteor.Collection("foos");
bars: new Meteor.Collection("bars");
}
and then use MyCollections[name], but I'd prefer to use an existing API if one exists.
Based on Shane Donelley's mongoinspector
https://github.com/shanedonnelly1/mongoinspector
getCollection = function (string) {
for (var globalObject in window) {
if (window[globalObject] instanceof Meteor.Collection) {
if (globalObject === string) {
return (window[globalObject]);
break;
};
}
}
return undefined; // if none of the collections match
};
I've just found that package : https://github.com/dburles/mongo-collection-instances/
It allow you to
Foo1 = new Mongo.Collection('foo'); // local
Foo2 = new Mongo.Collection('foo', { connection: connection });
Mongo.Collection.get('foo') // returns instance of Foo1
Mongo.Collection.get('foo', { connection: connection });
// returns instance of Foo2
Hope it will help
This feature was added to Meteor in Feb 2016: "Provide a way to access collections from stores on the client"
It works like this:
Meteor.connection._stores['tasks']._getCollection();
And I was using it as follows to test inserts using the javascript console:
Meteor.connection._stores['tasks']._getCollection().insert({text:'test'});
For the insert it required the insecure package to still be installed otherwise got an access denied message.
As far as I can see in the collection.js source there currently is no way in the api to get an existing Collection by name, once it has already been initialized on the server. It probably wouldn't be hard to add that feature.
So, why not fork Meteor and submit a patch or create a smart package and share it I'm sure there are others out there who'd like the same feature.
With https://github.com/dburles/mongo-collection-instances you can use Mongo.Collection.get('collectionname')
Note that the parameter you're inserting is the same one you use when creating the collection. So if you're using const Products = new Mongo.Collection('products') then you should use get('products') (lowercase).
Note that they have a return value, so you can just do
var Patterns = new Meteor.Collection("patterns");
and use Patterns everywhere.
And when you need to subscribe to server updates, provide "patterns" to Meteor.subscribe().
If you have the same code for multiple collections, the chance is high that you're doing something wrong from a software engineering viewpoint; why not use a single collection with a type field (or something else that differentiates the documents) and use that instead of using multiple collections?
Rather than looking, I've just been doing:
Foos = new Meteor.Collection("foos");
or possibly put it inside another object. I haven't really been making a Collections collection object.
It seems there is no way to get at the wrapped Meteor.Collection object without saving it at creation time, as others have mentioned.
But there is at least a way to list all created collections, and actually access the corresponding Mongo LocalCollection object. They are available from any Meteor Collection object, so to keep it generalistic you can create a dummy collection just for this. Use a method as such (CoffeeScript):
dummy = new Meteor.Collection 'dummy'
getCollection = (name) ->
dummy._driver.collections[name]
These objects do have all the find, findOne, update et al methods, and even some that Meteor doesn't seem to expose, like pauseObservers and resumeObservers which seem interesting. But I haven't tried fiddling with this mongo LocalCollection reference directly to knowif it will update the server collection accordingly.
var bars = new Meteor.Collection("foos");
Judging by what the collection.js does, the line we use to instantiate the collection object opens a connection to the database and looks for the collection matching the name we give. So in this case a connection is made and the collection 'foos' is bound to the Meteor.Collection object 'bars'. See collection.js AND remote_collection_driver.js within the mongo-livedata package.
As is the way with MongoDB, whilst you can, you don't have to explicitly create collections. As stated in the MongoDB documentation:
A collection is created when the first document is inserted.
So, I think what you're after is what you already have - unless I've totally misunderstood what you're intentions are.
You can always roll your own automatic collection getter.
Say you have a couple of collections called "Businesses" and "Clients". Put a reference each into some "collections" object and register a Handlebars helper to access those "collections" by collections["name"].
i.e. put something like this on the client-side main.js:
collections = collections || {};
collections.Businesses = Businesses;
collections.Clients = Clients;
Handlebars.registerHelper("getCollection", function(coll) {
return collections[coll].find();
});
Then in your HTML, just refer to the collection by name:
{{#each getCollection 'Businesses'}}
<div> Business: {{_id}} </div>
{{/each}}
{{#each getCollection 'Clients'}}
<div> Client: {{_id}} </div>
{{/each}}
Look ma, no more generic "list all records" boilerplate js required!
Say I have two view models that each have an observable property that represents different, but similar data.
function site1Model(username) {
this.username = ko.observable(username);
....
}
function site2Model(username) = {
this.username = ko.observable(username);
....
}
These view models are independent and not necessarily linked to each other, but in some cases, a third view model creates a link between them.
function site3Model(username) = {
this.site1 = new site1Model(username);
this.site2 = new site2Model(username);
// we now need to ensure that the usernames are kept the same between site1/2
...
}
Here are some options that I've come up with.
Use a computed observable that reads one and writes to both:
site3Model.username = ko.computed({
read: function() {
return this.site1.username(); // assume they are always the same
},
write: function(value) {
this.site1.username(value);
this.site2.username(value);
},
owner: site3Model
}
This will keep the values in sync as long as changes always come through the computed. But if an underlying observable is changed directly, it won't do so.
Use the subscribe method to update each from the other:
site3Model.site1.username.subscribe(function(value) {
this.site2.username(value);
}, site3Model);
site3Model.site2.username.subscribe(function(value) {
this.site1.username(value);
}, site3Model);
This works as long as the observables suppress notifications when the values are the same; otherwise you'd end up with an infinite loop. You could also do the check earlier: if (this.site1.username() !== value) this.site1.username(value); This also has a problem that the observables have to be simple (it won't work right if site1 and site2 themselves are observables).
Use computed to do the subscribe and updates:
site3Model.username1Updater = ko.computed(function() {
this.site1.username(this.site2.username());
}, site3Model);
site3Model.username2Updater = ko.computed(function() {
this.site2.username(this.site1.username());
}, site3Model);
This format allows us to have other dependencies. For example, we could make site1 and site2 observables and then use this.site1().username(this.site2().username()); This method also requires a check for equality to avoid an infinite loop. If we can't depend on the observable to do it, we could check within the computed, but would add another dependency on the observable we're updating (until something like observable.peek is available).
This method also has the downside of running the update code once initially to set up the dependencies (since that's how computed works).
Since I feel that all of these methods have a downside, is there another way to do this that would be simple (less than 10 lines of code), efficient (not run unnecessary code or updates), and flexible (handle multiple levels of observables)?
It is not exactly 10 lines of code (although you could strip it down to your liking), but I use pub/sub messages between view models for this situation.
Here is a small library that I wrote for it: https://github.com/rniemeyer/knockout-postbox
The basic idea is just to create a ko.subscribable and use topic-based subscriptions. The library extends subscribables to add subscribeTo, publishOn and syncWith (both publish and subscribe on a topic). These methods will set up the proper subscriptions for an observable to automatically participate in this messaging and stay synchronized with the topic.
Now your view models do not need to have direct references to each other and can communicate through the pubsub system. You can refactor your view models without breaking anything.
Like I said you could strip it down to less than 10 lines of code. The library just adds some extras like being able to unsubscribe, being able to have control over when publishing actually happens (equalityComparer), and you can specify a transform to run on incoming values.
Feel free to post any feedback.
Here is a basic sample: http://jsfiddle.net/rniemeyer/mg3hj/
Ryan and John, Thank you both for your answers. Unfortunately, I really don't want to introduce a global naming system that the pub/sub systems require.
Ryan, I agree that the subscribe method is probably the best. I've put together a set of functions to handle the subscription. I'm not using an extension because I also want to handle the case where the observables themselves might be dynamic. These functions accept either observables or functions that return observables. If the source observable is dynamic, I wrap the accessor function call in a computed observable to have a fixed observable to subscribe to.
function subscribeObservables(source, target, dontSetInitially) {
var sourceObservable = ko.isObservable(source)
? source
: ko.computed(function(){ return source()(); }),
isTargetObservable = ko.isObservable(target),
callback = function(value) {
var targetObservable = isTargetObservable ? target : target();
if (targetObservable() !== value)
targetObservable(value);
};
if (!dontSetInitially)
callback(sourceObservable());
return sourceObservable.subscribe(callback);
}
function syncObservables(primary, secondary) {
subscribeObservables(primary, secondary);
subscribeObservables(secondary, primary, true);
}
This is about 20 lines, so maybe my target of less than 10 lines was a bit unreasonable. :-)
I modified Ryan's postbox example to demonstrate the above functions: http://jsfiddle.net/mbest/vcLFt/
Another option is to create an isolated datacontext that maintains the models of observables. the viewmodels all look to the datacontext for their data and refer to the same objects, so when one updates, they all do. The VM's dependency is on the datacontext, but not on other VMs. I've been doing this lately and it has worked well. Although, it is much more complex than using pub/sub.
If you want simple pub/sub, you can use Ryan Niemyer's library that he mentioned or use amplify.js which has pub/sub messaging (basically a messenger or event aggregator) built in. Both are lightweight and decoupled.
In case anyone needed.
Another option is to create a reference object/observable.
This also handle object that contains multiple observable.
(function(){
var subscriptions = [];
ko.helper = {
syncObject: function (topic, obj) {
if(subscriptions[topic]){
return subscriptions[topic];
} else {
return subscriptions[topic] = obj;
}
}
};
})();
In your view models.
function site1Model(username) {
this.username = syncObject('username', ko.observable());
this.username(username);
....
}
function site2Model(username) = {
this.username = syncObject('username', ko.observable());
this.username(username);
....
}
I'm trying to work with associating documents in different collections (not embedded documents) and while there is an issue for that in Mongooose, I'm trying to work around it now by lazy loading the associated document with a virtual property as documented on the Mongoose website.
The problem is that the getter for a virtual takes a function as an argument and uses the return value for the virtual property. This is great when the virtual doesn't require any async calls to calculate it's value, but doesn't work when I need to make an async call to load the other document. Here's the sample code I'm working with:
TransactionSchema.virtual('notebook')
.get( function() { // <-- the return value of this function is used as the property value
Notebook.findById(this.notebookId, function(err, notebook) {
return notebook; // I can't use this value, since the outer function returns before we get to this code
})
// undefined is returned here as the properties value
});
This doesn't work since the function returns before the async call is finished. Is there a way I could use a flow control library to make this work, or could I modify the first function so that I pass the findById call to the getter instead of an anonymous function?
You can define a virtual method, for which you can define a callback.
Using your example:
TransactionSchema.method('getNotebook', function(cb) {
Notebook.findById(this.notebookId, function(err, notebook) {
cb(notebook);
})
});
And while the sole commenter appears to be one of those pedantic types, you also should not be afraid of embedding documents. Its one of mongos strong points from what I understand.
One uses the above code like so:
instance.getNotebook(function(nootebook){
// hey man, I have my notebook and stuff
});
While this addresses the broader problem rather than the specific question, I still thought it was worth submitting:
You can easily load an associated document from another collection (having a nearly identical result as defining a virtual) by using Mongoose's query populate function. Using the above example, this requires specifying the ref of the ObjectID in the Transaction schema (to point to the Notebook collection), then calling populate(NotebookId) while constructing the query. The linked Mongoose documentation addresses this pretty thoroughly.
I'm not familiar with Mongoose's history, but I'm guessing populate did not exist when these earlier answers were submitted.
Josh's approach works great for single document look-ups, but my situation was a little more complex. I needed to do a look-up on a nested property for an entire array of objects. For example, my model looked more like this:
var TransactionSchema = new Schema({
...
, notebooks: {type: [Notebook]}
});
var NotebookSchema = new Schema({
...
, authorName: String // this should not necessarily persist to db because it may get stale
, authorId: String
});
var AuthorSchema = new Schema({
firstName: String
, lastName: String
});
Then, in my application code (I'm using Express), when I get a Transaction, I want all of the notebooks with author last name's:
...
TransactionSchema.findById(someTransactionId, function(err, trans) {
...
if (trans) {
var authorIds = trans.notebooks.map(function(tx) {
return notebook.authorId;
});
Author.find({_id: {$in: authorIds}, [], function(err2, authors) {
for (var a in authors) {
for (var n in trans.notebooks {
if (authors[a].id == trans.notebooks[n].authorId) {
trans.notebooks[n].authorLastName = authors[a].lastName;
break;
}
}
}
...
});
This seems wildly inefficient and hacky, but I could not figure out another way to accomplish this. Lastly, I am new to node.js, mongoose, and stackoverflow so forgive me if this is not the most appropriate place to extend this discussion. It's just that Josh's solution was the most helpful in my eventual "solution."
As this is an old question, I figured it might use an update.
To achieve asynchronous virtual fields, you can use mongoose-fill, as stated in mongoose's github issue: https://github.com/Automattic/mongoose/issues/1894