Meteor.user().profile.myProp reactive for all profile children - meteor

This Meteor client public method needs to re run when the Meteor.user().profile.propA changes which is does fine, but it also runs when profile.propB changes or added. How can I stop it from re running when any other child property of profile has changed or added but only for profile.propA? Thanks
myListener: () => {
Tracker.autorun(() => {
if (Meteor.userId()) {
const indexes = Meteor.user().profile.propA;
if (!indexes || indexes.length <= 0) return;
dict.set('myStuff', indexes);
console.log('auto has run');
}
});
},
on the mongodb terminal:
db.users.update({'_id':'123abc'}, {$set: {'profile.propB':'B'}})
triggers the autorun. even though the reactive data source is Meteor.user().profile.propA;

Mongo.Collection.findOne allows you to specify which fields are retrieved from the local database using the fields option. Only changes to the fields specified there will trigger the autorun again.
Since Meteor.user() is just a shorthand for Meteor.users.findOne(Meteor.userId()), you can do the following to get updates for propA only:
const indexes = Meteor.users.findOne(Meteor.userId(), {
fields: {
'profile.propA': 1
}
});
Note that indexes will only contain profile.propA and the document's _id. If you need more data from the user document but still want to receive reactive updates separately, you have to fetch that data in a second autorun.

Related

EmberFire: Getting property generated by Cloud Function when saving record completes

I use a Cloud Function to generate a short unique URL on a record on the 'onWrite' event, and save it. This works well, but when I save a record from my Ember app using EmberFire, I do get a model back as an argument to a callback, but the URL of this model is undefined. Is there a way to return this back to the client? Or do I need to query the record to get the generated URL?
This is how my Cloud Function code looks:
exports.generateUrl = functions.database.ref('/tournaments/{tid}')
.onWrite(event => {
if (event.data.previous.exists()) {
return;
}
if (!event.data.exists()) {
return;
}
const url = shortid.generate();
return event.data.ref.update({ url });
});
Here is my component that saves data through form submission. I'm using an add-on called ember-changeset to handle some validations, but this shouldn't be related to the issue.
export default Ember.Component.extend({
submit(e) {
e.preventDefault();
let snapshot = this.changeset.snapshot();
return this.changeset
.cast(Object.keys(this.get('schema')))
.validate()
.then(() => {
if (this.changeset.get('isValid')) {
return this.changeset
.save()
.then((result) => {
// Here, result.get('url') is undefined.
})
}
})
}
});
If you have a function that writes new data back to a location in the database after a write, you'll have to keep listening to that location on the client in order to get that data back. Don't use a one-time read (once()), use a persistent listener (on()), and in that listener, make sure you're getting the URL or whatever you expect to be generated by the function. Then remove that listener if you don't need it any more.
(Sorry, I don't know Ember or what abstractions it provides around Realtime Database - I'm giving you the plain JavaScript API methods you'd use on a reference.)

Meteor GroundDB granularity for offline/online syncing

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);
}
}));

userId gets into the document magically

This Meteor code is working fine, but I would like to ask if it is the way Meteor does things or it is a un predictable side effect that may change under some condition later.
The things is that when I do
DisplayCol.insert({action: 'task1', element: 'p', value: value_variable});
Meteor also inserts the correct userId (using 2 different browsers logged in as 2 different users) which I did not explicitly included in the document.
The above line of code is inside a server side function which is called from Meteor method.
here is the relevant information;
//lib/collection.js
DisplayCol = new Mongo.Collection('displayCol');
//server.js
Meteor.publish('displayCol', function () {
return DisplayCol.find({userId: this.userId});
});
DisplayCol.before.insert(function (userId, doc) {
doc.userId = userId;
});
In the docs of Collection hooks > Additional notes > second bulleted paragraph says:
userId is available to find and findOne queries that were invoked within a publish function.
But this is a collection.insert. So should I explicitly include the userId in the document or let the collection hook do its hidden magic? Thanks
No, there is no hidden magic in that code, your before hook is inserting the userId field in the document.
When you do an insert like this,
DisplayCol.insert({action: 'task1', element: 'p', value: value_variable});
the doc that your are inserting is { action: 'task1', element: 'p', value: value_variable }
Because, you have this hook,
DisplayCol.before.insert(function (userId, doc) {
doc.userId = userId;
});
it changes the doc before inserting into collection. So the above hook will change your doc to {action: 'task1', element: 'p', value: value_variable, userId: 'actual-user-id' }
This is the expected behaviour.
Regarding your other point in the question,
userId is available to find and findOne queries that were invoked
within a publish function.
Previously userId parameter in the find and findOne returns null, so user needs to pass userId as a parameter as mentioned in this comment. Additional notes mentions that the hack is not required any more. It has nothing to do with inserting userId field into the collection document.
To have a quick test, remove the DisplayCol.before.insert hook above, you will not see userId field in the newly inserted documents.
UPDATE
Just to clarify your doubt further, from the 4th point in the docs that you provided
It is quite normal for userId to sometimes be unavailable to hook
callbacks in some circumstances. For example, if an update is fired
from the server with no user context, the server certainly won't be
able to provide any particular userId.
which means that if the document is inserted or updated on the server, there will be no user associated with the server, in that case, userId will return null.
Also you can check the source code yourself here. Check the CollectionHooks.getUserId method, it uses Meteor.userId() to get the userId.
CollectionHooks.getUserId = function getUserId() {
var userId;
if (Meteor.isClient) {
Tracker.nonreactive(function () {
userId = Meteor.userId && Meteor.userId(); // <------- It uses Meteor.userId() to get the current user's id
});
}
if (Meteor.isServer) {
try {
// Will throw an error unless within method call.
// Attempt to recover gracefully by catching:
userId = Meteor.userId && Meteor.userId(); // <------- It uses Meteor.userId() to get the current user's id
} catch (e) {}
if (!userId) {
// Get the userId if we are in a publish function.
userId = publishUserId.get();
}
}
return userId;
};

How to 'transform' data returned via a Meteor.publish?

Meteor Collections have a transform ability that allows behavior to be attached to the objects returned from mongo.
We want to have autopublish turned off so the client does not have access to the database collections, but we still want the transform functionality.
We are sending data to the client with a more explicit Meteor.publish/Meteor.subscribe or the RPC mechanism ( Meteor.call()/Meteor.methods() )
How can we have the Meteor client automatically apply a transform like it will when retrieving data directly with the Meteor.Collection methods?
While you can't directly use transforms, there is a way to transform the result of a database query before publishing it. This is what the "publish the current size of a collection" example describes here.
It took me a while to figure out a really simple application of that, so maybe my code will help you, too:
Meteor.publish("publicationsWithHTML", function (data) {
var self = this;
Publications
.find()
.forEach(function(entry) {
addSomeHTML(entry); // this function changes the content of entry
self.added("publications", entry._id, entry);
});
self.ready();
});
On the client you subscribe to this:
Meteor.subscribe("publicationsWithHTML");
But your model still need to create a collection (on both sides) that is called 'publications':
Publications = new Meteor.Collection('publications');
Mind you, this is not a very good example, as it doesn't maintain the reactivity. But I found the count example a bit confusing at first, so maybe you'll find it helpful.
(Meteor 0.7.0.1) - meteor does allow behavior to be attached to the objects returned via the pub/sub.
This is from a pull request I submitted to the meteor project.
Todos = new Meteor.Collection('todos', {
// transform allows behavior to be attached to the objects returned via the pub/sub communication.
transform : function(todo) {
todo.update = function(change) {
Meteor.call('Todos_update', this._id, change);
},
todo.remove = function() {
Meteor.call('Todos_remove', this._id);
}
return todo;
}
});
todosHandle = Meteor.subscribe('todos');
Any objects returned via the 'todos' topic will have the update() and the remove() function - which is exactly what I want: I now attach behavior to the returned data.
Try:
let transformTodo = (fields) => {
fields._pubType = 'todos';
return fields;
};
Meteor.publish('todos', function() {
let subHandle = Todos
.find()
.observeChanges({
added: (id, fields) => {
fields = transformTodo(fields);
this.added('todos', id, fields);
},
changed: (id, fields) => {
fields = transformTodo(fields);
this.changed('todos', id, fields);
},
removed: (id) => {
this.removed('todos', id);
}
});
this.ready();
this.onStop(() => {
subHandle.stop();
});
});
Currently, you can't apply transforms on the server to published collections. See this question for more details. That leaves you with either transforming the data on the client, or using a meteor method. In a method, you can have the server do whatever you want to the data.
In one of my projects, we perform our most expensive query (it joins several collections, denormalizes the documents, and trims unnecessary fields) via a method call. It isn't reactive, but it greatly simplifies our code because all of the transformation happens on the server.
To extend #Christian Fritz answer, with Reactive Solution using peerlibrary:reactive-publish
Meteor.publish("todos", function() {
const self = this;
return this.autorun(function(computation) {
// Loop over each document in collection
todo.find().forEach(function(entry) {
// Add function to transform / modify each document here
self.added("todos", entry._id, entry);
});
});
});

Can I prevent Firebase set() from overwriting existing data?

If I do this, all is good with my itemRef:
itemRef.child('appreciates').set(newFlag);
itemRef.child('id').set(newId);
other properties of itemRef remain BUT child_changed is called twice
If I do this:
itemRef.set({appreciates:newFlag,id:newId});
child_changed is called only once but my other properties are destroyed.
Is there a workaround besides the clumsy one of repopulating the entire reference object?
Thanks,
Tim
The Firebase update() function will allow you to modify some children of an object while leaving others unchanged. The update function will only trigger one "value" event on other clients for the path being written no matter how many children are changed.
In this example, you could do:
itemRef.update({appreciates:newFlag,id:newId});
Documentation for update() is here.
You can create a rule that will prevent overwrites if data already exists.
Reproduced here from Firebase docs Existing Data vs New Data
// we can write as long as old data or new data does not exist
// in other words, if this is a delete or a create, but not an update
".write": "!data.exists() || !newData.exists()"
Now .update takes care of it, you can change existing data or add new one without affecting the rest of data you already had there.
In this example, I use this function to set a product as sold, the product has other variables with data and may or may not have sold or sellingTime but it doesn't matter cos if it doesn't exist will create them and if it does, will update the data
var sellingProduct = function(id){
dataBase.ref('product/'+id).update({
sold:true,
sellingTime: Date.now(),
}).then (function(){
alert ('your product is flaged as sold')
}).catch(function(error){
alert ('problem while flaging to sold '+ error)
})
}
Though you can use update, you can also use set with merge option set to true:
itemRef.set({ appreciates:newFlag, id:newId }, { merge: true });
This will create a new document if it doesn't exists and update the existing if it does.
I've been trying to do this having a structure like the following:
The problem I was having was when running say set on specific fields such as name, description and date all of the other child nodes would then be removed with the following:
return (dispatch) => {
firebase.database().ref(`/gigs/${uid}`)
.set({ name, description, date })
.then(() => {
dispatch({ type: GIG_SAVE_SUCCESS });
Actions.home({ type: 'reset' });
});
};
Leaving only the name, description and date nodes but using the following the specific nodes are updated without removing the other child nodes i.e. members, image etc:
return (dispatch) => {
var ref = firebase.database().ref(`/gigs/${uid}`);
ref.child('name').set(name)
ref.child('description').set(description)
ref.child('date').set(date)
.then(() => {
dispatch({ type: GIG_SAVE_SUCCESS });
Actions.home({ type: 'reset' });
});
};

Resources