I am new to javascript and very new to Meteor. Is this code correct? I need to define a function which will take an array of values and insert them in a Meteor Collection "FooterButtons"?
Client code
replaceCollectionContents(['NO', 'B', 'YES']);
Both code
replaceCollectionContents = function (buttonsList) {
FooterButtons.remove();
for(i = 0; i < buttonsList.length; i++) {
FooterButtons.insert(buttonsList[i]);
}
};
You cannot directly insert a string to a collection. The insert method expects a document which is of type object.
Try this instead -
FooterButtons.insert({ text: buttonsList[i] });
Also, I notice that you are trying to clear your FooterButtons collection. Please note that you cannot clear a collection like this from the client side as it is considered untrusted code. From client side, you can only remove one document at a time, specified by its _id.
I would recommend you to use a method instead.
Meteor.methods({
replaceCollectionContents: function (buttonsList) {
// remove all existing documents in the collection
FooterButtons.remove({});
// insert new button documents into the collection
buttonsList.forEach(function (button) {
FooterButtons.insert({ text: button });
});
}
});
And call this method when needed
Meteor.call("replaceCollectionContents", ['NO', 'B', 'YES']);
Inside the method, note that I'm passing a {} selector to the remove method because for safety reasons, Meteor does not remove any documents if selector is omitted.
You can read more about remove in Meteor docs.
If I understand correctly, you need to seed data into FooterButtons collection, correct?
Put this code somewhere on your server folder:
buttonsList = ['NO', 'B', 'YES'];
if (FooterButtons.find().count() === 0) {
_.each(buttonsList, function(button) {
FooterButtons.insert({text: button});
});
}
Run meteor and check your mongodb FooterButtons collection. Let me know. I'll make explanation if this work
If you need to update, then update it:
FooterButtons.update({text:'B'}, {$set:{text:'Extra'}});
Related
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);
}
}));
I'd like if someon could clarify this point about subscriptions in Meteor.js:
as written in the docs the find() function returns a cursor, not the data, that needs to be fetched;
let's say I have a publish function:
Meteor.publish('pages', function() {
return Pages.find()
});
now let's say I need only the page with code: "one"; in a template helper I can fetch that document:
Template.mytemplate.helpers({
data: function() {
return Pages.find({code: "one"});
}
});
The question is: is correct to do this, or if I need only one document would be better to subscribe only that document? (something like:
Meteor.publish('page', function(code) {
return Pages.find({code: code})
});
)
I mean: does it changes something in terms of efficiency/performance?
Yes, it does change a lot. If you subscribe to the entire collection, then the entire collection will be send to the client and kept in sync with the server. So by all means, if you only need one document, and do not need to cache any of the other documents (e.g., for switching to a new document), then only subscribe to the one you need.
I'd like to create a method that returns the count of a generic collection.
Calling the method would look something like this:
Meteor.call('getCollectionCount', 'COLLECTION_NAME');
And the result would be the collection count.
The server method code would look something like this:
getCollectionCount: function (collectionName) {
return window[collectionName].find().count();
}
This won't work because window isn't defined on the server, but is something similar possible?
Use global instead of window.
Note that this uses the variable name assigned to the collection object, not the name given to the collection. For this to work with Meteor.users you need to assign another variable name.
if (Meteor.isServer) {
users = Meteor.users;
}
if (Meteor.isClient) {
Meteor.call('count', 'users', function (err, res) {
// do something with number of users
});
}
Also probably a good idea to check that global[collectionName] is actually a collection.
I came up with this code which makes the following assumptions :
collections are declared in the global scope as top level objects.
collections are searched by collection name, not the collection variable identifier.
So client code should declare their collections like this :
MyCollection=new Meteor.Collection("my-collection");
And use the function like this :
var clientResult=Meteor.call("getCollectionCount","my-collection",function(error,result){
if(error){
console.log(error);
return;
}
console.log("actual server-side count is : ",result);
});
console.log("published subset count is : ",clientResult);
The method supports execution on the client (this is known as method stub or method simulation) but will only yield the count of the collection subset replicated client-side, to get the real count wait for server-side response using a callback.
/packages/my-package/lib/my-package.js
getCollection=function(collectionName){
if(collectionName=="users"){
return Meteor.users;
}
var globalScope=Meteor.isClient?window:global;
for(var property in globalScope){
var object=globalScope[property];
if(object instanceof Meteor.Collection && object._name==collectionName){
return object;
}
}
throw Meteor.Error(500,"No collection named "+collectionName);
};
Meteor.methods({
getCollectionCount:function(collectionName){
return getCollection(collectionName).find().count();
}
});
As Meteor.users is not declared as a top level variable you have to account for the special case (yes, this is ugly).
Digging into Meteor's collection handling code could provide a better alternative (getting access to a collection handle by collection name).
Final words on this : using a method call to count a collection documents is unfortunately non-reactive, so given the Meteor paradigm this might be of little use.
Most of the time you will want to fetch the number of documents in a collection for pagination purpose (something like a "Load more" button in a posts list for example), and as the rest of the Meteor architecture you'll want this to be reactive.
To count documents in a collection reactively you'll have to setup a slightly more complicated publication as showcased in the "counts-by-room" example in the docs.
http://docs.meteor.com/#meteor_publish
This is something you definitely want to read and understand.
This smart package is actually doing it right :
http://atmospherejs.com/package/publish-counts
It provides a helper function that is publishing the counts of any cursor.
Keep track of the collections on some other property that the server has access too. You could even call it window if you really wanted to.
var wow = new Meteor.Collection("wow");
collections["wow"] = wow;
getCollectionCount: function (collectionName) {
return collections[collectionName].find().count();
}
If you don't want the package users to change how they work with collections in the app then I think you should use MongoInternals to get collections by name from the db. Not tested but here is an example:
//on server
Meteor.methods({
count: function( name ){
var db = MongoInternals.defaultRemoteCollectionDriver().mongo.db;
var collection = db.collection( name );
return collection && collection.count({});
}
});
Another example of MongoInternals use is here. Documentation of the count() function available from the mongo driver is here.
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);
});
});
});
I am using meteor and i am a bit confused about the relationship between publishing/subscribing to documents and querying/returning collections to a client using the handlebars #each items helper.
I understand that by publishing and subscribing to certain documents, i get the reactive updating on the client side browser when things change.
I find my self writing very complex (role oriented) publish functions and writing the equivalent to return items to the client. For example,
Meteor.publish("directory", function () {
var user = Meteor.users.findOne({_id:this.userId});
//role and logic left out on purpose
return Meteor.users.find({}, {fields:{emails:1, profile:1}});
});
and the subscribe
if (Meteor.userId() != null) {
Meteor.subscribe("directory");
}
Template is called show people and the helper 'users'
Template.show_people.users = function () {
users = Meteor.users.find({}).fetch();
return users;
};
My question is, are things supposed to be done this way?. Do we return our list helpers the same query we used for publish?
You can give a query cursor to the #each Handlebars function. In fact, it's recommended. In this manner, there will be a smart update of the DOM: when a document is added to the Cursor, Handlebars will only create new DOM nodes for that document, and not recreate the DOM nodes for the documents that were already present. This is not the case when you provide an array.
So that third piece of code can just be:
Template.show_people.users = function () {
return Meteor.users.find({});
};
Note also that a collection.find() done client-side will only look in the documents inside your miniMongo storage... you're not doing a search through the entire server database, but only through the documents that the server has published to you.
So that complex, role-oriented logic is only necessary inside your Meteor.publish() function.