I set up the aggregation rule:
{{ object.experienceId }}
on a notification feed in getstream.io expecting it to aggregate based on the object.experienceId, but instead it seems to aggregate everything into one, regardless of object.experienceId. Am I mis-understanding how aggregation works? What could be the issue?
var activity = {
time: new Date(),
verb: 'created',
actor: { id: 1, name: 'User One' },
object: {
id: 2,
experienceId: 12,
caption: 'Moment 1',
photo:
{ id: '314e00a2-2455-11e5-b696-feff819cdc9f',
mainColor: 'ff3333',
width: 1000,
height: 400 },
createdBy: {
id: 1, name: 'User One'
},
type: 'Moment' },
context: 'http://derbyapp.co'
};
notifications.addActivity(activity,
The reason why this is not working is because the object field is expected to be a string (http://getstream.io/docs/#add-remove-activities), thus within the aggregation rule you can not reference properties of activities object field. There are multiple solutions to this problem.
First you could supply the experienceId as a separate property of the activity object, so you can use the aggregation template {{ experienceId }}, since all the additional properties provided to an activity can be used in the aggregation rule (http://getstream.io/docs/#aggregated-feeds).
Second you could supply an object on any additional field of the activity, for instance item. Additional fields can reference their child properties thus you could use aggregation rule {{ item.experienceId }}. But beware not to send data to the getstream.io API that is not actually needed at getstream.io's end, in this example you could also send the object's id field, instead of the entire object, and retrieve the object from your local database once you retrieve activities from the API (The same holds for the actor field). If you do not want to take care of the logic needed for this you could use one of getstream's integration libraries (there are libraries for rails/django/laravel etc.).
var activity = {
time: new Date(),
verb: 'created',
actor: 1,
object: '1',
experienceId: 12
};
Related
I'm using collection2 and I'm trying to get it to handle validation is a specific way. I have a profile schema which looks kind of like this:
Schema.UserProfile = new SimpleSchema({
name: {
type: String,
optional: false
}
location: {
type: String,
optional: true
}
gender: {
type: String,
optional: false
}
});
Schema.User = new SimpleSchema({
username: {
type: String,
optional: true
},
emails: {
type: Array,
optional: true
},
"emails.$": {
type: Object
},
"emails.$.address": {
type: String,
regEx: SimpleSchema.RegEx.Email
},
"emails.$.verified": {
type: Boolean
},
createdAt: {
type: Date
},
profile: {
type: Schema.UserProfile,
optional: true
},
services: {
type: Object,
optional: true,
blackbox: true
},
roles: {
type: [String],
optional: true
},
heartbeat: {
type: Date,
optional: true
}
});
Meteor.users.attachSchema(Schema.User);
Now, on my registration form I'm requiring the user to select their gender and then later once they log in, users are presented with a separate form asking for their name and location. Here's the problem:
The registration form works and everything goes through with saving. When they try to save the internal form with location and name though I get an error:
Error invoking Method 'updateProfile': Gender is required [400]
I know it's happening because it's required in the schema but I've already obtained this information. How do I not require that? Or do I set up validation per form?
You have to add validation through jquery or you can use toaster for display the error on client side.
Read this also : link
I assume you use aldeed:autoform for your forms. When you use normal type in the form, all fields, even those already filled marked as mandatory have to be submitted. Two ways to fix this:
Dirty way: set hidden field with the prefilled value.
You can also set your form type as update as seen in the doc. This way, simple-schema will validate your newDoc already filled with your previous entries without screaming.
The solution number two is the one I use in most cases. This plus autoform's hooks give you enough flexibility to adapt to most use-cases you might encounter.
I don't know whether or not it is a more elegant solution, but we've stopped attaching simpleSchemas to documents in our current project.
We instead have different schemas in each collection's namespace, one for checking user input on insert, one on update, and and one to be used to fill defaultValue when inserting a new doc (which can be done either by the client or the server, in which case we don't check for input). We call .validate() or .clean() depending on what we want to do.
With clever use of the possibility to build schemas from array of schemas, we're not writing bigger schemas in the end (there's more of them though), but we have total control on when we check, and which fields are checked.
From the SimpleSchema docs:
Say you have a required key "friends.address.city" but
"friends.address" is optional. If "friends.address" is set in the
object you're validating, but "friends.address.city" is not, there is
a validation error. However, if "friends.address" is not set, then
there is no validation error for "friends.address.city" because the
object it belongs to is not present.
So the error happens because you're including profile on both forms and gender is not optional within profile. I can think of two ways to solve this:
Have additional objects under profile that are both optional and contain required fields for name/location on one (though it seems like location might be optional in both scenarios based on your code) and a required field for gender on the other. I don't particularly like this solution but it prevents needing form validation.
Use jQuery form validation (I use the package themeteorchef:jquery-validation) and make all your fields in profile optional.
It also looks like SimpleSchema accepts a function for the optional property, so you could use some custom logic there - maybe you get arguments or a context in that function that will allow you to do what you want?
Hope that helps!
I have an issue regarding collection2 with relationships and autoform.
I try to implement an 1:n relationship, where each object has exactly 1 objectType, while to each objectType multiple objects can be referred to.
My schema looks as follows:
// register collections
Objects = new Mongo.Collection('objects');
ObjectTypes = new Mongo.Collection('objectTypes');
// define schema
var Schemas = {};
Schemas.ObjectType = new SimpleSchema({ // object type schema
name: {
type: String
}
});
Schemas.Object = new SimpleSchema({ // object schema
type: {
type: ObjectTypes.Schema,
optional: true
},
title: {
type: String
}
});
// attach schemas
ObjectTypes.attachSchema(Schemas.ObjectType);
Objects.attachSchema(Schemas.Object);
My autoform looks like this:
{{> quickForm collection="Objects" id="insertTestForm" type="insert"}}
I actually would expect a select option field for my type attribute, however, a text input appears. Anyone knows why?
According to the documentation [1], it should be a select option field:
If you use a field that has a type that is a Mongo.Collection instance, autoform will automatically provide select options based on _id and name fields from the related Mongo.Collection. You may override with your own options to use a field other than name or to show a limited subset of all documents. You can also use allowedValues to limit which _ids should be shown in the options list.
[1] https://github.com/aldeed/meteor-collection2/blob/master/RELATIONSHIPS.md#user-content-autoform
EDIT
If I use
type: ObjectTypes,
instead of
type: ObjectTypes.Schema,
my app crashes, throwing the following error:
Your app is crashing. Here's the latest log.
/Users/XXX/.meteor/packages/meteor-tool/.1.1.3.ik16id++os.osx.x86_64+web.browser+web.cordova/mt-os.osx.x86_64/dev_bundle/server-lib/node_modules/fibers/future.js:245
throw(ex);
^
RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
Exited with code: 8
Your application is crashing. Waiting for file change.
Your type isn't "a Mongo.Collection instance" like the documentation says; it's a Schema. Try this:
Schemas.Object = new SimpleSchema({
type: {
type: ObjectTypes,
optional: true
},
...
Since nobody could help me solve this incident, I came up with an alternate solution:
// register collections
Objects = new Mongo.Collection('objects');
ObjectTypes = new Mongo.Collection('objectTypes');
// define schema
var Schemas = {};
Schemas.Object = new SimpleSchema({ // object schema
type: {
type: String,
optional: true,
autoform: {
return ObjectTypes.find().map(function(c) {
return{label: c.name, value: c._id}
});
}
},
// ...
});
// attach schema
Objects.attachSchema(Schemas.Object);
As u can see, I manually map the attributes I need from the objectTypes collection into the autoform attribute. Since it returns an array of objects, containing the label and value attributes, autoform will automatically render a select option.
I have a game built on Meteor framework. One game document is something like this:
{
...
participants : [
{
"name":"a",
"character":"fighter",
"weapon" : "sword"
},
{
"name":"b",
"character":"wizard",
"weapon" : "book"
},
...
],
...
}
I want Fighter character not to see the character of the "b" user. (and b character not to see the a's) There are about 10 fields like character and weapon and their value can change during the game so as the restrictions.
Right now I am using Session variables not to display that information. However, it is not a very safe idea. How can I subscribe/publish documents according to the values based on characters?
There are 2 possible solutions that come to mind:
1. Publishing all combinations for different field values and subscribing according to the current state of the user. However, I am using Iron Router's waitOn feature to load subscriptions before rendering the page. So I am not very confident that I can change subscriptions during the game. Also because it is a time-sensitive game, I guess changing subscriptions would take time during the game and corrupt the game pleasure.
My problem right now is the user typing
Collection.find({})
to the console and see fields of other users. If I change my collection name into something difficult to find, can somebody discover the collection name? I could not find a command to find collections on the client side.
The way this is usually solved in Meteor is by using two publications. If your game state is represented by a single document you may have problem implementing this easily, so for the sake of an example I will temporarily assume that you have a Participants collection in which you're storing the corresponding data.
So anyway, you should have one subscription with data available to all the players, e.g.
Meteor.publish('players', function (gameId) {
return Participants.find({ gameId: gameId }, { fields: {
// exclude the "character" field from the result
character: 0
}});
});
and another subscription for private player data:
Meteor.publish('myPrivateData', function (gameId) {
// NOTE: not excluding anything, because we are only
// publishing a single document here, whose owner
// is the current user ...
return Participants.find({
userId: this.userId,
gameId: gameId,
});
});
Now, on the client side, the only thing you need to do is subscribe to both datasets, so:
Meteor.subscribe('players', myGameId);
Meteor.subscribe('myPrivateData', myGameId);
Meteor will be clever enough to merge the incoming data into a single Participants collection, in which other players' documents will not contain the character field.
EDIT
If your fields visibility is going to change dynamically I suggest the following approach:
put all the restricted properties in a separated collection that tracks exactly who can view which field
on client side use observe to integrate that collection into your local player representation for easier access to the data
Data model
For example, the collection may look like this:
PlayerProperties = new Mongo.Collection('playerProperties');
/* schema:
userId : String
gameId : String
key : String
value : *
whoCanSee : [String]
*/
Publishing data
First you will need to expose own properties to each player
Meteor.publish('myProperties', function (gameId) {
return PlayerProperties.find({
userId: this.userId,
gameId: gameId
});
});
then the other players properties:
Meteor.publish('otherPlayersProperties', function (gameId) {
if (!this.userId) return [];
return PlayerProperties.find({
gameId: gameId,
whoCanSee: this.userId,
});
});
Now the only thing you need to do during the game is to make sure you add corresponding userId to the whoCanSee array as soon as the user gets ability to see that property.
Improvements
In order to keep your data in order I suggest having a client-side-only collection, e.g. IntegratedPlayerData, which you can use to arrange the player properties into some manageable structure:
var IntegratedPlayerData = new Mongo.Collection(null);
var cache = {};
PlayerProperties.find().observe({
added: function (doc) {
IntegratedPlayerData.upsert({ _id : doc.userId }, {
$set: _.object([ doc.key ], [ doc.value ])
});
},
changed: function (doc) {
IntegratedPlayerData.update({ _id : doc.userId }, {
$set: _.object([ doc.key ], [ doc.value ])
});
},
removed: function (doc) {
IntegratedPlayerData.update({ _id : doc.userId }, {
$unset: _.object([ doc.key ], [ true ])
});
}
});
This data "integration" is only a draft and can be refined in many different ways. It could potentially be done on server-side with a custom publish method.
What is the best way to exclude a field value from the data in Meteor when using Autoform, SimpleSchema, Collection2, etc? Say I have:
MySchema = new SimpleSchema({
password: {
type: String,
label: "Enter a password",
min: 8
},
confirmPassword: {
type: String,
label: "Enter the password again",
min: 8,
custom: function () {
if (this.value !== this.field('password').value) {
return "passwordMismatch";
}
}
}
});
... and I do not want to confirmPassword field persisted to the database, what is the best way to handle that? I assume using hooks, but if so where and how? Hopefully there is a way to just exclude one (or more) values without having to redefine the whole whole schema to say which to include and which to exclude. If I have 100 fields and want to exlcude 1, hopefullly the hook or whatever does not need the other 99 defiled too.
TIA
With autoform, you must use a method on the server side. Simply delete the field in the method code when you receive it at the server before inserting the document.
I've been struggling with this for a couple of hours and I can't find a good solution so maybe someone can shed a light on this.
I have a simple schema like this:
var groupschema = new SimpleSchema({
name: {
label: 'Name',
type: String
},
description: {
label: 'Description',
type: String
}
}
And I have another one:
var itemschema = new SimpleSchema({
name: {
label: 'Type:',
type: String
},
details: {
label: 'Details',
type: String
},
group: [groupschema] // <--- this is my main interest
}
If I use the above code sample AutoForm will generate an "inner form" which is quite cool actually for some puporse (e.g. for a contact to have an array of adresses or phone numbers) but for me I would like a drop-down select with the name of the group and when I click on the Insert/Update button (depending on the current form) I would like to add the whole group document to the inserted/updated item document as a subdocument.
Something like this will be inserted to the mongodb:
{
_id: the generated mongoid,
name: "This is a type",
details: "There are some thing to know about this type",
group:{
name: "Cool group",
description: "This is a really cool group"
}
}
The actual documents are far more complicated the above example is just an oversimplified version.
I've stopped writing this question yesterday and tried to do my own version.
My - half baked - solution is:
introducing a new field in the schema named groupselect (type string, autoform type: select)
populate it's contents with a Collection.find().map() lookup
groupselect: {
type: String,
label: 'Group',
optional: true,
blackbox: true,
autoform:{
type: "select",
options : function() {
return Issuegroup.find().map(function (c) {
return {label: c.name , value: c._id};
});
}
}
},
using autoform hooks before insert I assign the subdocument to the real fiel group = Group.find({_id:doc.groupselect}) and I remove the helper field from the doc
using the same technique in the before update hook also for an update form
The problem I seem to be unable to solve in a clean way is to set the default value of the helper field 'groupselect' when the update form displays. I've tried the docToForm hooks but no luck.
Isn't this somehow a very common problem? I imagine there has to be a proper solution for this so I bet that I am missing something very obvious and hopefully someone will point it out for me.
Thanks