I have a plunker where I have a simple update-Method to update a recorcd. But when I add or update a property to the record, the whole record will be overwritten.
The Data
{
"org1" : {
"description" : "too lazy",
"name" : "Apple",
"website" : "http://www.apple.com"
},
"org2" : {
"name" : "Google",
"test1" : "test123",
"website" : "http://www.google.com"
}
}
update()
this.update = function() {
//var obj = new Organization('org2');
var obj = $firebaseObject(new Firebase('https://thefactorymess.firebaseio-demo.com/organizations/org2'));
obj.test1 = 'test123';
obj.$save().then(function() {
console.log('org new', obj);
});
};
Here is the plunker.
Can someone explain me this behavior?
The AngularFire $save() method indeed overwrites the current data at that location. It is implemented by calling the set() method of Firebase's JavaScript SDK, which does precisely that.
Since you're calling $save() immediately after creating the reference, the data hasn't been loaded from the Firebase servers yet. So you're creating an object with a single properties test1. When you then $save() that object to the server, you end up with an object with a single property there too.
If you only want to update some properties, you can call update().
var ref = new Firebase('https://thefactorymess.firebaseio-demo.com/organizations/org2');
ref.update({ test1: 'test123' });
This doesn't use AngularFire. But since AngularFire is built on top of the regular Firebase JavaScript SDK, they interoperate without problems.
Alternatively you could use AngularFire's $loaded() promise to wait for the object to have loaded completely. But that would lead to both a lot more code and pulling down data.
My rule of thumb is:
Only use AngularFire for binding things to the $scope. For everything else, use the Firebase JavaScript SDK.
Related
I want a function to be called whenever a new child is added to "chat". I know this can be done using "child_added" event. However, from that function, I want to modify the newly created child.
So suppose a new child "123456" is added to chat and I want to update the "123456" object in the DB. I think I could solve the problem if I somehow manage to get the key (in this case it's 123456) of the newly added object. Is there a way to achieve this?
That should do the trick:
ref.on('child_added', function(childSnapshot, prevChildKey) {
var key = childSnapshot.key;
...
});
You will find more info at:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/js/firebase.database.Query#on
u can also use firebase cloud functions as well by putting a trigger, so that this can be handled by server.
export const onNewChatTrigger = functions.database.ref('chat/{chatId}').onCreate(event => {
let key = event.params.chatId;
let data = event.data.val();
...
});
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 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.
I have no issues when using implicit updates (angelFire). However I need for some of my data use explicit updating. So I implemented angelFireCollection on the exact same ref I was using previously but despite the console.log explicitly saying that the read was granted and trying it with both with the onloadcallback and without, I don't get data directly into my assigned variable AND once the callback fires I get a strange looking object that DOES contain the data but not in the form I expect. My scope variable ends up with an empty collection. Never gets populated. Here is the code:
var streamController = function ($rootScope, $scope, $log, $location, angularFireCollection, profileService) {
//Wait for firebaseLogin...
$rootScope.$watch('firebaseAuth', init);
function init() {
if ($rootScope.firebaseAuth == false) {
return
};
var refUsers = new Firebase($rootScope.FBURL+'/users/'+$rootScope.uid);
$scope.profile = angularFireCollection(refUsers, function onload(snapshot) {
console.log(snapshot)
});
};
};
myApp.gwWebApp.controller('StreamController', ['$rootScope', '$scope', '$log', '$location', 'angularFireCollection', 'profileService',
streamController]);
}());
Here is what the console.log looks like ( ie; what snapshot looks like ):
>snapshot
T {z: R, bc: J, V: function, val: function, xd: function…}
Here is the earlier message before the snapshot was returned:
Firebase Login Succeeded! fbLoginController.js:16
FIREBASE: Attempt to read /users/529ccc5d1946a93656320b0a with auth={"username":"xxxxxxx#me.com","id":"529ccc5d1946a93656320b0a"} firebase.js:76
FIREBASE: /: "auth.username == 'admin'" firebase.js:76
FIREBASE: => false firebase.js:76
FIREBASE: /users firebase.js:76
FIREBASE: /users/529ccc5d1946a93656320b0a: "auth.id == $user" firebase.js:76
FIREBASE: => true firebase.js:76
FIREBASE:
FIREBASE: Read was allowed.
and finally the desired binding that ends up with an empty array: again from the console:
$scope.profile
[]
Anyone know what I could possibly be doing wrong?? This is like 5 lines of code. Frustrating.
I have put stops in angelFireCollection factory function and can see that the data is getting added to the collection in the callbacks inside that function but my binded variable never gets updated.
UPDATE
Ok experimenting with a plnkr. It seems that angularFireCollection EXPECTS your returning a LIST of items. The snapshot returns properly if you inspect snapshot.val() it will be whatever object structure was stored in firebase. IF you use angularFireCollection it does indeed bind to the variable HOWEVER it turns a non-list object into a garbled mess and you can not access the object user the normal dot operator. This is either a bug or it is a severe limitation of angularFireCollection which will cause me to revaluate how easily I can use firebase as the backend. I can't share my plnkr because it is accessing non-public data but tomorrow if i have time I will create a public firebase with an object store and demonstrate.
Ok. So it appears that indeed angularFireCollection is MEANT to be array based. Which is fine. It would be VERY helpful if the angularFire documentation was updated to make that clear. As such it is not an implicit vs explicit update technique.
For an explicit non-array based approach I have come up with the following code. Had I not been mislead by the documentation I would have gone down this path originally.
var MainCtrl = function($scope, angularFire) {
$scope.test = {};
var _url = 'https://golfwire.firebaseio.com/tmp';
var _ref = new Firebase(_url);
var promise = angularFire(_ref, $scope, 'implicit');
promise.then ( function(data){
$scope.explicit=angular.copy($scope.implicit );
});
}
You then work locally with the 'explicit' copy and when ready just update the 'implicit' by assigning: $scope.implicit = $scope.explicit.
Here is a plnkr: http://plnkr.co/edit/bLJrL1
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