I'm new to web development and to meteor.
I've come by a problem.
I inserted some documents into a collection and am now trying to remove them but I can't succeed.
I used these lines to find/insert into a collection, they worked:
Cases.find();
Cases.insert({Case_Id:caseid, Product_type:prodtype, Machine_number:text});
Now, Im trying to remove a document (let's say one whose Case_Id = 12):
Template.main.events({
'click .rem_Case_But':function(){
Cases.remove({Case_Id:12});
}});
It wouldn't make any change.
I've also logged into the minimongo and tried to remove them manually. Was successful.
Do you have any idea?
P.S. I didn't use any allow/deny options at all.
From the remove section of the meteor docs:
Untrusted code can only remove a single document at a time, specified by its _id.
"Untrusted code" means code executed on the client - so in your case you'd need to do:
var c = Cases.findOne({Case_Id: 12});
if (c) {
Cases.remove(c._id);
}
Related
My application use keywords extensively, everything is tagged with keywords, so whenever use wants to search data or add data I have to show keywords in auto complete box.
As of now I am storing keywords in another collection as below
export interface IKeyword {
Id:string;
Name:string;
CreatedBy:IUserMin;
CreatedOn:firestore.Timestamp;
}
export interface IUserMin {
UserId:string;
DisplayName:string;
}
export interface IKeywordMin {
Id:string;
Name:string;
}
My main document holds array of Keywords
export interface MainDocument{
Field1:string;
Field2:string;
........
other fields
........
Keywords:IKeywordMin[];
}
But problem is auto complete reads data frequently and my document reads quota increases very fast.
Is there a way to implement this without increasing reads for keyword ? Because keyword is not the real data we need to get.
Below is my query to get main documents
query = query.where("Keywords", "array-contains-any", keywords)
I use below query to get keywords in auto complete text box
query = query.orderBy("Name").startAt(searchTerm).endAt(searchTerm+ '\uf8ff').limit(20)
this query run many times when user types auto complete search which is causing more document reads
Does this answer your question
https://fireship.io/lessons/typeahead-autocomplete-with-firestore/
Though the receommended solution is to use 3rd party tool
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/solutions/search
To reduce documents read:
A solution that come to my mind however I'm not sure if it's suitable for your use case is using Firestore caching feature. By default, firestore client will always try to reach the server to get the new changes on your documents and if it cannot reach the server, it will reach to the cached data on the client device. you can take advantage of this feature by using the cache first and reach the server only when you want. For web application, this feature is disabled by default and you can enable it like in
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/enable-offline
to help you understand this feature more check this article:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/enable-offline
I found a solution, thought I would share here
Create a new collection named typeaheads in below format
export interface ITypeAHead {
Prefix:string;
CollectionName:string;
FieldName:string;
MatchingValues:ILookupItem[]
}
export interface ILookupItem {
Key:string;
Value:string;
}
depending on the minimum letters add either 2 or 3 letters to Prefix, and search based on the prefix, collection and field. so most probably you will end up with 2 or 3 document reads for on search.
Hope this helps someone else.
I am working on sensenet API. I faced an issue with setPermission on sensenetAPI security.
As per concern, when I create a document I would like to give See, open, Save and RunApplication permission as a default for newly created document to the user(User is taken from the function parameter).
To achieve this I use below code
public static void SetCollabUserSecurity(string myUserEmailId, Node myNodetToSetSecurity)
{
var domainName = "Builtin";
var strUsername = GetNameFromEmail(myUserEmailId);
User user;
using (new SystemAccount())
{
user = User.Load(domainName, strUsername);
if (user != null && user.Enabled)
{
var myUser = user;
myNodetToSetSecurity.Security.SetPermission(myUser, true, PermissionType.See,
PermissionValue.Allow);
myNodetToSetSecurity.Security.SetPermission(myUser, true, PermissionType.Open,
PermissionValue.Allow);
myNodetToSetSecurity.Security.SetPermission(myUser, true, PermissionType.Save,
PermissionValue.Allow);
myNodetToSetSecurity.Security.SetPermission(myUser, true, PermissionType.RunApplication,
PermissionValue.Allow);
}
}
}
While I am using this function, my process for creating document becomes time consuming. It takes around 40 second time for execution.
So in case of, if I would like to share the same newly created document with multiple users, lets say there are 3 user and I want to give the above permission to all of them then my single function call takes 120 second (2 minute) time to simply assign permission.
Is there any Odata REST API call available or any sensenet library call available through which I can assign...
1) multiple permission to multiple user for single document or
2) multiple permission to single user for single document
Can anyone help to come out from this issue?
Thanks!
C# api
On the server there is a c# api for managing permissions, please check this article for details. You may use the AclEditor class for setting multiple permissions in one round. Please note that you have to call the Apply method at the end to actually perform the operation.
// set permissions on folder1, folder2 and file1 for two users and a group
SecurityHandler.CreateAclEditor()
.Allow(folder1.Id, user1.Id, false, PermissionType.Open, PermissionType.Custom01)
.Allow(folder2.Id, user2.Id, false, PermissionType.Open)
.Allow(file1.Id, editorsGroup.Id, false, PermissionType.Save)
.Apply();
As a side note: in most cases it is better to work with groups than users when assigning permissions. So it is advisable to give permissions to a group and put users into the group as members instead of assigning permissions to users directly.
Also: it is easier to maintain a simpler security structure, for example if you assign a permission on the parent container (e.g. a folder) instead of on individual files. Of course if you have to set permission per file, then it is fine.
OData api
The same api is available from the client through the REST api. Please take a look at the SetPermissions action in this article or the similar api in the JavaScript client library of sensenet.
I'd like to use the utilities:avatar package, but I'm having some major reservations.
The docs tell me that I should publish my user data, like this:
Meteor.publish("otherUserData", function() {
var data = Meteor.users.find({
}, {
fields : {
"services.twitter.profile_image_url_https" : true,
"services.facebook.id" : true,
"services.google.picture" : true,
"services.github.username" : true,
"services.instagram.profile_picture" : true
}
});
return data;
});
If I understand Meteor's publish/subscribe mechanism correctly, this would push these fields for the entire user database to every client! Clearly, this is not a sustainable solution. Equally clearly, however, either I am doing something wrong, or I am understanding something wrong.
Also: This unscalable solution works fine in a browser, but no avatar icons are visible when the app is deployed to a mobile device, for some reason.
Any ideas?
Separate the issue of which fields to publish from which users you want to publish data on.
Presumably you want to show avatars for other users that the current user is interacting with. You need to decide what query to use in
Meteor.users.find(query,{fields: {...}});
so that you narrow down the list from all users to just pertinent ones.
In my app I end up using reywood:publish-composite to publish the users that are related to the current user via an intermediate collection.
The unscalability of utilities:avatar seems, as far as I can tell, to be a real issue, and there isn't much to be done about it except to remove utilities:avatar and rewrite the avatar URL-fetching code by hand.
As for the avatars not appearing on mobile devices, the answer was simply that we needed to grant permission to access remote URLs in mobile-config.js, like this:
App.accessRule("http://*");
App.accessRule("https://*");
I am new to firebase and I am having a bit of a nightmare trying to adapt old code to what is now deprecated and what is not. I am trying to write a function which updates one "single" record in my datasource using the now approved $save()promise but it is doing some really strange stuff to my data source.
My function (should) enables you to modify a single record then update the posts json array. However, instead of doing this, it deletes the whole datasource on the firebase server and it is lucky that I am only working with testdata at this point because everything would be gone.
$scope.update = function() {
var fb = new Firebase("https://mysource.firebaseio.com/Articles/" + $scope.postToUpdate.$id);
var article = $firebaseObject(ref);
article.$save({
Title: $scope.postToUpdate.Title,
Body: $scope.postToUpdate.Body
}).then(function(ref) {
$('#editModal').modal('hide');
console.log($scope.postToUpdate);
}, function(error) {
console.log("Error:", error);
});
}
Funnily enough I then get a warning in the console "after" I click the button:
Storing data using array indices in Firebase can result in unexpected behavior. See https://www.firebase.com/docs/web/guide/understanding-data.html#section-arrays-in-firebase for more information. Also note that you probably wanted $firebaseArray and not $firebaseObject.
(No shit?) I am assuming here that $save() is not the right call, so what is the equivalent of $routeParams/$firebase $update()to do a simple binding of the modified data and my source? I have been spending hours on this and really don't know what is the right solution.
Unless there's additional code that you've left out, your article $firebaseObject should most likely use the fb variable you created just before it.
var article = $firebaseObject(fb);
Additionally, the way in which you're using $save() is incorrect. You need to modify the properties on the $firebaseObject directly and then call $save() with no arguments. See the docs for more.
article.Title = $scope.postToUpdate.Title;
article.Body = $scope.postToUpdate.Body;
article.$save().then(...
I am trying to create a two column unique index on the underlying mongodb in a meteor app and having trouble. I can't find anything in the meteor docs. I have tried from the chrome console. I have tried from term and even tried to point mongod at the /db/ dir inside .meteor . I have tried
Collection.ensureIndex({first_id: 1, another_id: 1}, {unique: true}); variations.
I want to be able to prevent duplicate entries on a meteor app mongo collection.
Wondering if anyone has figured this out?
I answered my own question, what a noob.
I figured it out.
Start meteor server
Open 2nd terminal and type meteor mongo
Then create your index...for example I did these for records of thumbsup and thumbsdown type system.
db.thumbsup.ensureIndex({item_id: 1, user_id: 1}, {unique: true})
db.thumbsdown.ensureIndex({item_id: 1, user_id: 1}, {unique: true})
Now, just gotta figure out a bootstrap install setup that creates these when pushed to prod instead of manually.
Collection._ensureIndex(index, options)
Searching inside Meteor source code, I found a bind to ensureIndex called _ensureIndex.
For single-key basic indexes you can follow the example of packages/accounts-base/accounts_server.js that forces unique usernames on Meteor:
Meteor.users._ensureIndex('username', {unique: 1, sparse: 1});
For multi-key "compound" indexes:
Collection._ensureIndex({first_id:1, another_id:1}, {unique: 1});
The previous code, when placed on the server side, ensures that indexes are set.
Warning
Notice _ensureIndex implementation warning:
We'll actually design an index API later. For now, we just pass
through to Mongo's, but make it synchronous.
According to the docs "Minimongo currently doesn't have indexes. This will come soon." And looking at the methods available on a Collection, there's no ensureIndex.
You can run meteor mongo for a mongo shell and enable the indexes server-side, but the Collection object still won't know about them. So the app will let you add multiple instances to the Collection cache, while on the server-side the additional inserts will fail silently (errors get written to the output). When you do a hard page refresh, the app will re-sync with server
So your best bet for now is probably to do something like:
var count = MyCollection.find({first_id: 'foo', another_id: 'bar'}).count()
if (count === 0)
MyCollection.insert({first_id: 'foo', another_id: 'bar'});
Which is obviously not ideal, but works ok. You could also enable indexing in mongodb on the server, so even in the case of a race condition you won't actually get duplicate records.
The Smartpackage aldeed:collection2 supports unique indices, as well as schema-validation. Validation will both occure on server and client (reactivly), so you can react on errors on the client.
Actually why not use upsert on the server with a Meteor.method and you could also send also track it with a ts:
// Server Only
Meteor.methods({
add_only_once = function(id1,id2){
SomeCollection.update(
{first_id:id1,another_id:id2},{$set:{ts:Date.now()}},{upsert:True});
}
});
// Client
Meteor.call('add_only_once',doc1._id, doc2._id);
// actual code running on server
if(Meteor.is_server) {
Meteor.methods({
register_code: function (key,monitor) {
Codes.update({key:key},{$set:{ts:Date.now()}},{upsert:true});
}
...