I need a help for while creating the collection the below error is came in server console.How to solve the error ?
Error:
Warning: creating anonymous collection. It will not be saved or synchronized over the network. (Pass null for the collection name to turn off this warning.)
TLDR: you need to provide a collection name as an argument when you create a shared collection.
In most cases, you want to provide a name as a parameter when you define a collection:
Docs = new Meteor.Collection('docs');
When you don't, you create anonymous collection:
Items = new Meteor.Collection();
In the first case, the collection is shared and synchronized between client and server, and the name you've provided is used as a table name in order to store the collection in Mongo.
Anonymous collections are local in the place they've been created. Their contents are never synchronized. Therefore, even if you create such collection in a piece of code that will be run on the server and on the client, those two collections will be separate things: data created on the server won't be visible on client, data created on the client won't be visible on server, and both won't be stored in the database.
There are legitimate use cases for anonymous collections, mostly on the client side when you need to create some temporary data, but want to retain all the benefits of Minimongo and reactivity. However, it's one of those things that are needed rarely and you really do know when you need to do it. It's more probable that a beginner made a mistake and forget to provide the collection name when he wanted to create a typical shared collection. Therefore, the system issues a warning to make sure that you really wanted to do what you just did.
Therefore:
If your goal was to create an anonymous collection, and you know what you're doing, don't worry about that message. It's just a warning, the code will be functional and do what it's told to.
If you wanted to create a normal collection, or are just starting out and don't know what's this all about, just add a parameter to your collection definition.
Related
I have an app using React + Redux and coupled with Firebase for the backend.
Often times, I will want to add some new attributes to existing objects.
When doing so, existing objects won't get the attribute until they're modified with the new version of the app that handles those new attributes.
For example, let's say I have a /categories/ node, in there I've got objects such as this :
{
name: "Medical"
}
Now let's say I want to add an icon field with a default of "
Is it possible to update all categories at once so that field always exists with the default value?
Or do you handle this in the client code?
Right now I'm always testing the values to see if they're here or not, but it doesn't seem like a very good way to go about it. I'd like to have one place to define defaults.
It seems like having classes for each object type would be interesting but I'm not sure how to go about this in Redux.
Do you just use the reducer to turn all categories into class instances when you fetch them for example? I'm worried this would be heavy performance wise.
Any write operation to the Firebase Database requires that you know the exact path to the node that you're writing.
There is no built-in operation to bulk update nodes with a path that is only partially known.
You can either keep your client-side code robust enough to handle the missing properties, or you can indeed run a migration script to add the new property to each relevant node. But since that script will have to know the exact path of each node to write, it will likely first have to read/query the database to determine those paths. Depending on the number of items to update, it could possibly use multi-location updates after that to update multiple nodes in one call. E.g.
firebase.database().ref("categories").update({
"idOfMedicalCategory/icon": "newIconForMedical",
"idOfCommercialCategory/icon": "newIconForCommercial"
"idOfTechCategory/icon": "newIconForTech"
})
I am writing an application which communicates with an API and stores the response in a Meteor Collection so I can have the power of mongo to sort/filter.
I would like to clear the collection for every new result set. But a Meteor Collection is persistent.
What is the preferred way of clearing the collection? I know you can drop the meteor collection, but is that the preferred method?
Help appreciated. Thank you!
I would go about creating a local mongo collection which will be available on client side only. To create a client-side collection, just don't give it a name argument.
//This collection is client-only, and will not be sync with server
myCollection = new Mongo.Collection();
//To be more explicit, you can use `null` for the name:
myCollection = new Mongo.Collection(null);
Once you are done using the data empty the collection
myCollection.remove({});
myCollection.remove({}) is the syntax for removing all documents from a collection. This will only work on the server unless the collection is a client-side collection as per #Nakib's example. Otherwise documents can only be deleted by _id on the client side. Normally your allow/deny rules should block any attempt to delete anything on the client as it provides a great attack vector.
Not completely familiar with the Meteor best practice but if you were going to clear out an array in javascript the best practice would be to run the following.
myArrary.length = 0;
For more information I recommend this blog post by David Walsh where he details the reasoning behind zeroing out an array as follows:
Setting the length equal to zero empties the existing array, not
creating another array! This helps you to avoid pointer issues with
arrays as well.
What to do when I want to make changes on my data Collection but I do not want to persist it? In other words, I want to make changes on minimongo, locally, but I do not want to spread it to world.
Use _collection.
MyCollection = new Meteor.Collection('my-collection');
// Subscribe as you see fit
Meteor.subscribe('my-publication');
// Now, to make updates locally you can access the documents in the collection without
// making any calls to the sever.
MyCollection._collection.insert({key:value});
MyCollection._collection.update({key:value}, {key:value});
Works with the usual mini-mongo operations.
This is undocumented and might change in future releases of Meteor without notice.
According to the docs, we can create a Collection and set its name as null. It will create an unmanaged (unsynchronized) local collection.
Unfortunately, it seems to not be possible to make local changes in synchronized collections.
You can create what I call a "local mirror" of a shared collection. Here's a gist with baisc functionality: https://gist.github.com/belisarius222/4715531
The idea is that you wire up a new local collection (new Meteor.Collection(null)) so that any change in the shared collection gets applied to the local collection too.
I have an existing web application that uses EF and POCO objects. I want to improve the client experience by exposing some of my objects through WCF(JSON). I have this working fine but where I am unsure is how to handle derived objects(not sure if that is the correct term) or IEnumerable anonymous objects if you will.
Let's say I have 3 tables structured like so:
Templates
ID
Template
Groups
ID
Group
Instances
ID
TemplateID
GroupID
This is obviously a one-to-many type relationship. I have my navigation properties setup correctly and getting strongly typed object properties works great. However, how do I send serialized anonymous type object(s) over the wire. Like an object that sends all instances that are equal to groupid=1 and include the names of the template and the object.
Am I missing something or do I have to create another class object for WCF that would look like this:
WCF Object
InstanceID
TemplateID
TemplateName
GroupID
GroupName
I guess I could alter my tables to account for this but that seems wrong too. I know that IEnumerable objects can't be serialized and I know that throw away objects are probably not the way to go either. I want to do this the right way but I am not sure how to go about it.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Regards
Based on what you're doing, I'd suggest looking at OData with WCF Data Services. You state that you want to be able to send all instances where the groupid=1 - OData is great at this type of filtering.
If you're want to stick with your current approach and not use OData, then my first question is why are you sending back anonymous types at all? You can do what you are seeking (all instances with a groupid=1) without sending back an anonymous type. In your select clause you just create new instances of your concrete objects rather than newing up anonymous types. If your query is really just filtering and not executing any meaningful projection with the selct to anonymous type, then I don't see any reason to send back your anonymous type at all.
Is it possible to store instances of a class in a cookie or in shared objects.
Basically in my application I have an object "Diagram" that the user can create. If they hit save, I want to store the current instance as a cookie and allows them to reload it later.
Alternatively, I could see about getting them to store the saved version on the hard disk. But even then, all I want to save and retreive is my actionscript object.
Is this possible?
I've tried storing the object to SharedObject.data.diag, but when I try to retrieve the object from the cookie doing SharedObject.data.diag as Diag returns null.
http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/9780596529857/chapter/ch17.pdf
Page 10: Serialize typed objects.
You may have issues with deep cloning if you have a complex class.