Env: Titanium 3.1.3, Alloy 1.2.2.
I'm using the following adapter for persistence on the models/collections: https://github.com/viezel/napp.alloy.adapter.restapi
I have an API that has a different URL structure for a collection than it does a single model. Consider the following:
To get a single record: [GET] /files/:id
To get all the files for a user: [GET] /users/:id/files
I have the following schema for files.js:
exports.definition = {
config: {
"URL": "https://my.api.here/files",
//"debug": 1,
"adapter": {
"type": "restapi",
"collection_name": "files",
"idAttribute": "id"
}
},
extendModel: function(Model) {
_.extend(Model.prototype, {});
return Model;
},
extendCollection: function(Collection) {
_.extend(Collection.prototype, {
initialize: function(){
this.url = "http://my.api.here/users/"+this.user_id+"/files";
}
});
return Collection;
}
}
What I'm trying to do in the above is override the collection initialize method to change the URL structure for the collection. I then call this accordingly:
var currentUserFiles = Alloy.createCollection("files", {user_id:"12345"});
currentUserFiles.fetch({
success: function(files){
console.log("Woo! Got the user's files!");
console.log(JSON.stringify(files.models));
},
error: function(){
console.log("Nope");
}
});
This doesn't work. The fetch() method just continues to try to call /files. I've tried setting url as a property on the collection after it's created, that also don't work.
Ideally, I'd like to do this for both local instances as well as the singleton version of the collection.
So - the question is: can I utilize a different URL for a collection than I do for a model? Obviously, I don't want to just call /files and sort/filter client-side - that'd be a nightmare with a lot of records. What am I missing here?
It's a bit late but for anyone else that comes across this. I problem is where/how the url is specified for model and collection. The model needs a specific id (eg: primary key) passed into it because the model can only be one object. If you need more than one object, then use the collection. Hope this helps :)
extendModel : function(Model) {
_.extend(Model.prototype, {
url : function() {
return "http://my.api.here/users/"+this.user_id+"/files/"+ FILE_ID
},
});
return Model;
},
extendCollection : function(Collection) {
_.extend(Collection.prototype, {
url : function() {
return "http://my.api.here/users/"+this.user_id+"/files"
},
});
},
Related
In Meteor, one can add additional fields to the root-level of the new user document like so:
// See: https://guide.meteor.com/accounts.html#adding-fields-on-registration
Accounts.onCreateUser((options, user) =>
// Add custom field to user document...
user.customField = "custom data";
return user;
});
On the client, one can retrieve some data about the current user like so:
// { _id: "...", emails: [...] }
Meteor.user()
By default, the customField does not exist on the returned user. How can one retrieve that additional field via the Meteor.user() call such that we get { _id: "...", emails: [...], customField: "..." }? At present, the documentation on publishing custom data appears to suggest publishing an additional collection. This is undesired for reasons of overhead in code and traffic. Can one override the default fields for Meteor.user() calls to provide additional fields?
You have a couple of solutions that you can use to solve this.
Null Publication
Meteor.publish(null, function () {
if (this.userId !== null) {
return Meteor.users.find({ _id: this.userId }, { fields: { customField: 1 } });
} else {
return this.ready();
}
}, { is_auto: true });
This will give you the desired result but will also result in an additional database lookup.. While this is don't by _id and is extremely efficient, I still find this to be an unnecessary overhead.
2.Updating the fields the Meteor publishes for the user by default.
Accounts._defaultPublishFields.projection = { customField: 1, ...Accounts._defaultPublishFields.projection };
This has to be ran outside of any Meteor.startup blocks. If ran within one, this will not work. This method will not result in extra calls to your database and is my preferred method of accomplishing this.
You are actually misunderstanding the documentation. It is not suggesting to populate and publish a separate collection, just a separate publication. That's different. You can have multiple publications/subscriptions that all feed the same collection. So all you need to do is:
Server:
Meteor.publish('my-custom-user-data', function() {
return Meteor.users.find(this.userId, {fields: {customField: 1}});
});
Client:
Meteor.subscribe('my-custom-user-data');
I'm getting the error "_id is not allowed by the schema" when trying to use an autoform to update a collection via a ValidatedMethod.
As far as I can see from this example and the official docs there is no expectation for my schema to include the _id field, and I wouldn't expect to be updating the id from an update statement, so I have no idea why this error is happening.
If I switch from using the validated method to writing directly to the collection (with a schema attached to the collection that doesn't have the id in) everything works as expected, so I'm assuming the issue is with my the validate in my ValidatedMethod.
Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Template: customer-edit.html
<template name="updateCustomerEdit">
{{> quickForm
collection="CustomerCompaniesGlobal"
doc=someDoc
id="updateCustomerEdit"
type="method-update"
meteormethod="CustomerCompanies.methods.update"
singleMethodArgument=true
}}
</template>
Template 'code behind': customer-edit.js
Template.updateCustomerEdit.helpers({
someDoc() {
const customerId = () => FlowRouter.getParam('_id');
const instance = Template.instance();
instance.subscribe('CustomerCompany.get', customerId());
const company = CustomerCompanies.findOne({_id: customerId()});
return company;
}
});
Update Validated Method:
// The update method
update = new ValidatedMethod({
// register the name
name: 'CustomerCompanies.methods.update',
// register a method for validation, what's going on here?
validate: new SimpleSchema({}).validator(),
// the actual database updating part validate has already been run at this point
run( newCustomer) {
console.log("method: update");
return CustomerCompanies.update(newCustomer);
}
});
Schema:
Schemas = {};
Schemas.CustomerCompaniesSchema = new SimpleSchema({
name: {
type: String,
max: 100,
optional: false
},
email: {
type: String,
max: 100,
regEx: SimpleSchema.RegEx.Email,
optional: true
},
postcode: {
type: String,
max: 10,
optional: true
},
createdAt: {
type: Date,
optional: false
}
});
Collection:
class customerCompanyCollection extends Mongo.Collection {};
// Make it available to the rest of the app
CustomerCompanies = new customerCompanyCollection("Companies");
CustomerCompaniesGlobal = CustomerCompanies;
// Deny all client-side updates since we will be using methods to manage this collection
CustomerCompanies.deny({
insert() { return true; },
update() { return true; },
remove() { return true; }
});
// Define the expected Schema for data going into and coming out of the database
//CustomerCompanies.schema = Schemas.CustomerCompaniesSchema
// Bolt that schema onto the collection
CustomerCompanies.attachSchema(Schemas.CustomerCompaniesSchema);
I finally got to the bottom of this. The issue is that autoform passes in a composite object that represents the id of the record to be changed and also a modifier ($set) of the data, rather than just the data itself. So the structure of that object is along the lines of:
_id: '5TTbSkfzawwuHGLhy',
modifier:
{
'$set':
{ name: 'Smiths Fabrication Ltd',
email: 'info#smithsfab.com',
postcode: 'OX10 4RT',
createdAt: Wed Jan 27 2016 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)
}
}
Once I figured that out, I changed my update method to this and everything then worked as expected:
// Autoform specific update method that knows how to unpack the single
// object we get from autoform.
update = new ValidatedMethod({
// register the name
name: 'CustomerCompanies.methods.updateAutoForm',
// register a method for validation.
validate(autoformArgs) {
console.log(autoformArgs);
// Need to tell the schema that we are passing in a mongo modifier rather than just the data.
Schemas.CustomerCompaniesSchema.validate(autoformArgs.modifier , {modifier: true});
},
// the actual database updating part
// validate has already been run at this point
run(autoformArgs)
{
return CustomerCompanies.update(autoformArgs._id, autoformArgs.modifier);
}
});
Excellent. Your post helped me out when I was struggling to find any other information on the topic.
To build on your answer, if for some reason you want to get the form data as a single block you can use the following in AutoForm.
type="method" meteormethod="myValidatedMethodName"
Your validated method then might look something like this:
export const myValidatedMethodName = new ValidatedMethod({
name: 'Users.methods.create',
validate(insertDoc) {
Schemas.NewUser.validate(insertDoc);
},
run(insertDoc) {
return Collections.Users.createUser(insertDoc);
}
});
NB: The Schema.validate() method then requires an Object, not the modifier as before.
I'm unclear if there are any clear advantages to either method in general.
The type="method-update" is obviously the way you want to go for updating documents because you get the modifier. The type="method" seems to be the best way to go for creating a new document. It would likely also be the best option in most cases where you're not intending to create a document from the form data.
A design wonder in sails.js and waterline models.
I have a "bear" model and a "location" one. They hold a oneToMany association ("bear can have multiple location over time").
bear.js
module.exports = {
attributes: {
location: {
collection: 'location',
via: 'bear'
}
}
};
location.js
module.exports = {
attributes: {
timestamp: {
type: 'datetime',
required: true
},
bear: {
model: 'bear'
}
}
};
I'm trying to make a "oneToOne" association grabbing the last location of a bear (lastLocation), and wondering what's the best solution :
Trying to override ToJSON on bear, fetching last location (doesn't seem to work, because ToJSON is hardly synchronous so I can't make it wait for an asynchronous find)
Creating a real oneToOne relationship and adding a hook AfterCreate on location to update that "lastLocation" association ?
Override blueprint create on location ?
Override blueprint add on bear ?
Any other idea ?
Thanks =)
I think this is your answer here?
Creating a real oneToOne relationship and adding a hook AfterCreate on location to update that "lastLocation" association ?
You should create an additional attribute on bear called lastLocation:{model:'location'}, and automatically update that after each location is created on the associated bear. Their are otherways to do this, but if the last location is something that is read a lot, then this will probably be your best approach.
Now this is a little bit of opinion based as there would be many factors involved in your design to say for sure, but I think you will be fine using this approach.
Here is what I ended up with :
model/Bear.js - last location association
lastLocation: {
model: 'location'
}
model/Location.js - afterCreate hook
afterCreate: function(insertedLocation, callback) {
if(!insertedLocation.bear) {
return callback();
}
Bear.findOneById(insertedLocation.bear, function(err, bear) {
if(err) {
return callback(err);
}
Location.findOneById(bear.lastLocation, function(err, oldLastLocation) {
bear.lastLocation = insertedLocation.id;
bear.save(function(err) {
return callback(err);
});
});
});
}
the if(!insertedLocation.bear) test is the key
I repeated similar code inside afterUpdate hook
afterUpdate: function(updatedLocation, callback) {
if(!updatedLocation.bear) {
return callback();
}
Bear.findOneById(updatedLocation.bear, function(err, bear) {
if(err) {
return callback(err);
}
Location.findOneById(bear.lastLocation, function(err, oldLastLocation) {
bear.lastLocation = updatedLocation.id;
bear.save(function(err) {
return callback(err);
});
});
});
}
adding a test in order to prevent updating bear each time we update lastLocation
One could add some PublishUpdate() logic
I'm trying to access data passed from iron router in the javascript function
router.js
this.route('editOrganization', {
path: '/editOrganization',
waitOn: function() {
return [
Meteor.subscribe('organization', this.userId)
];
},
data: function() {
return Organizations.findOne();
}
});
now if I wanted to access a property of organization in html (editCompany.html) I can do the following
{{name}}
but how do I access that same property in the js file
Template.editOrganization.rendered = function() {
//how do I access name?
}
UPDATE:
so if I click a link to edit organization I can get the value via
this.data.name
However, if I reload the page (same url) it throws an error saying data is null.
It is accessible through the rendered function context.
Template.editOrganization.rendered = function() {
var name = this.data && this.data.name;
};
This is confusing for many people but you need to configure the router to actually wait for the subscriptions you returned with waitOn.
Router.onBeforeAction('loading')
You can read the author's explanation here:
https://github.com/EventedMind/iron-router/issues/554#issuecomment-39002306
I have an angular controller that calls a service. The service is responsible for returning data from a json file.
controller:
function projectController($scope, ajaxServices) {
$scope.projects = ajaxServices.getProjects();
}
service:
projectManagerApp.factory('ajaxServices', function ($http) {
return {
getProjects : function () {
$http.get('projects.json', { data: {} }).success(function (data) {
if (window.console && console.log) {
console.log("objects returned: " + data.length); // shows # of items
}
return data //nothing ng-repeated, no console errors.
})
// Exact same data from json file hard-coded, works fine
// when not commented out.
// return [{ "id": 1, "name": "Project 1 }, { "id": 2, "name": "Project 2" }]
}
}
});
html: ng-repeat="project in projects"
In the success function I can see the data returned in the console log but if I try to return the data the ng-repeat ul element on my page is empty. In the same service if I simply return the same data logged to the console hard coded (outside of the success function, of course it works just fine.
How can I return the data into the ng-repeat using my ajax call?
I'm just as new to Plunker as I am Angular but here is my attempt at a Plunk:
http://plnkr.co/edit/ALa9q6
$http is asynchronous, therefore the call to getProjects will return nothing. Using $q you can receive an instance to a promise which will receive the data when available.
Using $q
Here an example using $q:
http://plnkr.co/edit/U72oJblvrVEgYt2mTmU2?p=preview
Using $resource
Alternatively, you can use $resource especially if your server code is RESTful, which requires adding the following dependency in your scripts:
//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.1.4/angular-resource.js
This is a 1st review of your code to use $resource: http://plnkr.co/edit/tLOAaXZHdGgWOok3Sdc8?p=preview
But you can simplify and shrink it more to this:
http://plnkr.co/edit/pKO6k6GxJ1RlO8SNvqUo?p=preview
This is the new app.js file:
angular.module('app', ['ngResource'])
.factory('ProjectsService', ['$resource', function($resource) {
return $resource('projects.json');
}])
.controller('ProjectsController', ['ProjectsService', '$scope', function(ProjectsService, $scope) {
$scope.projects = ProjectsService.query();
}]);
Find more information about $resource here:
http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ngResource.$resource
You need to use $q. Example is here
$http performs asynchronously and may or may not be finished at any given point in time which is why your return statement dont work.
Use $q or simply handle the promise inside the controller:
Service:
projectManagerApp.factory('ajaxServices', function ($http) {
return {
getProjects : function () {
return $http.get('projects.json', { data: {} })
}
}
});
Controller:
function projectController($scope, ajaxServices) {
ajaxServices.getProjects().success(function (data) {
if (window.console && console.log) {
console.log("objects returned: " + data.length);
}
$scope.projects = data
});
}
Plunk
If you want data to be loaded before the page
Is loaded you can use 'resolve' property
For the module.
Have a look in the docs for details.