It's my first time working with FireStore. I'm working on a ridesharing app with Flutter that uses Firebase Auth where users can create trips and offer rides similarly to BlaBlaCar, where other users can send requests to join a ride. I’m having difficulty not only deciding the potential collections and paths to use, but also how to even structure it.
For simplicity at this stage, I want any user to be able to see all trips created, but when they go to their “My Rides” page, they will only see the rides that they’ve participated in. I would be grateful for any kind of feedback.
Here are the options I’ve considered:
Two collections, “Users” and “Trips”. The path would look something like this:
users/uid and trips/tripsId with a created_by field
One collection of “Users” and a sub-collection of “Trips". The path seems to make more sense to me, which would be users/uid/trips/tripId but then I don't know how other users could access all the rides on their home feed.
I'm inclined to go with the first option of two collections. Also very open to any other suggestions or help. Thanks.
I want any user to be able to see all trips created, but when they go
to their “My Rides” page, they will only see the rides that they’ve
participated in
I make the assumption that participating in a ride is either being the author or being a passenger of the ride.
I would go for 2 collections: one for users and one for trips. In a trip document you add two fields:
createdBy with the uid of the creator
participants: an Array where you store the author's uid and all the other participants uids (passengers)
This way you can easily query for:
All the rides
All the rides created by a user
All the rides for which a user is a participant, using arrayContains.
(Regarding the limit of 1 MiB for the maximum size for a document I guess this is not a problem because the number of passengers of a ride shouldn't be so huge that the Array fields size makes the document larger than 1 Mib!)
Note that the second approach with subcollections could also be used since you can query with collections group queries but, based on the elements in your question, I don't see any technical advantage.
Related
Several questions address whether knowing a Firestore uid allows hackers to edit that person's data, like this question and this question. My question is about security rules to filter when users can read another's data.
Specifically, I have a social media app that allows people to post data anonymously. My data model is /users/{user}/posts/{post}. I use db.collectionGroup("posts") to build a timeline of posts, (some anonymous, others with users' names).
Posts that are not anonymous have a valid uid, so it wouldn't be tough for a hacker to figure out someone's uid, which I'm not concerned about. My concern is whether a hacker could then query usersRef.document(uid).posts.getDocuments(); to get all the posts of that user, including the anonymous ones?
Because my app builds timelines from users "posts" collection, I can't write a rule that they can't read another user's posts. Can I write a rule that they can only read posts with collectionGroup?
That's not going to be possible with the way things are structured now. Here's the way you write a rule to allow collection group queries, as described in the documentation
match /{path=**}/posts/{post} {
allow read: if ...condition...;
}
The path wildcard in the rule explicitly allows all reads for all collections named "posts". The rule does not limit the reads to only collection group queries - any normal collection query on any "posts" will be allowed.
Bear in mind also that a collection group query would not hide any data from the caller compared to a normal collection query. The query results will still contain a reference to the full path of each document, which includes the document uid in the path.
i am building a small web app with MERN, i have a collection that holds "name, email, password, avatar url, and date" and i am going to add to the users some info like a "bio, hobbies(array), "visited countries(array), and another array"
question is, should i create a diffrent model for the users info, and add owner field that refers to the other model?. or should i put all of them there,
also i might add the following and followers option in the future.
The user's info should be in the user collection, I could see there is no reason to have a separate collection for it. If you want to reduce the responses from listing users, you could use populate to remove unnecessary fields.
Regards to the following and followers, I think there are 2 approaches:
Adding a new field which used to store id and necessary metadata (name, avatar) of users to the existing collection
Create a new collection which is a combination of users and users they are following, or are followed. You then could use Virtual to get this information from the User collection.
Personally, I prefer the first approach although it requires more effort to maintain the list to be accurate. E.g remove an item out of the list when your follower stops following you.
What's the best way to get a list of documents based on another list of document ids?
If I have User and Profile objects.
Users have a single Profile
Users can save other users' profiles
The same profile can't be saved twice
The documents of the savedProfile sub collection are stored based on the uid of the user it belongs to. It also has an attribute of userRef which stores the uid of the user again. Given that savedProfiles is a list of uids. Is there a way to get a list of profiles based on the savedProfiles subcollection? Currently I am able to make a get request for a users saved profiles which returns a list of uids which I store in a variable. I'm just wondering how I would make the next request to get the full profiles of the savedProfiles based on that list? Saving the whole user profile in a users savedProfiles is also not an option since these profiles can be updated and changed quite frequently and it would be expensive to find and change each users saved profiles if that profile has been saved. (If there was 100,000 users with an average of around 10 saved profiles each).
Please tell me if there's a way to make this sort of query or if there's a better way to structure my data. Thanks.
Ok, so I think I managed to find a way. From my cloud function I used admin.firestore().getAll(refList). refList is an array of document references that I want. This returns a promise which gives a list of documents matching those references. The data for each document is accessible like normal with doc.data() I've either solved the problem, or I'm doing something very wrong. Feel free to comment and let me know if what I'm doing is okay. Thanks
I have two collections - Tickets and Users. Where a user can have one to many tickets. The ticket collection is defined as follows
Ticket = {_id, ownerId, profile: {name}}
The ownerId is used to find all tickets that belong to a specific person. I need to write a query that gets me all users with no tickets.
How can i write this query without having to loop through all users, checking if the userID shows up in any Tickets?
Would a bidirectional storage cause me any performance problems ? For example, if i were to change my users collection and add an array of tickets: [ticketID, ticketID2, ...]?
I'd go with the array of tickets being stored in users. As far as I know, Mongo doesn't really have a way to query one collection based on the (lack of) elements in another collection. With the array, though, you can simply do db.users.find({tickets:[]}).
I'm designing an application that processes RSS feeds using MongoDB. Currently my collections are as follows:
Entry
fields: content, feed_id, title, publish_date, url
Feed
fields: description, title, url
User
fields: email_address
subscriptions (embedded collection; fields: feed_id, tags)
A user can subscribe to feeds which are linked from the embedded subscription collection. From the subscriptions I can get a list of all the feeds a user should see and also the corresponding entries.
How should I store entry status information (isRead, isStarred, etc.) that is specific to a user? When a user views an entry I need to record isRead = 1. Two common queries I need to be able to perform are:
Find all entries for a specific feed where isRead = 0 or no status exists currently
For a specific user, mark all entries prior to a publish date with isRead = 1 (this could be hundreds or even thousands of records so it must be efficient)
Hmm, this is a tricky one!
It makes sense to me to store a record for entries that are unread, and delete them when they're read. I'm basing this on the assumption that there will be more read posts than unread for each individual user, so you might as well not have documents for all of those already-read entries sitting around in your DB forever. It also makes it easier to not have to worry about the 16MB document size limit if you're not having to drag around years of history with you everywhere.
For starred entries, I would simply add an array of Entry ObjectIds to User. No need to make these subscription-specific; it'll be much easier to pull a list of items a User has starred that way.
For unread entries, it's a little more complex. I'd still add it as an array, but to satisfy your requirement of being able to quickly mark as-read entries before a specific date, I would denormalize and save the publish-date alongside the Entry ObjectId, in a new 'UnreadEntry' document.
User
fields: email_address, starred_entries[]
subscriptions (embedded collection; fields: feed_id, tags, unread_entries[])
UnreadEntry
fields: id is Entry ObjectId, publish_date
You need to be conscious of the document limit, but 16MB is one hell of a lot of unread entries/feeds, so be realistic about whether that's a limit you really need to worry about. (If it is, it should be fairly straightforward to break out User.subscriptions to its own document.)
Both of your queries now become fairly easy to write:
All entries for a specific feed that are unread:
user.subscriptions.find(feedID).unread_entries
Mark all entries prior to a publish date read:
user.subscriptions.find(feedID).unread_entries.where(publish_date.lte => my_date).delete_all
And, of course, if you simply need to mark all entries in a feed as read, that's very easy:
user.subscriptions.find(feedID).unread_entries.delete_all