I have a mongo db collection named like "name.types". When I am creating model for the collection in loopback, I cannot enter the model name with the "." as it says special characters not allowed. So I created the model as "name_types". Now how can I connect this model to the collection "name.types"? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
You can set collection name in model.json file :
//model.json
...
"options": {
"validateUpsert": true,
"mongodb": {
"collection": "name_types"
}
},
....
You can define a different collection name for your existing model by passing an option in model definition, something like this
Post = db.define('Post', {
title: { type: String },
content: { type: String }
},
{
mongodb: {
collection: 'PostCollection', // Custom the collection name
}
});
You can do it from the model.json file or from a boot script.
Good Luck.. :)
Related
I am trying to query the database (Postgres) through Prisma. My query is
const products = await prisma.products.findMany({
where: { category: ProductsCategoryEnum[category] },
include: {
vehicles: {
include: {
manufacturers: { name: { in: { manufacturers.map(item => `"${item}"`) } } },
},
},
},
});
The error message is
Type '{ name: { in: { manufacturers: string; "": any; }; }; }' is not assignable to type 'boolean | manufacturersArgs'.
Object literal may only specify known properties, and 'name' does not exist in type 'manufacturersArgs'.ts(2322)
Manufacturers have the field name and it is unique; I am not sure why this is not working or how I can update this code to be able to query the database. It is like I should cast the values into Prisma arguments.
The TypeScript error is pretty self-explanatory: the name property does not exist in manufacturersArgs. The emitted Prisma Client does a great job of telling you what properties do and do not exist when filtering.
If you are trying to perform a nested filter, you need to use select instead of include.
Documentation: https://www.prisma.io/docs/concepts/components/prisma-client/relation-queries#filter-a-list-of-relations
Your query is going to look something like this:
const products = await prisma.products.findMany({
where: { category: ProductsCategoryEnum[category] },
select: {
// also need to select any other fields you need here
vehicles: {
// Updated this
select: { manufacturers: true },
// Updated this to add an explicit "where" clause
where: {
manufacturers: { name: { in: { manufacturers.map(item => `"${item}"`) } } },
},
},
},
});
The final code ultimately depends on your Prisma schema. If you are using an editor like VS Code, it should provide Intellisense into the Prisma Client's TypeScript definitions. You can use that to navigate the full Prisma Client and construct your query based on exactly what is and is not available. In VS Code, hold control [Windows] or command [macOS] and click on findMany in prisma.products.findMany. This lets you browse the full Prisma Client and construct your query!
The in keyword isn't working for me. I use hasSome to find items in an array. hasEvery is also available depending what the requirements are.
hasSome: manufacturers.map(item => `"${item}"`),
See https://www.prisma.io/docs/reference/api-reference/prisma-client-reference#scalar-list-filters
I have a RESTful service that accepts a custom query, like this:
/entities/User?actions=
{
"$link": {
"entityType": "Manager",
"entity": {
"name": "John Smith"
},
"linkName": "managers",
"backLinkName": "account",
"$set": {
"propertyName": "aclWrite",
"propertyValue": {
"$ref": {
"propertyName": "entityId"
}
}
}
}
}
Which simply means:
Create a new Entity of type User
Create a new Entity of type Manager with the field name, linking the User to be created to this Manager through link name "managers"
Then back-linking the Manager entity to be created to the User with a link name "account" and setting the Manager entity write ACL (Access Control List) to the ID of the User to be created.
I created this query structure because I can't find any suitable Query language that can seem to support such action/procedure.
The question here is are there any Query language that can support such compound action/procedure or can GraphQL handle such?
As a specification, GraphQL doesn't care what fields your schema defines, what arguments those fields take or what your field resolvers do with those arguments. So it's perfectly feasible to design a schema that would let the client compose an equivalent mutation:
mutation {
link(
entityType: "Manager"
entity: {
name: "John Smith"
}
linkName: "managers"
backLinkName: "account"
set: {
propertyName: "aclWrite"
propertyValue: {
ref: {
propertyName: "entityId"
}
}
}
) {
# some fields here to return in the response
}
}
GraphQL does not support references to other nodes inside the same query, so you would still probably want a single mutation whose input mirrored your existing API. That said, using GraphQL for this may still be preferable because of request validation, which is all the more important with complex requests like this. Having an IDE like GraphiQL or GraphQL Playground that lets you write your queries using autocomplete is a big plus too.
Learning FHIR and trying to implement with MEAN stack which uses MongoDb as database, I would like to seek your help on my question.
When I get the POST request for a new resource docment, I will insert it into MongoDB. Since the MongoDB will add the _id (object id) to the resources as a unique id. When I retrieve the document, it will have the extra field _id. I think it will make the resources not compliance any more since the _id is not defined in the resources.
May I know how to handle this issue? Will this extra _id matter in the FHIR resource?
Best regards,
Autorun
So, I'm also using MongoDB - along with mongoose - to implement FHIR in nodejs.
I've just added a field called id in the schema definition for mongoose like this
import mongoose from 'mongoose';
import shortid from 'shortid';
class resource extends mongoose.Schema {
constructor(schema) {
super();
this.add({
// just added this to make MongoDB use shortid
_id: { type: String, default: shortid.generate },
id: { type: {} },
id_: { type: {} },
implicitRules: { type: String },
implicitRules_: { type: {} },
language: { type: String },
language_: { type: {} },
...schema
});
}
}
export default resource;
and then _id field takes its value from the id when create/update a resource
my code for upserting a patient resource
upsert(root, params, context, ast) {
const projection = this.getProjection(ast);
if (!params.data.id) {
params.data.id = shortid.generate();
}
params.data.resourceType = 'Patient';
const upserted = model
.findByIdAndUpdate(params.data.id, params.data, {
new: true,
upsert: true,
select: projection
})
.exec();
if (!upserted) {
throw new Error('Error upserting');
}
return upserted;
}
yes, the _id will not be conformant. You can't change it to 'id'?
Perhaps you can take a look at the Spark server, which also uses a MongoDB to store the resources. In the Spark.Store.Mongo namespace you will see some helper methods to convert a Mongo BSONdocument to a FHIR resource.
My Mongoose schema:
// set up the schema
var CategorySubSchema = new Schema({
name: { type: String },
_category_main : { type: String, ref: 'CategoryMain' }
},
And my controller code:
CategorySub.create({
name : req.body.name,
_category_main : req.body.category_main
}, function(err, data){
An entry in my db:
{
"_id": "54dd163434d78ae58f6b1a69",
"name": "Snacks",
"_category_main": "54dcf4a71dfecb4d86ddcb87",
"__v": 0
},
So I used an underscore, because I was following an example. Does this mean anything to the database or is it just convention for references?
Also, instead of passing the entire JSON object in the request - req.body.category_main, why not just pass and id and change my schema to this?:
var CategorySubSchema = new Schema({
name: { type: String },
category_main_id : { type: String }
},
In short, Yes.
The below schema definition is an example of Manual references.
var CategorySubSchema = new Schema({
name: { type: String },
category_main_id : { type: String }
}
where,
you save the _id field of one document in another document as a
reference. Then your application can run a second query to return the
related data. These references are simple and sufficient for most use
cases.
In this case, we need to write explicit application code to fetch the referred document and resolve the reference. Since the driver that we use wouldn't know about the collection in which the referred document is present nor the database in which the referred document is present.
When you define the schema as below, this is an example of storing the details of the referred document .(Database references)
var CategorySubSchema = new Schema({
name: { type: String },
_category_main : { type: String, ref: 'CategoryMain' }
}
They include the name of the collection, and in some cases the
database name, in addition to the value from the _id field.
These details allow various drivers to resolve the references by themselves, since the name of the collection and the database(optional) of the referred document would be contained in the document itself, rather than we writing explicit application code to resolve the references.
So I used an underscore, because I was following an example. Does this mean anything to the database or is it just convention for
references?
Using underscore in the _id field is a valid naming convention, but mongoDb doesn't explicitly mention about the naming convention of other fields which are used to resolve references. You could just use any other field name as long as it conforms to this.
I am trying to insert nested documents in to a MongoDB using C#. I have a collection called categories. In that collection there must exist documents with 2 array, one named categories and one named standards. Inside those arrays must exist new documents with their own ID's that also contain arrays of the same names listed above. Below is what I have so far but I am unsure how to proceed. If you look at the code what I want to do is add the "namingConventions" document nested under the categories array in the categories document however namingConventions must have a unique ID also.
At this point I am not sure I have done any of this the best way possible so I am open to any and all advice on this entire thing.
namespace ClassLibrary1
{
using MongoDB.Bson;
using MongoDB.Driver;
public class Class1
{
public void test()
{
string connectionString = "mongodb://localhost";
MongoServer server = MongoServer.Create(connectionString);
MongoDatabase standards = server.GetDatabase("Standards");
MongoCollection<BsonDocument> categories = standards.GetCollection<BsonDocument>("catagories");
BsonDocument[] batch = {
new BsonDocument { { "categories", new BsonArray {} },
{ "standards", new BsonArray { } } },
new BsonDocument { { "catagories", new BsonArray { } },
{ "standards", new BsonArray { } } },
};
categories.InsertBatch(batch);
((BsonArray)batch[0]["categories"]).Add(batch[1]);
categories.Save(batch[0]);
}
}
}
For clarity this is what I need:
What I am doing is building a coding standards site. The company wants all the standards stored in MongoDB in a tree. Everything must have a unique ID so that on top of being queried as a tree it can be queried by itself also. An example could be:
/* 0 */
{
"_id" : ObjectId("4fb39795b74861183c713807"),
"catagories" : [],
"standards" : []
}
/* 1 */
{
"_id" : ObjectId("4fb39795b74861183c713806"),
"categories" : [{
"_id" : ObjectId("4fb39795b74861183c713807"),
"catagories" : [],
"standards" : []
}],
"standards" : []
}
Now I have written code to make this happen but the issue seems to be that when I add object "0" to the categories array in object "1" it is not making a reference but instead copying it. This will not due because if changes are made they will be made to the original object "0" so they will not be pushed to the copy being made in the categories array, at least that is what is happening to me. I hope this clears up what I am looking for.
So, based on your latest comment, it seems as though this is the actual structure you are looking for:
{
_id: ObjectId(),
name: "NamingConventions",
categories: [
{
id: ObjectId(),
name: "Namespaces",
standards: [
{
id: ObjectId(),
name: "TitleCased",
description: "Namespaces must be Title Cased."
},
{
id: ObjectId().
name: "NoAbbreviations",
description: "Namespaces must not use abbreviations."
}
]
},
{
id: ObjectId(),
name: "Variables",
standards: [
{
id: ObjectId(),
name: "CamelCased",
description: "variables must be camel cased."
}
]
}
]
}
Assuming this is correct, then the below is how you would insert one of these:
var collection = db.GetCollection("some collection name");
var root = new BsonDocument();
root.Add("name", "NamingConventions");
var rootCategories = new BsonArray();
rootCategories.Add(new BsonDocument
{
{ "id": ObjectId.GenerateNewId() },
{ "name", "Namespaces" },
{ "standards", new BsonArray() }
});
root.Add("categories", rootCategories);
//etc...
collection.Save(root);
Hope that helps, if not, I give up :).
So, I guess I'm confused by what you are asking. If you just want to store the namingConventions documents inside the array, you don't need a collection for them. Instead, just add them to the bson array and store them.
var categoriesCollection = db.GetCollection<BsonDocument>("categories");
var category = new BsonDocument();
var namingConventions = new BsonArray();
namingConventions.Add(new BsonDocument("convention1", "value"));
category.Add("naming_conventions", namingConventions);
categoriesCollection.Insert(category);
This will create a new document for a category, create an array in it called naming_conventions with a single document in it with an element called "convention1" and a value of "value".
I also am not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps if you posted some sample documents in JSON format we could show you the C# code to write documents that match that.
Alternatively, if you wish to discuss your schema, that could also be better done in the context of JSON rather than C#, and once a schema has been settled on then we can discuss how to write documents to that schema in C#.
One thing that didn't sound right in your original description was the statement "in that collection must exist 2 arrays". A collection can only contain documents, not arrays. The documents themselves can contain arrays if you want.
var filter = Builders<CollectionDefination>.Filter.Where(r => r._id== id);
var data = Builders<CollectionDefination>.Update.Push(f=>
f.categories,categoriesObject);
await _dbService.collection.UpdateOneAsync( filter,data);
Note: Make sure embedded document type [Categories] is array.