I have a collection that contains posts.
The post document contains a blurred and none-blurred image (blurredImage and image key in the document).
If the current user is the owner of the post or the current user has purchased the content the image key can be pushed to the client.
When this is not the case the image key cannot be pushed (because of security). Otherwise anyone could just query the local mongo and see the full image url, while they didn't pay for it.
Now my question is. What is the best way of doing this kind of field selection in a publish method?
I don't see a way to do a conditional field selection.
Anyone any ideas?
In your publication:
const user = Meteor.users.findOne(this.userId);
if (user.hasPermissionToViewImage) return Documents.find({}, { fields: image: 1, *everything else you need* });
return Documents.find({}, { fields: image: 0, *everything else you need* });
This is actually a bit tricky because the conditional needs to be evaluated on each image based on another field (the ownerId). However you can return an array of cursors in your publication, each with its own query criteria and field filters. In your case:
Meteor.publish('myPublication',()=>{
const ownedByMe = Posts.find({ ownerId: this.userId },{ fields: { image: 1, foo: 1, bar: 1 }});
const notOwnedByMe = Posts.find({ ownerId: { $ne: this.userId }},{ fields: blurredImage: 1, foo: 1, bar: 1 }});
return [ownedByMe,notOwnedByMe];
});
where foo and bar are keys that you want to return in either case.
#sdybskiy Note that you can't mix field inclusion and exclusion in one query. Inclusion implies that all other fields are excluded and vice-versa.
Related
I've recently started using MongoDB using Mongoose (from NodeJS), but now I got stuck updating a subdocument in an array.
Let me show you...
I've set up my Restaurant in MongoDB like so:
_id: ObjectId("5edaaed8d8609c2c47fd6582")
name: "Some name"
tables: Array
0: Object
id: ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b60")
status: "AVAILABLE"
1: Object
id: ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b61")
status: "AVAILABLE"
As you can see a restaurant can have multiple tables, obviously.
Now I would like to update the status of a table for which I know the _id. I also know the _id of the restaurant that has the table.
But....I only want to update the status if we have the corresponding tableId and this table has the status 'AVAILABLE'.
My update statement:
const result = await Restaurant.updateOne(
{
_id: ObjectId("5edaaed8d8609c2c47fd6582"),
'tables._id': ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b61"),
'tables.status': 'AVAILABLE'
},
{ $set: { 'tables.$.status': 'CONFIRMED' } }
);
Guess what happens when I run the update-statement above?
It strangely updates the FIRST table (with the wrong table._id)!
However, when I remove the 'tables.status' filter from the query, it does update the right table:
const result = await Restaurant.updateOne(
{
_id: ObjectId("5edaaed8d8609c2c47fd6582"),
'tables._id': ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b61")
},
{ $set: { 'tables.$.status': 'CONFIRMED' } }
);
Problem here is that I need the status to be 'AVAILABLE', or else it should not update!
Can anybody point me in the wright direction with this?
according to the docs, the positional $ operator acts as a placeholder for the first element that matches the query document
so you are updating only the first array element in the document that matches your query
you should use the filtered positional operator $[identifier]
so your query will be something like that
const result = await Restaurant.updateOne(
{
_id: ObjectId("5edaaed8d8609c2c47fd6582"),
'tables._id': ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b61"),
'tables.status': 'AVAILABLE'
},
{
$set: { 'tables.$[table].status': 'CONFIRMED' } // update part
},
{
arrayFilters: [{ "table._id": ObjectId("5ee277bab0df345e54614b61"), 'table.status': 'AVAILABLE' }] // options part
}
);
by this way, you're updating the table element that has that tableId and status
hope it helps
In our Mongoose model, we have a product referring to an article.
this is a piece of the schema:
const product = new Schema({
article_id: Schema.Types.ObjectId,
title: String,
description: String,
...
In the API we are looking for products that are referring to a list of specific articles, and I wanted to use the $in operator:
const articles = ["5dcd2a95d7e2999332441825",
"5dcd2a95d7e2999332441827",
"5dcd2a96d7e2999332441829"]
filter.article_id = {
$in: articles.map(
article => new mongoose.Types.ObjectId(article)
),
};
return Product.find({ ...filter })
This returns 0 records, whereas I know for sure it should have returned at least 3. Looking at the console log, all that has happened is that the double quotes have been removed from the array during the ObjectId conversion.
Then I tried a different approach by returning {$oid: "id goes here"} for each mapped array item:
const articles = ["5dcd2a95d7e2999332441825",
"5dcd2a95d7e2999332441827",
"5dcd2a96d7e2999332441829"]
filter.article_id = {
$in: articles.map(
article => ({$oid: article})
),
};
return Product.find({ ...filter })
This gives a different array:
console.log(filter);
// {article_id: {$in: [{$oid: "5dcd2a95d7e2999332441825"}, {$oid: "5dcd2a95d7e2999332441827"}, {$oid: "5dcd2a96d7e2999332441829"}]}}
But in this case I get following error:
CastError: Cast to ObjectId failed for value "\"{$oid: \"5dcd2a95d7e2999332441825\"}\"".
Though - if I take that particular console logged filter and pass it in Studio 3T as a filter, I do indeed get the desired results.
Any idea what I doing wrong in this case?
Frick me! I am just a big idiot.. Apparently there was a .skip(10) added after the find() method -.-'.... Now I understand why 0 records where returned... Been spending hours on this..
For future references, Mongoose casts strings to ObjectIds automatically if defined in Schema. Therefor following is working exactly as it should given you don't skip the first 10 records:
const articles = ["5dcd2a95d7e2999332441825",
"5dcd2a95d7e2999332441827",
"5dcd2a96d7e2999332441829"]
filter.article_id = {
$in: articles
};
return Product.find({ ...filter }) // Note that I DON'T put .skip() here..
I have a data like below in MongoDB.
const A = { uid: '1234',
works: [
{ name: 'car',
item:['tire','wheel']
},
{ name: 'ship',
item:['tire','wheel']
}
]
My goal is to find whether the name duplicated exists or not.
In conclusion, I want to get only the names.
So 'res.send(result)' gives me like '[car, ship]'.
But the code below doesn't work. How can I make that function? Thank you so much.
const workName = await User.findOne({
uid: userID, works:{$in:['name']}
});
The easy way is to find the aggregate of name and check if the count is greater than one. Since it is inside the the array we need to unwind it.
The below query works, to detect if a sub document contain duplicates for each document.
db.getCollection('collection_name').aggregate([{"$unwind":"$works"} ,{"$group":{"_id":{"name":"$works.name","uid":"$uid"},"count":{"$sum":1}}},{"$match":{"count":{"$gte":2}}}])
if you want to find in all the documents remove uid from _id of group.
I have a Collection that has documents with an array of nested objects.
Here is fixture code to populate the database:
if (Parents.find().count() == 0) {
var parentId = Parents.insert({
name: "Parent One"
});
Children.insert({
parent: parentId,
fields: [
{
_id: new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID(),
position: 3,
name: "three"
},
{
_id: new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID(),
position: 1,
name: "one"
},
{
_id: new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID(),
position: 2,
name: "two"
},
]
});
}
You might be asking yourself, why do I even need an ObjectID when I can just update based off of the names. This is a simplified example to a much more complex schema that I'm currently working on and the the nested object are going to be created dynamically, the ObjectID's are definitely going to be necessary to make this work.
Basically, I need a way to save those nested objects with a unique ID and be able to update the fields by their _id.
Here is my Method, and the call I'm making from the browser console:
Meteor.methods({
upChild: function( options ) {
console.log(new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID());
Children.update({_id: options._id, "fields._id": options.fieldId }, {$set: {"fields.$.position": options.position}}, function(error){
if(error) {
console.log(error);
} else {
console.log("success");
}
});
}
});
My call from the console:
Meteor.call('upChild', {
_id: "5NuiSNQdNcZwau92M",
fieldId: "9b93aa1ef3868d762b84d2f2",
position: 1
});
And here is a screenshot of the html where I'm rendering all of the data for the Parents and Children collections:
Just an observation, as I was looking how generate unique IDs client side for a similar reason. I found calling new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID() was returning a object in the form 'ObjectID("abc...")'. By assigning Meteor.Collection.ObjectID()._str to _id, I got string as 'abc...' instead, which is what I wanted.
I hope this helps, and I'd be curious to know if anyone has a better way of handling this?
Jason
Avoid using the _str because it can change in the future. Use this:
new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID().toHexString() or
new Meteor.Collection.ObjectID().valueOf()
You can also use the official random package:
Random.id()
I am creating a blog system in Node.js with mongodb as the db.
I have contents like this: (blog articles):
// COMMENTS SCHEMA:
// ---------------------------------------
var Comments = new Schema({
author: {
type: String
},
content: {
type: String
},
date_entered: {
type: Date,
default: Date.now
}
});
exports.Comments = mongoose.model('Comments',Comments);
var Tags = new Schema({
name: {
type: String
}
});
exports.Tags = mongoose.model('Tags',Tags);
// CONTENT SCHEMA:
// ---------------------------------------
exports.Contents = mongoose.model('Contents', new Schema({
title: {
type: String
},
author: {
type: String
},
permalink: {
type: String,
unique: true,
sparse: true
},
catagory: {
type: String,
default: ''
},
content: {
type: String
},
date_entered: {
type: Date,
default: Date.now
},
status: {
type: Number
},
comments: [Comments],
tags: [Tags]
}));
I am a little new to this type of database, im used to MySQL on a LAMP stack.
Basically my question is as follows:
whats the best way to associate the Contents author to a User in the
DB?
Also, whats the best way to do the tags and categories?
In MYSQL we would have a tags table and a categories table and relate by keys, I am not sure the best and most optimal way of doing it in Mongo.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!!
Couple of ideas for Mongo:
The best way to associate a user is e-mail address - as an attribute of the content/comment document - e-mail is usually a reliable unique key. MongoDB doesn't have foreign keys or associated constraints. But that is fine.
If you have a registration policy, add user name, e-mail address and other details to the users collection. Then de-normalize the content document with the user name and e-mail. If, for any reason, the user changes the name, you will have to update all the associated contents/comments. But so long as the e-mail address is there in the documents, this should be easy.
Tags and categories are best modelled as two lists in the content document, IMHO.
You can also create two indices on these attributes, if required. Depends on the access patterns and the UI features you want to provide
You can also add a document which keeps a tag list and a categories list in the contents collection and use $addToSet to add new tags and categories to this document. Then, you can show a combo box with the current tags as a starting point.
As a final point, think through the ways you plan to access the data and then design documents, collections & indices accordingly
[Update 12/9/11] Was at MongoSv and Eliot (CTO 10gen) presented a pattern relevant to this question: Instead of one comment document per user (which could grow large) have a comment document per day for a use with _id = -YYYYMMDD or even one per month depending on the frequency of comments. This optimizes index creation/document growth vs document proliferation (in case of the design where there is one comment per user).
The best way to associate the Content Authors to a User in the MongoDB, is to take an array in Author Collection which keeps an reference to User. Basically Array because One Content/Book may have multiple Authors i.e. you need to associate one Content to many Users.
The best way for category is to create a different collection in your DB and similarly as above keep a array in Contents.
I hope it helps at-least a little.