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()
Related
So I have found quite few related posts on SO on how to update a field in a sub array, such as this one here
What I want to achieve is basically the same thing, but updating a field in a subarray dynamically, instead of just calling the field name in the query.
Now I also found how to do that straight in the main object, but cant seem to do it in the sub array.
Code to insert dynamically in sub-object:
_.each(data.data, function(val, key) {
var obj = {};
obj['general.'+key] = val;
insert = 0 || (Documents.update(
{ _id: data._id },
{ $set: obj}
));
});
Here is the tree of what I am trying to do:
Documents: {
_id: '123123'
...
smallRoom:
[
_id: '456456'
name: 'name1'
description: 'description1'
],
[
...
]
}
Here is my code:
// insert a new object in smallRoom, with only the _id so far
var newID = new Mongo.ObjectID;
var createId = {_id: newID._str};
Documents.update({_id: data._id},{$push:{smallRooms: createId}})
And the part to insert the other fields:
_.each(data.data, function(val, key) {
var obj = {};
obj['simpleRoom.$'+key] = val;
console.log(Documents.update(
{
_id: data._id, <<== the document id that I want to update
smallRoom: {
$elemMatch:{
_id : newID._str, <<== the smallRoom id that I want to update
}
}
},
{
$set: obj
}
));
});
Ok, having said that, I understand I can insert the whole object straight away, not having to push every single field.
But I guess this question is more like, how does it work if smallRoom had 50 fields, and I want to update 3 random fields ? (So I would NEED to use the _each loop as I wouldnt know in advance which field to update, and would not want to replace the whole object)
I'm not sure I 100% understand your question, but I think the answer to what you are asking is to use the $ symbol.
Example:
Documents.update(
{
_id: data._id, smallRoom._id: newID._str
},
{
$set: { smallroom.$.name: 'new name' }
}
);
You are finding the document that matches the _id: data._id, then finding the object in the array smallRoom that has an _id equal to newId._str. Then you are using the $ sign to tell Mongo to update that object's name key.
Hope that helps
I am very new to meteor.js and try to build an application with it. This time I wanted to try it over MEAN stack but at this point I am struggled to understand how to join two collection on server side...
I want very identical behaviour like mongodb populate to fetch some properties of inner document.
Let me tell you about my collection it is something like this
{
name: 'Name',
lastName: 'LastName',
anotherObject: '_id of another object'
}
and another object has some fields
{
neededField1: 'asd',
neededField2: 'zxc',
notNeededField: 'qwe'
}
So whenever I made a REST call to retrieve the first object I want it contains only neededFields of inner object so I need join them at backend but I cannot find a proper way to do it.
So far while searching it I saw some packages here is the list
Meteor Collections Helper
Publish with Relations
Reactive joins in Meteor (article)
Joins in Meteor.js (article)
Meteor Publish Composite
You will find the reywood:publish-composite useful for "joining" related collections even though SQL-like joins are not really practical in Mongo and Meteor. What you'll end up with is the appropriate documents and fields from each collection.
Using myCollection and otherCollection as pseudonyms for your two collections:
Meteor.publishComposite('pseudoJoin', {
find: function() {
return myCollection.find();
},
children: [
{
find: function(doc) {
return otherCollection.find(
{ _id: post.anotherObject },
{ fields: { neededField1: 1, neededField2: 1 } });
}
}
]
});
Note that the _id field of the otherCollection will be included automatically even though it isn't in the list of fields.
Update based on comments
Since you're only looking to return data to a REST call you don't have to worry about cursors or reactivity.
var myArray = myCollection.find().fetch();
var myOtherObject = {};
var joinedArray = myArray.map(function(el){
myOtherObject = otherCollection.findOne({ _id: el.anotherObject });
return {
_id: el._id,
name: el.name,
lastName: el.lastName,
neededField1: myOtherObject.neededField1,
neededField2: myOtherObject.neededField2
}
});
console.log(joinedArray); // These should be the droids you're looking for
This is based on a 1:1 relation. If there are many related objects then you have to repeat the parent object to the number of children.
I'm trying to update a sub document on an existing collection. I'm getting a MongoDB error message.
"MongoError: The positional operator did not find the match needed from the query. Unexpanded update: articleWords.$ [409]"
From my Articles Simple Schema
"articleWords.$": {
type: Object
},
"articleWords.$.wordId": {
type: String,
label: 'Word ID'
},
"articleWords.$.word": {
type: String,
label: 'Word'
},
Update Function
function updateArticle(_id,wordArr) {
_.each(wordArr,function(elem) {
var ret = Articles.update(
{'_id': _id},
{ $set: { 'articleWords.$': { 'wordId': elem.wordId, 'word': elem.word } }
});
});
return true;
}
As you can see I am passing an array of objects. Is there a better way to do this than _.each ?
CLARIFICATION
Thank you to #corvid for the answer. I think I didn't make my question clear enough. There does exist an article record, but there is no data added to the articleWords attribute. Essentially we are updating a record but insert into the articleWords array.
A second attempt, is also not working
_.each(wordArr,function(elem) {
var ret = Articles.update(
{'_id': _id},
{ $set: { 'articleWords.$.wordId': elem.wordId, 'articleWords.$.word': elem.word } }
);
});
Yes, you need your selector to match something within the subdocument. For example,
Articles.update({
'_id': <someid>,
'words.wordId': <somewordid>
}, {
$set: {
'words.$.word': elem.word,
'words.$.wordId': elem.wordId
}
});
If the array doesn't exist yet then you're going about this in the hardest way possible. You can just set the entire array at one go:
var ret = Articles.update(
{'_id': _id},
{ $set: { articleWords: wordArr }}
);
I can see that wordArr already has the id and string. This will work as long as it doesn't have more content. If it does then you can just make a second version with the parts you want to keep.
I've got two relations in my Mongoose/MongoDB-Application:
USER:
{
name: String,
items: [{ type: mongoose.Schema.ObjectId, ref: 'Spot' }]
}
and
ITEM
{
title: String,
price: Number
}
As you can see, my user-collection containing a "has-many"-relation to the item-collection.
I'm wondering how to get all Items which are mentioned in the items-field of on specific user.
Guess its very common question, but I haven't found any solution on my own in the Docs or elsewhere. Can anybody help me with that?
If you are Storing items reference in user collection,then fetch all items from user,it will give you a array of object ids of items and then you can access all items bases on their ids
var itemIdsArray = User.items;
Item.find({
'_id': { $in: itemIdsArray}
}, function(err, docs){
console.log(docs);
});
You can get the items at the same time you query for the user, by using Mongoose's support for population:
User.findOne({_id: userId}).populate('items').exec(function(err, user) {
// user.items contains the referenced docs instead of just the ObjectIds
});
Does Moongoose 3.8.8 (the lastest version) support $position (http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/operator/update/position/) operator from MongoDB 2.6.0?
In the following code example the new elements is inserted in the end of the array userActivity.activities:
model:
var userActivity = new schema({
userId: {type:String, required:true, unique:true},
activities: [activity]
});
var activity = new schema({
act: {type: Number, required:true},
});
query:
var activity = { act: 1 };
model.userActivity.update(
{ _id: dbact._id },
{ $push: { activities: {
$each: [ activity ],
$position: 0
}
}
},
function (err, numAffected) {
if (!err) {
// do something
}
});
This actually doesn't matter and never matters for any "framework" implementation and I do not mind explaining why.
Every single "framework" ( such as Mongoose, Mongoid, Doctrine, MongoEngine, etc, etc, etc ) are all basically built upon a basic "driver" implementation that has in most cases been developedby the MongoDB staff themselves. So the basic functionality is always ther even if you need to "delve" down to a level in order to use those "native" methods.
So here would be the native usage example in this case:
List.collection.update(
{},
{ "$push": {
"list": {
"$each": [ 1, 2, 3 ],
"$position": 0 }
}
},function(err,NumAffected) {
console.log("done");
});
Note the "collection" method used from the model, which is getting the "raw" collection details from the driver. So you are using it's method and not some "wrapped" method that may be doing additional processing.
The next and most basic reason is if you cannot find the method and application of the operators that you need the here is a simple fact.
Every single operation as used by the methods in every framework and basic driver method is essentially a call to the "runCommand" method in the basic API. So since that basic call is available everywhere ( in some form or another, because it has to be ), then you can do everything that you find advertised on the MongoDB site with every language implementation on any framework.
But the short call to your particular request is, since this is not actually a method call but is simply part of the BSON arguments as passed in, then of course there is no restriction by a particular language driver to actually use this.
So you can use these new argument without of course updating to the most recent version. But you probably will get some nice methods to do so if you actually do.
Yes, you should be able to use it directly as Mongoose will pass through the update clause:
Model.update(
query, /* match the document */
{ $push:
{ yourArrayField:
{
$each: [ 1, 2, 3 ],
$position: 0
}
}
}, function (err, res) { /* callback */ });
The above would insert the values 1, 2, 3 at the front of the array named yourArrayField.
As it's just a pass-through, you'll need to make sure it works with the server version that you're connecting the client to.