It's been a while since I used node and express and I was sure that this was possible, but i'm having an issue of figuring it out now.
I have a simple postgres database with sequelize. I am building a back end and don't have a populated database yet. I want to be able to provide fake data to use to build the front end and to test with. Is there a way to populate a database when the node server is started? Maybe by reading a json file into the database?
I know that I could point to this fake data using a setting in the environment file, but I don't see how to read in the data on startup. Is there a way to create a local database, read in the data, and point to that?
You can use fake factory package, I think it can solve your problem.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/faker-factory
FakerJs provides that solution.
import { faker } from '#faker-js/faker';
const randomName = faker.name.findName();
const randomEmail = faker.internet.email();
with the above, you can run a loop for loop to be specific to create
the desired data you may need for your project.
Also, check on the free web-API that provides fake or real data to workon
Related
Creating new project with auto-testing feature.
It uses basic express.
The question is how to orginize the code in order to be able to test it properly. (with mocha)
Almost every controller needs to have access to the database in order to fetch some data to proceed. But while testing - reaching the actual database is unwanted.
There are two ways as I see:
Stubbing a function, which intends to read/write from/to database.
Building two separate controller builders, one of each will be used to reach it from the endpoints, another one from tests.
just like that:
let myController = new TargetController(AuthService, DatabaseService...);
myController.targetMethod()
let myTestController = new TargetController(FakeAuthService, FakeDatabaseService...);
myTestController.targetMethod() // This method will use fake services which doesnt have any remote connection functionality
Every property passed will be set to a private variable inside the constructor of the controller. And by aiming to this private variable we could not care about what type of call it is. Test or Production one.
Is that a good approach of should it be remade?
Alright, It's considered to be a good practice as it is actually a dependency injection pattern
I did my homework before posting this question
So the case is that I want to create a utility in my nodejs application that will move specific collections from my main database to an archive database and vice versa. I am using mongo db atlas for my application. I have been doing my research and I found two possible ways one is to create a mongodump and store and other is to create a backup file myself using my node application and upload it to archive db. Using the later approach will cause to loose my collection indexes.
I am planning to use mongodump for the purpose but can't find a resource that shows how to achieve that. Any help would be appreciated. Also if any one has any experience with similar situation I am open to suggestions as well.
I recently created a mongodump & mongorestore wrapper for nodejs: node-mongotools
What does it mean?
you have to install mongo binary on your host by following official mongo documentation(example) and then, you could use node-mongotools to call them from nodeJS.
Here is an example but tool doc contains more details:
var mt = new MongoTools();
const dumpResult = await mt.mongodump({ uri, path })
.catch(console.log);
As per the title, can a Node.js package require a database connection?
For example, I have written a specific piece of middlware functionality that I plan to publish via NPM, however, it requires a connection to a NoSQL database. The functionality in its current state uses Mongoose to save data in a specific format and returns a boolean value.
Is this considered bad practice?
It is not a bad practice as long as you require the DB needed and also explicitly state it clearly in your Readme.md file, it's only a bad practice when you go ahead and work without provide a comment in your codes or a readme.md file that will guide any other person going through your codes.
Example:
//require your NoSQL database eg MongoDB
const mongoose = require('mongoose');
// to connect to the database. **boy** is the database name
mongoose.connect('mongodb://localhost/boy', function(err) {
if (err) {
console.log(err);
} else {
console.log("Success");
}
});
You generally have two choices when your module needs a database and wants to remain as independently useful as possible:
You can load a preferred database in your code and use it.
You can provide the developer using your module a means of passing in a database that meets your specification to be used by your module. The usual way of passing in the database would be for the developer using your module to pass your module the data in a module constructor function.
In the first case, you may need to allow the developer to specify a disk store path to be used. In the second case, you have to be very specific in your documentation about what kind of database interface is required.
There's also a hybrid option where you offer the developer the option of configuring and passing you a database, but if not provided, then you load your own.
The functionality in its current state uses Mongoose to save data in a specific format and returns a boolean value. Is this considered bad practice?
No, it's not a bad practice. This would be an implementation of option number 1 above. As long as your customers (the developers using your module) don't mind you loading and using Mongoose, then this is perfectly fine.
The project I'm working on uses the feathers JS framework server side. Many of the services have hooks (or middleware) that make other calls and attach data before sending back to the client. If I have a new feature that needs to query a database but for a only few specific things I'm thinking I don't want to use the already built out "find" method for this database query as that "find" method has many other unneeded hooks and calls to other databases to get data I do not need for this new query on my feature.
My two solutions so far:
I could use the standard "find" query and just write if statements in all hooks that check for a specific string parameter that can be passed in on client side so these hooks are deactivated on this specific call but that seems tedious especially if I find this need for several other different services that have already been built out.
I initialize a second service below my main service so if my main service is:
app.use('/comments', new JHService(options));
right underneath I write:
app.use('/comments/allParticipants', new JHService(options));
And then attach a whole new set of hooks for that service. Basically it's a whole new service with the only relation to the origin in that the first part of it's name is 'comments' Since I'm new to feathers I'm not sure if that is a performant or optimal solution.
Is there a better solution then those options? or is option 1 or option 2 the most correct way to solve my current issue?
You can always wrap the population hooks into a conditional hook:
const hooks = require('feathers-hooks-common');
app.service('myservice').after({
create: hooks.iff(hook => hook.params.populate !== false, populateEntries)
});
Now population will only run if params.populate is not false.
I've got an app I've put together in Electron which saves data using sqlite3. Everything works as expected. I'd like to be able to export/save the actual database file so I can share it with others, treating it sort of like a save file.
I assume that if this is possible then I need to be using fs as well, which is fine.
Even better, can I just create the database file outside the compiled app from the start? And if so what's the best way to accomplish that?
Otherwise I can switch over to kripken/sql.js or something like that, but I'd rather not put the time in to make those changes if there's an easy way to just have the existing sqlite database file get saved to the user's computer outside the app.
I'm an idiot.
Instead of storing the file internally in the packaged app like this…
const dbPath = path.resolve(__dirname, 'data.db')
…I'm just storing it in the filesystem like this…
const {app} = require('electron').remote;
const dbPath = path.resolve(app.getPath('userData'), 'data.db');
…so that it's accessible from the start.
I'm leaving this question up because I'd be interested if there is a way to have a save file dialogue for an extant file in the packaged app, but in the mean time this is my answer.