I am trying to create a family tree website using mongodb. upon creating a new family member, i only want to reference the parent (father) of the person and have mongoose automatically generate a children field in the person model. Here is the Person schema:
Person.add({
fullName: { type: String, initial:true, required: true,label: , index:true, },
parent: {type: Types.Relationship, ref:'Person'},
});
As you can see, upon creating a new person, I would want mongoose to automatically find all people in the Person model with the parent id matching the person I'm creating and generate an array of ids in the children field.
I have done some researches and found that Mongoose Virtuals can provide something like that but i have not found any documentation regarding querying the model to add to the virtual field. Thanks in advance!
You can create a post save hook in your Person schema model, and then find the people with parent id and create/update children array of that person.
use $addToSet instead of $push so that same childrens are not pushed more than once.
Try this:
PersonSchema.post('save', function(doc, next) {
this.findOneAndUpdate({_id : doc.parent},{$addToSet : { children : doc._id}})
next();
});
Read more about mongoose hooks for detailed information.
Related
I'm somewhat new in what is related to Mongoose and I came to this behaviour I consider as strange. The document returned by Mongoose has fields that are not present in the actual MongoDb document, and seem to be added by Mongoose based on the schema.
I use a schema similar to this (this one is simplified) :
const ProfessionalSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
product: {
details: [{
_id: false,
id: String, // UUID
name: String,
prestations: [{
_id: false,
id: String, // UUID
name: String,
price: Number,
}],
}],
},
[...]
My document as shown in Mongodb with mongo CLI utility doesn't have a product field.
What I don't understand is why the result of Professional.findById().exec() returns a document with a product:{details[]} field. I expect not to have that field in the Mongoose returned result, since it is not present in the original MongoDb document.
The Mongoose documentation found https://mongoosejs.com/docs/guide.html (Schema and Model paragraph) didn't help.
My business logic would require that field not to be present, instead of being forced by the schema. Is this achievable ?
Try taking a look at the default option. You could e.g. default your product to null and then, in your business logic, handle the "product is null" case rather than the "product field does not exist" case.
As for why this is happening, it's because you're dealing with a schema. If the field doesn't exist on the document, it's going to be auto-populated. The whole point of a schema is to ensure consistency of your document structure.
I’m using Mongoose version 4.6.8 and MongoLab (MLab). I have a Mongoose schema called “Group” that has a collection of User subdocuments called “teachers”:
var GroupSchema = new Schema({
//…more properties here…//
teachers: [{
type: Schema.ObjectId,
ref: 'User'
}]
});
This is a document from the “groups” collection on MongoLab:
{
//…more properties here…//
"teachers": [
{
"$oid": "5799a9c759feea9c208c004c"
}
]
}
And this is a document from the “users” collection on MongoLab:
{
//…more properties here…//
"username": "bob"
}
But if I want to get a list of Groups that have a particular teacher (User) with the username of “bob”, this doesn’t work (the list of groups is empty):
Group.find({"teachers.username": "bob"}).exec(callback);
This also returns no items:
Group.find().where('teachers.username').equals('bob').exec(callback);
How can I achieve this?
Without some more knowledge of your set up (specifically whether you want anybody named Bob or a specific Bob whose id you could pick up first) - this might be some help although I think it would require you to flatten your teachers array to just their ID's, not single-key objects.
User.findById(<Id of Bob>, function(err, user){
Group.find({}, function(err, groups){
var t = groups.map(function(g){
if(g['teachers'].indexOf(user.id))
return g
})
// Do something with t
})
})
You can use populate to do that.
Try this:
Group.find({})
.populate({
path : 'teachers' ,
match : { username : "bob" }
})
.exec(callback);
populate will populate based on the teachers field (given path) and match will return only those who have username bob.
For more information on mongoose populate options, Please read Mongoose populate documentation.
I think the solution in this case is to get a teacher’s groups through the User module instead of my first inclination which was to go through the Groups module. This makes sense because it is in line with how modern APIs represent a one-to-many relationship.
As an example, in Behance’s API, an endpoint for a user’s projects is:
GET /v2/users/user/projects
And a request to this endpoint (where the User’s username is “matiascorea”) would look like this:
https://api.behance.net/v2/users/matiascorea/projects?client_id=1234567890
So in my case, instead of finding the groups by teacher, I would need to simply find the User (teacher) by username, populate the teacher’s groups, and use them:
User.findOne({username: 'bob'})
.populate('groups')
.exec(callback);
And the API call for this would be:
GET /api/users/user/groups
And a request to this endpoint would look like this:
https://example.com/api/users/bob/groups
In my application I have a User Collection. Many of my other collections have an Author (an author contains ONLY the user._id and the user.name), for example my Post Collection. Since I normally only need the _id and the name to display e.g. my posts on the UI.
This works fine, and seems like a good approach, since now everytime I deal with posts I don`t have to load the whole user Object from the database - I can only load my post.author.userId/post.author.name.
Now my problem: A user changes his or her name. Obviously all my Author Objects scattered around in my database still have the old author.
Questions:
is my approuch solid, or should I only reference the userId everywhere I need it?
If I'd go for this solution I'd remove my Author Model and would need to make a User database call everytime I want to display the current Users`s name.
If I leave my Author as is, what would be a good way to implement a solution for situations like the user.name change?
I could write a service which checks every model which has Authors of the current user._id and updates them of course, but this sounds very tedious. Although I'm not sure there's a better solution.
Any pro tipps on how I should deal with problems like this in the future?
Yes, sometime database are good to recorded at modular style. But You shouldn't do separating collection for user/author such as
At that time if you use mongoose as driver you can use populate to get user schema data.
Example, I modeling user, author, post that.
var UserSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
type: { type: String, default: "user", enum: ["user", "author"], required: true },
name: { type: String },
// Author specific values
joinedAt: { type: Date }
});
var User = mongoose.model("User", UserSchema);
var PostSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
author: { type: mongoose.Scheam.Types.ObjectId, ref: "User" },
content: { type: String }
});
var Post = mongoose.model("Post", PostSchema);
In this style, Post are separated model and have to save like that. Something like if you want to query a post including author's name, you can use populate at mongoose.
Post.findOne().populate("author").exce(function(err, post) {
if(err)
// do error handling
if(post){
console.log(post.author.type) // author
}
});
One solution is save only id in Author collection, using Ref on the User collection, and populate each time to get user's name from the User collection.
var User = {
name: String,
//other fields
}
var Author = {
userId: {
type: String,
ref: "User"
}
}
Another solution is when updating name in User collection, update all names in Author collection.
I think first solution will be better.
Here is my Mongoose Schema:
var SchemaA = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
fieldB : { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'SchemaB' }
});
var SchemaB = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
fieldC : { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: 'SchemaC' }
});
var SchemaC = new Schema({
field1: String,
.......
.......
.......
});
While i access schemaA using find query, i want to have fields/property
of SchemaA along with SchemaB and SchemaC in the same way as we apply join operation in SQL database.
This is my approach:
SchemaA.find({})
.populate('fieldB')
.exec(function (err, result){
SchemaB.populate(result.fieldC,{path:'fieldB'},function(err, result){
.............................
});
});
The above code is working perfectly, but the problem is:
I want to have information/properties/fields of SchemaC through SchemaA, and i don't want to populate fields/properties of SchemaB.
The reason for not wanting to get the properties of SchemaB is, extra population will slows the query unnecessary.
Long story short:
I want to populate SchemaC through SchemaA without populating SchemaB.
Can you please suggest any way/approach?
As an avid mongodb fan, I suggest you use a relational database for highly relational data - that's what it's built for. You are losing all the benefits of mongodb when you have to perform 3+ queries to get a single object.
Buuuuuut, I know that comment will fall on deaf ears. Your best bet is to be as conscious as you can about performance. Your first step is to limit the fields to the minimum required. This is just good practice even with basic queries and any database engine - only get the fields you need (eg. SELECT * FROM === bad... just stop doing it!). You can also try doing lean queries to help save a lot of post-processing work mongoose does with the data. I didn't test this, but it should work...
SchemaA.find({}, 'field1 fieldB', { lean: true })
.populate({
name: 'fieldB',
select: 'fieldC',
options: { lean: true }
}).exec(function (err, result) {
// not sure how you are populating "result" in your example, as it should be an array,
// but you said your code works... so I'll let you figure out what goes here.
});
Also, a very "mongo" way of doing what you want is to save a reference in SchemaC back to SchemaA. When I say "mongo" way of doing it, you have to break away from your years of thinking about relational data queries. Do whatever it takes to perform fewer queries on the database, even if it requires two-way references and/or data duplication.
For example, if I had a Book schema and Author schema, I would likely save the authors first and last name in the Books collection, along with an _id reference to the full profile in the Authors collection. That way I can load my Books in a single query, still display the author's name, and then generate a hyperlink to the author's profile: /author/{_id}. This is known as "data denormalization", and it has been known to give people heartburn. I try and use it on data that doesn't change very often - like people's names. In the occasion that a name does change, it's trivial to write a function to update all the names in multiple places.
SchemaA.find({})
.populate({
path: "fieldB",
populate:{path:"fieldC"}
}).exec(function (err, result) {
//this is how you can get all key value pair of SchemaA, SchemaB and SchemaC
//example: result.fieldB.fieldC._id(key of SchemaC)
});
why not add a ref to SchemaC on SchemaA? there will be no way to bridge to SchemaC from SchemaA if there is no SchemaB the way you currently have it unless you populate SchemaB with no other data than a ref to SchemaC
As explained in the docs under Field Selection, you can restrict what fields are returned.
.populate('fieldB') becomes populate('fieldB', 'fieldC -_id'). The -_id is required to omit the _id field just like when using select().
I think this is not possible.Because,when a document in A referring a document in B and that document is referring another document in C, how can document in A know which document to refer from C without any help from B.
I'm playing with model associations in sails and I'm curious if it's possible to make a query base on the associated field.
Example:
User.js
attributes:{
classes: { collection: 'Class', via: 'students' }
}
Class.js
attributes: {
type: ...
students: { collection: 'User', via: 'classes'}
}
Is there a way to retrieve specific Classes of a Student base on the type of class because right now everything is being returned when I use .populate(). (maybe similar with the logic below)
User
.findOne({name: 'StudentA'})
.populate('classes')
.where({'classes.type':['type1', 'type2']})
.then(....)
Thanks
You can add a where clause to your populate like so:
User
.findOne({name: 'StudentA'})
.populate('classes', {where: {type: ['type1', 'type2']}})
.exec(...)
In addition to where, you can also use skip, limit and sort in the second argument to populate.
Keep in mind this is still (as of this posting) in beta, so if you find any issues where it seems to not be working correctly, please post them to the Waterline GitHub issues forum.