Hi guys can anyone shed some light on how to do this please.
I have a userRecord object with various sub-objects in including things like their skills-sets, contracts etc.
I get the record by querying the store for the userId as below.
var userRecord = userStore.findRecord('id', userId);
Next I have a variety of forms with checkboxes in a tabpanel relating to each of the user's sub-objects e.g. Skillsets and Contracts. I am trying to overwrite these on the userRecord with an array on checkboxes that have been checked.
var skillsetCheckBoxes = skillsetPanel.query('checkboxfield[checked=true]');
var skillsets = new Array();
Ext.each(skillsetCheckBoxes, function (skillset)
{
console.log(skillset);
skillsets.push(skillset);
});
I have tried to set the userRecord's engineer's skillset object to be the new array:
userRecord.set(('engineer').skillsets, skillsets);
But when I log the record after doing this it is still the same record I retrieved from findRecord() with no edited fields.
Any help much appreciated,
Thanks!
Hard to say without knowing your model's structure, but your line is clearly wrong. You are using ('engineer').skillsets as the key argument for the set method. Since it's not a string but an array, it won't do anything good.
Your line should rather be something like that:
// You should probably test that there is something in there, or the
// next line could crash...
var engineer = userRecord.get('engineer');
if (engineer) {
userRecord.get('engineer').skillsets = skillsets;
}
Related
I have been searching for hours, but I cannot find anything about this.
Situation:
Backend, existing of NodeJS + Express + Mongoose (+ MongoDB ofcourse).
Frontend retrieves object from the Backend.
Frontend makes some changes (adds/updates/removes some attributes).
Now I use mongoose: PersonModel.findByIdAndUpdate(id, updatedPersonObject);
Result: added properties are added. Updated properties are updated. Removed properties... are still there!
Now I've been searching for an elegant way to solve this, but the best I could come up with is something like:
var properties = Object.keys(PersonModel.schema.paths);
for (var i = 0, len = properties.length; i < len; i++) {
// explicitly remove values that are not in the update
var property = properties[i];
if (typeof(updatedPersonObject[property]) === 'undefined') {
// Mongoose does not like it if I remove the _id property
if (property !== '_id') {
oldPersonDocument[property] = undefined;
}
}
}
oldPersonDocument.save(function() {
PersonModel.findByIdAndUpdate(id, updatedPersonObject);
});
(I did not even include trivial code to fetch the old document).
I have to write this for every Object I want to update. I find it hard to believe that this is the best way to handle this. Any suggestions anyone?
Edit:
Another workaround I found: to unset a value in MongoDB you have to set it to undefined.
If I set this value in the frontend, it is lost in the REST-call. So I set it to null in the frontend, and then in the backend I convert all null-values to undefined.
Still ugly though. There must be a better way.
You could use replaceOne() if you want to know how many documents matched your filter condition and how many were changed (I believe it only changes one document, so this may not be useful to know). Docs: https://mongoosejs.com/docs/api/model.html#model_Model.replaceOne
Or you could use findOneAndReplace if you want to see the document. I don't know if it is the old doc or the new doc that is passed to the callback; the docs say Finds a matching document, replaces it with the provided doc, and passes the returned doc to the callback., but you could test that on your own. Docs: https://mongoosejs.com/docs/api.html#model_Model.findOneAndReplace
So, instead of:
PersonModel.findByIdAndUpdate(id, updatedPersonObject);, you could do:
PersonModel.replaceOne({ _id: id }, updatedPersonObject);
As long as you have all the properties you want on the object you will use to replace the old doc, you should be good to go.
Also really struggling with this but I don't think your solution is too bad. Our setup is frontend -> update function backend -> sanitize users input -> save in db. For the sanitization part, we use a helper function where we integrate your approach.
private static patchModel(dbDocToUpdate: IModel, dataFromUser: Record<string, any>): IModel {
const sanitized = {};
const properties = Object.keys(PersonModel.schema.paths);
for (const key of properties) {
if (key in dbDocToUpdate) {
sanitized[key] = data[key];
}
}
Object.assign(dbDocToUpdate, sanitized);
return dbDocToUpdate;
}
That works smoothly and sets the values to undefined. Hence, they get removed from the document in the db.
The only problem that remains for us is that we wanted to allow partial updates. With that solution that's not possible and you always have to send everything to the backend.
EDIT
Another workaround we found is setting the property to an empty string in the frontend. Mongo then also removes the property in the database
I am retrieving JSON data from an API and this is a short example of it:
{"hatenames":
{"id":6239,
"name":"hatenames",
"stat1":659,
"stat2":30,
"stat3":1414693
}
}
I am trying to insert it in the MongoDB (using MongoClient) but it won't let me put just the object directly or use a variable as a field name. If I put the var username it will just output it as username in the database field. This is what I would like to work:
collection.insert({object}
collection.insert({username:object[username]}
but it doesn't and I've been stuck on this for the past few hours. The only resolution I found was to set it and then update the field name afterwards, but that just seems lame to have to do every single time, is there no elegant or easy option that I am somehow missing?
First of all, being a programmer, you should forget about "it does not work" phrase. You should describe how it does not work with exact error messages you encounter. Not to your problem.
Just because I can easily do
db.coll.insert({"hatenames":
{"id":6239,
"name":"hatenames",
"stat1":659,
"stat2":30,
"stat3":1414693
}
})
or var a = {"hatenames":{"id":6239, "name":"hatenames", "stat1":659, "stat2":30, "stat3":1414693}}; and db.coll.insert(a),
I think that the problem is that your object is not really an object, but a string. So I suspect that you have a string returned to you back from that API. Something like '{"hatenames":{...}' and this caused a problem when you try to save it or access the properties. So try to convert it to JSON.
Try doing this:
MongoClient.connect('mongodb://127.0.0.1:27017/db_name', function(err, db) {
if(err) throw err;
someCollection = db.collection('some_collection');
});
someCollection.insert({
name: hatenames['name']
});
EDIT
For Dynamic approach, I would suggest you to play aroung this function:
Object.keys(hatenames)
this function will return keys in array.
EDIT 2
I have founded a link: Insert json file into mongodb using a variable
See, if that helps.
I need to save serial number of the document in a profile document and here is a code of action Execute Script:
if (document1.isNewNote()){
var pdoc:NotesDocument=database.getProfileDocument("LastNumber","")
var lnm=pdoc.getItemValue("lastNumber")[0];
var inputText6:com.ibm.xsp.component.xp.XspInputText = getComponent("inputText6");
inputText6.setValue(lnm);
pdoc.replaceItemValue("lastNumber",lnm);
pdoc.save();
}
This code is not opening profile document at all. Any thing wrong in the code?
"LastNumber" is the name of the form used to create Profile Document ?
this profile document already exist ?
there are no reader fields in this profile document ?
you have an error on this line : var pdoc:NotesDocument=database.getProfileDocument("LastNumber","") ?
or you have debug it and see that pdoc is null ?
instead of pdoc.getItemValue("lastNumber")[0] you can use pdoc.getItemValueInteger("lastNumber") to get a typed result
I supposed that this field contains a number and you want to increment it
instead of using inputText field you can set value directly with document1.setValue("NumberField", lnm);
I second the caution Per is suggesting. Profile documents can be a beast. You should abstract access to the "next number" into a SSJS function call. Btw. in your code snippet you don't actually increment the last number. Also: if your input text control is bound, go after the data source, not the UI.
A crude way (I would use a managed application bean for better isolation) for a better function could be this:
if(document1.isNewNote() {
document1.setValue("DocumentNumber",applicationTools.getNextNumber());
}
Then in a SSJS library you would have:
var applicationTools = {
"getNextNumber" : function() {
synchronized(applicationScope){
var pdoc:NotesDocument=database.getProfileDocument("LastNumber","");
if (!applicationScope.lastNumber) {
applicationScope.lastNumber = pdoc.getItemValueInteger("lastNumber");
}
applicationScope.lastNumber++;
pdoc.replaceItemValue("lastNumber",applicationScope.lastNumber);
pdoc.save(); //Make sure pdoc is writeable by ALL!!!!
pdoc.recycle();
return applicationScope.lastNumber;
}
},
"someOtherUtility" : function(nameToLookup, departments) {
// more stuff here
}
}
Which, in some way has been asked before, but not for a profile field. Someone still could simply go after the applicationScope.lastNumber variable, which is one of the reasons why I rather use a bean. The other: you could do the saving asynchronously, so it would be faster.
Note: in any case the number generation only works when you have a non-replicating database. But abstracting the function opens the possibility to replace fetching the number from the profile with a call to a central number generator ... or any other mechanism ... without changing your form again.
I'm trying to create a show function which needs to access to two documents: The document in 'doc' reference and another document called 'users'
My function looks like:
function(doc,req){
var friends = doc.friends;
var listFriends = [];
for(int i = 0; i<friends.length; i++){
var phone = friends[i].phone;
if(users[phone] != "" ){
listFriends.push(users[phone]);
}
}
return JSON.stringify(listFriends);
}
I'm not an expert nor javascript neither couchdb. My question is, Is it possible to access to the second document (users) in a similar way like in the code? So far it returns a compilation error.
Thanks
You can only access one document in a CouchDB show function. You could look at using a list function, which works on view results instead of documents.
Create a view where the two documents collate together (appear side-by-side in the view order) and you achieve an effect pretty close to what you wanted to achieve with the show function.
I've created a snippet that pulls data from a databse table and displays it in tabular format. The snippet takes an id as parameter, and this is added to the sql query.
My problem is that if I've got more than 1 snippet call (sometimes need the tabular data for different id's displayed on a page) on the same page, all table data is the same as the last database call that's been made by the last snippet.
What do I need to do to kinda not cache the snippet database calls and have them all display their own content?
I've tried setting the page to no cache-able. Also used the [! !] brackets for the snippet calls, and even used the function_exists() method, but none of them helped.
Please can someone help me?
thanks
Try this at the end of the snippet:
mysql_connect('host', 'user', 'pass');
mysql_select_db('db_name');
You need to specify the connection parameters ofcourse.
It would help to answer if you can post your snippet. I do this with multiple calls on the page without issue, so there is either something wrong inside the snippet, or you need to output to unique placeholder names.
You have encountered a glitch of ModX, and it took me a long time to solve. ModX does a lot of caching by using hashing and apparently, when multiple connections are made from within one page divided over multiple snippets, this erratic behaviour can be seen. This is most likely very unwanted behaviour, it can be solved easily but gives you terrible headache otherways.
One sympton is that $modx->getObject($classname, $id)returns null (often).
The solution is very simple:
either use a static class with a single db instance, or
use $modx->setPlaceholder($instance, $tag);, or a combination.
My solution has been:
class dt__xpdo {
private function __construct() {}
public function __destruct() {
$this->close();
}
static public function db($modx = null) {
if ($modx->getPlaceholder('dt_xpdo') == '') {
$dt_user = 'xxxxxxxxx';
$dt_pw = 'xxxxxxxxx';
$dt_host = 'localhost';
$dt_dbname = 'xxxxxxxxx';
$dt_port = '3306';
$dt_dsn = "mysql:host=$dt_host;dbname=$dt_dbname;port=$dt_port;charset=utf8";
$dt_xpdo = new xPDO($dt_dsn, $dt_user, $dt_pw);
$dt_xpdo->setPackage('mymodel', MODX_CORE_PATH.'components/mymodel/'.'model/', '');
//$modx->log(modX::LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, 'mymodel.config.php');
//$modx->log(modX::LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, 'Could not addPackage for mymodel!');
$modx->setPlaceholder('dt_xpdo', $dt_xpdo);
}
return $modx->getPlaceholder('dt_xpdo');
}
}
Now you can use in your code:
require_once 'above.php';
and use something like
$xpdo = dt__xpdo::db($modx);
and continue flawlessly!