We Keep Coding

How to get and set a ref for a newly cached related object in Apollo client InMemoryCache?

I have a set of related items like so:
book {
id
...
related_entity {
id
...
}
}
which apollo caches as two separate cache objects, where the related_entity field on book is a ref to an EntityNode object. This is fine, the related entity data is also used elsewhere outside of the context of a book so having it separate works, and everything seems well and good and updates as expected...except in the case where the related entity does not exist on the initial fetch (and thus the ref on the book object is null) and I create one later on.
I've tried adding an update function to the useMutation hook that creates the aforementioned related_entity per their documentation: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/react/caching/cache-interaction/#example-adding-an-item-to-a-list like this:
const [mutateEntity, _i] = useMutation(CREATE_OR_UPDATE_ENTITY,{
update(cache, {data}) {
cache.modify({
id: `BookNode:${bookId}`,
fields: {
relatedEntity(_i) {
const newEntityRef = cache.writeFragment({
fragment: gql`
fragment NewEntity on EntityNode {
id
...someOtherAttr
}`,
data: data.entityData
});
return newEntityRef;
}
}
})
}
});
but no matter what I seem to try, newEntityRef is always undefined, even though the new EntityNode is definitely in the cache and can be read just fine using the exact same fragment. I could give up and just force a refetch of the Book object, but the data is already right there.
Am I doing something wrong/is there a better way?
Barring that is there another way to get a ref for a cached object given you have its identifier?

It looks like this is actually an issue with apollo-cache-persist - I removed it and the code above functions as expected per the docs. It also looks like I could instead update to the new version under a different package name apollo3-cache-persist, but I ended up not needing cache persistence anyway.

Meteor react design - nested component: function call

I'm currently facing a problem with Meteor and React, where i know some partly solutions but they don't work and imo none of them is pointing in the true direction.
The situation:
All is about an fitness app: I have a structure that represents exercises for customers, while each exercise can have a defined number of sets (a set is how often a exercise should be done). Each set has some properties (all the user can manipulate within the font-end).
Now i have the following component structure with some map-functions (state properties are in {}):
Training {customers,exercises,datetime,otherinfos}
- Overview {customers,exercises}
exercises.map():
- Exercise {exercise,customers}
customers.map():
- Customer {exercise,customer}
exercise.sets.map()
Set {exercise, customer, set, valuesofset}
From a UI-perspective (react) this all works without problems.
Now the idea is to have a button "Save" within the Training component. When the button is pressed, I want to save the state of all Set-Components in a "sets" collection (if it has other values than the default placeholder ones) and at the same time save the Training-Component in a "trainings" collection. But the training should also include information about what Sets are integrated (so at least the Set._id should be in the Training-Component state at time of Saving.
Here now my ideas so far:
Create refs from Training all the way down to all Sets and then, when pressing "Save" iterate over all refs and call a "Mongo.insert" from all Sets. Here i have the problem that i cannot return the inserted _id. Of course i could call a different function in each Component from Set all the way back to Training, but imo this is an overflow.
Try to manage the state of all sets within the Training state by calling a nested function. As i have onChangeHandler on the Inputs, this would always call a method in Training and check which one of the Sets was changed and then changes it. I have tried it this way, but it led to a very bad performance.
Create a temp-ID for Training, forward it to to the Sets (using the componentWillReceiveProps method) and when in Set, insert the Set in the database with the temp-ID. Then receive all Sets with temp-ID and use it to add the Training in the database. --> imo very complicated and I don't really want to do a database call if it is not necessary.
So currently i don't know how to solve this problem. The reason i try to separate "sets" and "trainings" is given through the fact, that later on i would like to give information about the last Set right next to the new empty Set whenever one is on the database. Any tips are welcome!
EDIT:
As suggested, there is also the possibility to solve the problem with Session. So therefor i have added the following code to Set:
componentDidMount() {
Tracker.autorun(() => {
Session.set(`set_${this.state.id}`, {
...this.state
});
});
}
My idea was then to iterate over all Session-Keys from Training which start with "set_" - unfortunately there is no function to that holds all Keys.
Second idea was to to use an array as value for a Session-pair. However, it's quite a procedure to handle the update of the reactive Set component (copy array from session, check whether an element is available or not, create a new one or update the existing one).
EDIT2:
I think i got a solution with Session:
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(Session.keys)
did the trick to get all SessionKeys! Thank you for your help!

If you do not want to use Redux or pass parent bound callbacks in the child component, you can try Session to store data at app level which can be accessed(set/get) in any component
https://docs.meteor.com/api/session.html
In your case, you may set values of "Set" in Session and access it in Training. You may also need https://guide.meteor.com/react.html#using-withTracker. Using withTracker will help in doing reactive update of the database on change of any Session variable.

Utilizing browser back/forward buttons in a vue.js app

I have an app that has a bunch of dropdown components that alter state. . The state of the dropdowns control a main datatable that has info based around the params. Cool.
I want to also alter the URL so users can share urls with their coworkers and simply have the datatable show up without choosing dropdown parameters.
Example: http://localhost:8080/?region=372&pc=341&pc=375 or http://localhost:8080/?region=372&pc=341&vendor=123456
Right now I've got this working by manually watching the dropdown parameters selected (via watch) and building a url and using this.$router.push to update browser history when things change. I have a feeling this isn't totally correct, but it's the only reliable way I've been able to make the url update consistently.
The main issue is that when I hit the browser's back/forward buttons, the components do not update their state based on the url. The application remains in it's current state if I hit back/forward. How do I properly go about this?

It looks like you're effectively trying to bind the state of your dropdown to your URL query. VueRouter, unfortunately, doesn't have a baked-in solution for this.
I'm not sure how your data is structured, so let's assume you have an object dropdownParams containing the relevant parameters:
dropdownParams: {
region: 372,
pc: 341,
vendor: 123456,
}
You need to set a watcher on dropdownParams to update the query in the $route when those are updated. Use $router.replace instead of $router.push so that the history doesn't change:
watch: {
dropdownParams(params) {
// format the data however you want this is an example with lodash
let query = _.pickBy(params, p => !_.isEmpty(p));
this.$router.replace({ query: query });
}
}
Then, in the mounted hook, you can set the dropdownParams object based on any relevant $route.query parameters, if they already exist:
mounted() {
let keys = _.keys(this.dropdownParams);
_.assign(this.dropdownParams, _.pick(this.$route.query, keys));
}
Now, when the user changes the dropdown parameters, those changes will be reflected in the URL. And, if the user loads the component with URL query parameters already present, the component will set those values to the dropdown.

Meteor: Data from External API call not rendering

I am relatively new to Meteor, and I'm trying to create a web store for my sister-in-law that takes data from her existing Etsy store and puts a custom skin on it. I've defined all of my Meteor.methods to retrieve the data, and I've proofed the data with a series of console.log statements... So, the data is there, but it won't render on the screen. Here is an example of some of the code on the server side:
Meteor.methods({
...
'getShopSections': function() {
this.unblock();
var URL = baseURL + "/sections?api_key="+apiKey;
var response = Meteor.http.get(URL).data.results;
return response;
}
...
});
This method returns an array of Object. A sample bit of JSON string from one of the returned Objects from the array:
{
active_listing_count: 20,
rank: 2,
shop_section_id: 1******0,
title: "Example Title",
user_id: 2******7
}
After fetching this data without a hitch, I was ready to make the call from the client side, and I tried and failed in several different ways before a Google search landed me at this tutorial here: https://dzone.com/articles/integrating-external-apis-your
On the client side, I have a nav.js file with the following bit of code, adapted from the above tutorial:
Template.nav.rendered = function() {
Meteor.call('getShopSections', function(err, res) {
Session.set('sections', res);
return res;
});
};
Template.nav.helpers({
category: function() {
var sections = Session.get('sections');
return sections;
}
});
And a sample call from inside my nav.html template...
<ul>
{{#each category}}
<li>{{category.title}}</li>
{{/each}}
</ul>
So, there's a few things going on here that I'm unsure of. First and foremost, the DOM is not rendering any of the category.title String despite showing the appropriate number of li placeholders. Secondly, before I followed the above tutorial, I didn't define a Session variable. Considering that the list of shop categories should remain static once the template is loaded, I didn't think it was necessary from what I understand about Session variables... but for some reason this was the difference between the template displaying a single empty <li> tag versus a number of empty <li>'s equal to category.length --- so, even though I can't comprehend why the Session variable is needed in this instance, it did bring me one perceived step closer to my goal... I have tried a number of console.log statements on the client side, and I am 100% sure the data is defined and available, but when I check the source code in my Developer Tools window, the DOM just shows a number of empty li brackets.
Can any Meteor gurus explain why 1) the DOM is not rendering any of the titles, and 2) if the Session variable indeed necessary? Please let me know if more information is needed, and I'll be very happy to provide it. Thanks!

You set the data context when you use #each, so simply use:
<li>{{title}}</li>
If a Session is the right type of reactive variable to use here or not is hard to determine without knowing what you are doing but my rough guess is that a Mini Mongo collection may be better suited for what it appears you are doing.
To get you started on deciding the correct type of reactive variable to use for this head over to the full Meteor documentation and investigate: collections, sessions, and reactive vars.
Edit: To step back and clarify a bit, a Template helper is called a reactive computation. Reactive computations inside of helpers will only execute if they are used in their respective templates AND if you use a reactive variable inside of the computation. There are multiple types of reactive variable, each with their own attributes. Your code likely didn't work at all before you used Session because you were not using a reactive variable.

backbone.js cache collections and refresh

I have a collection that can potentially contain thousands of models. I have a view that displays a table with 50 rows for each page.
Now I want to be able to cache my data so that when a user loads page 1 of the table and then clicks page 2, the data for page 1 (rows #01-50) will be cached so that when the user clicks page 1 again, backbone won't have to fetch it again.
Also, I want my collection to be able to refresh updated data from the server without performing a RESET, since RESET will delete all the models in a collection, including references of existing model that may exist in my app. Is it possible to fetch data from the server and only update or add new models if necessary by comparing the existing data and the new arriving data?

In my app, I addressed the reset question by adding a new method called fetchNew:
app.Collection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
// fetch list without overwriting existing objects (copied from fetch())
fetchNew: function(options) {
options = options || {};
var collection = this,
success = options.success;
options.success = function(resp, status, xhr) {
_(collection.parse(resp, xhr)).each(function(item) {
// added this conditional block
if (!collection.get(item.id)) {
collection.add(item, {silent:true});
}
});
if (!options.silent) {
collection.trigger('reset', collection, options);
}
if (success) success(collection, resp);
};
return (this.sync || Backbone.sync).call(this, 'read', this, options);
}
});
This is pretty much identical to the standard fetch() method, except for the conditional statement checking for item existence, and using add() by default, rather than reset. Unlike simply passing {add: true} in the options argument, it allows you to retrieve sets of models that may overlap with what you already have loaded - using {add: true} will throw an error if you try to add the same model twice.
This should solve your caching problem, assuming your collection is set up so that you can pass some kind of page parameter in options to tell the server what page of options to send back. You'll probably want to add some sort of data structure within your collection to track which pages you've loaded, to avoid doing unnecessary requests, e.g.:
app.BigCollection = app.Collection.extend({
initialize: function() {
this.loadedPages = {};
},
loadPage: function(pageNumber) {
if (!this.loadedPages[pageNumber]) {
this.fetchNew({
page: pageNumber,
success: function(collection) {
collection.loadedPages[pageNumber] = true;
}
})
}
}
});

Backbone.Collection.fetch has an option {add:true} which will add models into a collection instead of replacing the contents.
myCollection.fetch({add:true})
So, in your first scenario, the items from page2 will get added to the collection.
As far as your 2nd scenario, there's currently no built in way to do that.
According to Jeremy that's something you're supposed to do in your App, and not part of Backbone.
Backbone seems to have a number of issues when being used for collaborative apps where another user might be updating models which you have client side. I get the feeling that Jeremy seems to focus on single-user applications, and the above ticket discussion exemplifies that.
In your case, the simplest way to handle your second scenario is to iterate over your collection and call fetch() on each model. But, that's not very good for performance.
For a better way to do it, I think you're going to have to override collection._add, and go down the line dalyons did on this pull request.

I managed to get update in Backbone 0.9.9 core. Check it out as it's exactly what you need http://backbonejs.org/#Collection-update.