We Keep Coding

Can I use Array.prototype.some() to check if two arrays have two common elements? [duplicate]

I have a target array ["apple","banana","orange"], and I want to check if other arrays contain any one of the target array elements.
For example:
["apple","grape"] //returns true;
["apple","banana","pineapple"] //returns true;
["grape", "pineapple"] //returns false;
How can I do it in JavaScript?

Vanilla JS
ES2016:
const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))
ES6:
const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)
How it works
some(..) checks each element of the array against a test function and returns true if any element of the array passes the test function, otherwise, it returns false. indexOf(..) >= 0 and includes(..) both return true if the given argument is present in the array.

vanilla js
/**
* #description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
* #param {array} haystack the array to search.
* #param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
* #return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
*/
var findOne = function (haystack, arr) {
return arr.some(function (v) {
return haystack.indexOf(v) >= 0;
});
};
As noted by #loganfsmyth you can shorten it in ES2016 to
/**
* #description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
* #param {array} haystack the array to search.
* #param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
* #return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
*/
const findOne = (haystack, arr) => {
return arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));
};
or simply as arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));
If you want to determine if the array has all the items from the other array, replace some() to every()
or as arr.every(v => haystack.includes(v));

ES6 solution:
let arr1 = [1, 2, 3];
let arr2 = [2, 3];
let isFounded = arr1.some( ai => arr2.includes(ai) );
Unlike of it: Must contains all values.
let allFounded = arr2.every( ai => arr1.includes(ai) );
Hope, will be helpful.

If you're not opposed to using a libray, http://underscorejs.org/ has an intersection method, which can simplify this:
var _ = require('underscore');
var target = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'banana'];
var fruit2 = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'mango'];
var fruit3 = [ 'mango', 'lemon', 'pineapple'];
var fruit4 = [ 'orange', 'lemon', 'grapes'];
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit2)); //returns [apple, orange]
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit3)); //returns []
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit4)); //returns [orange]
The intersection function will return a new array with the items that it matched and if not matches it returns empty array.

ES6 (fastest)
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v=> b.indexOf(v) !== -1)
ES2016
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v => b.includes(v));
Underscore
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
_.intersection(a, b)
DEMO: https://jsfiddle.net/r257wuv5/
jsPerf: https://jsperf.com/array-contains-any-element-of-another-array

If you don't need type coercion (because of the use of indexOf), you could try something like the following:
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var check = [3, 4];
var found = false;
for (var i = 0; i < check.length; i++) {
if (arr.indexOf(check[i]) > -1) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
console.log(found);
Where arr contains the target items. At the end, found will show if the second array had at least one match against the target.
Of course, you can swap out numbers for anything you want to use - strings are fine, like your example.
And in my specific example, the result should be true because the second array's 3 exists in the target.
UPDATE:
Here's how I'd organize it into a function (with some minor changes from before):
var anyMatchInArray = (function () {
"use strict";
var targetArray, func;
targetArray = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
func = function (checkerArray) {
var found = false;
for (var i = 0, j = checkerArray.length; !found && i < j; i++) {
if (targetArray.indexOf(checkerArray[i]) > -1) {
found = true;
}
}
return found;
};
return func;
}());
DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/u8Bzt/
In this case, the function could be modified to have targetArray be passed in as an argument instead of hardcoded in the closure.
UPDATE2:
While my solution above may work and be (hopefully more) readable, I believe the "better" way to handle the concept I described is to do something a little differently. The "problem" with the above solution is that the indexOf inside the loop causes the target array to be looped over completely for every item in the other array. This can easily be "fixed" by using a "lookup" (a map...a JavaScript object literal). This allows two simple loops, over each array. Here's an example:
var anyMatchInArray = function (target, toMatch) {
"use strict";
var found, targetMap, i, j, cur;
found = false;
targetMap = {};
// Put all values in the `target` array into a map, where
// the keys are the values from the array
for (i = 0, j = target.length; i < j; i++) {
cur = target[i];
targetMap[cur] = true;
}
// Loop over all items in the `toMatch` array and see if any of
// their values are in the map from before
for (i = 0, j = toMatch.length; !found && (i < j); i++) {
cur = toMatch[i];
found = !!targetMap[cur];
// If found, `targetMap[cur]` will return true, otherwise it
// will return `undefined`...that's what the `!!` is for
}
return found;
};
DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/5Lv9v/
The downside to this solution is that only numbers and strings (and booleans) can be used (correctly), because the values are (implicitly) converted to strings and set as the keys to the lookup map. This isn't exactly good/possible/easily done for non-literal values.

Using filter/indexOf:
function containsAny(source,target)
{
var result = source.filter(function(item){ return target.indexOf(item) > -1});
return (result.length > 0);
}
//results
var fruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","grape"]));
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","banana","pineapple"]));
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["grape", "pineapple"]));

You could use lodash and do:
_.intersection(originalTarget, arrayToCheck).length > 0
Set intersection is done on both collections producing an array of identical elements.

const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const arr2Set = new Set(arr2);
return arr1.some(el => arr2Set.has(el));
};
Or you can even have a better performance if you first find out which of these two arrays is longer and making Set out for the longest array, while applying some method on the shortest one:
const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [shortArr, longArr] = (arr1.length < arr2.length) ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
const longArrSet = new Set(longArr);
return shortArr.some(el => longArrSet.has(el));
};

I wrote 3 solutions. Essentially they do the same. They return true as soon as they get true. I wrote the 3 solutions just for showing 3 different way to do things. Now, it depends what you like more. You can use performance.now() to check the performance of one solution or the other. In my solutions I'm also checking which array is the biggest and which one is the smallest to make the operations more efficient.
The 3rd solution may not be the cutest but is efficient. I decided to add it because in some coding interviews you are not allowed to use built-in methods.
Lastly, sure...we can come up with a solution with 2 NESTED for loops (the brute force way) but you want to avoid that because the time complexity is bad O(n^2).
Note:
instead of using .includes() like some other people did, you can use
.indexOf(). if you do just check if the value is bigger than 0. If
the value doesn't exist will give you -1. if it does exist, it will give you
greater than 0.
indexOf() vs includes()
Which one has better performance? indexOf() for a little bit, but includes is more readable in my opinion.
If I'm not mistaken .includes() and indexOf() use loops behind the scene, so you will be at O(n^2) when using them with .some().
USING loop
const compareArraysWithIncludes = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
return bigArray.includes(smallArray[i]);
}
return false;
};
USING .some()
const compareArraysWithSome = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
return smallArray.some(c => bigArray.includes(c));
};
USING MAPS Time complexity O(2n)=>O(n)
const compararArraysUsingObjs = (arr1, arr2) => {
const map = {};
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
if (!map[smallArray[i]]) {
map[smallArray[i]] = true;
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < bigArray.length; i++) {
if (map[bigArray[i]]) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
Code in my:
stackblitz
I'm not an expert in performance nor BigO so if something that I said is wrong let me know.

You can use a nested Array.prototype.some call. This has the benefit that it will bail at the first match instead of other solutions that will run through the full nested loop.
eg.
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var match = [2, 4];
var hasMatch = arr.some(a => match.some(m => a === m));

I found this short and sweet syntax to match all or some elements between two arrays. For example
// OR operation. find if any of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE
let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'b'];
console.log(array2.some(ele => array1.includes(ele)));
// prints TRUE
// AND operation. find if all of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a no first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE
let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'x'];
console.log(!array2.some(ele => !array1.includes(ele)));
// prints FALSE
Hope that helps someone in future!

Just one more solution
var a1 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
var a2 = [2, 4]
Check if a1 contain all element of a2
var result = a1.filter(e => a2.indexOf(e) !== -1).length === a2.length
console.log(result)

What about using a combination of some/findIndex and indexOf?
So something like this:
var array1 = ["apple","banana","orange"];
var array2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];
var found = array1.some(function(v) { return array2.indexOf(v) != -1; });
To make it more readable you could add this functionality to the Array object itself.
Array.prototype.indexOfAny = function (array) {
return this.findIndex(function(v) { return array.indexOf(v) != -1; });
}
Array.prototype.containsAny = function (array) {
return this.indexOfAny(array) != -1;
}
Note: If you'd want to do something with a predicate you could replace the inner indexOf with another findIndex and a predicate

Here is an interesting case I thought I should share.
Let's say that you have an array of objects and an array of selected filters.
let arr = [
{ id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
{ id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] },
{ id: 'z', tags: ['baz'] }
];
const filters = ['foo'];
To apply the selected filters to this structure we can
if (filters.length > 0)
arr = arr.filter(obj =>
obj.tags.some(tag => filters.includes(tag))
);
// [
// { id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
// { id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] }
// ]

Good perfomance solution:
We should transform one of arrays to object.
const contains = (arr1, mainObj) => arr1.some(el => el in mainObj);
const includes = (arr1, mainObj) => arr1.every(el => el in mainObj);
Usage:
const mainList = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
// We make object from array, you can use your solution to make it
const main = Object.fromEntries(mainList.map(key => [key, true]));
contains(["apple","grape"], main) // => true
contains(["apple","banana","pineapple"], main) // => true
contains(["grape", "pineapple"], main) // => false
includes(["apple", "grape"], main) // => false
includes(["banana", "apple"], main) // => true
you can face with some disadvantage of checking by in operator (eg 'toString' in {} // => true), so you can change solution to obj[key] checker

Adding to Array Prototype
Disclaimer: Many would strongly advise against this. The only time it'd really be a problem was if a library added a prototype function with the same name (that behaved differently) or something like that.
Code:
Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
return this.some(
(v) => (arr.indexOf(v) >= 0)
)
}
Without using big arrow functions:
Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
return this.some(function (v) {
return arr.indexOf(v) >= 0
})
}
Usage
var a = ["a","b"]
console.log(a.containsAny(["b","z"])) // Outputs true
console.log(a.containsAny(["z"])) // Outputs false

My solution applies Array.prototype.some() and Array.prototype.includes() array helpers which do their job pretty efficient as well
ES6
const originalFruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];
const fruits1 = ["apple","banana","pineapple"];
const fruits2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];
const commonFruits = (myFruitsArr, otherFruitsArr) => {
return myFruitsArr.some(fruit => otherFruitsArr.includes(fruit))
}
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits1)) //returns true;
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits2)) //returns false;

When I looked at your answers, I could not find the answer I wanted.
I did something myself and I want to share this with you.
It will be true only if the words entered (array) are correct.
function contains(a,b) {
let counter = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {;
if(a.includes(b[i])) counter++;
}
if(counter === b.length) return true;
return false;
}
let main_array = ['foo','bar','baz'];
let sub_array_a = ['foo','foobar'];
let sub_array_b = ['foo','bar'];
console.log(contains(main_array, sub_array_a)); // returns false
console.log(contains(main_array,sub_array_b )); // returns true

Array .filter() with a nested call to .find() will return all elements in the first array that are members of the second array. Check the length of the returned array to determine if any of the second array were in the first array.
getCommonItems(firstArray, secondArray) {
return firstArray.filter((firstArrayItem) => {
return secondArray.find((secondArrayItem) => {
return firstArrayItem === secondArrayItem;
});
});
}

It can be done by simply iterating across the main array and check whether other array contains any of the target element or not.
Try this:
function Check(A) {
var myarr = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
var i, j;
var totalmatches = 0;
for (i = 0; i < myarr.length; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < A.length; ++j) {
if (myarr[i] == A[j]) {
totalmatches++;
}
}
}
if (totalmatches > 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
var fruits1 = new Array("apple", "grape");
alert(Check(fruits1));
var fruits2 = new Array("apple", "banana", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits2));
var fruits3 = new Array("grape", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits3));
DEMO at JSFIDDLE

Not sure how efficient this might be in terms of performance, but this is what I use using array destructuring to keep everything nice and short:
const shareElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const typeArr = [...arr1, ...arr2]
const typeSet = new Set(typeArr)
return typeArr.length > typeSet.size
}
Since sets cannot have duplicate elements while arrays can, combining both input arrays, converting it to a set, and comparing the set size and array length would tell you if they share any elements.

With underscorejs
var a1 = [1,2,3];
var a2 = [1,2];
_.every(a1, function(e){ return _.include(a2, e); } ); //=> false
_.every(a2, function(e){ return _.include(a1, e); } ); //=> true

Vanilla JS with partial matching & case insensitive
The problem with some previous approaches is that they require an exact match of every word. But, What if you want to provide results for partial matches?
function search(arrayToSearch, wordsToSearch) {
arrayToSearch.filter(v =>
wordsToSearch.every(w =>
v.toLowerCase().split(" ").
reduce((isIn, h) => isIn || String(h).indexOf(w) >= 0, false)
)
)
}
//Usage
var myArray = ["Attach tag", "Attaching tags", "Blah blah blah"];
var searchText = "Tag attach";
var searchArr = searchText.toLowerCase().split(" "); //["tag", "attach"]
var matches = search(myArray, searchArr);
//Will return
//["Attach tag", "Attaching tags"]
This is useful when you want to provide a search box where users type words and the results can have those words in any order, position and case.

Update #Paul Grimshaw answer, use includes insteed of indexOf for more readable
let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)
let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))

A short way of writing this:
const found = arr1.some(arr2.includes)

I came up with a solution in node using underscore js like this:
var checkRole = _.intersection(['A','B'], ['A','B','C']);
if(!_.isEmpty(checkRole)) {
next();
}

You are looking for intersection between the two arrays. And you have two major intersection types: 'every' and 'some'. Let me give you good examples:
EVERY
let brands1 = ['Ford', 'Kia', 'VW', 'Audi'];
let brands2 = ['Audi', 'Kia'];
// Find 'every' brand intersection.
// Meaning all elements inside 'brands2' must be present in 'brands1':
let intersectionEvery = brands2.every( brand => brands1.includes(brand) );
if (intersectionEvery) {
const differenceList = brands1.filter(brand => !brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('difference list:', differenceList);
const commonList = brands1.filter(brand => brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('common list:', commonList);
}
If condition is not met (like if you put 'Mercedes' in brands2) then 'intersectionEvery' won't be satisfied - will be bool false.
If condition is met it will log ["Ford", "VW"] as difference and ["Kia", "Audi"] as common list.
Sandbox: https://jsfiddle.net/bqmg14t6/
SOME
let brands1 = ['Ford', 'Kia', 'VW', 'Audi'];
let brands2 = ['Audi', 'Kia', 'Mercedes', 'Land Rover'];
// Find 'some' brand intersection.
// Meaning some elements inside 'brands2' must be also present in 'brands1':
let intersectionSome = brands2.some( brand => brands1.includes(brand) );
if (intersectionSome) {
const differenceList = brands1.filter(brand => !brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('difference list:', differenceList);
const commonList = brands1.filter(brand => brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('common list:', commonList);
}
Here we are looking for some common brands, not necessarily all.
It will log ["Ford", "VW"] as difference and ["Kia", "Audi"] as common brands.
Sandbox: https://jsfiddle.net/zkq9j3Lh/

Personally, I would use the following function:
var arrayContains = function(array, toMatch) {
var arrayAsString = array.toString();
return (arrayAsString.indexOf(','+toMatch+',') >-1);
}
The "toString()" method will always use commas to separate the values. Will only really work with primitive types.

console.log("searching Array: "+finding_array);
console.log("searching in:"+reference_array);
var check_match_counter = 0;
for (var j = finding_array.length - 1; j >= 0; j--)
{
if(reference_array.indexOf(finding_array[j]) > 0)
{
check_match_counter = check_match_counter + 1;
}
}
var match = (check_match_counter > 0) ? true : false;
console.log("Final result:"+match);

How sort arrays in js

There are arrays A and B. We need to add to array C all the values of arrays A and B that are equal in both value and indexes.
A = [a,b,c], B = [c,b,a], C = [b]
Also: to add to array D all unique values from array A that are contained in array B.
A = [d,a,b,c], B = [c,b,a,a], D = [a,b,c]
Is it possible to do this without a nested loop? I can handle the first task, but how do I fill D with values?
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (b[i] === a[i]) {
c.push(a[i]);
} else if() {
// Some code
}
}

filter method? (for second question)
let D = A.filter(e => B.includes(e));
adding because you asked for D to contain unique values from A, thanks to #jarmod for pointing this out. You could use filter again to remove duplicates. I found this: Get all unique values in a JavaScript array (remove duplicates)

You can use a Set to keep track of unique values and .has() for efficient lookup in that Set. This code uses only one loop in your code, but several set operations use loops in their internal implementation (to build a set from an Array or convert a set to an Array). That cannot be avoided.
const A = ['e', 'd', 'a', 'b', 'c'];
const B = ['e', 'c', 'b', 'a', 'a'];
function processArrays(a, b) {
const c = [];
const aSet = new Set(a);
const commonSet = new Set();
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (b[i] === a[i]) {
c.push(a[i]);
}
// if aSet has this value, then add it to commonSet
if (aSet.has(b[i])) {
commonSet.add(b[i])
}
}
return { samePositionElements: c, commonElements: Array.from(commonSet) };
}
console.log(processArrays(A, B));
Note, I don't do an if/else here because these are two independent output tests. The first is if the two elements in the same position have the same value. The second is whether it's an element in common with the other array (regardless of position).
This code assumes the two input arrays have the same length. If you wish to support inputs with different length, that can be accommodated with slightly more code.

Simple Way and Fast Solution:
let A = ['a','b','c', 'e'];
let B = ['c','b','a', 'e'];
let common =[];
for(let i=0; i<A.length && i<B.length; i++){
if(A[i]==B[i]){
common.push(A[i])
}
}
console.log(common)

Confused about arrays on javascript

I want to make the next array based on another 2 arrays:
array1 = ['a', 'b']
array2 = [1,2,3]
I want to create the next array
newArray = [['a',1], ['a',2], ['a',3], ['b',1], ['b',2], ['b',3]]
Here is my code:
var test1 = ['a', 'b'];
var test2 = [1,2,3], arr1 = [], arr2 = [];
for(var i = 0; i < test1.length; i++){
arr1 = [];
arr1.push(test1[i]);
for(var x = 0; x < test2.length; x++){
if(arr1.length > 1)
arr1.pop();
arr1.push(test2[x])
arr2.push(arr1);
}
}
console.log("arr1:",JSON.stringify(arr1), "arr2:" ,JSON.stringify(arr2));
But it returns the last element of the second array.
[['a',3], ['a',3], ['a',3], ['b',3], ['b',3], ['b',3]]
Why is this happening?

Every other answer about array lengths, and similar things are not right. The only reason you get 3 (or whatever the last value/length is) all over the place is because Arrays are by reference, and functions, not for-loops create lexical scope. This is one of the reasons you hear that 'functions are first-class citizens in javascript'. This is a classical example, and frequently in interviews too, used to trip up devs who are not used to how scoping in javascript really behaves. There are some ways to fix it that involve wrapping the innards of loops in functional scopes, and passing in the index, but I'd like to suggest a more 'javascript centric' approach, and that is to solve the problem with functions.
See this example (which by the way is also a clear way to implement your goal.)
var test1 = ['a', 'b'];
var test2 = [1,2,3];
// this will iterate over array 1 and return
// [[ [a,1],[a,2],[a,3] ],[ [b,1],[b,2],[b,3] ]]
var merged = test1.map(function(item1){
return test2.map(function(item2){
return [item1, item2];
});
});
//this is a slick way to 'flatten' the result set
var answer = [].concat.apply([],merged )
console.log(answer) //this is it.
Functions () make scope - not 'brackets' {}. The easiest fix is usually to use functions to solve your problems as they create lexical scope. The most trusted library on npm, lodash, for instance is based on this. I think you'll write less and less loops from day to day js as you progress, and use more functions.
Working example on js fiddle:
https://jsfiddle.net/3z0hh12y/1/
You can read more about scopes and closures here
https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/master/scope%20%26%20closures/ch1.md
And one more thing: when you think you want a loop in js, you usually want Array.map(), especially if you're remapping values.

You problem lies in the second loop. because you have a single reference to ary1 you are over writing the value with each loop.
so first time it loops your array will have
[['a',1]]
but because you you only have one reference to ary1 you are just editing the value you just pushed into ary2.
so then you get this:
[['a',2],['a',2]]
you may think that you are pushing a new array in but it is in fact the same exact array! so the pattern continues and you get the result that you are seeing.

It's occurring because you're popping elements off arr1 once it's length exceeds 1, so the last element is all that persists.
Try this:
var test1 = ['a', 'b'];
var test2 = [1,2,3];
var arr1 = [], arr2 = [];
for(var i = 0; i < test1.length; i++) {
for(var x = 0; x < test2.length; x++) {
arr1[arr1.length] = [test1[i], test2[x]];
}
}
console.log(JSON.stringify(arr1));

Beside the solutions for fixed style for two array, you might use another approach to get the result. you could use an iterative and recursive approach for variable length of parts an their length.
function combine(array) {
function c(part, index) {
array[index].forEach(function (a) {
var p = part.concat([a]);
if (p.length === array.length) {
r.push(p);
return;
}
c(p, index + 1);
});
}
var r = [];
c([], 0);
return r;
}
console.log(combine([['a', 'b'], [1, 2, 3]]));
console.log(combine([['a', 'b', 'c'], ['1', '2', '3', '4'], ['A', 'B']]));
console.log(combine([['a', 'b', 'c'], ['1', '2', '3', '4'], [['A'], ['B']]]));
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }

I guess the proper functional approach would be done by a single liner reduce and nested map duo.
var arr = ['a', 'b'],
brr = [1,2,3],
result = arr.reduce((p,c) => p.concat(brr.map(e => [c,e])),[]);
console.log(JSON.stringify(result));

your approach is a bit off, you better take this approach (which is pretty simple I think): DEMO
var array1 = ['a', 'b'],
array2 = [1,2,3],
nextArray=[];
for(var i=0, array1Length=array1.length; i < array1Length; i++){
for(var x=0, array2Length=array2.length; x < array2Length; x++){
nextArray.push([array1[i],array2[x]]);
}
}
console.log(nextArray);

Yeah, that's way more complicated than it needs to be. The result you want is called the Cartesian product, and can be generated like this:
const cartesianProduct = (a, b) => {
const rv = [];
a.map(ae => b.map(be => rv.push([ae, be])));
return rv;
};
const array1 = ['a', 'b']
const array2 = [1,2,3]
console.log(JSON.stringify(cartesianProduct(array1, array2)));
If Javascript6 had flatMap it would be even simpler:
const cartesianProduct = (a, b) =>
a.flatMap(ae => b.map(be => [ae, be]));

I modified your code a little (but not too much, I tried to keep the same approach). The solution was to create a new array (arr1) in the inner loop. Otherwise, the first correct pair ['a', 1] would get overridden just after begin pushed to arr2 at the next loop pass.
var test1 = ['a', 'b'];
var test2 = [1,2,3];
var arr2 = [];
for(var i = 0; i < test1.length; i++){
for(var x = 0; x < test2.length; x++){
var arr1 = [];
arr1.push(test1[i]);
if(arr1.length > 1){
arr1.pop();
}
arr1.push(test2[x]);
arr2.push(arr1);
}
}

Merge Arrays Properly (Immutable) in ES6 [duplicate]

I have two JavaScript arrays:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
I want the output to be:
var array3 = ["Vijendra","Singh","Shakya"];
The output array should have repeated words removed.
How do I merge two arrays in JavaScript so that I get only the unique items from each array in the same order they were inserted into the original arrays?

To just merge the arrays (without removing duplicates)
ES5 version use Array.concat:
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
array1 = array1.concat(array2);
console.log(array1);
ES6 version use destructuring
const array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
const array3 = [...array1, ...array2];
Since there is no 'built in' way to remove duplicates (ECMA-262 actually has Array.forEach which would be great for this), we have to do it manually:
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
};
Then, to use it:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = array1.concat(array2).unique();
This will also preserve the order of the arrays (i.e, no sorting needed).
Since many people are annoyed about prototype augmentation of Array.prototype and for in loops, here is a less invasive way to use it:
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = arrayUnique(array1.concat(array2));
For those who are fortunate enough to work with browsers where ES5 is available, you can use Object.defineProperty like this:
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'unique', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: false,
writable: false,
value: function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
});

With Underscore.js or Lo-Dash you can do:
console.log(_.union([1, 2, 3], [101, 2, 1, 10], [2, 1]));
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>
http://underscorejs.org/#union
http://lodash.com/docs#union

First concatenate the two arrays, next filter out only the unique items:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b)
var d = c.filter((item, pos) => c.indexOf(item) === pos)
console.log(d) // d is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]
Edit
As suggested a more performance wise solution would be to filter out the unique items in b before concatenating with a:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b.filter((item) => a.indexOf(item) < 0))
console.log(c) // c is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]

[...array1,...array2] // => don't remove duplication
OR
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]; // => remove duplication

This is an ECMAScript 6 solution using spread operator and array generics.
Currently it only works with Firefox, and possibly Internet Explorer Technical Preview.
But if you use Babel, you can have it now.
const input = [
[1, 2, 3],
[101, 2, 1, 10],
[2, 1]
];
const mergeDedupe = (arr) => {
return [...new Set([].concat(...arr))];
}
console.log('output', mergeDedupe(input));

Using a Set (ECMAScript 2015), it will be as simple as that:
const array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
console.log(Array.from(new Set(array1.concat(array2))));

You can do it simply with ECMAScript 6,
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"];
Use the spread operator for concatenating the array.
Use Set for creating a distinct set of elements.
Again use the spread operator to convert the Set into an array.

Here is a slightly different take on the loop. With some of the optimizations in the latest version of Chrome, it is the fastest method for resolving the union of the two arrays (Chrome 38.0.2111).
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [];
var arr = array1.concat(array2),
len = arr.length;
while (len--) {
var itm = arr[len];
if (array3.indexOf(itm) === -1) {
array3.unshift(itm);
}
}
while loop: ~589k ops/s
filter: ~445k ops/s
lodash: 308k ops/s
for loops: 225k ops/s
A comment pointed out that one of my setup variables was causing my loop to pull ahead of the rest because it didn't have to initialize an empty array to write to. I agree with that, so I've rewritten the test to even the playing field, and included an even faster option.
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
let whileLoopAlt = function (array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
};
In this alternate solution, I've combined one answer's associative array solution to eliminate the .indexOf() call in the loop which was slowing things down a lot with a second loop, and included some of the other optimizations that other users have suggested in their answers as well.
The top answer here with the double loop on every value (i-1) is still significantly slower. lodash is still doing strong, and I still would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind adding a library to their project. For those who don't want to, my while loop is still a good answer and the filter answer has a very strong showing here, beating out all on my tests with the latest Canary Chrome (44.0.2360) as of this writing.
Check out Mike's answer and Dan Stocker's answer if you want to step it up a notch in speed. Those are by far the fastest of all results after going through almost all of the viable answers.

I simplified the best of this answer and turned it into a nice function:
function mergeUnique(arr1, arr2){
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter(function (item) {
return arr1.indexOf(item) === -1;
}));
}

The ES6 offers a single-line solution for merging multiple arrays without duplicates by using destructuring and set.
const array1 = ['a','b','c'];
const array2 = ['c','c','d','e'];
const array3 = [...new Set([...array1,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]

Just throwing in my two cents.
function mergeStringArrays(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
This is a method I use a lot, it uses an object as a hashlookup table to do the duplicate checking. Assuming that the hash is O(1), then this runs in O(n) where n is a.length + b.length. I honestly have no idea how the browser does the hash, but it performs well on many thousands of data points.

Just steer clear of nested loops (O(n^2)), and .indexOf() (+O(n)).
function merge(a, b) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
hash[a[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
hash[b[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = merge(array1, array2);
console.log(array3);

I know this question is not about array of objects, but searchers do end up here.
so it's worth adding for future readers a proper ES6 way of merging and then removing duplicates
array of objects:
var arr1 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3} ];
var arr2 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 4} ];
var arr3 = arr1.concat(arr2.filter( ({a}) => !arr1.find(f => f.a == a) ));
// [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3}, {a: 4} ]

EDIT:
The first solution is the fastest only when there are few items. When there are over 400 items, the Set solution becomes the fastest. And when there are 100,000 items, it is a thousand times faster than the first solution.
Considering that performance is important only when there is a lot of items, and that the Set solution is by far the most readable, it should be the right solution in most cases
The perf results below were computed with a small number of items
Based on jsperf, the fastest way (edit: if there are less than 400 items) to merge two arrays in a new one is the following:
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i++)
if (array1.indexOf(array2[i]) === -1)
array1.push(array2[i]);
This one is 17% slower:
array2.forEach(v => array1.includes(v) ? null : array1.push(v));
This one is 45% slower (edit: when there is less than 100 items. It is a lot faster when there is a lot of items):
var a = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
And the accepted answer's is 55% slower (and much longer to write) (edit: and it is several order of magnitude slower than any of the other methods when there are 100,000 items)
var a = array1.concat(array2);
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
for (var j = i + 1; j < a.length; ++j) {
if (a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
https://jsbench.me/lxlej18ydg

Array.prototype.merge = function(/* variable number of arrays */){
for(var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++){
var array = arguments[i];
for(var j = 0; j < array.length; j++){
if(this.indexOf(array[j]) === -1) {
this.push(array[j]);
}
}
}
return this;
};
A much better array merge function.

Performance
Today 2020.10.15 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v86, Safari v13.1.2 and Firefox v81 for chosen solutions.
Results
For all browsers
solution H is fast/fastest
solutions L is fast
solution D is fastest on chrome for big arrays
solution G is fast on small arrays
solution M is slowest for small arrays
solutions E are slowest for big arrays
Details
I perform 2 tests cases:
for 2 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
for 10000 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
on solutions
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
G,
H,
J,
L,
M
presented in below snippet
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/10499519/860099
function A(arr1,arr2) {
return _.union(arr1,arr2)
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/53149853/860099
function B(arr1,arr2) {
return _.unionWith(arr1, arr2, _.isEqual);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/27664971/860099
function C(arr1,arr2) {
return [...new Set([...arr1,...arr2])]
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/48130841/860099
function D(arr1,arr2) {
return Array.from(new Set(arr1.concat(arr2)))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/23080662/860099
function E(arr1,arr2) {
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.indexOf(item) < 0))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/28631880/860099
function G(arr1,arr2) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < arr1.length; i++) {
hash[arr1[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < arr2.length; i++) {
hash[arr2[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/13847481/860099
function H(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/1584377/860099
function J(arr1,arr2) {
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
return arrayUnique(arr1.concat(arr2));
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/25120770/860099
function L(array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/39336712/860099
function M(arr1,arr2) {
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
return union(dedupe(arr1)) (arr2)
}
// -------------
// TEST
// -------------
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
[A,B,C,D,E,G,H,J,L,M].forEach(f=> {
console.log(`${f.name} [${f([...array1],[...array2])}]`);
})
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.20/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-90vH1Z83AJY9DmlWa8WkjkV79yfS2n2Oxhsi2dZbIv0nC4E6m5AbH8Nh156kkM7JePmqD6tcZsfad1ueoaovww==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
This snippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!
And here are example test run for chrome
UPDATE
I remove cases F,I,K because they modify input arrays and benchmark gives wrong results

Why don't you use an object? It looks like you're trying to model a set. This won't preserve the order, however.
var set1 = {"Vijendra":true, "Singh":true}
var set2 = {"Singh":true, "Shakya":true}
// Merge second object into first
function merge(set1, set2){
for (var key in set2){
if (set2.hasOwnProperty(key))
set1[key] = set2[key]
}
return set1
}
merge(set1, set2)
// Create set from array
function setify(array){
var result = {}
for (var item in array){
if (array.hasOwnProperty(item))
result[array[item]] = true
}
return result
}

For ES6, just one line:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [4, 5]
[...new Set(a.concat(b))] // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The best solution...
You can check directly in the browser console by hitting...
Without duplicate
a = [1, 2, 3];
b = [3, 2, 1, "prince"];
a.concat(b.filter(function(el) {
return a.indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
With duplicate
["prince", "asish", 5].concat(["ravi", 4])
If you want without duplicate you can try a better solution from here - Shouting Code.
[1, 2, 3].concat([3, 2, 1, "prince"].filter(function(el) {
return [1, 2, 3].indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
Try on Chrome browser console
f12 > console
Output:
["prince", "asish", 5, "ravi", 4]
[1, 2, 3, "prince"]

My one and a half penny:
Array.prototype.concat_n_dedupe = function(other_array) {
return this
.concat(other_array) // add second
.reduce(function(uniques, item) { // dedupe all
if (uniques.indexOf(item) == -1) {
uniques.push(item);
}
return uniques;
}, []);
};
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var result = array1.concat_n_dedupe(array2);
console.log(result);

There are so many solutions for merging two arrays.
They can be divided into two main categories(except the use of 3rd party libraries like lodash or underscore.js).
a) combine two arrays and remove duplicated items.
b) filter out items before combining them.
Combine two arrays and remove duplicated items
Combining
// mutable operation(array1 is the combined array)
array1.push(...array2);
array1.unshift(...array2);
// immutable operation
const combined = array1.concat(array2);
const combined = [...array1, ...array2]; // ES6
Unifying
There are many ways to unifying an array, I personally suggest below two methods.
// a little bit tricky
const merged = combined.filter((item, index) => combined.indexOf(item) === index);
const merged = [...new Set(combined)];
Filter out items before combining them
There are also many ways, but I personally suggest the below code due to its simplicity.
const merged = array1.concat(array2.filter(secItem => !array1.includes(secItem)));

You can achieve it simply using Underscore.js's => uniq:
array3 = _.uniq(array1.concat(array2))
console.log(array3)
It will print ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"].

you can use new Set to remove duplication
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]

New solution ( which uses Array.prototype.indexOf and Array.prototype.concat ):
Array.prototype.uniqueMerge = function( a ) {
for ( var nonDuplicates = [], i = 0, l = a.length; i<l; ++i ) {
if ( this.indexOf( a[i] ) === -1 ) {
nonDuplicates.push( a[i] );
}
}
return this.concat( nonDuplicates )
};
Usage:
>>> ['Vijendra', 'Singh'].uniqueMerge(['Singh', 'Shakya'])
["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]
Array.prototype.indexOf ( for internet explorer ):
Array.prototype.indexOf = Array.prototype.indexOf || function(elt)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
var from = Number(arguments[1]) || 0;
from = (from < 0) ? Math.ceil(from): Math.floor(from);
if (from < 0)from += len;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this && this[from] === elt)return from;
}
return -1;
};

It can be done using Set.
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = array1.concat(array2);
var tempSet = new Set(array3);
array3 = Array.from(tempSet);
//show output
document.body.querySelector("div").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(array3);
<div style="width:100%;height:4rem;line-height:4rem;background-color:steelblue;color:#DDD;text-align:center;font-family:Calibri" >
temp text
</div>

//Array.indexOf was introduced in javascript 1.6 (ECMA-262)
//We need to implement it explicitly for other browsers,
if (!Array.prototype.indexOf)
{
Array.prototype.indexOf = function(elt, from)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this &&
this[from] === elt)
return from;
}
return -1;
};
}
//now, on to the problem
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var merged = array1.concat(array2);
var t;
for(i = 0; i < merged.length; i++)
if((t = merged.indexOf(i + 1, merged[i])) != -1)
{
merged.splice(t, 1);
i--;//in case of multiple occurrences
}
Implementation of indexOf method for other browsers is taken from MDC

Array.prototype.add = function(b){
var a = this.concat(); // clone current object
if(!b.push || !b.length) return a; // if b is not an array, or empty, then return a unchanged
if(!a.length) return b.concat(); // if original is empty, return b
// go through all the elements of b
for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++){
// if b's value is not in a, then add it
if(a.indexOf(b[i]) == -1) a.push(b[i]);
}
return a;
}
// Example:
console.log([1,2,3].add([3, 4, 5])); // will output [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

array1.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
The nice thing about this one is performance and that you in general, when working with arrays, are chaining methods like filter, map, etc so you can add that line and it will concat and deduplicate array2 with array1 without needing a reference to the later one (when you are chaining methods you don't have), example:
someSource()
.reduce(...)
.filter(...)
.map(...)
// and now you want to concat array2 and deduplicate:
.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
// and keep chaining stuff
.map(...)
.find(...)
// etc
(I don't like to pollute Array.prototype and that would be the only way of respect the chain - defining a new function will break it - so I think something like this is the only way of accomplish that)

A functional approach with ES2015
Following the functional approach a union of two Arrays is just the composition of concat and filter. In order to provide optimal performance we resort to the native Set data type, which is optimized for property lookups.
Anyway, the key question in conjunction with a union function is how to treat duplicates. The following permutations are possible:
Array A + Array B
[unique] + [unique]
[duplicated] + [unique]
[unique] + [duplicated]
[duplicated] + [duplicated]
The first two permutations are easy to handle with a single function. However, the last two are more complicated, since you can't process them as long as you rely on Set lookups. Since switching to plain old Object property lookups would entail a serious performance hit the following implementation just ignores the third and fourth permutation. You would have to build a separate version of union to support them.
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// de-duplication
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
// the actual union function
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
// here we go
console.log( "unique/unique", union(dedupe(xs)) (ys) );
console.log( "duplicated/unique", union(xs) (ys) );
From here on it gets trivial to implement an unionn function, which accepts any number of arrays (inspired by naomik's comments):
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// union and unionn
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
const unionn = (head, ...tail) => foldl(union) (head) (tail);
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
const zs = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
// here we go
console.log( unionn(xs, ys, zs) );
It turns out unionn is just foldl (aka Array.prototype.reduce), which takes union as its reducer. Note: Since the implementation doesn't use an additional accumulator, it will throw an error when you apply it without arguments.

DeDuplicate single or Merge and DeDuplicate multiple array inputs. Example below.
useing ES6 - Set, for of, destructuring
I wrote this simple function which takes multiple array arguments.
Does pretty much the same as the solution above it just have more practical use case. This function doesn't concatenate duplicate values in to one array only so that it can delete them at some later stage.
SHORT FUNCTION DEFINITION ( only 9 lines )
/**
* This function merging only arrays unique values. It does not merges arrays in to array with duplicate values at any stage.
*
* #params ...args Function accept multiple array input (merges them to single array with no duplicates)
* it also can be used to filter duplicates in single array
*/
function arrayDeDuplicate(...args){
let set = new Set(); // init Set object (available as of ES6)
for(let arr of args){ // for of loops through values
arr.map((value) => { // map adds each value to Set object
set.add(value); // set.add method adds only unique values
});
}
return [...set]; // destructuring set object back to array object
// alternativly we culd use: return Array.from(set);
}
USE EXAMPLE CODEPEN:
// SCENARIO
let a = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
let b = [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10,10];
let c = [43,23,1,2,3];
let d = ['a','b','c','d'];
let e = ['b','c','d','e'];
// USEAGE
let uniqueArrayAll = arrayDeDuplicate(a, b, c, d, e);
let uniqueArraySingle = arrayDeDuplicate(b);
// OUTPUT
console.log(uniqueArrayAll); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 43, 23, "a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
console.log(uniqueArraySingle); // [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

Check if an array contains any element of another array in JavaScript

I have a target array ["apple","banana","orange"], and I want to check if other arrays contain any one of the target array elements.
For example:
["apple","grape"] //returns true;
["apple","banana","pineapple"] //returns true;
["grape", "pineapple"] //returns false;
How can I do it in JavaScript?

Vanilla JS
ES2016:
const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))
ES6:
const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)
How it works
some(..) checks each element of the array against a test function and returns true if any element of the array passes the test function, otherwise, it returns false. indexOf(..) >= 0 and includes(..) both return true if the given argument is present in the array.

vanilla js
/**
* #description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
* #param {array} haystack the array to search.
* #param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
* #return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
*/
var findOne = function (haystack, arr) {
return arr.some(function (v) {
return haystack.indexOf(v) >= 0;
});
};
As noted by #loganfsmyth you can shorten it in ES2016 to
/**
* #description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
* #param {array} haystack the array to search.
* #param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
* #return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
*/
const findOne = (haystack, arr) => {
return arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));
};
or simply as arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));
If you want to determine if the array has all the items from the other array, replace some() to every()
or as arr.every(v => haystack.includes(v));

ES6 solution:
let arr1 = [1, 2, 3];
let arr2 = [2, 3];
let isFounded = arr1.some( ai => arr2.includes(ai) );
Unlike of it: Must contains all values.
let allFounded = arr2.every( ai => arr1.includes(ai) );
Hope, will be helpful.

If you're not opposed to using a libray, http://underscorejs.org/ has an intersection method, which can simplify this:
var _ = require('underscore');
var target = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'banana'];
var fruit2 = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'mango'];
var fruit3 = [ 'mango', 'lemon', 'pineapple'];
var fruit4 = [ 'orange', 'lemon', 'grapes'];
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit2)); //returns [apple, orange]
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit3)); //returns []
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit4)); //returns [orange]
The intersection function will return a new array with the items that it matched and if not matches it returns empty array.

ES6 (fastest)
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v=> b.indexOf(v) !== -1)
ES2016
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v => b.includes(v));
Underscore
const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
_.intersection(a, b)
DEMO: https://jsfiddle.net/r257wuv5/
jsPerf: https://jsperf.com/array-contains-any-element-of-another-array

If you don't need type coercion (because of the use of indexOf), you could try something like the following:
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var check = [3, 4];
var found = false;
for (var i = 0; i < check.length; i++) {
if (arr.indexOf(check[i]) > -1) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
console.log(found);
Where arr contains the target items. At the end, found will show if the second array had at least one match against the target.
Of course, you can swap out numbers for anything you want to use - strings are fine, like your example.
And in my specific example, the result should be true because the second array's 3 exists in the target.
UPDATE:
Here's how I'd organize it into a function (with some minor changes from before):
var anyMatchInArray = (function () {
"use strict";
var targetArray, func;
targetArray = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
func = function (checkerArray) {
var found = false;
for (var i = 0, j = checkerArray.length; !found && i < j; i++) {
if (targetArray.indexOf(checkerArray[i]) > -1) {
found = true;
}
}
return found;
};
return func;
}());
DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/u8Bzt/
In this case, the function could be modified to have targetArray be passed in as an argument instead of hardcoded in the closure.
UPDATE2:
While my solution above may work and be (hopefully more) readable, I believe the "better" way to handle the concept I described is to do something a little differently. The "problem" with the above solution is that the indexOf inside the loop causes the target array to be looped over completely for every item in the other array. This can easily be "fixed" by using a "lookup" (a map...a JavaScript object literal). This allows two simple loops, over each array. Here's an example:
var anyMatchInArray = function (target, toMatch) {
"use strict";
var found, targetMap, i, j, cur;
found = false;
targetMap = {};
// Put all values in the `target` array into a map, where
// the keys are the values from the array
for (i = 0, j = target.length; i < j; i++) {
cur = target[i];
targetMap[cur] = true;
}
// Loop over all items in the `toMatch` array and see if any of
// their values are in the map from before
for (i = 0, j = toMatch.length; !found && (i < j); i++) {
cur = toMatch[i];
found = !!targetMap[cur];
// If found, `targetMap[cur]` will return true, otherwise it
// will return `undefined`...that's what the `!!` is for
}
return found;
};
DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/5Lv9v/
The downside to this solution is that only numbers and strings (and booleans) can be used (correctly), because the values are (implicitly) converted to strings and set as the keys to the lookup map. This isn't exactly good/possible/easily done for non-literal values.

Using filter/indexOf:
function containsAny(source,target)
{
var result = source.filter(function(item){ return target.indexOf(item) > -1});
return (result.length > 0);
}
//results
var fruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","grape"]));
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","banana","pineapple"]));
console.log(containsAny(fruits,["grape", "pineapple"]));

You could use lodash and do:
_.intersection(originalTarget, arrayToCheck).length > 0
Set intersection is done on both collections producing an array of identical elements.

const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const arr2Set = new Set(arr2);
return arr1.some(el => arr2Set.has(el));
};
Or you can even have a better performance if you first find out which of these two arrays is longer and making Set out for the longest array, while applying some method on the shortest one:
const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [shortArr, longArr] = (arr1.length < arr2.length) ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
const longArrSet = new Set(longArr);
return shortArr.some(el => longArrSet.has(el));
};

I wrote 3 solutions. Essentially they do the same. They return true as soon as they get true. I wrote the 3 solutions just for showing 3 different way to do things. Now, it depends what you like more. You can use performance.now() to check the performance of one solution or the other. In my solutions I'm also checking which array is the biggest and which one is the smallest to make the operations more efficient.
The 3rd solution may not be the cutest but is efficient. I decided to add it because in some coding interviews you are not allowed to use built-in methods.
Lastly, sure...we can come up with a solution with 2 NESTED for loops (the brute force way) but you want to avoid that because the time complexity is bad O(n^2).
Note:
instead of using .includes() like some other people did, you can use
.indexOf(). if you do just check if the value is bigger than 0. If
the value doesn't exist will give you -1. if it does exist, it will give you
greater than 0.
indexOf() vs includes()
Which one has better performance? indexOf() for a little bit, but includes is more readable in my opinion.
If I'm not mistaken .includes() and indexOf() use loops behind the scene, so you will be at O(n^2) when using them with .some().
USING loop
const compareArraysWithIncludes = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
return bigArray.includes(smallArray[i]);
}
return false;
};
USING .some()
const compareArraysWithSome = (arr1, arr2) => {
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
return smallArray.some(c => bigArray.includes(c));
};
USING MAPS Time complexity O(2n)=>O(n)
const compararArraysUsingObjs = (arr1, arr2) => {
const map = {};
const [smallArray, bigArray] =
arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
if (!map[smallArray[i]]) {
map[smallArray[i]] = true;
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < bigArray.length; i++) {
if (map[bigArray[i]]) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
Code in my:
stackblitz
I'm not an expert in performance nor BigO so if something that I said is wrong let me know.

You can use a nested Array.prototype.some call. This has the benefit that it will bail at the first match instead of other solutions that will run through the full nested loop.
eg.
var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var match = [2, 4];
var hasMatch = arr.some(a => match.some(m => a === m));

I found this short and sweet syntax to match all or some elements between two arrays. For example
// OR operation. find if any of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE
let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'b'];
console.log(array2.some(ele => array1.includes(ele)));
// prints TRUE
// AND operation. find if all of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a no first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE
let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'x'];
console.log(!array2.some(ele => !array1.includes(ele)));
// prints FALSE
Hope that helps someone in future!

Just one more solution
var a1 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
var a2 = [2, 4]
Check if a1 contain all element of a2
var result = a1.filter(e => a2.indexOf(e) !== -1).length === a2.length
console.log(result)

What about using a combination of some/findIndex and indexOf?
So something like this:
var array1 = ["apple","banana","orange"];
var array2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];
var found = array1.some(function(v) { return array2.indexOf(v) != -1; });
To make it more readable you could add this functionality to the Array object itself.
Array.prototype.indexOfAny = function (array) {
return this.findIndex(function(v) { return array.indexOf(v) != -1; });
}
Array.prototype.containsAny = function (array) {
return this.indexOfAny(array) != -1;
}
Note: If you'd want to do something with a predicate you could replace the inner indexOf with another findIndex and a predicate

Here is an interesting case I thought I should share.
Let's say that you have an array of objects and an array of selected filters.
let arr = [
{ id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
{ id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] },
{ id: 'z', tags: ['baz'] }
];
const filters = ['foo'];
To apply the selected filters to this structure we can
if (filters.length > 0)
arr = arr.filter(obj =>
obj.tags.some(tag => filters.includes(tag))
);
// [
// { id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
// { id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] }
// ]

Good perfomance solution:
We should transform one of arrays to object.
const contains = (arr1, mainObj) => arr1.some(el => el in mainObj);
const includes = (arr1, mainObj) => arr1.every(el => el in mainObj);
Usage:
const mainList = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
// We make object from array, you can use your solution to make it
const main = Object.fromEntries(mainList.map(key => [key, true]));
contains(["apple","grape"], main) // => true
contains(["apple","banana","pineapple"], main) // => true
contains(["grape", "pineapple"], main) // => false
includes(["apple", "grape"], main) // => false
includes(["banana", "apple"], main) // => true
you can face with some disadvantage of checking by in operator (eg 'toString' in {} // => true), so you can change solution to obj[key] checker

Adding to Array Prototype
Disclaimer: Many would strongly advise against this. The only time it'd really be a problem was if a library added a prototype function with the same name (that behaved differently) or something like that.
Code:
Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
return this.some(
(v) => (arr.indexOf(v) >= 0)
)
}
Without using big arrow functions:
Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
return this.some(function (v) {
return arr.indexOf(v) >= 0
})
}
Usage
var a = ["a","b"]
console.log(a.containsAny(["b","z"])) // Outputs true
console.log(a.containsAny(["z"])) // Outputs false

My solution applies Array.prototype.some() and Array.prototype.includes() array helpers which do their job pretty efficient as well
ES6
const originalFruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];
const fruits1 = ["apple","banana","pineapple"];
const fruits2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];
const commonFruits = (myFruitsArr, otherFruitsArr) => {
return myFruitsArr.some(fruit => otherFruitsArr.includes(fruit))
}
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits1)) //returns true;
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits2)) //returns false;

When I looked at your answers, I could not find the answer I wanted.
I did something myself and I want to share this with you.
It will be true only if the words entered (array) are correct.
function contains(a,b) {
let counter = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {;
if(a.includes(b[i])) counter++;
}
if(counter === b.length) return true;
return false;
}
let main_array = ['foo','bar','baz'];
let sub_array_a = ['foo','foobar'];
let sub_array_b = ['foo','bar'];
console.log(contains(main_array, sub_array_a)); // returns false
console.log(contains(main_array,sub_array_b )); // returns true

Array .filter() with a nested call to .find() will return all elements in the first array that are members of the second array. Check the length of the returned array to determine if any of the second array were in the first array.
getCommonItems(firstArray, secondArray) {
return firstArray.filter((firstArrayItem) => {
return secondArray.find((secondArrayItem) => {
return firstArrayItem === secondArrayItem;
});
});
}

It can be done by simply iterating across the main array and check whether other array contains any of the target element or not.
Try this:
function Check(A) {
var myarr = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
var i, j;
var totalmatches = 0;
for (i = 0; i < myarr.length; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < A.length; ++j) {
if (myarr[i] == A[j]) {
totalmatches++;
}
}
}
if (totalmatches > 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
var fruits1 = new Array("apple", "grape");
alert(Check(fruits1));
var fruits2 = new Array("apple", "banana", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits2));
var fruits3 = new Array("grape", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits3));
DEMO at JSFIDDLE

Not sure how efficient this might be in terms of performance, but this is what I use using array destructuring to keep everything nice and short:
const shareElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
const typeArr = [...arr1, ...arr2]
const typeSet = new Set(typeArr)
return typeArr.length > typeSet.size
}
Since sets cannot have duplicate elements while arrays can, combining both input arrays, converting it to a set, and comparing the set size and array length would tell you if they share any elements.

A short way of writing this:
const found = arr1.some(arr2.includes)

With underscorejs
var a1 = [1,2,3];
var a2 = [1,2];
_.every(a1, function(e){ return _.include(a2, e); } ); //=> false
_.every(a2, function(e){ return _.include(a1, e); } ); //=> true

Vanilla JS with partial matching & case insensitive
The problem with some previous approaches is that they require an exact match of every word. But, What if you want to provide results for partial matches?
function search(arrayToSearch, wordsToSearch) {
arrayToSearch.filter(v =>
wordsToSearch.every(w =>
v.toLowerCase().split(" ").
reduce((isIn, h) => isIn || String(h).indexOf(w) >= 0, false)
)
)
}
//Usage
var myArray = ["Attach tag", "Attaching tags", "Blah blah blah"];
var searchText = "Tag attach";
var searchArr = searchText.toLowerCase().split(" "); //["tag", "attach"]
var matches = search(myArray, searchArr);
//Will return
//["Attach tag", "Attaching tags"]
This is useful when you want to provide a search box where users type words and the results can have those words in any order, position and case.

Update #Paul Grimshaw answer, use includes insteed of indexOf for more readable
let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)
let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))

I came up with a solution in node using underscore js like this:
var checkRole = _.intersection(['A','B'], ['A','B','C']);
if(!_.isEmpty(checkRole)) {
next();
}

You are looking for intersection between the two arrays. And you have two major intersection types: 'every' and 'some'. Let me give you good examples:
EVERY
let brands1 = ['Ford', 'Kia', 'VW', 'Audi'];
let brands2 = ['Audi', 'Kia'];
// Find 'every' brand intersection.
// Meaning all elements inside 'brands2' must be present in 'brands1':
let intersectionEvery = brands2.every( brand => brands1.includes(brand) );
if (intersectionEvery) {
const differenceList = brands1.filter(brand => !brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('difference list:', differenceList);
const commonList = brands1.filter(brand => brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('common list:', commonList);
}
If condition is not met (like if you put 'Mercedes' in brands2) then 'intersectionEvery' won't be satisfied - will be bool false.
If condition is met it will log ["Ford", "VW"] as difference and ["Kia", "Audi"] as common list.
Sandbox: https://jsfiddle.net/bqmg14t6/
SOME
let brands1 = ['Ford', 'Kia', 'VW', 'Audi'];
let brands2 = ['Audi', 'Kia', 'Mercedes', 'Land Rover'];
// Find 'some' brand intersection.
// Meaning some elements inside 'brands2' must be also present in 'brands1':
let intersectionSome = brands2.some( brand => brands1.includes(brand) );
if (intersectionSome) {
const differenceList = brands1.filter(brand => !brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('difference list:', differenceList);
const commonList = brands1.filter(brand => brands2.includes(brand));
console.log('common list:', commonList);
}
Here we are looking for some common brands, not necessarily all.
It will log ["Ford", "VW"] as difference and ["Kia", "Audi"] as common brands.
Sandbox: https://jsfiddle.net/zkq9j3Lh/

Personally, I would use the following function:
var arrayContains = function(array, toMatch) {
var arrayAsString = array.toString();
return (arrayAsString.indexOf(','+toMatch+',') >-1);
}
The "toString()" method will always use commas to separate the values. Will only really work with primitive types.

console.log("searching Array: "+finding_array);
console.log("searching in:"+reference_array);
var check_match_counter = 0;
for (var j = finding_array.length - 1; j >= 0; j--)
{
if(reference_array.indexOf(finding_array[j]) > 0)
{
check_match_counter = check_match_counter + 1;
}
}
var match = (check_match_counter > 0) ? true : false;
console.log("Final result:"+match);