We Keep Coding

Cloud firestore: Update field values in nested array object with dot notation

Please help me solve this, I would like to update the fields using dot notation, using set() but each time I run with the below implementation. I have the fields added to firestore as e.g studentInfo.0.course.0.courseId instead of updating the already existing ones.
Json sample as it sits in firestore
"schoolId": "school123",
"studentInfo": [
{
"studentId": "studentI23",
"regDate": "2020-04-18",
"course": [
{
"courseId": "cs123",
"regDate": "2020-05-28",
"status": "COMPLETED"
}
]
}
],
"registered":"yes"
}
Code logic
const query = firestore.collection('users').where('registered', '==', 'yes')
const students = await query.get()
students.forEach(student => {
firestore.doc(student.ref.path).set({
'studentInfo.0.studentId': '345','studentInfo.0.course.0.courseId': '555'
}, { merge: true })
})
On the docs https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data#update_fields_in_nested_objects I can only find updating nested objects but not nested array objects.

It is indeed not possible to update a single element in an array using dot notation, or otherwise. To update an array you'll need to:
Read the document
Get the current value of the array from it
Determine the new array contents
Write the entire updated array back to the database.
The only alternative array operations are array-union and array-remove, which add and remove unique elements to/from the array - essentially treating it as a mathematical set. But since you are looking to update an existing element, these operations are of no use here.
Also see:
Firestore Update single item in an array field
Firestore update specific element in array
How to update an "array of objects" with Firestore?

There is no direct way to update the as stated in the article. You can either run a transaction to get the latest array value and then updating the array with the final array value. That would be as below:
await firestore.runTransaction((transaction: Transaction) => {
const students: Array<Students> = firestore
.collection("users")
.where("registered", "==", "yes");
students.forEach((student) => {
const firebaseDoc = firestore.doc(student.ref.path);
transaction.set(
firebaseDoc,
{
"studentInfo.0.studentId": "345",
"studentInfo.0.course.0.courseId": "555",
},
{ merge: true }
);
});
});
Inside transaction I am getting the array first and then updating each values as per my need. This will make the whole operation atomic so the issues mentioned in the article will not come.
Alternatively, you can also model your firestore database as below
"schoolId": "school123",
"studentInfo": {
"studentI23": {
"studentId": "studentI23",
"regDate": "2020-04-18",
"course": [
{
"courseId": "cs123",
"regDate": "2020-05-28",
"status": "COMPLETED"
}
]
}
},
"registered":"yes"
}
Above I have changed the array to map, since in map you can update the each field based on dot notation fields(doc), hence. you can achieve your end result. This solution will avoid any transaction query and will be faster

Firebase adding item to array [duplicate]

I'm currently trying Firestore, and I'm stuck at something very simple: "updating an array (aka a subdocument)".
My DB structure is super simple. For example:
proprietary: "John Doe",
sharedWith:
[
{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp},
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp},
],
I'm trying (without success) to push new records into shareWith array of objects.
I've tried:
// With SET
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.set(
{ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] },
{ merge: true }
)
// With UPDATE
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.update({ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] })
None works. These queries overwrite my array.
The answer might be simple, but I could'nt find it...

Firestore now has two functions that allow you to update an array without re-writing the entire thing.
Link: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data, specifically https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data#update_elements_in_an_array
Update elements in an array
If your document contains an array field, you can use arrayUnion() and
arrayRemove() to add and remove elements. arrayUnion() adds elements
to an array but only elements not already present. arrayRemove()
removes all instances of each given element.

Edit 08/13/2018: There is now support for native array operations in Cloud Firestore. See Doug's answer below.
There is currently no way to update a single array element (or add/remove a single element) in Cloud Firestore.
This code here:
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.set(
{ sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] },
{ merge: true }
)
This says to set the document at proprietary/docID such that sharedWith = [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() } but to not affect any existing document properties. It's very similar to the update() call you provided however the set() call with create the document if it does not exist while the update() call will fail.
So you have two options to achieve what you want.
Option 1 - Set the whole array
Call set() with the entire contents of the array, which will require reading the current data from the DB first. If you're concerned about concurrent updates you can do all of this in a transaction.
Option 2 - Use a subcollection
You could make sharedWith a subcollection of the main document. Then
adding a single item would look like this:
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.collection('sharedWith')
.add({ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() })
Of course this comes with new limitations. You would not be able to query
documents based on who they are shared with, nor would you be able to
get the doc and all of the sharedWith data in a single operation.

Here is the latest example from the Firestore documentation:
firebase.firestore.FieldValue.ArrayUnion
var washingtonRef = db.collection("cities").doc("DC");
// Atomically add a new region to the "regions" array field.
washingtonRef.update({
regions: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("greater_virginia")
});
// Atomically remove a region from the "regions" array field.
washingtonRef.update({
regions: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayRemove("east_coast")
});

You can use a transaction (https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/transactions) to get the array, push onto it and then update the document:
const booking = { some: "data" };
const userRef = this.db.collection("users").doc(userId);
this.db.runTransaction(transaction => {
// This code may get re-run multiple times if there are conflicts.
return transaction.get(userRef).then(doc => {
if (!doc.data().bookings) {
transaction.set({
bookings: [booking]
});
} else {
const bookings = doc.data().bookings;
bookings.push(booking);
transaction.update(userRef, { bookings: bookings });
}
});
}).then(function () {
console.log("Transaction successfully committed!");
}).catch(function (error) {
console.log("Transaction failed: ", error);
});

Sorry Late to party but Firestore solved it way back in aug 2018 so If you still looking for that here it is all issues solved with regards to arrays.
https://firebase.googleblog.com/2018/08/better-arrays-in-cloud-firestore.htmlOfficial blog post
array-contains, arrayRemove, arrayUnion for checking, removing and updating arrays. Hope it helps.

To build on Sam Stern's answer, there is also a 3rd option which made things easier for me and that is using what Google call a Map, which is essentially a dictionary.
I think a dictionary is far better for the use case you're describing. I usually use arrays for stuff that isn't really updated too much, so they are more or less static. But for stuff that gets written a lot, specifically values that need to be updated for fields that are linked to something else in the database, dictionaries prove to be much easier to maintain and work with.
So for your specific case, the DB structure would look like this:
proprietary: "John Doe"
sharedWith:{
whoEmail1: {when: timestamp},
whoEmail2: {when: timestamp}
}
This will allow you to do the following:
var whoEmail = 'first#test.com';
var sharedObject = {};
sharedObject['sharedWith.' + whoEmail + '.when'] = new Date();
sharedObject['merge'] = true;
firebase.firestore()
.collection('proprietary')
.doc(docID)
.update(sharedObject);
The reason for defining the object as a variable is that using 'sharedWith.' + whoEmail + '.when' directly in the set method will result in an error, at least when using it in a Node.js cloud function.

#Edit (add explanation :) )
say you have an array you want to update your existing firestore document field with. You can use set(yourData, {merge: true} ) passing setOptions(second param in set function) with {merge: true} is must in order to merge the changes instead of overwriting. here is what the official documentation says about it
An options object that configures the behavior of set() calls in DocumentReference, WriteBatch, and Transaction. These calls can be configured to perform granular merges instead of overwriting the target documents in their entirety by providing a SetOptions with merge: true.
you can use this
const yourNewArray = [{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp}
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp}]
collectionRef.doc(docId).set(
{
proprietary: "jhon",
sharedWith: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion(...yourNewArray),
},
{ merge: true },
);
hope this helps :)

addToCart(docId: string, prodId: string): Promise<void> {
return this.baseAngularFirestore.collection('carts').doc(docId).update({
products:
firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion({
productId: prodId,
qty: 1
}),
});
}

i know this is really old, but to help people newbies with the issue
firebase V9 provides a solution using the arrayUnion and arrayRemove
await updateDoc(documentRef, {
proprietary: arrayUnion( { sharedWith: [{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() }] }
});
check this out for more explanation

Other than the answers mentioned above. This will do it.
Using Angular 5 and AngularFire2. or use firebase.firestore() instead of this.afs
// say you have have the following object and
// database structure as you mentioned in your post
data = { who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() };
...othercode
addSharedWith(data) {
const postDocRef = this.afs.collection('posts').doc('docID');
postDocRef.subscribe( post => {
// Grab the existing sharedWith Array
// If post.sharedWith doesn`t exsit initiated with empty array
const foo = { 'sharedWith' : post.sharedWith || []};
// Grab the existing sharedWith Array
foo['sharedWith'].push(data);
// pass updated to fireStore
postsDocRef.update(foo);
// using .set() will overwrite everything
// .update will only update existing values,
// so we initiated sharedWith with empty array
});
}

We can use arrayUnion({}) method to achive this.
Try this:
collectionRef.doc(ID).update({
sharedWith: admin.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion({
who: "first#test.com",
when: new Date()
})
});
Documentation can find here: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/manage-data/add-data#update_elements_in_an_array

Consider John Doe a document rather than a collection
Give it a collection of things and thingsSharedWithOthers
Then you can map and query John Doe's shared things in that parallel thingsSharedWithOthers collection.
proprietary: "John Doe"(a document)
things(collection of John's things documents)
thingsSharedWithOthers(collection of John's things being shared with others):
[thingId]:
{who: "first#test.com", when:timestamp}
{who: "another#test.com", when:timestamp}
then set thingsSharedWithOthers
firebase.firestore()
.collection('thingsSharedWithOthers')
.set(
{ [thingId]:{ who: "third#test.com", when: new Date() } },
{ merge: true }
)

If You want to Update an array in a firebase document.
You can do this.
var documentRef = db.collection("Your collection name").doc("Your doc name")
documentRef.update({
yourArrayName: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("The Value you want to enter")});

Although firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion() provides the solution for array update in firestore, at the same time it is required to use {merge:true}. If you do not use {merge:true} it will delete all other fields in the document while updating with the new value. Here is the working code for updating array without loosing data in the reference document with .set() method:
const docRef = firebase.firestore().collection("your_collection_name").doc("your_doc_id");
docRef.set({yourArrayField: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion("value_to_add")}, {merge:true});

If anybody is looking for Java firestore sdk solution to add items in array field:
List<String> list = java.util.Arrays.asList("A", "B");
Object[] fieldsToUpdate = list.toArray();
DocumentReference docRef = getCollection().document("docId");
docRef.update(fieldName, FieldValue.arrayUnion(fieldsToUpdate));
To delete items from array user: FieldValue.arrayRemove()

If the document contains a nested object in the form of an array, .dot notation can be used to reference and update nested fields.
Node.js example:
const users = {
name: 'Tom',
surname: 'Smith',
favorites: {
sport: 'tennis',
color: 'red',
subject: 'math'
}
};
const update = await db.collection('users').doc('Tom').update({
'favorites.sport': 'snowboard'
});
or Android sdk example:
db.collection("users").document("Tom")
.update(
'favorites.sport': 'snowboard'
);

There is a simple hack in firestore:
use path with "." as property name:
propertyname.arraysubname.${id}:

db.collection("collection")
.doc("docId")
.update({arrayOfObj: fieldValue.arrayUnion({...item})})

Filtering Firebase by multiple fields

I am trying to get filter Firebase using multiple fields. This is more or less my object in Firebase:
{
"id": "-id",
"category": "History",
"level": "High School",
"pointAmount": 128,
"pointBoost": 0,
"photoURL": "link"
},
{
"id": "-id",
"category": "Physics",
"level": "Primary School",
"pointAmount": 128,
"pointBoost": 0,
"photoURL": "link"
}
What I'm doing now, is using an array of checkboxes in React to grab the level and category to filter by. This part is done. My question is, how can I filter the elements coming in from the database? This is how I'm doing it right now:
componentDidMount() {
const assignmentsRef = firebase
.database()
.ref('Works')
.orderByChild('available')
.equalTo(true)
.limitToFirst(9);
assignmentsRef.on('value', snapshot => {
let assignments = snapshot.val();
let newState = [];
for (let assignment in assignments) {
newState.push({
id: assignment,
category: assignments[assignment].category,
level: assignments[assignment].level,
pointAmount: assignments[assignment].pointAmount,
pointBoost: assignments[assignment].pointBoost,
photoURL: assignments[assignment].photoURL,
workText: assignments[assignment].workText,
});
}
this.setState({
assignments: newState
});
});
}
So as you can see, I'm already doing orderByChild. Also there will be multiple variables which to filter by. For example: If I select History, and Physics I will get both objects. Same if I select History and Primary School, but if I select Physics I should only get the second object. How can I filter it? There will be over 10 filters.

It looks like you're trying to do an OR of both conditions. There isn't any built-in support for returning items that match one of a number of conditions. You will have to fire a separate query for each condition, and then merge the results from all queries client-side. This is not as slow as you may expect, since Firebase will pipeline the queries over a single connection.

Firebase orderByChild startAt endAt and then equalTo specific name [duplicate]

{
"movies": {
"movie1": {
"genre": "comedy",
"name": "As good as it gets",
"lead": "Jack Nicholson"
},
"movie2": {
"genre": "Horror",
"name": "The Shining",
"lead": "Jack Nicholson"
},
"movie3": {
"genre": "comedy",
"name": "The Mask",
"lead": "Jim Carrey"
}
}
}
I am a Firebase newbie. How can I retrieve a result from the data above where genre = 'comedy' AND lead = 'Jack Nicholson'?
What options do I have?

Using Firebase's Query API, you might be tempted to try this:
// !!! THIS WILL NOT WORK !!!
ref
.orderBy('genre')
.startAt('comedy').endAt('comedy')
.orderBy('lead') // !!! THIS LINE WILL RAISE AN ERROR !!!
.startAt('Jack Nicholson').endAt('Jack Nicholson')
.on('value', function(snapshot) {
console.log(snapshot.val());
});
But as #RobDiMarco from Firebase says in the comments:
multiple orderBy() calls will throw an error
So my code above will not work.
I know of three approaches that will work.
1. filter most on the server, do the rest on the client
What you can do is execute one orderBy().startAt()./endAt() on the server, pull down the remaining data and filter that in JavaScript code on your client.
ref
.orderBy('genre')
.equalTo('comedy')
.on('child_added', function(snapshot) {
var movie = snapshot.val();
if (movie.lead == 'Jack Nicholson') {
console.log(movie);
}
});
2. add a property that combines the values that you want to filter on
If that isn't good enough, you should consider modifying/expanding your data to allow your use-case. For example: you could stuff genre+lead into a single property that you just use for this filter.
"movie1": {
"genre": "comedy",
"name": "As good as it gets",
"lead": "Jack Nicholson",
"genre_lead": "comedy_Jack Nicholson"
}, //...
You're essentially building your own multi-column index that way and can query it with:
ref
.orderBy('genre_lead')
.equalTo('comedy_Jack Nicholson')
.on('child_added', function(snapshot) {
var movie = snapshot.val();
console.log(movie);
});
David East has written a library called QueryBase that helps with generating such properties.
You could even do relative/range queries, let's say that you want to allow querying movies by category and year. You'd use this data structure:
"movie1": {
"genre": "comedy",
"name": "As good as it gets",
"lead": "Jack Nicholson",
"genre_year": "comedy_1997"
}, //...
And then query for comedies of the 90s with:
ref
.orderBy('genre_year')
.startAt('comedy_1990')
.endAt('comedy_2000')
.on('child_added', function(snapshot) {
var movie = snapshot.val();
console.log(movie);
});
If you need to filter on more than just the year, make sure to add the other date parts in descending order, e.g. "comedy_1997-12-25". This way the lexicographical ordering that Firebase does on string values will be the same as the chronological ordering.
This combining of values in a property can work with more than two values, but you can only do a range filter on the last value in the composite property.
A very special variant of this is implemented by the GeoFire library for Firebase. This library combines the latitude and longitude of a location into a so-called Geohash, which can then be used to do realtime range queries on Firebase.
3. create a custom index programmatically
Yet another alternative is to do what we've all done before this new Query API was added: create an index in a different node:
"movies"
// the same structure you have today
"by_genre"
"comedy"
"by_lead"
"Jack Nicholson"
"movie1"
"Jim Carrey"
"movie3"
"Horror"
"by_lead"
"Jack Nicholson"
"movie2"
There are probably more approaches. For example, this answer highlights an alternative tree-shaped custom index: https://stackoverflow.com/a/34105063
If none of these options work for you, but you still want to store your data in Firebase, you can also consider using its Cloud Firestore database.
Cloud Firestore can handle multiple equality filters in a single query, but only one range filter. Under the hood it essentially uses the same query model, but it's like it auto-generates the composite properties for you. See Firestore's documentation on compound queries.

I've written a personal library that allows you to order by multiple values, with all the ordering done on the server.
Meet Querybase!
Querybase takes in a Firebase Database Reference and an array of fields you wish to index on. When you create new records it will automatically handle the generation of keys that allow for multiple querying. The caveat is that it only supports straight equivalence (no less than or greater than).
const databaseRef = firebase.database().ref().child('people');
const querybaseRef = querybase.ref(databaseRef, ['name', 'age', 'location']);
// Automatically handles composite keys
querybaseRef.push({
name: 'David',
age: 27,
location: 'SF'
});
// Find records by multiple fields
// returns a Firebase Database ref
const queriedDbRef = querybaseRef
.where({
name: 'David',
age: 27
});
// Listen for realtime updates
queriedDbRef.on('value', snap => console.log(snap));

var ref = new Firebase('https://your.firebaseio.com/');
Query query = ref.orderByChild('genre').equalTo('comedy');
query.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
for (DataSnapshot movieSnapshot : dataSnapshot.getChildren()) {
Movie movie = dataSnapshot.getValue(Movie.class);
if (movie.getLead().equals('Jack Nicholson')) {
console.log(movieSnapshot.getKey());
}
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(FirebaseError firebaseError) {
}
});

Frank's answer is good but Firestore introduced array-contains recently that makes it easier to do AND queries.
You can create a filters field to add you filters. You can add as many values as you need. For example to filter by comedy and Jack Nicholson you can add the value comedy_Jack Nicholson but if you also you want to by comedy and 2014 you can add the value comedy_2014 without creating more fields.
{
"movies": {
"movie1": {
"genre": "comedy",
"name": "As good as it gets",
"lead": "Jack Nicholson",
"year": 2014,
"filters": [
"comedy_Jack Nicholson",
"comedy_2014"
]
}
}
}

For Cloud Firestore
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/queries#compound_queries
Compound queries
You can chain multiple equality operators (== or array-contains) methods to create more specific queries (logical AND). However, you must create a composite index to combine equality operators with the inequality operators, <, <=, >, and !=.
citiesRef.where('state', '==', 'CO').where('name', '==', 'Denver');
citiesRef.where('state', '==', 'CA').where('population', '<', 1000000);
You can perform range (<, <=, >, >=) or not equals (!=) comparisons only on a single field, and you can include at most one array-contains or array-contains-any clause in a compound query:

Firebase doesn't allow querying with multiple conditions.
However, I did find a way around for this:
We need to download the initial filtered data from the database and store it in an array list.
Query query = databaseReference.orderByChild("genre").equalTo("comedy");
databaseReference.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(#NonNull DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
ArrayList<Movie> movies = new ArrayList<>();
for (DataSnapshot dataSnapshot1 : dataSnapshot.getChildren()) {
String lead = dataSnapshot1.child("lead").getValue(String.class);
String genre = dataSnapshot1.child("genre").getValue(String.class);
movie = new Movie(lead, genre);
movies.add(movie);
}
filterResults(movies, "Jack Nicholson");
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(#NonNull DatabaseError databaseError) {
}
});
Once we obtain the initial filtered data from the database, we need to do further filter in our backend.
public void filterResults(final List<Movie> list, final String genre) {
List<Movie> movies = new ArrayList<>();
movies = list.stream().filter(o -> o.getLead().equals(genre)).collect(Collectors.toList());
System.out.println(movies);
employees.forEach(movie -> System.out.println(movie.getFirstName()));
}

The data from firebase realtime database is as _InternalLinkedHashMap<dynamic, dynamic>.
You can also just convert this it to your map and query very easily.
For example, I have a chat app and I use realtime database to store the uid of the user and the bool value whether the user is online or not. As the picture below.
Now, I have a class RealtimeDatabase and a static method getAllUsersOnineStatus().
static getOnilineUsersUID() {
var dbRef = FirebaseDatabase.instance;
DatabaseReference reference = dbRef.reference().child("Online");
reference.once().then((value) {
Map<String, bool> map = Map<String, bool>.from(value.value);
List users = [];
map.forEach((key, value) {
if (value) {
users.add(key);
}
});
print(users);
});
}
It will print [NOraDTGaQSZbIEszidCujw1AEym2]
I am new to flutter If you know more please update the answer.

ref.orderByChild("lead").startAt("Jack Nicholson").endAt("Jack Nicholson").listner....
This will work.

Couchbase view custom reduce

i'm not sure if the title of the questions fits, if you know a better one, let me know ;)
I just named it like this, because i'm thinking if i could solve my problem with a custom reduce function.
I have two types of objects:
Vehicles:
{
"id": "1G1JC5444R7252367",
"type": "Vehicle"
}
Users:
{
"company": "companyname",
"type": "User",
"parts": [
{
"company": "companyname",
"id": "1G1JC5444R7252367",
"active": true
},
{
"company": "companyname",
"id": "1G1135644R7252367",
"active": false
}
]
}
What i want is a View which returns me all vehicles of a certain company. But the company is only stored in the User object.
This is how far I got in the mapfunction:
function (doc, meta) {
if(doc.type == 'User'){
if(doc.parts){
Array.prototype.contains = function ( needle ) {
for (var i in this) {
if (this[i] == needle) return true;
}
return false;
};
var ids = new Array(doc.parts.length);
for(var k in doc.parts){
if(doc.parts[k].active) {
if(!vins.contains(doc.parts[k].id)) {
if (doc.parts[k].company && doc.parts[k].id ) {
ids.push(doc.parts[k].id);
emit(doc.parts[k].company, doc.parts[k].id);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
But this only returns me the company as key and the id of the vehicle as value. So i get a User document. Can I somehow loop through the documents again in the map function and get all vehicles according to the ids in my ids array?
Saving the company in the vehicle itself also is not desired, because the company is not the vehicles company itself but the company of the parts.
Thanks for any help in forward.

A Couchbase view can only operate on the document presented to it. As you discovered, it can only partially do what you want.
The real problem isn't the view though but is your data model. You appear to have designed your data model as if you were using a relational database. The calculation you are attempting is a kind of join.
A fundamental concept with document databases is that a document should represent all of the information pertinent to some kind of event. This concept is what allows document databases to horizontally scale. You should not worry about data duplication. Locality of access is the key to an appropriate map-reduce data model.
I would redesign your data model.