We Keep Coding

How do I get a virtual in mongoose, If a property is deselected

lets say I have post Model and schema contains UserId , Title, Desc and likes array which takes userId's as ref
when I make a query I get a virtual property like this to find out num of like of a post would have
schema.virtual("numLikes").get(function () {
return this.likes.length;
});
But the problem is when I run the findById() Method I dont want to get likes from database because likes array would contain large list of users
const post = await Post.findById(postId).select("-likes -shares");
so how do I get Likes count without fetching likes array ?

I believe this can be done using aggregation, by using the $size operators in a projection:
const aggregate = Post.aggregate([
{ $match: {_id: postId}},
{ $project: {
numberOfLikes: { $size: "$likes" }
}
}
]);
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/operator/aggregation/size/
https://mongoosejs.com/docs/api/aggregate.html#aggregate_Aggregate-project

Mongoose search for items on array containing _id with aggregate [duplicate]

If I have this schema...
person = {
name : String,
favoriteFoods : Array
}
... where the favoriteFoods array is populated with strings. How can I find all persons that have "sushi" as their favorite food using mongoose?
I was hoping for something along the lines of:
PersonModel.find({ favoriteFoods : { $contains : "sushi" }, function(...) {...});
(I know that there is no $contains in mongodb, just explaining what I was expecting to find before knowing the solution)

As favouriteFoods is a simple array of strings, you can just query that field directly:
PersonModel.find({ favouriteFoods: "sushi" }, ...); // favouriteFoods contains "sushi"
But I'd also recommend making the string array explicit in your schema:
person = {
name : String,
favouriteFoods : [String]
}
The relevant documentation can be found here: https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/query-arrays/

There is no $contains operator in mongodb.
You can use the answer from JohnnyHK as that works. The closest analogy to contains that mongo has is $in, using this your query would look like:
PersonModel.find({ favouriteFoods: { "$in" : ["sushi"]} }, ...);

I feel like $all would be more appropriate in this situation. If you are looking for person that is into sushi you do :
PersonModel.find({ favoriteFood : { $all : ["sushi"] }, ...})
As you might want to filter more your search, like so :
PersonModel.find({ favoriteFood : { $all : ["sushi", "bananas"] }, ...})
$in is like OR and $all like AND. Check this : https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/operator/query/all/

In case that the array contains objects for example if favouriteFoods is an array of objects of the following:
{
name: 'Sushi',
type: 'Japanese'
}
you can use the following query:
PersonModel.find({"favouriteFoods.name": "Sushi"});

In case you need to find documents which contain NULL elements inside an array of sub-documents, I've found this query which works pretty well:
db.collection.find({"keyWithArray":{$elemMatch:{"$in":[null], "$exists":true}}})
This query is taken from this post: MongoDb query array with null values
It was a great find and it works much better than my own initial and wrong version (which turned out to work fine only for arrays with one element):
.find({
'MyArrayOfSubDocuments': { $not: { $size: 0 } },
'MyArrayOfSubDocuments._id': { $exists: false }
})

Incase of lookup_food_array is array.
match_stage["favoriteFoods"] = {'$elemMatch': {'$in': lookup_food_array}}
Incase of lookup_food_array is string.
match_stage["favoriteFoods"] = {'$elemMatch': lookup_food_string}

Though agree with find() is most effective in your usecase. Still there is $match of aggregation framework, to ease the query of a big number of entries and generate a low number of results that hold value to you especially for grouping and creating new files.
PersonModel.aggregate([
{
"$match": {
$and : [{ 'favouriteFoods' : { $exists: true, $in: [ 'sushi']}}, ........ ] }
},
{ $project : {"_id": 0, "name" : 1} }
]);

There are some ways to achieve this. First one is by $elemMatch operator:
const docs = await Documents.find({category: { $elemMatch: {$eq: 'yourCategory'} }});
// you may need to convert 'yourCategory' to ObjectId
Second one is by $in or $all operators:
const docs = await Documents.find({category: { $in: [yourCategory] }});
or
const docs = await Documents.find({category: { $all: [yourCategory] }});
// you can give more categories with these two approaches
//and again you may need to convert yourCategory to ObjectId
$in is like OR and $all like AND. For further details check this link : https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/operator/query/all/
Third one is by aggregate() function:
const docs = await Documents.aggregate([
{ $unwind: '$category' },
{ $match: { 'category': mongoose.Types.ObjectId(yourCategory) } }
]};
with aggregate() you get only one category id in your category array.
I get this code snippets from my projects where I had to find docs with specific category/categories, so you can easily customize it according to your needs.

For Loopback3 all the examples given did not work for me, or as fast as using REST API anyway. But it helped me to figure out the exact answer I needed.
{"where":{"arrayAttribute":{ "all" :[String]}}}

In case You are searching in an Array of objects, you can use $elemMatch. For example:
PersonModel.find({ favoriteFoods : { $elemMatch: { name: "sushiOrAnytthing" }}});

With populate & $in this code will be useful.
ServiceCategory.find().populate({
path: "services",
match: { zipCodes: {$in: "10400"}},
populate: [
{
path: "offers",
},
],
});

If you'd want to use something like a "contains" operator through javascript, you can always use a Regular expression for that...
eg.
Say you want to retrieve a customer having "Bartolomew" as name
async function getBartolomew() {
const custStartWith_Bart = await Customers.find({name: /^Bart/ }); // Starts with Bart
const custEndWith_lomew = await Customers.find({name: /lomew$/ }); // Ends with lomew
const custContains_rtol = await Customers.find({name: /.*rtol.*/ }); // Contains rtol
console.log(custStartWith_Bart);
console.log(custEndWith_lomew);
console.log(custContains_rtol);
}

I know this topic is old, but for future people who could wonder the same question, another incredibly inefficient solution could be to do:
PersonModel.find({$where : 'this.favouriteFoods.indexOf("sushi") != -1'});
This avoids all optimisations by MongoDB so do not use in production code.

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})})

Sequelize wrap column with " in where condition

I have a JSONB column in DB.
I'd like to have request to DB where I can check if some value in this JSON it true or false:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE ("json_column"->'data'->>'data2')::boolean = true AND id = '00000000-1111-2222-3333-456789abcdef'
LIMIT 1
So, my sequelize request:
const someVariableWithColumnName = 'data2';
Model.findOne({
where: {
[`$("json_column"->'data'->>'${someVariableWithColumnName}')::boolean$`]: true,
id: someIdVariable,
},
order: [/* some order, doesn't matter */],
})
And sequelize generate bad result like:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE "(json_column"."->'data'->>'data2')::boolean" = true AND id = '00000000-1111-2222-3333-456789abcdef'
LIMIT 1
Split my column by . and add " to every element.
Any idea how to get rid of adding " to the column in where condition?
Edit:
Here is my query with sequelize.literal():
const someVariableWithColumnName = 'data2';
Model.findOne({
where: {
[sequelize.literal(`$("json_column"->'data'->>'${someVariableWithColumnName}')::boolean$`)]: true,
id: someIdVariable,
},
order: [/* some order, doesn't matter */],
})

You can use Sequelize.literal() to avoid spurious quotes. IMHO, wrapping the json handling in a db function might also be helpful.

I just came across a similar use case.
I believe you can use the static sequelize.where method in combination with sequelize.literal.
Here is the corresponding documentation in sequelize API reference: https://sequelize.org/master/class/lib/sequelize.js~Sequelize.html#static-method-where
And here is an example (although I will admit hard to find) in the regular documentation:
https://sequelize.org/master/manual/model-querying-basics.html#advanced-queries-with-functions--not-just-columns-
In the end for your specific sit try something like this:
const someVariableWithColumnName = 'data2';
Model.findOne({
where: {
[Op.and]: [
// We provide the virtual column sql as the first argument of sequelize.where with sequelize.literal.
// We provide the matching condition as the second argument of sequelize.where, with the usual sequelize syntax.
sequelize.where(sequelize.literal(`$("json_column"->'data'->>'${someVariableWithColumnName}')::boolean$`), { [Op.eq]: true }),
{ id: someIdVariable }
]
})

Function getting firebase object returns hard to use object

What I am trying to do
I am creating a social media app with react native and firebase. I am trying to call a function, and have that function return a list of posts from off of my server.
Problem
Using the return method on a firebase query gives me a hard to use object array:
Array [
Object {
"-L2mDBZ6gqY6ANJD6rg1": Object {
//...
},
},
]
I don't like how there is an object inside of an object, and the whole thing is very hard to work with. I created a list inside my app and named it items, and when pushing all of the values to that, I got a much easier to work with object:
Array [
Object {
//...
"key": "-L2mDBZ6gqY6ANJD6rg1",
},
]
This object is also a lot nicer to use because the key is not the name of the object, but inside of it.
I would just return the array I made, but that returns as undefined.
My question
In a function, how can I return an array I created using a firebase query? (to get the objects of an array)
My Code
runQ(group){
var items = [];
//I am returning the entire firebase query...
return firebase.database().ref('posts/'+group).orderByKey().once ('value', (snap) => {
snap.forEach ( (child) => {
items.push({
//post contents
});
});
console.log(items)
//... but all I want to return is the items array. This returns undefined though.
})
}

Please let me know if I'm getting your question correctly. So, the posts table in database looks like this right now:
And you want to return these posts in this manner:
[
{
"key": "-L1ELDwqJqm17iBI4UZu",
"message": "post 1"
},
{
"key": "-L1ELOuuf9hOdydnI3HU",
"message": "post 2"
},
{
"key": "-L1ELqFi7X9lm6ssOd5d",
"message": "post 3"
},
{
"key": "-L1EMH-Co64-RAQ1-AvU",
"message": "post 4"
}
...
]
Is this correct? If so, here's what you're suppose to do:
var items = [];
firebase.database().ref('posts').orderByKey().once('value', (snapshot) => {
snapshot.forEach((child) => {
// 'key' might not be a part of the post, if you do want to
// include the key as well, then use this code instead
//
// const post = child.val();
// const key = child.key;
// items.push({ ...post, key });
//
// Otherwise, the following line is enough
items.push(child.val());
});
// Then, do something with the 'items' array here
})
.catch(() => { });
Off the topics here: I see that you're using firebase.database().... to fetch posts from the database, are you using cloud functions or you're fetching those posts in your App, using users' devices to do so? If it's the latter, you probably would rather use cloud functions and pagination to fetch posts, mainly because of 2 reasons:
There might be too many posts to fetch at one time
This causes security issues, because you're allowing every device to connect to your database (you'd have to come up with real good security rules to keep your database safe)