We Keep Coding

Processing an Immutable.js list and extracting unique objects

I have the below type script that uses immutables. I am looking to use immutables List to process the students and generate a list of students that are unique. My initial list can have duplicate students objects and I can filter them out by studentId.
Issue that I am facing is that , I am not able to access the studentId attribute from the Student Object when iterating the list, in line studentId is not accessible.
if (d && !studentIdSeen.has(d!.studentId)
export interface StudentProperties {
studentId: number;
student: string;
region: string;
active: boolean;
}
export interface Student extends TypedRecord<Student>, StudentProperties { }
export const studentFactory = makeTypedFactory<StudentProperties, Student>({ studentId: -1, student: '', region: '', active: true });
REDUX CALL
case types.FETCH_STUDENT_DATA_SUCCESS: {
let fetchedStudents = List(action.data.map(item => studentFactory(item)));
console.log("Fetched student data ==> " + fetchedStudents);
let uniqueStudents: Student[] = [];
let studentIdSeen: Set<number>;
fetchedStudents.forEach(d => {
if (d && !studentIdSeen.has(d!.studentId) { //error here , not able to access studentId attribute
uniqueStudents.push(d);
studentIdSeen.add(d!.studentId);////error here , not able to access studentId attribute
}
});
console.log("List of unique students = " + uniqueStudents);
return state.set('students', List(uniqueStudents));
}
If I return the fetchedStudents in state.set('students',fetchedStudents) it works fine so there is no issue with the data that is being fetched.

Fist:
d!.studentId
is wrong, you only want
d.studentId
both in: !studentIdSeen.has(d!.studentId)
and: studentIdSeen.add(d!.studentId);
Second, if possible you could cast to a set which removes duplicates. Then back to array:
let uniqueStudents: Student[] = [... new Set(fetchedStudents)]
Or
let uniqueStudents: Student[] = [];
fetchedStudents.forEach(d => {
if (d && !uniqueStudents.has(x => x.studentId === d.studentId)) {
uniqueStudents.push(d);
}
});

Assign dynamically nested array of classes

I need to be able to receive data from an external API and map it dynamically to classes. When the data is plain object, a simple Object.assign do the job, but when there's nested objects you need to call Object.assign to all nested objects.
The approach which I used was to create a recursive function, but I stumble in this case where there's a nested array of objects.
Classes
class Organization {
id = 'org1';
admin = new User();
users: User[] = [];
}
class User {
id = 'user1';
name = 'name';
account = new Account();
getFullName() {
return `${this.name} surname`;
}
}
class Account {
id = 'account1';
money = 10;
calculate() {
return 10 * 2;
}
}
Function to initialize a class
function create(instance: object, data: any) {
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(instance)) {
if (Array.isArray(value)) {
for (const element of data[key]) {
// get the type of the element in array dynamically
const newElement = new User();
create(newElement, element)
value.push(newElement);
}
} else if (typeof value === 'object') {
create(value, data[key]);
}
Object.assign(value, data);
}
}
const orgWithError = Object.assign(new Organization(), { admin: { id: 'admin-external' }});
console.log(orgWithError.admin.getFullName()); // orgWithError.admin.getFullName is not a function
const org = new Organization();
const data = { id: 'org2', admin: { id: 'admin2' }, users: [ { id: 'user-inside' }]}
create(org, data);
// this case works because I manually initialize the user in the create function
// but I need this function to be generic to any class
console.log(org.users[0].getFullName()); // "name surname"
Initially I was trying to first scan the classes and map it and then do the assign, but the problem with the array of object would happen anyway I think.

As far as I understand from your code, what you basically want to do is, given an object, determine, what class it is supposed to represent: Organization, Account or User.
So you need a way to distinguish between different kinds of objects in some way. One option may be to add a type field to the API response, but this will only work if you have access to the API code, which you apparently don't. Another option would be to check if an object has some fields that are unique to the class it represents, like admin for Organization or account for User. But it seems like your API response doesn't always contain all the fields that the class does, so this might also not work.
So why do you need this distinction in the first place? It seems like the only kind of array that your API may send is array of users, so you could just stick to what you have now, anyway there are no other arrays that may show up.
Also a solution that I find more logical is not to depend on Object.assign to just assign all properties somehow by itself, but to do it manually, maybe create a factory function, like I did in the code below. That approach gives you more control, also you can perform some validation in these factory methods, in case you will need it
class Organization {
id = 'org1';
admin = new User();
users: User[] = [];
static fromApiResponse(data: any) {
const org = new Organization()
if(data.id) org.id = data.id
if(data.admin) org.admin = User.fromApiResponse(data.admin)
if(data.users) {
this.users = org.users.map(user => User.fromApiResponse(user))
}
return org
}
}
class User {
id = 'user1';
name = 'name';
account = new Account();
getFullName() {
return `${this.name} surname`;
}
static fromApiResponse(data: any) {
const user = new User()
if(data.id) user.id = data.id
if(data.name) user.name = data.name
if(data.account)
user.account = Account.fromApiResponse(data.account)
return user
}
}
class Account {
id = 'account1';
money = 10;
calculate() {
return 10 * 2;
}
static fromApiResponse(data: any) {
const acc = new Account()
if(data.id) acc.id = data.id
if(data.money) acc.money = data.money
return acc
}
}
const data = { id: 'org2', admin: { id: 'admin2' }, users: [ { id: 'user-inside' }]}
const organization = Organization.fromApiResponse(data)

I can't conceive of a way to do this generically without any configuration. But I can come up with a way to do this using a configuration object that looks like this:
{
org: { _ctor: Organization, admin: 'usr', users: '[usr]' },
usr: { _ctor: User, account: 'acct' },
acct: { _ctor: Account }
}
and a pointer to the root node, 'org'.
The keys of this object are simple handles for your type/subtypes. Each one is mapped to an object that has a _ctor property pointing to a constructor function, and a collection of other properties that are the names of members of your object and matching properties of your input. Those then are references to other handles. For an array, the handle is [surrounded by square brackets].
Here's an implementation of this idea:
const create = (root, config) => (data, {_ctor, ...keys} = config [root]) =>
Object.assign (new _ctor (), Object .fromEntries (Object .entries (data) .map (
([k, v]) =>
k in keys
? [k, /^\[.*\]$/ .test (keys [k])
? v .map (o => create (keys [k] .slice (1, -1), config) (o))
: create (keys [k], config) (v)
]
: [k, v]
)))
class Organization {
constructor () { this.id = 'org1'; this.admin = new User(); this.users = [] }
}
class User {
constructor () { this.id = 'user1'; this.name = 'name'; this.account = new Account() }
getFullName () { return `${this.name} surname`}
}
class Account {
constructor () { this.id = 'account1'; this.money = 10 }
calculate () { return 10 * 2 }
}
const createOrganization = create ('org', {
org: { _ctor: Organization, admin: 'usr', users: '[usr]' },
usr: { _ctor: User, account: 'acct' },
acct: { _ctor: Account }
})
const orgWithoutError = createOrganization ({ admin: { id: 'admin-external' }});
console .log (orgWithoutError .admin .getFullName ()) // has the right properties
const data = { id: 'org2', admin: { id: 'admin2' }, users: [ { id: 'user-inside' }]}
const org = createOrganization (data)
console .log (org .users [0] .getFullName ()) // has the right properties
console .log ([
org .constructor .name,
org .admin .constructor.name, // has the correct hierarchy
org .users [0]. account. constructor .name
] .join (', '))
console .log (org) // entire object is correct
.as-console-wrapper {min-height: 100% !important; top: 0}
The main function, create, receives the name of the root node and such a configuration object. It returns a function which takes a plain JS object and hydrates it into your Object structure. Note that it doesn't require you to pre-construct the objects as does your attempt. All the calling of constructors is done internally to the function.
I'm not much of a Typescript user, and I don't have a clue about how to type such a function, or whether TS is even capable of doing so. (I think there's a reasonable chance that it is not.)
There are many ways that this might be expanded, if needed. We might want to allow for property names that vary between your input structure and the object member name, or we might want to allow other collection types besides arrays. If so, we probably would need a somewhat more sophisticated configuration structure, perhaps something like this:
{
org: { _ctor: Organization, admin: {type: 'usr'}, users: {type: Array, itemType: 'usr'} },
usr: { _ctor: User, account: {type: 'acct', renameTo: 'clientAcct'} },
acct: { _ctor: Account }
}
But that's for another day.
It's not clear whether this approach even comes close to meeting your needs, but it was an interesting problem to consider.

Apollo GraphQL updateQuery to typePolicy

I am beating my head against a wall. I have updated to Apollo 3, and cannot figure out how to migrate an updateQuery to a typePolicy. I am doing basic continuation based pagination, and this is how I used to merged the results of fetchMore:
await fetchMore({
query: MessagesByThreadIDQuery,
variables: {
threadId: threadId,
limit: Configuration.MessagePageSize,
continuation: token
},
updateQuery: (prev, curr) => {
// Extract our updated message page.
const last = prev.messagesByThreadId.messages ?? []
const next = curr.fetchMoreResult?.messagesByThreadId.messages ?? []
return {
messagesByThreadId: {
__typename: 'MessagesContinuation',
messages: [...last, ...next],
continuation: curr.fetchMoreResult?.messagesByThreadId.continuation
}
}
}
I have made an attempt to write the merge typePolicy myself, but it just continually loads and throws errors about duplicate identifiers in the Apollo cache. Here is what my typePolicy looks like for my query.
typePolicies: {
Query: {
fields: {
messagesByThreadId: {
keyArgs: false,
merge: (existing, incoming, args): IMessagesContinuation => {
const typedExisting: IMessagesContinuation | undefined = existing
const typedIncoming: IMessagesContinuation | undefined = incoming
const existingMessages = (typedExisting?.messages ?? [])
const incomingMessages = (typedIncoming?.messages ?? [])
const result = existing ? {
__typename: 'MessageContinuation',
messages: [...existingMessages, ...incomingMessages],
continuation: typedIncoming?.continuation
} : incoming
return result
}
}
}
}
}

So I was able to solve my use-case. It seems way harder than it really needs to be. I essentially have to attempt to locate existing items matching the incoming and overwrite them, as well as add any new items that don't yet exist in the cache.
I also have to only apply this logic if a continuation token was provided, because if it's null or undefined, I should just use the incoming value because that indicates that we are doing an initial load.
My document is shaped like this:
{
"items": [{ id: string, ...others }],
"continuation": "some_token_value"
}
I created a generic type policy that I can use for all my documents that have a similar shape. It allows me to specify the name of the items property, what the key args are that I want to cache on, and the name of the graphql type.
export function ContinuationPolicy(keyArgs: Array<string>, itemPropertyKey: string, typeName: string) {
return {
keyArgs,
merge(existing: any, incoming: any, args: any) {
if (!!existing && !!args.args?.continuation) {
const existingItems = (existing ? existing[itemPropertyKey] : [])
const incomingItems = (incoming ? incoming[itemPropertyKey] : [])
let items: Array<any> = [...existingItems]
for (let i = 0; i < incomingItems.length; i++) {
const current = incomingItems[i] as any
const found = items.findIndex(m => m.__ref === current.__ref)
if (found > -1) {
items[found] === current
} else {
items = [...items, current]
}
}
// This new data is a continuation of the last data.
return {
__typename: typeName,
[itemPropertyKey]: items,
continuation: incoming.continuation
}
} else {
// When we have no existing data in the cache, we'll just use the incoming data.
return incoming
}
}
}
}

Convert all MirageJS ids to integers

MirageJS provides all model ids as strings. Our backend uses integers, which are convenient for sorting and so on. After reading around MirageJS does not support integer IDs out of the box. From the conversations I've read the best solution would be to convert Ids in a serializer.
Output:
{
id: "1",
title: "Some title",
otherValue: "Some other value"
}
But what I want is:
Expected Output:
{
id: 1,
title: "Some title",
otherValue: "Some other value"
}
I really want to convert ALL ids. This would included nested objects, and serialized Ids.

I think you should be able to use a custom IdentityManager for this. Here's a REPL example. (Note: REPL is a work in progress + currently only works on Chrome).
Here's the code:
import { Server, Model } from "miragejs";
class IntegerIDManager {
constructor() {
this.ids = new Set();
this.nextId = 1;
}
// Returns a new unused unique identifier.
fetch() {
let id = this.nextId++;
this.ids.add(id);
return id;
}
// Registers an identifier as used. Must throw if identifier is already used.
set(id) {
if (this.ids.has(id)) {
throw new Error('ID ' + id + 'has already been used.');
}
this.ids.add(id);
}
// Resets all used identifiers to unused.
reset() {
this.ids.clear();
}
}
export default new Server({
identityManagers: {
application: IntegerIDManager,
},
models: {
user: Model,
},
seeds(server) {
server.createList("user", 3);
},
routes() {
this.resource("user");
},
});
When I make a GET request to /users with this server I get integer IDs back.

My solution is to traverse the data and recursively convert all Ids. It's working pretty well.
I have a number of other requirements, like removing the data key and embedding or serializing Ids.
const ApplicationSerializer = Serializer.extend({
root: true,
serialize(resource, request) {
// required to serializedIds
// handle removing root key
const json = Serializer.prototype.serialize.apply(this, arguments)
const root = resource.models
? this.keyForCollection(resource.modelName)
: this.keyForModel(resource.modelName)
const keyedItem = json[root]
// convert single string id to integer
const idToInt = id => Number(id)
// convert array of ids to integers
const idsToInt = ids => ids.map(id => idToInt(id))
// check if the data being passed is a collection or model
const isCollection = data => Array.isArray(data)
// check if data should be traversed
const shouldTraverse = entry =>
Array.isArray(entry) || entry instanceof Object
// check if the entry is an id
const isIdKey = key => key === 'id'
// check for serialized Ids
// don't be stupid and create an array of values with a key like `arachnIds`
const isIdArray = (key, value) =>
key.slice(key.length - 3, key.length) === 'Ids' && Array.isArray(value)
// traverse the passed model and update Ids where required, keeping other entries as is
const traverseModel = model =>
Object.entries(model).reduce(
(a, c) =>
isIdKey(c[0])
? // convert id to int
{ ...a, [c[0]]: idToInt(c[1]) }
: // convert id array to int
isIdArray(c[0], c[1])
? { ...a, [c[0]]: idsToInt(c[1]) }
: // traverse nested entries
shouldTraverse(c[1])
? { ...a, [c[0]]: applyFuncToModels(c[1]) }
: // keep regular entries
{ ...a, [c[0]]: c[1] },
{}
)
// start traversal of data
const applyFuncToModels = data =>
isCollection(data)
? data.map(model =>
// confirm we're working with a model, and not a value
model instance of Object ? traverseModel(model) : model)
: traverseModel(data)
return applyFuncToModels(keyedItem)
}
})

I had to solve this problem as well (fingers crossed that this gets included into the library) and my use case is simpler than the first answer.
function convertIdsToNumbers(o) {
Object.keys(o).forEach((k) => {
const v = o[k]
if (Array.isArray(v) || v instanceof Object) convertIdsToNumbers(v)
if (k === 'id' || /.*Id$/.test(k)) {
o[k] = Number(v)
}
})
}
const ApplicationSerializer = RestSerializer.extend({
root: false,
embed: true,
serialize(object, request) {
let json = Serializer.prototype.serialize.apply(this, arguments)
convertIdsToNumbers(json)
return {
status: request.status,
payload: json,
}
},
})

React class component methods: is my code imperative?

I'm new to react and as well to the terms of functional, imperative, declarative. And I get to know that pure function is easy to test. I am self taught to program with Javascript. So far, it is working but my goal is to learn to write clean and maintainable code.
my question is the method addProductToSaleList below is bad and untestable because it is imperative? and how can I do it differently.
class SaleComponent extends React.Component {
addProductToSaleList = (values, dispatch, props) => {
//filter product from productList
const productFound = props.productList.filter(product => {
if (values.productCode === product.code.toString()) {
return product
}
return undefined
})[0]
if (productFound) {
// filter sale list to check if there is already product in the list.
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.filter(detail => {
if (productFound.name === detail.product) {
return detail
}
return undefined
})[0]
// if it is exist just increment the qty
if (detailFound) {
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound
props.dispatcher('UPDATE_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
})
// if it is not exist add new one
} else {
props.dispatcher('ADD_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
})
}
} else {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
}
}
render() {
// Render saleList
}
}

I belive this question should go to Code Review, but I will give it a shot. Part of the code can be improved
const productFound = props.productList.filter(product => {
if (values.productCode === product.code.toString()) {
return product
}
return undefined
})[0]
First, filter function receives a callback and for each item that callback will be executed. If the callback returns a value interpreted as true, it will return the item in the new array the function will build. Otherwise, it will skip that item. Assuming you're trying to find one item in the code, you could use the function find which will return you that element directly (no need for [0]), or undefined if that item is not found. So your code could be rewrite to
const productFound = props.productList.find(product => values.productCode === product.code.toString());
Note: No IE support.
Then, if the value was not found, you could just alert and do an early return. (You might also want to handle errors differently, with a better format than plain alert).
The code would look like
if (!productFound) {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
return;
}
// rest of the function
in order to find details, you can use find method as well
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.find(detail => productFound.name === detail.product);
and then just call the rest of the code
// if it is exist just increment the qty
if (detailFound) {
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound
props.dispatcher('UPDATE_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
})
// if it is not exist add new one
} else {
props.dispatcher('ADD_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC', {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
})
}
Another improvement:
You're receiving a dispatch function as a parameter, but you're not using it. So you could remove it from function's declaration
(values, props) => { ... }
And you could split the last part into two different functions, something like
const getAction = details => `${detailFound ? 'UPDATE' : 'ADD'}_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC`;
const getObject = (details, productFound) => {
if (!details) {
return {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
};
}
const { sub_total, ...rest } = detailFound;
return {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(detailFound.qty, 10) + 1
};
}
and then just call
props.dispatcher(getAction(details), getObject(details, productFound));
The end result would look like
addProductToSaleList = (values, props) => {
//filter product from productList
const productFound = props.productList.find(product => values.productCode === product.code.toString());
if (!productFound) {
alert('The product code you add is not exist in product list');
return;
}
// filter sale list to check if there is already product in the list.
const detailFound = props.saleItem.details.find(detail => productFound.name === detail.product);
const getAction = details => `${details ? 'UPDATE' : 'ADD'}_SALEDETAIL_ASYNC`;
const getObject = (details, productFound) => {
if (!details) {
return {
product: productFound.id,
price: productFound.price,
qty: 1
};
}
const { sub_total, ...rest } = details;
return {
...rest,
qty: parseInt(details.qty, 10) + 1
};
}
props.dispatcher(getAction(details), getObject(details, productFound));
}
my question is the method addProductToSaleList below is bad and
untestable because it is imperative
Well your code is testable, there are no external dependencies. So you could pass mocked values and props and add unit tests to that. That means, passing a fake values and props (they are just plain js object) and make assertions over that.
For instance:
You could mock dispatcher function and given the fake values in productList and saleItem.details you could see if dispatcher is called with the proper values. You should test different combinations of that
Mock alert function (Again, I would use another UI approach) and verify it is called, and that no other code is called (asserting that your fake dispatcher is not called). Something like this:
let actionToAssert;
let objectToAssert;
let values = { productCode: 'somecode' };
let props = {
productList: // your item listm with id and price, name, etc,
saleItem: {
details: // your details array here
}
dispatcher: (action, newObject) => {
actionToAssert = action;
objectToAssert = newObject;
}
}
addProductToSaleList(values, props); // make here assertions over actionToAssert and objectToAssert