We Keep Coding

Assigning nested values in (partially) undefined objects

Say I want to assign a value like this:
x.label1.label2.label3 = someValue;
// or equivalently:
x['label1']['label2']['label3'] = someValue;
This works as long as x.label1.label2 is defined but runs into reference errors otherwise. Which makes sense of course. But is there an easy way to assign this anyway where it simply creates the necessary nested objects?
So for example, if x equals { label1: {}, otherLabel: 'otherValue' } I want to update x to become { label1: { label2: { label3: someValue } }, otherLabel: otherValue }
I think I might be able to write a function myself, but is there a language feature or standard library function that does this?

is there a language feature or standard library function that does this
No. You have to write your own function or use a library that provides such functionality.
Related: How to set object property (of object property of..) given its string name in JavaScript?

This is partially possible using the Proxy class. You can wrap your object in a Proxy and override the get trap to create another copy of the same proxy when you access a nonexistent property. This lets you recursively create "deep" properties. An example:
let traps = {
get: function (target, name) {
if (!(name in target))
target[name] = new Proxy({}, traps);
return target[name];
}
};
let x = new Proxy({}, traps);
Then you would use x like any object, except it has this special behavior:
x.label1.label2.label3 = 'foo';
which creates a nested hierarchy of objects. However, note that this will create an object even if you access a nonexistent property. Thus, you will have to use the in keyword to check if it really contains a given property.

I think you should indeed use a custom function such as:
function assignByPath(obj, path, value) {
var field = path.split('>'),
last = field.pop();
field.reduce(
function(node, f) {
return node[f] = node[f] instanceof Object ? node[f] : {};
}, obj
)[last] = value;
}
var myObj = {};
assignByPath(myObj, 'label1>label2>label3', 'someValue');
console.log(myObj);
Theoretically, you could also override Object.prototype, which would allow you to do:
myObj.assignByPath('label1>label2>label3', 'someValue');
But I would not recommend that.

You can use Array.prototype.shift(), Object.assign(), recursion
var x = {
label1: {},
otherLabel: "otherValue"
};
var nestprops = (props, value, obj, o, curr = props.shift()) => props.length
? nestprops(props, value, (Object.assign(obj, {[curr]: {}}) && obj[curr]), o)
: ((!value || value) && (obj[curr] = value) && o);
console.log(nestprops(["label1", "label2", "label3"], "someValue", x, x));

Check length of keys inside label1 object if its equal to 0 then modify it to your desired object.
Here is a snippet, hope it helps.
var obj = { label1: {}, otherLabel: 'otherValue' };
if(Object.keys(obj.label1).length == 0 ) {
obj.label1 = { label2: { label3: "value3" } };
}
console.log(obj);

is there a way to automatically create a javascript object by just assigning a property?

I am doing a project which requires to pass Perl objects to javascript via JSON. I am facing a problem in terms of "intermediate" object definition.
In Perl, object is represented by hash, and programmers don't have to define anything "in the middle". Once a property is created, all intermediate objects are automatically created as hash references. e.g.
$graph{chart}{yAxis}{title} = "Temperature Tracking";
However, once this object is passed to Javascript, if I want to add any new properties in the "intermediate" object, like:
graph.chart.xAxis.title = "Time Sequence";
I'll have an "undefined graph.chart.xAxis" error. Unlike Perl, Javascript doesn't automatically create objects if we simply assign a property for it.
At the moment I have to use below solution:
if (!graph.chart.xAxis) {
graph.chart.xAxis = {};
graph.chart.xAxis.title = "Time Sequence";
}
Unfortunately, in our project the objects passed from Perl are pretty dynamic and there are plenty of other objects that Javascript may not know. Above way makes JS code pretty lengthy and "ugly looking". Are there any better solutions to make Javascript behave like Perl, which means I don't have to create intermediate objects manually?

I'm not sure whether this meets your requirements but a simple function to create the missing objects could look like this:
function insertNode(obj, node, value) {
var segments = node.split('.');
var key = segments.pop();
var ref = obj;
while (segments.length > 0) {
var segment = segments.shift();
if (typeof ref[segment] != 'object') {
ref[segment] = {};
}
ref = ref[segment];
}
ref[key] = value;
};
var x = {};
insertNode(x, 'foo.bar.baz', 'hello world');
alert(x.foo.bar.baz); // "hello world"
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/sNywt/1/

You may be interested in a library called steeltoe
steelToe(graph).set('chart.xAxis.title', 'Time Sequence');

not sure, if its suitable in your case, but you could check for property existence and create it if does not exist, like:
function use_or_create(obj, prop) {
return (obj.hasOwnProperty(prop)) ? true : (obj[prop] = {});
}
var graph.chart = {}; //your object
//function call to check if property exist before trying to use it
use_or_create(graph.chart, 'xAxis'); //check if xAxis exists and creates one if doesnot
graph.char.xAxis.title = "tested";

Maybe this Object extension will do:
Object.prototype.val = function(prop,val){
prop = /\./i.test(prop) ? prop.split('.') : prop;
if (prop.constructor === Array){
var objnow = this, pr;
while (pr = prop.shift()){
if (!objnow[pr]){
objnow[pr] = {};
}
if (!prop.length) {
objnow[pr] = val;
}
objnow = objnow[pr];
}
for (var l in objnow){
this[l] = objnow[l];
}
} else {
this[prop] = val;
}
}
// usage
var myO = {};
myO.val('a.b.c',3); //=> myO.a.b.c = 3
myO.val('someprop',3); //=> myO.someprop = 3
myO.val('a.b.someprop',5); //=> myO.a.b.someprop = 3

Ways to extend Array object in javascript

i try to extend Array object in javascript with some user friendly methods like Array.Add() instead Array.push() etc...
i implement 3 ways to do this.
unfortunetly the 3rd way is not working and i want to ask why? and how to do it work.
//------------- 1st way
Array.prototype.Add=function(element){
this.push(element);
};
var list1 = new Array();
list1.Add("Hello world");
alert(list1[0]);
//------------- 2nd way
function Array2 () {
//some other properties and methods
};
Array2.prototype = new Array;
Array2.prototype.Add = function(element){
this.push(element);
};
var list2 = new Array2;
list2.Add(123);
alert(list2[0]);
//------------- 3rd way
function Array3 () {
this.prototype = new Array;
this.Add = function(element){
this.push(element);
};
};
var list3 = new Array3;
list3.Add(456); //push is not a function
alert(list3[0]); // undefined
in 3rd way i want to extend the Array object internally Array3 class.
How to do this so not to get "push is not a function" and "undefined"?
Here i add a 4th way.
//------------- 4th way
function Array4 () {
//some other properties and methods
this.Add = function(element){
this.push(element);
};
};
Array4.prototype = new Array();
var list4 = new Array4();
list4.Add(789);
alert(list4[0]);
Here again i have to use prototype.
I hoped to avoid to use extra lines outside class constructor as Array4.prototype.
I wanted to have a compact defined class with all pieces in one place.
But i think i cant do it otherwise.

ES6
class SubArray extends Array {
last() {
return this[this.length - 1];
}
}
var sub = new SubArray(1, 2, 3);
sub // [1, 2, 3]
sub instanceof SubArray; // true
sub instanceof Array; // true
Using __proto__
(old answer, not recommended, may cause performance issues)
function SubArray() {
var arr = [ ];
arr.push.apply(arr, arguments);
arr.__proto__ = SubArray.prototype;
return arr;
}
SubArray.prototype = new Array;
Now you can add your methods to SubArray
SubArray.prototype.last = function() {
return this[this.length - 1];
};
Initialize like normal Arrays
var sub = new SubArray(1, 2, 3);
Behaves like normal Arrays
sub instanceof SubArray; // true
sub instanceof Array; // true

Method names should be lowercase. Prototype should not be modified in the constructor.
function Array3() { };
Array3.prototype = new Array;
Array3.prototype.add = Array3.prototype.push
in CoffeeScript
class Array3 extends Array
add: (item)->
#push(item)
If you don't like that syntax, and you HAVE to extend it from within the constructor,
Your only option is:
// define this once somewhere
// you can also change this to accept multiple arguments
function extend(x, y){
for(var key in y) {
if (y.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
x[key] = y[key];
}
}
return x;
}
function Array3() {
extend(this, Array.prototype);
extend(this, {
Add: function(item) {
return this.push(item)
}
});
};
You could also do this
ArrayExtenstions = {
Add: function() {
}
}
extend(ArrayExtenstions, Array.prototype);
function Array3() { }
Array3.prototype = ArrayExtenstions;
In olden days, 'prototype.js' used to have a Class.create method. You could wrap all this is a method like that
var Array3 = Class.create(Array, {
construct: function() {
},
Add: function() {
}
});
For more info on this and how to implement, look in the prototype.js source code

A while ago I read the book Javascript Ninja written by John Resig, the creator of jQuery.
He proposed a way to mimic array-like methods with a plain JS object. Basically, only length is required.
var obj = {
length: 0, //only length is required to mimic an Array
add: function(elem){
Array.prototype.push.call(this, elem);
},
filter: function(callback) {
return Array.prototype.filter.call(this, callback); //or provide your own implemetation
}
};
obj.add('a');
obj.add('b');
console.log(obj.length); //2
console.log(obj[0], obj[1]); //'a', 'b'
I don't mean it's good or bad. It's an original way of doing Array operations. The benefit is that you do not extend the Array prototype.
Keep in mind that obj is a plain object, it's not an Array. Therefore obj instanceof Array will return false. Think obj as a façade.
If that code is of interest to you, read the excerpt Listing 4.10 Simulating array-like methods.

In your third example you're just creating a new property named prototype for the object Array3. When you do new Array3 which should be new Array3(), you're instantiating that object into variable list3. Therefore, the Add method won't work because this, which is the object in question, doesn't have a valid method push. Hope you understand.
Edit: Check out Understanding JavaScript Context to learn more about this.

You can also use this way in ES6:
Object.assign(Array.prototype, {
unique() {
return this.filter((value, index, array) => {
return array.indexOf(value) === index;
});
}
});
Result:
let x = [0,1,2,3,2,3];
let y = x.unique();
console.log(y); // => [0,1,2,3]

Are you trying to do something more complicated then just add an alias for "push" called "Add"?
If not, it would probably be best to avoid doing this. The reason I suggest this is a bad idea is that because Array is a builtin javascript type, modifying it will cause all scripts Array type to have your new "Add" method. The potential for name clashes with another third party are high and could cause the third party script to lose its method in favour of your one.
My general rule is to make a helper function to work on the Array's if it doesnt exist somewhere already and only extend Array if its extremely necessary.

You CANNOT extend the Array Object in JavaScript.
Instead, what you can do is define an object that will contain a list of functions that perform on the Array, and inject these functions into that Array instance and return this new Array instance. What you shouldn't do is changing the Array.prototype to include your custom functions upon the list.
Example:
function MyArray() {
var tmp_array = Object.create(Array.prototype);
tmp_array = (Array.apply(tmp_array, arguments) || tmp_array);
//Now extend tmp_array
for( var meth in MyArray.prototype )
if(MyArray.prototype.hasOwnProperty(meth))
tmp_array[meth] = MyArray.prototype[meth];
return (tmp_array);
}
//Now define the prototype chain.
MyArray.prototype = {
customFunction: function() { return "blah blah"; },
customMetaData: "Blah Blah",
}
Just a sample code, you can modify it and use however you want. But the underlying concept I recommend you to follow remains the same.

var SubArray = function() {
var arrInst = new Array(...arguments); // spread arguments object
/* Object.getPrototypeOf(arrInst) === Array.prototype */
Object.setPrototypeOf(arrInst, SubArray.prototype); //redirectionA
return arrInst; // now instanceof SubArray
};
SubArray.prototype = {
// SubArray.prototype.constructor = SubArray;
constructor: SubArray,
// methods avilable for all instances of SubArray
add: function(element){return this.push(element);},
...
};
Object.setPrototypeOf(SubArray.prototype, Array.prototype); //redirectionB
var subArr = new SubArray(1, 2);
subArr.add(3); subArr[2]; // 3
The answer is a compact workaround which works as intended in all supporting browsers.

Class members in Backbone/Parse using each other

var User = Parse.User.extend({
// instance members
}, {
// types
TYPE_TRAINER : 1,
TYPE_ATHLETE : 2,
types: {
TYPE_TRAINER : 'Trainer',
TYPE_ATHLETE : 'Athlete'
}
});
I want to have TYPE_TRAINER and TYPE_ATHLETE maintain the values of 1 and 2 as defined prior to the types object so that I can use the types object in a template.
If you don't know about Parse, Parse.User is an extension of Backbone.Model.
Thanks!

What you're asking is not directly possible in JavaScript object literals. Object literals are always a literal value on the left hand / key side.
The closest you could get is to use the TYPE_TRAINER and TYPE_ATHLETE keys as variables to assign values via the square bracket syntax for accessing object key/value pairs:
var a = 1;
var b = 2;
var obj = {};
obj[a] = "a";
obj[b] = "b";
This will result in the obj object looking like this:
{
1: "a",
2: "b"
}
So you could do something like this, to get what you want in your code:
var userMethods = {
// types
TYPE_TRAINER : 1,
TYPE_ATHLETE : 2
};
userMethods[userMethods.TYPE_TRAINER] = 'Trainer';
userMethods[userMethods.TYPE_ATHLETE] = 'Athlete';
var User = Parse.User.extend({
// instance members
}, userMethods);
It's more code than you probably want, but it's the only way to achieve what you want because of the object literal syntax.

The Parse.Object Javascript documentation says:
You should call either:
var MyClass = Parse.Object.extend("MyClass", {
// Instance properties
}, {
// Class properties
});
or, for Backbone compatibility:
var MyClass = Parse.Object.extend({
className: "MyClass",
// Other instance properties
}, {
// Class properties
});
If you are wanting to extend the Parse.User "class" (it's an object, not a class), you need to include the className as described above because Parse.User is itself an extension of Parse.Object.

Set of objects in javascript

I'd like to have a set of objects in Javascript. That is, a data structure that contains only unique objects.
Normally using properties is recommended, e.g. myset["key"] = true. However, I need the keys to be objects. I've read that Javascript casts property names to strings, so I guess I can't use myset[myobject] = true.
I could use an array, but I need something better than O(n) performance for adding, finding and removing items.
It needs to be able to tell objects apart by reference only, so given:
var a = {};
var b = {};
then both a and b should be able to be added, because they're separate objects.
Basically, I'm after something like C++'s std::set, that can store Javascript objects. Any ideas?

ES6 provides a native Set:
let s = new Set();
let a = {};
let b = {};
s.add(a);
console.log(s.has(a)); // true
console.log(s.has(b)); // false

Here's a mad suggestion ... key it on the result of JSON.stringify(object)

It's not possible for all objects, but if your object has a .toString() method implemented, it is:
var x = {toString: function(){ return 'foo'; }};
var y = {toString: function(){ return 'bar'; }};
var obj = {};
obj[x] = 'X';
obj[y] = 'Y';
console.log(obj);
// { foo: 'X', bar: 'Y' }
If you want to make this easier, make it a class:
function myObj(name){
this.name = name;
}
myObj.prototype.toString = function(){ return this.name; }
var obj = {};
obj[new myObj('foo')] = 'X';
obj[new myObj('bar')] = 'Y';

I'm answering my own question, but I came up with an alternative solution I thought was interesting and thought it would be useful to share it.
cwolves' answer gave me an idea. Providing an object's toString() method uniquely identifies the instance, properties of an object can be used to store a set of objects. Essentially, to store object x, you can use items[x.toString()] = x;. Note that the value is the object itself, so then the set of objects can be extracted by looking at all item's properties and dumping all the values in to an array.
Here's the class, which I call ObjectSet, in full. It requires objects are uniquely identified by their toString() method, which is OK for my purposes. add, remove and contains should all run in better than O(n) time - whatever javascript's property access efficiency is, which hopefully is either O(1) or O(n log n).
// Set of objects. Requires a .toString() overload to distinguish objects.
var ObjectSet = function ()
{
this.items = {};
this.item_count = 0;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.contains = function (x)
{
return this.items.hasOwnProperty(x.toString());
};
ObjectSet.prototype.add = function (x)
{
if (!this.contains(x))
{
this.items[x.toString()] = x;
this.item_count++;
}
return this;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.remove = function (x)
{
if (this.contains(x))
{
delete this.items[x.toString()];
this.item_count--;
}
return this;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.clear = function ()
{
this.items = {};
this.item_count = 0;
return this;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.isEmpty = function ()
{
return this.item_count === 0;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.count = function ()
{
return this.item_count;
};
ObjectSet.prototype.values = function ()
{
var i, ret = [];
for (i in this.items)
{
if (this.items.hasOwnProperty(i))
ret.push(this.items[i]);
}
return ret;
};

I used Map, solved my case
const objectsMap = new Map();
const placesName = [
{ place: "here", name: "stuff" },
{ place: "there", name: "morestuff" },
{ place: "there", name: "morestuff" },
];
placesName.forEach((object) => {
objectsMap.set(object.place, object);
});
console.log(objectsMap);

For what you're trying to do (sets of objects), there is no native Javascript implementation. You would have to implement this on your own. One way to do this would be to implement a hashing function for your objects. The backing data-type of the set would be an associative array, where the key of the array is the value you get from calling the object's hash function, and the value of the array is the object itself.
Of course, this doesn't address the issue that you highlighted, so you will need to take equality into account as well (implement an equals function perhaps)?
Instead of making the hash function a property of the object itself, you can have a standalone hash function that takes in an object as input and generates a hash value (presumably by iterating over its properties).
Using this method you should be able to get O(1) for insertion, searching, and removing (not counting the order of the hash function, which shouldn't be any worse than O(n), especially if you are iterating over its properties to create your hashed value).

ECMAScript6 Set should behave like that:
Standard: http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-set-o-p-v-throw
Unofficial ES6 cheat sheet: https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features#map--set--weakmap--weakset
Working example on Firefox 32 (but not implemented in Chromium 37):
if (Set) {
var s = new Set()
var a = {}
var b = {}
var c = {}
s.add(a)
s.add(b)
s.add(b)
assert(s.size === 2)
assert(s.has(a))
assert(s.has(b))
assert(!s.has(c))
}
This is not surprising since {} != {}: equality compares object addresses by default.
A module that implements it for browsers without support: https://github.com/medikoo/es6-set

Javascript Set's don't do deep object comparison.
Using lodash, this is a unique array with deep object comparison:
const objects = [{ 'x': 1, 'y': 2 }, { 'x': 2, 'y': 1 }, { 'x': 1, 'y': 2 }];
_.uniqWith(objects, _.isEqual);

Just typed this up, it's only briefly tested:
var Set = function Set()
{
var list = [];
var contains;
this.contains = contains = function(x) {
return list.indexOf(x) >= 0;
}
var put;
this.put = put = function(x) {
if (!contains(x))
list.push(x);
return this;
}
var remove;
this.remove = remove = function(x)
{
var idx = list.indexOf(x);
if (idx >= 0)
list.splice(idx,1);
return this;
}
var all;
this.all = all = function()
{
return list.concat();
}
return this;
}

It seems that the inner call of function works when prefixed with this.
Exemple:
var put;
this.put = put = function(x) {
if (!this.contains(x))
list.push(x);
return this;
}

Please use this code as a reference.
const fruits = [
{name: 'apple', price: 100},
{name: 'apple', price: 100},
{name: 'orange', price: 200},
{name: 'grapes', price: 300}
];
const hasFruitDuplicated = () => {
const duplicatedDeleteFruits = fruits.filter((fruit, index) =>
fruits.findIndex(item => item.name === fruit.name && item.price === fruit.price) === index
);
return duplicatedDeleteFruits;
};

Given an array of the following type:
Array<{ foo: T1, bar: T2 }>
You can build a corresponding dictionary of type:
{ [foo: T1]: Set<T2> }
The look-up for { foo: fooValue, bar: barValue } can be performed as follows:
if (fooValue in dictionary && dictionary[fooValue].has(barValue))
This way we can build what would be an ObjectSet<T1, T2>
.
If you now have three elements, you can build the following dictionary:
{ [foo: T1]: ObjectSet<T2, T3> }
and extend your ObjectSet to any number of properties by induction.
That is assuming your types can be used as index signatures.