We Keep Coding

JavaScript Objects using this keyword

I'm currently working on some practice for JavaScript and am really confused about what I am to do here. Any help would be appreciated!
Define a method named orderOfAppearance() that takes the name of a role as an argument and returns that role's order of appearance. If the role is not found, the method returns 0. Ex: orderOfAppearance("Elizabeth Swann") returns 3. Hint: A method may access the object's properties using the keyword this. Ex: this.title accesses the object's title property.
// Code will be tested with different roles and movies
let movie = {
title: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End",
director: "Gore Verbinski",
composer: "Hans Zimmer",
roles: [ // Roles are stored in order of appearance
"Jack Sparrow",
"Will Turner",
"Elizabeth Swann",
"Hector Barbossa"
],
orderOfAppearance: function(role) {
/* Your solution goes here */
if (!(role in this.roles)) {
return 0;
}
return this.role;
/*Solution ends here */
}
};

A doubly linked list has 2 links. Let's use common sense for a moment instead of blind deferral to whatever you think your TA said: "Doubly linked list" obviously implies "2 links", otherwise that'd be an extremely silly name, no?
So, there must be 2 links. You seem to be under the impression that 'you must not have a pointer to the tail' implies 'there must be only one link'. That can't be right, what with 'doubly linked list' and all.
The right answer is presumably that each node has 2 links, but these links aren't 'head and tail', but 'next' and 'previous'.
For a ringed list (where moving forward from the last element gets you back to the first, and moving backwards from the first element gets you to the last), the last node's "next" link goes back to the first node, and conversely, the first node's "previous" link goes to the last (so it points at the same thing a hypothetical 'tail' would point to).
However, that'd be only true for the first node in your linked list structure (that would be the only node for which 'prev' points at the tail).
Your TA either means 'have next/prev links, not next/tail links' as per above, or has no idea what they are talking about. Let's give em the benefit of the doubt ;) – as it's homework I'll leave the actual writing of the data structure, using a definition of DoublyLinkedNode<T> that includes fields DoublyLinkedNode<T> next, prev;, as an exercise for you.

What I was looking for was to refer to the last use first.getPrev(), since its a circle the last is before the first.

I have the same question. This is found in a zybooks online textbook. The textbook's portion of JavaScript is horrible!! It explains little about what we need to do to solve the questions posed. I have been so frustrated and had to look to online sources to try to solve the problems in the book. Was there a solution to this question?
Define a method named orderOfAppearance() that takes the name of a role as an argument and returns that role's order of appearance. If the role is not found, the method returns 0. Ex: orderOfAppearance("Elizabeth Swann") returns 3. Hint: A method may access the object's properties using the keyword this. Ex: this.title accesses the object's title property.
// Code will be tested with different roles and movies
let movie = {
title: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End",
director: "Gore Verbinski",
composer: "Hans Zimmer",
roles: [ // Roles are stored in order of appearance
"Jack Sparrow",
"Will Turner",
"Elizabeth Swann",
"Hector Barbossa"
],
orderOfAppearance: function(role) {
\\your solution goes here
return this.roles;
}
};
I entered return this.roles; but everything else in the code came from the computer. the answer comes up wrong and says:
Testing orderOfAppearance("Elizabeth Swann")
Yours and expected differ. See highlights below.
Yours
Jack Sparrow,Will Turner,Elizabeth Swann,Hector Barbossa
Expected
3
I also entered:
return this.roles[3]
but that gives Hector Barbossa. I don't know what to do!

If the role is not found, the method returns 0. Ex: orderOfAppearance("Elizabeth Swann") returns 3.
You can use .indexOf() to get the index of the role passed to the orderOfAppearance() method and then add 1 to it. .indexOf() will return -1 if the role is not found and it will become 0 after adding 1.
let movie = {
title: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End",
director: 'Gore Verbinski',
composer: 'Hans Zimmer',
roles: ['Jack Sparrow', 'Will Turner', 'Elizabeth Swann', 'Hector Barbossa'],
orderOfAppearance: function(role) {
return this.roles.indexOf(role) + 1
},
}
console.log(movie.orderOfAppearance('Jack Sparrow'))
console.log(movie.orderOfAppearance('Will Turner'))
console.log(movie.orderOfAppearance('Elizabeth Swann'))
console.log(movie.orderOfAppearance('Hector Barbossa'))
console.log(movie.orderOfAppearance('Something that does not exist in roles'))

using dynamodb SET to append to a string set

I have looked at recent posts and nothing on them has worked for me. I have a string set called "friendRequests" in my DynamoDB table and I am trying to append an element to it. However, I keep getting many errors when I try to call db.updateItem with these parameters. Here is my current code, the error is with ExpressionAttributeValues but I have probably spent an hour changing my syntax to no avail.
var params = {
TableName: "users",
Key: { "username": { "S": addFriendInfo.friendUsername } },
UpdateExpression: "SET friendRequests = list_append(friendRequests, :newFriend)",
ExpressionAttributeValues: {
':newFriend': { "SS" : [addFriendInfo.username] }
}
}
That is my code above. addFriendInfo.username / friendUsername are both just strings. This currently gives me a 'Invalid UpdateExpression: Incorrect operand type for operator or function; operator or function: list_append, operand type: SS'. I have tried many things. Can anyone point me in right direction to fixing this damn syntax?

As the DynamoDB documentation explains, DynamoDB has two similar but distinct types - a list and a set. A list is an ordered list of items of any type, while a set is a non-empty, non-ordered collection of items of the same type. The "SS" type you used is a "set of strings". This is distinct from a "list", and you cannot use list_append on sets, as the error message tells you.
To add an element to a set (or create a new set if it doesn't yet exist) you can use the ADD operation, e.g., ADD friendRequests :newFriend.

Mongodb check If field exists in an sub-document of an array

I am trying to check If a field exists in a sub-document of an array and if it does, it will only provide those documents in the callback. But every time I log the callback document it gives me all values in my array instead of ones based on the query.
I am following this tutorial
And the only difference is I am using the findOne function instead of find function but it still gives me back all values. I tried using find and it does the same thing.
I am also using the same collection style as the example in the link above.
Example
In the image above you can see in the image above I have a document with a uid field and a contacts array. What I am trying to do is first select a document based on the inputted uid. Then after selecting that document then I want to display the values from the contacts array where contacts.uid field exists. So from the image above only values that would be displayed is contacts[0] and contacts[3] because contacts1 doesn't have a uid field.
Contact.contactModel.findOne({$and: [
{uid: self.uid},
{contacts: {
$elemMatch: {
uid: {
$exists: true,
$ne: undefined,
}
}
}}
]}

You problems come from a misconception about data modeling in MongoDB, not uncommon for developers coming from other DBMS. Let me illustrate this with the example of how data modeling works with an RDBMS vs MongoDB (and a lot of the other NoSQL databases as well).
With an RDBMS, you identify your entities and their properties. Next, you identify the relations, normalize the data model and bang your had against the wall for a few to get the UPPER LEFT ABOVE AND BEYOND JOIN™ that will answer the questions arising from use case A. Then, you pretty much do the same for use case B.
With MongoDB, you would turn this upside down. Looking at your use cases, you would try to find out what information you need to answer the questions arising from the use case and then model your data so that those questions can get answered in the most efficient way.
Let us stick with your example of a contacts database. A few assumptions to be made here:
Each user can have an arbitrary number of contacts.
Each contact and each user need to be uniquely identified by something other than a name, because names can change and whatnot.
Redundancy is not a bad thing.
With the first assumption, embedding contacts into a user document is out of question, since there is a document size limit. Regarding our second assumption: the uid field becomes not redundant, but simply useless, as there already is the _id field uniquely identifying the data set in question.
The use cases
Let us look at some use cases, which are simplified for the sake of the example, but it will give you the picture.
Given a user, I want to find a single contact.
Given a user, I want to find all of his contacts.
Given a user, I want to find the details of his contact "John Doe"
Given a contact, I want to edit it.
Given a contact, I want to delete it.
The data models
User
{
"_id": new ObjectId(),
"name": new String(),
"whatever": {}
}
Contact
{
"_id": new ObjectId(),
"contactOf": ObjectId(),
"name": new String(),
"phone": new String()
}
Obviously, contactOf refers to an ObjectId which must exist in the User collection.
The implementations
Given a user, I want to find a single contact.
If I have the user object, I have it's _id, and the query for a single contact becomes as easy as
db.contacts.findOne({"contactOf":self._id})
Given a user, I want to find all of his contacts.
Equally easy:
db.contacts.find({"contactOf":self._id})
Given a user, I want to find the details of his contact "John Doe"
db.contacts.find({"contactOf":self._id,"name":"John Doe"})
Now we have the contact one way or the other, including his/her/undecided/choose not to say _id, we can easily edit/delete it:
Given a contact, I want to edit it.
db.contacts.update({"_id":contact._id},{$set:{"name":"John F Doe"}})
I trust that by now you get an idea on how to delete John from the contacts of our user.
Notes
Indices
With your data model, you would have needed to add additional indices for the uid fields - which serves no purpose, as we found out. Furthermore, _id is indexed by default, so we make good use of this index. An additional index should be done on the contact collection, however:
db.contact.ensureIndex({"contactOf":1,"name":1})
Normalization
Not done here at all. The reasons for this are manifold, but the most important is that while John Doe might have only have the mobile number of "Mallory H Ousefriend", his wife Jane Doe might also have the email address "janes_naughty_boy#censored.com" - which at least Mallory surely would not want to pop up in John's contact list. So even if we had identity of a contact, you most likely would not want to reflect that.
Conclusion
With a little bit of data remodeling, we reduced the number of additional indices we need to 1, made the queries much simpler and circumvented the BSON document size limit. As for the performance, I guess we are talking of at least one order of magnitude.

In the tutorial you mentioned above, they pass 2 parameters to the method, one for filter and one for projection but you just passed one, that's the difference. You can change your query to be like this:
Contact.contactModel.findOne(
{uid: self.uid},
{contacts: {
$elemMatch: {
uid: {
$exists: true,
$ne: undefined,
}
}
}}
)

The agg framework makes filtering for existence of a field a little tricky. I believe the OP wants all docs where a field exists in an array of subdocs and then to return ONLY those subdocs where the field exists. The following should do the trick:
var inputtedUID = "0"; // doesn't matter
db.foo.aggregate(
[
// This $match finds the docs with our input UID:
{$match: {"uid": inputtedUID }}
// ... and the $addFields/$filter will strip out those entries in contacts where contacts.uid does NOT exist. We wish we could use {cond: {$zz.name: {$exists:true} }} but
// we cannot use $exists here so we need the convoluted $ifNull treatment. Note we
// overwrite the original contacts with the filtered contacts:
,{$addFields: {contacts: {$filter: {
input: "$contacts",
as: "zz",
cond: {$ne: [ {$ifNull:["$$zz.uid",null]}, null]}
}}
}}
,{$limit:1} // just get 1 like findOne()
]);
show(c);
{
"_id" : 0,
"uid" : 0,
"contacts" : [
{
"uid" : "buzz",
"n" : 1
},
{
"uid" : "dave",
"n" : 2
}
]
}

CouchDB find paired documents and list remaining unpaired documents

I'm relatively new to NoSQL, but I have been enjoying the journey very much! I am however finding the map-reduce way of life a bit tricky! I need some help with a problem!
I have a database with two types of documents, opening transactions and closing transactions. For replication and offline functionality reasons I cannot merge the data into one document. The opening transaction document looks something like :
{
_id: "transaction-open-randomgeneratedstring",
type: "transactions-open",
vehicle: "vehicle-id",
created: "date string"
}
The closing documents looks something like:
{
_id: "transaction-close-randomgeneratedstring",
type: "transactions-close",
openid: "transaction-open-randomgeneratedstring",
created: "date string"
}
The randomgeneratedstring of a closing transactions match the randomgeneratedstring of the corresponding opening transaction.
I need a map-reduce to give me the list of open transactions that does not have a corresponding closing transaction. This will basically give me a list of outstanding transactions.
This is the map-reduce I have thus far, but it is not doing the job.
{
"map": function(doc) {
if(doc.type == "transactions-open") {
emit([doc._id, 0], "OPEN");
}
if(doc.type == "transactions-close"){
emit([doc.openid, 1], "CLOSE");
}
},
"reduce": function(keys, values, rereduce) {
var unique_labels = {};
var open = {};
keys.forEach(function(label) {
if(!unique_labels[label[0]]) {
unique_labels[label[0]] = true;
} else {
open[label[0]] = true;
}
});
return open;
}
}
I am open for changes in the _id naming / structure, but I cannot combine the two documents into one.
Thanks!
EDIT
Based on response from Hod, I changed the reduce to look like:
function(keys, values, rereducer)
{
if(values.length == 1)
return true;
}
This is certainly a step in the right direction, but the unwanted transactions are still in the result set, the value is only null. Is there no way to get those out of the result set?

As described - what you would do with a Join in SQL you do with a reduce in CouchDB. Code something like this - not tested:
{
"map": function(doc) {
if(doc.type == "transactions-open") {
emit([doc._id], 1);
}
if(doc.type == "transactions-close"){
emit([doc.openid], -1);
}
},
"reduce": "_sum";
}
So we emit a 1 for an open transaction under an ID and a -1 for a close under the same ID. Now when you reduce you will get a result for each ID of:
-1 = Closed with no record of an open (error condition).
0 = Opened and Closed
1 = Open and not yet closed.

The problem is with the keys parameter in your reduce function. The reduce phase is not called once with all possible keys. It's called per distinct key, and based on the group_level you specify.
Looking at your code, if you haven't specified any group_level, your reduce function is going to get called for every document separately.
Because you're emitting the id of the open transaction doc for both open and close markers, if you grouped at the first level, you'd get open or open/close pairs. You're still only getting a reduction on a limited set of docs at a time.
You could fix this either in your logic calling the query, or by emitting a key that let's you reduce on the entire set at once. (I imagine there are other ways too. These are the ones that come to mind.)
If you use the key approach, you'd need to emit something that looked like ["transaction", doc._id, 0]. Then a first level grouping would give you the whole transaction set like you're current code expects.
EDIT (Adding information based on edit of question.)
The reduce function is going to get called with whatever grouping you set up. It's always going to return something, even if it's just no results emitted (i.e. null).
If you don't want to handle that in the logic that's running the queries and processing the results, you need to use an approach that will allow you to group all the transaction documents together, instead of just the documents for a single transaction.
Based on what you've done so far, another approach would be to forgo the reduce phase and just look at the number of results returned by a query that's limited to the unique doc id.

CouchDB query issues

I will start off by saying while I am not new to CouchDB, I am new to querying the views using JavaScript and the web.
I have looked at multiple other questions on here, including CouchDB - Queries with params, couchDB queries, Couchdb query with AND operator, CouchDB Querying Dates, and Basic CouchDB Queries, just to list a few.
While all have good information in them, I haven't found one that has my particular problem in it.
I have a view set up like so:
function (docu) {
if(docu.status && docu.doc && docu.orgId.toString() && !docu.deleted){
switch(docu.status){
case "BASE":
emit(docu.name, docu);
break;
case "AIR":
emit(docu.eta, docu);
break;
case "CHECK":
emit(docu.checkTime, docu);
break;
}
}
}
with all documents having a status, doc, orgId, deleted, name, eta, and checkTime. (I changed doc to docu because of my custom doc key.
I am trying to query and emit based on a set of keys, status, doc, orgId, where orgId is an integer.
My jQuery to do this looks like so:
$.couch.db("myDB").view("designDoc/viewName", {
keys : ["status","doc",orgId],
success: function(data) {
console.log(data);
},
error: function(status) {
console.log(status);
}
});
I receive
{"total_rows":59,"offset":59,"rows":[
]}
Sometimes the offset is 0, sometimes it is 59. I feel I must be doing something wrong for this not to be working correctly.
So for my questions:
I did not mention this, but I had to set docu.orgId.toString() because I guess it parses the URL as a string, is there a way to use this number as a numeric value?
How do I correctly view multiple documents based on multiple keys, i.e. if(key1 && key2) emit(doc.name, doc)
Am I doing something obviously wrong that I lack the knowledge to notice?
Thank you all.

You're so very close. To answer your questions
When you're using docu.orgId.toString() in that if-statement you're basically saying: this value must be truthy. If you didn't convert to string, any number, other than 0, would be true. Since you are converting to a string, any value other than an empty string will be true. Also, since you do not use orgId as the first argument in an emit call, at least not in the example above, you cannot query by it at all.
I'll get to this.
A little.
The thing to remember is emit creates a key-value table (that's really all a view is) that you can use to query. Let's say we have the following documents
{type:'student', dept:'psych', name:'josh'},
{type:'student', dept:'compsci', name:'anish'},
{type:'professor', dept:'compsci', name:'kender'},
{type:'professor', dept:'psych', name:'josh'},
{type:'mascot', name:'owly'}
Now let's say we know that for this one view, we want to query 1) everything but mascots, 2) we want to query by type, dept, and name, all of the available fields in this example. We would write a map function like this:
function(doc) {
if (doc.type === 'mascot') { return; } // don't do anything
// allow for queries by type
emit(doc.type, null); // the use of null is explained below
// allow queries by dept
emit(doc.dept, null);
// allow for queries by name
emit(doc.name, null);
}
Then, we would query like this:
// look for all joshs
$.couch.db("myDB").view("designDoc/viewName", {
keys : ["josh"],
// ...
});
// look for everyone in the psych department
$.couch.db("myDB").view("designDoc/viewName", {
keys : ["psych"],
// ...
});
// look for everyone that's a professor and everyone named josh
$.couch.db("myDB").view("designDoc/viewName", {
keys : ["professor", "josh"],
// ...
});
Notice the last query isn't and in the sense of a logical conjunction, it's in the sense of a union. If you wanted to restrict what was returned to documents that were only professors and also joshs, there are a few options. The most basic would be to concatenate the key when you emit. Like
emit('type-' + doc.type + '_name-' + doc.name, null);
You would then query like this: key : ["type-professor_name-josh"]
It doesn't feel very proper to rely on strings like this, at least it didn't to me when I first started doing it, but it is a quite common method for querying key-value stores. The characters - and _ have no special meaning in this example, I simply use them as delimiters.
Another option would be what you mentioned in your comment, to emit an array like
emit([ doc.type, doc.name ], null);
Then you would query like
key: ["professor", "josh"]
This is perfectly fine, but generally, the use case for emitting arrays as keys, is for aggregating returned rows. For example, you could emit([year, month, day]) and if you had a simple reduce function that basically passed the records through:
function(keys, values, rereduce) {
if (rereduce) {
return [].concat.apply([], values);
} else {
return values;
}
}
You could query with the url parameter group_level set to 1 or 2 and start querying by year and month or just year on the exact same view using arrays as keys. Compared to SQL or Mongo it's mad complicated and convoluted, but hey, it's there.
The use of null in the view is really for resource saving. When you query a view, the rows contain an _id that you can use in a second ajax call to get all the documents from, for example, _all_docs.
I hope that makes sense. If you need any clarification you can use the comments and I'll try my best.