We Keep Coding

Mongoose search by array entries ($in) behavior not aligned with MongoDB Atlas

I'm running a Node.js server, connecting to a MongoDB database with mongoose.
Inside my controller, I have several methods that make operations to the database. One of them is this one:
async findMultiple(req, res) {
const [baseSkillsArray] = Array(req.body);
try {
// if there is not baseSkillsArray, skip
if (!baseSkillsArray) {
return res.status(200).send([]);
}
// find all baseSkills using the ids in the baseSkillsArray
const allBaseSkills = await BaseSkill.find({
_id: { $in: [baseSkillsArray.baseSkillArray] } //
});
console.log('test ' + allBaseSkills);
res.status(200).send(allBaseSkills);
} catch (error) {
console.error(error.message);
res.status(500).send('Server error find BaseSkills');
}
}
However, this returns me nothing. I did some debugging and I found the reason is the find id $in the array. So I tried hard coding a value, like '2', for instance.
// find all baseSkills using the ids in the baseSkillsArray
const allBaseSkills = await BaseSkill.find({ _id: { $in: ['2'] } });
No success. So I went to MongoDB Atlas, where my DB is stored. I tried filtering using the same line of code in my collections.
{ _id: { $in: ['2'] } }
Surprisingly, it returns my document as I wanted!
The issue is that I need to make it work with mongoose. Any ideas? Is this a known bug?

There is nothing wrong with the query, nor a bug regarding $in.
In fact, what's wrong is the actual collection name. I manually created a collection in MongoDB Atlas, called "baseSkills". However, mongoose by default transforms your collection name into lowercase and adds an "s" if your collection's name is not in the plural.
So every time I started my server, I noticed that there was a new collection called "baseskills". I assumed it was a bug and deleted it. Only after making this post that I realized the collection was there again.
So I exported the documents to this collection and my query was working fine.
FYI, there is a way to enforce the collection's name in mongoose. When you declare you model, add a second parameter to the Schema function called "collection". Here is an example:
const BaseSkillSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
_id: {
type: String,
required: true
}, ...
}, { collection: 'baseSkills' })
That's it! Sorry for the mess and thank you for your help!

you want to query over mongo db object ids. So you should create a new ObjectId to do that.
import {Types} from 'mongoose';
{ _id: { $in: [new Types.Object("2")] } }
Or if you have 2 ids one generated and one custom created as id then you can query without creating a new object.
{ id: { $in: ['2'] } }

Sequelize "object" does not have increment function

I am using generate sequelize tables from Django generated models with sequelize-auto in my project. so far so good. I wrote the code to update the rank if I see a url again.
const findLink = async (link) =>
Link.findOne({
where: {
url: link,
},
raw: true,
});
// eslint-disable-next-line no-use-before-define
const insertEvent = async (link, tweetText) => {
// Sync Database table before reading
await sequelize.sync();
findLink(link).then((url) => {
if (url) {
url.increment("rank", {by: 1}).then(()=>{
Event.create({
url_id: url.id,
tweet_text: tweetText,
created_at: new Date(),
updated_at: new Date(),
})
});
} else {
Link.create({
url: link,
rank: 0,
created_at: new Date(),
updated_at: new Date(),
}).then((newLink) => {
Event.create({
url_id: newLink.id,
tweet_text: tweetText,
created_at: new Date(),
updated_at: new Date(),
});
});
}
});
};
But the problem is that when It execute url.increment("rank", {by: 1}) it says that url does not have increment function.
But according to documentation it is clearly stated here. Please let me know if I am doing something wrong? I have searched the internet but I could not find any thing relative. I can update the value with duplicate look up but I am looking for a way If I could update the already found object instead of searching it again.

You are using raw queries
const findLink = async (link) =>
Link.findOne({
where: {
url: link,
},
raw: true,
});
It doesn't return an instance of the Model
See https://sequelize.org/master/manual/raw-queries.html
Edit:
By default the function will return two arguments - a results array, and an object containing metadata (such as amount of affected rows, etc).
A second option is the model. If you pass a model the returned data
will be instances of that model.
// Callee is the model definition. This allows you to easily map a query to a predefined model
const projects = await sequelize.query('SELECT * FROM projects', {
model: Projects,
mapToModel: true // pass true here if you have any mapped fields
});
// Each element of `projects` is now an instance of Project
So the mapToModel option might also work

TypeORM findOne with nested relations

I am having some issues performing a nested find query with TypeORM. Here's the basic code:
const { completionId } = req?.params;
const user = req.user;
const retrievedCompletion = await getRepository(
CompletionGoogleSearch
).findOne({
relations: ['run', 'run.user'],
where: {
id: completionId,
// run: { user: { id: user.id } }, // This is the code that breaks the function
},
});
console.log(retrievedCompletion?.run.user.id);
console.log(user.id);
It looks to me like there's nothing out of order, and that the query should run. Any idea on what I am doing wrong? I know I can get around this issue by writing a querybuilder query or using raw SQL–I am just curious to understand if there's a flaw in my code.

typeorm added the ability to use nested object
userRepository.find({
relations: {
profile: true,
photos: true,
videos: {
videoAttributes: true,
},
},
});
on this way, you can fetch the data without using eager.
You can find more information here

The feature you're asking about doesn't supported on typeorm yet (Feb 2021).
Checkout this issue that was opened on 2018.

the Solution is use eager:true in run.user entity :
#OneToOne(() => User, User=> User.run, {
eager:true
})
user: User;
and next time you search in CompletionGoogleSearch do just relations: ['run'] and user will come with it.

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})})

What is the best way to keep track of changes of a document's property in MongoDB?

I would like to know how to keep track of the values of a document in MongoDB.
It's a MongoDB Database with a Node and Express backend.
Say I have a document, which is part of the Patients collection.
{
"_id": "4k2lK49938d82kL",
"firstName": "John",
"objective": "Burn fat"
}
Then I edit the "objective" property, so the document results like this:
{
"_id": "4k2lK49938d82kL",
"firstName": "John",
"objective": "Gain muscle"
}
What's the best/most efficient way to keep track of that change? In other words, I would like to know that the "objective" property had the value "Burn fat" in the past, and access it in the future.
Thanks a lot!

Maintaining/tracking history in the same document is not all recommended. As the document size will keep on increasing leading to
probably if there are too many updates, 16mb document size limit
Performance degrades
Instead, you should maintain a separate collection for history. You might have use hibernates' Javers or envers for auditing for your relational databases. if not you can check how they work. A separate table (xyz_AUD) is maintained for each table (xyz). For each row (with primary key abc) in xyz table, there exist multiple rows in xyz_AUD table, where each row is version of that row.
Moreover, Javers also support MongoDB auditing. If you are using java you can directly use it. No need to write your own logic.
Refer - https://nullbeans.com/auditing-using-spring-boot-mongodb-and-javers/
One more thing, Javers Envers Hibernate are java libraries. But I'm sure for other programming languages also, similar libraries will be present.
There is a mongoose plugin as well -
https://www.npmjs.com/package/mongoose-audit (quite oudated 4 years)
https://github.com/nassor/mongoose-history#readme (better)

Maybe you can change the type of "objective" to array and track the changes in it. the last one of the array is the latest value.

Maintain it as a sub-document like below
{
"_id": "4k2lK49938d82kL",
"firstName": "John",
"objective": {
obj1: "Gain muscle",
obj2: "Burn fat"
}
}
You can also maintain it as an array field but remember, mongodb doesn't allow you to maintain uniqueness in an array field and if you plan to index the "objective" field, you'll have to create a multi key index

I think the simplest solution would be to use and update an array:
const patientSchema = new Schema({
firstName: { type: String, required: true },
lastName: { type: String, required: true },
objective: { type: String, required: true }
notes: [{
date: { type: Date, default: Date.now() },
note: { type: String, required: true }
}],
});
Then when you want to update the objective...
const updatePatientObjective = async (req, res) => {
try {
// check if _id and new objective exist in req.body
const { _id, objective, date } = req.body;
if (!_id || !objective) throw "Unable to update patient's objective.";
// make sure provided _id is valid
const existingPatient = await Patient.findOne({ _id });
if (!existingPatient) throw "Unable to locate that patient.";
// pull out objective as previousObjective
const { objective: previousObjective } = existingPatient;
// update patient's objective while pushing
// the previous objective into the notes sub document
await existingPatient.updateOne({
// update current objective
$set { objective },
// push an object with a date and note (previouseObjective)
// into a notes array
$push: {
notes: {
date,
note: previousObjective
},
},
}),
);
// send back response
res
.status(201)
.json({ message: "Successfully updated your objective!" });
} catch (err) {
return res.status(400).json({ err: err.toString() });
}
};
Document will look like:
firstName: "John",
lastName: "Smith",
objective: "Lose body fat.",
notes: [
{
date: 2019-07-19T17:45:43-07:00,
note: "Gain muscle".
},
{
date: 2019-08-09T12:00:38-07:00,
note: "Work on cardio."
}
{
date: 2019-08-29T19:00:38-07:00,
note: "Become a fullstack web developer."
}
...etc
]
Alternatively, if you're worried about document size, then create a separate schema for patient history and reference the user's id (or just store the patient's _id as a string instead of referencing an ObjectId, whichever you prefer):
const patientHistorySchema = new Schema({
_id: { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: "Patient", required: true },
objective: { type: String, required: true }
});
Then create a new patient history document when the objective is updated...
PatientHistory.create({ _id, objective: previousObjective });
And if you need to access to the patient history documents...
PatientHistory.find({ _id });