We Keep Coding

VueFire watch for empty array property

looking around for a solution for my problem!
I try to make Vue.Draggable work with VueFire. I have a few lists with cards that can be dragged between them, sorted, cloned and so on. While the lists are populated with cards Vue.Draggable works perfectly, it watches for changes, triggers events like magic.
This is the working JSON:
categories: [{
name: "todo",
cards: ["second","first","second"]
},{
name: "doing"
cards: ["first","fourth","second"]
},{
name: "done",
cards: ["second", "fourth","first","third"]
}]
The problem comes when one o the lists is empty. We all know that Firebase doesn't store empty properties that's why Vue.Draggable can't watch for a property that doesn't exist. For example like this:
categories: [{
name: "todo",
cards: ["second","first","second"]
},{
name: "doing"
// missing cards property because it's empty
},{
name: "done",
cards: ["second", "fourth","first","third"]
}]
The cards property should be filled with values by dragging items to the list, but because cards doesn't exist Vue.Draggable can't watch for changes in that list and can't trigger events.
Is there a way to create some kind of placeholder or middleware to simulate that empty array? Or what are other possible solutions in this case?
Here's a small JSFiddle.
Thank you!

Why don't you initialize the cards property if nothing is returned from firebase?
categories: [{
name: "todo",
cards: ["second","first","second"]
},{
name: "doing",
cards: firebaseCollectionProperty || []
},{
name: "done",
cards: ["second", "fourth","first","third"]
}]

IgGrid selectRow Issue

I am trying to implement the "RowSelectors" feature on the iggrid, but it will not change to a the next row.
On further inspection, i have got the selected row method and each row shows the same id. I am returning my data via ajax, if i use static json in a variable and use that as a datasource, it works as expected so not sure what the issue is..
$("#selector").igGrid("selectedRow");
I can only acheive a row change when holding control and clicking..
Object {element: n.fn.init(1), index: 0, id: 3407751001}
then next row is
Object {element: n.fn.init(1), index: 1, id: 3407751001}
Settings..
features: [
{
name: "Sorting",
columnSettings: [
{
columnIndex: 4,
allowSorting: true,
firstSortDirection: "ascending",
currentSortDirection: "descending"
}
]
},
{
name: 'RowSelectors',
enableCheckBoxes: true,
checkBoxStateChanging: function (ui, args) {
return false;
},
multipleSelection: true,
rowSelectorClicked: function (evt, ui) {
// Handle event
},
},
{
name: 'Selection'
}
]

The issue is already resolved, but I'm adding the answer so it doesn't stay unanswered.
The primaryKey column the igGrid uses needs to be a column with unique identifiers for each record.

Backbone update nested attributes

I have a table that displays a collection of models that looks roughly like this:
{
id: 1,
name: "Product",
category: {
id: 1,
name: "CategoryName"
},
{
id: 2,
name: "Another Product",
category: {
id: 1,
name: "CategoryName"
},
etc..
I can select a model from the table and perform an edit on its attributes in a modal. After I finish editing attributes I call save, close the modal and pass an event to refresh my table. In my table view I recieve an event and call fetch with update: true
App.vent.on("refresh:products", function() {
return this.collection.fetch()({
update: true
});
});
However none of the nested attributes, in this case category, get updated without a hard refresh. How I can fix this? Thanks!

try passing reset:true as options to fetch
App.vent.on("refresh:products", function() {
return this.collection.fetch()({
reset: true
});
});
This will stop backbone from merging the data received from the server.

AngularJS: is $$hashkey a reliable key

Question
I'm interested in the properties of $$hashkey on angular arrays/objects.
Would each generated hashkey be the same each time you reload a
page; a quick test tells me yes but I somewhat assumed it
wouldn't?
If you updated/added to the existing array, would the old hashkey's
stay consistent?
If the above is true, is there a way to fetch from an array using
the hashkey? - of cause I could roll my own but before I recreate the wheel I thought I'd ask.
Example:
Views would include:
form data (example has 1 form)
element data (example has 2 elements)
element options data (example has 2 options per element)
Fetch method:
angular.get($$hashkey);
You would then pass the hashkey of the element and it would return a reference to that array inside the full array.
Lastly the data would be:
{
form_id: 1
form_desc: 'xxx',
form_name: 'name 1',
Elements: [
{
element_id: 1,
element_name: 'element1',
default_value: null,
disabled: "0",
element_type: "image",
ElementOptions: [
{
show: false,
sort_order: 0,
value: "ar",
},
{
show: true,
sort_order: 1,
value: "rw",
}
],
},
{
element_id: 2,
element_name: 'element2',
default_value: null,
disabled: "0",
element_type: "image",
ElementOptions: [
{
show: false,
sort_order: 0,
value: "ar",
},
{
show: true,
sort_order: 1,
value: "rw",
}
],
}
]
}

$$hashkeys will only be computed for functions and objects so if you wish to track anything that isn't one of those types then you have that limitation.
$$Hashkeys look like ...
(function||object): N
...
Where N is just an incremental value being adjusted + 1 for each $$HashKey computed.
So, in many cases this could be the same value across page loads. But loading data that is asynch, will cause differences when multiple data sources are being queried as part of page initialization and order of return cannot be guranteed. In cases like that you would have to marshall all your asynch data and then assign that data to your scope in a specific order to ensure consistent $$hashkeys.
Moving items around in an array that is linked to our DOM (via ng-repeat) will not change that items $$hashkey. Deleting it and re-adding it will.
I would not use $$Hashkey for my own housekeeping as it is intended to be internal to AngularJS.

I've used this internal private property when I had no identifiers.
I think, it's pretty usable, but not recommended.

Programmatically Set Constructor Parameters in Javascript

I am trying to interact with a javascript api (bare in mind I have never done this before). An example of what I am attempting to work with is here:
SearchSpring.Catalog.init({
leaveInitialResults : true,
facets : '.leftNav',
results : '#results',
result_layout: 'list',
results_per_page : 12,
layout: 'top',
loadCSS: false,
filters: {
color: ['Blue']
},
backgroundFilters: {
category: ['Shirt', 'Shoes'],
department: ['Mens']
},
maxFacets: 5,
maxFacetOptions: 10,
sortText: 'Sort By ',
sortType: 'dropdown',
filterText: 'Refine Search Results',
previousText: 'Previous',
scrollType: 'scroll',
scrollTo: 'body',
backgroundSortField: 'price',
backgroundSortDir: 'desc',
compareText: 'Compare Items',
summaryText: 'Current Filters',
showSummary: true,
subSearchText: 'Subsearch:',
showSubSearch: true,
forwardSingle: false,
afterResultsChange: function() { $('.pagination').hide(); },
filterData: function(data) { console.debug(data); }
});
In the example I want to add a "backgroundFilter" to this with a value:
var cat="MyNewCategory";
cat.value="ANewValue;
How would I add this category and value to the backgroundFilters: listed above?

This is a very common framework initialization pattern when working with frameworks.
Your example code is passing a JavaScript Object {} as a parameter into a function () that is called init.
Taking out all definitions the pattern looks like this:
SomeFramework.frameworkFunction({});
In the above code the {} is an empty object used for initialization. There are two ways that you can work with that object in practice.
Regarding your first code snippet, you can add code into that 'object literal'.
backgroundFilters: {
category: ['Shirt', 'Shoes'],
department: ['Mens'],
cat: ['My value']
},
Notice the added comma, this is an important tripping point. This may or may not fit your needs, depending on a few factors.
Regarding your second code snippet, you can apply members to JavaScript objects at runtime. What I mean is, your var cat can be added to the anonymous object-literal that is being passed in. Hard to say, but a simple concept. Here is how:
//Say this is initialized in some separate way. //There is a bug here I'll describe later.
var cat="MyNewCategory";
cat.value="ANewValue";
//Extract and name the initialization object. It is verbatim at this point.
var initObject = {
leaveInitialResults : true,
facets : '.leftNav',
results : '#results',
result_layout: 'list',
results_per_page : 12,
layout: 'top',
loadCSS: false,
filters: {
color: ['Blue']
},
backgroundFilters: {
category: ['Shirt', 'Shoes'],
department: ['Mens']
},
maxFacets: 5,
maxFacetOptions: 10,
sortText: 'Sort By ',
sortType: 'dropdown',
filterText: 'Refine Search Results',
previousText: 'Previous',
scrollType: 'scroll',
scrollTo: 'body',
backgroundSortField: 'price',
backgroundSortDir: 'desc',
compareText: 'Compare Items',
summaryText: 'Current Filters',
showSummary: true,
subSearchText: 'Subsearch:',
showSubSearch: true,
forwardSingle: false,
afterResultsChange: function() { $('.pagination').hide(); },
filterData: function(data) { console.debug(data); }
};
//Now we can add variables (and functions) dynamically at runtime.
initObject.cat = cat;
//And pass them into the framework initialization in a separated way.
SearchSpring.Catalog.init(initObject);
Now for the bug. I don't know the solution because I do not know what it is intended to do, but I can point out what is potentially incorrect.
var cat="MyNewCategory";
cat.value="ANewValue;
This code is: 1 creating a String Object called cat. 2 changing the value to a new string.
I do not think this is what you really want.
To add a new backgroundFilter, in the separated way above, it would be:
initObject.backgroundFilters.cat = ['A', 'B'];
//Line above would give you this type of definition within the initObject (at runtime):
backgroundFilters: {
category: ['Shirt', 'Shoes'],
department: ['Mens'],
cat: ['A','B']
},
For this to work it will depend on what the framework is expecting regarding backgroundFilters.
Hope that helps.
All the best!
Nash

I don't quite understand - do you want to have the backgroundFilters categories as structured objects rather than plain strings? If you are in control of the entire API, you can do something like
...
backgroundFilters: {
category: [
new SearchSpring.Catalog.Category("Shirt"),
new SearchSpring.Catalog.Category("Shoes"),
new SearchSpring.Catalog.Category("MyNewCategory", "ANewValue")
],
department: 'Mens'
}
...