We Keep Coding

Use multiple key-value filters on an object of objects?

Bit of a lengthy one so those of you who like a challenge (or I'm simply not knowledgeable enough - hopefully it's an easy solution!) read on!
(skip to the actual question part to skip the explanation and what I've tried)
Problem
I have a site that has a dataset that contains an object with multiple objects inside. Each of those objects contains an array, and within that array there are multiple objects. (yes this is painful but its from an API and I need to use this dataset without changing or modifying it.) I am trying to filter the dataset based of the key-value pairs in the final object. However, I have multiple filters being executed at once.
Example of Path before looping which retrieves the key-value pair needed for one hall.
["Hamilton Hall"]["Hire Options"][2].Commercial
After Looping Path of required key-value pair for all halls, not just one (the hall identifier is stored):
[0]["Hire Options"][2].Commercial
Looping allows me to check each hall for a specific key-value pair (kind of like map or forEach, but for an object).
After getting that out of the way back to the question.
How would I go about filtering which of the looped objects are displayed?
What I have Tried
(userInput is defined elsewhere - this happens on a btn click btw)
let results = Object.keys(halls);
for (key of results) {
let weekend = [halls[ `${key}` ][ 'Hire Options' ][4][ 'Weekend function' ]];
if(userInput == weekend) {
outputAll([halls[ `${key}` ]]);
}
}
That filters it fine. However, I run into an issue here. I want to filter by multiple queries, and naturally adding an AND into the if statement doesn't work. I also dont want to have 10 if statements (I have 10+ filters of various data types I need to sort by).
I have recently heard of ternary operators, but do not know enough about them to know if that is the correct thing to do? If so, how? Also had a brief loook at switches, but doesnt seem to look like what I want (correct me if I am wrong.)
Actual Question minus the babble/explanation
Is there a way for me to dynamically modify an if statements conditions? Such as adding or removing conditions of an if statement? Such as if the filter for 'a' is set to off, remove the AND condition for 'a' in the if statement? This would mean that the results would only filter with the active filters.
Any help, comments or 'why haven't you tried this' remark are greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Just for extra reference, here is the code for retrieving each of the objects from the first object as it loops through them:
(Looping Code)
halls = data[ 'Halls' ];
let results = Object.keys(halls);
for (key of results) {
let arr = [halls[ `${key}` ]];
outputAll(arr);
}

You can use Array.filter on the keys array - you can structure the logic for a match how you like - just make it return true if a match is found and the element needs to be displayed.
let results = Object.keys(halls);
results.filter(key => {
if (userInput == halls[key]['Hire Options'][4]['Weekend function']) {
return true;
}
if (some other condition you want to match) {
return true;
}
return false;
}).forEach(key => outputAll([halls[key]]));

Is My Approach to the Todo App Delete Function Wrong?

I am learning React and just created a simple todo app using only React. My todo app has the standard structure of having a text input and an "ADD" button next to it. The user would type their todo in the input and every time they click on the "ADD" button next to it, a new ordered list of their inputs would appear underneath the input and "ADD" button.
The user can also delete a todo entry by clicking on the entries individually, like this:
To accomplish this behaviour of deleting entries, I used this delete function:
delete(elem) {
for (var i = 0; i < this.state.listArray.length; i++) {
if (this.state.listArray[i] === elem) {
this.state.listArray.splice(i, 1);
this.setState({
listArray: this.state.listArray
});
break;
}
}
}
My todo app works exactly the way that I want it to work, but as I look at other people's more conventional approach to this delete function, they either just simply use the splice method or the filter method.
For the splice method approach, they apparently just simply "remove" the unwanted entry from the listArray when the user clicks the particular entry. This does not work for me as using this method results in all my entries getting deleted except for the entry that I clicked on, which is the one that I want to delete.
On the other hand, the filter method approach apparently works by comparing the elem, which is the data passed from a child component, with each element in the listArray, and if the element in the for loop does not equal to the elem, then it would be passed onto a new array. This new array would be the one to not be deleted. This approach works better than the simple splice approach, however, one problem that I had encountered with this approach is that if I have more than one entry of the same value, for example, "Feed the dog". I only want one of the "Feed the dog" entries to be deleted, but it deletes both of them.
I thought of an approach to tackle this problem, eventually coming up with the current version of my code, which uses the splice method, but the splice method is used before I set it in the state. As evident here:
this.state.listArray.splice(i, 1);
this.setState({
listArray: this.state.listArray
});
My question can be broken down into three subquestions:
Considering that React states should be immutable, is the first line of the code above mutating my state? Is this approach not okay?
I thought that all React states were only possible to be changed inside a "setState" function, but my first line of code from above is not inside a setState function, yet it changed the state of listArray. How is this possible?
If my approach is mutating the state and is not ideal, how would you go about making the delete function so that it only deletes one entry and not more than one if there are multiple similar entries?

Yes, splice affects the array it acts on so don't use in this way. Instead you need to create a new array of the correct elements:
this.setState({
listArray: this.state.listArray.filter((el, idx) => idx !== i);
});
If you want to remove only the first instance, maybe couple with a findIndex (although indexOf would work in your example as well) first:
delete(elem) {
const idxToFilter = this.state.listArray.findIndex(el => el === elem);
if (idxToFilter < 0) {
return;
}
this.setState({
listArray: this.state.listArray.filter((el, idx) => idx !== idxToFilter);
});
}
This creates a new array without modifying the old which will cause anything that reacts to listArray changing to be notified since the reference has changed.

Is there a way to map a value in an object to the index of an array in javascript?

Prepending that a solution only needs to work in the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari as a bonus.
-
I am trying to use an associative array for a large data set with knockout. My first try made it a true associative array:
[1: {Object}, 3: {Object},...,n:{Object}]
but knockout was not happy with looping over that. So I tried a cheating way, hoping that:
[undefined, {Object}, undefined, {Object},...,{Object}]
where the location in the array is the PK ID from the database table. This array is about 3.2k items large, and would be iterated over around every 10 seconds, hence the need for speed. I tried doing this with a splice, e.g.
$.each(data, function (index, item) {
self.myArray.splice(item.PKID, 0, new Object(item));
}
but splice does not create indices, so since my first PKID is 1, it is still inserted at myArray[0] regardless. If my first PK was 500, it would start at 0 still.
My second thought is to initialize the array with var myArray = new Array(maxSize) but that seems heavy handed. I would love to be able to use some sort of map function to do this, but I'm not really sure how to make the key value translate into an index value in javascript.
My third thought was to keep two arrays, one for easy look up and the other to store the actual values. So it combines the first two solutions, almost, by finding the index of the object in the first example and doing a lookup with that in the second example. This seems to be how many people manage associative arrays in knockout, but with the array size and the fact that it's a live updating app with a growing data set seems memory intensive and not easily manageable when new information is added.
Also, maybe I'm hitting the mark wrong here? We're putting these into the DOM via knockout and managing with a library called isotope, and as I mentioned it updates about every 10 seconds. That's why I need the fast look up but knockout doesn't want to play with my hash table attempts.
--
clarity edits:
so on initial load the whole array is loaded up (which is where the new Array(maxLength) would go, then every 10 seconds anything that has changed is loaded back. That is the information I'm trying to quickly update.
--
knockout code:
<!-- ko foreach: {data: myArray(), afterRender: setInitialTileColor } -->
<div class="tile" data-bind="attr: {id: 'tileID' + $data.PKID()}">
<div class="content">
</div>
</div>
<!-- /ko -->
Then on updates the hope is:
$.each(data.Updated, function (index, item) {
var obj = myModel.myArray()[item.PKID];
//do updates here - need to check what kind of change, how long it's been since a change, etc
}

Here is a solution how to populate array items with correct indexes, so it doesn't start from the first one (0 (zero) I meant)
just use in loop
arr[obj.PKID] = obj;
and if your framework is smart (to use forEach but not for) it will start from your index (like 500 in case below)
http://jsfiddle.net/0axo9Lgp/
var data = [], new_data = [];
// Generate sample array of objects with index field
for (var i = 500; i < 3700; i++) {
data.push({
PKID: i,
value: '1'
});
}
data.forEach(function(item) {
new_data[item.PKID] = item;
});
console.log(new_data);
console.log(new_data.length); // 3700 but real length is 3200 other items are undefined

It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm assuming you've tried (or can't try) the obvious stuff like reducing the number of items per page and possibly using a different framework like React or Mithril.
There are a couple of basic optimizations I can suggest.
Don't use the framework's each. It's either slower than or same as the native Array method forEach, either way it's slower than a basic for loop.
Don't loop over the array over and over again looking for every item whose data has been updated. When you send your response of data updates, send along an array of the PKIds of the updated item. Then, do a single loop:
.
var indexes = []
var updated = JSON.parse(response).updated; // example array of updated pkids.
for(var i=0;i<allElements.length;i++){
if(updated.indexOf(allElements[i].pkid)>-1)
indexes.push(i);
}
So, basically the above assumes you have a simple array of objects, where each object has a property called pkid that stores its ID. When you get a response, you loop over this array once, storing the indexes of all items that match a pk-id in the array of updated pk-ids.
Then you only have to loop over the indexes array and use its elements as indexes on the allElements array to apply the direct updates.

If your indexes are integers in a reasonable range, you can just use an array. It does not have to be completely populated, you can use the if binding to filter out unused entries.
Applying updates is just a matter of indexing the array.
http://jsfiddle.net/0axo9Lgp/2/

You may want to consider using the publish-subscribe pattern. Have each item subscribe to its unique ID. When an item needs updating it will get the event and update itself. This library may be helpful for this. It doesn't depend upon browser events, just arrays so it should be fairly fast.

Display posts in descending posted order

I'm trying to test out Firebase to allow users to post comments using push. I want to display the data I retrieve with the following;
fbl.child('sell').limit(20).on("value", function(fbdata) {
// handle data display here
}
The problem is the data is returned in order of oldest to newest - I want it in reversed order. Can Firebase do this?

Since this answer was written, Firebase has added a feature that allows ordering by any child or by value. So there are now four ways to order data: by key, by value, by priority, or by the value of any named child. See this blog post that introduces the new ordering capabilities.
The basic approaches remain the same though:
1. Add a child property with the inverted timestamp and then order on that.
2. Read the children in ascending order and then invert them on the client.
Firebase supports retrieving child nodes of a collection in two ways:
by name
by priority
What you're getting now is by name, which happens to be chronological. That's no coincidence btw: when you push an item into a collection, the name is generated to ensure the children are ordered in this way. To quote the Firebase documentation for push:
The unique name generated by push() is prefixed with a client-generated timestamp so that the resulting list will be chronologically-sorted.
The Firebase guide on ordered data has this to say on the topic:
How Data is Ordered
By default, children at a Firebase node are sorted lexicographically by name. Using push() can generate child names that naturally sort chronologically, but many applications require their data to be sorted in other ways. Firebase lets developers specify the ordering of items in a list by specifying a custom priority for each item.
The simplest way to get the behavior you want is to also specify an always-decreasing priority when you add the item:
var ref = new Firebase('https://your.firebaseio.com/sell');
var item = ref.push();
item.setWithPriority(yourObject, 0 - Date.now());
Update
You'll also have to retrieve the children differently:
fbl.child('sell').startAt().limitToLast(20).on('child_added', function(fbdata) {
console.log(fbdata.exportVal());
})
In my test using on('child_added' ensures that the last few children added are returned in reverse chronological order. Using on('value' on the other hand, returns them in the order of their name.
Be sure to read the section "Reading ordered data", which explains the usage of the child_* events to retrieve (ordered) children.
A bin to demonstrate this: http://jsbin.com/nonawe/3/watch?js,console

Since firebase 2.0.x you can use limitLast() to achieve that:
fbl.child('sell').orderByValue().limitLast(20).on("value", function(fbdataSnapshot) {
// fbdataSnapshot is returned in the ascending order
// you will still need to order these 20 items in
// in a descending order
}
Here's a link to the announcement: More querying capabilities in Firebase

To augment Frank's answer, it's also possible to grab the most recent records--even if you haven't bothered to order them using priorities--by simply using endAt().limit(x) like this demo:
var fb = new Firebase(URL);
// listen for all changes and update
fb.endAt().limit(100).on('value', update);
// print the output of our array
function update(snap) {
var list = [];
snap.forEach(function(ss) {
var data = ss.val();
data['.priority'] = ss.getPriority();
data['.name'] = ss.name();
list.unshift(data);
});
// print/process the results...
}
Note that this is quite performant even up to perhaps a thousand records (assuming the payloads are small). For more robust usages, Frank's answer is authoritative and much more scalable.
This brute force can also be optimized to work with bigger data or more records by doing things like monitoring child_added/child_removed/child_moved events in lieu of value, and using a debounce to apply DOM updates in bulk instead of individually.
DOM updates, naturally, are a stinker regardless of the approach, once you get into the hundreds of elements, so the debounce approach (or a React.js solution, which is essentially an uber debounce) is a great tool to have.

There is really no way but seems we have the recyclerview we can have this
query=mCommentsReference.orderByChild("date_added");
query.keepSynced(true);
// Initialize Views
mRecyclerView = (RecyclerView) view.findViewById(R.id.recyclerView);
mManager = new LinearLayoutManager(getContext());
// mManager.setReverseLayout(false);
mManager.setReverseLayout(true);
mManager.setStackFromEnd(true);
mRecyclerView.setHasFixedSize(true);
mRecyclerView.setLayoutManager(mManager);

I have a date variable (long) and wanted to keep the newest items on top of the list. So what I did was:
Add a new long field 'dateInverse'
Add a new method called 'getDateInverse', which just returns: Long.MAX_VALUE - date;
Create my query with: .orderByChild("dateInverse")
Presto! :p

You are searching limitTolast(Int x) .This will give you the last "x" higher elements of your database (they are in ascending order) but they are the "x" higher elements
if you got in your database {10,300,150,240,2,24,220}
this method:
myFirebaseRef.orderByChild("highScore").limitToLast(4)
will retrive you : {150,220,240,300}

In Android there is a way to actually reverse the data in an Arraylist of objects through the Adapter. In my case I could not use the LayoutManager to reverse the results in descending order since I was using a horizontal Recyclerview to display the data. Setting the following parameters to the recyclerview messed up my UI experience:
llManager.setReverseLayout(true);
llManager.setStackFromEnd(true);
The only working way I found around this was through the BindViewHolder method of the RecyclerView adapter:
#Override
public void onBindViewHolder(final RecyclerView.ViewHolder holder, int position) {
final SuperPost superPost = superList.get(getItemCount() - position - 1);
}
Hope this answer will help all the devs out there who are struggling with this issue in Firebase.

Firebase: How to display a thread of items in reverse order with a limit for each request and an indicator for a "load more" button.
This will get the last 10 items of the list
FBRef.child("childName")
.limitToLast(loadMoreLimit) // loadMoreLimit = 10 for example
This will get the last 10 items. Grab the id of the last record in the list and save for the load more functionality. Next, convert the collection of objects into and an array and do a list.reverse().
LOAD MORE Functionality: The next call will do two things, it will get the next sequence of list items based on the reference id from the first request and give you an indicator if you need to display the "load more" button.
this.FBRef
.child("childName")
.endAt(null, lastThreadId) // Get this from the previous step
.limitToLast(loadMoreLimit+2)
You will need to strip the first and last item of this object collection. The first item is the reference to get this list. The last item is an indicator for the show more button.
I have a bunch of other logic that will keep everything clean. You will need to add this code only for the load more functionality.
list = snapObjectAsArray; // The list is an array from snapObject
lastItemId = key; // get the first key of the list
if (list.length < loadMoreLimit+1) {
lastItemId = false;
}
if (list.length > loadMoreLimit+1) {
list.pop();
}
if (list.length > loadMoreLimit) {
list.shift();
}
// Return the list.reverse() and lastItemId
// If lastItemId is an ID, it will be used for the next reference and a flag to show the "load more" button.
}

I'm using ReactFire for easy Firebase integration.
Basically, it helps me storing the datas into the component state, as an array. Then, all I have to use is the reverse() function (read more)
Here is how I achieve this :
import React, { Component, PropTypes } from 'react';
import ReactMixin from 'react-mixin';
import ReactFireMixin from 'reactfire';
import Firebase from '../../../utils/firebaseUtils'; // Firebase.initializeApp(config);
#ReactMixin.decorate(ReactFireMixin)
export default class Add extends Component {
constructor(args) {
super(args);
this.state = {
articles: []
};
}
componentWillMount() {
let ref = Firebase.database().ref('articles').orderByChild('insertDate').limitToLast(10);
this.bindAsArray(ref, 'articles'); // bind retrieved data to this.state.articles
}
render() {
return (
<div>
{
this.state.articles.reverse().map(function(article) {
return <div>{article.title}</div>
})
}
</div>
);
}
}

There is a better way. You should order by negative server timestamp. How to get negative server timestamp even offline? There is an hidden field which helps. Related snippet from documentation:
var offsetRef = new Firebase("https://<YOUR-FIREBASE-APP>.firebaseio.com/.info/serverTimeOffset");
offsetRef.on("value", function(snap) {
var offset = snap.val();
var estimatedServerTimeMs = new Date().getTime() + offset;
});

To add to Dave Vávra's answer, I use a negative timestamp as my sort_key like so
Setting
const timestamp = new Date().getTime();
const data = {
name: 'John Doe',
city: 'New York',
sort_key: timestamp * -1 // Gets the negative value of the timestamp
}
Getting
const ref = firebase.database().ref('business-images').child(id);
const query = ref.orderByChild('sort_key');
return $firebaseArray(query); // AngularFire function
This fetches all objects from newest to oldest. You can also $indexOn the sortKey to make it run even faster

I had this problem too, I found a very simple solution to this that doesn't involved manipulating the data in anyway. If you are rending the result to the DOM, in a list of some sort. You can use flexbox and setup a class to reverse the elements in their container.
.reverse {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column-reverse;
}

myarray.reverse(); or this.myitems = items.map(item => item).reverse();

I did this by prepend.
query.orderByChild('sell').limitToLast(4).on("value", function(snapshot){
snapshot.forEach(function (childSnapshot) {
// PREPEND
});
});

Someone has pointed out that there are 2 ways to do this:
Manipulate the data client-side
Make a query that will order the data
The easiest way that I have found to do this is to use option 1, but through a LinkedList. I just append each of the objects to the front of the stack. It is flexible enough to still allow the list to be used in a ListView or RecyclerView. This way even though they come in order oldest to newest, you can still view, or retrieve, newest to oldest.

You can add a column named orderColumn where you save time as
Long refrenceTime = "large future time";
Long currentTime = "currentTime";
Long order = refrenceTime - currentTime;
now save Long order in column named orderColumn and when you retrieve data
as orderBy(orderColumn) you will get what you need.

just use reverse() on the array , suppose if you are storing the values to an array items[] then do a this.items.reverse()
ref.subscribe(snapshots => {
this.loading.dismiss();
this.items = [];
snapshots.forEach(snapshot => {
this.items.push(snapshot);
});
**this.items.reverse();**
},

For me it was limitToLast that worked. I also found out that limitLast is NOT a function:)
const query = messagesRef.orderBy('createdAt', 'asc').limitToLast(25);
The above is what worked for me.

PRINT in reverse order
Let's think outside the box... If your information will be printed directly into user's screen (without any content that needs to be modified in a consecutive order, like a sum or something), simply print from bottom to top.
So, instead of inserting each new block of content to the end of the print space (A += B), add that block to the beginning (A = B+A).
If you'll include the elements as a consecutive ordered list, the DOM can put the numbers for you if you insert each element as a List Item (<li>) inside an Ordered Lists (<ol>).
This way you save space from your database, avoiding unnecesary reversed data.

Stop collection from sorting itself but still able to sort i

I have a problem, I seeked help in #documentcloud on Freenode and got some suggestions but still hasn't helped me fix my problem.
Basically I have a collection, very large up to 2-3 thousand items, and it -has- to be sorted, however it only has to be sorted at certain times. Using a comparator function is fine, it keeps it sorted, but takes a lot longer when all the items are being added to the collection, as it's resorting the entire collection each time one of the 2-3000 items are added.
I've tried a couple of suggestions, one being:
collection.comparator = function(object) { object.get('sortBy'); };
collection.sort();
collection.comparator = undefined;
This fails miserably and doesn't sort at all, I've also tried using collection.sortBy(...) this seems to return the sorted collection, but it is of no use to me as when I try collection = collection.sortBy(...) it just dumps the sorted collection as an array into the variable collection. When I try to use collection functions or utilities I get errors like .each is undefined for collection, etc.
Any ideas?

This can't be done simply because Collection.sort actually calls Collection.comparator.
You have basically three options
Option One
You could force your sort method without comparator to the models itself ( basically the same as calling .sort of your collection, but without .comparator
// in your collection class
_comparator: function(a,b) { /* comparator code */ }
sorter: function() {
// Of course you should bind this to your collection at this function
// and your comparator
this.models.sort( _comparator ) // .models gives you the array of all models
}
Option Two
Remove comparator each time you add something to the collection
_comparator = function(a,b) { /* comparator code */ }
collection.comparator = undefined
collection.fetch({ success: function() { collection.comparator = _comparator })
Options Three
If you think a little bit ahead of your code, and simply want your collection sorted only because you want to display it this way, you could simply sort it on display
collection.returnSorted = function () { return collection.sortBy( _comparator ) }

Try this:
collection.add(model, {sort: false});

Would it work to use _.sortedIndex() when individual items are added to the already sorted list?
You could easily figure out the sortedIndex, slice the list based on that index, then splice: part1 + new_entry + part2.
This keeps you from sorting the entire list every time. You're just inserting one new entry in the right spot.
My answer assumes you're already able to do an initial sort of the 2000+ item collection, and that you're just trying to overcome the issue of resort when new items are added one at a time. Your question lacks specificity about exactly where your issue is though.