We Keep Coding

Using Backbone.Collection fetch but value not including

I thought that initializing the collection returned a ready instance of Backbone.Collection. After the fetch, however, the collection contains some models, but in require, _this.serviceCollection.toJSON() gives me undefined object.
My Backbone.Collection:
var ServiceCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
model: Backbone.Model,
initialize: function(options){
this.fetch({
url: 'service/' + options + '/',
async: false,
success: function(collection, response, options){
collection.set(response.result);
}
});
}
});
return ServiceCollection;
My CollectionView showing:
OpenServices: function(category){
var _this = this;
require([
'service/js/service_collection',
'service/js/service_collection_view'
], function(ServiceCollection, ServiceCollectionView){
_this.serviceCollection = new ServiceCollection(category);
_this.serviceCollectionView = new ServiceCollectionView({
collection: _this.serviceCollection
});
_this.categoryLayout.categoryItems.show(_this.serviceCollectionView);
});
}
What's wrong this code?

Mistake was in sync/async request. My fetch was async: false, so I'm just change it to async: true and a set event on reset collection for that collectionView.

I suspect the issue you are having is related to your success callback. There should be no need to call collection.set(...) to add the models to the collection; that is done automatically for you when the fetch succeed. In fact, the documentation around Collection.set provides this nugget:
... if the collection contains any models that aren't present in the list, they'll be removed.
I suspect that response.result in your success callback doesn't contain any of the data you think it does. Because of that, your call to collection.set(...) is actually removing all items from the collection.
Try removing that success callback & see what else happens.
Somewhat unrelated but still important:
Using Collection.fetch(...) synchronously is considered bad practice; if your server takes longer than a few hundred milliseconds to return the data, the browser may lock up.
Specifying the url as a parameter to Collection.fetch(...) is not a terrible idea, but consider extending Backbone.Model and specifying the urlRoot parameter instead. If your server follows REST-ful conventions, it makes it very easy to create/update/delete data that way.

backbone.stickit and html-form: How to save (patch) only changed attributes?

tl;dr
How to use backbone.stickit with a html form to change an existing model fetched from the server and only PATCH the changed attributes (changed by user input within the html form) to the server?
/tl;dr
I'm using backbone.stickit in a backbone.js application to bind a model to a HTML-form which is part of a backbone view. This works fine so far, but it becomes a little bit complicated if I'm going to save the bound model. This is because I want to use the PATCH-method and only send the changed attributes to the server. I try to illustrate what I've done so far:
Fetching the model from Server
user = new User(); //instatiate a new user-model
user.fetch(); //fetching the model from the server
console.log(user.changedAttributes()); // Returns ALL attributes, because model was empty
The last line indicates my problem, because I thought I can used the changedAtrributes() method later to get the attributes which need a patch on the server. So I tried this workaround which I found here
user.fetch({
success: function (model, response, options) {
model.set({});
}
});
user.changedAtrributes(); //Returns now "false"
Do stickit-bindings
Now I render my view and call the stickit() method on the view, to do the bindings:
//Bindings specified in the view:
[...]
bindings: {
"#username" : "username"
"#age" : "age"
}
[...]
//within the render method of the view
this.stickit();
The bindings work fine and my user model gets updated, but changedAttributes() remain empty all the time.
Save the model to the server
If the user has made all required changes, the model should be saved to the server. I want to use the PATCH method and only send the changed attributes to the server.
user.save(null, {patch:true}); //PATCH method is used but ALL attributes are sent to the server
OR
user.save(user.changedAttributes(),{patch : true});
With the second approach there are different outcomes:
if I didn't use the user.set({}) woraround, all attributes get PATCHED to the server
if I use the user.set({}) woraround the return value of changedAttributes() is "false" and all attributes are PUT to the server
if I call a user.set("age","123") before calling save(), then only the age attribute is PATCHED to the server
So outcome 3 is my desired behaviour, but there are 2 problems with this: First stickit doesn't seem to use the set() method on the model to update the attributes if they are changed within the html-form. And second, if you call set() with one attribute and afterwards with another, only the second attributes is returned by changedAttributes().
Maybe I just overseen something in the backbone or backbone.stickit docs, so I didn't get the desired behaviour working. Any ideas about that?

NOTE: As found out the problem wasn't directly related to backbone.stickit, more to backbone itself.
Solved this problem on my own, maybe this helps someone who may stumble upon this question:
Backbone only keep track of unchanged attributes, but not of unsaved attributes. So with
model.changedAttributes();
you will only get the attributes of the model, which was changed since the last
model.set("some_attribute","some_value")
Finally I stumbled upon backbone.trackit which is a backbone.js plugin maintained by the creator of backbone.stickit. With this plugin you can track unsaved attributes (all attributes which have changed since the last model.save()) and then use them in the save-method of a model. Example (my usecase):
Backbone.View.extend({
bindings: {
"#name" : "name",
"#age" : "age"
},
initialize: function () {
this.model = new User();
this.model.fetch({
success: function (model, response, options) {
//this tells backbone.stickit to track unsaved attributes
model.startTracking();
}
});
},
render: function () {
this.$el.html(tmpl);
this.stickit();
return this;
},
onSaveUserToServer: function () {
//first argument: only unsaved attributes, second argument: tell backbone to PATCH
this.model.save(this.model.unsavedAttributes(), { patch: true });
});
});

Allow user to specify a Backbone model's ID at creation time

When saving a model, Backbone determines whether to send an HTTP POST or PUT request by whether or not the model's ID attribute is set. If there is an ID, the model is considered to already exist.
For my application, this logic is incorrect because I must allow the user to specify an ID (as I interact with a poorly designed legacy system).
How should I handle this problem? I still would like to use PUT if the model is changed.
I am considering the following options:
Override isNew, which is the Backbone method that simply checks if an ID is present.
Override sync.
Determine if the concept of cid would somehow solve the problem.

One solution is to address the symptoms rather than the cause. Consider adding to your model a new create method:
var FooModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot: '/api/foo',
create: function () {
return this.save(null, {
type: 'post', // make it a POST rather than PUT
url: this.urlRoot // send the request to /api/foo rather than /api/foo/:id
});
}
});
This is the solution I use, but I don't consider it ideal because the view logic/caller now needs to call create rather than save when creating (which is rather easy to do). This extended API bothers me for my use-case (despite working and being rather small), but perhaps it'll work for yours.
I'd love to see some additional answers to this question.

So I went down the path of trying to change up isNew.
I came up with new criteria that would answer whether a model is new:
Was the model created via a fetch from a collection? Then it's definitely not new.
Was the model created with an ID attribute? This is a choice I made for my case, see disadvantages below for the effect of doing this, but I wanted to make new Model({ id: 1, name: 'bob' }) not be considered new, while setting the ID later on (new Model({ name:
bob'}).set('id', 1)) would be.
Was the model ever synced? If the model was successfully synced at any point, it's definitely not new because the server knows about it.
Here's what this looks like:
var UserDefinedIDModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
// Properties
_wasCreatedWithID: false,
_wasConstructedByFetch: false,
_wasSynced: false,
// Backbone Overrides
idAttribute: 'some_id',
urlRoot: '/api/foo',
constructor: function (obj, options) {
this._wasCreatedWithID = !!obj[this.idAttribute];
this._wasConstructedByFetch = options && options.xhr && options.xhr.status === 200;
// Preserve default constructor
return Backbone.Model.prototype.constructor.apply(this, arguments);
},
initialize: function () {
this.on('sync', this.onSync.bind(this));
},
isNew: function () {
// We definitely know it's not new
if (this._wasSynced || this._wasConstructedByFetch) return false;
// It might be new based on this. Take your pick as to whether its new or not.
return !this._wasCreatedWithID;
},
// Backbone Events
onSync: function () {
this._wasSynced = true;
}
});
Advantages over the other answers
No logic outside of the backbone model for handling this odd usecase.
No server-side changes to support this
No new pseudo properties
Disadvantages
This is a lot of code when you could just create a new create method as per my other answer.
Currently myCollection.create({ some_id: 'something' }); issues a PUT. I think if you need support for this you'll have to do myCollection.create({ some_id: 'something' }, { url: '/api/foo', type: 'post' }); You can remove the _wasCreatedWithoutID check to fix this, but then any construction of a new model that derives its data from an existing one will be treated as new (in my case, this is undesirable).

Here's another solution :
In your model define an idAttribute that don't exists in your server model/table/... and that wouldn't be displayed to the DOM.
So let's suppose that the JSON that you send to the server is as follows :
{
'id': 1,
'name': 'My name',
'description': 'a description'
}
Your model should look like :
var MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
idAttribute: 'fakeId'
});
Now, when you create a new model and try to save it to the server, no one would initialize the fakeId and it would be considered a new object (POST).
When you fetch your model from the server you have to set the fakeId in your model, and your server must duplicate the id in the fakeId like this your model will be considered as an existing (PUT)

Automatically Passing Certian values in BackBone Model Ajax Functions

I am using Backbone js to create an app like service. Every application has a user_id and an application_id that has been set. Each time that backbone calls a fetch(), save(), or any other RESTful/ajax function, I want the user_id and the application_id to automatically be passed with the models data.
I know I am going to have to extend the backbone model, and then make sure all my models extend from this model, but what do I modify and how do I call the parent model?
Psuedo Example (not quite sure)
MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
save : function(data) {
data.application_id = 3;
data.user_id = 5;
parent.save(data);
}
});
Scores = MyModel.extend({
default : {
score : 0
}
});
//This should automatically grab the application id and user id
scores = new Scores();
scores.set('score', 5);
score.save()
How do I correctly accomplish this? And by accomplish I mean an single point in the code that will work for save(), fetch() and destroy() ?

How about modifying your Backbone sync? If you're sure you want to pass the user_id and application_id with EVERY model on save() fetch() and destroy() then you could do something like this I believe...
/* alias away the sync method */
Backbone._sync = Backbone.sync;
/* new Backbone.sync method */
Backbone.sync = function(method, model, options) {
// For example purpose, this will only run on POST, PUT, and DELETE requests
// If you want you can also set it for method == 'read' for your fetch()
if (method == 'create' || method == 'update' || method == 'delete') {
model.set('user_id', userID);
model.set('application_id', appID);
}
/* proxy the call to the old sync method */
return Backbone._sync(method, model, options);
};
I do something like this for my CSRF token check to prevent cross site registration forgeries. Except instead of manipulating the model, I make sure all my POST, PUT, and DELETE requests have a special X-CSRF header with my unique token.

If your values (appid and userid) are pre-determined, you can do this in the initialize method of your model
MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
this.set('application_id', appID);
this.set('user_id', userID);
});
These values are now part of your model and therefore part of every CRUD operation.

Adapt my old work flow to Backbone

Im starting to build a new app and I would like to use Backbone as my framework. Below is a basic workflow that this (and most apps) follow.
What is the correct/best model to use with Backbone?
Old Way
User navigates to a page.
Selects "Create New widget"
User is presented with a form filled with inputs
At this point I would probably take the values entered (after passing basic validation), wrap them up and send them to the server via an ajax request
Request comes back as "OK" and the user is taken somewhere else (This step isn't entirely important)
Some basic pseudo-code
// Grab values
var userName = $('.UserName').val(),
dateOfBirth = $('.DateOfBirth').val();
...
...
...
$.ajax({
url: "/Webservices/ProcessStuff",
success: function(result){
if (result) {
// Render something or doing something else
} else {
// Error message
}
},
error: function () {
// Error message
}
});
Backbone way
Using the same example as above; I assume I'd have a model for the user information and a view to display the inputs. However, processing the actual call to the web service is one of the things I'm confused about. Where does this need to go? In the model or in the view click of some "Go" button?
Model.UserInformation = Backbone.Model.extend({ username: null, dateOfBirth: null });
Maybe also have a collection of these UserInformation models?
UserInformations = Backbone.Collection.extend({ model: Model.UserInformation' });
So bottom line what I'm asking is...
What is the best way to achieve this functionality?
What is the proper way to actually perform CRUD? Where to put the actual call to delete/update/create/etc?

You have the right idea and Backbone should make it easy for you to get things done using the same basic high level overview of your workflow. Note that you're still going to be using jQuery for this functionality - you'll just be doing it through the organizational aspects of Backbone's types.
There are a couple of key items that you'll want in place, most of which you already mentioned:
A backbone View to coordinate the HTML elements with your Javascript code
A backbone Model to store all of the data that the user input into the HTML elements
A back-end server that can handle RESTful JSON calls via AJAX requests from jQuery
I think the only thing you are missing is that the model has a save method on it, which wraps up all of the logic to call the create / update routes on your back-end server. The model also has a delete method to handle deletion from the server.
As a very simple example, here's a form that renders an HTML template to the screen, gathers the user input in to the model and then saves it to the server.
An HTML template:
<script id="myTemplate" type="text/x-jquery-tmpl">
First name: <input id="first_name"><br/>
Last Name: <input id="last_name"><br/>
<button id="save">Save!</button>
</script>
The code to run this:
MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
urlRoot: "/myModel"
});
MyView = Backbone.View.extend({
template: "#myTemplate",
events: {
"change #first_name": "setFirstName",
"change #last_name: "setLastName",
"click #save": "save"
},
initialize: function(){
_.bindAll(this, "saveSuccess", "saveError");
},
setFirstName: function(e){
var val = $(e.currentTarget).val();
this.model.set({first_name: val});
},
setLastName: function(e){
var val = $(e.currentTarget).val();
this.model.set({last_name: val});
},
save: function(e){
e.preventDefault(); // prevent the button click from posting back to the server
this.model.save(null, {success: this.saveSuccess, error: this.saveError);
},
saveSuccess: function(model, response){
// do things here after a successful save to the server
},
saveError: function(model, response){
// do things here after a failed save to the server
},
render: function(){
var html = $(this.template).tmpl();
$(el).html(html);
}
});
myModel = new MyModel();
myView = new MyView({model: myModel});
myView.render();
$("#someDivOnMyPage").html(myView.el);
This will give you a quick start for a form that saves a new model back to the server.
There are a couple of things your server needs to do:
Return a valid HTTP response code (200 or some other response that says everything was "ok")
Return the JSON that was sent to the server, including any data that the server assigned to the model such as an id field.
It's very important that your server do these things and include an id field in the response. Without an id field from the server, your model will never be able to update itself when you call save again. It will only try to create a new instance on the server again.
Backbone uses the id attribute of a model to determine if it should create or update a model when pushing data to the back end. The difference between creating a new model and saving one is only the id attribute. You call save on the model whether it's a new or an edited model.
A delete works the same way - you just call destroy on the model and it does a call back to the server to do the destroy. With some HTML that has a "delete" link or button, you would attach to the click event of that HTML element the same as I've shown for the "Save" button. Then in the callback method for the delete click, you would call this.model.destroy() and pass any parameters you want, such as success and error callbacks.
Note that I included a urlRoot on the model, as well. This, or a url function are needed on a model if the model is not part of a collection. If the model is part of a collection, the collection must specify the url.
I hope that helps.

If the "el" of the view is the form tag, then you could probably use the built in event object to bind a function to submit, but if the root of the view is something else, then you'll need to attach the click handler in the render function.