I'm creating a Google Chrome extension and I'm saving information using the chrome.storage.sync.set function. According to the API you can create an object and save the information between accounts. While I am not having any trouble creating this object, I am having trouble updating a specific key and syncing the value, without making an entirely separate object for each change.
For example my object looks something like this when logged to the console:
{
profile: {
preferences: {
username: 'my username'
}
}
}
I'd like to simply update the value 'username'.
I've tried doing something like this (I have access to the object through the chrome.storage.sync.set function callback):
_ext.profile.preferences.username = 'my new username';
This does update the object, but does not save and store it.
I have also tried this method:
_ext.profile.preferences.username = 'my new username 2'; /* update the key value */
chrome.storage.sync.set(_ext.profile) /* save the entire object to memory */
This method has not worked either.
What do you think is the problem here? Is it the way in which I'm trying to save the object or is there a better method to having a settings based approach?
If you are calling "get" right away, before the "set" has completed, that could be the problem. Your example does not show a callback being passed to handle completion of the "set".
I stumbled across your post while looking to solve the same issue. I ended up using a similar approach as React Redux state management. Instead of trying to manipulate the stored data, I make a copy then replace it.
var data = {};
chrome.storage.sync.get(function(result){
data = result.storedData;
data.profile.preferences.username = 'my new username';
});
chrome.storage.sync.set({'storedData': data});
Related
I have a toggle button which toggles data after click after which api is called to make necessary changes in databases. So if api ends up with error I wish to revert the changes that took place in UI. How can I achieve this.
currently trying to do like this
#global variable
let prevData={}
#Set State
(data)=>{
this.setState(prevState=>{
this.prevData=prevState.data
return {
data:data
}}}
this if I console log prevData its gives the updated state data instead of prevData
After some searching found that
JSON object can create a detached copy of an object, which then wont change the data as the state changes.
this.prevData=JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(this.state.data))
There are multiple ways of creating copies this seems easier to understand.
I have a set of related items like so:
book {
id
...
related_entity {
id
...
}
}
which apollo caches as two separate cache objects, where the related_entity field on book is a ref to an EntityNode object. This is fine, the related entity data is also used elsewhere outside of the context of a book so having it separate works, and everything seems well and good and updates as expected...except in the case where the related entity does not exist on the initial fetch (and thus the ref on the book object is null) and I create one later on.
I've tried adding an update function to the useMutation hook that creates the aforementioned related_entity per their documentation: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/react/caching/cache-interaction/#example-adding-an-item-to-a-list like this:
const [mutateEntity, _i] = useMutation(CREATE_OR_UPDATE_ENTITY,{
update(cache, {data}) {
cache.modify({
id: `BookNode:${bookId}`,
fields: {
relatedEntity(_i) {
const newEntityRef = cache.writeFragment({
fragment: gql`
fragment NewEntity on EntityNode {
id
...someOtherAttr
}`,
data: data.entityData
});
return newEntityRef;
}
}
})
}
});
but no matter what I seem to try, newEntityRef is always undefined, even though the new EntityNode is definitely in the cache and can be read just fine using the exact same fragment. I could give up and just force a refetch of the Book object, but the data is already right there.
Am I doing something wrong/is there a better way?
Barring that is there another way to get a ref for a cached object given you have its identifier?
It looks like this is actually an issue with apollo-cache-persist - I removed it and the code above functions as expected per the docs. It also looks like I could instead update to the new version under a different package name apollo3-cache-persist, but I ended up not needing cache persistence anyway.
I'm reading documentation for Firebase and I came to this part:
function writeNewPost(uid, username, picture, title, body) {
// A post entry.
var postData = {
author: username,
uid: uid,
body: body,
title: title,
starCount: 0,
authorPic: picture
};
// Get a key for a new Post.
var newPostKey = firebase.database().ref().**child('posts')**.push().key;
How am I supposed to understand this? Currently I'm thinking this is saying "from the root of the database, create a node and store its access key in a variable". What is the use of having a child function with 'posts'? I can run similar code like the following and get the same result.
var newPostKey = firebase.database().ref().push().key;
Your second bit of code does not really give the same result, when taken in the context of the rest of the code sample from the docs (that you didn't show here).
Actually, the code you've shown does not actually create any data in the database at all, because if nothing is passed to push(), then it just returns a reference to the location (with a unique key) that you can later write to. The part of the sample that you omitted actually performs the update.
The API docs for child() says:
Gets a Reference for the location at the specified relative path.
The method is helping you build a path to a reference. Without the call to child() in your second example, the reference will be at the root of the database, rather than under "/posts". While you will get a unique key in both situations, its location in the database will be different (after you actually write data there).
UPDATE 1: 5 votes have been received, so I have submitted a feature request: https://github.com/LearnBoost/mongoose/issues/2637
Please cast your +1 votes there to let the core team know you want this feature.
UPDATE 2: See answer below...
ORIGINAL POST:
Lets say I do a "lean" query on a collection OR receive some data from a REST service and I get an array of objects (not mongoose documents).
These objects already exist in the database, but I need to convert some/all of those objects to mongoose documents for individual editing/saving.
I have read through the source and there is a lot going on once mongoose has data from the database (populating, casting, initializing, etc), but there doesn't seem to be a method for 'exposing' this to the outside world.
I am using the following, but it just seems hacky ($data is a plain object):
// What other properties am I not setting? Is this enough?
var doc = new MyModel( $data );
doc.isNew = false;
// mimicking mongoose internals
// "init" is called internally after a document is loaded from the database
// This method is not documented, but seems like the most "proper" way to do this.
var doc = new MyModel( undefined );
doc.init( $data );
UPDATE: After more searching I don't think there is a way to do this yet, and the first method above is your best bet (mongoose v3.8.8). If anybody else is interested in this, I will make a feature request for something like this (leave a comment or upvote please):
var doc = MyModel.hydrate( $data );
Posting my own answer so this doesn't stay open:
Version 4 models (stable released on 2015-03-25) now exposes a hydrate() method. None of the fields will be marked as dirty initially, meaning a call to save() will do nothing until a field is mutated.
https://github.com/LearnBoost/mongoose/blob/41ea6010c4a84716aec7a5798c7c35ef21aa294f/lib/model.js#L1639-1657
It is very important to note that this is intended to be used to convert a plain JS object loaded from the database into a mongoose document. If you are receiving a document from a REST service or something like that, you should use findById() and update().
For those who live dangerously:
If you really want to update an existing document without touching the database, I suppose you could call hydrate(), mark fields as dirty, and then call save(). This is not too different than the method of setting doc.isNew = false; as I suggested in my original question. However, Valeri (from the mongoose team) suggested not doing this. It could cause validation errors and other edge case issues and generally isn't good practice. findById is really fast and will not be your bottleneck.
If you are getting a response from REST service and say you have a User mongoose model
var User = mongoose.model('User');
var fields = res.body; //Response JSON
var newUser = new User(fields);
newUser.save(function(err,resource){
console.log(resource);
});
In other case say you have an array of user JSON objects from User.find() that you want to query or populate
var query = User.find({});
query.exec(function(users){
//mongoose deep-populate ref docs
User.deeppopulate users 'email_id phone_number'.exec({
//query through populated users objects
});
});
MongoDB doesn't support Joins and Transfers. So for now you can't cast values to an object directly. Although you can work around it with forEach.
First off, some background
My client has a kind of a "split-view", meaning- a side-panel displaying a list of objects and a main view displaying the selected object's details. Every time the user clicks on an Object in the list, a Backbone's route is called to navigate to the id which updates a "selected" property on the Session, what causes the main view to update- pretty standard stuff.
The problem
I want the client to be as responsive as possible, therefore i'm trying to utilize Meteor's abillity to update the client immediately without waiting for a server confirmation.
My goal is that every time an Object is created, the list and the main view will be instantly updated to reflect the newly added Object. To achieve this I created a Meteor.method, create(), that uses Collection.insert and returns the id so I can use it with my Route. The method is shared across the client and server and is being called from within a template's event handler.
My first try was to store the returned id in a variable in the event handler and update the Route in the next line; For some reason, that didn't work because the method returned an undefined value. So I tried a different approach, instead of returning the id, I used it within the method to update the Route directly (if Meteor.isClient of course). That didn't work either because the id returned by Collection.insert in the client's version of the method was different from the one in the server's version.
First approach
Template.createDialog.events({
'click #btn-dialog-create': function (event, template) {
var objectId = Meteor.call('create');
appRouter.navigate("object/id/" + objectId, {trigger:true});
}
});
Second approach
Meteor.methods({
create: function () {
var ObjectId = Objects.insert({name:'test'});
if(Meteor.isClient){
appRouter.navigate("object/id/" + objectId, {trigger:true});
}
}
});
If anyone knows what's going on and can give me some directions that would be great.
Any different approaches to the problem or suggestions would be much appreciated as well.
Thanks
Update
So I tried #Pent's suggestion and I got the same result as with my second approach. For some odd reason Meteor decides to ignore my id (created with Random.id()) and inserts the object with a different one.
So I tried another approach, I used just a simple string value instead of Random.id() and voila - it worked. Riddle me that.
Answer updated:
This will be both a client and server method:
Meteor.methods({
create: function () {
var id = Random.id();
Objects.insert({_id: id, name:'test'});
if(this.isSimulation) {
appRouter.navigate("object/id/" + id, {trigger:true});
}
}
});
You can view a similar pattern from Meteor's party example: https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/b28c81724101f84547c6c6b9c203353f2e05fbb7/examples/parties/model.js#L56
Your problem is coused by the fact that remote methods, i.e. those which will be called on the server, don't simply return any value. Instead, they accept a callback that will be used to process the returned value (see docs). So in your first example you should probably do something like this:
Template.createDialog.events({
'click #btn-dialog-create': function (event, template) {
Meteor.call('create', function (error, result) {
if (!error)
appRouter.navigate("object/id/" + result, {trigger:true});
});
}
});
You also said:
I want the client to be as responsive as possible, therefore i'm trying to utilize Meteor's abillity to update the client immediately without waiting for a server confirmation.
I think that in this case you should definitely wait for server response. Note, that there is no chance you get the correct object id unless this is given to you by the server.
One possible way to get around this issue is to create a local (client-side) collection:
// only on client
var temporary = new Meteor.Collection(null); // null name
in which you could store your "temporary" newly created objects, and then save them to the "real" collection after the user clicks the save button. You could implement your router to respond to urls like object/new/* to get access to these objects before they're saved to your database.
The correct answer for this question is defining a client side method that's responsible for creating the unique id (preferably using Random.id() ) and calling the Meteor.methods' create(). That way, you can have the id available immediately without waiting for the server to generate one. The trick here is to generate the id outside of the Meteor.method so that the id generation happens only once for both the stub and the actual server method.
create = function(){
var id = Random.id();
Meteor.call('create', id);
return id;
}
Meteor.methods({
create: function (id) {
Objects.insert({_id: id, name:'test'});
//more code...
}
});
//and in the Template...
Template.createDialog.events({
'click #btn-dialog-create': function (event, template) {
var objectId = create();
appRouter.navigate("object/id/" + objectId, {trigger:true});
}
});