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]]));

How to remove an element from array in javascript without making a new?

I read many answers but I didn't understand how to use splice in this case..
Suppose i have an array named alphabets like - ["a","b","c","d","e"] and i have to remove c from it. I dont want to create another array with c removed instead i want to update the same list each time an item is removed just like remove method in python. I know the index also so it can be like alphabets.remove[3]...to remove c. Please help me i am beginner.
Actually it would be better if there's a way that i can remove using just index number cause the names in array are very tough. Any help is appreciated

To modify the array rather than creating a new one, as you said you'd want the splice method. You pass the index of the item to remove, and the number of items to remove at that index:
const index = theArray.indexOf("c");
theArray.splice(index, 1);
Live Example:
const theArray = ["a","b","c","d","e"];
const rememberArray = theArray; // Just so we can prove it's the same array later
const index = theArray.indexOf("c");
theArray.splice(index, 1);
console.log(theArray);
console.log("Same array? " + (rememberArray === theArray));

JavaScript Logic's: Convert events array to a comma separated string and add it into a single variable

Good Morning,
I have a little logic's question I cant quiet wrap my head around. I have an array of values I get from a forEach which returns an array like this.
"events": [["IDLING:END"],["TOWING:END"]],
I need to add this to a single variable separated by n comma. This events type can have multiple entries for example, it could also have an extra SPEED:END entry etc. So I need it to be like...
let eventResult = 'IDLING:END,TOWING:END,SPEED:END'
So now my question: How do I add these and then check if there is any extra entries and add all of the new entries only once. I have multiple gps positions with the exact same data and I need to add every entry only once, but as I said this can potentially have more entries at any given moment, or should I say extra values.
I hope my explanation is clear.
Warm Regards

I would have done it in the following way. I also agree that there are various ways to remove duplicates.
let events = [["a:a"], ["b:b"], ["a:a"]];
let arrToJoin = [];
const flatArray = events.flat();
flatArray.forEach((e) => {
if (arrToJoin.findIndex((a) => a === e) === -1) {
arrToJoin.push(e);
}
});
console.log(arrToJoin.join(","));

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.

How can I push a null value into the start of an array?

I have this code that fetches data and puts it into an array:
this.$httpGetTest(this.test.testId)
.success(function (data: ITestQuestion[]) {
self.test.qs = data;
});
It works and populates the array starting with self.test.qs[0].
However many times my code references this array (which contains a list of questions 1...x)
I must always remember to subract 1 from the question number and so my code does not look clear. Is there a way that I could place an entry ahead of all the others in the array so that:
self.test.qs[0] is null
self.test.qs[1] references the first real data for question number 1.
Ideally I would like to do this by putting something after the self.test.qs = and before data.

Push values at start of array via unshift
self.test.qs.unshift(null);

You need to use Splice(), It works like:
The splice() method changes the content of an array, adding new elements while removing old elements.
so try:
self.test.qs.splice(0, 0, null);
Here mid argument 0 is to set no elements to remove from array so it will insert null at zero and move all other elements.
Here is demo:
var arr = [];
arr[0] = "Hello";
arr[1] = "Friend";
alert(arr.join());
arr.splice(1,0,"my");
alert(arr.join());

You can start off with an array with a null value in it, then concat the questions array to it.
var arr = [null];
arr = arr.concat(data);

You could do something like:
x = [null].concat([1, 2, 3]);
Though there isn't anything wrong with doing something like:
x[index-1]
I'd prefer it to be honest, otherwise someone might assume that the index value returned is 0 based.