On 8base I try to delete multiples records in one query on my app but nothing seems to work properly because the two arguments of the delete mutation (data and filter) does not seems to support array of Ids.
Is the there a way to do that properly in one query ?
Same thing on nested data, is the there a way to delete for example an user and all this posts in one query ?
Thank you in advance !
There is this community post that answers the question: https://community.8base.com/t/delete-many-records-in-one-query/464/3
I also included one part of a solution here:
mutation {
user1: userDelete(data: { id: "id1" }) { success }
user2: userDelete(data: { id: "id2" }) { success }
user3: userDelete(data: { id: "id3" }) { success }
user4: userDelete(data: { id: "id4" }) { success }
...etc
}
Related
I'm using Vue alongside with Apollo in order to query a GraphQL endpoint in my project. Everything's fine but I want to start programming generic components to ease and fasten the development.
The thing is, in most views, I use the Smart Query system.
For instance, I use :
apollo: {
group: {
query: GROUP_QUERY,
variables () { return { id: this.groupId } },
skip () { return this.groupId === undefined },
result ({ data }) {
this.form.name = data.group.name
}
}
}
With the GROUP_QUERY that is :
const GROUP_QUERY = gql`
query groupQuery ($id: ID) {
group (id: $id) {
id
name
usersCount
userIds {
id
username
}
}
}
`
So my group variable in my apollo smart query has the same name as the query itself group (id: $id). It is this mechanism that is quite annoying for what I try to achieve. Is there a way to avoid that default mechanism ?
I'd like for instance to be able to give a generic name such as record, and it would be records for queries that potentially return multiple records.
With that, I would be able to make generic components or mixins that operate either on record or records.
Or have I to rename all my queries to record and records which would be annoying later on in case of troubleshooting with error messages ?
Or maybe there's another way to achieve that and I didn't think about it ?
Thanks in advance.
You can, in fact, rename the variable of Apollo smart queries using the update option, as seen here in the Vue Apollo documentation. Your example would look like:
apollo: {
record: {
query: GROUP_QUERY,
variables () { return { id: this.groupId } },
update: (data) => data.group,
skip () { return this.groupId === undefined },
result ({ data }) {
this.form.name = data.group.name
}
}
}
You should notice that the Apollo object will create a record variable in your component, and the update statement shows where to get the group for the record.
By doing so :
const GROUP_QUERY = gql`
query groupQuery ($id: ID) {
record: group (id: $id) {
id
name
usersCount
userIds {
id
username
}
}
}
`
If the GROUP_QUERY is used at several places, the result will be accessible under the record name, because it is defined as an alias over group.
See documentation for Aliases.
I have a graphql endpoint where this query can be entered:
fragment ChildParts {
id
__typename
}
fragment ParentParts {
__typename
id
children {
edges{
node {
...ChildParts
}
}
}
query {
parents {
edges
nodes {
...ParentParts
}
}
}
}
When executed, it returns something like this:
"data": {
"edges": [
"node": {
"id": "<some id for parent>",
"__typename": "ParentNode",
"children": {
"edges": [
node: {
"id": "<some id for child>",
"__typename": "ChildNode"
},
...
]
}
},
...
]
}
Now, with apollo client, after a mutation, I can read this query from the cache, and update / add / delete any ParentNode, and also any ChildNode, but I have to go over the structure returned by this query.
Now, I'm looking for a possibility to get a list of ChildNodes out of the cache (which has those already, as the cache is created as a flat list), to make the update of nested data a bit easier. Is there a possibility of reading a query out of the cache, without having read the same query from the server before?
You can use the client's readFragment method to retrieve any one individual item from the cache. This just requires the id and a fragment string.
const todo = client.readFragment({
id,
fragment: gql`
fragment fooFragment on Foo {
id
bar
qax
}
`,
})
Note that id here is the cache key returned by the dataIdFromObject function -- if you haven't specified a custom function, then (provided the __typename and id or _id fields are present) the default implementation is just:
${result.__typename}:${result.id || result._id}
If you provided your own dataIdFromObject function, you'll need to provide whatever id is returned by that function.
As #Herku pointed out, depending on the use case, it's also possible to use cache redirects to utilize data cached for one query when resolving another one. This is configured as part of setting up your InMemoryCache:
const cache = new InMemoryCache({
cacheRedirects: {
Query: {
book: (_, args, { getCacheKey }) =>
getCacheKey({ __typename: 'Book', id: args.id })
},
},
})
Unfortunately, as of writing this answer, I don't believe there's any method to delete a cached item by id. There's on going discussion here around that point (original issue here).
I have a following shema.
{
id:week
output:{
headerValues:[
{startDate:"0707",headers:"ID|week"},
{startDate:"0715",headers:"ID1|week1"},
{startDate:"0722",headers:"ID2|week2"}
]
}
}
I have to add a new field into headerValues array like this:
{
id:week
output:{
headerValues[
{startDate:"0707",headers:"ID|week",types:"used"},
{startDate:"0715",headers:"ID1|week1",types:"used"},
{startDate:"0722",headers:"ID2|week2",types:"used"}
]
}
}
I tried different approaches like this:
1)
db.CollectionName.find({}).forEach(function(data){
for(var i=0;i<data.output.headerValues.length;i++) {
db.CollectionName.update({
"_id": data._id, "output.headerValues.startDate":data.output.headerValues[i].startDate
},
{
"$set": {
"output.headerValues.$.types":"used"
}
},true,true
);
}
})
So, In this approach it is executing script and then failing. It is updating result with failed statement.
2)
Another approach I have followed using this link:
https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-1243
db.collectionName.update({"_id":"week"},
{ "$set": { "output.headerValues.$[].types":"used" }
})
But it fails with error:
cannot use the part (headerValues of output.headerValues.$[].types) to
traverse the element ({headerValues: [ { startDate: "0707", headers:
"Id|week" } ]}) WriteError#src/mongo/shell/bulk_api.js:469:48
Bulk/mergeBatchResults#src/mongo/shell/bulk_api.js:836:49
Bulk/executeBatch#src/mongo/shell/bulk_api.js:906:13
Bulk/this.execute#src/mongo/shell/bulk_api.js:1150:21
DBCollection.prototype.updateOne#src/mongo/shell/crud_api.js:550:17
#(shell):1:1
I have searched with many different ways which can update different arrays object by adding new field to each object but no success. Can anybody please suggest that what am I doing wrong?
Your query is {"_id" : "week"} but in your data id field is week
So you can change {"_id" : "week"} to {"id" : "week"} and also update your mongodb latest version
db.collectionName.update({"id":"week"},
{ "$set": { "output.headerValues.$[].types":"used" }
})
So, I will go straight to the point. I am getting such data from api:
[
{
id: 123,
email: asd#asd.com
},
{
id: 456,
email: asdasd.com
},
{
id: 789,
email: asd#asd
},
...
]
and I should validate email and show this all info in a list, something like this:
asd#asd.com - valid
asdasd.com - invalid
asd#asd - invalid
...
My question is what is the best way to store validation data in a store? Is it better to have something like "isValid" property by each email? I mean like this:
store = {
emailsById: [
123: {
value: asd#asd.com,
isValid: true
},
456: {
value: asdasd.com,
isValid: false
},
789: {
value: asd#asd,
isValid: false
}
...
]
}
or something like this:
store = {
emailsById: [
123: {
value: asd#asd.com
},
456: {
value: asdasd.com
},
789: {
value: asd#asd
}
...
],
inValidIds: ['456', '789']
}
which one is better? Or maybe there is some another better way to have such data in store? Have in mind that there can be thousands emails in a list :)
Thanks in advance for the answers ;)
I recommend reading the article "Avoiding Accidental Complexity When Structuring Your App State" by Tal Kol which answers exactly your problem: https://hackernoon.com/avoiding-accidental-complexity-when-structuring-your-app-state-6e6d22ad5e2a
Your example is quite simplistic and everything really depends on your needs but personally I would go with something like this (based on linked article):
var store = {
emailsById: {
123: {
value: '123#example.com',
},
456: {
value: '456#example.com',
},
789: {
value: '789#example.com',
},
// ...
},
validEmailsMap: {
456: true, // true when valid
789: false, // false when invalid
},
};
So your best option would be to create a separate file that will contain all your validations methods. Import that into the component you're using and then when you want to use the logic for valid/invalid.
If its something that you feel you want to put in the store from the beginning and the data will never be in a transient state you could parse your DTO through an array map in your reducer when you get the response from your API.
export default function (state = initialState, action) {
const {type, response} = action
switch (type) {
case DATA_RECIEVED_SUCCESS:
const items = []
for (var i = 0; i < response.emailsById.length; i++) {
var email = response.emailsById[i];
email.isValid = checkEmailValid(email)
items.push(email)
}
return {
...state,
items
}
}
}
However my preference would be to always check at the last moment you need to. It makes it a safer design in case you find you need to change you design in the future. Also separating the validation logic out will make it more testable
First of all, the way you defined an array in javascript is wrong.
What you need is an array of objects like,
emails : [
{
id: '1',
email: 'abc#abc.com',
isValid: true
},
{
id: '2',
email: 'abc.com',
isValid: false;
}
];
if you need do access email based on an id, you can add an id property along with email and isValid. uuid is a good way to go about it.
In conclusion, it depends upon your use case.
I believe, the above example is a good way to keep data in store because it's simple.
What you described in your second example is like maintaining two different states. I would not recommend that.
im trying to perform a query like this:
{
people{
pet{
name
}
}
}
result:
{
"people": {
"pet": null
}
},
{
"people": {
"pet": {
name: "steve"
}
}
}
What i want is to get only people that contains a pet, is there any way to achieve this not coding on my resolver ?
Actually, it is possible with the filter: { pet: {ne: null} } filtering:
query allPeople(filter: { people: { pet: {ne: null} } }) {
people {
pet
}
}
This is not possible the way you describe. GraphQL will call resolve functions to fetch the data. If you don't want certain data in your response, you have to filter it somewhere on the server. The only thing you have control over is the query, the schema and the resolve functions.
There is no way to express your requirement purely in the query. If you put it in the schema, you would no longer be able to query for people without pets. So the only way to do it is to write it in your resolve function. You could for example add a boolean argument called hasPet to your people field, and do this in the resolver:
people(root, { hasPet }){
// get allPeople
if (typeof hasPet === 'undefined'){
return allPeople
}
return allPeople.filter((person) => person.hasPet() === hasPet)
}
The unfortunate thing is that this will require you to 'look ahead' and figure out if a person has a pet in the first place, but if you cache backend or DB requests with something like DataLoader, this isn't actually costly, because you would have to fetch the pet anyway. This way you just fetch it a bit earlier.
If you're fetching your people from a database, it would of course make sense to already filter them there, and not in the resolve function.