current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

Stack Exchange
tour help
careers 2.0
Take the 2-minute tour ×
Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite
1

I have the following object that I'm receiving from an API:

{
   '2012-12-12': [
       { 'id': 1234,
         'type': 'A' },
       { 'id': 1235,
         'type': 'A' },
       { 'id': 1236,
         'type': 'B' },
    ],
   '2012-12-13': [
       { 'id': 1237,
         'type': 'A' },
       { 'id': 1238,
         'type': 'C' },
       { 'id': 1239,
         'type': 'B' },
    ]
}

Then I want to have another variable named types of type Array that will hold every possible value of the type attribute of each one of the objects. In this case it would be:

types = ['A', 'B', 'C']

I'm trying to have it done in a functional way (I'm using underscore.js) but I'm unable to figure out a way of doing it. Right now I'm using

types = [];
_.each(response, function(arr1, key1) {
    _.each(arr1, function(arr2, key2) {
        types.push(arr2.type);
    });
});
types = _.uniq(types);

But that's very ugly. Can you help me in figuring out a better way of writing this code?

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Your code is clear. There is no problem with it in my opinion. –  dystroy Feb 12 '13 at 21:40
    
You could keep a separate "typeMap" variable, whose value would start as just a simple object ({}). Then you can use it as a way to keep track of types you've already seen. –  Pointy Feb 12 '13 at 21:41
    
@dystroy if the original object is large and the number of types is small, there's some unnecessary work done, but I agree it's probably not really a bad thing at small scale. –  Pointy Feb 12 '13 at 21:42
    
@Pointy yes, that would be an optimization, but probably not really useful. –  dystroy Feb 12 '13 at 21:43
    
I'd change the name of arr2 as it's actually an object in this case, but that's more developer empathy than functional improvement. –  Mathletics Feb 12 '13 at 21:45
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

This should work:

types = _.chain(input) // enable chaining
  .values()            // object to array
  .flatten()           // 2D array to 1D array
  .pluck("type")       // pick one property from each element
  .uniq()              // only the unique values
  .value()             // get an unwrapped array

Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/NFSfs/

Of course, you can remove all whitespace if you want to:

types = _.chain(input).values().flatten().pluck("type").uniq().value()

or without chaining:

types = _.uniq(_.pluck(_.flatten(_.values(input)),"type"));

flatten seems to work on objects, even though the documentation clearly states it shouldn't. If you wish to code against implementation, you can leave out the call to values, but I don't recommend that. The implementation could change one day, leaving your code mysteriously broken.

share|improve this answer
add comment
up vote 1 down vote

If you just want shorter code, you could flatten the objects into a single Array, then map that Array.

var types = _.unique(_.map(_.flatten(_.toArray(response)), function(arr) {
    return arr.type;
}));

Here's another version. Mostly just for curiosity's sake.

var types = _.unique(_.pluck(_.reduce(response, _.bind(Function.apply, [].concat), []), "type"));

Here's another one.

var types = _.unique(_.reduce(response, function(acc, arr) {
    return acc.concat(_.pluck(arr,"type"));
}, []));

And another.

var types = _.unique(_.pluck([].concat.apply([], _.toArray(response)), "type"))
share|improve this answer
    
I don't think you can flatten an object –  Jan Dvorak Feb 12 '13 at 21:56
    
@JanDvorak: Here's a demo: jsbin.com/ewopeh/1 –  the system Feb 12 '13 at 21:57
    
The documentation claims it shouldn't work: underscorejs.org/#flatten –  Jan Dvorak Feb 12 '13 at 22:06
1  
@JanDvorak: You're right. The source shows that it only performs a type check on the values, not the outer structure, so because each() is used on the outer structure, there's no complaint. And since it creates a new Array instead of modifying the original, the .push()s succeed. But the docs clearly require an array. –  the system Feb 12 '13 at 22:15
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.