First of all, it's considered bad practice to extend Object.prototype. Instead, provide your feature as stand-alone function, or if you really want to extend a global, provide it as utility function on Object, just like there already are Object.keys, Object.assign, Object.is, ...etc.
I provide here several solutions:
- Using
reduceandObject.keys - As (1), in combination with
Object.assign - Using
mapand spread syntax instead ofreduce - Using
Object.entriesandObject.fromEntries
1. Using reduce and Object.keys
With reduce and Object.keys to implement the desired filter (using ES6 arrow syntax):
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.reduce( (res, key) => (res[key] = obj[key], res), {} );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
Note that in the above code predicate must be an inclusion condition (contrary to the exclusion condition the OP used), so that it is in line with how Array.prototype.filter works.
2. As (1), in combination with Object.assign
In the above solution the comma operator is used in the reduce part to return the mutated res object. This could of course be written as two statements instead of one expression, but the latter is more concise. To do it without the comma operator, you could use Object.assign instead, which does return the mutated object:
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.reduce( (res, key) => Object.assign(res, { [key]: obj[key] }), {} );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
3. Using map and spread syntax instead of reduce
Here we move the Object.assign call out of the loop, so it is only made once, and pass it the individual keys as separate arguments (using the spread syntax):
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.assign(...Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.map( key => ({ [key]: obj[key] }) ) );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
4. Using Object.entries and Object.fromEntries
As the solution translates the object to an intermediate array and then converts that back to a plain object, it would be useful to make use of Object.entries (ES2017) and the opposite (i.e. create an object from an array of key/value pairs) with Object.fromEntries (ES2019).
It leads to this "one-liner" method on Object:
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(obj).filter(predicate));
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, ([name, score]) => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
The predicate function gets a key/value pair as argument here, which is a bit different, but allows for more possibilities in the predicate function's logic.
Answer from trincot on Stack OverflowFirst of all, it's considered bad practice to extend Object.prototype. Instead, provide your feature as stand-alone function, or if you really want to extend a global, provide it as utility function on Object, just like there already are Object.keys, Object.assign, Object.is, ...etc.
I provide here several solutions:
- Using
reduceandObject.keys - As (1), in combination with
Object.assign - Using
mapand spread syntax instead ofreduce - Using
Object.entriesandObject.fromEntries
1. Using reduce and Object.keys
With reduce and Object.keys to implement the desired filter (using ES6 arrow syntax):
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.reduce( (res, key) => (res[key] = obj[key], res), {} );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
Note that in the above code predicate must be an inclusion condition (contrary to the exclusion condition the OP used), so that it is in line with how Array.prototype.filter works.
2. As (1), in combination with Object.assign
In the above solution the comma operator is used in the reduce part to return the mutated res object. This could of course be written as two statements instead of one expression, but the latter is more concise. To do it without the comma operator, you could use Object.assign instead, which does return the mutated object:
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.reduce( (res, key) => Object.assign(res, { [key]: obj[key] }), {} );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
3. Using map and spread syntax instead of reduce
Here we move the Object.assign call out of the loop, so it is only made once, and pass it the individual keys as separate arguments (using the spread syntax):
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.assign(...Object.keys(obj)
.filter( key => predicate(obj[key]) )
.map( key => ({ [key]: obj[key] }) ) );
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, score => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
4. Using Object.entries and Object.fromEntries
As the solution translates the object to an intermediate array and then converts that back to a plain object, it would be useful to make use of Object.entries (ES2017) and the opposite (i.e. create an object from an array of key/value pairs) with Object.fromEntries (ES2019).
It leads to this "one-liner" method on Object:
Object.filter = (obj, predicate) =>
Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(obj).filter(predicate));
// Example use:
var scores = {
John: 2, Sarah: 3, Janet: 1
};
var filtered = Object.filter(scores, ([name, score]) => score > 1);
console.log(filtered);
The predicate function gets a key/value pair as argument here, which is a bit different, but allows for more possibilities in the predicate function's logic.
Never ever extend Object.prototype.
Horrible things will happen to your code. Things will break. You're extending all object types, including object literals.
Here's a quick example you can try:
// Extend Object.prototype
Object.prototype.extended = "I'm everywhere!";
// See the result
alert( {}.extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
alert( [].extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
alert( new Date().extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
alert( 3..extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
alert( true.extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
alert( "here?".extended ); // "I'm everywhere!"
Instead create a function that you pass the object.
Object.filter = function( obj, predicate) {
let result = {}, key;
for (key in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(key) && !predicate(obj[key])) {
result[key] = obj[key];
}
}
return result;
};
Videos
Here are two vanilla javascript options:
A.: Iterate over the object's keys and delete those having a falsey value.
var obj = {
propA: true,
propB: true,
propC: false,
propD: true,
};
Object.keys(obj).forEach(key => {
if (!obj[key]) delete obj[key];
});
console.log(obj);
See Object.keys() and Array.prototype.forEach()
B.: Iterate over the object's keys and add truthy values to a new object.
var obj = {
propA: true,
propB: true,
propC: false,
propD: true,
};
var filteredObj = Object.keys(obj).reduce((p, c) => {
if (obj[c]) p[c] = obj[c];
return p;
}, {});
console.log(filteredObj);
See Object.keys() and Array.prototype.reduce()
Lodash 4.0
Lodash 4.0 has _.pick, which takes an array of properties, and _.pickBy which takes a function as an argument and returns an object only containing the keys for which that function returns truthy which is what we want here, so it'd be:
filtered = _.pickBy(obj, function(value, key) {return value;})
Or, since _.pickBy defaults to using _.identity as it's second argument, (and that's essentially what we've written above,) it can just be written as:
filtered = _.pickBy(obj);
Underscore or Lodash prior to version 4.0
In underscore and old versions of lodash, there's just a single _.pick, which has both behaviors of _.pick and _.pickWith from v4. So you can do:
filtered = _.pick(obj, function(value, key) {return value;})
Or more succinctly:
filtered = _.pick(obj, _.identity)
If you have a list of allowed values, you can easily retain them in an object using:
const raw = {
item1: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item2: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item3: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' }
};
const allowed = ['item1', 'item3'];
const filtered = Object.keys(raw)
.filter(key => allowed.includes(key))
.reduce((obj, key) => {
obj[key] = raw[key];
return obj;
}, {});
console.log(filtered);
This uses:
Object.keysto list all properties inraw(the original data), thenArray.prototype.filterto select keys that are present in the allowed list, usingArray.prototype.includesto make sure they are present
Array.prototype.reduceto build a new object with only the allowed properties.
This will make a shallow copy with the allowed properties (but won't copy the properties themselves).
You can also use the object spread operator to create a series of objects without mutating them (thanks to rjerue for mentioning this):
const raw = {
item1: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item2: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item3: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' }
};
const allowed = ['item1', 'item3'];
const filtered = Object.keys(raw)
.filter(key => allowed.includes(key))
.reduce((obj, key) => {
return {
...obj,
[key]: raw[key]
};
}, {});
console.log(filtered);
For purposes of trivia, if you wanted to remove the unwanted fields from the original data (which I would not recommend doing, since it involves some ugly mutations), you could invert the includes check like so:
const raw = {
item1: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item2: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item3: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' }
};
const allowed = ['item1', 'item3'];
Object.keys(raw)
.filter(key => !allowed.includes(key))
.forEach(key => delete raw[key]);
console.log(raw);
I'm including this example to show a mutation-based solution, but I don't suggest using it.
If you are OK with using ES6 syntax, I find that the cleanest way to do this, as noted here and here is:
const data = {
item1: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item2: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item3: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' }
};
const { item2, ...newData } = data;
Now, newData contains:
{
item1: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' },
item3: { key: 'sdfd', value:'sdfd' }
};
Or, if you have the key stored as a string:
const key = 'item2';
const { [key]: _, ...newData } = data;
In the latter case, [key] is converted to item2 but since you are using a const assignment, you need to specify a name for the assignment. _ represents a throw away value.
More generally:
const { item2, ...newData } = data; // Assign item2 to item2
const { item2: someVarName, ...newData } = data; // Assign item2 to someVarName
const { item2: _, ...newData } = data; // Assign item2 to _
const { ['item2']: _, ...newData } = data; // Convert string to key first, ...
Not only does this reduce your operation to a one-liner but it also doesn't require you to know what the other keys are (those that you want to preserve).
A simple utility function would look like this:
function removePropFromObject(obj, prop) {
const { [prop]: _, ...rest } = obj
return { ...rest }
}
- Use
var myKeys = Object.keys(myObject)to get the keys. Check if a
myStringexist in the arraymyKeysusing nativevar matchingKey = myKeys.indexOf(myString) !== -1Processing an array? Use this:
var matchingKeys = myKeys.filter(function(key){ return key.indexOf(myString) !== -1 });Get the value using
myObject[matchingKey].Processing an array? Use this:
var matchingValues = matchingKeys .map(function(key){ return myObject[key] });No need to check array-boundaries or sizes. It's 100% boundary-safe.
I think that the more important questions you need to be asking yourself wrt your code are:
- What am I really trying to accomplish? (Answering this question will ultimately resolve your uncertainty related to whether you need to create a new object every time or, maybe, modify in place etc.)
- Am I using the right data-structure for the task? Look, you've built your data-structure from hash-tables, each with a single key! Not only that, the same key repeats in every such hash-table! What would you lose if you used just the value from that hash-table instead of the entire hash-table?
- This has become a mantra, but it is as true as ever: Make It Work, Make It Right, Make It Fast. Do not optimize unless the profiler tells you to. And most certainly not before you are absolutely confident that you made it right.
As an example of how your data-structure could've been made different such as to allow you to make filtering more straightforward:
var types = {
'integer': 'int',
'character': 'char',
'float': 'float',
'double': 'double',
'string': 'str',
'boolean': 'bool'
};
function filterTypes(accepted) {
var result = {};
for (var type in types)
if (accepted.indexOf(type) > -1)
result[type] = types[type];
return result;
}
// filterTypes(['integer', 'float', 'double']);
// { integer: 'int',
// float: 'float',
// double: 'double' }
And this is all there is to it. I would also question the purpose of these types in JavaScript, but I assumed they aren't to be implemented in JavaScript, just some kind of labels for some other programming language.
Note, additionally, that since the types hash-table is relatively small, there is no point of copying the keys to check against into another hash-table (to achieve faster lookup instead of indexOf). With this number of types indexOf will most likely outperform hash-table lookup, even more importantly. It offers a simpler solution, which works with acceptable speed.
If you're working with arrays of objects in JavaScript, you may find yourself needing to filter the array based on a specific value. Luckily, JavaScript provides us with a built-in method to do just that: Array.filter() . In this article, we'll explore how to to filter an array of objects by value.
Let's say we have an array of objects representing different people, with properties like "name", "age", and "occupation". We want to filter this array to only include people who are over the age of 30. Here's how we could do it:
const people = [
{ name: "Alice", age: 25, occupation: "Engineer" },
{ name: "Bob", age: 35, occupation: "Teacher" },
{ name: "Charlie", age: 42, occupation: "Doctor" },
{ name: "Dave", age: 28, occupation: "Writer" },
];
const filteredPeople = people.filter((person) => person.age > 30);
console.log(filteredPeople);
// Output: [{ name: "Bob", age: 35, occupation: "Teacher" }, { name: "Charlie", age: 42, occupation: "Doctor" }]Here, we're using the filter() method on the people array, and passing in a function as an argument. This function takes each object in the array as its argument (which we've named person), and returns a boolean value indicating whether that object should be included in the filtered array.
In this case, we're using a simple comparison to check if the person's age is greater than 30. If it is, the function returns true, and the person is included in the filtered array. If not, the function returns false, and the person is excluded.
This is just one example of how you can use Array.filter() to filter an array of objects by value. Depending on your specific use case, you may need to use more complex comparison logic or filter on different properties of the objects in the array. But with Array.filter( as your tool, you'll be able to filter your arrays with ease.