fixing generator endpoint exports.update save function

[unoriginalscreenname]

I ran into an issue where doing a put to my endpoint resulted in mongoose returning:

TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'save'

I was able to fix this by changing _.merge to _.extend, then calling save directly on the results returned by findById instead of the variable "updated".

Not sure if anybody else was having this issue, but here is what i did.

// Updates an existing list in the DB.
exports.update = function(req, res) {
  if(req.body._id) { delete req.body._id; }

  List.findById(req.params.id, function (err, list) {
    if (err) { return handleError(err); }
    if(!list) { return res.send(404); }

    // var updated = _.merge(list, req.body);

    _.extend(list, req.body);

    //changed from updated to 'list'
    list.save(function (err) {
      if (err) { return handleError(err); }
      return res.json(200, list);
    });
  });
};

[JaKXz]

Thanks for pointing this out @ericmcgregor, I'm curious if anyone else has run into this problem.

[pasine]

Same problem here.
I have fixed the issue by using _.extend instead of _.merge.

[agaskell]

Same thing for me - extend fixed it. Thanks @ericmcgregor.

[StevePrice]

Verified that the above code solved the problem. Big thanks to eric

[christianhuening]

WOAH many thanks on that one! I were reallly going mad the last couple of days 'cause of that

[TWKDreamState]

Huge thanks for this - was struggling to solve why my promises were not working as expected. For me, this affected embedded documents.

If my model contained ..

[{user: jon},{user: bob},{user: eric}]

... an update would render the embedded documents as ...

[{user: jon},{user: jon},{user: jon}]

... all with identical _id as well.

_extend has fixed this for me.

[unoriginalscreenname]

I also posted another issue involving a problem i was having updating objects on the client side through socket. kind of similar situation.

#519

[ewstefan]

I ran into the same problem and @ericmcgregor's code works for me. The lodash documentation says that _extend creates a flat copy while _merge is deep. I however see it work with nested objects. That's where I am confused. There probably was a good reason for using _merge instead of _extend.

[kingcody]

@ewstefan I'm with you. In reading the lodash docs, it would indeed appear that merge is what should be used here. I'm curious as to the actual issue at hand.