Get item by index in a tree control

actionscript-3apache-flextree

I'm doing a drag and drop operation on a tree using some help from Adobe's quick Starts:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/quickstart/working_with_tree/

The code suggested is roughly this:

var dropTarget:Tree = Tree(evt.currentTarget);
var i:int = dropTarget.calculateDropIndex(evt);
myTree.selectedIndex = i;
var node:XML = myTree.selectedItem as XML;
var drugXML:XML = XML(Tree(evt.dragInitiator).selectedItem);
if(node.localName() != drugXML.localName()){
    DragManager.showFeedback(DragManager.NONE);
    return;
}else{
    DragManager.showFeedback(DragManager.COPY);
}

This is all well and good, but I don't like the way it is selecting(highlighting) each item in the tree I'm dropping on, it's less clear where the item is going to drop. I want to implement this without the selection but there doesn't seem to be a way to get the XML of the node using just the index. I would like something like this:

var dropTarget:Tree = Tree(evt.currentTarget);
var i:int = dropTarget.calculateDropIndex(evt);

var node:XML = myTree.itemAt(i) as XML; 
//AFAIK itemAt(i) or anything like it does not exist

var drugXML:XML = XML(Tree(evt.dragInitiator).selectedItem);
if(node.localName() != drugXML.localName()){
    DragManager.showFeedback(DragManager.NONE);
    return;
}else{
    DragManager.showFeedback(DragManager.COPY);
}

So does anyone know what function is, or what I can do to extend the tree to have a function, like "itemAt(i)"

Thanks
~Mike

EDIT: I forgot to post that my current workaround is setting the selectedIndex = -1 after I get my node:XML. I'm afraid that if something bogs on the processor the user may see it select then deselect.

Best Answer

Much simpler, though there may be gotchas:

var index:int = ...
var renderer:IListItemRenderer = tree.indexToItemRenderer(index);
var item:Object = renderer.data;

This won't work if the index is offscreen (since there might not be an active itemRenderer); shouldn't be an issue for drag and drop.

Related Solutions

Sql – the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree

Now that MySQL 8.0 supports recursive queries, we can say that all popular SQL databases support recursive queries in standard syntax.

WITH RECURSIVE MyTree AS (
    SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE ParentId IS NULL
    UNION ALL
    SELECT m.* FROM MyTABLE AS m JOIN MyTree AS t ON m.ParentId = t.Id
)
SELECT * FROM MyTree;

I tested recursive queries in MySQL 8.0 in my presentation Recursive Query Throwdown in 2017.

Below is my original answer from 2008:

There are several ways to store tree-structured data in a relational database. What you show in your example uses two methods:

Adjacency List (the "parent" column) and
Path Enumeration (the dotted-numbers in your name column).

Another solution is called Nested Sets, and it can be stored in the same table too. Read "Trees and Hierarchies in SQL for Smarties" by Joe Celko for a lot more information on these designs.

I usually prefer a design called Closure Table (aka "Adjacency Relation") for storing tree-structured data. It requires another table, but then querying trees is pretty easy.

I cover Closure Table in my presentation Models for Hierarchical Data with SQL and PHP and in my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.

CREATE TABLE ClosureTable (
  ancestor_id   INT NOT NULL REFERENCES FlatTable(id),
  descendant_id INT NOT NULL REFERENCES FlatTable(id),
  PRIMARY KEY (ancestor_id, descendant_id)
);

Store all paths in the Closure Table, where there is a direct ancestry from one node to another. Include a row for each node to reference itself. For example, using the data set you showed in your question:

INSERT INTO ClosureTable (ancestor_id, descendant_id) VALUES
  (1,1), (1,2), (1,4), (1,6),
  (2,2), (2,4),
  (3,3), (3,5),
  (4,4),
  (5,5),
  (6,6);

Now you can get a tree starting at node 1 like this:

SELECT f.* 
FROM FlatTable f 
  JOIN ClosureTable a ON (f.id = a.descendant_id)
WHERE a.ancestor_id = 1;

The output (in MySQL client) looks like the following:

+----+
| id |
+----+
|  1 | 
|  2 | 
|  4 | 
|  6 | 
+----+

In other words, nodes 3 and 5 are excluded, because they're part of a separate hierarchy, not descending from node 1.

Re: comment from e-satis about immediate children (or immediate parent). You can add a "path_length" column to the ClosureTable to make it easier to query specifically for an immediate child or parent (or any other distance).

INSERT INTO ClosureTable (ancestor_id, descendant_id, path_length) VALUES
  (1,1,0), (1,2,1), (1,4,2), (1,6,1),
  (2,2,0), (2,4,1),
  (3,3,0), (3,5,1),
  (4,4,0),
  (5,5,0),
  (6,6,0);

Then you can add a term in your search for querying the immediate children of a given node. These are descendants whose path_length is 1.

SELECT f.* 
FROM FlatTable f 
  JOIN ClosureTable a ON (f.id = a.descendant_id)
WHERE a.ancestor_id = 1
  AND path_length = 1;

+----+
| id |
+----+
|  2 | 
|  6 | 
+----+

Re comment from @ashraf: "How about sorting the whole tree [by name]?"

Here's an example query to return all nodes that are descendants of node 1, join them to the FlatTable that contains other node attributes such as name, and sort by the name.

SELECT f.name
FROM FlatTable f 
JOIN ClosureTable a ON (f.id = a.descendant_id)
WHERE a.ancestor_id = 1
ORDER BY f.name;

Re comment from @Nate:

SELECT f.name, GROUP_CONCAT(b.ancestor_id order by b.path_length desc) AS breadcrumbs
FROM FlatTable f 
JOIN ClosureTable a ON (f.id = a.descendant_id) 
JOIN ClosureTable b ON (b.descendant_id = a.descendant_id) 
WHERE a.ancestor_id = 1 
GROUP BY a.descendant_id 
ORDER BY f.name

+------------+-------------+
| name       | breadcrumbs |
+------------+-------------+
| Node 1     | 1           |
| Node 1.1   | 1,2         |
| Node 1.1.1 | 1,2,4       |
| Node 1.2   | 1,6         |
+------------+-------------+

A user suggested an edit today. SO moderators approved the edit, but I am reversing it.

The edit suggested that the ORDER BY in the last query above should be ORDER BY b.path_length, f.name, presumably to make sure the ordering matches the hierarchy. But this doesn't work, because it would order "Node 1.1.1" after "Node 1.2".

If you want the ordering to match the hierarchy in a sensible way, that is possible, but not simply by ordering by the path length. For example, see my answer to MySQL Closure Table hierarchical database - How to pull information out in the correct order.

C++ – Why does the C++ STL not provide any “tree” containers

There are two reasons you could want to use a tree:

You want to mirror the problem using a tree-like structure:
For this we have boost graph library

Or you want a container that has tree like access characteristics For this we have

std::map (and std::multimap)
std::set (and std::multiset)

Basically the characteristics of these two containers is such that they practically have to be implemented using trees (though this is not actually a requirement).

See also this question: C tree Implementation

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Sql – the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree

C++ – Why does the C++ STL not provide any “tree” containers

Related Topic