90

I have an object with several properties. I would like to remove any properties that have falsy values.

This can be achieved with compact on arrays, but what about objects?

1
  • To avoid copy-pasting this across repositories, you can use Bit to import this component (which has 3 tests passing & MIT license). You can also try this NPM package (which might be an overkill for a small component). Commented Apr 20, 2017 at 8:18

13 Answers 13

174

Since Underscore version 1.7.0, you can use _.pick:

_.pick(sourceObj, _.identity)

Explanation

The second parameter to _.pick can be a predicate function for selecting values. Values for which the predicate returns truthy are picked, and values for which the predicate returns falsy are ignored.

pick _.pick(object, *keys)

Return a copy of the object, filtered to only have values for the allowed keys (or array of valid keys). Alternatively accepts a predicate indicating which keys to pick.

_.identity is a helper function that returns its first argument, which means it also works as a predicate function that selects truthy values and rejects falsy ones. The Underscore library also comes with a bunch of other predicates, for instance _.pick(sourceObj, _.isBoolean) would retain only boolean properties.

If you use this technique a lot, you might want to make it a bit more expressive:

var pickNonfalsy = _.partial(_.pick, _, _.identity); // Place this in a library module or something
pickNonfalsy(sourceObj);

Underscore version 1.6.0 provided _.pick as well, but it didn't accept a predicate function instead of a list of keys.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

8 Comments

Special thanks for mentioning _.identity function, very handy.
This has been extremely handy! It's also possible to use _.omit(sourceObj, _.isUndefined) to remove only undefined values (allowing false, null, 0).
Its also possible to do pick(obj, Boolean) to eliminate falsey values that same approach can be used when arr.filter(Boolean) to clean an array from falsey values...
In ES6, this turns into _.pick(sourceObj, prop => prop)
In lodash 4.4.0 _.pick works with property names, for this functionality as mentioned in post use _.pickBy
|
49

You could make your own underscore plugin (mixin) :

_.mixin({
  compactObject: function(o) {
    _.each(o, function(v, k) {
      if(!v) {
        delete o[k];
      }
    });
    return o;
  }
});

And then use it as a native underscore method :

var o = _.compactObject({
  foo: 'bar',
  a: 0,
  b: false,
  c: '',
  d: null,
  e: undefined
});

Update

As @AndreiNeculau pointed out, this mixin affects the original object, while the original compact underscore method returns a copy of the array.
To solve this issue and make our compactObject behave more like it's cousin, here's a minor update:

_.mixin({
  compactObject : function(o) {
     var clone = _.clone(o);
     _.each(clone, function(v, k) {
       if(!v) {
         delete clone[k];
       }
     });
     return clone;
  }
});

3 Comments

Since the question has an underscore reference, it would be good to mention that this does not behave like _.compact. It will delete properties, rather than create a shallow clone with truthy values only. See stackoverflow.com/a/19750822/465684 below
@AndreiNeculau You're right! I seem to have missed that earlier. See my updated answer.
Why first copy all the properties of an object, then loop through them and delete falsy ones? That's unperformant. Moreover, using delete is generally discouraged as it immediately exposes properties with the same name from the prototype chain and also hurts performance due to "hidden classes" (V8) - changing the object structure causes the engine to do extra work. The best and shortest solution would be _.pick(o, _.identity).
47

Quick 'n Clear: _.omitBy( source, i => !i );

This is stated in an inverse fashion to Emil's answer. This way imho reads clearer; it's more self explanatory.

Slightly less clean if you don't have the luxury of ES6: _.omitBy( source, function(i){return !i;});

Alternate: _.omitBy( source, _.isEmpty)

Using _.isEmpty, instead of _.identity for truthiness, will also conveniently remove empty arrays and objects from the collection and perhaps inconveniently remove numbers and dates. Thus the outcome is NOT an exact answer to the OP's question, however it could be useful when looking to remove empty collections.

4 Comments

In Lodash 4.0, this functionality is now under omitBy. lodash.com/docs#omitBy
I believe this is the same as: _.pick(source, i => i); which avoids the negation
@JeffLowery This is even better, in Lodash, because the default predicate is the identity function! _.pickBy(source) is all that's needed.
Note: Numbers are considered empty. _.isEmpty(5) === true. Thus values that are numbers will be dropped.
22

With lodash's transform,

_.transform(obj, function(res, v, k) {
  if (v) res[k] = v;
});

5 Comments

whit lodash's _.pick(obj, _.identity); shorter ^_^
This answer or @evilive's comment under it IS the answer.
a shorter variation, based on the above comment, would be var compactObject = _.partialRight(_.pick, _.identity);
yse, _.pickBy(object) is all you need
19
Object.keys(o).forEach(function(k) {
    if (!o[k]) {
        delete o[k];
    }
});

4 Comments

And one can use underscore for .keys and .forEach.
How would this look in Underscore, then? Trying to piece it together…
+1 this is awesome man. please give me the link of forEach method of JS
9

You can create a shallow clone:

_(obj).reduce(function(a,v,k){ 
     if(v){ a[k]=v; } 
     return a; 
},{});

Comments

5

for object use delete.

for(var k in obj){

  if(obj.hasOwnProperty(k) && !obj[k]){
    delete obj[k];
  }
}

1 Comment

since he wants an underscore solution, you could iterate over the array using one of underscore's methods
5

Suddenly I needed create a function to remove recursively falsies. I hope this helps. I'm using Lodash.

var removeFalsies = function (obj) {
    return _.transform(obj, function (o, v, k) {
        if (v && typeof v === 'object') {
            o[k] = _.removeFalsies(v);
        } else if (v) {
            o[k] = v;
        }
    });
};

_.mixin({ 'removeFalsies': removeFalsies });

Then you can use it:

var o = _.removeFalsies({
  foo: 'bar',
  a: 0,
  b: false,
  c: '',
  d: null,
  e: undefined,
  obj: {
    foo: 'bar',
    a: 0,
    b: false,
    c: '',
    d: null,
    e: undefined
  }
});

// {
//   foo: 'bar',
//   obj: {
//     foo: 'bar'
//   }
// }

Comments

2

I do understand the question is asking specifically how to do this with underscore, but since I came here from google, I wanted to add how to do this using ES6, plus, I really like this method

Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(obj).filter(([k,v],i)=>v))

The reason is because it creates a new Object (I want it to create a new object without modifying the previous one), uses no libraries, defines no variables, and it doesn't pollute the current scope.

Comments

1

To add to gion_13's answer:

_.mixin({
  compactObject : function(o) {
     var newObject = {};
     _.each(o, function(v, k) {
       if(v !== null && v !== undefined) {
         newObject[k] = v
       }
     });
     return newObject;
  }
});

This one creates a new object and adds keys and values instead of cloning everything and deleting key-value pairs. Minor difference.

But more importantly, checks explicitly for null and undefined instead of falsey, which will delete key-value pairs that have false as a value.

Comments

1

You should use pickBy from lodash.

The default signature of pickBy is _.(sourceObj, [_.identity]) so it will remove empty properties

_.pickBy(sourceObj);

Comments

0

in the lodash you do like this:

_.pickBy(object, _.identity);

Comments

-1

Although _.compact is documented for use in arrays. It seems to work for objects too. I just ran the following in chrome, opera and firefox consoles:

var obj = {first: 1, second: null, third: 3, fourth: function(){return 5}}
undefined
_.compact(obj)

[1, 3, function()]

UPDATE: As the sample indicates calling _.compact on an object will drop the keys and return a compacted array.

3 Comments

But it still returns an array. The keys are lost.
You're right. Do I delete my answer then? Or does stackoverflow prefer something else?
I don't know a community preference, but if you're fine with leaving it could have value of preventing someone else from adding a similar answer.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.