Here is an hypothetical example of some existing code using a FluentValidations RuleBuilder. Note that the first two validations use the same condition. Is it possible to group them together with When? It does not seem to be available directly off of the RuleBuilder instance but is there another approach?
return ruleBuilder
.NotEmpty().WithMessage("This field is required")
.When(someConditionIsTrue)
.Matches(new Regex("^(\\d{5})", RegexOptions.Compiled, _timeLimit))
.WithMessage("Must be a valid postal code.")
.When(someConditionIsTrue)
.MaximumLength(10).WithMessage("Text must be 10 characters or less");
Related
My bot asks: 'how do you (i.e. customer) want to pay for this product?'
Customer says: 'part in cash and the difference in 48x'
What the customer is saying above is that he wants to pay in cash and use financing. And that financing should consider 48 installments.
Entities:
paymentType: {cash, financed} ; Financed includes 48x as a synonym
numInstallments: {12x, 24x, 36x, 48x} ; 48x is the number of installments desired
Using the GUI only, how to do this:
IF user says '48x' THEN simultaneously add 'financed' to the paymentType list AND set numInstallments equal to '48x' ?
Apparently the GUI doesn't allow me to do that unless I'm doing something wrong (see below the screen which allows a parameter to be mapped to an entity and notice that this dropdown apparently allows selection of a single entity and not two, which is what I need).
How to solve this problem in an easy way through the GUI?
I don't know if what you have in mind is actually feasible in this case.
What you could do is keep the intent and entities as-is and then create several conditions in the page where you fill this parameters or another page (i think this is preferred).
In that page you can put different routes where your conditions are true that modify your parameters as you wish.
For example, after asking the user how they'd like to pay, you can have a route going to a "Set parameters" page which has several routes:
First route has a condition $session.params.numeroDeParcelas != null (you know the user has asked a specific number of installments, so handle the case by setting the parameters you need in this route (under parameters in the route write paymentType : "financed")
Second route has another condition, for example $session.params.numeroDeParcelas = null (you know the user hasn't asked for financing, so set the same parameter as before to "cash")
and so on, until you've exhausted your user cases (all payment methods, possibly all types of financing).
Pay attention: the routes are always evaluated in order so make sure to keep this in mind while writing/ordering them: be specific to avoid fulfilling the wrong one by mistake (e.g. by creating compound conditions, chaining parameter checks as in $session.params.numeroDeParcelas = null AND $session.params. numInstallments = "36x"
I am working on a service that provides information about a few related entities, somewhat like a database. Suppose that there's calls to retrieve information about a school:
service MySchool {
rpc GetClassRoom (ClassRoomRequest) returns (ClassRoom);
rpc GetStudent (StudentRequest) returns (Student);
}
Now, suppose that I want to find out a class room's information, I'd receive a proto that looks like so:
message ClassRoom {
string id = 1;
string address = 2;
string teacher = 3;
}
Sometimes I also want to know all of the students of the classroom. I am struggling to think which is the better design pattern.
Option A) Add an extra rpc like so: rpc GetClassRoomStudents (ClassRoomRequest) returns (ClassRoomStudents), where ClassRoomStudents has a single field repeated Student students. This technique requires more than one call to get all the information that we want (and many if we wanted to know information for more than one classroom).
Option B) Add an extra repeated Student students field to the ClassRoom proto, and B') Fill it up only when necessary, or B") Fill it up whenever the server receives a GetClassRoom call. This may sometimes fetch extra information, or lead to ambiguity according to what fields are filled up.
I am not sure what's the best / most conventional way of dealing with this. How have some of you dealt with this?
There is no simple answer. It's a tradeoff between simplicity (option A) and performance (option B), and it depends on the situation which solution is best.
In general, I'd recommend to go with the simple solution first, unless your measurements demonstrate that it leads to performance issues. At that point, it's easy to add repeated Student students to ClassRoom and a field bool fetch_students [default=false] to ClassRoomRequest. Then clients are free to continue using the simple API, or choose to upgrade to the more performant API if they need to.
Note that this isn't specific to gRPC; the same issue is seen in REST APIs, and basically almost any request/response model.
The following is a basic drools syntax:
$customer : Customer( )
Account( ) from $customer.accounts
As far as I know the first line create a new variable and assign it to the fact.
However I can't quite understand the second line especially what the "Account()" part means...
You have written class Customer, or must know it to understand what's going on here. Presumably it contains a Collection<Account> accounts (see note), which is (by the engine) retrieved one by one so that the rule fires for each Account object contained in Customer's object.
The rule will fire once for each Account object stored in any of the collections contained in all the Customer facts in working memory, with $customer being bound to the containing Customer.
You can bind another variable to Account.
Note: It could also contain a field Account accounts, but I hope the name was chosen carefully.
I would like to know if it is possible to disable the validation for a subset of modelelements which are specified in the metamodel.
The problem is that I'm getting some validation-errors from the Xtexteditor while writting my dsl-file. So my idea is to disable the validation for exactly this modelelement.
I try to build a real simple textual notation and want to serialize the (valid) model while saving the file. The saved model is modified during the saving process, so it is
valid at the end.
Regards,
Alex
Lets beginn with the grammer:
I'am working on an imported metamodel (UML2):
import "http://www.eclipse.org/uml2/4.0.0/UML"
Then I create all the necessary parserules to define a classdiagram. In my case the problem appears
in the parserrule for associations between classes:
AssociationClass_Impl returns AssociationClass:
{AssociationClass} 'assoc' name=ID'{'
(ownedAttribute+=Property_Impl)*
'}';
And of course the parserrule for properties:
Property_Impl returns Property:
name=ID ':' type=[Type|QualifiedName]
(association=[AssociationClass|QualifiedName])?
;
Now some words to the problem itself. While editing the xtext-file in the xtexteditor of the runtime eclipse, the build model is validated. The problem is here that the metamodel itself has several constraints for an AssociationClass (screenshot not possible yet ):
Multiple markers at this line
- The feature 'memberEnd' of 'org.eclipse.uml2.uml.internal.impl.AssociationClassImpl#142edebe{platform:/resource/aaa/test.mydsl#//Has}'
with 0 values must have at least 2 values
- The feature 'relatedElement' of 'org.eclipse.uml2.uml.internal.impl.AssociationClassImpl#142edebe{platform:/resource/aaa/test.mydsl#//Has}'
with 0 values must have at least 1 values
- The feature 'endType' of 'org.eclipse.uml2.uml.internal.impl.AssociationClassImpl#142edebe{platform:/resource/aaa/test.mydsl#//Has}'
with 0 values must have at least 1 values
- An association has to have min. two ownedends.
And now I wanted to know if it is possible to disable the validation for exactly this modelelement. So I can hide the errorinformation from the user. Because I want to serialize the created xtextmodel in the next step and will do some modeltransformations.
Seems like UML registers this validator in the global singleton registry. So you basically need to avoid using the registry. You can do that by binding a different element in your runtime modul:
public EValidator.Registry bindEValidatorRegistry() {
// return an empty one as opposed to EValidator.Registry.INSTANCE
return new org.eclipse.emf.ecore.impl.ValidationDelegateRegistryImpl();
}
We are beginning to allow multi-national registrations and have the requirement to split the phone number entry in the OnePage checkout billing.
We want to add Country Code and split the rest into Area Code Number and Extension fields. Then we will need to concatenate them into one before storing them.
How would I accomplish that?
Could you not just use a hidden field and javascript? So add 2 fields, then use onchange="phonecat()" on each to trigger a function that concatenates then values and assigns them to the pre-existing telephone field, which you have changed to be type="hidden".
Something like the following in JQuery:
function phonecat() {
$(function(){
newphone = jQuery("#initialphone").val() + jQuery("#latterphone").val();
jQuery("#billing\\:telephone").val(newphone);
}(this.jQuery));
}
I've not tested this exact solution, but I've used something similar in the cart. Only the (now hidden) proper field will be passed and used.
File is .../persistent/checkout/onepage/billing/phtml in 1.6 (without persistent/ earlier). And you'll need to define the function somewhere too.