I am trying to overwrite a bulk clone function.
I just want to clone some values, and the rest assign a static value. For example, I just want to clone the name and description values, and the date I want to assign it the current date.
And well I don't know how to do it.
use \Backpack\CRUD\app\Http\Controllers\Operations\BulkCloneOperation { bulkClone as traitBulkClone; }
public function bulkClone($id) {
// your custom code here
$this->traitBulkClone($id);
}
TLDR: The most efficient way would probably be to overwrite the replicate() method on your model. Note that it is not a Backpack method, but an Eloquent method that BulkCloneOperation uses to duplicate a particular entry.
WHY?
Inside the BulkCloneOperation that you're using, you'll notice the route calls the bulkClone() method, that itself is just making some calls to the replicate() method on the model. That means you have two options to override this behaviour:
(Option A). Override the bulkClone() method in your CrudController. This will override the behaviour only on that particular admin operation.
(Option B). Override the replicate() method in you Model. That way, any time replicate() is called (by your admin panel or any other part of your software), the duplication is done in the way you specified.
In most cases, I think Option B is more appropriate, since it would avoid future code duplication. Here's Laravel's replicate() method at this time, just copy-pasting it into your model and modifying it to fit your needs is the best solution, if you ask me:
/**
* Clone the model into a new, non-existing instance.
*
* #param array|null $except
* #return static
*/
public function replicate(array $except = null)
{
$defaults = [
$this->getKeyName(),
$this->getCreatedAtColumn(),
$this->getUpdatedAtColumn(),
];
$attributes = Arr::except(
$this->getAttributes(), $except ? array_unique(array_merge($except, $defaults)) : $defaults
);
return tap(new static, function ($instance) use ($attributes) {
$instance->setRawAttributes($attributes);
$instance->setRelations($this->relations);
$instance->fireModelEvent('replicating', false);
});
}
Related
I'm trying to create a ticketing system that's linked to timesheets. Whenever someone updates a ticket, they have the option of submitting how much time has been spent on it, in a time_spent form object. Timesheets are polymorphically linked to many objects.
I want to create a trait, CreatesTimesheets, then apply that to relevant models so that:
Each of those models gets a timesheets() function.
It overrides the update() method of each model that it's a trait of, to check whether any time was submitted in time_spent.
It's the second bit that isn't working. My code is as below, and when I update the model (which works fine), this code doesn't fire at all, even testing it with a simple dd().
How do I fix this?
<?php
namespace App\Traits;
use App\Models\HR\Timesheet;
use Auth;
trait CreatesTimesheets
{
public function update(array $attributes = [], array $options = [])
{
dd('test');
if ($request->time_spent)
{
$timesheet = new Timesheet;
$timesheet->time_logged_in_mins = $request->time_spent;
$timesheet->appointment_id = Auth::user()->appointedJobIDToUse();
$this->timesheets()->save($timesheet);
}
parent::update($attributes, $options);
}
public function timesheets()
{
return $this->morphToMany('App\Models\HR\Timesheet', 'timesheetable');
}
}
I'm converting a Laravel app that was using Backpack across to Laravel Nova.
One of my models Images allows the user to add multiple images with a base set of information from the initial form. The form in this instance asks how many images are in the series via a dropdown and then has a number of relevant fields that will be used for all of the new images being added. When saving, in the controller, I'm using the following eloquent feature to run a number of tasks and insert the required number of rows:
public function store(StoreRequest $request){
//Get some info
//Make some tweaks
//Use for loop to save multiple records
for ($k = 0; $k < $addim; $k++){
//Do some stuff
parent::storeCrud(${"request"});
}
}
This works perfectly and inserts however many records are required.
In Laravel Nova, I can't see a way to use this same approach. Using an event listener in the model doesn't seem like the right way to save multiple records and I can't find any reference to a controller function I can use to achieve this.
I would really appreciate some thoughts and guidance on the best way to complete this part.
If someone has stumbled upon this type of problem.
You can use Laravel Observers.
In order to restrict the event to be fired only when resource is created and only using nova you can declare Observer in NovaServiceProvider.php as follows
/**
* Bootstrap any application services.
*
* #return void
*/
public function boot()
{
parent::boot();
Nova::serving(function () {
Image::observe(ImageObserver::class);
});
}
Above code will only be triggered when your image object is modified using nova system only.
For ref Observer code will look like following
<?php
namespace App\Observers;
use App\Models\Document;
class ImageObserver
{
/**
* Handle the Image "created" event.
*
* #param \App\Models\Image $image
* #return void
*/
public function created(Image $image)
{
//logic to create multiple records
}
}
You can use the saving event in an observable
https://laravel.com/docs/5.8/eloquent#events
How to add a custom action to an existing Controller in Shopware?
Examples (url structure):
/account/bonus
/account/custom
/account/...
Usually it's easier and cleaner to create a new controller for that purpose, but in some cases it's necessary.
You should not replace the "account" controller.
You can define you own action for existing controller with following:
public static function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return [
'Enlight_Controller_Action_Frontend_Account_MyBonus' => 'onAccountMyBonus',
];
}
and then
public function onAccountMyBonus(\Enlight_Event_EventArgs $args)
{
$args->setProcessed(true);
.....
your code here
}
Spoiler: Replace the controller
There is no cleaner way than to replace the whole controller and extend it's functionality, so it's nearly as clean as Shopware's hooks.
Guide
Add a new Subscriber to your Plugin
class AccountSubscriber implements SubscriberInterface
{
/**
* #return array
*/
public static function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return array(
'Enlight_Controller_Dispatcher_ControllerPath_Frontend_Account' => 'getAccountController'
);
}
/**
* #return string
*/
public function getAccountController()
{
return $this->getPath() . '/Controllers/Frontend/AccountExtended.php';
}
/**
* #return string
*/
public function getPath()
{
$plugin = Shopware()->Container()->get('kernel')->getPlugins()['AcmeYourPlugin'];
return $plugin->getPath();
}
}
Downsides
Unfortunately some controller have private methods which impact the logic. Like the Account Controller. So it's not always possible to simply extend the controller.
In the end, try to add a new controller with a new route.
It's easier, and cleaner.
There is a cleaner way than replacing the whole Controller.
It is also not recommended to replace a whole controller due to the lack of update compatibility.
In the worst case something like that could kill the whole website.
A while ago I created a thread in the shopware forum (german) discussing the exact same issue. I wanted to extend an existing finishAction() in the checkout Controller.
public function onPostDispatchCheckout(\Enlight_Controller_ActionEventArgs $args)
{
/** #var \Enlight_Controller_Action $controller */
$controller = $args->getSubject();
/** #var \Enlight_Controller_Request_Request $request */
$request = $controller->Request();
if ($request->getActionName() !== 'finish') {
return;
}
// do your stuff here
}
So even though it is not the exact same issue you have, the procedure is quite the same.
First off you subscribe to the controller (in my case the PostDispatchCheckout Controller) afterwards you edit the controller in your Bootstrap.php
To make sure, that it just alters a specific action you have to use the if-construction so your code gets just triggered on the wished action [in my case the finishAction()].
I hope this helps. What wonders me though is why you have to add a new action to an already existing controller. I can think of no situation where something like that is more practicable than creating a complete new custom controller.
Kind regards,
Max
Well, code describes it all. I've an Entity Service Provider, which pass an instance of Playlist Model, which supposed to get an array as it's first constructor parameter. How to pass that parameter through app->bind? Knowing that EntityServiceProvider is automagically injected when referenced in the controller.
// Current Code
/**
* Playlist Entity
*
* #return Playlist\PlaylistEntity
*/
$this->app->bind('Playlist\PlaylistEntity', function($app)
{
return new PlaylistEntity($app->make('Playlist\PlaylistRepositoryInterface'));
});
// Should be something like this:
/**
* Playlist Entity
*
* #return Playlist\PlaylistEntity
*/
$this->app->bind('Playlist\PlaylistEntity', function($app)
{
return new PlaylistEntity($app->make('Playlist\PlaylistRepositoryInterface', $parameters));
});
Similar case: Laravel 4: Passing data from make to the service provider
Alex Russell's comment works for me as well.
The answer in the 'similar case' post is correct as far as I can tell. $this->app->bind('Whatever', function ($app, $params) { var_dump($params); }); followed by App::make('Whatever', [1, 2, 3]); var_dumps the [1, 2, 3] array for me.
In Laravel 5.4 the ability to pass config parameters when resolving from the container using App::make() was removed and subsequently re-implemented as App::makeWith().
BTW I tried to make this a comment on the previous answer, but it didn't let me. Maybe due to not enough experience points?
Thanks #yevgeniy-afanasyev for pointing out the problems when mocking. If you need to mock these instances, you could go for Taylor Otwell's early suggestion here: https://github.com/laravel/ideas/issues/391#issuecomment-285197048
I just needed that and it worked well. Just return a closure and call it, when you ::make.
// Service Provider
$this->app->bind(MyClass::class, function ($app) {
return function($param) : MyClass
{
return new MyClass($param);
}
}
// ::make
$myInstance = App::make(MyClass::class)($myParameter);
// mock
$myMock = Mockery::mock(new MyClass($myParameter));
$this->instance(MyClass::class, function($param) use ($myMock) { return $myMock; });
I'm trying to overwrite some methods in models, and I'm on a mission to avoid overwrites and rewrites of models for maximum compatibility with other modules.
I figured the best way would be to simply decorate models after they are loaded from Magento, however as far as I can tell because of the way the observer pattern in Magento is written it's impossible to accomplish this. ( As Magento always returns the reference to $this ), and the lack of interfaces might also cause trouble later down the road? See this partial of Mage/Core/Model/Abstract.php
/**
* Processing object after load data
*
* #return Mage_Core_Model_Abstract
*/
protected function _afterLoad()
{
Mage::dispatchEvent('model_load_after', array('object'=>$this));
Mage::dispatchEvent($this->_eventPrefix.'_load_after', $this->_getEventData());
return $this;
}
My question boils down to the title, is there a decent way of accomplishing this?, or am I simply stuck with rewrites :(?
The path I would like to take is;
On event [model]_load_after
return new Decorator($event->getObject())
Where the decorator class in my case would be something like;
public function __construct(Mage_Sales_Model_Order_Invoice $model)
{
parent::__construct($model); // sets $this->model on parent class, see below
}
// overwrite the getIncrementId method
public function getIncrementId()
{
return '12345';
}
// partial of parent class
public function __call($method, array $args)
{
return call_user_func_array(array($this->model, $method), $args);
}
And just some pseudo-code for extra clarification;
$model = Mage::getModel('sales/order_invoice')->load(1);
echo get_class($model);
Namespace_Decorator **INSTEAD OF** Mage_Sales_Model_...
echo $model->getIncrementId();
'12345' **INSTEAD OF** '1000001' ( or whatever the format might be )
Thanks for your time reading / commenting, I really hope there actually is a way to accomplish this in a clean fashion without making use of code overrides or rewrites of models.
Edit: extra clarification
Basically what I would like is to return an instance of the Decorator in a few cases, the sales_invoice being one of them and customer the other. So when any load() call is made on these models, it will always return the instance of the Decorator instead of the Model. Only method calls that the decorator overrides would be returned, and any other method calls would "proxied" through __call to the decorated object.
I'm not sure if I got your question right but here goes.
I think you can use the event [model]_load_after and simply do this:
$object = $event->getObject();
$object->setIncrementId('12345');
Or if you want to use a decorator class make it look like this:
public function __construct(Mage_Sales_Model_Order_Invoice $model)
{
parent::__construct($model);
$model->setIncrementId($this->getIncrementId());
}
public function getIncrementId()
{
return '12345';
}
I know that this is not exactly a decorator pattern but it should work.
I know that when adding a new method to the 'decorator' class you need to add it to attach data to the main model.
This is just my idea. I haven't got an other.
[EDIT]
You can try to rewrite the load method on the object to make it return what you need. But I wouldn't go that way. You can end up screwing a lot of other things.
I don't think there is an other way to do it because load always returns the current object no mater what you do in the events dispatched in the method. see Mage_Core_Model_Abstract::load()
public function load($id, $field=null)
{
$this->_beforeLoad($id, $field);
$this->_getResource()->load($this, $id, $field);
$this->_afterLoad();
$this->setOrigData();
$this->_hasDataChanges = false;
return $this;
}
By making it return new Decorator($this), you might achieve what you need, but just make sure that when calling $model->doSomething() and doSomething() is not a method in your decorator you still end up calling the original method on the model.