I'll have some items in a model's database table that I more often that not won't want to include in queries for that model. So, rather than querying to exclude these items everywhere I call for the model, either directly or via a relationship, it would be nice to tell Laravel 'in one place' to exclude these items from all collections. The criteria for excluding will be a column value.
Perhaps somewhere in the model I can put this criteria?
Ideally the solution will also provide a way to easily explicitly re-include those excluded items in collections, at the point of querying.
Laravel's model scopes are almost there, but I need it the over way around. Perhaps scopes will solve the second part of my quest (in the paragraph above this one).
I found the answer: Global Scopes. https://laravel.com/docs/8.x/eloquent#global-scopes
I was previously looking at an older Laravel version's doc, which didn't have Global Scopes.
Related
I’m using the HasDuplicates trait on my Post custom entity.
The Post has 2 relations:
has many comments
has one author
How can I configure the duplicate functionality in order to duplicate a post record along with its relationships: comments and author?
I see in your documentation that I have the option of excluding relations, but not to include them.
The Varbox\Traits\HasDuplicates automatically duplicates all your eloquent model relationships by default, so that's why there's no option to include any relationships to be duplicated, because they all are duplicated by default.
Also, in the event where you don't want certain relations duplicated (such as belongs to relations), you have the option to exclude them (as you already stated): https://varbox.io/docs/2.x/duplicate-records#exclude-relations
So to answer your questions, you don't need to do anything to include your comments and author relations into the duplication functionality, as they will be included by default.
Suggestion: Depending on your database structure and logic architecture, I think you should consider converting the author relation into a belongs to, instead of has one, but that's up to you.
I'm working on a portal based on Orchard CMS. We're using Orchard to manage the "normal" content of the site, as well as to model what's essentially data for a small application embedded in it.
We figured that doing it that way is "recommended" for working in Orchard, and that it would save us duplicating a bunch of effort in features that Orchard already provides, mainly generating a good enough admin UI. This is also why we're using fields wherever possible.
However, for said application, the client wants to be able to display the data in the regular UI in a garden-variety datagrid that can be filtered, sorted, and paged.
I first tried to implement this by cobbling together a page with a bunch of form elements for the filtering, above a projection with filters bound to query string parameters. However, I ran into the following issues with this approach:
Filters for numeric fields crash when the value is missing - as would be pretty common to indicate that the given field shouldn't be considered when filtering. (This I could achieve by changing the implementation in the Orchard source, which would however make upgrading trickier later. I'd prefer to keep anything I haven't written untouched.)
It seems the sort order can only be defined in the administration UI, it doesn't seem to support tokens to allow for the field to sort by to be changed when querying.
So I decided to dump that approach and switched to trying to do this with just MVC controllers that access data using IContentQuery. However, there I found out that:
I have no clue how, if at all, it's possible to sort the query based on field values.
Or, for that matter, how / if I can filter.
I did take a look at the code of Orchard.Projections, however, how it handles sorting is pretty inscrutable to me, and there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to change the sort order for just one query either.
So, is there any way to achieve what I need here with the rest of the setup (which isn't little) unchanged, or am I in a trap here, and I'll have to move every single property I wish to use for sorting / filtering into a content part and code the admin UI myself? (Or do something ludicrous, like create one query for every sortable property and direction.)
EDIT: Another thought I had was having my custom content part duplicate the fields that are displayed in the datagrids into Hibernate-backed properties accessible to query code, and whenever the content item is updated, copy values from these fields into the properties before saving. However, again, I'm not sure if this is feasible, and how I would be able to modify a content item just before it's saved on update.
Right so I have actually done a similar thing here to you. I ended up going down both approaches, creating some custom filters for projections so I could manage filters on the frontend. It turned out pretty cool but in the end projections lacked the raw querying power I needed (I needed to filter and sort based on joins to aggregated tables which I think I decided I didn't know how I could do that in projections, or if its nature of query building would allow it). I then decided to move all my data into a record so I could query and filter it. This felt like the right way to go about it, since if I was building a UI to filter records it made sense those records should be defined in code. However, I was sorting on users where each site had different registration data associated to users and (I think the following is a terrible affliction many Orchard devs suffer from) I wanted to build a reusable, modular system so I wouldn't have to change anything, ever!
Didn't really work out quite like I hoped, but to eventually answer the question in your title: yes, you can query fields. Orchard projections builds an index that it uses for querying fields. You can access these in HQL, get the ids of the content items, then call getmany to get them all. I did this several years ago, and I cant remember much but I do remember having a distinctly unenjoyable time with it haha. So after you have an nhibernate session you can write your hql
select distinct civr.Id
from Orchard.ContentManagement.Records.ContentItemVersionRecord civr
join civ.ContentItemRecord cir
join ci.FieldIndexPartRecord fipr
join fipr.StringFieldIndexRecord sfir
This just shows you how to join to the field indexes. There are a few, for each different data type. This is the string one I'm joining here. They are all basically the same, with a PropertyName and value field. Hql allows you to add conditions to your join so we can use that to join with the relevant field index records. If you have a part called Group attached directly to your content type then it would be like this:
join fipr.StringFieldIndexRecord sfir
with sfir.PropertyName = 'MyContentType.Group.'
where sfir.Value = 'HR'
If your field is attached to a part, replace MyContentType with the name of your part. Hql is pretty awesome, can learn more here: https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/3.3/reference/en/html/queryhql.html But I dunno, it gave me a headache haha. At least HQL has documentation though, unlike Orchard's query layer. Also can always fall back to pure SQL when HQL wont do what you want, there is an option to write SQL queries from the NHibernate session.
Your other option is to index your content types with lucene (easy if you are using fields) then filter and search by that. I quite liked using that, although sometimes indexes are corrupted, or need to be rebuilt etc. So I've found it dangerous to rely on it for something that populates pages regularly.
And pretty much whatever you do, one query to filter and sort, then another query to getmany on the contentmanager to get the content items is what you should accept is the way to go. Good luck!
You can use indexing and the Orchard Search API for this. Sebastien demoed something similar to what you're trying to achieve at Orchard Harvest recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v5qSR4g7E0
In our GSA index of 500K documents half of the documents are coming from an internal bug tracking system.
We have been hearing some power users complain about results from the bug tracking system pushing down other useful results from many other sources.
We discussed about using result biasing to lower the importance of bug tracking documents but I am not very keen on this approach as I believe we should let GSA do its magic and decide on the relevancy of the results.
Instead what I want to provide users as an option is a UI (checkbox for each collection) where they can pick what collections they want to perform the search.
My non-default collections does not include everything that is under the default_collection. So when user checks each and every checkbox they may think that that is everything in the index while it is not.
Because of this I want the checkboxes to behave as exclude rather than include (i,e. check to exclude this collection).
Finally my question: Is there a way to search in the default collection but filter out results that belong to a specific collection (bug tracking collection).
When you want to use multiple collections you do &site=col1|col2|col3..
What I am after is something like &site=default_collection-col1 (that's a minus in between).
Is there a way to do this?
Any alternative approaches to this problem?
Personally, I would rethink the design of your collections and build more modular collections that you can include. That way as you mentioned you can include OR queries in your site include.
http://www.google.com/support/enterprise/static/gsa/docs/admin/70/gsa_doc_set/xml_reference/request_format.html#1076953
A less ideal but more specific solution to your problem is going to be do an exclude by URL in your search query, be aware this can appear in results query search box and looks ugly, but this can be fixed using a simple XSLT change.
To exclude results for a specific site (http://www.google.com/support/enterprise/static/gsa/docs/admin/70/gsa_doc_set/xml_reference/request_format.html#1076964) I would use this sparingly and opt for better design of the collections.
By far the best way to do this is in your collection config. Just create a new collection that has the same include pattern as your default collection and add the pattern from your bug tracking collection as an exclude pattern.
There's no way to do what you're asking purely using query parameters unless you list out every individual collection using the '|' except the one you want and then you're likely to run in to URL length issues.
Update your frontend to exclude the url patterns mentioned for the bugtracking collection.
check this url on your box
http://yourGSAEnterpriseCcontroller:8000/EnterpriseController/serve_remove.html
In my project we define threats/risks and countermeasures. I want to keep track and refer to both types of entities in Sphinx, as well as generating a list of both threats/risks and the countermeasures. Let's say I have 30 risks and 50 countermeasures (many-to-many relationship).
I'd be happy just to have a lists of both and the ability to refer to each other by numbers (e.g. "risk #23", "countermeasure #12"). It would be even better if the system could display the relationship automatically.
The content of both is let's say a single paragraph or even shorter, so that's why I dislike to use regular headings. And I cannot refer to items in lists or table rows. So, I'm looking for something like a Figure in Sphinx (numbered, with caption), but then for arbitrary types of entities.
My current approach is to create a custom RST role for this. Is this the right approach? If so, where to start?
I am working on a MVC3 code first web application and after I showed the first version to my bosses, they suggested they will need a 'spare' (spare like in something that's not yet defined and we will use it just in case we will need it) attribute in the Employee model.
My intention is to find a way to give them the ability to add as many attributes to the models as they will need. Obviously I don't want them to get their hands on the code and modify it, then deploy it again (I know I didn't mention about the database, that will be another problem). I want a solution that has the ability to add new attributes 'on the fly'.
Do any of you had similar requests and if you had what solution did you find/implement?
I haven't had such a request, but I can imagine a way to get what you want.
I assume you use the Entity Framework, because of your tag.
Let's say we have a class Employee that we want to be extendable. We can give this class a dictionary of strings where the key-type is string, too. Then you can easily add more properties to every employee.
For saving this structure to the database you would need two tables. One that holds the employees and one that holds the properties. Where the properties-table has a foreign-key targeting the employee-table.
Or as suggested in this Q&A (EF Code First - Map Dictionary or custom type as an nvarchar): you can save the contents of the dictionary as XML in one column of the employee table.
This is only one suggestion and it would be nice to know how you solved this.