In the V2 api, is there a way to partially update a catalog object? For example, if I have an item, and I don't want to keep track of modifier_list_info, it seems I have to send that data with any upserts otherwise it will get wiped out.
Is there a way to specifiy a partial update?
The best way to update a catalog object would be to first retrieve the object (https://docs.connect.squareup.com/api/connect/v2#endpoint-retrievecatalogobject), and then edit the properties you need to change. For instance, the response will have an object field so
response.object.item_data.name = 'Food'
will change the name to 'Food'. Then pass the entire object back to the UpsertCatalogObject endpoint. This will keep all the same properties except for changing the name.
Related
When I save the records, I need the uid properties for the initial rows; because of I can assign a value each of them through the uid.
However, toJson overriding forces to ignore some properties like dirty, uid, etc...
How can I prevent this? Or How can I find a way to solve this?
You should not persist the uid on the backend or override it.
The uid is an internal mechanism used by Kendo UI to track its widgets and widget components to allow user interaction and component functionality. Each uid is generated dynamically every time the widget is rendered, so, attempting to do what your thinking of doing won't work.
The proper solution is you should assign your own unique id property to your records and persist it on the server/client. Then, when a change is made client-side, you post the record data along with its unique id, find the associated record by id in the backend database, and update the associated record data in the database.
I have a document level customization in excel that is used to calculate and save quoting data. Basically each sheet is a quote with specific cells containing QuoteNo, Description, Totals etc.
I want to be able to extract this data into a list of POCO objects that is then cached as a property in the ThisWorksheet class.
I get the error
The Cached attribute on the following member is in error because the
member is not public, static, read-only, or is a parameterized or
indexer property
I believe that this is because a list has an indexer property.
So how can I store this type of data in the cache?
OK, not my preferred solution but it solves the problem.
I add a method to the class that inherits from list that creates xml with the relevant data. The BeforeSave event is used to add (or update) this xml to the customXmlParts. Other documents can then access this and de-serilaise it.
Clunky but it works, does anyone have anything more elegant?
I have some data being pulled in from an Entity model. This contains attributes of items, let's say car parts with max-speed, weight and size. Since there are a lot of parts and the base attributes never change, I've cached all the records.
Depending on the car these parts are used in, these attributes might now be changed, so I setup a new car, copy the values from the cached item "Engine" to the new car object and then add "TurboCharger", which boosts max speed, weight and size of the Engine.
The problem I'm running into is that it seems that the Entity model is still tracking the context back to the cached data. So when weight is increased by the local method, it increases it for all users. I tried adding "MergeOption.NoTracking" to my context as this is supposed to remove all entity tracking, but it still seems to be tracking back. If I turn off the cache, it works fine as it pulls fresh values from the database each time.
If I want to copy a record from my entity model, is there a way I can say "Copy the object but treat it as a standard object with no history of coming from entity" so that once my car has the attributes from an item, it is just a flattened object?
Cheers!
Im not too sure about MergeOption.NoTracking on the whole context and exactly what that does but what you can do as an alternative is to add .AsNoTracking() into your query from the database. This will definitely return a detached object.
Take a look here for some details on AsNoTracking usage : http://blog.staticvoid.co.nz/2012/04/entity-framework-and-asnotracking.html.
The other thing is to make sure you enumerate your collection before you insert to the cache to ensure that you arent acting within the queriable, ie use .ToArray().
The other option is to manually detach the object from the context (using Detach(T entity)).
I am using mvc3 for my web app.
When an user edit an existing form, make a few changes and save it.
what is the best practice to check which field in the form has been modified.
Regards,
Bubblegum.
Since we're not talking data access - upon postback, compare it to your object in your database. This is somewhat of an open question because it depends what data access you are using and what models you are using. Entity framework Entities can track their modified state so you may be able to use
TryUpdateModel(yourInstanceLoadedFromYourDatabase)
and check the status of each field. That 'may' work, otherwise you are comparing each field. However why do you need to know specifically which field changed? Save the entire object back to the database (or simply merge with the values from the page using the same TryUpdateModel above)
I have a custom entity in Microsoft CRM (4.0). The user has to input records however usually they have a batch of 20+ records that are almost the same apart from 2 or 3 fields which need changing. I know I need to write some custom code to enable this functionally. However can anyone recommend any methods to do this.
Ideally there should be a button that will save and create a copy as a new entity.
My Current way of thinking is to pass all the details as part of the URL and use javascript to strip them out on the page load event. Any ideas welcome.
Thanks
Luke
I found the answer here:
http://mscrm4ever.blogspot.com/2008/06/cloning-entity-using-javascript.html
I've used it and it appears to work well.
Since there are numerous fields, but only certain fields values are different, then i am thinking to set the default value to all the fields, so that users just need to alter those values when needed.
In my approach, i will hook a javascript function on load of the form data entry screen and use XmlHttp approach/Ajax approach to hook to the custom web service to pull/retrieve the default values of each fields. Or you can set those values at the javascript function itself, but the drawback of this, it's difficult to customize later. So i will choose the approach to hook to the custom web service and retrieve those value from some application parameter entity.
Your idea of providing a "clone" button is also a great idea, which means that it will duplicate all the attributes of the previous record, into a new record, so that it will save time for data entry person to customize the different value
EDIT
Since you would enter records in batch mode, how about customizing .ASPX screen to enter records. By customizing through .ASPX screen, you can use a tab , so that users can browse through tabs, to customize the value/attribute of each record.
There will be a "save" button as well as "clone" button to clone some common attribute or value.
I would create a custom web service that would accept the entity type and the ID of the record I'm cloning. Your "Save and Clone" button would call the service, and the service would handle the details of retrieving the current record and deciding which fields to set on the new record. The service creates the record, and sends the Guid of the record back to your button, which then opens up the newly created record.
This way, you avoid the messiness of setting/getting values in JavaScript and tying which fields to set/retrieve directly to your OnLoads, as well as avoiding the possibility of query string that's too long.
The service could easily be sufficiently generalized so that all you'd have to do is add your button to any entity, and it would work, assuming you'd set up your service to handle that particular entity.
One possible downside is that since the clone record button would actually create the record, the user would be forced to delete the cloned record if they decided they didn't want to clone the record after all.