I'm considering setting up some proof-of-concept tool that could grab metadata from a Symfony2 FormType instance in order to dump a validation schema as JSON, something like the following:
[
{
name: 'someFieldName',
value: '',
email: true
},
{
name: 'yetAnotherFieldName',
value: 'I have a default value',
required: true
}
]
The aim obviously is to use it in front-end JS code (let's say React), to be able to set up the same validation constraints, as much as possible (required and the likes).
However, Symfony is well-architectured and its Form component knows nothing about validation. Considering only the nominal case of a simple form to begin with, how would one go about doing it? How to map back the form to the validatable objects/entities it references?
Using the symfony validator you can get the metadata for a given class:
$this->get('validator')->getMetadataFor(Foo::class);
It returns a ClassMetadata instance. If the passed value is an entity, you will have the members and properties properties returned which then contain a constraints property with the classes being used.
Final step is to serialize that in JSON.
Related
The Ext.data.Model class represents the backend models. And just like in the server code, some of its fields can be of another declared model type via the reference property. I've found out that using a model's getAssociatedData() function returns an object with all those referenced fields. However they only contain the reference object's data object they are not full fledged initialized Ext.data.Models, which forces a primitive object access and there is no way to use the model's configured proxies etc for loading/saving. Is this the correct/only way of using this functionality? We've also been looking for a way to add columns from referenced fields on a grid but it doesn't seem to work... I'm starting to doubt the usefulness of declaring referenced fields.
Example code:
Ext.define('MyApp.ModelA', {
extend: 'Ext.data.Model',
fields: [{
name: 'modelb',
reference: 'MyApp.ModelB'
}]
});
Ext.define('MyApp.ModelB', {
extend: 'Ext.data.Model',
fields: [{
name: 'modelId',
type: 'int'
}]
});
//...
var modelA = new MyApp.ModelA().load();
var modelB = modelA.getAssociatedData().modelb; //This is the only way to access it.
var modelBId = modelB.get('modelId') //This returns undefined because the function .get doesn't exist.
var modelBId = modelB.id; //This works because it is a simple object property access.
//...
As Chad Peruggia said, it seems that ExtJS creates special getters for reference fields that match the field name. Using getAssociatedData() returns only the primitive form of those objects (only their data values) but using the special getter (in my case getModelb()) it returns a full fledged model initialized with the given data.
I have schemas set up so that I can have an array of complex input sets. Something like:
address = {
street:{
type: String
},
city: {
type: String
},
active_address: {
type: Boolean,
optional: true
},
...
}
people: {
name:{
type: String
},
address:{
type: [address],
optional: true,
defaultValue: []
}
}
This way adding an address is optional, but if you add an address all of the address fields are required.
This worked in (I believe it was) version 4.2.2. This still works on insert type autoforms, but not on update type autoforms. Doing an update, none of the fields will submit unless all required fields in the nested schema are also valid.
For reference, I'm creating the form as such:
{{#autoForm collection="people" id=formId type="update" doc=getDocument autosave=true template="autoupdate"}}
{{> afQuickField name='name' template="autoupdate" placeholder="schemaLabel"}}
{{> afQuickField name='address' template="autoupdate"}}
{{/autoForm}}
My templates (autoupdate) I copy-pasted the entirety of bootstrap3 autoform templates and rearranged some of the html to fit my needs. I updated these to the best of my ability according to the 5.0.0 changelog when I updated. It could possibly be in there if someone can think of an attribute in the templates that would cause inconsistent behavior between insert and update that changed in 5.0.0.
More information
I just tried recreating all of my form templates using the bootstrap3 templates from 5.0.2. Still the same behavior.
+
I have a Boolean (checkbox) input in the address schema. Looking in a doc, the address array is populated with [0 : {active_address: false}]
active_address: {
type: Boolean,
optional: true
}
Not sure if that helps...
+
As per #mark's suggestion, I added defaultValue:[]. It fixed the issue... sort of. There are no "open" nested schemas in the update form now, and other values can be changed. If you "add" a nested schema to the form with the add button, that entire form becomes required even if you don't insert any value in any field. This happens regardless of the Boolean type input.
I can nail down the Boolean type input in the nested schema causes that entire nested schema to become necessary to do the insert. Removing the Boolean input caused it to be insertable again. So there's a new problem in the same vein.
This new issue can be found here
I think the best solution is to add a defaultValue: [] to the address field in the schema. The behavior you described in the question (not allowing the update) is actually intended -- read on to see why.
The thing is, this behavior only exists if an array form element has already been added to the form. What I mean is, if you click the minus sign that removes the street, city, etc. inputs from the form, the update succeeds because AutoForm doesn't misinterpret the unchecked checkbox as the user explicitly unchecking the box (and therefore setting the value to false). Setting the defaultValue to an empty array lets AutoForm know to not present the address form unless the user has explicitly clicked the plus sign (i.e, they have an address they want to enter), in which case the behavior of making the street, city, etc. fields required is what you want.
Note that this means you'll have to update the existing documents in your collection that are missing the address field and set it to an empty array. Something like this in the mongo shell:
db.people.update({ "address": { $exists: false } }, { $set: { "address": [] } }, { multi: true })
You'll probably want to make sure that the query is correct by running a find on the selector first.
Edit
If the behavior you want is to show the sub-form without making it required, you can work around the checkbox issue by using the formToDoc hook and filtering out all address objects that only have the active_address field set to false (the field that AutoForm mistakenly adds for us).
AutoForm.addHooks('yourFormId', {
formToDoc: function (doc) {
doc.address = _.reject(doc.address, function (a) {
return !a.street && !a.city && !a.active_address;
});
return doc;
}
});
The formToDoc hook is called every time the form is validated, so you can use it to modify the doc to make it so that AutoForm is never even aware that there is an address sub-field, unless a property of it has been set. Note that if you're using this solution you won't have to add the defaultValue: [] as stated above.
I am trying to do the validation for the data properties present in complex type,if I add the validators as like the normal data property,it is not running the validations. Below shown is the sample breeze schema and the complex type used.
Breeze Schema:
{
"name": "mailingAddress",
"complexTypeName": "Address:#test"
}
Complex Type:(Address.json)
{
"name": "address",
"dataType": "String",
"validators": [
{
"name": "required"
}
]
}
The required Validator is not running during the page load. Also, the predefined /custom validators are not triggering when the data property changes.
Is there any specific way to do the validations for complex type (Single and array of objects)?
Kindly help out to do the validation for complex types.
Thanks,
Dinesh
Actually, the 'required' validator probably did run. The problem is that scalar complex types are never null; they may contain all null values, but the complex instance itself always exists. So the 'required' validator, which simply asks if the property is null, will never fail. Similarly for arrays of complexTypes the array will always exist but it may be empty ( as opposed to null).
So you will need to create a complex validator for your instance that checks if all of the values within the complexType are null.
For arrays of complexTypes you will need to check that the array is empty.
Hope this makes sense.
I have a property called Copies which is defined on the server that represents the default number of copies allowed. And I can update this value and it will update an input field on my UI.
however, I would like to be able to reset the Copies property to the original value if the user resets this field on the UI.
My idea was to define a custom property on my kendo datasource model called originalValue that references the Copies property. but this just seems to override the Copies property if I do something like this.
schema: {
data: 'd',
total: function (data) {
return data.d.length;
},
model: {
originalCopies: "Copies"
}
}
how can I go about creating a custom property like this which is basically a immutable clone of my Copies property?
You can try to do it on the server side, just create a separate property "OriginalCopies" and set it to Copies. Once passed to the client side , it will lose its immutability.
Something similar could be done on the client side as well. JSON.stringify your Copies and set
OriginalCopies to the JSON.parse value of the stringified variable as:
var copies = JSON.stringify(data.Copies);
data.OriginalCopies = JSON.parse(copies);
My model looks like
public class Template
{
Id
Title
List<Field> Fields
}
The “Field” Entity contains information like Name, Caption, Type (TextBox/Select/Radio), Options, and validation rules (Range, Required, string length).
The standard validation in MVC is based on DataAnnotations, but I wants to validate (Both client and Server Side) the form dynamically based on Field Metadata which is dynamic and configurable.
Is it possible? Any pointers?
PS. I searched for the similar questions, but not able to find a solid answer.
I had a similar situation, this is how I handled it:
Server Side
When the POST happened I iterated over all the Fields values and did the Validation based on the validation rules I had on my objects. Then you can simply add ModelErrors to the Field object.
Since you push a Template object to the View you can access the Fields by name Fields[x].SomeProperty. Make sure you have a ValidationMessageFor for SomeProperty
ModelState.AddModelError("Fields[x].SomeProperty", "The Error Message you want to show.);
Client side
Make sure your form has an Id so you can access the Validate method().
Then you iterate over all the fields and just add the validation as you please.
For all the validations rules check the validation Jquery documentation.
$('#frmYourForm').validate();
for (var i = 0; i < 'CountOfAllFields'; i++)
{
$('#Fields_' + i + '__Foo').rules('add', { required: true, messages: { required: 'The Foo field is required'} });
$('#Fields_' + i + '__Bar').rules('add', { required: true, messages: { required: 'The Bar field is required'} });
}
I hope I helped you on your way !
Ps, use FireBug to help you find the correct names of the properties and that's how you can link them with the ModelErrors in the modelstate etc.