I'm upgrading an old procedural site to laravel 5.2, and I'm struggling with the old routes I made.
On this website, the routes were made like this : {user_slug}/{content_slug}.html. For the moment, I use cviebrock/eloquent-sluggable to generate the slugs, but I'm open to another one if this one cannot meet my needs.
I have two questions :
Can I make the content-slug unique, but per user ?
How can I write the route and the controller in order to match the correct user slug ad the correct content slug ?
I have not done this myself but I believe there would be a way in the validation rules to do this. Here is an untested rough draft to check content_slug in the posts table but only check uniqueness where the user_id field equals a variable:
'content_slug' => "unique:posts,content_slug,NULL,id,user_id,$user->id"
Depending on who you ask, they may advise you (either instead of or as well as doing the above) to set up a key in the database based on the user_id and content_slug fields. This way the database returns an error if an insert is attempted as well as gives a performance boost when running a query off that index. Queries off of an index can literally give an exponential performance increase.
Related
If I have n tables in laravel and need list with filtering on all of them...Is there a lib that can do this magic without having to code the filters for each table?
Edit.
I forgot to mention that it should handle filters ALSO on relations.
Magic is not the solution, instead put some work on it.
I'm happy to announce that there is such a library now. But it is not public (and maybe will never be with this kind of attitude towards "magic"). If the laravel/lumen community is curious about it, lets talk.
Key features:
Crud REST operations including filtering capabilities (by any column) over max 9 tables via laravel/lumen relations (including these ones How to create Laravel 8 custom relation HasManyThrough 2 and 3 Link Tables so involving 4 or 5 tables in total?). Filtering includes: in, not in, starts with, contains, from, to, is null,is not null, multi-sorting filters on the resource's relations etc.
It can be used together with https://github.com/jarektkaczyk/eloquence/wiki/Mappable to not expose column names from db to FE.
PS. May I remind you that the question was: "Is there a lib for laravel or lumen 8 to handle filtering for any table?" So the answer is: YES there is (this PS if just for haters).
Background
Let us consider a hypothetical scenario. Suppose we have five different tables in our database,
Customers
Categories
Products
Orders
OderDetails
Our client wants us to add a search bar to the frontend, where a user can search for a specific product and upon tapping the search button, matching products has to be displayed on the frontend.
My Approach for Tackling This Problem
In order to add the aforementioned functionality, I came across the following strategy.
👉 I would add an input box to ender the product name and a submit button.
👉 Upon pressing the submit button, a GET request will be sent to the backend. On the query parameters, the product name that has been entered by the user will be included
👉 Once the GET request is received to the backend, I will pass it down to the ProductsController and from within a method defined inside the ProductController, I will use the Product model to query the products table to see if there are any matching results.
👉 If there are any matching results, I will send them to the frontend inside a JSON object and if there aren't any matching results, I will set a success flag to false inside the JSON object and send it to the frontend
👉 In the frontend, if there are any matching results, I will display them on the screen. Else, I will display "No Results Found!"
Problem with My Approach
Everything works fine if we only want to search the products table. But what if, later our client tells us something like "Remember that search functionality you added for the products? I thought that functionality should be added to orders as well. I think as the list of orders by a user grows and grows, they should be able to search for their previous orders too."
👉 Now, since in our previous approach to search products was implemented in the ProductController using the Product model, when we are adding the same functionality to Orders, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE SAME THINGS WE DID IN THE ProductsController AGAIN INSIDE THE OrdersController USING THE Order model. It does not take seconds to understand that this leads to duplication of code.
Problem Summary
❓ How do we add an API endpoint in laravel for a search functionality that can be used to search any table in our database and get results, instead of the search functionality being scoped to a specific controller and a corresponding model?
A good start would be to create a trait called something like searchable and add it to all the models you want to search and put any shared logic between the different models in there. Possibly you'd want to manually allow different columns so in each model you have an array of searchable columns which you'd refer to in your trait.
Your controller would have to point to the related model and call a method in the trait that searches.
As others have pointed out this is a high level question so I won't go too much in detail. Of course there are a million ways to implement this, just try and keep shared logic in place.
My application following CQRS strategy separates Read model from Write model. I have a Product and multiple Purchase orders related to that Product.
The PurchaseOrder read model is in Elasticsearch and with product name attached. Now if I change the product name in the write model then I need to update all the PurchaseOrder's productName field accordingly in the read model(using Elasticsearch's bulk update API).
My question is: As I have millions of PurchaseOrders, will this productName sync be a performance issue? Or any suggestions for modeling such kind of syncing?
Although I do not believe that changing a product name on existing orders is a good idea (the invoice might have been generated and the product name in the order should match the one in the invoice), the question still has merit.
You may want your PurchaseOrder to only keep the ID (and perhaps the version?) of the Product, so that you can avoid such a mass update. This approach, on the other hand, requires a call to the Product aggregate root every time you want to translate the ID of the product in its own name. The impact of such a read can obviously be mitigated by using a cache.
I guess it really depend on the number of occurrences of such two circumstances to happen and I would then optimize the most occurring one.
We run two websites, A and B. Each website has its own table, _a_ and _b_ which have exactly the same structure. Yes, I know it's silly, we'll be rewriting them over the course of this year and next.
Using Laravel I need to create a model that will hold both tables content. I don't need any kind of UPDATE or INSERT functionality, I just need to SELECT and use with to access other model information.
Is this possible with Laravel 4.1? I can individually model each table, but that would make it difficult in the future.
I was able to fix this by making using the Repository pattern and merging the results of each model into the get and all functions.
I created an extension for joomla using:
$id=$database->insertid();
I just covered that if two users are logged on to the site will fit together perform two records in the database and then this statement will return in both cases the same value.
in php you can solve this problem with the transactions.
In joomla how do I solve this problem?
If you have a table you are working with that extends JTable then make sure that you included the check out functionality that is optionally a part of that. THis must means adding a couple of fields like what is in the content table. This will prevent two people from editing the same row at the same time which creates a race condition in which one of the other will lose their data.
Please note that both php and joomla functions to return the last insert id rely on the mysql implementation, and mysql returns the last id inserted on the currently open connection so concurrency is not an issue
#iacoposk8 Your are right it might possible that in very rear case. Such time try to add current logged in user id in your sql query or any where so that it doesn't make any confict. I hope you get it what i want to say. Thanks