I'm working on my first laravel project: a family tree. I have 4 branches of the family, each with people/families/images/stories/etc. A given user on the website will have access to everything for 1, 2, or 4 of these branches of the family (I don't want to show a cousin stuff for people they're not related to).
So on various pages I want the collections from the controller to contain stuff based on the given user's permissions. Merge seems like the right way to do this.
I have scopes to get people from each branch of the family, and in the following example I also have a scope for people with a birthday this month. In order to show the right set of birthdays for this user, I can get this by merging each group individually if they have access.
Here's what my function would look like if I showed everyone in all 4 family branches:
public function get_birthday_people()
{
$user = \Auth::user();
$jones_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->jones()->get();
$smith_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->smith()->get();
$lee_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->lee()->get();
$brandt_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->brandt()->get();
$birthday_people = $jones_birthdays
->merge($smith_birthdays)
->merge($lee_birthdays )
->merge($brandt_birthdays );
return $birthday_people;
My challenge: I'd like to modify it so that I check the user's access and only add each group of people accordingly. I'm imagining something where it's all the same as above except I add conditionals like this:
if($user->jones_access) {
$jones_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->jones()->get();
}
else{
$jones_birthdays =NULL;
}
But that throws an error for users without access because I can't call merge on NULL (or an empty array, or the other versions of 'nothing' that I tried).
What's a good way to do something like this?
if($user->jones_access) {
$jones_birthdays = Person::birthdays()->jones()->get();
}
else{
$jones_birthdays = new Collection;
}
Better yet, do the merge in the condition, no else required.
$birthday_people = new Collection;
if($user->jones_access) {
$birthday_people->merge(Person::birthdays()->jones()->get());
}
You are going to want your Eloquent query to only return the relevant data for the user requesting it. It doesn't make sense to query Lee birthdays when a Jones person is accessing that page.
So what you will wind up doing is something like
$birthdays = App\Person::where('family', $user->family)->get();
This pulls in Persons where their family property is equal to the family of the current user.
This probably does not match the way you have your relationships right now, but hopefully it will get you on the right track to getting them sorted out.
If you really want to go ahead with a bunch of queries and checking for authorization, read up on the authorization features of Laravel. It will give let you assign abilities to users and check them easily.
Related
I am trying to build a custom sorting for the product listings in shopware 6.
I want to include a foreign table (entity is: leasingPlanEntity), get the min of one of the fields of that table (period_price) and then order the search result by that value.
I have already built a Subscriber, and try it like that, what seems to work.
public static function getSubscribedEvents(): array
{
return [
//ProductListingCollectFilterEvent::class => 'addFilter'
ProductListingCriteriaEvent::class => ['addCriteria', 5000]
];
}
public function addCriteria(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->addAggregation(new MinAggregation('min_period_price', 'leasingPlan.periodPrice'));
// Sortierung hinzufügen.
$availableSortings = $event->getCriteria()->getExtension('sortings') ?? new ProductSortingCollection();
$myCustomSorting = new ProductSortingEntity();
$myCustomSorting->setId(Uuid::randomHex());
$myCustomSorting->setActive(true);
$myCustomSorting->setTranslated(['label' => 'My Custom Sorting at runtime']);
$myCustomSorting->setKey('my-custom-runtime-sort');
$myCustomSorting->setPriority(5);
$myCustomSorting->setFields([
[
'field' => 'leasingPlan.periodPrice',
'order' => 'asc',
'priority' => 1,
'naturalSorting' => 0,
],
]);
$availableSortings->add($myCustomSorting);
$event->getCriteria()->addExtension('sortings', $availableSortings);
}
Is this already the right way to get the min(periodPrice)? Or is it taking just a random value out of the leasingPlan table to define the sort-order?
I didn't find a way, to define the min_period_price aggregate value in the $myCustomSorting->setFields Methods.
Update 1
Some days later, I asked a less complex question in the shopware community on slack:
Is it possible to use the DAL to define a subquery for an association in the product-listing?
It should generate something like:
FROM
JOIN (
SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ... GROUP BY ... ORDER BY ...
) AS ...
The answer there was:
Don't think so
Update 2
I also did an in-deep anlysis of the DAL-Query-Builder, and it really seems to be not possible, to perform a subquery with the current version.
Update 3 - Different approach
A different approach might be, to define custom fields in the main entity. Every time a change is made on the main entity, the values of this custom fields should be recalculated.
It is a lot of overhead work, to realize this. Especially when the fields you are adding, are dependend on other data like the availability of a product in the store, for example.
So check, if it is worth the extra work. Would be better, to have a solution for building subqueries.
Unfortunately it seems that in your case there is no easy way to achieve this, if I understand the issue correctly.
Consider the following: for each product you can have multiple leasingPlan entities, and I assume that for a given context (like a specific sales channel or listing) that still holds. This means that you would have to sort the leasingPlan entities by price, then take the one with the lowest price, and then sort the products by their lowest-price leasingPlan's price.
There seems to be no other way to achieve that, and unfortunately for you, sorting is applied at the end, even if it is sort of a subquery.
So, for example, if you have the following snippet
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->setLimit(1)
;
The actual price-sorting would be applied AFTER the leasingPlan entities are fetched - essentially the results would be sorted, meaning that you would not get the cheapest leasing plan per product, instead getting the first one.
You can only do something like that with filters, but in this case there is nothing to filter by - I assume you don't have one leasingPlan per SalesChannel or per language, so that you could limit that list to just one entry that could be used for sorting
That is not to mention that this could not be included in a ProductSortingEntity, but you could always work around that by plugging into the appropriate events and modifying the criteria during runtime
I see two ways to resolve your issue
Making another table which would store the cheapest leasingPlan per product and just using that as your association
Storing the information about the cheapest leasingPlans in e.g. cache and using that for filtering (caution: a mistake here would probably break the sorting, for example if you end up with too few or too many leasingPlans per product)
public function applyCustomSorting(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
// One leasingPlan per one product
$cheapestLeasingPlans = $this->myCustomService->getCheapestLeasingPlanIds();
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->addFilter(new EqualsAnyFilter('id', $cheapestLeasingPlans))
;
}
And then you could sort by
$criteria->addSorting(new FieldSorting('leasingPlan.periodPrice', FieldSorting::ASCENDING));
There should be no need to add the association manually and to add the aggregation to the criteria, that should happen automatically behind the scenes if your custom sorting is selected in the storefront.
For more information refer to the official docs.
So basically how do you handle permissions?
Let's say we have a list of Post(s) of some kind, with an argument first to limit the amount of posts. And only the owner and approved users can read the posts, everyone else can't. What is the best way to implement this?
query {
{
viewer {
posts(first: 10) {
id
text
}
}
}
}
What I'm currently thinking of, is to have a single source of truth to whether a user can read the post or not, and hook it up with the dataloader module.
But, how do I query for exactly 10 posts? If I query my DB for exactly 10 rows, when I then later on filter them with some business logic, then I can get for example 8 posts returned.
A solution is to not put a limit on the query, but that's not very efficient. So what is a good way to go about this?
Inspiration from here
(1) https://dev-blog.apollodata.com/auth-in-graphql-part-2-c6441bcc4302
(2) https://dev-blog.apollodata.com/graphql-at-facebook-by-dan-schafer-38d65ef075af
(1) solved it by
export const DB = {
Lists: {
all: (user_id) => {
return sql.raw("SELECT id FROM lists WHERE owner_id is NULL or owner_id = %s, user_id);
}
}
}
as the query, and then to filter out which rows can be read:
resolve: (root, _, ctx) => {
// factor out data fetching
return DB.Lists.all(ctx.user_id)
.then( lists => {
// enforce auth on each node
return lists.map(auth.List.enforce_read_perm(ctx.user_id));
});
}
So, we can clearly see that it's querying for all the rows, even if, say, the first argument was 1, which is what I'm trying to avoid.
Maybe I'm approaching the problem wrong in some way, as the business logic lives on another layer than the DB one, so there's no way but to query all the rows. Any help appreciated.
For future reference and other people searching for solutions.
Used Dataloader to solve the authentication problem.
Literally implemented what they did in https://dev-blog.apollodata.com/graphql-at-facebook-by-dan-schafer-38d65ef075af and used this boilerplate repo as guidance. Not much more to say than that.
I am fairly new to programming, php, Magento, and most of all, SQL. Please forgive me if this is somehow a dumb question.
I am trying to use Magento collections to select two different columns in two different tables and join them. These two columns contain product numbers that follow the same conventions and my goal is to get and display the product numbers that field a (lets call it 'product_id') contains that field b ('item_nr') does not.
Here is my function so far, located currently in a model that will be called by a controller action.
public function importCompare() {
$orderlistCollect = Mage::getModel('personal_orderlist/orderlist')->getCollection()
->addFieldToSelect('product_id')
->addFieldToFilter('b.item_nr', null)
->getSelect()
->joinLeft( array('b'=>$this->getTable('catalog/product')), 'main_table.product_id = b.item_nr', array('b.item_nr'));
echo $orderlistCollect;
}
By echoing the variable, I get the following query.
SELECT `main_table`.`product_id`, `b`.`erp_item_nr`
FROM `mag1personal_orderlist` AS `main_table`
LEFT JOIN `` AS `b` ON main_table.product_id = b.item_nr
WHERE (b.item_nr = '')
This looks fairly close to what I want, however the big problem is that I have no idea how to retrieve the information I should derive from this query and echo it. I've tried to use a variety of collection manipulation methods to no avail. Is it easy to use them out of order as well?
Any help here is appreciated.
Collections use interfaces from PHP's standard library to implement for each-able behaviors.
If that sounded like greek, give this a try.
foreach($orderlistCollect as $item)
{
$data = $item->getData();
var_dump($data);
$sku = $item->getSku();
var_dump($sku);
$sku = $item->getData('sku');
var_dump($sku);
}
If you're interested in learning how to do with with your own PHP objects, the Object Iteration section of the manual is a good place to start. However, there's no need to dive deep on this — just treat a collection like you would an array of objects, and you'll be fine.
As I can see in the Spine.js sources the Model.each() function returns Model's records in the order of their IDs. This is completely unreliable in scenarios where ordering is important: long person list etc.
Can you suggest a way to keep original records ordering (in the same order as they've arrived via refresh() or similar functions) ?
P.S.
Things are even worse because by default Spine.js internally uses new GUIDs as IDs. So records order is completely random which unacceptable.
EDIT:
Seems that in last commit https://github.com/maccman/spine/commit/116b722dd8ea9912b9906db6b70da7948c16948a
they made it possible, but I have not tested it myself because I switched from Spine to Knockout.
Bumped into the same problem learning spine.js. I'm using pure JS, so i was neglecting the the contact example http://spinejs.com/docs/example_contacts which helped out on this one. As a matter of fact, you can't really keep the ordering from the server this way, but you can do your own ordering with javascript.
Notice that i'm using the Element Pattern here. (http://spinejs.com/docs/controller_patterns)
First you set the function which is gonna do the sorting inside the model:
/*Extending the Student Model*/
Student.extend({
nameSort: function(a,b) {
if ((a.name || a.email) > (b.name || b.email))
return 1;
else
return -1
}
});
Then, in the students controller you set the elements using the sort:
/*Controller that manages the students*/
var Students = Spine.Controller.sub({
/*code ommited for simplicity*/
addOne: function(student){
var item = new StudentItem({item: student});
this.append(item.render());
},
addAll: function(){
var sortedByName = Student.all().sort(Student.nameSort);
var _self = this;
$.each(sortedByName, function(){_self.addOne(this)});
},
});
And that's it.
Hope that someone out there can help with this!
I'll give an example based on the standard Order-->OrderLine-->Product rather than the actual situation to make it easier to explain!
Basically, I want to run a query that returns all orders for which there is an order line containing a TV. Simple enough:
IEnumerable<Order> orders;
using (var context = new DataContext())
{
var source =
context.Orders.Include("OrderLines").Include(
"OrderLines.Product");
orders= source.Where(o => o.OrderLines.Where(ol => ol.Product.Name == "TV")).ToList();
}
return orders;
This works in the sense that I get the correct collection of Order entities, but when I use look at each Order's collection of OrderLines it contains all OrderLines not just those containing at TV.
Hope that makes sense.
Thanks in advance for any help.
I does make sense in that the query is fulfilling your original criteria "to return all orders for which there is an order line containing a TV", each order will of course have all the orderlines. The filter is only being used to select the Orders, not the OrderLines.
To retrieve just the OrderLines containing TV from an Order you'd use the filter again, thus:
var OrderLinesWithTV = order.OrderLines.Where(ol => ol.Product.Name == "TV");
The main point is to know if you need to keep (or not) a reference to the order header in the filtered lines.
I.e. do you want the list of all the orders with a TV, and more precisely only their TV lines ? or do you want all the TV lines nevermind their order header ?
You seem to prefer the first option.
Then the best solution would certainly be
var relevantOrders = orders.Where(order => order.OrderLines.Any(ol => ol.Product.Name == "TV"))
to get the relevant orders, and then, for each order in relevantOrders :
order.OrderLines.Where(ol => ol.Product.Name == "TV")
to consider only the TV lines.
Other techniques would result in a loss of information or force you to build a new orders collection similar to the initial one but double-filtered on the headers and on the lines, which seems fairly bad as far as elegance and performance is concerned.