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?
Related
I'm trying to write microservices in Java. I've implemented GraphQL endpoints using graphql-spring-boot-starter.
Now I have a problem how to make it efficient.
Datamodel is like a tree and I need to query for data from multiple services at once. The problem is how to filter for a member of collection, something like CONTAINS in database, but data is not in separate table, but separate microservice. Maybe the problem is that domain is not correctly splitted between services?
Let's make an example: I have 3 microservices: users, libriaries, books. Every library have collection of users and books (just list of identifiers, like foreign keys). Every book has a name and genre. Every library have lists of books borrowed by user (identifiers too).
Question 1 - should library hosts list of books and users (just identifiers, like foreign keys)? Is it correct approach?
Question 2 - I want to find libraries in which specified users (by surname) have borrowed books of specified genre. Going from top I need to first find libraries containing users. Not easy, as we have names in different service. We need to query first for users, gathers their identifiers, and now we are able to query for libraries. But it isn't all. Now we need to find books for every user and check genres - in different service. And it's not all. I want to have everything presented in nice way, so whole output should be sorted and paged. It force me to collect all data from all services, then page and sort it, which of course will not be efficient.
Please don't concentrate on this example, I'm looking how to solve general approach, not this one example. I've tried to use Datafetchers but it's troublesome and there are not good examples of calling Graphql-to-GraphQL. Most examples covers calling REST endpoints etc.
I have started working with Microsoft bot framework and LUIS.
I have problem understanding difference between Phrase lists and list entities?
Can you help me? Examples would be great.
Thanks
What is a list entities?
Definition in documentation here, I highlighted the main points
List entities represent a fixed set of related words in your system.
Each list entity may have one or more forms. They aren't machine
learned, and are best used for a known set of variations on ways to
represent the same concept. List entities are not labeled in
utterances or trained by the system.
A list entity is an explicitly specified list of values. Unlike other
entity types, LUIS does not discover additional values for list
entities during training. Therefore, each list entity forms a closed
set.
If there is more than one list entity with the same value, each entity
is returned in the endpoint query.
What is a phrase list feature?
Definition in documentation here:
A phrase list includes a group of values (words or phrases) that
belong to the same class and must be treated similarly (for example,
names of cities or products). What LUIS learns about one of them is
automatically applied to the others as well. This is not a white list
of matched words.
When to use phrase lists instead of list entities
I think the best answer is (still in the documentation, here):
When you use a phrase list, LUIS can still take context into account and generalize to identify items that are similar to, but not an exact match as items in a list. If you need your LUIS app to be able to generalize and identify new items in a category, it's better to use a phrase list.
In contrast, a list entity explicitly defines every value an entity can take, and only identifies values that match exactly. A list entity may be appropriate for an app in which all instances of an entity are known and don't change often, like the food items on a restaurant menu that changes infrequently. In a system in which you want to be able to recognize new instances of an entity, like a meeting scheduler that should recognize the names of new contacts, or an inventory app that should recognize new products, it's better to use another type of entity and then use phrase list features to help guide LUIS to recognize examples of the entity.
I'm an old CFML developer, new to CF on Wheels and MVC programming in general. I'm picking it up pretty quickly, but one thing that isn't evident to me is how one can offer a form to optionally update multiple db table records (models). I'd specifically like to set up a tabbed form for User info and User Profile info, where the former is required and the latter is not. This data is stored in two different one-to-one tables. What's the setup I need in order to call two "new" or "edit" views, run 2 "create" or "update" procedures, affecting two different tables. Or am I thinking about this all wrong.
Update: Adding some more info on what I'm trying to do. To keep it simple, I'll stick to 2 tabs and 2 tables, though I'm really looking at at least 3 in this instance.
So I've got a Users table and a UserProfiles table, and I've got models named User.cfc and UserProfile.cfc that are related 1-to-1, with UserProfile dependent on User. Pretty standard stuff. For each I've got controllers: Users.cfc and UserProfiles.cfc, each of those containing actions. add, edit, create, update, doing the obvious stuff (add and edit display forms). I have partials that display the add/edit form fields for each, so that's already prepared. Now, I want to create what is effectively a single add/edit form that can update both tables at the same time. The tabs don't really matter; effectively it could all be on one page.
So conceptually I'm doing something like:
#startFormTag(action=???)#
#includePartial("form_user_add-edit")#
#includePartial("form_userprofile_add-edit")#
<button type="submit" class="btn">#operation#</button>
#endFormTag()#
Do I need to create a separate controller action that basically combines the create and update actions for two different controllers?
Thanks in advance from a pleased and eager CFWheels newbie...
Brian
If all of the data is related through hasMany or hasOne associations, I'd recommend looking at nested properties.
http://cfwheels.org/docs/1-1/chapter/nested-properties
If you're a newbie though, you may want to refrain from this until you've got something simpler worked out.
I guess you are talking about two models representing these two tables, possibly associated using hasOne. Models allow you to validate data, this makes controller much simpler. This way you could create two forms under two tabs, and keep record's primary key as hidden field. Controller could run the validation and re-display the forms (partials may help)... Hold on, I am just going through the reference.
I realize this answer is pretty generic, as well as your question. I suggest you to go ahead and try something, see how it works.
After that update your question with code samples and ask if you have some specific problems. For example, validation and displaying errors in CFWheels may be a bit tricky.
I have an e-commerce website where it is necessary to make a number of associations e.g. a product needs a category, manufacturer, associated products, etc.
When there is only a fairly small, limited amount of data e.g. Manufacturer I simple use a drop down or option boxes for the user to pick the relevent field / fields.
However for items such as associated products, where I have thousands or products it is not viable to use one of these methods. At the moment I use a searchable / paged table that the user then clicks a button to add the association, this works, but it is pretty time consuming for the user and not what I would consider an ideal solution to the problem.
Has anyone implemented a solution to this problem or could they offer any advice as to how they would come at this from a UI standpoint?
Thanks for any help you can be
The solutions I can think of are:
Auto-complete
Recent associations
Smart associations
There may be more depending on exactly what you're doing, so feel free to add more details or screenshots and I'll think on it more.
Auto-complete
Using an auto-complete field would speed up the process for your users since they wouldn't have to hunt through the table for the association. Rather they could just start typing and have a suggest box appear below the field that allowed them to select what they're looking for.
If you matched your auto-complete on several key fields (i.e. manufacturer and product name), there's a pretty good chance that the user would be able to find the association quickly.
You could also code the suggestion box in such a way that it showed multiple pieces of key data. That way if the user wasn't quite sure what they were looking for, typing a few characters in the field would give them an idea of what they could search with.
Recent Associations
Below your auto-complete field, you could add the 5 to 10 most recent associations that had been made. That would allow your users to quickly add many products to the same association without having to use the auto-complete each time.
Smart Associations
Separate from the above two mechanisms, a smart association is something I first saw when theming a Shopify store. They allow you to automatically create associations based on the products key fields by defining conditions to include or exclude products:
Create Association 'Pants'
Where product title contains string 'pants' or
Where product title contains string 'capri'
The above is controlled by a set of dropdowns and textfields and got around the pain of manually creating associations.
Scenario:
There is this online questionaire that will be filled in by various departments in a company. The questions are data driven and are different for each department.
But for some of the questions, the way the input is taken is also different; for some departments the same question is asked to be replied to, by selecting values from a drop down, for the others its free text entry; again, for some departments you change the caption against the area for entry. This caption is not part of the question. its also not coming from the database as of now and Id rather not put it all in the database and increase the joins for each select. Out of the twenty odd questions which have such captions, there are just 3 such captions which change.
for eg.
Department A.)
Q.) How would you like to get here?
{caption:"Enter your prefered transport method"} [Free Text Box]
Department B.)
Q.) How would you like to get here?
{caption:"Select option"} [Drop Down]
What would be the best way to design and code such web based questionairre of the ways below?
Implement it using if-else conditions for each department and show and hide input controls as per department
Abstract all common inputs into a parent class and have multiple child classes for each department which contain their own specific behavior for data input
Any other better way?
Thanks for your time. :)
I would recommend using if/else statements to show and hide the various questions.
The reason why I say if/else instead of sub-classing is that you'll come across a case where a question which used to be "common" to all Departments becomes specific to a few, and you'll have to refactor that question to the sub-classes and delete it where it's not applicable. The if/else code may get tedious, but not more tedious than the refactor I mention above.
In addition, I would also urge you to strongly consider normalizing the questions of your survey. In other words, in the example you provided above, I would make the free text and option two different questions. This doesn't change how the answers are input, it just changes how you consider the different questions.
The reason why I'm saying this is that any analysis you will be doing on the answers is dependent on comparing apples to apples -- when you restrict or free the list of available choices, you're comparing apples to oranges.