I am trying to read through the dataBind documentation, but it's not all that clear:
http://grails.org/doc/2.1.0/ref/Controllers/bindData.html
I have a composite id composed of 4 columns, and I need to update one of those. It refuses to .save() and doesn't even throw an error. Is there some configuration that will allow me to change these values and save the model?
If I delete it and create a new record, it will bump the rowid, which I was using on the browser side with datatables/jeditable, and it's not really an option. However, even if I include all the parameters with an empty list:
def a = WaiverExemption.find("from WaiverExemption as e where e.exemptionRowId = ?", [params.rowid])
a.properties = params
bindData(a, params, [include: []])
a.save(flush: true, failOnError: true)
This does not seem to work. I've also tried naming the columns/properties explicitly both by themselves and also with "id".
I was confused on what bindData() actually does. Still confused on that.
If you have a composite id in Grails and wish to change one or more of the column values, save() will never ever execute as suggested in the question. Instead, you'll want to use .executeUpdate(). You can pass in HQL that updates (though most of the examples on the web are for delete) the table in question, with syntax that is nearly identical to proper SQL. Something along the lines of "update domain d set d.propertyName = ?" should work.
I do not know if this is a wise thing to do, or if it violates some philosophical rule of how a Grails app should work, but it will actually do the update. I advise caution and plenty of testing. This crap's all voodoo to me.
Related
I'm currently building a Laravel 5.7 app where I have multiple boolean columns that indicate if some facilities are available for a building (model), eg, toilet yes/no. This works fine, but I was wondering what happens when I add more of these boolean columns later when I deploy the app.
Say I add a boolean column 'lights,' I could give it a default value of 0, but not NULL. So now all my existing buildings will say that there are no 'lights' (because the value is 0), where in reality it should be something like 'don't know' or 'undefined' Like a third state.
Should I use ENUM columns with yes/no/undefined instead? What are best practices for this scenario?
What I would do, is create separate table, with object_id, and facility_id. Now, you can have dynamic facilites table, and connect them with object. Connection will only have what it needs, so not every object "light" or something else.
You can certainly create them them as nullable()! It is a common practice, IMO.
As far as best practices go, it depends on how your application should be used. Do you want a user to notice that the state has not been selected one way or the other yet? Maybe you are displaying a prompt to configure the ones that are null. On the other hand, it may be safer to assume that the options should default to false in order to be rendered properly. If this is the case, maybe a notification can go out to your users to update this property.
This worked to me
$table->boolean('lights')->nullable();
Yes Yo are Right this could be a problem some times
But the Boolean CAN BE USED SUCH AS TRUE (OR) FALSE ie) 0 (OR) 1
where in reality it should be something like 'don't know' or 'undefined' Like a third state.
So in this Situation use Can use Enum
For Example Your table will have ups_availablity
Scenario One :
If you want to add NotAvailable by default just pass the value inside default method
$table->enum('ups_availablity', ['Available', 'NotAvailable'])->default('NotAvailable');
Scenario Two:
If you want to add Null add nullable method
$table->enum('ups_availablity', ['Available', 'NotAvailable'])->nullable();
If You have any clarification Kindly Comment Below
Hope its helps
I'm learning about Django tables. I first wrote a basic example, here my view:
def people1(request):
table = PersonTable(Person.objects.filter(id=2))
RequestConfig(request).configure(table)
return render(request, 'people.html', {'table': table})
This way I've been able to easily display a table with a filter condition "filter(id=2))".
After that I found SingleTableView which is supposed to be an easier way to display database tables, as an example I wrote this view, which worked fine:
from django_tables2 import SingleTableView
class PersonList(SingleTableView):
template_name = 'ta07/comun.html'
model = Person
table_class = PersonTable
Questions are: how should I do to apply filters like in the first example? And is SingleTableView better than the basic way?
I'd say for now, you should only use it for the very basic use case. As soon as you need customizations from that, use your own.
Since filtering is a very common use case, I might consider adding that to the features of SingleTableView at some point. If you need it before that, feel free to open a pull request.
i have create module using module builder , now i am having a field called as book Name
now if i give same book name 2 time t is accepting .
i don't want to use and plug in for checking duplicate value because i want to learn the customization through code .
so i can call ajax and check in data base weather the same book name is exist in db or not but i don't know how controller works in sugar crm . and how to call ajax in sugar crm .
can any one guide me , your help is much appreciated .
If you really want to accomplish this using ajax then I'd recommend an entryPoint as the way to go. This customization will require a couple of simple things. First you'll write a little bit of javascript to perform the actual ajax call. That ajax call will post to the entryPoint you write. The entryPoint will run the query for you and return a response to you in the edit view. So lets get started by writing the entryPoint first.
First, open the file custom/include/MVC/Controller/entry_point_registry.php. If the folder structure and file do not exist yet, go ahead and create them.
Add the following code to the entry_point_registry.php file:
$entry_point_registry['test'] = array('file' => 'custom/test.php', 'auth' => true);
Some quick explanation about that line:
The index value of test can be changed to whatever you like. Perhaps 'unique_book_value' makes more sense in your case. You'll see how this value is used in a minute.
The file value in the array points to where you're gonna put your actual code. You should also give this a more meaningful name. It does NOT need to match the array key mentioned above.
The 'auth' => true part determines whether or not the browser needs to have an active logged in session with SugarCRM or not. In this case (and almost all) I'd suggest keeping this to true.
Now lets look at the code that will go in custom/test.php (or in your case unique_book_name.php):
/* disclaimer: we are not gonna get all crazy with using PDO and parameterized queries at this point,
but be aware that there is potential for sql injection here. The auth => true will help
mitigate that somewhat, but you're never supposed to trust any input, blah blah blah. */
global $db; // load the global sugarcrm database object for your query
$book_name = urldecode($_REQUEST['book_name']); // we are gonna start with $_REQUEST to make this easier to test, but consider changing to $_POST when confirmed working as expected
$book_id = urldecode($_REQUEST['book_id']); // need to make sure this still works as expected when editing an existing record
// the $db->quote is an alias for mysql_real_escape_string() It still does not protect you completely from sql injection, but is better than not using it...
$sql = "SELECT id FROM book_module_table_name WHERE deleted = 0 AND name = '".$db->quote($book_name)."' AND id <> '".$db->quote($book_id)."'";
$res = $db->query($sql);
if ($db->getRowCount($res) > 0) {
echo 'exists';
}
else {
echo 'unique';
}
A note about using direct database queries: There are api methods you can use to accomplish this. (hint: $bean->retrieve_by_string_fields() - check out this article if you wanna go that route: http://developer.sugarcrm.com/2012/03/23/howto-using-the-bean-instead-of-sql-all-the-time/) However, I find the api to be rather slow and ajax should be as fast as possible. If a client asked me to provide this functionality there's a 99% chance I'd use a direct db query. Might use PDO and parameterized query if I'm feeling fancy that day, but it's your call.
Using the above code you should be able to navigate to https://crm.yourdomain.com/index.php?entryPoint=test and run the code we just wrote.
However at this point all you're gonna get is a white screen. If you modify the url to include the entryPoint part and it loads your home page or does NOT go to a white screen there are 3 potential causes:
You put something different for $entry_point_registry['test']. If so change the url to read index.php?entryPoint=whatever_you_put_as_the_array_key
You have sugar in a folder or something on your domain so instead of crm.yourdomain.com it is located somewhere ugly and stupid like yourdomain.com/sugarcrm/ if this is the case just make sure that your are modifying the url such that the actual domain portion is preserved. Okay I'll spell it out for you... https://yourdomain.com/sugarcrm/index.php?entryPoint=test
This is more rare, but for some reason that I cannot figure out apache sometimes needs to be reloaded when adding a new entrypoint. If you have shell access a quick /etc/init.d/apache2 reload should do the trick. If you don't have shell access you may need to open a ticket with your hosting provider (or get a fricking vps where you have some control!!!, c'mon man!)
Still not working? Did you notice the "s" in https? Try http instead and buy a fricking $9 ssl cert, geez man!
Okay moving on. Let's test out the entryPoint a bit. Add a record to the book module. Let's add the book "War of Art" (no, not Art of War, although you should give that a read too).
Now in the url add this: index.php?entryPoint=test&book_name=Art%20of%20War
Oh gawd that url encoding is hideous right! Don't worry about it.
You should hopefully get an ugly white screen with the text "exists". If you do let's make sure it also works the other way. Add a 2 to the book name in the url and hopefully it will now say "unique".
Quick note: if you're using Sugar you're probably also using mysql which is case insensitive when searching on strings. If you really need case sensitivity check out this SO article:
How can I make SQL case sensitive string comparison on MySQL?
Okay so now we have our entryPoint working and we can move on to the fun part of making everything all ajaxical. There are a couple ways to go about this, but rather than going the most basic route I'm gonna show you what I've found to be the most reliable route.
You probably will need to create the following file: custom/modules/CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULE/views/view.edit.php (I hope by now I don't need to point out changing that path to use your module name...
Assuming this file did not exist and we are starting from scratch here is what it will need to look like:
if(!defined('sugarEntry') || !sugarEntry) die('Not A Valid Entry Point');
class CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULEViewEdit extends ViewEdit
{
public function display()
{
// make sure it works in the subpanel too
$this->useForSubpanel = true;
// make the name value available in the tpl file
$this->ss->assign('name_value', $this->bean->name);
// load the parsed contents of the tpl into this var
$name_input_code = $this->ss->fetch('custom/modules/CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULE/tpls/unique_book_checker.tpl.js');
// pass the parsed contents down into the editviewdefs
$this->ss->assign('custom_name_code', $name_input_code);
// definitely need to call the parent method
parent::display();
}
}
Things are looking good. Now we gotta write the code in this file: custom/modules/CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULE/tpls/unique_book_checker.tpl.js
First a couple of assumptions:
We're going to expect that this is Sugar 6.5+ and jquery is already available. If you're on an earlier version you'll need to manually include jquery.
We're going to put the event listener on the name field. If the book name value that you want to check is actually a different field name then simply adjust that in the javascript below.
Here is the code for custom/modules/CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULE/unique_book_checker.tpl.js:
<input type="text" name="name" id="name" maxlength="255" value="{$name_value}" />
<span id="book_unique_result"></span>
{literal}
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function() {
$('#name').blur(function(){
$('#book_unique_result').html('<strong> checking name...</strong>');
$.post('index.php?entryPoint=test', {book_name: $('#name').val(), book_id: $('[name="record"]').val()}, function(data){
if (data == 'exists') {
removeFromValidate('EditView', 'name');
addToValidate('EditView', 'name', 'float', true, 'Book Name Must be Unique.');
$('#book_unique_result').html('<strong style="color:red;"> ✗</strong>');
}
else if (data == 'unique') {
removeFromValidate('EditView', 'name');
addToValidate('EditView', 'name', '', true, 'Name Required');
$('#book_unique_result').html('<strong style="color:green;"> ✓</strong>');
}
else {
// uh oh! maybe you have php display errors on?
}
});
});
});
</script>
{/literal}
Another Note: When the code detects that the name already exists we get a little hacky and use Sugar's built in validation stuff to prevent the record from saving. Basically, we are saying that if the name already exists then the name value MUST be a float. I figured this is pretty unlikely and will do the trick. However if you have a book named 3.14 or something like that and you try to create a duplicate this code will NOT prevent the save. It will tell you that a duplicate was found, but it will not prevent the save.
Phew! Okay last two steps and they are easy.
First, open the file: custom/modules/CUSTOM_BOOK_MODULE/metadata/editviewdefs.php.
Next, find the section that provides the metadata for the name field and add this customCode attribute so that it looks like this:
array (
'name' => 'name',
'customCode' => '{$custom_name_code}',
),
Finally, you'll need to do a quick repair and rebuild for the metadata changes to take effect. Go to Admin > Repair > Quick Repair & Rebuild.
Boom! You should be good to go!
I'm getting a DbEntityValidationException from a controller method that's trying to set the boolean IsVisible on an entity it retrieves from the DB. It's responding to an AJAX post from a change in a tick box on the page. This code used to work.
var targetClass = db.Classes.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == cid);
targetClass.IsVisible = true;
db.SaveChanges();
This results in DbEntityValidationException with the following errors:
The SchoolYear field is required.
The TuitionPlan field is required.
When I step through this code both targetClass.SchoolYear and targetClass.TuitionPlan are valid.
Question is, how do I figure out why EF thinks these fields are missing?
EDIT: This may have to do with (too) lazy loading... If I use both of the "missing" fields, the error goes away. Probably nothing more worrisome than not knowing why a serious problem just went away.
var targetClass = db.Classes.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == cid);
targetClass.IsVisible = value;
int x = targetClass.TuitionPlan.ID;
x = targetClass.SchoolYear.ID;
db.SaveChanges();
I really need someone to explain what's going on here, and how I should prevent this in the future.
Thanks for insight,
Eric
I don't think it is a good idea to validate navigation properties against null. A navigation property set to null means that there is not a related entity (the condition you want to validate) but can also mean that the relate entity was just not loaded. Now, sending an additional query to the database just to validate it is there seems to be an overkill and may cause performance problems (first and foremost you may be sending a lot of queries to database, second (unless you load the entities as not being tracked) you start tracking many more entities that you actually need track). Also note that for the above reasons validation disables lazy loading until validation is complete. This is probably the reason you see the errors even though in your app lazy loading is enabled. During validation it will be disabled and accessing the navigation property will not load the related entity. If you want to validate whether a related entity exists you can use foreign keys. Note that it won't require loading the related entity and should be relatively easy to do.
There are two classes: User and Question
A user may have many questions, and it also contains a question_count
to record the the count of questions belong to him.
So, when I add a new question, I want update the question_count of the
user. At first, I do as:
question = Question(title='aaa', content='bbb')
Session.add(question)
Session.flush()
user = question.user
### user is not None
user.question_count += 1
Session.commit()
Everything goes well.
But I wan't to use event callback to do the same thing. As following:
from sqlalchemy.orm.interfaces import MapperExtension
class Callback(MapperExtension):
def after_insert(self, mapper, connection, instance):
user = instance.user
### user is None !!!
user.question_count += 1
class Question(Base):
__tablename__ = "questions"
__mapper_args__ = {'extension':Callback()}
....
Note in the "after_insert" method:
instance.user # -> Get None!!!
Why?
If I change that line to:
Session.query(User).filter_by(id=instance.user_id).one()
I can get the user successfully, But: the user can't be updated!
Look I have modified the user:
user.question_count += 1
But there is no 'update' sql printed in the console, and the
question_count are not updated.
I try to add Session.flush() or Session.commit() in the
after_insert() method, but both cause errors.
Is there any important thing I'm missing? Please help me, thank you
The author of sqlalchemy gave me an useful answer in a forum, I copy it here:
Additionally, a key concept of the
unit of work pattern is that it
organizes a full list of all
INSERT,UPDATE, and DELETE statements
which will be emitted, as well as the
order in which they are emitted,
before anything happens. When the
before_insert() and after_insert()
event hooks are called, this structure
has been determined, and cannot be
changed in any way. The
documentation for before_insert() and
before_update() mentions that the
flush plan cannot be affected at this
point - only individual attributes on
the object at hand, and those which
have not been inserted or updated yet,
can be affected here. Any scheme
which would like to change the flush
plan must use
SessionExtension.before_flush.
However, there are several ways of
accomplishing what you want here
without modifiying the flush plan.
The simplest is what I already
suggested. Use
MapperExtension.before_insert() on the
"User" class, and set
user.question_count =
len(user.questions). This assumes
that you are mutating the
user.questions collection, rather than
working with Question.user to
establish the relationship. If you
happened to be using a "dynamic"
relationship (which is not the case
here), you'd pull the history for
user.questions and count up what's
been appended and removed.
The next way, is to do pretty much
what you think you want here, that is
implement after_insert on Question,
but emit the UPDATE statement
yourself. That's why "connection" is
one of the arguments to the mapper
extension methods:
def after_insert(self, mapper, connection, instance):
connection.execute(users_table.update().\
values(question_count=users_table.c.question_count +1).\
where(users_table.c.id==instance.user_id))
I wouldn't prefer that approach since
it's quite wasteful for many new
Questions being added to a single
User. So yet another option, if
User.questions cannot be relied upon
and you'd like to avoid many ad-hoc
UPDATE statements, is to actually
affect the flush plan by using
SessionExtension.before_flush:
class
MySessionExtension(SessionExtension):
def before_flush(self, session, flush_context):
for obj in session.new:
if isinstance(obj, Question):
obj.user.question_count +=1
for obj in session.deleted:
if isinstance(obj, Question):
obj.user.question_count -= 1
To combine the "aggregate" approach of
the "before_flush" method with the
"emit the SQL yourself" approach of
the after_insert() method, you can
also use SessionExtension.after_flush,
to count everything up and emit a
single mass UPDATE statement with many
parameters. We're likely well in the
realm of overkill for this particular
situation, but I presented an example
of such a scheme at Pycon last year,
which you can see at
http://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/pycon2010/src/tip/chap5/sessionextension.py
.
And, as I tried, I found we should update the user.question_count in after_flush
user, being I assume a RelationshipProperty, is only populated after the flush (as it is only this point the ORM knows how to relate the two rows).
It looks like question_count is actually a derived property, being the number of Question rows for that user. If performance is not a concern, you could use a read-only property and let the mapper do the work:
#property
def question_count(self):
return len(self.questions)
Otherwise you're looking at implementing a trigger, either at the database-level or in python (which modifies the flush plan so is more complicated).