I have the following container :
BeanContainer<Integer, Person> container = new BeanContainer<Integer, Person>(Person.class);
container.setBeanIdProperty("lastName");
Where person has a "lastName", "firstName" and "town" attributes.
I'm passing this container to my table :
table.setContainerDataSource(container);
The problem is that I want to have a bean id property value (called "fullname") that is the result of the lastname and firstname concatenation.
How can I do this wit the setTableFieldFactory and createField methods ?
Thank you.
It seems that you need a simple autogenerated column. Here is a sample: http://dev.vaadin.com/svn/versions/6.1/src/com/vaadin/demo/featurebrowser/GeneratedColumnExample.java
One way of doing it is to add a getter method getFullName() to your Person class which concatanes and than returns the name+surname fields
fmucar is right.
do not forget to include a setter too.
In some case a Property.ReadOnlyException will be throw if you miss to include a setter.
If you can do not use GeneratedColum because of the folowing point :
the visible display will be regenerated at any interaction (to try this you can add a generated column who return a random number).
the container know only the visible part. So sorting could be tricky.
Related
I am trying to map a json object to a Spring boot model class now the contract says for a property it have only a certain set of allowed values(not more than 3).
Example:
Suppose that json has field "name" and the contract says allowed values for field "name" are john,todd,phil
Anything other than john,todd,phil wont be accepted.
Is there any way to achive this constraint using any annotations
You can use following solutions
Solution 1:
Using #Pattern annotation with regex , if you want to use case insensitive use appropriate flags
#Pattern(regexp = "john|todd|phil", flags = Pattern.Flag.CASE_INSENSITIVE)
Solution 2:
By creating a enum class type with allowed values
public enum {
JOHN, TODD, PHIL
}
In your model class use #Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) on name filed
I wrote the following object type class.
public class ResponseType<T> : ObjectType<ResponseEntry<T>>
{
protected override void Configure(IObjectTypeDescriptor<ResponseEntry<T>> descriptor)
{
descriptor.Name("Response");
}
}
I want to use it like this as the outermost type in the resolver definition.
descriptor.Field<SharedResolvers>(r => r.GetObject1(default, default, default, default))
.Type<ResponseType<ListType<Object1>>>()
.Name("object1");
descriptor.Field<SharedResolvers>(r => r.GetObject2(default, default, default, default))
.Type<ResponseType<ListType<Object2>>>()
.Name("object2");
This code works if I only implement object1 however as soon as I add object2 I get the following error.
System.Collections.Generic.KeyNotFoundException: 'The given key 'HotChocolate.Configuration.RegisteredType' was not present in the dictionary.'
It seems as though there may be some issue with declaring two resolvers of the same class type. Is that the case? And if so, what are my options?
I was able to resolve the issue by setting the descriptor.Name to a unique value based on T.
descriptor.Name($"Response_{typeof(T).GetHashCode()}");
Then I realized my real issue was that I was defining the name at all. If you don't override the name it automatically comes up with a unique name/key based on the type definition.
What I'm trying to accomplish is:
Have a bean backed form being validated, for example using the following class
public class PersonForm {
#NotNull
String name;
List<Long> interests;
// This attribute is not filled out in the form
List<Interest> realInterests;
}
So, "name" and "interests" come from the web form. "name" has some constrains (NotNull) and using #Valid does what it is supposed to do.
"interests" is a list of Interest ids.
After doing the initial validation of the "name" I fill out the List collection.
#CustomValidInterest
public class Interest {
Long id;
String name;
boolean available;
}
I want to validate this structure afterwards. "#CustomValidInterest" is a custom validation annotation.
I can do a 2-stage validation using do this with Validation Groups.
The problem is, if some "Interest" object is not valid I want to associate the error message with the "interests" field (List< Long > type), so when I retrieve the form errors the error is associated with the right field.
Maybe I'm trying to use validation the wrong way. I was trying to avoid having a bunch of programmatic comparisons which filled errors manually.
Answering my own question, this is achievable using PropertyEditors. The form might return a List< Long > but the form object can have only a List < Interest > which is built using said Property mapper. After that a #Valid on that list should validate any constraints that "Interest" enforces.
if (settings.Contains("myDetailsObject"))
{
settings["myDetailsObject"] = myDetails;
}
else
{
settings.Add("myDetailsObject", myDetails);
}
settings.Save();
Tried doing the below, however it gave me error. those save values are in strings and is a custom object. tried even saving an integer instead and is still not working
Type 'SharedLibary.Object.MyDetailsObject' cannot be serialized. Consider marking it with the DataContractAttribute attribute, and marking all of its members you want serialized with the DataMemberAttribute attribute.
Add the attribute [DataMember] on all properties that you want to serialize in your MyDetailsObject class.
Mark class with [DataContractAttribute] attribute and all members that you want to serialize with [DataMemberAttribute]. Note, that marked properties must be public.
Also, don't forget to add reference to System.Runtime.Serialization
I have a view model sent to the edit action of my controller. The ViewModel contains references to EntityObjects. (yea i'm fine with it and don't need to want to duplicate all the entities properties in the viewmodel).
I instantiate the view model and then call UpdateModel. I get an error that a property is "null" which is fine since it is a related model. I am trying to exclude the property from being bound during model binding. On debugging it I see in the entity where the model binder is trying to set the value of the property to null.
Here is my edit action:
var model = new SimplifiedCompanyViewModel(id);
var excludeProperties = new string[] {
"Entity.RetainedEarningsAccount.AccountNo"
,"Property.DiscountEarnedAccount.ExpenseCodeValue"
,"Entity.EntityAlternate.EntityID"
,"Property.BankAccount.BankAccountID"
,"Entity.PLSummaryAccount.AccountNo"
,"Property.RefundBank.BankAccountID"
,"Company.Transmitter.TCC"
};
try
{
UpdateModel<SimplifiedCompanyViewModel>(model, String.Empty, null, excludeProperties);
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//db.SaveChanges();
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View(model);
}
I have looked at a few other issues about specifying a "prefix" but I don't think that is the issue since I am telling it to bind to the viewmodel instance not just the entity object.
Am I excluding the properties correctly? Strange thing is is only seems to happen on this item. I suspect it may be an issue with the fact that there is actually no refund bank related to my entity. But I have other related items that don't exist and don't see the same issue.
More info... since I'm told me model isn't designed well.
The Company is related to a BankAccount. The Company view shows the currently related BankAccount.BankAccountId and there is a hidden field with the BankAccount.Key. I use jQueryUI autocomplete feature to provide a dropdown of bank account displaying the BankAccount.BankAccountId and when one is selected the jQuery code changes the hidden field to have the correct Key value. So, when this is posted I don't want the current bankaccounts BankAccountID modified, hence I want it to skip binding that field.
If I exclude BankAccountId in the model then on the BankAccount edit view the user would never be able to change the BankAccountId since it won't be bound. I'm not sure how this indicates a poor model design.
Use the Exclude property of the Bind attribute:
[Bind(Exclude="Id,SomeOtherProperty")]
public class SimplifiedCompanyViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// ...
}
This is part of the System.Web.Mvc namespace. It takes a comma-separated list of property names to exclude when binding.
Also you should consider using TryUpdateModel instead of UpdateModel. You can also just have the default model binder figure it out by passing it as an argument to the constructor:
public ActionResult Create([Bind(Exclude="Id")]SimplifiedCompanyViewModel model)
{
// ...
}
A very simple solution that I figured out.
try
{
UpdateModel<SimplifiedCompanyViewModel>(model, String.Empty, null, excludeProperties);
ModelState.Remove("Entity.RetainedEarningsAccount.AccountNo");
ModelState.Remove("Property.DiscountEarnedAccount.ExpenseCodeValue");
ModelState.Remove("Entity.EntityAlternate.EntityID");
ModelState.Remove("Property.BankAccount.BankAccountID");
ModelState.Remove("Entity.PLSummaryAccount.AccountNo");
ModelState.Remove("Property.RefundBank.BankAccountID");
ModelState.Remove("ompany.Transmitter.TCC");
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//db.SaveChanges();
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View(model);
}
Another option here is simply don't include this attribute in your view and it won't be bound. Yes - you are still open to model injection then if someone creates it on the page but it is another alternative. The default templates in MVC will create your EditorFor, etc as separate items so you can just remove them. This prevents you from using a single line view editor with EditorForModel, but the templates don't generate it that way for you anyways.
EDIT (adding above comment)
DRY generally applies to logic, not to view models. One view = one view model. Use automapper to easily map between them. Jimmy Bogard has a great attribute for this that makes it almost automatic - ie you create the view model, load up your Customer entity for example, and return it in the action method. The AutpMap attribute will then convert it to a ViewModel. See lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models
Try the Exclude attribute.
I admit that I haven't ever used it.
[Exclude]
public Entity Name {get; set;}