I'm looking for a method to calculate the value of a cart, this could be for a user who is logged in (though perhaps not). What is the best method JavaScript (or can it be done in Firebase). To get an idea of value. It seems rather complex so I'm looking for a consensus of ideas (if you can spare the time).
Related
We have tried using some of the most popular Shopify Apps for this, and they work fine, but we have no way of controlling the exchange rate, on which basis the currencies are converted. This is very important for us, so we decided to find a way to code it manually.
I'm new to Shopify, but I have a sense of what I'll need to do within Liquid to effect the change. I'll need to change a Liquid variable somehow based on the selected currency and then recalculate it based on the value of that variable.
I am aware that you cannot trigger Liquid from Javascript, as they don't run concurrently, which makes the entire logic fall apart in a sense, or maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way.
How do I need to approach this?
Any help would be appreciated.
Hi there working with bigcommerce Im looking to get the following style of break down on each category page
Essentially making a category version of;
%%Panel.HomeFeaturedProducts%%
%%Panel.SideTopSellers%%
%%Panel.HomeNewProducts%%
Ive gone ahead and attempted this however they seem to be pulling in from global values, and there dose not seem to me much option to break these down or limit the category, has anyone done this previously and if so how?
developerscott is correct in those panels not offering contextually unique data. I'd recommend looking into Unbxd. It has a 30 day trial so you can either investigate their programmatic solution or use it in place of making your own.
We're having a bit of a debate between specifying the page number vs. row number, along with rows per page. E.g. to get rows 21-40 it could be either
page=2&rows=20
or
offset=21&limit=20
I know this is a bit of an opinion question, but any standards or best practices out there?
This would really depend on the source and consumer of your data but, for comparison, REST best practices (warning, PDF!) specify offset and limit parameters, as in your second example.
I think the document claims this is simpler if pages may contain different numbers of rows; your mileage may vary.
Obviously both work, but I've seen page more often than not. From a UI perspective, users may not know what offset means.. but they have an expectation from changing the page field. Also, if you use page, you should restrict what values limit should be. The point of pagination is to ensure that the backend doesn't send a ton of data back to the UI, so giving only a few options (or choosing for the user) would achieve that.
I'm building an API and I have a question about how to represent objects.
Imagine we have a system with Articles that have a bunch of properties. Some of these properties are complex, for example the Author of the Article refers to another object. We have an URL to fetch all the articles in the system, and another URL to fetch a particular Article.
My first approach to implement this would be to create two representations of the same object Article, because when you request all the articles, it makes sense that you don't retrieve all the information about the Articles, but for example just the title, the date and the name of the author (instead of the whole Author object), excluding other properties like tags, or the content. The idea beneath this is to try to make the response of all the Articles a little bit lighter.
Now I'm going to the client side, and I decide to implement a SDK for Android, for example. So the first step would be to create the objects to store the information that I retrieve from the API. Now a problem pops up, because I want to define the Article object, but I would need two versions of it and it's not only more difficult to implement, but it's going to be more difficult to use.
So my question is, when defining an API, is it a good practice to have multiple versions of the same object (maybe a light one, and a full one) to save some bandwidth when sending the result of a request but generating a more difficult to use service, or it's not worth it and you should retrieve always the same version of the object, generating heavier responses but making the service easier to use?
I work at a company that deals with Articles as well and we also have a REST API to expose the data.
I think you're on the right track, but I'll even take it one step further. These are the potential three calls for large entities in an API:
Index. For the articles, this would be something like /articles. It just returns a list of article ids. You can add parameters to filter, sort, etc. It's very lightweight and I've found it to be very useful.
Header/Mini/Light version. These are only the crucial fields that you think will meet the widest variety of use cases. For us, we have a lot of use cases where we might want to display the top 5 articles, and in those cases, only title, author and maybe publication date. Those fields belong in a "header" article, or a "light" article. This is especially useful for AJAX calls as you don't want to return the entire article (for us the object is quite large.)
Full version. This is the full article. All the text/paragraphs/image references - everything. It's a heavy call to make, but you will be guaranteed to get whatever is available.
Then it just takes discipline to leave the objects the way they are. Ideally users are able to get the version described in (2) to save time over the wire, but if they have to, they go with (3).
I've considered having a dynamic way to return only fields people are interested in, but it would be a lot of implementation. Basically the idea was to let the user go to /article and then show them a sample JSON result. Then the user could click on the fields they wanted returned and get a token. Then they'd pass the token as a parameter to the API and the API would then know which fields to return.
Creates a dynamic schema. Lots of work and I never got around to it, but you can see that if you want to be creative, you can.
Consider whether your data (for one API client) is changing a lot or not. If it's possible to cache data on the client, that'll improve performance by not contacting the API as much. Otherwise I think it's a good idea to have a light-weight and full-scale object type (or more like two views of the same object type).
In the client you should implement it as one object type (to keep it DRY; Don't Repeat Yourself) with all the properties. When fetching a light-weight object, you only store a few of the properties, the rest being null (or similar “undefined” value for the given property type). It should be possible to determine whether all or only a partial subset of the properties are loaded.
When making API requests in the client on a given model (ie. authors) you should be explicit about whether the light-weight or full-scale object is needed and whether cached data is acceptable. This makes it possible to control the data in the UI layer. For example a list of authors might only need to display a name and a number of articles connected with that author. When displaying the author screen, more properties are needed. Also, if using cached data, you should provide a way for the user to refresh it.
When the app works you can start to implement optimizations like: Don't fetch light-weight data if full-scala data is already known & Don't fetch data at all if a recent cache copy exists. I think the best is to look at the actual use cases and improve performance with the highest value for the user.
There are a multitude of key-value stores available. Currently you need to choose one and stick with it. I believe an independent open API, not made by a key-value store vendor would make switching between stores much easier.
Therefore I'm building a datastore abstraction layer (like ODBC but focused on simpler key value stores) so that someone build an app once, and change key-value stores if necessary. Is this API too simple?
get(Key)
set(Key, Value)
exists(Key)
delete(Key)
As all the APIs I have seen so far seem to add so much I was wondering how many additional methods were necessary?
I have received some replies saying that set(null) could be used to delete an item and if get returns null then this means that an item doesn't exist. This is bad for two reasons. Firstly, is it not good to mix return types and statuses, and secondly, not all languages have the concept of null. See:
Do all programming languages have a clear concept of NIL, null, or undefined?
I do want to be able to perform many types of operation on the data, but as I understand it everything can be built up on top of a key value store. Is this correct? And should I provide these value added functions too? e.g: like mapreduce, or indexes
Internally we already have a basic version of this in Erlang and Ruby and it has saved us alot of time, and also enabled us to test performance for specific use cases of different key value stores
Do only what is absolute necessary, instead of asking if it is too simple, ask if it is too much, even if it only has one method.
Your API lacks some useful functions like "hasKey" and "clear". You might want to look at, say, Python's hack at it, http://docs.python.org/tutorial/datastructures.html#dictionaries, and pick and choose additional functions.
Everyone is saying, "simple is good" and that's true until "simple is too simple."
If all you are doing is getting, setting, and deleting keys, this is fine.
There is no such thing as "too simple" for an API. The simpler the better! If it solves the need the way it is, then leave it.
The delete method is unnecessary. You can just pass null to set.
Edited to add:
I'm only kidding! I would keep delete, and probably add Count, Contains, and maybe an enumerator (or two).
When creating an API, you need to ask yourself, what does my API provide the user. If your API is so simplistic that it is faster and easier for your client to write their own app, then your API has failed. Ask yourself, does my functionality give them specific benefits. If the answer is no, it is too simplistic and generic.
I am all for simplifying an interface to its bare minimum but without having more details about the requirements of the system, it is tough to tell if this interface is sufficient. Sure looks concise enough though.
Don't forget to document the semantics for "key non-existent" as it isn't clear from reading your API definition above. updated: I see you have added the exists method: is this necessary? you could use the get method and define a NIL of some sort, no?
Maybe worth thinking about: how about considering "freshness" of a value? i.e. an associated "last-modified" timestamp? Of course, it depends on your system requirements.
What about access control? Is it within scope of the API definition?
What about iterating through the keys? If there is a possibility of a large set, you might want to include some pagination semantics.
As mentioned, the simpler the better, but a simple iterator or key-listing method could be of use. I always end up needing to iterate through the set. A "size()" method too, if not taken care of by the iterator. It obviously depends on your usage, though.
It's not too simple, it's beautiful. If "exists(key)" is just a convenient shorthand for "get(Key) != null", you should consider removing it. I guess that depends on how large or complex the value you get() is.