When I query the API api/issues/ for issues with fields="id", I get back an array of issues similiar to this:
[
{ "id": "2-120" }
]
This works for further calls because 2-120 can be used in calls to /api/issues/{id}. However, I also need to display those IDs to users, which are more comfortable with project-based IDs, like EX-10. (Also, the whole browser user-interface is structured around those project issues ids)
What I tried:
Had a look at the Issue JSON Schema docs, which do not seem to contain an additional ID
Tried to find out if they can be converted manually, which does not seem to be the case.
So, how can I convert global issue IDs, like 2-120, to project issue IDs, like EX-10?
After looking at the schema again, I simply overlooked idReadable. So, a request to api/issues/PA-102?fields=id,idReadable will give you both types of IDs.
{ "id": "2-120", "idReadable": "PA-20" }
Related
I have a JSON object like {"id1": 123, "id2": 234}, that I pass to a feature file in order to plugin each of the values above for a series of API requests like:
And path `/somePath/${id1}/detail`
And request {"id": "#(id1)", "action": "Reassign"}
My first thought was to use a Scenario Outline, but couldn't figure out how to set the ID's in the Examples table so they were properly read. Then I looked in documentation, and it seems like when I pass a JSON object like this, it should run the scenario for each value automatically. The problem is, not sure how to set the variable, as the key changes each time.
Or maybe there is a much better way to do this I'm not seeing?
In order for it to work your keys need to be the same. In this case you actually have a single JSON object with two properties (id1, id2). Instead what it sounds like you want are two objects:
[
{ "id": 123, "path": "/mydir1/" },
{ "id": 456, "path": "/mydir2/" }
]
Also notice that it has to be a list/array of json objects that you are passing in, not just one blob like you have. And if each object contains a path name, you should add that internal to the object itself.
But, again, notice that each object in the list/array has the same structure, just with different data. You then use the common property names in your script.
Could not find this answer online, so decided to post the question then the answer.
I created a table in the capabilities.json file:
"dataRoles": [
{
"displayName": "Stakeholders",
"name": "roleIwant",
"kind": "GroupingOrMeasure"
}
...
"dataViewMappings": [
{
"table": {
"rows": {
"select": [
{
"for": {
"in": "roleIwant"
}
}
]
}
}
}
]
I realized that I could not simply set, for instance, legend data from the first category, because the first category comes from the first piece of data the user drags in, regardless of position. So if they set a bunch of different pieces of data in Power BI online, for instance, then remove one, the orders of everything get messed up. I thought the best way to settle this would be to identify the role of each column and go from there.
When you click on show Dataview, the hierarchy clearly shows:
...table->columns[0]->roles: { "roleIwant": true }
So I thought I could access it like:
...table.columns[0].roles.roleIwant
but that is not the case. I was compiling using pbiviz start from the command prompt, which gives me an error:
error TYPESCRIPT /src/visual.ts : (56,50) Property 'roleIwant' does not exist on type '{ [name: string]: boolean; }'.
Why can I not access this in this way? I was thinking because natively, roles does not contain the property roleIwant, which is true, but that shouldn't matter...
The solution is actually pretty simple. I got no 'dot' help (typing a dot after roles for suggestions), but you can use regular object properties for roles. The command for this case would be:
...table.columns[0].roles.hasOwnProperty("roleIwant")
And the functional code portion:
...
columns.forEach((column) =>{
if(column.roles.hasOwnProperty("roleIwant")){
roleIwantData = dataview.categorical.categories[columns.indexOf(column)].values;
})
If it has the property, it belongs to that role. From here, the data saved will contain the actual values of that role! The only thing I would add on here is that if a column is used for multiple roles, depending on how you code, you may want to do multiple if's to check for the different roles belonging to a column instead of if else's.
If anyone has any further advice on the topic, or a better way to do it, by all means. I searched for the error, all over for ways to access columns' roles, and got nothing, so hopefully this topic helps someone else. And sorry for the wordiness - I tend to talk a lot.
Overview
I'm using Ember data and have a JSONAPI. Everything works fine until I have a more complex object (let's say an invoice for a generic concept) with an array of items called lineEntries. The line entries are not mapped directly to a table so need to be stored as raw JSON object data. The line entry model also contains default and computed values. I wish to store the list data as a JSON object and then when loaded back from the store that I can manipulate it as normal in Ember as an array of my model.
What I've tried
I've looked at and tried several approaches, the best appear to be (open to suggestions here!):
Fragments
Replace problem models with fragments
I've tried making the line entry model a fragment and then referencing the fragment on the invoice model as a fragmentArray. Line entries add to the array as normal but default values don't work (should they?). It creates the object and I can store it in the backend but when I return it, it fails with either a normalisation issue or a serialiser issue. Can anyone state the format the data be returned in? It's confusing as normalising the data seems to require JSONAPI but the fragment requires JSON serialiser. I've tried several combinations but no luck so far. My line entries don't have actual ids as the data is saved and loaded as a block. Is this an issue?
DS.EmbeddedRecordsMixin
Although not supported in JSONAPI, it sounds possible to use JSONAPI and then switch to JSONSerializer or RESTSerializer for the problem models. If this is possible could someone give me a working example and the JSON format that should be returned by the API? I have header authorisation and other such data so would I still be able to set this at the application level for all request not using my JSONAPI?
Ember-data-save-relationships
I found an add on here that provides an add on to do this. It seems more involved than the other approaches but when I've tried this I can send the data up by setting a the data as embedded. Great! But although it saves it doesn't unwrap it correct and I'm back with the same issues.
Custom serialiser
Replace the models serialiser with something that takes the data and sends it as plain JSON data and then deserialises back into something Ember can use. This sounds similar to the above but I do the heavy lifting. The only reason to do this is because all examples for the above solutions are quite light and don't really show how to set this up with an actual JSONAPI set up that would need it.
Where I am and what I need
Basically all approaches lead to saving the JSON fine but the return JSON from the server not being the correct format or the deserialisation failing but it's unclear what it should be or what needs to change without breaking the existing JSONAPI models that work fine.
If anyone know the format for return API data it may resolve this. I've tried JSONAPI with lineEntries returning the same format as it saved. I've tried placing relationship sections like the add on suggested and I've also tried placing relationship only data against the entries and an include section with all the references. Any help on this would be great as I've learned a lot through this but deadlines a looming and I can't see a viable solution that doesn't break as much as it fixes.
If you are looking for return format for relational data from the API server you need to make sure of the following:
Make sure the relationship is defined in the ember model
Return all successes with a status code of 200
From there you need to make sure you return relational data correctly. If you've set the ember model for the relationship to {async: true} you need only return the id of the relational model - which should also be defined in ember. If you do not set {async: true}, ember expects all relational data to be included.
return data with relationships in JSON API specification
Example:
models\unicorn.js in ember:
import DS from 'ember-data';
export default DS.Model.extend({
user: DS.belongsTo('user', {async: true}),
staticrace: DS.belongsTo('staticrace',{async: true}),
unicornName: DS.attr('string'),
unicornLevel: DS.attr('number'),
experience: DS.attr('number'),
hatchesAt: DS.attr('number'),
isHatched: DS.attr('boolean'),
raceEndsAt: DS.attr('number'),
isRacing: DS.attr('boolean'),
});
in routes\unicorns.js on the api server on GET/:id:
var jsonObject = {
"data": {
"type": "unicorn",
"id": unicorn.dataValues.id,
"attributes": {
"unicorn-name" : unicorn.dataValues.unicornName,
"unicorn-level" : unicorn.dataValues.unicornLevel,
"experience" : unicorn.dataValues.experience,
"hatches-at" : unicorn.dataValues.hatchesAt,
"is-hatched" : unicorn.dataValues.isHatched,
"raceEndsAt" : unicorn.dataValues.raceEndsAt,
"isRacing" : unicorn.dataValues.isRacing
},
"relationships": {
"staticrace": {
"data": {"type": "staticrace", "id" : unicorn.dataValues.staticRaceId}
},
"user":{
"data": {"type": "user", "id" : unicorn.dataValues.userId}
}
}
}
}
res.status(200).json(jsonObject);
In ember, you can call this by chaining model functions. For example when this unicorn goes to race in controllers\unicornracer.js:
raceUnicorn() {
if (this.get('unicornId') === '') {return false}
else {
return this.store.findRecord('unicorn', this.get('unicornId', { backgroundReload: false})).then(unicorn => {
return this.store.findRecord('staticrace', this.get('raceId')).then(staticrace => {
if (unicorn.getProperties('unicornLevel').unicornLevel >= staticrace.getProperties('raceMinimumLevel').raceMinimumLevel) {
unicorn.set('isRacing', true);
unicorn.set('staticrace', staticrace);
unicorn.set('raceEndsAt', Math.floor(Date.now()/1000) + staticrace.get('duration'))
this.set('unicornId', '');
return unicorn.save();
}
else {return false;}
});
});
}
}
The above code sends a PATCH to the api server route unicorns/:id
Final note about GET,POST,DELETE,PATCH:
GET assumes you are getting ALL of the information associated with a model (the example above shows a GET response). This is associated with model.findRecord (GET/:id)(expects one record), model.findAll(GET/)(expects an array of records), model.query(GET/?query=&string=)(expects an array of records), model.queryRecord(GET/?query=&string=)(expects one record)
POST assumes you at least return at least what you POST to the api server from ember , but can also return additional information you created on the apiServer side such as createdAt dates. If the data returned is different from what you used to create the model, it'll update the created model with the returned information. This is associated with model.createRecord(POST/)(expects one record).
DELETE assumes you return the type, and the id of the deleted object, not data or relationships. This is associated with model.deleteRecord(DELETE/:id)(expects one record).
PATCH assumes you return at least what information was changed. If you only change one field, for instance in my unicorn model, the unicornName, it would only PATCH the following:
{
data: {
"type":"unicorn",
"id": req.params.id,
"attributes": {
"unicorn-name" : "This is a new name!"
}
}
}
So it only expects a returned response of at least that, but like POST, you can return other changed items!
I hope this answers your questions about the JSON API adapter. Most of this information was originally gleamed by reading over the specification at http://jsonapi.org/format/ and the ember implementation documentation at https://emberjs.com/api/data/classes/DS.JSONAPIAdapter.html
Mandatory User Filters
I am working on a tool to allow customers to apply Mandatory User Filters. When attributes are loaded like "Year" or "Age", each can have hundreds of elements with the subsequent ids. In the POST request to create a filter (documented here: https://developer.gooddata.com/article/lets-get-started-with-mandatory-user-filters), looks like this:
{
"userFilter": {
"content": {
"expression": "[/gdc/md/{project-id}/obj/{object-id}]=[/gdc/md/{project-id}/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}]"
},
"meta": {
"category": "userFilter",
"title": "My User Filter Name"
}
}
}
In the "expression" property, it notes how one ID could be set. What I want is to have multiple ids associated with the object-id set with the post. For example, if I user wanted to add a filter to all of the elements in "Year" (there are 150) in the demo project, it seems odd to make 150 post requests.
Is there a better way?
UPDATE
Tomas thank you for your help.
I am not having trouble assigning multiple userfilters to a user. I can easily apply a singular filter to a user with the method outlined in the documentation. However, this overwrites the userfilter field. What is the syntax for this?
Here is my demo POST data:
{ "userFilters":
{ "items": [
{ "user": "/gdc/account/profile/decd0b2e3077cf9c47f8cfbc32f6460e",
"userFilters":["/gdc/md/a1nc4jfa14wey1bnfs1vh9dljaf8ejuq/obj/808728","/gdc/md/a1nc4jfa14wey1bnfs1vh9dljaf8ejuq/obj/808729","/gdc/md/a1nc4jfa14wey1bnfs1vh9dljaf8ejuq/obj/808728"]
}
]
}
}
This receives a BAD REQUEST.
I'm not sure what you mean by "have multiple ids associated with the object-id" exactly, but I'll try to tell you all I know about it. :-)
If you indeed made multiple POST requests, created multiple userFilters and set them all for one user, the user wouldn't see anything at all. That's because the system combines separate userFilters using logical AND, and a Year cannot be 2013 and 2014 at the same time. So for the rest of my answer, I'll assume that you want OR instead.
There are several ways to do this. As you may have guessed by now, you can use AND/OR explicitly, using an expression like this:
[/…/obj/{object-id}]=[/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}] OR [/…/obj/{object-id}]=[/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}]
This can often be further simplified to:
[/…/obj/{object-id}] IN ( [/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}], [/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}], … )
If the attribute is a date (year, month, …) attribute, you could, in theory, also specify ranges using BETWEEN instead of listing all elements:
[/…/obj/{object-id}] BETWEEN [/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}] AND [/…/obj/{object-id}/elements?id={element-id}]
It seems, though, that this only works in metrics MAQL and is not allowed in the implementation of user filters. I have no idea why.
Also, for your own attribute like Age, you can't do that since user-defined numeric attributes aren't supported. You could, in theory, add a fact that holds the numeric value, and construct a BETWEEN filter based on that fact. It seems that this is not allowed in the implementation of user filters either. :-(
Hope this helps.
I'm designing a new API for my project, and I want to return objects that have nested children as json. For that purpose i've decided to use RABL.
I want the client side to be able to understand whether the object is valid, and if not which fields are missing in order to save it correctly.
The design I thought of should include some fields as optional, under an optional hash, and the rest are required. The required fields should appear right under the root of the json.
So the output I try to describe should look something like this:
{
"name": "John",
"last_name": "Doe",
"optional": {
"address": "Beverly Hills 90210",
"phones":[{"number":"123456","name":"work"}, {"number":"654321","name":"mobile"}]
}
}
The above output example describes the required fields name and last name, and the not required address and phones (which is associated in a belongs_to-has_many relationship to the object). name, last_name and address are User's DB fields.
Playing with RABL I didn't manage so far to create this kind of structure.
Any suggestions? I'm looking for a DRY way to implement this for all my models.
RABL is really good in creating JSON structures on the fly, so I don't see why you couldn't achieve your goal. Did you try testing if a field is set to null-able in the schema, and thus presenting it as optional? It seems a good approach for me. For the nested children, just do the same, but extend the template for the children.
For example, in your father/show.rabl display a custom node :optional with all the properties that can be null.
Then, create a child/show.rabl with the same logic. Finally, go back to father/show.rabl and add a child node, extending the child/show.rabl template. This way you could achieve unlimited levels of "optionals".
Hope it helped you.
In this case I'd use the free form option.
From https://github.com/nesquena/rabl
There can also be odd cases where the root-level of the response
doesn't map directly to any object.
In those cases, object can be assigned to 'false'
and nodes can be constructed free-form.
object false
node(:some_count) { |m| #user.posts.count }
child(#user) { attribute :name }