In my application, users are accessing data that are specific to a station.
Because a user is able to switch from a station to another one, I would like to clean filter modules every time the current station is changed.
Icing on the cake, I would like to warn the user if exist some updates unsaved.
One idea would be to chain a reset all filter modules action to the one that allows the user to switch its station.
Unfortunately, there is no built-in action that restarts all the application filter modules, but it would not be much complicated to write one. The idea would be to iterate through all the workspace / modules hierarchy and to restart each module.
In order to restart a module, you can have a look to the standard org.jspresso.framework.application.frontend.action.module.ModuleRestartAction (source here). You could even inherit this action and simply override the execute method in order to deal with all the application modules instead of only the selected one.
Of course, if you feel like it could be a good addition to the framework standards, feel free to submit a RFE or even a PR.
Related
In the app I'm working on it's a fairly big codebase and components/pages are sometimes based on user roles. Admins will be able to see certain buttons or sections while regular users are not.
I need to modify a lot of the existing pages/components to accommodate a new role that's being added, which is view-only-admin.
This role will only be able to see everything including calendars, tasks, etc. but they are not allowed to make any sort of updates.
It would be a tremendous amount of work to go through the template of each component and file and look for v-if admin and also add a view-only-admin as well as make every single button or submit/click method behave differently for a view-only-admin role.
What would be the best way to handle this for the entire app? Re-writing and modifying v-if and submit methods seem like a bad use of time.
I've only been working with Vue/Nuxt for a few months, but I have read Mixins are pieces of code that you can reuse.
Would it be possible to write a mixin so that if the role is "view-only-admin" and there's an action that is a put/Post call, then they are not able to perform those API calls and presented with an error message?
I'm not sure how to go about properly implementing this feature. If I am able to stop all PUT/POST calls using a mixin, it would just redirect to a 404 right?
Thoughts?
If you are using axios for POST/PUT methods, then you should definitely check Interceptors.
But if you add only an interceptors without UI updates - your users may be confused why some buttons exist but doesn't work as expected.
I want to automate some tests where I have to manipulate the system time to check for authentication behaviours of a program that is written in golang. According to this post, libfaketime does not work with golang. Is there another way that I can achieve what I want to do with libfaketime?
Here's a description of what libfaketime does from github.
libfaketime intercepts various system calls that programs use to retrieve the
current date and time. It then reports modified (faked) dates and times (as
specified by you, the user) to these programs. This means you can modify the
system time a program sees without having to change the time system-wide.
No, there is none.
You need to use something like clockwork (see this for more) and explicitly pass "time" implementation around your code.
Update from 2021-03-01 with a more up-to-date list of options:
https://github.com/LopatkinEvgeniy/clock
https://github.com/jonboulle/clockwork
https://github.com/benbjohnson/clock
https://github.com/facebookgo/clock
https://github.com/tkuchiki/faketime
https://github.com/rzajac/clock
There is this repository (tkuchiki/faketime) which claims to be able to fake the time.Now()-function. I don't know how extensively this works and haven't tested it. But it sounds like it might be a solution to your problem.
Out-of-the-box, an Alfresco user can read a document based on:
The document's permissions
The user's role
The user's groups
Whether the user owns the document or not
Maybe some other factors I forgot?
Now, I want to add a new factor: Whether the document is currently part of a workflow.
Alfresco's permissionDefinitions.xml allows me to define permissions based on authorities such as ROLE_LOCK_OWNER etc, but it does not seem to be the right place to add permission conditions.
I guess I will have to write some Java source code, but I am not sure what classes are responsible for this, and whether there is an Alfresco way to customize them?
So, I assume you want to somehow have nodes that are attached to a workflow have different access rights? You need to think about the behavior you want in all of the UIs and protocols you are exposing (e.g. share, WebDAV, CIFS, FTP, etc.).
If you want to set a permission on a node, you can do that via JavaScript as well as Java (See http://docs.alfresco.com/5.2/references/API-JS-setPermission.html and http://docs.alfresco.com/5.2/references/dev-services-permission.html). As was mentioned in one of the comments, you can also get the number of active workflows on a node by referencing the activeWorkflows property in JavaScript (http://docs.alfresco.com/5.2/references/API-JS-ScriptNode.html) or in Java
Depending on the specifics, I might implement this in different ways, but if all you want to do is have the permission change, you could just update it at the beginning and end of your workflow with a simple javascript call. The only thing bad about that is that it doesn't take into consideration the workflow getting canceled. You could also create a policy/behavior on an aspect you attach or even have a rule or job run that updates content based on the activeWorkflows values.
The client I'm working for has a CMS written in Yii. Currently a part of their business is customizing the CMS to meet the specific needs of each customer. About 90% of the code is reused, essentially by copying and pasting from one directory to another. While I've been working on this project, I've had to merge changes in to the shared codebase several times.
All, or most, of these sites are hosted on the same server, and it would seem that it would make more sense to have a single login, that changed what features we showed based on the login. In some case that means overriding whole or partial views (eg, the _form.php might change from customer to customer) including the controller and model. Most of the time, it means adding a new controller for a bit of functionality written just for that client.
I've read about having both a front and backend site here: http://www.yiiframework.com/wiki/63/organize-directories-for-applications-with-front-end-and-back-end-using-webapplicationend-behavior but that doesn't seem to be the right fit (I don't want everyone coming to a different start php file, for instance)
Ideally, I'd have users log in, and get assigned a site id, which will filter data in the shared MVC objects, and will add in the ones specifically for them, or override the ones where necessary
Intuitively it seems like something like this would make sense:
Shared controllers go here:
/protected/controllers
Overrides and additions for client1 go here:
/protected/controllers/client1
or:
/protected/client1/controllers
But I'm not sure how to get Yii to do this in the most efficient and easy to manage way. Is this something that's going to work with Yii, or am I breaking it in ways unintended? If it will work, what's the best way to accomplish it so that it's clear to me six months from now, or some random developer who replaces me?
Do you know RBAM ?
With Role Based access you can profile your application in more-or-less granular way
I'm building a desktop application with Castle ActiveRecord and want to be able to do the equivalent of 1 nHibernate session per window form. Any ideas on how can I do this with Active Record?
Specifically, I have a main window that allows you to browse the data (read-only) and then you can open separate forms to edit the data.
Each time a form is opened, I want to create a new session, get a copy of the data to edit (so it can be changed without yet impacting the data in the main window). I then want to be able to manipulate that copy via data binding. And finally, either commit the changes (if the user chooses to Save) or roll them back (if the user chooses to cancel).
Any ideas?
If you don't need lazy loading, don't use a SessionScope. You can simply databind and call entity.Save() on Save. Since your objects are detached without a SessionScope, you don't have to do anything on cancellation of the form.
If you need lazy loading, then this won't work with plain ActiveRecord yet. A ConversationalScope that allows using CpBT (in your case Conversation per Form Instance) is planned, but not available yet.
One possibility is to try Rhino Commons which has a unit-of-work-implementation for ActiveRecord. This could allow what you want with current AR, but I didn't use it for about 2 years.
Edit:
A basic CpBT implementation is now available from trunk. Check-out and build with nant. See this link for how to use it:
https://svn.castleproject.org/svn/castle/ActiveRecord/trunk/src/Castle.ActiveRecord.Tests/Conversation/ConversationScenarioTest.cs
It is not production ready yet, but I'd love feedback on it.