In this thread I verified that the correct approach for hiding some individual fields from a composite field is done correctly. That seems to be confirmed by other sources as well. However, despite a rule defined like so:
I still get the stupid fields to show up when on account form. It looks as the following image depicts and is a high level annoyance and reason for my teeth grinding. What am I missing? (Yes, I did activate the rule and I reloaded the form.)
If there are any issues with business rule (i.e. when attempting to hide a field not present on the targeted form, as is the case, due to mix-up between country and county), it wouldn't proceed, the execution will stop but there won't be any complaints or any errors thrown.
Credits to #Daryl for: "I've had issues where hidden fields were the first field on the form and the method the MS uses to select the first field, made it visible."
Related
This storefront sells clothes among other things and the size is a key selection that we want the customers to make explicitly.
Because SFRA pre-selects the size customers overlook the choice and will inadvertently checkout the wrong size, as this is the preselected choice made by SFRA.
This causes increased load on our customer service and returns handling and a bad customer experience (it is hard to argue whether the customer selected the wrong size or the storefront had preselected the wrong one and they were not aware).
How can I change this behavior so that the size is not preselected?
Current behavior: Size is preselected:
Desired behavior: Customer must select the size themselves:
SFRA version: 5.3.0
The functionality you desire is included in the variationAttribute template in SFRA v5.3.0. You can also confirm the functionality on the SFRA demo site - see this product on the demo site for a comparable example.
I've inferred that you still have the "Select <attr>" option in the dropdown, which is added by the variationAttribute template, and the Add to Cart button in your second screenshot is appropriately disabled (unless you manually adjusted these for your screenshot). This suggests you likely you have some custom clientside script that is performing the automatic selection of the first variation. This automation reduces clicks in cases where the first is likely what the customer wants, so some UX guidelines recommend the experience you have, at the expense of the problems your support team are now dealing with. Perhaps as a compromise, this functionality should only trigger if there is only one available selection for a given attribute.
Without a link to an example, it's difficult to diagnose where this code might be. I would start by searching my custom clientside scripts for a selector matching the variationAttribute's select element. I might also use devtools to inspect the change listeners on each of the attributes, which should trigger slicing and availability checks. These checks disable unavailable options in other attributes, and would be the appropriate place for the automatic selection customization to occur.
I'm modeling a consumer's behaviour using statechart. I used "branch" to model two options which are :
1) buy a product if it does exist
2) leave the retailer if it doesn't exist.
However, when I simulate, It tells me NullPointException Java.lang.NullPointerException. When I click on it, I find that the problem is into the branch (described in pictures below),
Has anyone gone through this, or does any one have some solutions ?
Pictures below show in detail what I 've written and what I got as a result
Thanks ^^
My statechart that represents the behaviour of consumer
what I got when I click on Consumer.java:321 in the console
What I got when I click on Consumer.java:408 in the console
it means that retailer is null... which means that at that point in time, you variable retailer has no value in it
Debug your model with the objective of being sure that you are assigning a value to the retailer variable.
I know this has been asked several times may be, but most (if not all) solutions I've seen were involving a javascript solution or disabling form/submit button, which I'm not preferring.
I have couple of huge forms that may take some time to complete submission which may let the user to re-submit many times during the first submission, which eventually will cause for many records in the database.
Proposed solution:
A proposed solution is to have a generic method that have an array including all submitted forms IDs, each time a user submit a form, it's ID will be added to that array if it's not already existed, after the submit complete the ID will be popped out the array. A drawback can be counted on this solution in case a user opened two or more pages of the same form and submit them synchronously, but that can be worried about later.
My question is how feasible is my proposed solution and how good it can be? and how can I implement that generic method?
I understand that Apache Struts 2 framework has some solution to prevent such thing (Token Interceptor), how to do that in MVC 4?:
Just add a GUID field to the ViewModel the view is bound to (You are using ViewModels right?) and every time the empty form is asked for, generate a new GUID (solves the issue of downloading two or more copies by same user) for it and have it included in the view as a hidden field (string representation of it). Then you can implement the array solution you are talking about in a session variable or even a database based solution in which all processed GUIDs are saved in a table that gets cleared every so often, a text file that contains the list of GUIDs, etc. kind of hard to pick a complete solution based on just what you provide. But the above should provide you with all the requirements you have outlined.
I need to set up different permission on an object based on its workflow state. For instance, 'manager group' can edit the object only if state=draft but 'super manager group' can edit it also if state=validated.
It seems that's not possible using ir.model.access and I'm evaluating if it could be done using ir.rule. It seems not...
Is there a official way to get this or do I need to implement this feature (maybe by adding a condition into ir.model.access machinery).
This is not possible by default with ir.model.access, because this permission model is designed to act like simple Unix permission on CRUD operations, and it is statically defined, per-model and per-group.
You may be able to implement something like this using ir.rule, as it implements dynamic per-record access control based on field values. By having a set of rules defined only on the write and unlink operations and based on the state field, you will be able to prevent some groups from modifying records in certain states. By using the technique of an always-true rule [(1,'=',1)] you can then relax a non-global rule for users who have a "super-access" group. See also this answer.
This option will have important caveats however:
Be careful not to make those rules apply for read, as it will make the records completely disappear, and generally wreak havoc in your processes
The interface will not become read-only when the rule is in effect, and if you want to make the fields and buttons read-only you will have to find a way to specify this via attrs in a manner that depends on the user's groups. See also this Launchpad question.
the Save button in the UI will not be disabled
The standard error reporting in case of ir.rule restriction is not very clear, so it will certainly confuse users (note: it's being improved for 7.0)
As you see, using ir.rule filters for this purpose is far from a perfect solution, and you will first need to find appropriate solutions for the above issues.
Ultimately, you might have an easier task of implementing your own logic for this, plugging a new mechanism in the ORM primitive API methods: fields_view_get (for making fields dynamically read-only based on the user groups) and the CRUD methods (for actually restricting the operations)
There is another way instead of hacking web-client.
You can always have 2 views for the same Object .
For manager group.
For super manager group.
In manager group you can use attrs = {'readonly': [('state', '!=', 'draft')]}
or any condition as you needed.
And in the same way in super manager group, you can put his condition for fields.
I have this feature working on a production environment, using just Record Rules: in Project Issues, "basic users" can create and cancel issues, but can't open or close them.
Despite the GUI limitations mentioned by #odony, it works perfectly.
These are the Record Rules used::
There is a special case that needs attention: changing from a read-write State to a read-only State:
In the action's method, if the the State is changed after other write operations, the user will be able to change the State; but if there are some write operations after the State update, the user will not be able to change State.
In my example, the Project Issue method to Open an issue is case_open(). It first changes State and then does additional changes, like settting Open Date, User and Message history. Because of this, basic users can't Open issues. If you want them to be able to do so, case_open() must be overridden so that it changes State after all other write operations are done.
I got a similar requirement...
My requirement was to make a char field(say "test_123") readonly in the sale.order if the user comes under the group "sale user" otherwise editable for the group "Sale Manager".
That is, if the sale order is in draft state then anyone can edit, but it the sale order is confirmed then this field "test_123" is only editable for "Sale Manger"
What I did is I added a functional field (is_group_manager) which returns True if the user comes under the group "sale manager" and the state is not "draft" otherwise false.
Then in the xml view I added the field "test_123" with attribute attrs="{'readonly':[('is_group_manager','=',0)]}"
for example
<field name="is_group_manager" invisible="1"/>
<field name="test_123" attrs="{'readonly':[('is_group_manager','=',0)]}"/>
This will work only in openerp v6.0. Maybe this will be helpful for you. :)
I have 2 1/2 years experience of VB.Net, mostly self taught, so please bear with me if I seem rather noobish still and do not know some of the basics. I would recommend you grab a cup of tea before starting on this, as it appears to have got quite long...
I currently have a rather large application (VB.Net website) of over 15000 lines of code at the last count. It does not do retail or anything particularly complex like that - it is literally just a wholesale viewing website with admin frontend, catalogue / catalogue management system and pageview system.
I don't really know much about how .Net applications work in the background - whether they are all loaded on the same thread or if each has its own thread... I just know how to code them, or at least like to think I do... :-)
Basically my application is set up as follows:
There are two different areas - the customer area and the administration frontend.
The main part of the customer frontend is the Catalogue. The MasterPage will load a list of products but that's all, and this is common to all the customer frontend pages.
I tend to work on only one or several parts of the application at a time before uploading the changes. So, for example, I may alter the hierarchy of the Catalogue and change the Catalogue page to match the hierarchy change whilst leaving everything else alone.
The pageview database is getting really quite large and so it is getting rather slow when the application is first requested due to the way it works.
The application timeout is set to 5 minutes - don't know how to change it, I have even tried asking this question on here and seem to remember the solution was quite complex and I was recommended not to change it, but if a customer requests the application 5 minutes after the last page view then it will reload the application from scratch. This means there is a very slow page load whenever it exceeds 5 minutes of inactivity.
I am not sure if this needs consideration to determine how best to split the application up, if at all, but each part of the catalogue system is set up as follows:
A Manager class at the top level, which is used by the admin frontend to add, edit and remove items of the specified type and the customer frontend to retrieve a list of items of the specified type. For example the "RangeManager" will contain a list of product "Ranges" and will be used to interact with these from the customer frontend.
An Item class, for example Range, which contains a list of Attributes. For example Name, Description, Visible, Created, CreatedBy and so on. The form for adding / editing loops through these to display relevant controls for the administrator. For example a Checkbox for BooleanAttribute.
An Attribute class, which can be of type StringAttribute, BooleanAttribute, IntegerAttribute and so on. There are also custom Attributes (not just datatypes) such as RangeAttribute, UserAttribute and so on. These are given a data field which is used to get a piece of data specific to the item it is contained in when it is first requested. Basically the Item is given a DataRow which is stored and accessed by Attributes only when they are first requested.
When one item is requested from a specific manager is requested, the manager will loop through all the items in the database and create a new instance of the item class. For example when a Range is requested from the RangeManager, the RangeManager will loop through all of the DataRows in the Ranges table and create a new instance of Range for each one. As stated above it simply creates a new instance with the DataRow, rather than loading all the data into it there and then. The Attributes themselves fetch the relevant data from the DataRow as and when they're first requested.
It just seems a tad stupid, in my mind, to recompile and upload the entire application every time I fix a minor bug or a spelling mistake for a word which is in the code behind (for example if I set the text of a Label dynamically). A fix / change to the Catalogue page, the way it is now, may mean a customer trying to view the Contact page, which is in no way related to the Catalogue page apart from by having the same MasterPage, cannot do so because the DLL is being uploaded.
Basically my question is, given my current situation, how would people suggest I change the architecture of the application by way of splitting it into multiple applications? I mean would it be just customer / admin, or customer / admin and pageviews, or some other way? Or not at all? Are there any other alternatives which I have not mentioned here? Could web services come in handy here? Like split the catalogue itself into a different application and just have the masterpage for all the other pages use a web service to get the names of the products to list on the left hand side? Am I just way WAY over-complicating things? Judging by the length of this question I probably am, and it wouldn't be the first time... I have tried to keep it short, but I always fail... :-)
Many thanks in advance, and sorry if I have just totally confused you!
Regards,
Richard
15000 LOC is not really all that big.
It sounds like you are not pre-compiling your site for publishing. You may want to read this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1y1404zt(v=vs.80).aspx
Recompiling and uploading the application is the best way to do it. If all you are changing is your markup, that can be uploaded individually (e.g. changing some html layout in an aspx page).
I don't know what you mean here by application timeout, but if your app domain recycles every 5 minutes, then that doesn't seem right at all. You should look into this.
Also, if you find yourself working on various different parts of the site (i.e. many different changes), but need to deploy only some items in isolation, then you should look into how you are using your source control tools (you are using one, aren't you?). Look into something like GIT and branching/merging.
Start by reading:
Application Architecture Guide