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.
Related
I'm using KeystoneJS v6. I'm trying to enable functionality which allow me to reorder the placement of images when used in another list. Currently i'm setting up the image list below, however I'm unable to set the defaultIsOrderable to true due to the error pasted.
KeystoneJS list:
Image: list({
fields: {
title: text({
validation: { isRequired: true },
isIndexed: 'unique',
isFilterable: true,
isOrderable: true,
}),
images: cloudinaryImage({
cloudinary: {
cloudName: process.env.CLOUDINARY_CLOUD_NAME,
apiKey: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_KEY,
apiSecret: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_SECRET,
folder: process.env.CLOUDINARY_API_FOLDER,
},
}),
},
defaultIsOrderable: true
}),
Error message:
The expected type comes from property 'defaultIsOrderable' which is declared here on type 'ListConfig<BaseListTypeInfo, BaseFields<BaseListTypeInfo>>'
Peeking at the definition of the field shows
defaultIsOrderable?: false | ((args: FilterOrderArgs<ListTypeInfo>) => MaybePromise<boolean>);
Looking at the schema API docs, the defaultIsOrderable lets you set:
[...] the default value to use for isOrderable for fields on this list.
You're trying to set this to true but, according to the relevant section of the field docs, the isOrderable field option already defaults to true.
I believe this is why the defaultIsOrderable type doesn't allow you to supply the true literal – doing so would be redundant.
So that explains the specific error your getting but I think you also may have misunderstood the purpose of the orderBy option.
The OrderBy Option
The field docs mention the two effects the field OrderBy option has:
If true (default), the GraphQL API and Admin UI will support ordering by this field.
Take, for example, your Image list above.
As the title field is "orderable", it is included in the list's orderBy GraphQL type (ImageOrderByInput).
When querying the list, you can order the results by the values in this field, like this:
query {
images (orderBy: [{ title: desc }]) {
id
title
images { publicUrl }
}
}
The GraphQL API docs have some details on this.
You can also use the field to order items when listing them in the Admin UI, either by clicking the column heading or selecting the field from the "sort" dropdown:
Note though, these features order items at runtime, by the values stored in orderable fields.
They don't allow an admin to "re-order" items in the Admin UI (unless you did so by changing the image titles in this case).
Specifying an Order
If you want to set the order of items within a list you'd need to store separate values in, for example, a displayOrder field like this:
Image: list({
fields: {
title: text({
validation: { isRequired: true },
isIndexed: 'unique',
isFilterable: true,
}),
displayOrder: integer(),
// ...
},
}),
Unfortunately Keystone doesn't yet give you a great way to manage this the Admin UI (ie. you can't "drag and drop" in the list view or anything like that). You need to edit each item individually to set the displayOrder values.
Ordering Within a Relationship
I notice your question says you're trying to "reorder the placement of images when used in another list" (emphasis mine).
In this case you're talking about relationships, which changes the problem somewhat. Some approaches are..
If the relationship is one-to-many, you can use the displayOrder: integer() solution shown above but the UX is worse again. You're still setting the order values against each item but not in the context of the relationship. However, querying based on these order values and setting them via the GraphQL API should be fairly straight forward.
If the relationship is many-to-many, it's similar but you can't store the "displayOrder" value in the Image list as any one image may be linked to multiple other items. You need to store the order info "with" the relationship itself. It's not trivial but my recent answer on storing additional values on a many-to-many relationship may point you in the right direction.
A third option is to not use the relationship field at all but to link items using the inline relationships functionality of the document field. This is a bit different to work with - easier to manage from the Admin UI but less powerful in GraphQL as you can't traverse the relationship as easily. However it does give you a way to manage a small, ordered set of related items in a many-to-many relationship.
You can save an ordered set of ids to a json field. This is similar to using a document field but a more manual.
Hopefully that clears up what's possible with the current "orderBy" functionality and relationship options. Which of these solutions is most appropriate depends heavily on the specifics of your project and use case.
Note too, there are plans to extend Keystone's functionality for sorting and reordering lists from both the DX and UX perspectives.
See "Sortable lists" on the Keystone roadmap.
I'm working on an app where users learn about different patterns of grammar in a language. There are three collections; users and patterns are interrelated by progress, which looks like this:
Create(Collection("progress"), {
data: {
userRef: Ref(Collection("users"), userId),
patternRef: Ref(Collection("patterns"), patternId),
initiallyLearnedAt: Now(),
lastReviewedAt: Now(),
srsLevel: 1
}
})
I've learned how to do some basic Fauna queries, but now I have a somewhat more complex relational one. I want to write an FQL query (and the required indexes) to retrieve all patterns for which a given user doesn't have progress. That is, everything they haven't learned yet. How would I compose such a query?
One clarifying assumption - a progress document is created when a user starts on a particular pattern and means the user has some progress. For example, if there are ten patterns and a user has started two, there will be two documents for that user in progress.
If that assumption is valid, your question is "how can we find the other eight?"
The basic approach is:
Get all available patterns.
Get the patterns a user has worked on.
Select the difference between the two sets.
1. Get all available patterns.
This one is trivial with the built-in Documents function in FQL:
Documents(Collection("patterns"))
2. Get the patterns a user has worked on.
To get all the patterns a user has worked on, you'll want to create an index over the progress collection, as you've figured out. Your terms are what you want to search on, in this case userRef. Your values are the results you want back, in this case patternRef.
This looks like the following:
CreateIndex({
name: "patterns_by_user",
source: Collection("progress"),
terms: [
{ field: ["data", "userRef"] }
],
values: [
{ field: ["data", "patternRef"] }
],
unique: true
})
Then, to get the set of all the patterns a user has some progress against:
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collections("users"), userId)
)
3. Select the difference between the two sets
The FQL function Difference has the following signature:
Difference( source, diff, ... )
This means you'll want the largest set first, in this case all of the documents from the patterns collection.
If you reverse the arguments you'll get an empty set, because there are no documents in the set of patterns the user has worked on that are not also in the set of all patterns.
From the docs, the return value of Difference is:
When source is a Set Reference, a Set Reference of the items in source that are missing from diff.
This means you'll need to Paginate over the difference to get the references themselves.
Paginate(
Difference(
Documents(Collection("patterns")),
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collection("users"), userId)
)
)
)
From there, you can do what you need to do with the references. As an example, to retrieve all of the data for each returned pattern:
Map(
Paginate(
Difference(
Documents(Collection("patterns")),
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collection("users"), userId)
)
)
),
Lambda("patternRef", Get(Var("patternRef")))
)
Consolidated solution
Create the index patterns_by_user as in step two
Query the difference as in step three
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" }
I'm building a Zapier app for a platform that have dynamic fields. I have an API that returns the list of fields for one of my resource (for example) :
[
{ name: "First Name", key: "first_name", type: "String" },
{ name: "Civility", key: "civility", type: "Multiple" }
]
I build my action's inputFields based on this API :
create: {
[...],
operation: {
inputFields: [
fetchFields()
],
[...]
},
}
The API returns type that are list of values (i.e : Civility), but to get these values I have to make another API call.
For now, what I have done is in my fetchFields function, each time I encounter a type: "Multiple", I do another API call to get the possible values and set it as choices in my input field. However this is expensive and the page on Zapier takes too much time to display the fields.
I tried to use the z.dehydrate feature provided by Zapier but it doesn't work for input choices.
I can't use a dynamic dropdown here as I can't pass the key of the field possible value I'm looking for. For example, to get back the possible values for Civility, I'll need to pass the civility key to my API.
What are the options in this case?
David here, from the Zapier Platform team.
Thanks for writing in! I think what you're doing is possible, but I'm also not 100% that I understand what you're asking.
You can have multiple API calls in the function (which it sounds like you are). In the end, the function should return an array of Field objects (as descried here).
The key thing you might not be aware of is that subsequent steps have access to a partially-filled bundle.inputData, so you can have a first function that gets field options and allows a user to select something, then a second function that runs and pulls in fields based on that choice.
Otherwise, I think a function that does 2 api calls (one to fetch the field types and one to turn them into Zapier field objects) is the best bet.
If this didn't answer your question, feel free to email partners#zapier.com or join the slack org (linked at the bottom of the readme) and we'll try to solve it there.
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 }