I'm looking to create an input based on data from all records within a particular resource (not just a single one referenced by an ID present in the record currently being edited.
The reason I want to do this is because I'm working on a react-admin page for an app that deals with schedules. Each schedule has a list of time slots that are part of that schedule as well as a list of dates on which that schedule should apply. This is conceptually similar to a basic calendar.
I would like to give users a UI to select a list of dates that each schedule should apply, ideally presented as a calendar (but this isn't necessary). There are plenty of options to do this that are already available in react-admin, but none of them seem to provide me the ability to display dates that have already been assigned to other schedules as disabled/grayed out. This requires access all of the assigned dates for other schedules that aren't currently being edited.
Is there an existing way to do something like this in react-admin? or will I need to dig into the imlementation for <ReferenceField> to make my own version that doesn't need an ID for a record and just returns all records?
With our TFS 2015 source control we require developers to check-in changes against work items.
However, we've had a couple of instances where a developer has checked in against one work item within our development branch, but then when merging to our QA branch they've checked in the merged changes to a different work item. An example of this is where a bug has been created underneath a PBI, the changes in dev have been checked in against a task under the bug, but then merged to QA against the PBI itself. This causes us issues with traceability.
I've seen that it's possible to add a check-in policy of "Work Item Query Policy". I'm just wondering if there is a way to write a query that will determine if the work item of a check-in after a merge matches the work item of the source changesets? I'm not necessarily after the exact query (though it would be lovely if someone could provide one :) ), really I'm just wondering whether it's possible or not to have a query to do this - i.e. is the information available to queries in TFS?
You can't do this with the existing policies, you'd need to build a custom policy.
So, technically this is possible. You can access the VersionControlServer object through the PendingChanges object:
this.PendingCheckin.PendingChanges.Workspace.VersionControlServer
You can use that to query the history of the branch in question and grab the work items associated to the check-ins in that branch.
You can check the associated workitems to the current workitem:
this.PendingCheckin.WorkItems
You could probably even provide the option to auto-correct by adding the correct work items to the checkin upon validation.
One of my policies provides an example on using the VersionControlServer from a policy.
I've been trying to get my head around NoSQL, and I do see the benefits to embedding data in documents.
What I can't understand, and hope someone can clear up, is how to store data if it must be relational.
For example.
I have many users. They are all buying a product. So everytime that they buy a product, we add it under the users document in mongo, so its embedded and its all great.
The problem I have is when something in reference to that product changes.
Lets say user A buys a car called "Porsche". Then, we add a reference to that under the users profile. However, in a strange turn of events Porsche gets purchased by Ferrari.
What do you do now, update each and every record and change to name from Porsche to Ferrari?
Typically in SQL, we would create 3 tables. One for users, one for Cars (description, model etc) & one for mapping users to purchases.
Do you do the same thing for Mongo? It seems like if you go down this route, you are trying to make Mongo do things SQL way, which is not what its intended for.
I can understand how certain data is great for embedding (addresses, contact details, comments, etc) but what happens when you need to reference data that can and needs to change at a regular basis?
I hope this question is clear
DBRefs/Manual References were made specifically to solve this issue. Instead of manually adding the data to each document and then needing to update when something changes, you can store a reference to another collection. Here is the mongoDB documentation for details.
References in Mongo
Then all you would need to do is update the reference collection and the change would be reflected in all downstream locations.
When i used the mongoose library for node js it actually creates 3 tables similar to how you might do it in SQL, you can use object id's as foreign keys and enrich them either on the client side or on the backend, still no joining but you could do an 'in' query for the ID's then enrich the objects that way, mongoose can do this automatically by 'populating'
I recently acquired this book from Microsoft Press. I currently have Office Enterprise 2007 (Access included) and have firmly decided to convert my Informix-SQL app to Access 2010. However, I'm not experienced with VBA, Macros and several other functionality my app needs. This is going to be a new learning process for me, but I must modernize my 20 year old char-based app and take advantage of new features. I have begun defining my tables and columns, but not the relationships. With INFORMIX, I join a serial (autoincrement) column with an INT column in another table. Now when I display a customers master row, I would like to automatically display all of the transactions associated with that customer in a sub-form and have the ability to add, update, query, delete on either tables. Can this be accomplished with A'10?
EDIT: OK, this is what I have done so far, defined tables and relationships:
there are more validation lookup tables to follow, but these are the main tables. So if now I create a form and specify the CLIENTES (customer table), LOTES (lot table), ARTICULOS (item table) and TRANSACCIONES (transaction table) it will create a CLIENT table as the master form and the other child tables as subforms on one screen?
Also, the reason I created a lot table is because when customers pawn or sell items, the pawnshop groups all these items into one lot, calculates the total loan or purchase amount, stores it all under one transaction and prints the ticket with a description of all the items and total amount. So I want the ability to say, if customer defaults on interest payments or does not redeem pawn, then customer forfeits all items and pawnshop may choose to sell some items to gold refinery and/or transfer other non-gold items to inventory to sell to the public, so would the above ER be adequate for this capability?
I also want to ensure that every row in every table has the same store_ID (company ID) while users are working within a specific company, as this system will be multi-company and there will be consolidated reports, etc.
This type of setup can be accomplished in any version of access going back to 1992.
The way you model these classic one to many relationships in access is to base the parent form on the parent table (note I said partent table, not a query – I going to repeat this again: you do not need a query that joins the data for you). You then create what is called a continues form based on the child table. You now have two forms, and you then can simple drag + drop in the form for the child table into the above parent form, and you are done.
In fact, if you design and setup the relationship correctly in the relationships window, then if you use a wizard to create the form, it will actually build and automatically insert a sub form for you.
So, there is some several interesting issues about the above process that you should know As I pointed above, you don't have to build any SQL query at all. You don't have to write sql to join together the data. Access will do all of this for you, and do it without any code.
So, when you navigate records in the main form, the child records will be automatically displayed and filtered for you in the sub form. (and if you add or delete or edit those child records, the correct relationship key is inserted and maintained for you, again done without writing any code at all).
In the following form, we have a classic accounting funds distribution example. In this example we are tracking membership donations. So, the top part of the form is one record based on the master table and is the donation event. I then created an continuous form. When dropped into the main form, it becomes a sub form. That form is the one on the left side, and it simply allows me to enter a list of members who donated for the above event.
The form looks like:
At this point the form will work without any code having been written.
In fact the above form I have the one main record, on the left side I have many members who made a donation. However, I also needed to split out each donation for those memebers on the left side to an to particular account for accounting purposes. (a classic check spliting that you see in just about every accounting package these days)
So the above models a one to many and then the many members also split out into many different accounts for each donation. A really incredible powerful setup, and one that has almost no code.
So, in the above I'm really doing three tables deep as a model. |And, to be fair, the right side (donations split into accounts) did need one line of code to update correctly, as access does not do this for me when you go 3 tables deep.
However for the most part, to model these classic parent to child table relationships in access, you don't need to write any code at all. You use a main form and then for the child table, you insert a sub-form based on the child table.
And as noted if you set the relationships up correctly, access will automatically stitch the two together for you, and maintain the relationship for you. So display of the child records belonging to the one parent record will display for you automatically. And this ability includes you to edit and delete and add those child records. And, thus as you navigate to a new reocrd, all of the child records and information will automatically be refreshed for the next form.
In other words all the above can be done without building any SQL queries, and not one line of code is required.
Unfortunately Stack Overflow works great for asking a question and having an answer. However, a serious of Q + A that builds on previous question we much find that StackOverflow REALLY breaks down here. I will give this a shot, and with all due respect to the great stack overflow, I am temped to suggest you try a forum based system as opposed to so. Perahps Utter access, or even the access dev forum here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/accessdev
Anyway, lets see what we can come up with. I should also point out that your table design and how to relate those tables is not really a access question but simply that of database design. How this should be laid out will be the same for MySql, Oracle, FoxPro or in fact just about ANY relational database system that we had in the last 20+ years in our industry. So, this is not really a access question when you ask about how a database is to be setup.
Ok, lets see. In the above you have the LOTES table attached to customers. If you WERE going to attach (relate) the LOTS table to a customer, then you don't need the store_id in the LOTES tables since the table is a child to that customer record. Anytime you can go up to the parent table to get that information, you don't need to repeat it in the child table(s). So, that customer record you are thus relating back to already has the store id and you be able to get at that store id value any time since it is a relation (that is the whole idea of a relational database, you don't have to repeat data over and over again).
And, as you have it now, the same advice applies to the two child table to LOTES. Again they don't need the store id since by you above design they are already attached to the LOTES table which in turn is attached to the customer table where the store id is. So, in your current design ALL of the child tables below customer can and should and would have the store_id removed.
However, the above I suspect is not what you looking to accomplish here. It is quite likely that LOTES records belong to a store. If that is the case, then you want LOTES table to be child of stores.
You thus should have STORES->LOTES
The only part not clear here is if your design is going to allow one customer to be attached to more then one store. If this is a very rare case, then perhaps you adopt a easier design that either forces you to enter the customer again, or even via some copy code. While this breaks normalizing here often there are some issues like if the shipping address is going to change for different stores for the same customer, then often you save a lot of code and design issues by not normalizing in this case.
However, if you need this feature, then the reverse is also true and there is MANY advantages to normalizing this data correctly, but often more desing work up front.
If you really do want customers to have more then one store, then you need a table called tblCustomerStores. You will attach this table to customers as a child table, and this this table will have the store_id. You can then attached all customer transactions etc. to this child store table. And this Customer store table might even include perhaps payment type and deliver preferences (if they vary from store to store for example).
So, you start at
Customers->customer stores->Transactions->
And, it not quite clear what is in table transactions, but it possible that everthing else belongs below the above trans table.
And, it not clear if Articles are attached to a particular transaction or not? If they are, then articles for thus be a child of transactions.
I thinking more of
Customers->customer stores->Articles->lots
And you want Customers stores->Tranascation
And you want Customers stores->Articles
So, I think you are currently going too many tables deep. Just keep in mind that you can relate many table to the parent table just like you have in your diagram, but I think what you have it not what you are looking for
i'm trying to create a RDCL report with the follow requirements:
The datasource is a master business object that also has a child business object.
I want to show some data of the master BO using a List.
I want to show the details of the child BO using a Table.
I do not want to use subreports.
I do not want to flatten my object graph and use grouping
Is this possible?
I am not sure you can achieve what you're looking for. Either you must use subreports or by definition of master-child data you must use grouping.
I know this answer comes on late but this post still shows on search results and it has 1K views.
Hope this helps!