I have 15 roles for my ListModel. I am not specifying all of them for every ListElement because they are not always required.
I have common code for displaying values based on roles.
So if my current ListElement doesnt have role a defined, and I'm trying to check for that value, it throws a reference error.
I tried to catch this error using (a==undefined || a== null) but it still throws a reference error on a.
Is there any other option to catch this error? (except for writing all roles for all ListElements)
For convenience model roles available as delegate's properties (as you do currently). You can access them with the qualified model name instead. E.g. model.a instead of just a. If a role is not available value of expression will be undefined, but it's not an error. Typical work around is to use boolean operators, e.g. model.a || "default value".
Try with this:
if (a) {
// Your stuff here
}
Related
I'm following Sulu example here: https://github.com/sulu/sulu-workshop/
trying to set translations for custom entity type.
My entity file has getter for field "home_team" defined like:
/**
* #Serializer\VirtualProperty(name="home_team")
*/
public function getHomeTeam(): ?string
{
$translation = $this->getTranslation($this->locale);
if (!$translation) {
return null;
}
return $translation->getHomeTeam();
}
So field is not actually part of that entity, but of it's translation entity since it suppose to be translatable.
When I try to create new object of that entity type it works well. I can see in database that field values are stored well and I don't get any error.
But on overview page instead of list of all objects I get error:
[Semantical Error] line 0, col 73 near 'home_team AS': Error: Class App\Entity\MatchEvent has no field or association named home_team
Any idea what could be wrong here?
If you wanna see the translation in the listView you have to create a real translationEntity, like in the workshop project. In this post it is already explained, how to translate a custom entity correctly.
If you have already created your translationEntity you have to configure the relation of the translation to your main entity via a join. Here is an example in the workshop for this configuration.
Sulu uses optimised queries to create the list-object directly from the database. So the entity itself does not get hydrated or serialised for performance reasons. Thus your virtualProperty is never executed.
With .does I can check if a type has the role I already know. I'd like to get the list of roles. Inheritance has .^mro but I didn't see anything like that for roles in the meta model stuff.
Along with that, given a "type", how can I tell if it was defined as a class or a role?
.^roles
say Rat.^roles; # ((Rational[Int,Int]) (Real) (Numeric))
By default it includes every role, including roles brought in by other roles. To only get the first level use :!transitive
Rat.^roles(:!transitive); # ((Rational[Int,Int]))
There's already a good answer to the first question. About the second one, each meta-object has an archetypes method that in turn carries a range of properties of the types represented by that meta-type. This exists because Perl 6 is open to new meta-types (which might be easier to think about as "types of type"); probably the most widely used example of this today is OO::Monitors. The archetypes are more focused on what one can do with the type. For example:
> role R { }; say "C: {.composable} I: {.inheritable}" given R.HOW.archetypes;
C: 1 I: 0
> class C { }; say "C: {.composable} I: {.inheritable}" given C.HOW.archetypes;
C: 0 I: 1
The set of available properties can be introspected:
> Int.HOW.archetypes.^methods(:local)
(nominal nominalizable inheritable inheritalizable composable
composalizable generic parametric coercive definite augmentable)
For example, "nominal" means "can this serve as a nominal type", and "augmentable" means "is it allowed to augment this kind of type". The things like "inheritalizable" mean "can I inheritalize such a type" - that is, turn it into a type that I can inherit from even if I can't inherit from this type. A role is not inheritable, but it is inheritalizable, and the inheritalize operation on it will produce the pun of the role. This is what is happening under the hood when writing something like class C is SomeRole { }, and means that not only is Perl 6 open to new types of type, but those new types of type can describe how they want to work, if at all, with inheritance and composition.
Being composable with does is probably the main defining property of a role, and thus the composable property is likely the best one to use when asking "is this a role". It is also possible to look at the type of the meta-object, as suggested in another answer, but there are multiple meta-objects involved in representing roles (the short name role group, a currying of that group with parameters, and an individual role, plus an internal concretization form that supports the composition process).
> say (role RRR[::T] { }).HOW.^name
Perl6::Metamodel::ParametricRoleHOW
> say RRR.HOW.^name
Perl6::Metamodel::ParametricRoleGroupHOW
> say RRR[Int].HOW.^name
Perl6::Metamodel::CurriedRoleHOW
Thus it's rather more robust to simply check if the thing is composable.
> say (role RRR[::T] { }).HOW.archetypes.composable
1
> say RRR.HOW.archetypes.composable
1
> say RRR[Int].HOW.archetypes.composable
1
Along with that, given a "type", how can I tell if it was defined as a class or a role?
A class is a type whose meta class is of type Metamodel::ClassHOW:
sub type-classify(Mu \t) {
given t.HOW {
return 'class' when Metamodel::ClassHOW;
return 'role' when Metamodel::ParametricRoleGroupHOW;
}
return 'other';
}
say type-classify(Int); # class
say type-classify(Rational); # role
say type-classify(Bool); # other
Regarding your second question,
given a "type", how can I tell if it was defined as a class or a role?
I haven't found a direct way of doing that. Both classes and roles have Mu in their hierarchy, so that will not distinguish them. However, only classes get to be recognized by (the curiously named) MetaModel::ClassHOW. So we can hack something like this:
role Ur { }
role F does Ur { }
class G does F { }
for Ur, F, G -> $class-or-role {
CATCH {
default {
say "not classy";
}
}
$class-or-role.say;
$class-or-role.^mro.say;
}
Which will print:
(Ur)
not classy
(F)
not classy
(G)
((G) (Any) (Mu))
, since calling ^mro on a role will raise an exception. That can be turned into a function for printing out which one is a role, and which is not.
I can only Edit a custom field when I before edit it by hand with the user administrator.
What's wrong with my code and what I should do to solve this??
Exactly, I'm trying to assign a value to a User custom attribute when It logs in the portal. And I'm not able to get ExpandoColumn in the conditions specified.
The problem is that ExpandoValue is null.
public class LoginAction extends Action {
public void run(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) {
User currentUser;
try {
currentUser = PortalUtil.getUser(req);
long userId = PrincipalThreadLocal.getUserId();
long companyId = currentUser.getCompanyId();
long groupId = GroupLocalServiceUtil.getGroup(companyId, "Guest").getGroupId();
/* Get de CustomField Segmentation */
ExpandoTable expandoTable = ExpandoTableLocalServiceUtil.getDefaultTable(companyId, User.class.getName());
ExpandoColumn expandoColumn = ExpandoColumnLocalServiceUtil.getColumn(companyId, User.class.getName(), expandoTable.getName(), "Segmentation");
if (expandoColumn != null) {
ExpandoValue expandoValue = ExpandoValueLocalServiceUtil.getValue(expandoTable.getTableId(), expandoColumn.getColumnId(), userId);
if (expandoValue != null) {
expandoValue.setData(finalsegment);
ExpandoValueLocalServiceUtil.updateExpandoValue(expandoValue);
}
}
}
Summary: My problem is that
ExpandoValue expandoValue = ExpandoValueLocalServiceUtil.getValue(expandoTable.getTableId(), expandoColumn.getColumnId(), classPK);
is Null when I access the Value of Custom Attribute. If I edit by hand this customattribute and then execute the same Code it works!!! I don't know why and I dont know how to solve this.
Edit (after your update to the question)
Take a look at the ExpandoValueLocalService javadoc: You'll find that there's a createExpandoValue method. Now guess the relationship between the scenario "You have not manually set the value at all, and you're getting back null as ExpandoValue" vs. "You have set it once and get back a value that you can update...
Another option would also be to just specify a default value for your expando value - this way you'll definitely have a value in there and you can unconditionally update it (at least until it's deliberately deleted - for robustness you should still cater for this possibility)
Original answer:
Where else but in the if condition do you go? Have you tried an else condition or do you get any exception before? E.g. you might need to create the 'default' table before you can just get it.
See this code for an example on how to access Expando Tables/Columns.
I didn't run your code, but of course exceptions might occur earlier as well. Or you might have made a mistake in configuring your LoginAction, so that it doesn't run at all.
By default, regular User role has no permissions to access Expando values.
Anyway, it is better to modify expando values with
User user = UserLocalService.getUserById(userId);
user.getExpandoBridge().setAttribute("attributeName", "attributeValue");
If you want to modify value with any permissions, use
user.getExpandoBridge().setAttribute("attributeName", "attributeValue", false);
Here I found the answer of the question..
You can manage the solution with the code proposed.
http://www.liferay.com/es/community/forums/-/message_boards/message/26154530
I am writing some tests to automate checking if a database (a MS SQL
Server instance) has certain views, and if it does not, creating those
views using the BasicTable object.
Something like:
#Test def CheckAndBuildViewsOnDB() = {
VerifyViewExists(FooTable, BarTable) //FooTable et al defined as:
FooTable extends BasicTable[Foo], where Foo is a case class & FooTable
has a DDL create defined.
}
Based on this and cribbing from Stefan Zeiger's assertTablesExist example, I made a little method to check the db for a view, and if the
check throws an exception call that view's BasicTable ddl.create:
def VerifyViewExists(views:BasicTable*) = {
DatabaseSession.session() withSession { //helper class which
initiates a db connection & session
views map {
v => (try queryNA[Int]("select 1 from '"+ v.tableName +"'
where 1<0").list
catch {case _: Exception => v.ddl.create;
println("Couldn't find view "+v.tableName+", creating it
now...");})
} } }
Which seems reasonable to me, but has two problems:
this isn't the right way to type the views parameter as BasicTable,
resulting in "error: class BasicTable takes type parameters"
something funky is happening with the map argument v's scope,
resulting in "error: value tableName is not a member of type parameter
T0".
Pardon my ignorance with this question, as I suspect that the root of
my issue lies with not understanding Scala's type system.
Along with those two problems is the nagging feeling that I haven't
really done VerifyViewExists in the most succinct or readable style.
Since you don't care what the type parameter is, you should be able to solve #1 by adding [_]:
def VerifyViewExists(views:BasicTable[_]*) = {
My guess is that fixing #1 will cause #2 to disappear.
By the way it may be better to write foreach rather than map, since the latter will collect the results into a new collection, which I don't think you want.
I've got an Account model object and a UNIQUE constraint on the account's Name. In Domain Driven Design, using nHibernate, how should I check for the name's unicity before inserting or updating an entity?
I don't want to rely on a nHibernate exception to catch the error. I'd like to return a prettier error message to my user than the obscure could not execute batch command.[SQL: SQL not available]
In the question Where should I put a unique check in DDD?, someone suggested using a Specification like so.
Account accountA = _accountRepository.Get(123);
Account accountB = _accountRepository.Get(456);
accountA.Name = accountB.Name;
ISpecification<Account> spec = new Domain.Specifications.UniqueNameSpecification(_accountRepository);
if (spec.IsSatisfiedBy(accountObjA) == false) {
throw new Domain.UnicityException("A duplicate Account name was found");
}
with the Specification code as:
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Account obj)
{
Account other = _accountRepository.GetAccountByName(obj.Name);
return (other == null);
}
This works for inserts, but not when doing an update because. I tried changing the code to:
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Account obj)
{
Account other = _accountRepository.GetAccountByName(obj.Name);
if (obj == null) { // nothing in DB
return true;
}
else { // must be the same object.
return other.Equals(obj);
}
}
The problem is that nHibernate will issue an update to the database when it executes GetAccountByName() to recover a possible duplicate...
return session.QueryOver<Account>().Where(x => x.Name == accntName).SingleOrDefault();
So, what should I do? Is the Specification not the right way to do it?
Thanks for your thoughts!
I'm not a fan of the specification pattern for data access, it always seems like jumping hoops to get anything done.
However, what you've suggested, which really just boils down to:
Check if it already exists.
Add if it doesn't; Show user-friendly message if it does.
... is pretty much the easiest way to get it done.
Relying on database exceptions is the other way of doing it, if your database and it's .NET client gracefully propagates the table & column(s) that were infringing the unique constraint. I believe most drivers don't do so (??), as they just throw a generic ConstraintException that says "Constraint XYZ was violated on table ABC". You can of course have a convention on your unique constraint naming to say something like UK_MyTable_MyColumn and do string magic to pull the table & column names out.
NHibernate has a ISQLExceptionConverter that you can plug into the Configuration object when you set NHibernate up. Inside this, you get exposed to the exception from the .NET data client. You can use that exception to extract the table & columns (using the constraint name perhaps?) and throw a new Exception with a user friendly message.
Using the database exception way is more performant and you can push a lot of the detecting-unique-constraint-violation code to the infrastructure layer, as opposed to handling each one case by case.
Another thing worth pointing out with the query-first-then-add method is that to be completely transaction safe, you need to escalate the transaction level to serializable (which gives the worst concurrency) to be totally bullet proof. Whether you need to be totally bullet proof or not, depends on your application needs.
You need to handle it with Session.FlushMode mode to set to FlushMode.Commit and use transaction to rollback if at all update fired.