In my Yii application I have a pretty simple model setup. I've used the gii autogenerated code to create the basic CRUD, while I get the data for my app in place.
So, I have Authors, and Books. A Book belongs_to an Author.
I have a huge list of books already to enter - but as I haven't entered the Authors yet - none of my books will save, as I keep getting "Trying to get property of non-object" when I save without selecting an author- despite not making Author "required".
As I haven't got my list of books organised by author (it's a straight list of titles in a CSV list) this is preventing me saving any Books.
How can I make the Author optional?
Within the 'rules' function of the Book model you should see something like this:
array('...','...','author', 'required'),
All you have to do is delete the 'author' property from the array, so it will no longer be required. Of course this will only work if the 'author' column in the Book table of the DB is marked as not-required.
I hope it helps you, but I'm afraid it won't solve your problem. The error message you're getting, "Trying to get property of non-object", suggests that you have another problem rather than a not-set required property in a submitted form. If it is the case, you may post the BooksController's "create" function and the associated "_form" view in order to determine what's going wrong.
you could import your authors first, but this would probably wouldn't work either since your csv won't have the author_id in it
if i were you i would delete the foreign key (not the author_id field, just the fk) and import my books, then add authors and when done add the foreign key again to ensure data integrity and use it in the future
Yii won't complain if you do that
So the answer was more simple than I realised - I had the wrong relationship. Instead of a "belongs to" I needed a "has one". The has one relationship allows for nulls.
Related
Good day, hope everything's well.
I'm trying to find the value of tax_ids (Many2many field) inside the account.move.line model but i can't seems to find anything. I already access the psql of the database but i cant find tax_ids too.
I accessed that account.move.line model with ORM like this :
def _post(self, soft=True):
for move in self:
....
account_move_line = self.env['account.move.line'].search([('id', '=', int(move.id))])
print(account_move_line.tax_ids) #this find nothing
could someone please elaborate how is it possible to access id of the tax that applied to, in this case, an invoice line record?
Edit : Sometimes this ORM fetching the ID and sometimes it doesn't. But most likely it's not fetching.
I'm trying to find the value of tax_ids (Many2many field) inside the
account.move.line model but i can't seems to find anything. I already
access the psql of the database but i cant find tax_ids too.
tax_ids in account.move.line model is a Many2Many field, which is stored separately as another table in the database. This kind of relation field mostly be named something like this (main_table)_(related_table)_rel (ignore the parentheses). For example, this particular case's table is account_move_line_account_tax_rel since its main table is account_move_line and the related table for that specific field is account_tax. Inside the relation table, you will almost always find 2 fields mapping both ids together. For this case, it is going to be account_move_line_id and account_tax_id.
I accessed that account.move.line model with ORM like this :
def _post(self, soft=True):
for move in self:
....
account_move_line = self.env['account.move.line'].search([('id', '=', int(move.id))])
print(account_move_line.tax_ids) #this find nothing could someone please elaborate how is it possible to access id of the tax
that applied to, in this case, an invoice line record?
Edit : Sometimes this ORM fetching the ID and sometimes it doesn't.
But most likely it's not fetching.
Accessing a field via ORM always works as you intended if it is implemented correctly. In your code, you are searching account_move_line by id but you are trying to search it with move.id, which I assume it is account_move since you got the data sometimes. If you can access the lines that you want correctly, you will see that account_move_line.tax_ids will always give you the correct tax_ids. From what your code looks, I think you are trying to search the lines by its account_move. Therefore, your domain should be [('move_id', '=', int(move.id))] instead.
_name = "my.table"
building_id = fields.Many2one('building', related='floor_id.building_id', readonly=False)
floor_id = fields.Many2one('building.floor')
A user with the read access to 'building' and 'building.floor' tables, tries to create a record in "my.table" If the user chooses building_id and floor_id together an error occurs. The error says that my user has no access to write 'building.floor' table. My question is: why a related field use the write function, what is the difference between the compute and related in this scenario?
Related fields are very simple computed fields. So simple they can be "implemented" with one parameter on field definition. Odoo has generic methods for those fields. For example a lot of developers don't write inverse methods for computed fields, which inverse the compute method, because the simply don't need it. But without it and without storing the computed field, Odoo sets the field readonly.
Related fields have a generic inverse method. In your case changing building_id when there was already a floor_id chosen, Odoo will write the building_id on that floor_id.building_id, because that's how related fields work (i know that's not the best explanation).
The user obviously has no write/update rights on builiding.floor model and that's why there will be the access error message in the end, because Odoo wants to write the new building on the floor.
Seems to me you want to filter the floors by buildings, but you shouldn't use a related field for that. Just put a domain on floor_id which filters by the chosen building_id:
floor_id = fields.Many2one('building.floor', domain="[('building_id', '=?', building_id)]")
You could also use domain operator =, but =? will show all floors when no building was set yet.
I have a form for submitting an order, and I need an autocomplete field that searches across three attributes in the associated customer model: first name, last name, and customer_number (as opposed to customer.id). I know about the rails3-jquery-autocomplete gem found here http://github.com/crowdint/rails3-jquery-autocomplete, and got it working well, but a question has occurred to me -- is there a more efficient way to make the autocomplete work without having to query the db every time?
The other solution that occurred to me is to create a new indexed attribute in the customer model -- call it autocomplete_data. Whenever a new customer is added via the usual new customer form, an :after_create callback could populate the field. Would this speed up the performance? Or am I overthinking it?
UPDATE
I'm embarassed to say that I just didn't search hard enough the first time around -- I think this actually answers my question:
Rails: Efficiently searching by both firstname and surname
I have two models, Reports(belongs to client) and Clients(has many reports). A Client has an attribute or column called "specialty". What I'm trying to do is to be able to call and display the Client.specialty attribute for that particular #client when inside the show page of a #client's Report. In my Report model I do have a "client_id" foreign key. I have no idea how to do this, I've gone about this far:
#report.client_id
This obviously displays a number, but I don't know how to go any further, In my noob ways I want to do something like this:
#report.client_id.specialty
But that doesn't work obviously. How do I do this?
why not the following?
#report.client.specialty
I'm trying to implement a feature similar to StackOverflow's tag feature. That a user can create a new tag, or by typing pull up a list of similar tags already created.
This is such a wonderful feature on this site and I find it sad that most sites do not have something like this. It's both robust, and yet very very flexible and best of all: driven by the community.
So I have these two tables:
Company
id
email
name
companySize
countryOfOrigin
industryid
Industry
id
description
Every time a user writes a new tag, I want to create one with a unique ID, and also be able to search for existing tags.
Will this database design allow for an easy and efficient implementation of this feature?
If not, please give a little guidance. :)
Whilst there's not a tremendous amount of information to go on, what you've listed should be fine. (The 'tag' being the 'description' field in the industry table, etc.)
As you might imagine, all of the real work is done outside of SQL, where you'll need to...
(Potentially) add new tag(s) that don't yet exist.
Associate the industry with the supplied tag(s).
(Potentially) prune previously used tags that may no longer be in use.
...every time you edit an industry.
That said, the key limitation of your proposed setup is that each company can only belong to a single industry. (i.e.: It can only have a single industry tag associated with it.)
As such, you might want to consider a schema along the lines of...
Company
id
...
countryOfOrigin
Industries
id
description
CompanyIndustriesLookup
companyID
industryID
...which would let you associate multiple industries/tags with a given company.
Update...
For example, under this setup, to get all of the tags associated with company ID 1, you'd use...
SELECT Industries.description FROM (CompanyIndustriesLookup, Industries)
WHERE companyID=1 AND industryID=Industries.ID
ORDER BY Industries.description ASC;
On a similar basis, to get all companies tagged with an industry of "testing", you'd use...
SELECT Company.name FROM (Company, Industries, CompanyIndustriesLookup)
WHERE Company.id=CompanyIndustriesLookup.companyID
AND Industries.id=CompanyIndustriesLookup.industryID
AND Industries.description="testing"
ORDER BY Company.name ASC
A very easy (if somewhat suboptimal, but it often does not matter) solution to use tags is to not have tag ids at all. So, you have:
Items
ItemId
Name
Description
...
ItemTag
ItemId
Tag
Adding a tag to an item is just adding the tuple to the ItemTag table, whether the tag already exists or not. And you don't have to do any bookkeeping on removing tags either. Just keep an index on ItemTag.Tag, to be able to quickly display all unique tags.