I would like to remove all items from a test collection. My setup is
connection = Connection(app.config['MONGODB_HOST'], app.config['MONGODB_PORT'])
db = connection.test_database.tutorial
I have a document model class Test which maps to the tests collection. I've tried deleting the collection with both
connection.test_database.drop_collection('tutorial.tests')
db.tests.remove()
However querying something like
list(db.Test.find())
still gives me the old data. Something like
list(db.tests.find())
returns an empty list. However if I add new entries into tests the previous query also doesn't reflect the changes, so I don't think thats accurate either.
Problem was with this line:
db = connection.test_database.tutorial
Since it was saying test database and the tutorial collection
removing worked when I changed it to
db = connection.tutorial
Related
I'm building a PowerApps app on Azure SQL
The requirement
I have a form which has "Save" and "Confirm" buttons.
Both buttons should save the form data. The Commit button should also set database column "Confirm" to 1
I've read at length about how I can programatically override the update value of a hidden control for this. But I'm not satisfied with the level of complexity (maintenance) required to get this working, i.e.
Populate a variable with the current db value
In the button code set the variable value
In the form field, set the update property to the variable
What I'm Trying
So I'm trying a different approach: SubmitForm then Patch. Even though this requires an extra database call, I'd like to understand if this will work. This is the code for OnSelect in the commit button:
// Save the record
SubmitForm(frmEdit);
// Update confirmed to 1
Patch('[dbo].[Comments]',cRecord,{Confirmed:1});
Some Complexities
Note that my record is a variable, cRecord. In short I want this app to be able to upsert based on URL parameters.
This is my App.OnStart which captures URL values, inserts a record if required. Regardless, the result of this event is that cRecord is set to the record to be edited.
// Cache employees and store lookups (as they are in a different db)
Concurrent(Collect(cEmployees, Filter('[dbo].[SalesPerson]', Status = "A")),Collect(cStores, '[dbo].[Store]'));
// Check for parameters in the URL. If found, set to Edit/Add mode
Set(bURLRecord,If((!IsBlank(Param("PersonId")) && !IsBlank(Param("Date"))),true,false));
// If URL Parameters were passed, create the record if it doesn't exist
If(bURLRecord,
Set(pPersonId,Value(Param("PersonId")));
Set(pDate,DateValue(Param("Date")));
// Try and find the record
Set(cRecord,LookUp('[dbo].[Comments]',SalesPersonId=pPersonId && TransactionDate = pDate));
If(IsBlank(cRecord),
// If the record doesn't exist, create it with Patch and capture the resulting record
Set(cRecord,Patch('[dbo].[Comments]',Defaults('[dbo].[Comments]'),{SalesPersonId:pPersonId,TransactionDate:pDate}))
);
// Navigate to the data entry screen. This screen uses cRecord as its item
Navigate(scrEdit);
)
frmEdit.Item is set to cRecord. As an aside I also have a gallery that sets this variable value when clicked so we can also navigate here from a gallery.
The navigating using new and existing URL parameters works. Navigating from the gallery works.
The problem
When I press the Commit button against a record which has Confirmed=0 I get this popup error:
The data returned by the service is invalid
When I run this code against a record which already has Confirmed=1 I don't get an error
If I run the PowerApps monitor it doesn't show any errors but it does show some counts being run after the update. I can paste it here if required.
I also tried wrapping the Path in a Set in case it's result was confusing the button event but it didn't make a difference.
What I want
So can anyone offer me any of the following info:
How can I get more info about "The data returned by the service is invalid"?
How can I get this to run without erroring?
Is there a simpler way to do the initial upsert? I was hoping a function called Patch could upsert in one call but it seems it can't
With regards to the setting field beforehand approach, I'm happy to try this again but I had some issues implementing it - understanding which control where to edit.
Any assistance appreciated.
Edit
As per recommendations in the answer, I moved the patch code into OnSuccess
If(Confirmed=1,Patch('[dbo].[CoachingComments]',cRecord,{Confirmed:1}));
But now I get the same error there. Worse I cleared out OnSucces and just put SubmitForm(frmEdit); into the OnSelect event and it is saving data but still saying
The data returned by the service was invalid
First things first,
Refactoring has multiple steps,
I can t type all out at once...
The submitform and patch issue:
Never use the submitforn with extra conplexity
Submitform is only the trigger to send the form out,
The form handler will work with your data...
If you hsven t filled out the form correctly, u don t want to trigger your patch action...
So:
On your form, you have an OnSucces property,
Place your patch code there...
Change your cRecord in your patch statement:
YourForm.LastSubmit
Is it possible to add to a CustomMboSet in Maximo using scripting? I am writing a custom application using a custom object called TIMESHEET. As part of the application I am writing a (Jython) script that needs to dynamically build up an MboSet (a set of TIMESHEETs). The code retrieves an existing CustomMboSet and attempts to add elements to it. It works when using an out of box MboSet, but when I try to run the same code on a custom MboSet it does not seem to work. No error is thrown, but code below the offending line is not run.
In other words, this works (LABTRANS is an out of box MBO):
myMboSet = mbo.getMboSet("LABTRANS")
newMbo = myMboSet.add()
# Set attributes on newMbo, everything is happy
But this does not (TIMESHEET is a custom MBO):
myMboSet = mbo.getMboSet("TIMESHEET")
newMbo = myMboSet.add()
# Code does not execute after the above line
Anyone have any insight as to why I am seeing this behavior? Does the Maximo scripting framework simply not support the dynamic building up of CustomMboSets? Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
You need to make sure that the relationship exists between the Current MBO and the Custom MBO in the database configuration otherwise it will not work.
Alternatively you can use the following code to create an new mboSet on the fly:
timeSheetMboSet = mxServer.getMboSet("TIMESHEET", userInfo)
mbo.getMboSet(RELATIONSHIPNAME).
LABTRANS and TIMESHEET must be the relationship names to the object in auto script.
If you want to get/add records in any object, use
mxServer.getMboSet(OBJECTNAME, userInfo)
A bit more explanation. You can create your own custom relationship from within your automation script. The trick is to make sure it's not already existing. That's why I use a dollar sign for mine.
variable = mbo.getMboSet(tempRelationshipName,Object,where clause)
previousPhaseSet = mbo.getMboSet("$wophasetranstemp1", "exitdate is null")
I searched for hours to find a solution but I couldn't find it.
The problem is that I'm loading data using the entity framework and the include() method. That looks like
Dim Test = (From o in DataContext.Orders.Include("OrderDetails")
select o).FirstOrDefault
Loading, editing and saving of the data works fine. When I add data to the related OrderDetails property of "Test" and remove it by the Remove()-Method of this EntityCollection, the data is removed from the list, but it is added to the database.
Does anyone know how I can delete such related data properly?
Thanks
Back in the unversioned Ember Data days (e.g. "rev 12" maybe) I'm pretty sure you could do this:
var comment = App.Comment.find(42); // Already exists, but not yet loaded...
post.get('comments').addObject(comment);
Because App.Comment.find(42) would return an App.Comment object, albeit one with no fields populated except it's ID. (I don't remember the details of how you'd then save the App.Post--i.e. if you could or couldn't save it until the comment object was completely loaded…I never got that far.)
Why this was neat is that if your template rendered post.comments, a new row/div would appear immediately that could check isLoaded to display a loading indicator and show instantly that a new record was attached while waiting for the record's data to load. This is/was a selling point of Ember/Ember Data, and one I really like.
But this doesn't work now in 1.0.0-beta.2 beta.4 beta.5:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
post.get('comments').addObject(comment); // Fails
Because controller.get('store').find('comment', 42) returns a promise, and if I try to add it to the hasMany it complains that I can only add App.Comment objects to the relationship.
Is it still possible to do something like this, so that my template which renders the comments immediately updates with a new record, but asynchronously populates its data?
(Please ignore that it doesn't make sense to add an already existing comment to a post--using the ubiquitous example scenario is easier than posting all my model code. Thanks!)
Okay, I came up with at least one way that does it:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
var inFlightRecord = controller.get('store').getById('comment', 42);
controller.get('comments').addObject(inFlightRecord);
To be safer, maybe:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
var inFlightRecord = controller.get('store').getById('comment', 42);
if(inFlightRecord){ // should be null if it isn't in the store
controller.get('comments').addObject(inFlightRecord);
} else {
// add a then block to the promise to make sure it gets added later
}
It seems that getById returns the "unloaded" object like we used to get from App.Comment.find(42), and the object still has an isLoaded property you can check to show loading status in your template.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be supported behavior that I can rely on going forward (I suppose arguably nothing is, until 1.0 release), but it seems to work. I even checked that the object returned by getById === the object fulfilled in the promise. So this seems to be a good solution.
Anyone see a problem with this, or have a better way?
I am currently developing an application in which i experience the exception "A cycle was detected in the set of changes" when calling DataContext.SubmitChanges(). I know why this exception is thrown but i have not been able to find a fix for my situation. Let me explain the situation. I have a database with a table as shown below which i access with LINQ to SQL so it gets mapped to classes in vb.net.
Device
-------
ID
DefaultGatewayID
The DefaultGatewayID is a Device an can even be the same object or another Device. The user uses a GUI with a DataGrid to alter and add new records. The updating records is no problem. The ID already exists and the DefaultGatewayObject is attached to the record (the ID is stored in database).
However when i try to add a new record and set the DefaultGatewayObject in the same transaction i get the 'Cycle detected in set of changes'-exception. I suspect this is caused by LINQ to SQL because it does not know which record to add first, although it is the same item in this case.
I do not have the option to break the insertion into two parts, one for the Device and then adding the DefaultGateway because my submit button is bound to a XAML Command which executes the SubmitChanges.
Ideally i would have some option to specify which object is to be created first, or something like that. I think it's an option to remove the connection to itself and just set the ID in this field, but i'd rather find a fix within LINQ to SQL.
I hope SO has an answer to this. I could only find this related post "Cycle detected while adding Circularly linked list"
You can break the insertion into two parts ans still have one transaction if you wrap your code in a TransactionScope.
Using trans As New TransactionScope()
'Code that generates a new ID in the database
dc.SubmitChanges()
'Code that uses the new ID value.
dc.SubmitChanges()
trans.Complete()
End Using
This is the only way to avoid the exception. If this is impossible because of architectural decisions ("my submit button is bound to a XAML Command") you need to change the architecture. I think a UI command should never be so close to the data access layer anyway. You better call a service method from XAML.