In our implementation of the Rules Engine we have a test form similar to Rule Test Form on the online demo on "Business Rules Engine Demo". What we would like to do is conditionally show only the Test Fields for the items in use in the rule. We are doing this by grabbing the rule.definition JSON from the ruleeditor then look for the items which we can conditionally create using AngularJS's ng-if directive. This works great with Fields. If the user selects a method, our method of parsing the string is failing. What it appears is the Field Names are stored in the JSON as plain text however the Method Names are not. Is there a way we can configure the control to either A not encrypt the method names or is there a way that we can tap into the encryption to identify if a method is in use in our rule? Thanks in advance.
Methods and actions can have overloads which the Code Effects rule editor supports. Therefore, we can't have multiple menu entries with the same name. Instead, we use a signature hash on all in-rule methods and rule actions regardless of whether it has an overload or not to make them unique on the client.
You need to have either the Full Source or the Editor Source license in order to change the code to either stop that hashing, or tap into the process, or implement it your own way. You don't have that option with any other Code Effects perpetual license.
Related
I'm using Unity/C# and I try to setup Rider File Layout XML to format code in specific way.
What I want - is to put methods with certain names (e.g. Awake(), Start(), Update() etc.) in front of other methods.
The important part is that I want to move only methods without arguments.
Sorting by name partially works, but it also changes order of methods with parameters (e.g. Update(float dt)).
Is there any way to filter methods with and without parameters using File Layout?
I'm afraid that's not possible, probably you have to write your own R# plugin for this
I will need to create a Custom Button "convert lead" that will perform the same functionality as Standard Button "Convert" when the button is clicked.
What is the best approach to do it..?
That's a very broad question. What exactly you need, what have you tried so far? Do you really need just a button that opens the conversion page or something more?
If you want to somehow recreate it with Apex... Core of the coded solution would be the Database.convertLead method. You don't pass to it whole leads (like to Database.insert for example) but instead just their IDs + bunch of control flags to make it do exactly what you need. Read up about LeadConvert object. And similarly you can get Account/Contact/Opportunity ID from the result object if it succeeded.
I don't think there's programmatic way to access field names & mappings defined by administrator for lead conversion. Maybe you'd need to store this info somehow (in helper object? custom metadata?). So then you'd query the field names from metadata, then query the lead fields and finally display table of fields & mappings to the user.
I've been working on a component and currently I'm trying to do different things based on the selector chosen for the component.
So basically if I have a component with this structure
myComponent/
dialog.xml
myComponent.jsp
altView.jsp
I know that if I have a Node with resourceType myComponent I can request the alt view via browser by requesting "path/to/component/content.altView.html" and everything is hunky dory.
Similarly I can do a cq include and do something like:
# with cq include
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
# or with sling include
<sling:include path="my/path" resourceType="myComponent" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
However, when I'm handling the request, I've seen some interesting behavior when looking at the RequestPathInfo Object.
For example, if we look at all 3 of the above cases I might have something like this:
# http://path/to/component/content.altView.html
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // {altView}
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // html
# <sling:include path="my/path" resourceType="myComponent" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // {altView}
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // html
# <cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // []
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // altView
I understand why the cq:include returns different results (we're making a request to my/path.altView and .altView coincidentally serves as the extension in this case). I'm curious if there is a normalized why to pull "altView" (or the selected view) regardless of if it's been used as an extension or selector. Or if this is normal and I just need to check both the extensions and selectors individually.
i.e
selectors = get selectors();
if selectors
do stuff
else check extensions
do stuff
Again thank you very much for your insights, this community is awesome.
[EDIT]
In response to an answer, I thought I'd give a little more context to what I'm doing. Basically our component structure is set up so that each of our components has an associated Java Class that handles the business logic. (I.E. apps/myapp/components/myComponent will map to com.mypackage.components.MyComponent) That said, within my component's Class I need to handle the control flow differently depending on how the component was called (i.e. what selectors/extensions/etc). For example, if my component was called normally I'd do the base behavior, but if it was called with selector (for exmaple) "altView" I would need to handle the alternative view differently, and in this alternative view different data will be available, etc.
My question was along the basis that it seems that i can give the "path" attribute of a "cq:include" tag the selector I want to use:
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
However, when I check my RequestPathInfo in my component class to decide workflow, "altView" is returned as the extension, not within the String[] selectors. Note, the above compiles fine, and it selectors the correct .jsp file for rendering, the RequestPathInfo object just stores the data in a different place.
I'm starting to guess that places the selector into the path attribute works because the selectors and extensions modifiers alter the behavior vary similarly. mycomponent.altView.html resolves to altView.jsp whereas if I was to do mycomponent.altView it would also attempt to resolve a mycomponent/altView.jsp just as it would do the same for mycomponent.xml to mycomponent/XML.jsp
It seems like you're kind of working around Sling resolution. The easiest way to do "different things based on selector" in a given component (let's say my/new/component) is to create different renderers.
For example, say I am requesting /content/app/page.html, and on that page was the component my/new/component. Or if I request /content/app/page.selector.html, I want a slightly different experience for my/new/component.
In the cq:component, I would create two JSPs: component.jsp and component.selector.jsp. Sling will automatically know, based on the selector in the request, which renderer to use. Obviously each renderer can produce a different experience.
The same is true for extension. In the example, component.jsp and component.selector.jsp are actually equivalent to component.HTML.jsp and component.selector.HTML.jsp. The HTML is just implied. However, you could do component.XML.jsp and component.selector.XML.jsp and Sling will again, pick the most relevant selector, based on the selector(s) and extension of the request.
Now, what if you don't want the selector to show up in the page request's URL (in my opinion you shouldn't)...
You can include your component using sling:include and add the selector, like you've done.
The caveat is that sling:include works a little differently than cq:include, so only use this when you need to. Instead, you could also use Sling mapping to hide the selector from the user. The majority of the time I would recommend this approach.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do with adding the selector to the "path" attribute. I don't think that would do anything. The "path" is defining the resource name (and the node name if the resource is not synthetic). Including the selector in that wouldn't do anything, except make the resource name include a period and the selector.
My question was along the basis that it seems that i can give the
"path" attribute of a "cq:include" tag the selector I want to use:
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/> However, when I check my RequestPathInfo in my component class to
decide workflow, "altView" is returned as the extension, not within
the String[] selectors.
As opposed to the cq:include tag, you could alternatively use sling:include tag, which provides attributes to modify the selectors & suffix on the request:
<sling:include resourceType="myComponent" path="my/path" addSelectors="altView"/>
or
<sling:include resourceType="myComponent" path="my/path" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
If you already have selectors on the request that you don't want to apply to myComponent.
In terms of the differences between Sling include & CQ include, there seems to be very little, apart from the latter also supporting script inclusion. From the docs:
Should you use <cq:include> or <sling:include>?
When developing AEM components, Adobe recommends that you use
<cq:include>.
<cq:include> allows you to directly include script files
by their name when using the script attribute. This takes component
and resource type inheritance into account, and is often simpler than
strict adherence to Sling's script resolution using selectors and
extensions.
I see classes like org.drools.lang.api.PackageDescrBuilder and org.drools.lang.api.impl.RuleDescrBuilderImpl to create rules programmatically, but I don't see any examples of that.
Basically user will create a rule and upload the file to a location. I have read these rule files and set rule attributes like date-effective, date-expires, enabled etc.
As per org.drools.rule.Rule api, there are methods to set, but I don't get any idea on how to read the rule.drl file and convert it to object of type org.drools.rule.Rule.
Any idea on this or how to modify a drools rule using drools api will be useful.
Note: I don't want to do string replacement for modifying a rule.
You could take a look at the tests for the PackageBuilder:
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/blob/5.6.x/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/compiler/PackageBuilderTest.java
... which has examples of doing this.
Is there any way I can use the format_number_choice function inside of a actions file. In fact I need to use it for a Form error message.
'max_size' => 'File is too large (maximum is %max_size% bytes).',
In English it's simply "bytes", but in other languages the syntax changes after a certain value (for example if the number is greater than 20 it's: "20 of bytes").
I can use parenthesis, of course, but if the framework offers support for doing this specific thing, why not to use it?!
The way it's currently implemented in the 1.4 branch, you can define only one translation per message using il18n XML files.
What you could do is create a custom validator which inherits the current validator (sfValidatorFile in your example) and does the size checking in the doClean method before calling its parent's method.
I suggest you take a look at the source to see how it works : sfValidatorFile
The correct way to handle number ranges for translation is explained here in the Definitive Guide. I won't reproduce it here as the documentation itself is clear and concise. Note however that the string is not extracted automatically by the i18n-extract task, so you need to add it manually - again, the documentation explains this.
So yes, you can use the format_number_choice() function inside an action - you just need to load the helper inside the action like this:
sfContext::getInstance()->getConfiguration()->loadHelpers('I18N');