sorry for simple question, but I'm new both to spring, JPA and Jhipster.
I'm following a video tutorial, and in one step the teacher was "customizing" the default view to sort on a custom column. He did so by changing the method in the repository class, to a query that ordered by one of the columns. This works, but I noticed that doing that the UI sort (the sort the UI impose clicking on the column) stopped working.
Debugging i noticed that the reason is that the query filter first by date, then by "pageable".
What is the best practice to apply the "byDate" sort just as a default, in case the pageable is empty?
I managed to "hack" the system by deep inspecting the page object and with an "if there is an UI sort use repository method A (the one that is natively unsorted), if there is not use repository method B (the one that is already sorted)". What I'm looking for is the "right way", the best practice, because I want to learn to program the way it is supposed to be, and I'm pretty sure that to have a default sort column is not a such exotic request
Here it is the link to the video
many thanks
You can set the default sorting column of any view in the [component-name].route.ts. In that file you will see something like this:
// ...
export const fooRoute: Routes = [
{
path: '',
component: FooComponent,
resolve: {
pagingParams: JhiResolvePagingParams
},
data: {
authorities: ['ROLE_USER'],
defaultSort: 'id,asc', // <- Look at this line :)
pageTitle: 'jhipsterApp.foo.home.title'
},
canActivate: [UserRouteAccessService]
},
// ...
The default order set by JHipster is by column id in ascending order. If you want to set the default order by column name descending (just as an example) just change that line to the following:
defaultSort: 'name,desc',
My app is generated via recent JHipster 7.4.1 and uses Vue frontned.
There are no [component-name].route.ts files generated.
I tried to add defaultSort into entities.ts but no luck.
This is working here:
In the [entity-name].components.ts,
change
public propOrder = 'id';
into
public propOrder = '[your default sort column, e.g. name]';
Related
I am playing with the new Azure API Apps (template in Visual Studio 2013 w/ the new SDK bits from 3/24/15) and I'd like have my Swagger UI group my calls by Version #. In my case, I'm currently versioning by URI (I realize REST purists will tell me not to do this - please don't try to "correct my error" here). For instance, I may have these calls:
http://example.com/api/Contacts <-- "latest"
http://example.com/api/1/Contacts
http://example.com/api/2/Contacts
http://example.com/api/Contacts{id} <-- "latest"
http://example.com/api/1/Contacts/{id}
http://example.com/api/2/Contacts/{id}
Functionally, this works great! (Yes, I know some of you will cringe. Sorry this hurts your feelings.) However, my problem is w/ Swagger UI organization. By default, Swagger UI groups these by the Controller Name (Contacts in this case). I see in the SwaggerConfig.cs file that I can change this:
// Each operation be assigned one or more tags which are then used by consumers for various reasons.
// For example, the swagger-ui groups operations according to the first tag of each operation.
// By default, this will be controller name but you can use the "GroupActionsBy" option to
// override with any value.
//
//c.GroupActionsBy(apiDesc => apiDesc.HttpMethod.ToString());
What I don't understand is how I can tweak this to group all of the "latest" together and then all of v1 together and then all of v2 together, etc.
How can I do this? If it absolutely must require that I add the word "latest" (or equiv) into the path in place of the version number, then I can do that but I'd prefer not have to do that.
I believe what you're looking to do is to uncomment a line a few lines below that one in SwaggerConfig.cs
c.OrderActionGroupsBy(new DescendingAlphabeticComparer());
except you'd change the name of the class to something like ApiVersionComparer() and then implement it as a new class:
public class ApiVersionComparer : IComparer<string>
{
public int Compare(string x, string y)
{
// Write whatever comparer you'd like to here.
// Yours would likely involve parsing the strings and having
// more complex logic than this....
return -(string.Compare(x, y));
}
}
If you've gotten far enough to ask this question, I'm sure I can leave the sort implementation for you. :-)
I created an extension with a domain model Message. This model has a relation m:n with the TYPO3 pages (the one which has the details of the pages, like title, issite_root etc) table. However, by using the mapping to existing tables option, it gives me type error saying page :
The configured type field for table "pages" is of type int(11) unsigned
This means the type field can not be used for defining the record type.
You have to configure the mappings yourself if you want to map to this
table or extend the correlated class
So I just create the relation without mapping, so that I can later map it from setup.txt.
The I created model Pages in MyExt/Classes/Domain/Model/ with all the getters/setters and repository in MyExt/Classes/Domain/Repository/.
In my setup.txt I did this:
config.tx_extbase {
persistence{
enableAutomaticCacheClearing = 1
updateReferenceIndex = 0
classes {
Tx_Playfield_Domain_Model_Pages {
mapping {
tableName = pages
columns {
uid.mapOnProperty = uid
pid.mapOnProperty = pid
sorting.mapOnProperty = sorting
title.mapOnProperty = title
subtitle.mapOnProperty = subtitle
}
}
}
}
}
}
But when I try to access the Pages model I created,
var_dump($this->pagesRepository->findByUid(74));
its searching for tx_playfield_domain_model_pages which does not exists, it shows
Table 'typo3.tx_playfield_domain_model_pages' doesn't exist: SELECT tx_playfield_domain_model_pages.* FROM tx_playfield_domain_model_pages WHERE tx_playfield_domain_model_pages.uid = '74' LIMIT 1
What am I missing here?
Update
After following http://t3-developer.com/extbase-fluid/cheats-extbase/model/tabelle-pages-in-extbase/ suggested by #Michael I get an empty result from $this->pagesRepository->findByUid(74)
setup.txt is loading. I did this to check it:
plugin.tx_playfield{
settings{
temp=yes
}
}
And this is being accessed from my controller.
Is it possible that you didn't create the Pages domain model (within the extension builder or not at all)? The file my_ext/Classes/Domain/Model/Pages.php needs to exist. Check that your "Pages" domain model has the property Map to existing table set to pages, it should look like that:
I don't know where exactly your error is, but I did some more tinkering in the extension builder and made it work. You can probably find out by comparing your extension playfield to my temporary extension testfield: Download it here (updated).
Btw, you don't need to map properties that you do not want to be displayed in the frontend unless they are named differently.
mapping {
tableName = pages
columns {
title.mapOnProperty = title
subtitle.mapOnProperty = subtitle
}
}
I think you have to write the mapping with camel case letters (the class name). Although this post is in German, I think the code might help you. The author added some fields he is going to use to the class and also added a mapping in the typoscript of the extension (see the example code there). The most important part of the German text is that this example there was designed only to read from the db. If you want to create new pages using the model, you have (at least) to add the TCA and setters in the model class to make it work.
My question is this: How can you implement a default server-side "filter" for a navigation property?
In our application we seldom actually delete anything from the database. Instead, we implement "soft deletes" where each table has a Deleted bit column. If this column is true the record has been "deleted". If it is false, it has not.
This allows us to easily "undelete" records accidentally deleted by the client.
Our current ASP.NET Web API returns only "undeleted" records by default, unless a deleted argument is sent as true from the client. The idea is that the consumer of the service doesn't have to worry about specifying that they only want undeleted items.
Implementing this same functionality in Breeze is quite simple, at least for base entities. For example, here would be the implementation of the classic Todo's example, adding a "Deleted" bit field:
// Note: Will show only undeleted items by default unless you explicitly pass deleted = true.
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<BreezeSampleTodoItem> Todos(bool deleted = false) {
return _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
}
On the client, all we need to do is...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos");
...to get all undeleted Todos, or...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos").withParameters({deleted: true})
...to get all deleted Todos.
But let's say that a BreezeSampleTodoItem has a child collection for the tools that are needed to complete that Todo. We'll call this "Tools". Tools also implements soft deletes. When we perform a query that uses expand to get a Todo with its Tools, it will return all Tools - "deleted" or not.
But how can I filter out these records by default when Todo.Tools is expanded?
It has occurred to me to have separate Web API methods for each item that may need expanded, for example:
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<Todo> TodoAndTools(bool deletedTodos = false, bool deletedTools = false)
{
return // ...Code to get filtered Todos with filtered Tools
}
I found some example code of how to do this in another SO post, but it requires hand-coding each property of Todo. The code from the above-mentioned post also returns a List, not an IQueryable. Furthermore this requires methods to be added for every possible expansion which isn't cool.
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way to define a piece of code that gets called whenever Todos is queried, and another for whenever Tools is queried - preferably being able to pass an argument that defines if it should return Deleted items. This could be anywhere on the server-side stack - be it in the Web API method, itself, or maybe part of Entity Framework (note that filtering Include extensions is not supported in EF.)
Breeze cannot do exactly what you are asking for right now, although we have discussed the idea of allowing the filtering of "expands", but we really need more feedback as to whether the community would find this useful. Please add this to the breeze User Voice and vote for it. We take these suggestions very seriously.
Moreover, as you point out, EF does not support this.
But... what you can do is use a projection instead of an expand to do something very similar:
public IQueryable<Object> TodoAndTools(bool deleted = false
,bool deletedTools = false) {
var baseQuery = _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
return baseQuery.Select(t => new {
Todo: t,
Tools: t.Tools.Where( tool => tool.Deleted = deletedTools);
});
}
Several things to note here:
1) We are returning an IQueryable of Object instead of IQueryable of ToDo
2) Breeze will inspect the returned payload and automatically create breeze entities for any 'entityTypes' returned (even within a projection). So the result of this query will be an array of javascript objects each with two properties; 'ToDo' and 'Tools' where Tools is an array of 'Tool' entities. The nice thing is that both ToDo and Tool entities returned within the projection will be 'full' breeze entities.
3) You can still pass client side filters based on the projected property names. i.e.
var query = EntityQuery.from("TodoAndTools")
.where("Todo.Description", "startsWith", "A")
.using(em);
4) EF does support this.
I have the following in a config.ini file: (Zend_Form_Element)
site_status.name = "site_status"
site_status.type = "select"
site_status.label = "Status"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Active"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Active"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Inactive"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Inactive"
As you can see this is supposed to be a dropdown (select) box, however it is being rendered as a standard text box. What am I doing wrong?
--> Edit
Rather than tying the elements to a form, I am trying to tie them to a database: In my code it would look something like this:
[{tablename}] // the table name would represent a section in the ini
{column}.name = "{column_name/form_field_id}";
{column}.type = "{form_element_type}"
{column}.label = "{form_element_label}"
...
From there I would pull in the database table(s) that the form would represent data for (one or more tables as necessary). As far as the reasoning for this approach is that (down the road), I want to define (either by ini or some other storage method), a configuration file that would be a list of fields/elements that belong to a specific form (that a non-programmer type could easily edit), that the 'generic' form class would read, pull in the element info, and create the form on the fly.
I do realize however this poses another problem which I haven't yet figured out, and that is how to use table lookups for select elements (without coding the database retrieval of the lookup into the form, so that a non-user could easily just define it without any programming, purely configuration, but that is a whole other topic not part of my question here. (and I think I have viable ideas/solutions to that part of the problem anyhow) -- extra config entries and a generic routine pretty much.
I hope that clarifies my thought process and reason why I am doing it the way I am in the example above.
I have not yet played with using a Zend_Config to construct an instance of Zend_Form.
But a look at the code suggests that Zend_Form::addElement() doesn't directly take a Zend_Config instance as a param. Rather, it looks like you need pass your Zend_Config instance to the form constructor. It also seems that the config format needs to be a little deeper in order to map config keys to setXXX() calls.
In path/to/config/myForm.ini:
[myForm]
myForm.elements.site_status.name = "site_status"
myForm.elements.site_status.type = "select"
myForm.elements.site_status.label = "Status"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Active"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Active"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.inactive.key = "Inactive"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.inactive.value = "Inactive"
Then instantiating:
$formConfig = new Zend_Config_Ini('path/to/config/myForm.ini', 'myForm');
$form = new Zend_Form($formConfig);
Not tested, but looking at this example:
Using Zend_Form with Zend_Config - Andrew Vayanis
it feels like it should go something like the above.
Update
In view of the comments/feedback from #Aaron, two more approaches.
We could extend Zend_Form, implementing a method called something like addElementByConfig in which we would pass the shallow Zend_Config instance that describes the element itself. In fact, we could even just override addElement(), taking a recursive approach: if the first param is an instance of Zend_Config, then call addElement() using the component data.
If the atomicity and re-usability are the primary benefits we seek in using Zend_Config to describe an element, then perhaps we just make a custom element extending Zend_Form_Element. Then we could use these elements in any forms we wish.
I'm looking for someone to point me in the right direction (link) or provide a code example for implementing a drop down list for a many-to-one relationship using RequestFactory and the Editor framework in GWT. One of the models for my project has a many to one relationship:
#Entity
public class Book {
#ManyToOne
private Author author;
}
When I build the view to add/edit a book, I want to show a drop down list that can be used to choose which author wrote the book. How can this be done with the Editor framework?
For the drop-down list, you need a ValueListBox<AuthorProxy>, and it happens to be an editor of AuthorProxy, so all is well. But you then need to populate the list (setAcceptableValues), so you'll likely have to make a request to your server to load the list of authors.
Beware the setAcceptableValues automatically adds the current value (returned by getValue, and defaults to null) to the list (and setValue automatically adds the value to the list of acceptable values too if needed), so make sure you pass null as an acceptable value, or you call setValue with a value from the list before calling setAcceptableValues.
I know it's an old question but here's my two cents anyway.
I had some trouble with a similar scenario. The problem is that the acceptable values (AuthorProxy instances) were retrieved in a RequestContext different than the one the BookEditor used to edit a BookProxy.
The result is that the current AuthorProxy was always repeated in the ValueListBoxwhen I tried to edit a BookProxy object. After some research I found this post in the GWT Google group, where Thomas explained that
"EntityProxy#equals() actually compares their request-context and stableId()."
So, as I could not change my editing workflow, I chose to change the way the ValueListBox handled its values by setting a custom ProvidesKey that used a different object field in its comparison process.
My final solution is similar to this:
#UiFactory
#Ignore
ValueListBox<AuthorProxy> createValueListBox ()
{
return new ValueListBox<AuthorProxy>(new Renderer<AuthorProxy>()
{
...
}, new ProvidesKey<AuthorProxy>()
{
#Override
public Object getKey (AuthorProxy author)
{
return (author != null && author.getId() != null) ? author.getId() : Long.MIN_VALUE;
}
});
}
This solution seems ok to me. I hope it helps someone else.