I have to filter entities according to some parameters sent by client. For this purpose, i create a list of predicates like this:
List<Predicate> predicates = new ArrayList<Predicate>();
if (filters != null && StringUtils.hasText(filters.getName())) {
predicates.add(cb.like(cb.upper(root.get("name")),
"%" + filters.getName().trim().toUpperCase() + "%"));
}
//OTHER FILTERS
Now the problem is to add a criteria that is sql syntax. In particular i have to find entities that are located into a particular polygon. So i should add a restriction like this:
and within(point, :bounds) = true //bounds is the geometry drawn by client
I have read that i could use #Formula to define an sql filter but this annotation works everytime even if filter in input(about localization) is not setted.
Can anyone help me?
You should be able to call database functions using CriteriaBuilder.function(...). Try cb.equal(cb.function("within", Boolean.class, root.get("point"), bounds), cb.literal(true)).
This may or may not work out of the box depending on the type of the bounds parameter, because Hibernate needs to recognize it to know its SQL representation, though. You might need to create a custom LiteralType
Related
I want to create queries using EF FromSqlInterpolated or FromSqlRaw that allows me to use Like clauses, but I don't know what is the right way to do it without opening the application to SqlInjection attacks.
One first approach has took me to the following code
var results = _context.Categories.FromSqlInterpolated(
$"Select * from Category where name like {"%" + partialName + "%"}");
First test worked fine, it returns results when providing expected strings, and returns nothing when i provide something like ';select * from Category Where name='Notes'--%';
Still I don't know much about SqlInjection, at least not enough to feel safe with the query shown before.
Does someone know if the query is safe, or if there is a right way to do it?
Thanks
From this document
The FromSqlInterpolated and ExecuteSqlInterpolated methods allow using
string interpolation syntax in a way that protects against SQL injection attacks.
var results = _context.Categories.FromSqlInterpolated(
$"Select * from Category where name like {"%" + partialName + "%"}");
Or you can also change your query to Linq-to-Entity like this way
var results = _context.Categories.Where(p => p.name.Contains(partialName ));
I am using ag-grid with angular and I want to apply an external filter to it.
The documentation shows an example what the doesExternalFilterPass function can look like:
function doesExternalFilterPass(node) {
switch (ageType) {
case 'below30': return node.data.age < 30;
...
default: return true;
}
}
It basically uses the raw data to filter the rows. As I use the columns valueGetter/filterValueGetter functions to modify the values, I want the external filter to filter based on the return values of these functions but I haven't found the proper way to do this.
I can get the value that I want by calling
this.gridOptions.api.getValue(columnId, node);
(which calls the valueGetter under the hood) instead of
node.data[columnId]
but I didn't find any example doing it that way.
So I am asking for the right way of calling the valueGetter functions inside doesExternalFilterPass or how anybody else approached this problem.
(It is especially important when you have rows that are not even included in the data object. This is the case when a columns values are calculated through a valueGetter/filterValueGetter function e.g. by adding two other columns.)
Instead of using a valueGetter, you can add a custom field to your data model that you compute before feeding data to the grid. You will need to pre-process the data and then use this new field in column definition and external filter.
I want to search the entire content tree but not specific tress that have a 'Do Not Search' property at their base.
The Query Builder API page does not reference anything besides AND and OR.
Is it possible to exclude paths from the search or can I only explicitly include paths?
The first three lines are "/content AND /content/path/es". I want "/content AND NOT(/content/path/es)"
map.put("group.1_path", "/content");
map.put("group.2_path", "/content/path/es");
map.put("group.p.or","false");
I have tried the next two both true and false and they have no effect.
map.put("group.2_path.p.not", "true");
map.put("group.2_path.not", "true");
map.put("group.2_path", "not('/content/path/es')");
I can't find any documentation that mentions any other name that 'not' or '!' might be used instead.
Yes it is possible. But not exactly in the way you are trying.
You can exclude the pages with certain properties using the property predicate evaluator.
For ex. If you want to exclude pages which have the property "donotsearch" in its jcr:content node, then you can query it using property operation as exists
map.put("path", "/content/geometrixx/en/toolbar");
map.put("type", "cq:Page");
/* Relative path to the property to check for */
map.put("property", "jcr:content/donotsearch");
/* Operation to perform on the value of the prop, in this case existence check */
map.put("property.operation", "exists");
/* Value for the prop, false = not, by default it is true */
map.put("property.value", "false");
This would result in the following XPath Query
/jcr:root/content/geometrixx/en/toolbar//element(*, cq:Page)
[
not(jcr:content/#donotsearch)
]
But in case you would like to exclude pages with certain value for the property donotsearch, then you can change the above query as shown below
map.put("property", "jcr:content/donotsearch"); //the property to check for
map.put("property.operation", "equals"); // or unequals or like etc..
map.put("property.value", "/*the value of the property*/");
You can find a lot other info regarding querying by referring to the docs.
I'm not sure what version of CQ you're using (you linked to the 5.4 docs), but in 5.5 and above, the PredicateGroup class has a setNegated method to exclude results that would match the group defined.
You can't set negation on an individual Predicate, but there would be nothing to stop you creating a group with just the predicate that you wish to negate:
Predicate pathPredicate = new Predicate("path").set("path", "/content/path/es");
PredicateGroup doNotSearchGroup = new PredicateGroup();
doNotSearchGroup.setNegated(true);
doNotSearchGroup.add(pathPredicate);
Query query = queryBuilder.createQuery(doNotSearchGroup);
EDIT: Just to update in relation to your comment, you should be able to add a PredicateGroup to another PredicateGroup (as PredicateGroup is a subclass of Predicate). So once you have your negated group, combine it with the path search:
Predicate pathPredicate = new Predicate("path");
pathPredicate.set("path", "/content");
PredicateGroup combinedPredicate = new PredicateGroup();
combinedPredicate.add(pathPredicate);
combinedPredicate.add(doNotSearchGroup);
Query query - queryBuilder.createQuery(combinedPredicate);
It is pretty straightforward implementation.
Use
map.put("group.p.not",true)
map.put("group.1_path","/path1/where/you/donot/want/to/search")
map.put("group.2_path","/path2/where/you/donot/want/to/search")
I've run into the same problem and while I couldn't fully solve it I was able to come up with a workaround using groups and the unequals operator. Something like:
path=/var/xxx
1_property=jcr:primaryType
1_property.value=rep:ACL
1_property.operation=unequals
2_property=jcr:primaryType
2_property.value=rep:GrantACE
2_property.operation=unequals
Btw, map.put("group.p.not",true) did not work for me.
This link has a lot of useful information: https://hashimkhan.in/2015/12/02/query-builder/
In order to retrieve a contact, having a cell phone number of 09362724853, I use following code:
$newSMS_contact = new Contact;
$newSMS_contact->retrieve_by_string_fields(array('phone_mobile'=>'09362724853'));
How about retrieving a contact having a cell phone number of 09362724853 OR 9362724853 OR +989362724853 with sugar internal functions?
This doesn't work:
$newSMS_contact = new Contact;
$newSMS_contact->retrieve_by_string_fields(array('phone_mobile'=>'09362724853', 'phone_mobile'=>'9362724853', 'phone_mobile'=>'+989362724853'));
The thing is that the function which you are trying to utilize was created for other goals. Since it fetches only one row from DB and fills a Bean with it, the Array of parameters will be turned into a string separated by AND operators. But you have completely different case.
I would suggest to use another approach, which is less convenient but more reliable:
$contact_bean = new Contact();
$contacts_list = $contact_bean->get_full_list(null, '(phone_mobile = "09362724853" OR phone_mobile = "9362724853" OR phone_mobile = "+989362724853")');
Eventually, you will have an array of beans.
Probably, for some modules, you will need to use table aliases for fields definition into SQL supplement.
If I were you, I'd have strict rules when the phone numbers are put in the system so you can be sure your phone numbers follow a certain format in the database. (Something like E.164: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164) You can enforce the rules with a custom SugarField (or override one that exists) that has Javascript and Server-side validation.
This way, you won't have to worry about that logic in this piece of the code or anywhere else you want to deal with phone numbers.
I want to include child objects on an IQueryable list..
I want to include a child object on selected columns of some table type IQueryable list..
I tried like this:
IQueryable<Persons> persons = Context.Persons.Select(x=> new persons{Pkid=x.pkid, FirstName=x.FirstName}).AsQueryable();
persons= persons.Include("Address");
this include of child objects is not working..anyone please help...where I am doing wrong..
thanks alot...
Include doesn't work with projection. Moreover it is not needed. Just do this:
var query = context.Persons
.Select(x => new PersonDto
{
Id = x.pkid,
FirstName = x.FirstName,
Address = x.Address
});
Few points here:
No Include
Address accessed directly in projection, EF will handle this
I'm using PersonDto as target of projection. PersonDto has just Id, FirstName and Address.
You can project to custom type or anonymous type but you cannot project to entity type (the mapped type) - it doesn't work and it throws exception.
If you want to use mapped type you can't return only selected scalar columns - all columns will always be loaded. Only navigation properties can be loaded selectively. To overcome this people sometimes use Table splitting but that is something which works if you can divide your big entity into disjunct entities. In your scenario use just projection.
You cannot use Include() on a projection, try this:
Iquerable<Persons> persons = Context.Persons
.Include("Address")
.Select(x=> new persons{Pkid=x.pkid, FirstName=x.FirstName})
.AsQuerable();
Also you have a naming conflict, you project to a type persons and want to hold the results in an IQueryable named persons - one of them is wrong. Is there a reason you need the projection at all? You could just do
Iquerable<Persons> persons = Context.Persons.Include("Address");
First: Check if lazy loading is enabled or not. I experienced different results when it was enabled. I prefer lazy loading being disabled.
Second: Check this syntax:
result = (From person In context.Persons.Include("Address")).ToList();
P.S.: Useful EF Tips & Tricks : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2009/03/26/index-of-tips.aspx
UPDATE:
Include is not working, because your are using it on newly created objects, not the objects available in the context. you should use Include before creating new objects.
Check This:
result = (From person In context.Persons.Include("Address") Select New With {.FirstName = item.FirstName, .AddressValue = item.Address.Value}).ToList();