This is my controller.php:
$courserecord = $this->front->get_data_wheree('tbl_course_offered.course_id',array('isactive'=>'1'));
This is my Model.php:
function get_data_wheree($table,$where)
{
return $this->db->group_by($table,$where)->result();
}
In my model.php I want to use DISTINCT OR GROUP_BY in the Query.
The group_by is not working properly.
Your model is not working because the result() method is a member of the class CI_DB_result but group_by() returns an instance of CI_DB_query_builder. In other words, you are trying to call a method that does not exist for the class being used.
The methods get() and get_where() are the only two Query Builder methods that return a CI_DB_result object. Put simply, you have to call get() or get_where() before you can use result() or any similar methods.
The other problem is that group_by() does not take a second argument of the type you provide. You're providing an array but it expects a boolean. You need to add another method to define a where condition.
Your model's method should look like the following.
I changed the name of the first argument to better describe its purpose.
function get_data_where($groupby, $where)
{
return $this->db
->group_by($groupby)
->where($where)
->get('tbl_course_offered')
->result();
}
Related
Im trying to load my model in my controller and tried this:
return Post::getAll();
got the error Non-static method Post::getAll() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context
The function in the model looks like this:
public function getAll()
{
return $posts = $this->all()->take(2)->get();
}
What's the correct way to load the model in a controller and then return it's contents?
You defined your method as non-static and you are trying to invoke it as static. That said...
1.if you want to invoke a static method, you should use the :: and define your method as static.
// Defining a static method in a Foo class.
public static function getAll() { /* code */ }
// Invoking that static method
Foo::getAll();
2.otherwise, if you want to invoke an instance method you should instance your class, use ->.
// Defining a non-static method in a Foo class.
public function getAll() { /* code */ }
// Invoking that non-static method.
$foo = new Foo();
$foo->getAll();
Note: In Laravel, almost all Eloquent methods return an instance of your model, allowing you to chain methods as shown below:
$foos = Foo::all()->take(10)->get();
In that code we are statically calling the all method via Facade. After that, all other methods are being called as instance methods.
Why not try adding Scope? Scope is a very good feature of Eloquent.
class User extends Eloquent {
public function scopePopular($query)
{
return $query->where('votes', '>', 100);
}
public function scopeWomen($query)
{
return $query->whereGender('W');
}
}
$users = User::popular()->women()->orderBy('created_at')->get();
Eloquent #scopes in Laravel Docs
TL;DR. You can get around this by expressing your queries as MyModel::query()->find(10); instead of MyModel::find(10);.
To the best of my knowledge, starting PhpStorm 2017.2 code inspection fails for methods such as MyModel::where(), MyModel::find(), etc (check this thread), and this could get quite annoying.
One (elegant) way to get around this is to explicitly call ::query() wherever it makes sense to. This will let you benefit from free auto-completion and a nice formatting/indentating for your queries.
Examples
BAD
Snippet where inspection complains about static method calls
// static call complaint
$myModel = MyModel::find(10);
// another poorly formatted query with code inspection complaints
$myFilteredModels = MyModel::where('is_foo', true)
->where('is_bar', false)
->get();
GOOD
Well formatted code with no complaints
// no complaint
$myModel = MyModel::query()->find(10);
// a nicely formatted and indented query with no complaints
$myFilteredModels = MyModel::query()
->where('is_foo', true)
->where('is_bar', false)
->get();
Just in case this helps someone, I was getting this error because I completely missed the stated fact that the scope prefix must not be used when calling a local scope. So if you defined a local scope in your model like this:
public function scopeRecentFirst($query)
{
return $query->orderBy('updated_at', 'desc');
}
You should call it like:
$CurrentUsers = \App\Models\Users::recentFirst()->get();
Note that the prefix scope is not present in the call.
Solution to the original question
You called a non-static method statically. To make a public function static in the model, would look like this:
public static function {
}
In General:
Post::get()
In this particular instance:
Post::take(2)->get()
One thing to be careful of, when defining relationships and scope, that I had an issue with that caused a 'non-static method should not be called statically' error is when they are named the same, for example:
public function category(){
return $this->belongsTo('App\Category');
}
public function scopeCategory(){
return $query->where('category', 1);
}
When I do the following, I get the non-static error:
Event::category()->get();
The issue, is that Laravel is using my relationship method called category, rather than my category scope (scopeCategory). This can be resolved by renaming the scope or the relationship. I chose to rename the relationship:
public function cat(){
return $this->belongsTo('App\Category', 'category_id');
}
Please observe that I defined the foreign key (category_id) because otherwise Laravel would have looked for cat_id instead, and it wouldn't have found it, as I had defined it as category_id in the database.
You can give like this
public static function getAll()
{
return $posts = $this->all()->take(2)->get();
}
And when you call statically inside your controller function also..
I've literally just arrived at the answer in my case.
I'm creating a system that has implemented a create method, so I was getting this actual error because I was accessing the overridden version not the one from Eloquent.
Hope that help?
Check if you do not have declared the method getAll() in the model. That causes the controller to think that you are calling a non-static method.
For use the syntax like return Post::getAll(); you should have a magic function __callStatic in your class where handle all static calls:
public static function __callStatic($method, $parameters)
{
return (new static)->$method(...$parameters);
}
I created an extension method that lets me treat a List as DbSet for testing purposes (actually, I found this idea in another question here on stack overflow, and it's been fairly useful). Coded as follows:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var queryable = sourceList.AsQueryable();
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(queryable.Provider);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(queryable.Expression);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(queryable.ElementType);
mockDbSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(queryable.GetEnumerator());
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Add(It.IsAny<T>())).Callback<T>(sourceList.Add);
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback(sourceList.Find);
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
I had been using Add for awhile, and that works perfectly. However, when I try to add the callback for Find, I get a compiler error saying that it can't convert a method group to an action. Why is sourceList.Add an Action, but sourceList.Find is a method group?
I'll admit I'm not particularly familiar with C# delegates, so it's likely I'm missing something very obvious. Thanks in advance.
The reason Add works is because the List<T>.Add method group contains a single method which takes a single argument of type T and returns void. This method has the same signature as an Action<T> which is one of the overloads of the Callback method (the one with a single generic type parameter, Callback<T>), therefore the List<T>.Add method group can be converted to an Action<T>.
With Find, you are trying to call the Callback method (as opposed to Callback<T>) which expects an Action parameter (as opposed to Action<T>). The difference here is that an Action does not take any parameters, but an Action<T> takes a single parameter of type T. The List<T>.Find method group cannot be converted to an Action because all the Find methods (there is only one anyway) take input parameters.
The following will compile:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<Predicate<T>>(t => sourceList.Find(t));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
Note that I have called .Callback<Predicate<T>> because the List<T>.Find method expects and argument of type Predicate. Also note I have had to write t => sourceList.Find(t) instead of sourceList.Find because Find returns a value (which means it doesn't match the signature of Action<Predicate<T>>). By writing it as a lambda expression the return value will be thrown away.
Note that although this compiles it will not actually work because the DbSet.Find method actually takes an object[] for it's parameter, not a Predicate<T>, so you will likely have to do something like this:
public static DbSet<T> AsDbSet<T>(this List<T> sourceList) where T : class
{
var mockDbSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>();
mockDbSet.Setup(d => d.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Callback<object[]>(keyValues => sourceList.Find(keyValues.Contains));
return mockDbSet.Object;
}
This last point has more to do with how to use the Moq library that how to use method groups, delegates and lambdas - there is all sorts of syntactic sugar going on with this line which is hiding what is actually relevant to the compiler and what isn't.
I want to create specific Object according to the type argument.
Pseudo code looks like this.
sub new {
my $type = shift;
if($type eq "S1") {$interface = X->new(); }
if($type eq "S2") {$interface = Y->new(); }
etc...
return $interface;
}
Options might be:
Substitute "package" name with $type argument. Requires package name coordination with $type.
Use Hash{S1 => X} in the Master constructor to select Value according to $type passed. Requires Hash maintenance when adding new
Object types.
I don't like any of above. Looking trully polimorphic way to accomplish that.
Thank You,
k
Your best option would likely be to use a factory pattern. A factory method takes the parameters for creating an instance of your class, then decides which object to instantiate and return from that. This can also make dependency injection easier for testing.
You'd probably be looking at something like this (in Java-esque code), with an employee object:
public class EmployeeFactory
{
public static create(String type)
{
switch (type) {
case type1:
return new EmployeeTypeOne();
case type2:
return new EmployeeTypeTwo();
default:
throw new Exception("Unrecognized type");
}
}
}
Your employees would inherit from a common interface or abstract class. You can use the factory to handle constructor parameters as well if you prefer, just try to keep things fairly reasonable (don't pass a million parameters - the factory should internally handle complex objects)
See http://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceConstructorWithFactoryMethod.html for more information.
You might like Module::PluginFinder for that. Create all your specific types in a specific namespace and give them each some identifying (constant? sub?) that the main dispatcher will then use to identify which class handles a given type.
I could use some really good links that explain Generics and how to use them. But I also have a very specific question, relater to working on a current project.
Given this class constructor:
public class SecuredDomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity> : DomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity>
where TDomainContext : DomainContext, new()
where TEntity : Entity, new()
public SecuredDomainViewModel(TDomainContext domainContext, ProtectedItem protectedItem)
: base(domainContext)
{
this.protectedItem = protectedItem;
}
And its creation this way:
DomainViewModel d;
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Assuming I have 20 different EntityTypes within MyContext, is there any easier way to call the constructor without a large switch statement?
Also, since d is DomainViewModel and I later need to access methods from SecuredDomainViewModel, it seems I need to do this:
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
But again "MyEntityType" could actually be one of 20 diffent types. Is there anyway to write these types of statements where MyEntityType is returned from some sort of Reflection?
Additional Info for Clarification:
I will investigate ConstructorInfo, but I think I may have incorrectly described what I'm looking to do.
Assume I have the DomainViewModel, d in my original posting.
This may have been constructed via three possible ways:
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Later, I need to access methods on the SecuredDomainViewModel, which currently must be called this way:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer)d).CanEditEntity)
Assuming I have N+ entity types in this context, what I was hoping to be able to do is
something like this with one call:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, CurrentEntityType)d).CanEditEntity)
Where CurrentEntityType was some sort of function or other type of call that returned Order, Invoice or Consumer based on the current item entity type.
Is that possible?
You can create a non-generic interface that has the CanEditEntity property on it, make SecuredDomainViewModel inherit off that, then call the property through the interface...
Also, the new() constructor allows you to call a constructor on a generic type that has no arguments (so you can just write new TEntity()), but if you want to call a constructor that has parameters one handy trick I use is to pass it in as a delegate:
public void Method<T>(Func<string, bool, T> ctor) {
// ...
T newobj = ctor("foo", true);
// ...
}
//called later...
Method((s, b) => new MyClass(s, b));
I can't help on the links, and likely not on the type either.
Constructor
If you have the Type, you can get the constructor:
ConstructorInfo construtor = typeof(MyEntityType).GetConstructor(new object[]{TDomainContext, ProtectedItem});
Type
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I can only see something like
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, entityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
{
entityType=typeof(Orders)
}
being what you want.
I am re-writing this question to make it clearer what I need to do. I am trying to use Rhino-Mock to test:
public IQueryable<TxRxMode> GetAllModes()
{
return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active);
}
Here's the code:
var context = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IProjectContext>();
//Returns an empty list
context.Expect(c => c.TxRxModes.Where(Arg<Func<TxRxMode, bool>>.Is.Anything)).Return(new List<TxRxMode>().AsQueryable());
TxRxModes in an IObjectSet property on the context and I want it to return an empty IQueryable<TxRxMode> object when the return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active); code is called.
When I run this, the Expect method call throws the an ArgumentNullException:
Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: predicate
I have tried the simpler:
IObjectSet<TxRxMode> modes = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IObjectSet<TxRxMode>>();
context.Expect(c => c.TxRxModes).Return(modes);
but this throws a null reference exception when I call
return m_context.TxRxModes.Where(txRxMode => txRxMode.Active);
Basically, this is part of the method I am trying to mock, so the key question is how do I mock this Where statement?
Where is actually a global static method and you shouldn't be mocking it. It operates on an IEnumerable however and you could just mock that.
Its kind of a hassle doing it with rhino mocks however. I would recommend doing the mock manually (if you need to do it at all).