Related
So what I want to be able to do is take a field value, a date field, and add a set period of time to it and then make that into a merge tag that I can then add back into that value or use else where.
I know how to make a new merge tag, that's not the issue. My question is how do I get a field value to use in that calculation?
add_filter( 'gform_replace_merge_tags', 'new_date_plus_30', 10, 7 );
function new_date_plus_30( $text, $form, $entry, $url_encode, $esc_html, $nl2br, $format ) {
$merge_tag = '{date_plus_30}';
$new_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime('+30 days'));
return str_replace( $merge_tag, $new_date, $text );
}
So where I do the new date calculation, I need to be able to pull in a field from that post and use it.
I was also thinking of doing a If / Else script where I would do the date calculation based on what was set in a form. So if a user said repeat this every 15 days, I would have something like:
add_filter( 'gform_replace_merge_tags', 'new_date_plus_30', 10, 7 );
function new_date_plus_30( $text, $form, $entry, $url_encode, $esc_html, $nl2br, $format ) {
if ( $form_id == 34 && $field_id == 2 && $value == 'add 30 days') {
$merge_tag = '{date_plus_30}';
$new_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime('+30 days'));
}
else if ( $form_id == 34 && $field_id == 2 && $value == 'first of month') {
$merge_tag = '{first_of_month}';
$new_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime('first of next month'));
}
}
return str_replace( $merge_tag, $new_date, $text );
}
But my issue is still the same. How can I use two filters at the same time? I assume I need to use the gform_get_input_value. Kindly review my code and give feedback is there other way?
Or maybe something like this...
add_filter( 'gform_merge_tag_filter', function ( $value, $merge_tag, $options, $field, $raw_value ) {
if ( $field->id == '2' && $value == 'first of the month') {
$merge_tag = '{the_next_date}';
$thedatetochange = 'Not sure how to get the date value here...';
$value = date('m/d/Y', strtotime($thedatetochange . 'first of the next month'));
return $value;
}
else if ( $field->id == '2' && $value == 'the 15th') {
$merge_tag = '{the_next_date}';
$thedatetochange = 'Not sure how to get the date value here...';
$the_first_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime($thedatetochange . 'first of the next month' ));
$value = date('m/d/Y', strtotime($the_first_date . '+15 days' ));
return $value;
}
}, 10, 5 );
So after doing more digging, would I be able to use something like this to get the value of the field?
$theDateToChange = rgar( $entry, ‘3’);
This assumes that the field 3 is a date value. Would this work for retrieving the current entry date?
The $entry is passed through the gform_replace_merge_tags filter. You can fetch any field value from the $entry by its field ID. For example, if your field ID was 1:
$value = $entry[1];
Alternately, if you're open to capturing this modified date as a secondary Date field in your form, we have a snippet that can handle the functionality for you.
https://gravitywiz.com/populate-dates-gravity-form-fields/
new GW_Populate_Date( array(
'form_id' => 1,
'target_field_id' => 2,
'modifier' => '+30 days'
) );
So here is my current working code...
add_action( 'gform_admin_pre_render', 'add_merge_tags' );
function add_merge_tags( $form ) {
?>
<script type="text/javascript">
gform.addFilter('gform_merge_tags', 'add_merge_tags');
function add_merge_tags(mergeTags, elementId, hideAllFields, excludeFieldTypes, isPrepop, option){
mergeTags["custom"].tags.push({ tag: '{the_next_date}', label: 'The Next Date' });
return mergeTags;
}
</script>
<?php
//return the form object from the php hook
return $form;
}
add_action('wp', 'add_merge_tags');
/** MY MERGE TAGS HERE */
add_filter( 'gform_replace_merge_tags', 'new_date', 10, 7 );
function new_date( $value, $merge_tag, $options, $field, $raw_value, $entry, $text, $form, $url_encode, $esc_html, $nl2br, $format ) {
$pmoptions = $entry[7];
if ( $pmoptions == 'Monthly') {
$merge_tag = '{the_next_date}';
$old_date = $entry[2];
$new_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime( $old_date . '+1 month'));
return str_replace( $merge_tag, $new_date, $text );
}
else if ( $pmoptions == 'Quarterly') {
$merge_tag = '{the_next_date}';
$old_date = $entry[2];
$new_date = date('m/d/Y', strtotime( $old_date . '+3 month'));
return str_replace($merge_tag, $new_date, $text);
}
}
apply_filters( 'gform_replace_merge_tags', $value, $merge_tag, $options, $field, $raw_value, $entry, $text, $form, $url_encode, $esc_html, $nl2br, $format );
My database column "status" stores "0 or 1" value but I want to display "Enable" or "disable"
Try this... This might be helpful to you.
Modify code as per your need.
[
'attribute' => 'status',
'value' => function ($model, $key, $index, $widget) {
if ($model->status == 0) {
$status = 'disable';
} elseif ($model->status == 1) {
$status = 'Enable';
} else {
$status = 'Completed';
}
return $status;
}
]
This works,
print map { $_." x" => $_ } 1..5;
print map { ("$_ x" => $_) } 1..5;
print map { ("$_ x") => $_ } 1..5;
but this throws syntax error,
print map { "$_ x" => $_ } 1..5;
Is this documented bug, undocumented bug, or I can't see why this should not compile?
Why perl thinks this should be map EXPR, LIST instead of map BLOCK LIST
From perlref
Because curly brackets (braces) are used for several other things including BLOCKs, you may occasionally have to disambiguate braces at the beginning of a statement by putting a + or a return in front so that Perl realizes the opening brace isn't starting a BLOCK. The economy and mnemonic value of using curlies is deemed worth this occasional extra hassle.
To make your intentions clearer and to help the parser,
Say +{...} to unambiguously specify a hash reference
#list_of_hashrefs = map +{ "$_ x" => $_ }, 1..5;
Say {; ...} to unambiguously specify a code block
%mappings = map {; "$_ x" => $_ } 1..5;
Why perl thinks this should be map EXPR, LIST instead of map BLOCK LIST?
The relevant section of code is in toke.c, Perl's lexer (the below is from Perl 5.22.0):
/* This hack serves to disambiguate a pair of curlies
* as being a block or an anon hash. Normally, expectation
* determines that, but in cases where we're not in a
* position to expect anything in particular (like inside
* eval"") we have to resolve the ambiguity. This code
* covers the case where the first term in the curlies is a
* quoted string. Most other cases need to be explicitly
* disambiguated by prepending a "+" before the opening
* curly in order to force resolution as an anon hash.
*
* XXX should probably propagate the outer expectation
* into eval"" to rely less on this hack, but that could
* potentially break current behavior of eval"".
* GSAR 97-07-21
*/
t = s;
if (*s == '\'' || *s == '"' || *s == '`') {
/* common case: get past first string, handling escapes */
for (t++; t < PL_bufend && *t != *s;)
if (*t++ == '\\')
t++;
t++;
}
else if (*s == 'q') {
if (++t < PL_bufend
&& (!isWORDCHAR(*t)
|| ((*t == 'q' || *t == 'x') && ++t < PL_bufend
&& !isWORDCHAR(*t))))
{
/* skip q//-like construct */
const char *tmps;
char open, close, term;
I32 brackets = 1;
while (t < PL_bufend && isSPACE(*t))
t++;
/* check for q => */
if (t+1 < PL_bufend && t[0] == '=' && t[1] == '>') {
OPERATOR(HASHBRACK);
}
term = *t;
open = term;
if (term && (tmps = strchr("([{< )]}> )]}>",term)))
term = tmps[5];
close = term;
if (open == close)
for (t++; t < PL_bufend; t++) {
if (*t == '\\' && t+1 < PL_bufend && open != '\\')
t++;
else if (*t == open)
break;
}
else {
for (t++; t < PL_bufend; t++) {
if (*t == '\\' && t+1 < PL_bufend)
t++;
else if (*t == close && --brackets <= 0)
break;
else if (*t == open)
brackets++;
}
}
t++;
}
else
/* skip plain q word */
while (t < PL_bufend && isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(t,UTF))
t += UTF8SKIP(t);
}
else if (isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(t,UTF)) {
t += UTF8SKIP(t);
while (t < PL_bufend && isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(t,UTF))
t += UTF8SKIP(t);
}
while (t < PL_bufend && isSPACE(*t))
t++;
/* if comma follows first term, call it an anon hash */
/* XXX it could be a comma expression with loop modifiers */
if (t < PL_bufend && ((*t == ',' && (*s == 'q' || !isLOWER(*s)))
|| (*t == '=' && t[1] == '>')))
OPERATOR(HASHBRACK);
if (PL_expect == XREF)
{
block_expectation:
/* If there is an opening brace or 'sub:', treat it
as a term to make ${{...}}{k} and &{sub:attr...}
dwim. Otherwise, treat it as a statement, so
map {no strict; ...} works.
*/
s = skipspace(s);
if (*s == '{') {
PL_expect = XTERM;
break;
}
if (strnEQ(s, "sub", 3)) {
d = s + 3;
d = skipspace(d);
if (*d == ':') {
PL_expect = XTERM;
break;
}
}
PL_expect = XSTATE;
}
else {
PL_lex_brackstack[PL_lex_brackets-1] = XSTATE;
PL_expect = XSTATE;
}
Explanation
If the first term after the opening curly is a string (delimited by ', ", or `) or a bareword beginning with a capital letter, and the following term is , or =>, the curly is treated as the beginning of an anonymous hash (that's what OPERATOR(HASHBRACK); means).
The other cases are a little harder for me to understand. I ran the following program through gdb:
{ (x => 1) }
and ended up in the final else block:
else {
PL_lex_brackstack[PL_lex_brackets-1] = XSTATE;
PL_expect = XSTATE;
}
Suffice it to say, the execution path is clearly different; it ends up being parsed as a block.
Here is my CI form validation rule:
$datetime_string = $this->form_validation->set_rules('event_date', 'Select', 'callback_date_validate');
Here is my callback:
function date_validate($select_value)
{
$year = '';
$month = '';
$day = '';
$hour = '';
$minutes = '';
$datetime = $this->input->post('event_date');
if (strpos($datetime, ' # ') !== 'FALSE' && $datetime != '')
{
$datetime_explode = explode(' # ', $datetime);
if (strpos($datetime_explode[0], '/') !== 'FALSE' && $datetime_explode != '')
{
$date_explode = explode('/', $datetime_explode[0]);
$year = $date_explode[2];
$month = $date_explode[1];
$day = $date_explode[0];
}
if (strpos($datetime_explode[1], ':') !== 'FALSE')
{
$time_explode = explode(':', $datetime_explode[1]);
$hour = $time_explode[0];
if (strpos($time_explode[1], ' ') !== 'FALSE')
{
$minutes_explode = explode(' ', $time_explode[1]);
$minutes = $minutes_explode[0];
$am_pm = $minutes_explode[1];
if ($am_pm == 'PM' || $am_pm == 'pm')
$hour += 12;
}
}
}
$datetime_string = $year . '-' . $month . '-' . $day . ' ' . $hour . ':' . $minutes . ':00';
if (!preg_match('/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2} 2[0-3]|[01][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]$/', $datetime_string))
{
$this->form_validation->set_message('date_validate', 'Oops');
}
else // user picked something
{
return $datetime_string;
}
}
According to the CI documentation, you can return data from a form validation callback, but by setting the rule equal to a variable, I get this error:
Object of class CI_Form_validation could not be converted to string
What am I doing wrong?
I think the problem is in this line:
$datetime = $this->input->post('event_date');
The value of event_date field is captured in a parameter of your function $select_value try using your parameter instead of post data.
$this->form_validation->set_rules(...); should be called inline and not assigned to a variable. You have assigned it to $datetime_string. Remove this assignment.
I don't know if you ever solved this but I was scratching around the documentation wondering the same thing as your question.
First of all, you just want...
$this->form_validation->set_rules('event_date', 'Select', 'callback_date_validate');
Don't assign it to a variable.
Next, you want to run your validation rules/callbacks...
if ($this->form_validation->run() == TRUE) {
// VALIDATION OK, CHECK OUR CALLBACK DATA
var_dump($this->input->post());
}
Now you should see your data returned from the callback in... $this->input->post('event_date');
The thing that confused me about returning data from callbacks was this thread on the official CI forums... http://codeigniter.com/forums/viewthread/191087/ where people are suggesting that the callback doesn't change the POSTed data. They are only partially correct. It doesn't change it under $_POST['whatever'] but it does change it in $this->input->post('whatever')
As this was the 3rd result in Google I hope this helps someone out.
I'm trying to write a condition for a nested if statement, but haven't found a good example of using or in if statements. The following elsif condition fails and allows the code nested beneath it to fire if $status == 6:
if ($dt1 > $dt2 ) {do one thing}
elsif(($status != 3) || ($status != 6)) { do something else}
else {do something completely different}
I'd like to avoid having another elsif for each condition as the code that actually resides here is several lines long.
Your logic is wrong and your elseif block will always return true. I think you mean to use an AND instead of an OR. Given the following snippet
foreach $status (1 .. 10) {
if (($status != 3) && ($status != 6)) {
print "$status => if\n";
} else {
print "$status => else\n";
}
}
This will output
1 => if
2 => if
3 => else
4 => if
5 => if
6 => else
7 => if
8 => if
9 => if
10 => if
If it helps your thinking, a conditional that is !something || !somethingElse can always be rewritten as !(something && somethingElse). If you apply this to your case above you'd say !(3 && 6), and seeing as a number cannot be 3 and 6 at the same time, it's always false
You said you're asking this because the code is several lines long. Fix that problem. :)
if( $dt1 > $dt2 ) { do_this_thing() }
elsif( ($status != 3) || ($status != 6) ) { do_this_other_thing() }
else { do_something_completely_different() }
Now you don't have several lines in the block and everything is next to each other. You have to figure out what those conditions will be because any value is either not 3 or not 6. :)
Perhaps you meant to use and:
if( $dt1 > $dt2 ) { do_this_thing() }
elsif( $status != 3 and $status != 6 ) { do_this_other_thing() }
else { do_something_completely_different() }
Putting print statements with var names/values into each branch can be helpful.
You could see that the elsif branch is always run, because $status != 3 || $status != 6 is true for any value of $status.