With the help of other Stackoverflow users, I have gone some way to my solution but have come to a halt.
I would like to build some generic classes in an app_code .cshtml file eg one would be to return property values from documents from a function eg
public static string docFieldValue(int docID,string strPropertyName){
var umbracoHelper = new Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper(Umbraco.Web.UmbracoContext.Current);
var strValue = "";
try{
strValue = umbracoHelper.Content(docID).GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex){
strValue = "Error - invalid document field name (" + strPropertyName + ")";
}
var nContent = new HtmlString(strValue);
return nContent;
}
This works ok for returning one field (ie property) from a document. However, if I wanted to return 2 or more, ideally, I would store the returned node in a variable or class and then be able to fetch property values repeatedly without having to look up the document with each call
ie without calling
umbracoHelper.Content(docID).GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
with different strPropertyName parameters each time, as I assume that will mean multiple reads from the database).
I tried to build a class, with its properties to hold the returned node
using Umbraco.Web;
using Umbraco.Core.Models;
...
public static Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper umbracoHelper = new Umbraco.Web.UmbracoHelper(Umbraco.Web.UmbracoContext.Current);
public static IPublishedContent docNode;
...
docNode = umbracoHelper.Content(docID);
but this crashed the code. Can I store the node in a property on a class, and if so, what type is it?
First of all, using a .cshtml file is unnecessary, use a .cs file instead :-) CSHTML files are for Razor code and HTML and stuff, CS files are for "pure" C#. That might also explain why your last idea crashes.
Second of all, UmbracoHelper uses Umbracos own cache, which means that the database is NOT touched with every request. I would at least define the umbracoHelper object outside of the method (so it gets reused every time the method is called instead of reinitialised).
Also, beware that property values can contain all kinds of other object types than strings.
EDIT
This is an example of the entire class file - my example namespace is Umbraco7 and my example class name is Helpers:
using Umbraco.Web;
namespace Umbraco7
{
public class Helpers
{
private static UmbracoHelper umbracoHelper = new UmbracoHelper(UmbracoContext.Current);
private static dynamic docNode;
public static string docFieldValue(int docID, string strPropertyName)
{
docNode = umbracoHelper.Content(docID);
return docNode.GetPropertyValue(strPropertyName).ToString();
}
}
}
This is an example how the function is called inside a View (.cshtml file inside Views folder):
#Helpers.docFieldValue(1076, "introduction")
Helpers, again, is the class name I chose. It can be "anything" you want. I've just tested this and it works.
I suggest you read up on general ASP.NET MVC and Razor development, since this is not very Umbraco specific.
Related
I have this code in my controller, it takes 'procedure_type' from the request and checks to see if a ProcedureType with that name exists. If it does it uses the object, if not it creates a new ProcedureType, then return the new object to use.
// Check the typed in ProcedureType against existing types.
$procedureTypes = $entityManager->getRepository('IncompassSurgeryBundle:ProcedureType')->findBy(array('name' => $request->request->get('procedure_type'), 'vendor' => $vendorId));
if (empty($procedureTypes)) {
// Create Procedure Type
$procedureType = new ProcedureType();
$procedureType->setVendor($vendor)
->setName($request->request->get('procedure_type'))
->setCreated(new \DateTime())
->setUpdated($procedureType->getCreated());
$entityManager->persist($procedureType);
} else {
$procedureType = $procedureTypes[0];
}
I don't think this is the best way to do this, I'd like to move the code into a function, say checkProcedureType(), but I don't know where the best place is to put that. I don't think it could go in the Entity or Repository classes, and moving it to a private function in the controller doesn't feel right.
I'm sure there is a class type that I'm not aware of, that extends the Entity. Or maybe I should just put these functions in my entity classes.
Service are the answer to almost everything in Symfony 2. Create a service like this :
namespace Your\Bundle\Service;
class ProcedureService // Call this the way you want
{
protected $entityManager;
public function __construct($entityManager)
{
$this->entityManager = $entityManager;
}
public function callMeTheWayYouWant($vendorId, $vendor)
{
// Check the typed in ProcedureType against existing types.
$procedureTypes = $this->entityManager->getRepository('IncompassSurgeryBundle:ProcedureType')->findBy(array('name' => $request->request->get('procedure_type'), 'vendor' => $vendorId));
if (empty($procedureTypes)) {
// Create Procedure Type
$procedureType = new ProcedureType();
$procedureType->setVendor($vendor)
->setName($request->request->get('procedure_type'))
->setCreated(new \DateTime())
->setUpdated($procedureType->getCreated());
$this->entityManager->persist($procedureType);
} else {
$procedureType = $procedureTypes[0];
}
// The rest of your code
}
}
In your services.yml file :
your_service:
class: Your\Bundle\Service\ProcedureService
arguments: [#doctrine.orm.entity_manager]
Then use it in your controller :
$this->get('your_service')->callMeTheWayYouWant($vendorId, $vendor);
If logic is somehow related to acessing database I always go for repository. However, if cases like yours, I tend to analyze it's dependency map.
Does your code repeats in some other method within same class, only?
If so, go for private method.
Is this part of code reused somewhere else but does not rely on some services?
You could externalize logic by creating separate class and static method which executes the code. Beware: Tends to get messy really quick
Finally, does your code rely on services/configuration?
Create a separate service, inject the services/configuration and invoke it's method. Adds a bit of overhead, if your abuse it, but you should be fine
Personally, in your example, I would go for private method, but that's just my opinion.
I am implementing a custom IBsonSerializer with the official MongoDB driver (C#). I am in the situation where I must serialize and deserialize a Guid.
If I implement the Serialize method as follow, it works:
public void Serialize(BsonWriter bsonWriter, Type nominalType, object value, IBsonSerializationOptions options)
{
BsonBinaryData data = new BsonBinaryData(value, GuidRepresentation.CSharpLegacy);
bsonWriter.WriteBinaryData(data);
}
However I don't want the Guid representation to be CSharpLegacy, I want to use the standard representation. But if I change the Guid representation in that code, I get the following error:
MongoDB.Bson.BsonSerializationException: The GuidRepresentation for the writer is CSharpLegacy, which requires the subType argument to be UuidLegacy, not UuidStandard.
How do I serialize a Guid value using the standard representation?
Old question but in case someone finds it on google like I did...
Do this once:
BsonDefaults.GuidRepresentation = GuidRepresentation.Standard;
For example, in a Web Application/Web API, your Global.asax.cs file is best place to add it once
public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
BsonDefaults.GuidRepresentation = GuidRepresentation.Standard;
//Other code...below
}
}
If you don't want to modify the global setting BsonDefaults.GuidRepresentation (and you shouldn't, because modifying globals is a bad pattern), you can specify the setting when you create your collection:
IMongoDatabase db = ???;
string collectionName = ???;
var collectionSettings = new MongoCollectionSettings {
GuidRepresentation = GuidRepresentation.Standard
};
var collection = db.GetCollection<BsonDocument>(collectionName, collectionSettings);
Then any GUIDs written to the collection will be in the standard format.
Note that when you read records from the database, you will get a System.FormatException if the GUID format in the database is different from the format in your collection settings.
It looks like what's happening is when you are not explicitly passing the GuidRepresentation to BsonBinaryData constructor, it defaults to passing GuidRepresentation.Unspecified and that ultimately maps to GuidRepresentation.Legacy (see this line in the source)
So you need to explicitly pass the guidRepresentation as a third argument to BsonBinaryData set to GuidRepresentation.Standard.
edit: As was later pointed out, you can set BsonDefaults.GuidRepresentation = GuidRepresentation.Standard if that's what you always want to use.
I've got a model defined like the following...
#MongoEntity
public class Ent extends MongoModel{
public Hashtable<Integer, CustomType> fil;
public int ID;
public Ent(){
fil = new Hashtable<Integer, CustomType>();
}
}
CustomType is a datatype I've created which basically holds a list of items (among other things). At some point in my web application I update the hashtable from a controller and then read back the size of the item I just updated. Like the following...
public static void addToHash(CustomType type, int ID, int key){
//First I add an element to the list I'm storing in custom type.
Ent ent = Ent.find("byID",ID).first();
CustomType element = user.fil.get(key);
if(element == null) element = new CustomType();
element.add(type);
ent.save();
//Next I reset the variables and read back the value I just stored..
ent = null;
ent = User.find("byID",ID).first();
element = ent.fil.get(ID);
System.out.println("SIZE = " + element.size()); //null pointer here
}
As you can see by my above example I add the element, save the model and then attempt to read back what I have just added and it has not been saved. The above model Ent is a minimal version of the entire Model I'm actually using. All other values in the model including List's, String's, Integer's etc. update correctly when they're updated but this Hashtable I'm storing isn't. Why would this be happening and how could I correct it?
You should probably post on the play framework forum for better help..
Alternatives for a mongodb framework are morphia and springdata which have good documentation.
Not sure how Play maps a hash table to a document value, but it seems it cannot update just the hash table using a mongo operator.
You should be able to mark the whole document for update which would work but slower.
I have a domain object which has a collection of primitive values, which represent the primary keys of another domain object ("Person").
I have a Wicket component that takes IModel<List<Person>>, and allows you to view, remove, and add Persons to the list.
I would like to write a wrapper which implements IModel<List<Person>>, but which is backed by a PropertyModel<List<Long>> from the original domain object.
View-only is easy (Scala syntax for brevity):
class PersonModel(wrappedModel: IModel[List[Long]]) extends LoadableDetachableModel[List[Person]] {
#SpringBean dao: PersonDao =_
def load: List[Person] = {
// Returns a collection of Persons for each id
wrappedModel.getObject().map { id: Long =>
dao.getPerson(id)
}
}
}
But how might I write this to allow for adding and removing from the original List of Longs?
Or is a Model not the best place to do this translation?
Thanks!
You can do something like this:
class PersonModel extends Model<List<Person>> {
private transient List<Person> cache;
private IModel<List<String>> idModel;
public PersonModel( IModel<List<String>> idModel ) {
this.idModel = idModel;
}
public List<Person> getObject() {
if ( cache == null ) {
cache = convertIdsToPersons( idModel.getObject() );
return cache;
}
public void setObject( List<Person> ob ) {
cache = null;
idModel.setObject( convertPersonsToIds( ob ) );
}
}
This isn't very good code but it shows the general idea. One thing you need to consider is how this whole thing will be serialised between requests, you might be better off extending LoadableDetachableModel instead.
Another thing is the cache: it's there to avoid having to convert the list every time getObject() is called within a request. You may or may not need it in practice (depends on a lot of factors, including the speed of the conversion), but if you use it, it means that if something else is modifying the underlying collection, the changes may not be picked up by this model.
I'm not quite sure I understand your question and I don't understand the syntax of Scala.
But, to remove an entity from a list, you can provide a link that simply removes it using your dao. You must be using a repeater to populate your Person list so each repeater entry will have its own Model which can be passed to the deletion link.
Take a look at this Wicket example that uses a link with a repeater to select a contact. You just need to adapt it to delete your Person instead of selecting it.
As for modifying the original list of Longs, you can use the ListView.removeLink() method to get a link component that removes an entry from the backing list.
I'm using the NUnit 2.5.3 TestCaseSource attribute and creating a factory to generate my tests. Something like this:
[Test, TestCaseSource(typeof(TestCaseFactories), "VariableString")]
public void Does_Pass_Standard_Description_Tests(string text)
{
Item obj = new Item();
obj.Description = text;
}
My source is this:
public static IEnumerable<TestCaseData> VariableString
{
get
{
yield return new TestCaseData(string.Empty).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Empty_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(null).Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Null_Text");
yield return new TestCaseData(" ").Throws(typeof(PreconditionException))
.SetName("Does_Reject_Whitespace_Text");
}
}
What I need to be able to do is to add a maximum length check to the Variable String, but this maximum length is defined in the contracts in the class under test. In our case its a simple public struct:
public struct ItemLengths
{
public const int Description = 255;
}
I can't find any way of passing a value to the test case generator. I've tried static shared values and these are not picked up. I don't want to save stuff to a file, as then I'd need to regenerate this file every time the code changed.
I want to add the following line to my testcase:
yield return new TestCaseData(new string('A', MAX_LENGTH_HERE + 1))
.Throws(typeof(PreconditionException));
Something fairly simple in concept, but something I'm finding impossible to do. Any suggestions?
Change the parameter of your test as class instead of a string. Like so:
public class StringTest {
public string testString;
public int maxLength;
}
Then construct this class to pass as an argument to TestCaseData constructor. That way you can pass the string and any other arguments you like.
Another option is to make the test have 2 arguments of string and int.
Then for the TestCaseData( "mystring", 255). Did you realize they can have multiple arguments?
Wayne
I faced a similar problem like yours and ended up writing a small NUnit addin and a custom attribute that extends the NUnit TestCaseSourceAttribute. In my particular case I wasn't interested in passing parameters to the factory method but you could easily use the same technique to achieve what you want.
It wasn't all that hard and only required me to write something like three small classes. You can read more about my solution at: blackbox testing with nunit using a custom testcasesource.
PS. In order to use this technique you have to use NUnit 2.5 (at least) Good luck.