I am trying to setup a way to create form objects dynamically from some json values. Essentially, I have in my json the form object type and properties. I pass that type to a FormInput class that then calls the custom class containing the actual form object. My problem right now is that when I pass in the custom class name "TextInput" (this.props.formElementType) React just creates an element called 'textinput' instead of calling the class. It doesn't appear to like passing in a string, but wants just the classname. Essentially,...
TextInput = React.createClass({...})
...
FormItem = React.createElement(<TextInputPassedAsAString>, {...})
I am not sure if I can call a custom class this way or not, by passing a string. I need help with this implementation or a better idea as I am relatively new to React.
Below is all the relevant code starting with the children ending with the final render block. Please excuse the pseudo coffeescript.
TextInput
TextInput = React.createClass
handleChange: (event)->
this.setState
value: event.target.value
render: ->
React.createElement('label', {
value: this.props.formElementLabel
})
React.createElement('input', {
id: this.props.formElementID,
type: 'text'
})
module.exports = TextInput
FormElement
FormElement = React.createClass
render: ->
R.div(null,
React.createElement(this.props.formElementType, {
formElementID: this.props.formElementID,
formElementLabel: this.props.formElementLabel
})
module.exports = FormElement
The initial call/final render
React.createElement(FormElement, {
formElementType: 'TextInput',
formElementID: 'firstFormElement',
formElementLabel: 'First text input'
})
Well, the best way, easiest to reason about, etc. is probably to require TextInput in the module that's doing your final render. Create it there, passing in the other props to it, and then pass this created component to FormElement rather than passing the string representation of the component.
One way to do this more dynamically would be to have have a module that exports each dynamic component as a property/method on the export. Something like:
module.exports = {
TextInput: ...
}
Then when you're rendering you could pass in something like this:
myImports[json.formElementType]
Related
I want that every time I use yup.string(), it will add a specific default value for it
for example:
const schema = yup.object({
text: yup.string()// I want it to also do .default('some string') in the background,
});
or - another option - is there any way to set the default value after creating the scheme? something like setDefault('text', 'some string')
The closest solution I came across to solve your issue is extending your string with a custom method that implements your needs. To do that you need to use addMethod from yup:
import { addMethod, string } from 'yup';
addMethod(string, 'append', function append(appendStr) {
return this.transform((value) => `${value}${appendStr}`);
});
Now, you can use your custom method (append) and apply it to any string you want:
string().append('~~~~').cast('hi'); // 'hi~~~~'
If you want to add the custom method to all your schema types like date, number, etc..., you need to extend the abstract base class Schema:
import { addMethod, Schema } from 'yup';
addMethod(Schema, 'myCustomMethod', ...)
Extra
For Typescript
In your type definition file, you need to declare module yup with your custom method's arguments and return types:
// globals.d.ts
import { StringSchema } from "yup";
declare module 'yup' {
interface StringSchema<TType, TContext, TDefault, TFlags> {
append(appendStr: string): this;
}
}
Unknow behavior for transform method
While I was trying to extend the functionality of the date schema with a custom method that transform the date that user enters from DD-MM-YYY to YYYY-MM-DD, the custom method broke after I used it with other methods like min, max for example.
// `dayMonthYear` should transform "31-12-2022"
// to "2022-12-31" but for some reason it kept
// ignoring the `cast` date and tried to transform
// `1900` instead!
Yup.date().dayMonthYear().min(1900).max(2100).required().cast("31-12-2022") // error
To work around this issue, I appended my custom method at the end of my schema chain:
Yup.date().min(1900).max(2100).required().cast("31-12-2022").dayMonthYear() // works as expected
This issue is mentioned in this GH ticket which I recommend going through it as it's going more in-depth on how to add custom methods with Typescript.
References
addMethod
Extending built-in schema with new methods
Example of addMethod in Typescript (GH ticket)
I can't find a way to create custom events with scala-js. For instance, with js you can create a custom event like the following (taken from here):
var event = new CustomEvent('build', { 'detail': elem.dataset.time });
However, there is no constructor for CustomerEvent or Event in scala-js that accept arguments. Also, subclassing either such as:
class DrawEvent extends Event {
override def `type` = "draw"
}
leads to
Uncaught TypeError: undefined is not a function
when trying to construct via new DrawEvent()
Any ideas?
To instantiate javascript classes in ScalaJs you have to use js.Dynamic.newInstance:
This should work for your use case:
val event = js.Dynamic.newInstance(js.Dynamic.global.CustomEvent)("build", js.Dynamic.literal(detail = elem.dataset.time)).asInstanceOf[js.dom.CustomEvent]
There is more info available at the remarks portion (all the way at the bottom) of:
http://www.scala-js.org/doc/calling-javascript.html
Here is the same solution using some imports to make it shorter
import js.Dynamic.{ global => g, newInstance => jsnew, literal => lit }
val event = jsnew(g.CustomEvent)("build", lit(detail = elem.dataset.time)).asInstanceOf[js.dom.CustomEvent]
If you want to stay in the typed DOM (assuming you are talking about the scala-js-dom library), you can do:
new CustomEvent().initCustomEvent('build', false, false, elem.dataset.time)
The constructor you are using is actually only specified in DOM 4 (see MDN).
Is there an easy way to automatically generate a form panel (I mean the fields and the values), given a model and a store?
Create an instance of your model, then iterate through the empty data object adding input fields to the form panel, this code won't work because the Form.Panel isn't added to anything but you should be able to get the idea.
var objModel = Ext.create('app.model.objModel'),
fp = Ext.create('Ext.form.Panel');
Ext.iterate(objModel.data, function (item) {
fp.add({xtype: 'textfield', name: item, label: item});
}
I'm using Knockout with jQuery and jQuery templates. Assume that I have a template which expects a person object
<script type="text/html" id="person_template">
<tr><td>Forename</td><td><input type="textbox" data-bind="value:FORENAME" /></td></tr>
<tr><td>Surname</td><td><input type="textbox" data-bind="value: SURNAME"/></td></tr>
</script>
Now, if I pass an object with just a FORENAME to this template, I will get an error:
SURNAME is not defined error
I tried to create a custom binding in Knockout, but the error is thrown before it even gets there.
If I fill in these empty fields before passing the object to the template, I know everything will work out, but I would like to have the solution in my template rather than in my javascript.
Does anyone know a method that might help for situations like these?
This is a bit challenging, because you are within a template. While preparing the template, KO accesses the variable (well, actually it is accessed in jQuery Templates by a function that KO built).
One option is to pass your property as a string to a custom binding and make sure that it is initialized.
It would be like:
ko.bindingHandlers.valueWithInit = {
init: function(element, valueAccessor, allBindingsAccessor, context) {
var value = valueAccessor();
if (!context[value]) {
context[value] = ko.observable();
}
var realValueAccessor = function() {
return context[value];
}
//call the real value binding
ko.bindingHandlers.value.init(element, realValueAccessor, allBindingsAccessor, context);
},
update: function (element, valueAccessor, allBindingsAccessor, context) {
var realValueAccessor = function() {
return context[valueAccessor()];
}
//call the real value binding
ko.bindingHandlers.value.update(element, realValueAccessor);
}
}
So, this would validate that your object has the field, if it does not it creates a new observable for that field. Then, it hands it off to the real value binding.
A very similar (but less verbose) alternative to this would be to have the binding ensure that the field is there and then rewrite the binding attribute to use the real value binding. Something like:
//Another option: rewrite binding after making sure that it is initialized
ko.bindingHandlers.valueWithInit = {
init: function(element, valueAccessor, allBindingsAccessor, context) {
var value = valueAccessor();
if (!context[value]) {
context[value] = ko.observable();
}
$(element).attr("data-bind", "value: " + value);
ko.applyBindings(context, element);
}
}
Both of these assume that the field that you are passing is directly off of the object that is the context of your template (so, it wouldn't work if you passed something with global scope like 'viewModel.someProperty').
Here is a working sample with both options: http://jsfiddle.net/rniemeyer/dFSeB/
I would rather not pass the field as a string, but there is not really a good way around it that I see.
You'll be better off ensuring that the object passed to the template has all the parameters set in. If they are not then you can add default values but putting all this logic in the template is going against the MVVM pattern. The templates (like Views in mvc) are not supposed to contain any logic IMO.
I have 2 main questions.
Does extending things like Object count?
What is DOM wrapping?
http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/
After reading that article I couldn't find anything about DOM wrapping, and no specification and what exactly is and isn't DOM extension.
No, Object is specified as part of the Javascript language, while the DOM is an API only relevant in a browser environment and is used to "access and update the content, structure and style of documents" (W3C).
However, one of the reasons provided in that article arguing against the extension of DOM objects still applies to extending native types such as Object - namely the chance of collisions.
Wrapping an object refers to creating a new object that references the original, but providing additional functionality through the new, wrapper object.
For example, rather than extending a DOM Element object with a cross-browser addClass function like this:
var element = document.getElementById('someId');
element.addClass = function (className) {
...
};
You can instead define a wrapper function:
var ElementWrapper = function (element) {
this.element = element;
};
And add the function to its prototype:
ElementWrapper.prototype.addClass = function (className) {
...
};
And "wrap" elements like this:
var element = document.getElementById('someId');
var wrapped = new ElementWrapper(element);
wrapped.addClass('someClass');