I have a form that has 3 entites (Obras, FechaObra and HorarioObra) with one to many relationship. One Obra may have many FechaObra and one FechaObra may have many HorarioObra. but I made tha form as told in symfony.com/doc/current/cookbook/form/form_collections.html but it gives me this error:
Catchable Fatal Error: Argument 1 passed to Acme\ReservasBundle\Entity\FechaObra::setHorariosobra() must implement interface Doctrine\Common\Collections\Collection, array given, called in /var/www/html/grisar/entradas/vendor/symfony/symfony/src/Symfony/Component/PropertyAccess/PropertyAccessor.php on line 410 and defined
I already defined horariosobra as an arraycollection, but it keeps giving me that error.
The source code of the bundle is in: github.com/javiermarcon/tickets/tree/master/src/Acme/ReservasBundle
Does anyone know why is giving me that error?
Thanks
Remove strong typed \Doctrine\Common\Collections\Collection from setter method:
public function setHorariosobra($horariosobra)
{
// Be sure to "use" ArrayCollection class
$this->horariosobra = new ArrayCollection($horariosobra);
foreach ($horariosobra as $horarioobra) {
$horarioobra->setObra($this);
}
}
The should fix things. Remember, Forms component need not to know about Doctrine - it's entirely up to you to enforce usage of entities. Therefore, submitted data to setter method is generic array rather than Doctrine's Collection
Related
I am following this documentation: https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/book-extbasefluid/10.4/en-us/5-Domain/2-implementing-the-domain-model.html
The 'Organization' model defines setters and a method "addContact"
/**
* Adds a contact to the organization
*
* #param Person The contact to be added
* #return void
*/
public function addContact(Person $contact)
{
$this->contacts->attach($contact);
}
I created an extbase model myself, which requires records from an objectstorage. But i figured it out, that I could render records from an objectstorage in fluid, without defining "add{property}" and "set{property} methods. What are the purpose of these methods? When and where are they called?
Setter methods (and adder for ObjectStorages) are not needed by the framework. I'd recommend not adding them if you do not have the use case of setting a value programmatically.
Generally speaking you should not add code that you dont need.
Extbase itself will use reflection to gather and set properties that match database columns.
Setters are for fields that have a representation in the database.
You can add more properties to the models which are i.e. calculated or get the values somewhere else from that don't have setter methods.
Those properties you can access in fluid templates as long as they have also a declaration in the model.
Concerning the method addContact that's one property with probably 4 methods:
getContact (is singular but can have several)
setContact (is singular but can have several)
addContact (adds one contact to the $contact)
removeContact (removes one contact from the $contact)
So this property is still connected / related to the database, just that it's a foreign table as it's foreign model too.
$contact in your case is likely of type \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage which is like an array iterable but just as object.
We are migrating a 4.5 Extension to 7.2. One special case is strange. Trying to get a findOneByUid brings a "No class name was given to retrieve the Data Map for." Error.
Accessing via another object and using the DebuggerUtility it allows us to navigate to the object that fails, and there we can see, the objectType is NULL.
Any clue where to search? All the other objects can be accessed via findOneByUid.
How would you proceed to find the issue?
Adding the following lines solved the problem... any idea how to avoid this?
public function __construct() {
$this->objectManager = \TYPO3\CMS\Core\Utility\GeneralUtility::makeInstance('TYPO3\\CMS\\Extbase\\Object\\ObjectManager');
$this->objectType = \TYPO3\CMS\Core\Utility\ClassNamingUtility::translateRepositoryNameToModelName($this->getRepositoryClassName());
}
The object type can only be null if the constructor of the repository has been overridden in a subclass without a call to the parent constructor. parent::__construct();
Instead of using the constructor, you should make use of the method initializeObject, which gets called after the constructor and which can safely be overridden.
I have an simple object that has a name
public class Foo {
private String name
}
Each user on the site may have up to 10 Foo's associated with them. Within this context, when a new Foo is created, I would like to validate that there isn't another foo associated with the same user that already exists.
I could Create a custom Bean Validator But annotations require the paramaeters to be defined during compilation. How would I then pass across the names of the existing Foos?
As suggested in various places, I could use EL expressions as an alternative way to pick up the data. This feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It also brings in a whole bunch of potential issues to consider least of all being ease of testing.
I could do class-wide validation using a boolean field
#AssertTrue(message="Name already exists")
public boolean isNameUnique() {
return (existingNames.contains(name));
}
But the validation message would not show up next to the name field. It is a cosmetic issue and this can be a backup plan. However, its not ideal.
Which brings me to the question:
Is there a simple way to write a Bean Validator that can check the value against a collection of values at the field level and meet the following restrictions ?
Previous values determined at runtime
Not using things like EL expressions
Field level validation instead of class level.
EDIT in reponse to Hardy:
The Foo class is an entity persisted within a database. They are picked up and used through a DAO interface.
I could loop through the entities but that means plugging the DAO into the validator and not to mention that the I would need to write the same thing again if I have another class that too has this constraint.
It would help to see how you want to use the Foo class. Can you extend your example code? Are they kept in a list of Foo instances. A custom constraint seems to be a good fit. Why do you need to pass any parameters to the constraints. I would just iterate over the foos and check whether the names are unique.
I'm building a MEF-based plugin-centric WPF application and I'm facing an issue with GetExports, maybe it's just my ignorance but I find an odd behaviour. I have a number of exported parts, all derived from 2 different interfaces (let's name them A and B), but all marked with the same metadata attribute X. So I have code like:
[Export(typeof(A))]
[TheXAttributeHere...]
public class SomePart1 : A { ... }
for each part, and the same for classes implementing B:
[Export(typeof(B))]
[TheXAttributeHere...]
public class SomePart2 : B { ... }
Now, when I try getting all the parts implementing A and decorated by attribute X with some values, MEF returns not only the A-implementing parts, but ALSO the B-implementing parts. So, when I expect to deal with A-objects I get a B, whence a cast exception.
In the real world, interfaces are named IItemPartEditorViewModel and IItemPartEditorView, while their common attribute is named ItemPartEditorAttribute and exposes a PartType string property on which I do some filtering. My code to get parts is thus like e.g.:
var p = (from l in container.GetExports<IItemPartEditorViewModel, IItemPartEditorMetadata>()
where l.Metadata.PartType == sPartType
select l).FirstOrDefault();
When looking for IItemPartEditorViewModel whose PartType is equal to some value, I get the IItemPartEditorView instead of IItemPartEditorViewModel implementing object. If I comment out the attribute in the IItemPartEditorView object instead, I correctly get the IItemPartEditorViewModel implementing object.
Update the suggested "templated" method was used, but I mistyped it here as I forgot to change lessthan and greaterthan into entities. Anyway, reviewing the code I noticed that in the attribute I had "ViewModel" instead or "View" for the interface type, so this was the problem. Shame on me, sorry for bothering :)!
I think I'd need to see more of the code to know for sure what's going on. However, I'd suggest you call GetExports like this:
// Get exports of type A
container.GetExports<A>();
// Get exports of type B
container.GetExports<B>();
Then do your filtering on the list returned. This will probably fix the cast issues you are having. I'd also be interested in seeing the code for the custom metadata attribute. If it derives from ExportAttribute for example, that might be part of the problem.
I am using symfony 1.4 with Doctrine. I have built a form which uses a table that has the Versionable behaviour. As expected, Versionable creates a new version of the row every time the form is submitted and saved. My problem is that I would like to prevent it doing so if the actual values submitted are not any different from the original values put into the form via the edit action.
I know that I can do this with javascript relatively easily. I'm just curious as to whether symfony or Doctrine have this functionality already, and how it is used if so. It just seems like something that symfony would have a method for, which could be checked right before $form->save() is called. Am I dreaming or perhaps missing something obvious?
You can use the DoctrineRecord::getModified() function which returns an array of the modified fields and associated values from an overridden save() function or in a listener (preSave would be the best I guess).
If the new values are not any different, you can bypass the actual call to save(), so no new version is created.
The comment for the save() method of the Doctrine_Record is
/**
* applies the changes made to this object into database
* this method is smart enough to know if any changes are made
* and whether to use INSERT or UPDATE statement
*
* this method also saves the related components
*
* #param Doctrine_Connection $conn optional connection parameter
* #throws Exception if record is not valid and validation is active
* #return void
*/
so first, you should check whether it does not already work.
If not, Doctrine_Record has a isModified() method you could use. If the bind() method of the form object modifies the object in the form which should at first contain the default values, then this method should return true.
If you don't want to override save() method or implement a listener as jaudette suggested you can instead stay with form binding:
$form->bind($values);
if ($form->isValid()) {
$form->updateObject();
$changes = $form->getObject()->getModified();
// save to database if desired
$form->save();
}
The object will not be saved to database by calling $form->updateObject(), but the actual php object is changed.
Also note that you might have to call getModified() on each related object if you have embedded subforms.