Is there a more conventional way to check if a property and a child property exists in a MongoDB document?
Right now I'm doing this to make sure it doesn't error when one of the properties or the whole document doesn't exist.
//Check to see if the document exists
if(Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID})) {
//Check to see if the document has the property "credit"
if(Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID}).credit){
//Check to see if the object credit has the property sent
if(!Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID}).credit.sent){
doSomething();
}
}
}
!Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID}).credit.sent is to see if sent is set to true. If it is I don't want to execute doSomething();
Try this:
Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitId, 'credit.sent': {$exists: true}});
Although I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do, as your code appears to be checking if the properties "credit" and "credit.sent" do not exist. If that's what you're looking for, then just change the $exists entry to false above.
EDIT : Realized the solution that #richsilv proposed is probably better depending on what you're trying to achieve. I'll let my answer if that's of any use to someone.
1) Using pure JS, not really. You could refactor your code to store Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID}) in a variable though. This would look like this :
var donation=Donate.findOne({'debit.id': debitID});
if(donation && donation.credit && donation.credit.sent){
doSomething();
}
It looks like you messed up with the ! operator : if you want to check for existence this is unneccessary, ! is used to check for inexistence.
2) You could use another language on top of JS that provides syntactic sugar.
Example using Coffeescript :
donation = Donate.findOne
'debit.id': debitID
if donation?.credit?.sent
doSomething()
Related
I override the record view, by creating in custom/modules/myModule/clients/base/views/record/record.js this file record.js. I want to get the value of a field for the current object and I use this.model.get('duration'), but I get nothing.The only field available is "id". How can I retrieve the values for others fileds?
When the record.js script is initially called, the model won't have fully loaded, so the only available field with be the id.
Your best bet is probably to override the _renderHtml function; by the the time the view is being rendered all the model details will have fully loaded:
_renderHtml: function() {
// custom code involving this.model.get('duration')
// call parent
app.view.View.prototype._renderHtml.call(this);
}
Note that you may find _renderHtml is called multiple times, sometines before the model is fully loaded. This is just a quirk of Sugar so it may be best to add a check in your code:
if (this.model.get('duration')) {
// custom code involving this.model.get('duration')
}
Dont forget that app.model.get('myfield') only delivers the right content (from this field) when your field is already displayed in detailview - else you will get "undefined"!
So you
Have to call the rest api (rest/v10/yourmodel/yourid) - than you
have all the values available
Display your fields (even you dont want to) to be able to use it in app.model.get('yourfield'), an alternative you could append your record.js (after rendering) with $('div [data-name="yourfield"]').hide();
I know this question is quite old already (but if someone else run into this he could find this useful).
Wasn't sure how to properly title my question, I guess in my case it can also be titled "DOM manipulation not being detected by the scope", but it all depends on the approach of my problem.
To start off, I followed an official example on AngularJS main website with the Projects app which connects with Mongolab. The only difference is I want to add a file input, that reads file name and its lastModifiedDate properties and then applies those values to my form. To make file input work I followed this example here.
I made it work, but the problem is that when values get applied to my form scope is not picking up the changes.
I am doing DOM manipulation in my .apply() function and using $compile too, but something is missing. Or perhaps there's an easier way altogether without doing DOM manipulation?
Here's what I have so far, please take a look at this plunker - http://plnkr.co/edit/mkc4K4?p=preview
(Just click on the plus sign icon to add new entry, then try choosing a file.)
You need to add a watch statement in the CreateCtrl
function CreateCtrl($scope, $location, Movie) {
$scope.inputfile = {};
$scope.movie = {};
$scope.$watch('inputfile.file', function(value){
$scope.movie.filename = value ? value.name : '';
$scope.movie.dateadded = value ? value.lastModifiedDate : '';
})
$scope.save = function() {
Movie.save($scope.movie, function(movie) {
$location.path('/edit/' + movie._id.$oid);
});
};
}
Demo: Sample
My question is this: How can you implement a default server-side "filter" for a navigation property?
In our application we seldom actually delete anything from the database. Instead, we implement "soft deletes" where each table has a Deleted bit column. If this column is true the record has been "deleted". If it is false, it has not.
This allows us to easily "undelete" records accidentally deleted by the client.
Our current ASP.NET Web API returns only "undeleted" records by default, unless a deleted argument is sent as true from the client. The idea is that the consumer of the service doesn't have to worry about specifying that they only want undeleted items.
Implementing this same functionality in Breeze is quite simple, at least for base entities. For example, here would be the implementation of the classic Todo's example, adding a "Deleted" bit field:
// Note: Will show only undeleted items by default unless you explicitly pass deleted = true.
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<BreezeSampleTodoItem> Todos(bool deleted = false) {
return _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
}
On the client, all we need to do is...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos");
...to get all undeleted Todos, or...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos").withParameters({deleted: true})
...to get all deleted Todos.
But let's say that a BreezeSampleTodoItem has a child collection for the tools that are needed to complete that Todo. We'll call this "Tools". Tools also implements soft deletes. When we perform a query that uses expand to get a Todo with its Tools, it will return all Tools - "deleted" or not.
But how can I filter out these records by default when Todo.Tools is expanded?
It has occurred to me to have separate Web API methods for each item that may need expanded, for example:
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<Todo> TodoAndTools(bool deletedTodos = false, bool deletedTools = false)
{
return // ...Code to get filtered Todos with filtered Tools
}
I found some example code of how to do this in another SO post, but it requires hand-coding each property of Todo. The code from the above-mentioned post also returns a List, not an IQueryable. Furthermore this requires methods to be added for every possible expansion which isn't cool.
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way to define a piece of code that gets called whenever Todos is queried, and another for whenever Tools is queried - preferably being able to pass an argument that defines if it should return Deleted items. This could be anywhere on the server-side stack - be it in the Web API method, itself, or maybe part of Entity Framework (note that filtering Include extensions is not supported in EF.)
Breeze cannot do exactly what you are asking for right now, although we have discussed the idea of allowing the filtering of "expands", but we really need more feedback as to whether the community would find this useful. Please add this to the breeze User Voice and vote for it. We take these suggestions very seriously.
Moreover, as you point out, EF does not support this.
But... what you can do is use a projection instead of an expand to do something very similar:
public IQueryable<Object> TodoAndTools(bool deleted = false
,bool deletedTools = false) {
var baseQuery = _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
return baseQuery.Select(t => new {
Todo: t,
Tools: t.Tools.Where( tool => tool.Deleted = deletedTools);
});
}
Several things to note here:
1) We are returning an IQueryable of Object instead of IQueryable of ToDo
2) Breeze will inspect the returned payload and automatically create breeze entities for any 'entityTypes' returned (even within a projection). So the result of this query will be an array of javascript objects each with two properties; 'ToDo' and 'Tools' where Tools is an array of 'Tool' entities. The nice thing is that both ToDo and Tool entities returned within the projection will be 'full' breeze entities.
3) You can still pass client side filters based on the projected property names. i.e.
var query = EntityQuery.from("TodoAndTools")
.where("Todo.Description", "startsWith", "A")
.using(em);
4) EF does support this.
The Editor.isDirty() does not seem to be working correctly. In our application we check the Editor.isDirty() flag. When it evaluates to true we need to move forward with some actions. If nothing has changed we don't want to waste processor time evaluating data that hasn't changed. In our case once the content is updated once isDirty() always evaluates to true. Even when nothing has changed.
The Editor.isDirty() function seems pretty simple:
isDirty : function() {
var self = this;
return tinymce.trim(self.startContent) != tinymce.trim(self.getContent({format : 'raw', no_events : 1})) && !self.isNotDirty;
}
The key seems to be the startContent property. That's what TinyMCE uses to determine a change has occured. Therefore I would expect this property to be updated when save() is called on the Editor. Looking through the code shows this does not happen. In fact startContent does is not reset anywhere which would support it's use here. Has anyone else seen this behavior, or am I using the Editor object incorrectly?
sidenote: TinyMCE version 3.5.7.
I have the following in a config.ini file: (Zend_Form_Element)
site_status.name = "site_status"
site_status.type = "select"
site_status.label = "Status"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Active"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Active"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Inactive"
site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Inactive"
As you can see this is supposed to be a dropdown (select) box, however it is being rendered as a standard text box. What am I doing wrong?
--> Edit
Rather than tying the elements to a form, I am trying to tie them to a database: In my code it would look something like this:
[{tablename}] // the table name would represent a section in the ini
{column}.name = "{column_name/form_field_id}";
{column}.type = "{form_element_type}"
{column}.label = "{form_element_label}"
...
From there I would pull in the database table(s) that the form would represent data for (one or more tables as necessary). As far as the reasoning for this approach is that (down the road), I want to define (either by ini or some other storage method), a configuration file that would be a list of fields/elements that belong to a specific form (that a non-programmer type could easily edit), that the 'generic' form class would read, pull in the element info, and create the form on the fly.
I do realize however this poses another problem which I haven't yet figured out, and that is how to use table lookups for select elements (without coding the database retrieval of the lookup into the form, so that a non-user could easily just define it without any programming, purely configuration, but that is a whole other topic not part of my question here. (and I think I have viable ideas/solutions to that part of the problem anyhow) -- extra config entries and a generic routine pretty much.
I hope that clarifies my thought process and reason why I am doing it the way I am in the example above.
I have not yet played with using a Zend_Config to construct an instance of Zend_Form.
But a look at the code suggests that Zend_Form::addElement() doesn't directly take a Zend_Config instance as a param. Rather, it looks like you need pass your Zend_Config instance to the form constructor. It also seems that the config format needs to be a little deeper in order to map config keys to setXXX() calls.
In path/to/config/myForm.ini:
[myForm]
myForm.elements.site_status.name = "site_status"
myForm.elements.site_status.type = "select"
myForm.elements.site_status.label = "Status"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.active.key = "Active"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.active.value = "Active"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.inactive.key = "Inactive"
myForm.elements.site_status.options.multiOptions.inactive.value = "Inactive"
Then instantiating:
$formConfig = new Zend_Config_Ini('path/to/config/myForm.ini', 'myForm');
$form = new Zend_Form($formConfig);
Not tested, but looking at this example:
Using Zend_Form with Zend_Config - Andrew Vayanis
it feels like it should go something like the above.
Update
In view of the comments/feedback from #Aaron, two more approaches.
We could extend Zend_Form, implementing a method called something like addElementByConfig in which we would pass the shallow Zend_Config instance that describes the element itself. In fact, we could even just override addElement(), taking a recursive approach: if the first param is an instance of Zend_Config, then call addElement() using the component data.
If the atomicity and re-usability are the primary benefits we seek in using Zend_Config to describe an element, then perhaps we just make a custom element extending Zend_Form_Element. Then we could use these elements in any forms we wish.