I need to validate if a certain newly added entity, part of my model has already been added. The addition would happen by taking input from a user.
I believe the standard way to do it is to add constraints in the form along the lines of
.verifying( "Already exists", <code to check if entity already exists> )
This would lead to a globalError is the entity already exists. The error message would be a static "Already exists".
What I'm looking for, though, is to also tell the user what possible matches exist, something the globalError would be incapable of doing.
Should I do what I want to do by not adding the validator and by allowing the binding to succeed? This way, when I do a
myForm.fold{ Entity returned as success => <success code>, erroneousForm => <failure code>}
I can take the success branch and then check there if the entity could be duplicate? If similarities exist then I can redirect the user? I feel like this shouldn't be the controller's job, and this is too much of design logic inside controller, this should technically all lie inside the model itself. And the model should only tell the controller that something is wrong and the 'type of w can first create the new element and then upon finding that potential rongness' and the controller can take appropriate action. It shouldn't have to contain code to determine if there is anything wrong.
Can someone please suggest what should be a good way to do it?
Related
I am building simple crud for an entity. Initial state is read on particular entity(key) using view>form.bindElement('/entity(key)').
when I click on new button I clear the form and when the cancel button is clicked during the new/create process(without performing the save), how to go back to the previous entity. Is there some place ui5 stores, the previous entity or should I have some variable and assign it to the controller.previousEntity = oldsPath?
what are the different members in the oModel,it start with
a(aBindings)
b(bUseBatch)
m(mContexts)
o(oHeaders)
p(pCallAsync)
s(sPathUrl).
Is there a naming convention in these?
From what I can see, there are following things you need to notice and work upon.
Its generally not a good idea if you use the same form to display and to create/update also. A simpler approach would be to
use a new popover to show the form for create and in that case, the view binding would not be changed when you cancel the operation.
However, if you still want to use the same form, yes you would have to bind the view/form again on cancel operation. You can have a variable declared in the Component.js to store the path for you. In UI5, the model captures the current state to ensure the back the binding concept by default.
You can check all properties and their definitions here: oData Model
Yes, there is a naming convention followed here.
a - Array, s-String, b- Boolean etc.
Read more about Hungarian notations for naming conventions
The previous entity is still there in the cache (ODataModel.oData), but you'll need to re-bind it. For that purpose, as you have written, you'll need to store the path to the entity yourself. Once you bind the control, I don't think the previous binding context is stored somewhere (why should it).
I would like to build an app with a oral code verification.
i could just set my cde in dialogflow before then, juste verify it.
GH : "For continue, give me the code"
Me : " 1 2 3 4"
GH " Access granted" / "Access denied"
But how can do an input a get this code on dialogflow?
First of all - consider if you really want to do this. Having someone say a passcode out loud isn't really very secure and adds very little additional security in a multi-user environment.
There are two stages to this - the first is setting up an Intent to handle this, specifically in the format you want, and the second would be handling and verifying this is the correct code.
Setting up the Intent
We'll need two intents - one that prompts and sets a context so we know we're expecting the validation code, and one that checks for the code.
The prompting intent might look something like this:
The notable part here is that it is setting an output context. We'll see why that matters in a moment.
The one to handle numeric input might look like this:
There is a lot more to this one. First note that we're requiring an input context that matches the output context from the last Intent. This means that this Intent should only match if that Context has been set. This lets us talk about numbers elsewhere in our conversation without triggering this validation.
Next we're looking for sequences of numbers that match the #sys.number-sequence built-in Entity type. There are other entity types that may be useful for you - see the documentation for details and pick one that makes sense or experiment to find what works best in your case.
Finally, we're going to use a webhook for fulfillment to verify if the code is correct. Which is the next session...
Verifying the code
While there are ways to do the verification without a webhook, this is really the most straightforward way to do it. If you're using Google's library to handle input from Dialogflow, you can get the value with something like
var code = app.getArgument('number-sequence');
using whatever the parameter name is. If you're not using the library, you can find this in the JSON at result.parameters.number-sequence.
You would then verify this code, however you want, and return a message indicating if it is correct or not.
If you want to use a sequence of numbers as your code you can use the #sys.number-sequence entity to recognize it and then check the code in your webhook.
Another way would be to simply make a custom entity 'code' that has an entry of '1234'.
I'm trying to create a chat bot that will help users search up motorcycles.
I'm new to API.AI and have set up my entities and their synonyms, my intent and user expressions, as well as references to the entities (#engineSize, #make, #bikeType).
My problem is when I try to add a required action and prompt, and then try to save the intent, I get the following message:
"The following entities reference each other and form an infinite loop: [engineSize]."
Initially I thought I was using the references wrong in the user expressions. I deleted every reference except for one expression which uses all three entities.
I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks! Pix below for further details.
EDIT: I fixed one of the issues of trying to pass a template expression as an example. However, I still get the same error message. I will replace and update my image links to include the edits.
Annotated User expressions
Required Actions
Interestingly enough, the answer to this post would have been difficult to find because the problem was in defining my entities.
In the entity definitions, I included an #ref to the entity itself. ie the bikeType entity contained #bikeType as one of its definitions.
This is not to be mistaken with the User Expressions. As long as the user expression is marked as a Template (the entire line is denoted with an '#' on the far left, as opposed to a large " ), there should be no issues.
Edited for clarity to get at root problem
In the provided user input examples you give the intent, you are supposed to provide general examples and then highlight any text belonging to an entity to map where entities appear in user's inquiries.
In your case, you have input the actual entity reference '#engineSize' as an example belonging to the engineSize entity, creating a self reference.
A proper provided user example would look like:
Also note though that if you are just using entities to store generic information like numbers, addresses, times, etc. it generally makes far more sense to use prebuilt system entities for those categories than create a custom entity, for example #sys.number-integer might be exactly what you need
It looks like you need to get a firmer understanding of entities, for which I would recommend the documentation:
https://docs.api.ai/docs/concept-entities
Just wanted to ask for the best way to solve my problem:
I got a form with multiple inputs/selects and also buttons to add new objects to the databean behind the form. Now my problem is the validation. E.g.: in one of those selects i chose an option. If this option is selected the user has to add a specific type of an object to the large databean behind the form. That's done by selecting values in two further selects. As soon as those are selected (they are submitted onchange by ajax) the user generates a new object by hitting an "Add" button.
On submit those added object (consisting of two values) must have a specific enum type depending on the first selected value and so on..
Now this all (and a lot more) should be validated and error/info messages should be added to the view.
Now my question: whats the best way to achieve this? The error message has to be at a specific place in the view.
I thought of multiple hidden input fields and using the validate attribute to call validation methods of the underlying bean (cause bean values are needed too). And then rendering an error message right at the position of the hidden field. Is this a good solution? Working with the validator attribute and validating the whole form would lead to error messages in areas where the user hasn't made any input yet, right? I would like to avoid that and just validate the current area. Is that possible by using one bean? Otherwise i would have to use multiple validators with a lot of attributes, or use the beanManager to get my underlying bean?
The JSF validation is done per component, not per form. This is by design (and it has a good purposes). There is a lot of misunderstanding on this point and many teams make the mistake of shoehorning their business logic validation into component validation, just because the word "validation" sounds right to them.
The validation you need is different - it's a business level validation. You don't really validate state of a single component, but rather coherence of the data, which is behind the components. You can still use the message framework to display the errors where you want them.
The clean and "proper" way to do it in JSF will be to:
skip the JSF component validation (because it's designed for different case than yours); you want all the values from the component to be put into your backing beans;
put anywhere you need an error message displayed;
write validation logic in your action method. You can use Bean Validation Framework or write the logic by hand;
if no errors are found, the action method performs an action;
on error, depending on the error, display a message in a proper place (using the component id);
if any error occured, don't perform the action and return from the action method.
The action method should look somewhat like this (this is not a copy-paste example, it's just to give you an idea of the flow):
public void doSomething() {
boolean valid = true;
if (startData.after(expiryDate)) {
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().addMessage("expiryDate", new FacesMessage("Expiry date should come after creation date"));
valid = false;
}
// other checks
// checks could also make use of BVF validator - but then it's better to switch the BFV validation for the whole form
// (if you don't, then any single field validation will disable error checking for the business validation, which
// will look strange for your users)
if (!valid) {
// if we returned immediately upon detecting an error, we would only display the first one.
return;
}
// do the real stuff
}
I have just started using Pyramid for one of my projects and I have a case where in I need to validate a form field input, by taking that form field value and making a web-service call to assert the value's correctness. Like for example there is a field called your bank's CUSTOMER-ID. I need to take that(alone) as input and validate at the server level by making a web-service call (like http://someotherdomain/validate_customer_id/?customer_id=<input_value>)lets say.
I am using Colander for form schema management and Deform for all form validation logic. I am confused about where I need to place my validation logic for the CUSTOMER-ID case. Is it at MySchema().bind(customer_id=<input_value>) (which has a deferred validator that queries the web-service) or something at the form.validate(request.POST.items()) ? If I take the deferred validator's path, then MySchema().bind is raising colander.Invalid error for incorrect CUSTOMER-ID. Thats fine. But that error is not at the form level but at the schema level. So how would I tell the user about this in a sane way ?
I have good experience with Django forms so I was expecting something like clean method. A form error like form['customer_id'].error is what I am expecting at the template level. Is it possible with Pyramid's Deform or with Colander ?
So I think the big problem you're having is understanding the separation of concerns of Colander and Deform. Colander is what people like to call a general schema validation library. Which means we define a schema, where each node has a particular data type and some nodes might be required/optional. Colander is then able to validate that schema, and tell us whether or no the data we passed to colander conforms to that schema. As an example, in my web apps, I am often building apis that accept GET/POST params that need to be validated. So in Pyramid, let's say I have this scenario:
request.POST = {
'post_id': 1,
'author_id': 1,
'unnecessary_attr': 'stuff'
}
I can then validate it like so:
# schema
schema = SchemaNode(Mapping(),
SchemaNode(Integer(), name='post_id'),
SchemaNode(Integer(), name='author_id'))
schema.deserialize(request.POST)
And it will error if it can't conform the data to the specified schema. So you can see, colander can actually be used to validate ANY set of data, whether that comes from POST/GET/JSON data. Deform on the other hand is a form library, and helps you create/validate forms. It uses colander for all of the validation needs and as you can see it pretty much just completely delegates validation to colander. So to answer your question, you would do all of your validation stuff in colander, and deform would mostly handle the rendering of your forms.
To see a vivid pyramid example application and deform in action look at todopyramid as a part of IndyPy Python Web Shootout. A todo application was implemented in pyramid, django, flask and bottle. I studied the pyramid example - it is well written, shows deform schema validation and uses bootstrap to show validation messages.
Find more pyramid tutorials here: