I have task to get the repository item("its like shipping group and payment group details") for the particular order id you now i got all the repository item in one object..
But the thing is i don't know how to fetch the these repository item (shipping group and payment group ) from this object
This my code I have tried..
Repository connection;
connection=/atg/commerce/order/OrderRepository-->this i putted in my property file
Repository repository = (Repository)getConnection();
RepositoryItem Item = (RepositoryItem)
Repository.getItem(getOrderId());
In this "repositoryItem" object I have all the repository item so I have to fetch all the shipping group and payment group from this object..
Pls hep me out..
Thanks in Advance..
For Orders there are two ways to get to the ShippingGroup and PaymentGroup when your starting point is an orderId
Let's start with the Repository way:
RepositoryItem order = getConnection().getItem(getOrderId(), "order"); //The getConnection().getItem(getOrderId()) method is deprecated. Make sure you pass the itemDescriptor in with your query
List<RepositoryItem> shippingGroups = (List<RepositoryItem>) order.getPropertyValue("shippingGroups");
List<RepositoryItem> paymentGroups = (List<RepositoryItem>) order.getPropertyValue("paymentGroups");
However, for certain objects, ATG provide some helper methods to make things easier. So using the out-of-the-box OrderManager, code is likely to make things easier for you:
Order order = getOrderManager().loadOrder(getOrderId());
List<ShippingGroup> shippingGroups = order.getShippingGroups();
List<PaymentGroup> paymentGroups = order.getPaymentGroups();
You will now have easier access to most things in the shipping groups and payment groups. Keep in mind though that your repository customisations will not automatically be exposed in these and you'll have to extend the Order and OrderImpl classes to do so (and similarly for the ShippingGroup and PaymentGroup.
ATG represents orders at two different levels - as repository items (and hence in the database) and as order objects.
It is strongly recommended that you interact with an order at object level, not repository level.
The OrderManager component provides the API you need to load an order by id.
Order order = orderManager.loadOrder(orderId);
where orderManager is the variable that holds a reference to the /atg/commerce/order/OrderManager Nucleus component.
This API hides behind it all the code needed to load the order and its related data entities from the repository.
Related
I have a question regarding extbase if I need to inject a reposotory into another reposotry for getting join condition in the query what I need to do for that?
For example this query
$query = $this->createQuery()
->statement('
SELECT tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.uid, tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.name
FROM tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category, tx_casmarketing_domain_model_ad
WHERE tx_casmarketing_domain_model_ad.ad_cat = tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.uid ')
This query I am trying to access through
$query = $this->createQuery();
$query->matching(
);
Basically I am trying to inject one ad repository to category repository because there is no relationship defined in model for that.
my model contain category to ads relationship so when i access ads throughs adRepository I automcally accesss the cateogrys along with adCategory Repository, but in vise-virsa when i need category which has been selected for the ads i can only access through joining in query becus i do not have that relationship in my model. i need that category for my doropdown list in ads that how many ads category corrently ads contain...
this->adrepository->findAll() i automcally access ads with selected cateogry because this relationship already exist in my model but i need some how $this->categoryRepository($this->adrepository->finAll())
in drop down list i need only that category which is currently active. I can access this through simple query like i mention above but i need it through extbase query stuff becuse with extbase query way i can use buitin functionaly of typo3 like time stamp for start and end and hidden builtin functionality i want
->statement('
SELECT tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.uid, tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.name
FROM tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category, tx_casmarketing_domain_model_ad
WHERE tx_casmarketing_domain_model_ad.ad_cat = tx_casmarketing_domain_model_category.uid ') this is working but i want to conver it thourgh extbase query
To make it work with common repository methods you have to define the object-relations in TCA (and not sure if in model too). Then you can use functions like $query->equals('category',$category) or $query->contains('category',$category).
What is the purpose of your query? You are trying to find all categories that are are assigned by an "ad"?
I've recently started looking into DDD and have been refactoring an old personal project to this pattern. I'm about halfway through Evans blue book, and can't seem to find the answer for this there or online anywhere.
Basically my application is an inventory tracker. Inventory would contain a collection of items, items are transferrable entities between inventories. Inventory would have methods like transferIn() transferOut() which would contain some validation logic, ie checking that the inventory is not already full or that the item is in a transferrable state. These constraints lead me to believe that inventory is the aggregate root and that item is an entity.
1) at some point if a user requests a specific item entity for their inventory I would like to have a inventoryRepo.findByItemId(id) which would return the inventory that currently has that item. So that I can:
2) through a service do something like:
boolean requestItemTransfer(destInvId, itemId){
Inv from = invRepo.findByItemId(itemId);
Inv to = invRepo.findById(destInvId);
from.transferOut(itemId);
to.transferIn(from.getItem(itemId));
return invRepo.transferChild(to, item); //Edited
}
Basically writing my validation logic in the inventory class (rich domain model) and if there are no exceptions then I use the repo.transfer() method to persist the changes.
Would I be violating DDD? Are there better alternatives?
From what I've read and understood this seems valid if only unconventional. Every example that I've found shows entities that can only exist within 1 root instance. There's also the bank account transfer examples but those deal with amounts that are value objects, and have a transfer repository because transfers are to be recorded in that particular scenario, just not in mine.
EDIT:
The use cases are as follow:
1) User requests a list of their inventories and their items.
2) User selects 1 or more items from 1 inventory and requests for them to be sent to another inventory. This is where my TransferService would come in and coordinate the txIn and txOut from the specified inventories, and persist those changes through the repo. Maybe that should be an infrastructure services? That's one thing I'm not clear on.
3) User predefines a set of items he would like to be able to transfer to an inventory regardles of what inventory those items are currently in. TransferService would find where those items currently are and coordinate the rest as use case 2 does.
EDIT2: About the repo.transfer
This is actually a constraint/optimization? from the data side, from what I've been told all it does is lookup the item and change the inventory id that it points to. This is because items cannot be in 2 inventories at once. So instead of repo.update(fromInvInNewState) and repo.update(toInvInNewState) there is repo.moveChild(toInv, child) because we don't want to rewrite the entire state of the inventory (all its items that haven't moved, and because the rest of its state is derived from the items that it has at any point), just move some items around.
You are missing at least one aggregate and trying to replace it with your persistence. Talk to your domain expert, find out who or what is doing this transfer. I bet you will not hear that this is done by "a repository" or "a database". This something will be your aggregate and it will probably have this Transfer method. This call would also encapsulate the login from transferIn and transferOut since this seems to be a transactional process and you are doing it in three different places. Remember that your transaction boundaries is your aggregate. Not your repository.
First of all I would like to recap the domain model defined by your scenario.
You said that you are building an Inventory Tracker with the next spec:
An User has Inventories.
An Iventory consists of Items.
An User can transfer Items from one Inventory to another. I guess that both inventories belong to the User as you said that:
"User requests a list of their inventories and their items. User selects 1 or more items from 1 inventory and requests for them to be sent to another inventory..."
On the other hand, an invariant you pointed out are:
An Item can be transferred from the Inventory where it already is (InventoryA) to another Inventory (InventoryB) only if InventoryB is not already full. I guess that in case that the Item cannot be transferred it should be kept in the InventoryA.
If I understood well, an User transfers his Items between his Repositories.
Something like:
class TransferItemService {
public function execute(TransferItemRequest request)
{
user = userRepository.findOfId(request.userId());
user.transferItem(request.itemId(), request.fromInventoryId(), request.toInventoryId()); //Checks invariant -> the given Item is in one of his Inventories, the destination Inventory is owned by him, the destination Inventory is not full and finally transfers the Item
userRepository.save(user);
}
}
Now, in order to define the Aggregate Root/s I would need to know if my business can deal with eventual consistency. That is, if moving an Item must be done atomically (just one request) or it can take some time (more than one request).
No Eventual Consistency
In case business says that Eventual Consistency is not allowed here, if you want to ensure that your domain remains consistent and aligned to the invariant, the User would be the unique AggregateRoot as he is the nexus between his Inventories. In this case, you can face performance problems due to loading all the Inventories along with their Items.
Eventual Consistency
In case that you can go with eventual consitency, you can have the next Aggregate Roots: User, Inventory, Item. So, using the previous code to model the use case of transferring an item:
class TransferItemService {
public function execute(TransferItemRequest request)
{
user = userRepository.findOfId(request.userId());
user.transferItem(request.itemId(), request.fromInventoryId(), request.toInventoryId()); //Checks invariant -> the given Item is in one of his Inventories, the destination Inventory is owned by him, the destination Inventory is not full and finally transfers the Item
userRepository.save(user);
}
}
In this case, the transferItem method would look like:
class User {
private string id;
private List<UserInventory> inventories;
public function transferItem(itemId, fromInventoryId, toInventoryId)
{
fromUserInventory = this.inventories.get(fromInventoryId);
if(!fromUserInventory) throw new InventoryNotBelongToUser(fromInventoryId, this.id);
toUserInventory = this.inventories.get(toInventoryId);
if(!toUserInventory) throw new InventoryNotBelongToUser(toInventoryId, this.id);
toUserInventory.addItem(itemId);
fromUserInventory.deletetItem(itemId);
}
}
class UserInventory {
private String identifier;
private int capacity;
public function deleteItem(userId, itemId)
{
this.capacity--;
DomainEventPublisher.publish(new ItemWasDeleted(this.identifier, itemId));
}
public function addItem(userId, itemId)
{
if(this.capacity >= MAX_CAPACITY) {
throw new InventoryCapacityAlreadyFull(this.identifier);
}
this.capacity++;
DomainEventPublisher.publish(new ItemWasAdded(this.identifier, itemId));
}
}
Notice that UserInventory is not the Inventory Aggregate Root, it is just a VO with an identifier reference and the current capacity of the actual Inventory.
Now, you can have a Listener that asynchonously updates each Inventory:
class ItemWasRemovedListener()
{
public function handleEvent(event)
{
removeItemFromInventoryService.execute(event.inventoryId(), event.itemId());
}
}
class ItemWasAddedListener()
{
public function handleEvent(event)
{
addItemToInventoryService.execute(event.inventoryId(), event.itemId());
}
}
Unless I have made a mistake I think we have satisfied all our invariant, we have just modified one Aggregate Root per Request and we don't need to load all our Items to perform an operation on an Inventory.
If you see something wrong please let me know :D.
I have a two aggregate roots in my domain, and therefore two repositories. We'll call them BookRepository, and AuthorRepository, for the sake of example.
I'm designing an MVC application, and one page has to display a table containing a list of authors, with each row showing the author's personal details. At the end of each row is a small button that can be clicked to expand the row and show a child table detailing the author's published books.
When the page loads, some ajax is executed to retrieve the Author details from an API controller and display the data in the table. Each property in an Author object maps almost directly to a column, with one exception, and this is where I'm having my problem. I want the button at the end of each row to be disabled, if and only if the author has no published books. This means that a boolean has to returned with each Author record, indicating if they have any published books.
My book repository has a couple of methods like this:
public IEnumerable<Book> GetBooksForAuthor(int authorId);
public bool AnyBooksForAuthor(int authorId);
and my Book class has a property called AuthorId, so I can retrieve a book's author by calling
authorRepository.GetById(book.AuthorId);
My problem is that in order to create a row for my aforementioned table, I need to create it like this:
IEnumerable<Author> authors = authorRepository.GetAll();
foreach (Author author in authors)
{
yield return new AuthorTableRow
{
Name = author.Name,
Age = author.Age,
Location = author.PlaceOfResidence.Name,
HasBooks = this.bookRepository.AnyBooksForAuthor(author.Id)
};
}
The above code seems correct, but there's a fairly heft performance penalty in calling this.bookRepository.AnyBooksForAuthor(author.Id) for every single author, because it performs a database call each time.
Ideally, I suppose I would want an AuthorTableRowRepository which could perform something like the following:
public IEnumerable<AuthorTableRow> GetAll()
{
return from a in this.dbContext.Authors
select new AuthorTableRow
{
Name = a.Name,
Age = a.Age,
Location a.PlaceOfResidence.Name
HasBooks = a.Books.Any()
});
}
I'm hesitant to put this in place for these reasons :
AuthorTableRowRepository is a repository of AuthorTableRows, but AuthorTable row is not a domain object, nor an aggregate root, and therefore should not have its own repository.
As Author and Book are both aggregate roots, I removed the "Books" property from the Author entity, because I wanted the only way to retrieve books to be via the BookRepository. This makes HasBooks = a.Books.Any() impossible. I am unsure whether I am imposing my own misguided best practice here though. It seems wrong to obtain Books by obtaining an Author via the AuthorRepository and then going through its Books property, and vice versa in obtaining an Author via a property on a Book object. Crossing aggregate root boundaries would be the way I'd term it, I suppose?
How would other people solve this? Are my concerns unfounded? I am mostly concerned about the (what should be a) performance hit in the first method, but I want to adhere to best practice with the Repository pattern and DDD.
I would stick to the first approach, but try to optimize things in the bookrepository method. For instance, you can load this information all in one time, and use in-memory lookup to speed this up. Like this you would need 2 queries, and not 1 for each author.
The way I solved this in the end was to create an Entity from a view in the database. I named the entity 'AuthorSummary', and made an AuthorSummaryRepository that didn't contain any Add() methods, just retrieval methods.
I have a Customer table and another Orders table. Each Customer can have many orders (One to many relationship).
I want to get a Customer object and from it get how many orders he has (the actual order data is not relevant at this point). So as I see it I have 2 options:
create a view with another OrdersCount field - and that will be another object in my system.
in my app, when I need the count get the Customer.Orders.Count - but for my understanding that will cause an extra query to run and pull all the orders from the database to that collection.
Is there a correct way to do such thing?
Thanks
You do need a new type, but you don't need to recreate all relevant properties.
from c in context.Customers
// where ...
select new {
Customer = c,
OrderCount = c.Orders.Count()
}
Update code that looks for e.g. the Name property of an item in the result, to look for Customer.Name.
I was wondering with Entity Framework 4.1 code first how do you guys handle queries that involve an existing aspnet_Users table?
Basically I have a requirement for a query that involves the aspnet_Users so that I can return the username:
SELECT t.Prop1, u.Username
FROM Table1 t
INNER JOIN aspnet_User u ON t.UserId = u.UserId
Where t.Prop2 = true
Ideally in linq I would like:
from t in context.Table1
join u in context.aspnet_Users on t.UserId equals u.UserId
where t.Prop2 = true
But I'm not sure how to get aspnet_Users mapping to a class User? how do I make aspnet_Users part of my dbset ?
Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance
Don't map aspnet_Users table or any other table related to aspnet. These tables have their own data access and their own logic for accessing. Mapping these tables will introduce code duplication, possible problems and breaks separation of concerns. If you need users for queries, create view with only needed information like id, user name, email and map the view. The point is that view will be read only, it will contain only allowed data and your application will not accidentally modify these data without using ASP.NET API.
First read Ladislav's answer. If you still want to go ahead : to do what you want would involve mapping the users and roles and members tables into the codefirst domain - which means writing a membership provider in code-first.
Luckily there is a project for that http://codefirstmembership.codeplex.com/ although its not a perfect implementation. The original is VB, look in the Discussion tab for my work on getting it running in c# MVC.
I'm working with the author on a better implementation that protects the membership data (password, last logged on date, all of the non-allowed data) but allow you to map and extend the user table. But its not ready yet!
You don't really need to use Entity Framework to access aspnet_membership provider accounts. You really just need to create an instance of the membership object, pass in a unique user identifier and a Boolean value indicating whether to update the LastActivityDate value for the user and the method returns a MembershipUser object populated with current values from the data source for the specified user.
You can then access the username by using the property of "Username".
Example:
private MembershipUser user =
Membership.GetUser(7578ec40-9e91-4458-b3d6-0a69dee82c6e, True);
Response.Write(user.UserName);
In case you have additional questions about MembershipProvider, you can read up on it on the MSDN website under the title of "Managing Users by Using Membership".
Hope this helps you some with your requirement.