We are trying to use ExtJS grid/forms and bind them with Store to perform REST operations.
Now as I was playing with extjs examples for restful api, I came across http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/4.2.1/#!/example/restful/restful.html and tried editing a model to add a new field 'phone' in the list like below:
Ext.define('Person', {
extend: 'Ext.data.Model',
fields: [{
name: 'id',
type: 'int',
useNull: true
}, 'email', 'first', 'last','phone'],
validations: [{
type: 'length',
field: 'email',
min: 1
}, {
type: 'length',
field: 'first',
min: 1
}, {
type: 'length',
field: 'last',
min: 1
}]
});
As you can see "phone" is a new field added in fields list of a model and after adding that field while I was trying to perform any of the rest operation (PUT/POST) it was posting that field along with rest of the visible fields in grid. This is something I have not expected.
Is there anyway by which I can just post dirty fields (which are modified) and not all those exist in model with default store/rest manipulation way that ExtJS has provided?
In the proxy writer definition you would want to use the writeAllFields param which will work for updates. New model instances will send all fields.
http://docs.sencha.com/extjs/4.2.1/#!/api/Ext.data.writer.Writer-cfg-writeAllFields
Related
I have following interface:
export interface Product {
name: string;
provider: {
name: string;
logo: string;
};
pricePerUnit: {
quantity: number;
currency: string;
};
}
And my rowData looks like this:
rowData = [
{
name: 'Fish',
provider: {
name: 'Amazon',
logo: 'url to amazon logo',
},
pricePerUnit: {
quantity: 5,
currency: 'USD',
},
},
]
So, as you can see i have at least 2 complex object here, and by design I should display provider as img + name and price as quantity + currency symbol.
I`m using custom angular components for that with styling.
Actual problem
In order to provide these object to my custom components, I set field property in colDefs as follow (example for price):
{
headerName: 'Price',
field: 'pricePerUnit',
cellRenderer: PriceCellRendererComponent,
},
And here is the catch, because I specified in field property complex object, I no longer able to visualize data using integrated charts, because for them to work I should specify in my field propery path to number itself, like so:
{
field: 'pricePerUnit.quantity',
}
But now I`ve broke my custom component because params.value now holds just a number and not my complex object. Same goes to provider.
And it`s also broke grouping, sorting, filtering.
html template for one of my custom component (provider) looks like so:
<div class="wrapper provider">
<tui-avatar [avatarUrl]="params.value.logo" class="provider__logo"></tui-avatar>
<div class="provider__name">{{params.value.name}}</div>
</div>
So the question is:
How to properly setup custom components, so they would work in grouping, sorting, filtering and also integrated charts would use just simple primitive like number to correctly display data?
I'm working with featherJs and mongoose.
I have a schema with an enum which I want to $inc.
new Schema({
status: { type: Number, enum: [0, 1, 2, 3], default: 0 },
});
But when I $inc the 'status' field, it doesn't care about the enum, I can $inc as many times I want and get a status to 100000.
I don't know if it's because of featherjs or something else
Thanks
This is "working as intended", as specified in the docs:
enum: Array, creates a validator that checks if the value is strictly equal to one of the values in the given array.
So enum just creates a mongoose validator, that is:
Validation is middleware. Mongoose registers validation as a pre('save') hook on every schema by default.
In theory you should be using their update validators for this, however $inc is not supported by them, and in addition their behavior is not quite clear at times.
I personally would recommend not to use mongoose at all, it's a black box that only adds bugs and confusion. specifically when it comes to their "validators" which are not "real" validators.
So what can you do to fix this?
The easiest solution is to just do it in code, first find the object and if it fits the criteria only then do the $inc, obviously this does not give actual validation and is only supported where you'd implement it, if you have many places in the code where such update can occur this is also not optimal.
use mongodb validation, this is "real" validation that actually validates at the db level. For example you could create your collection:
db.createCollection('collection_name', {
validator: {
$jsonSchema: {
bsonType: 'object',
properties: {
status: {
bsonType: 'int',
enum: [0, 1, 2, 3],
description: 'must be a valid status integer',
},
},
},
},
validationAction: 'error',
});
Now any update with a none valid value will fail.
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around associations with sailsjs.
I have 2 models
Services
attributes: {
status: {
defaultsTo: 'inactive'
},
userId:{
model: 'users',
via: 'id',
},
},
Users
attributes: {
email: {
type: 'string',
required: true,
unique: true
},
password: {
type: 'string'
}
},
So, a service is tied to a user (matching the id of the user).
I used to do a call like http://localhost:1337/Services?userId=userId
Now I would like to transition to associations using the above model attributes.
This works by calling the ID of the service just fine (it includes the users data as well), however if all i have is the user, how could I get the service
Doing the same call (http://localhost:1337/Services?userId=userId) returns and empty object.
Am I forced to actually have a one-to-one or one-to-many association? I don't understand why I can no longer use the userId field (stored in the DB) to do queries once I start using associations. I guess I am looking for the best of both worlds here.
EDIT:
Let me try make this more clear. Before trying to do associations, I could call this URL (using blueprint)
http://localhost:1337/Services?userId=userId
The Services model used to look like this
attributes: {
status: {
defaultsTo: 'inactive'
},
userId:{
type: 'string',
required: true,
},
},
Then when a user is created, a service for that user is created with the userId matching the ID in the Users table.
Now I would like to implement associations using the above model scheme.
However, because (my best guess) the userId field of the service is mapped to the Users model, I am unable to search for a Server using the userId field that is stored.
I hope that makes sense? In another words, tryin to call
http://localhost:1337/Services?userId=userId
returns nothing when using associations but does return a value when I don't use associations
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if sails/waterline even does this.
(so an adequate answer would simply be if this is possible or not, I have been reading docs, looking through github issues and looking through code, but still not sure)
I have a one to one association setup where an 'account' has a 'contact'
I'm trying to create a contact within sails blueprints (so basically just using the create() method)
account =
{ name: 'Corp'
contact:{
firstName: 'Bob',
lastName: 'Jones'
}
}
so should Account.create(account).exec() create the account and the associated contact? Because I'm getting the following error
TypeError: Cannot convert null to object
My model is setup like so
account.js
module.exports = {
migrate: 'safe',
tableName: 'accounts',
autoPK: false,
attributes: {
id: {
type: 'INTEGER',
primaryKey: true,
autoIncrement: true
},
contactId: 'INTEGER',
name: {type: 'STRING', maxLength: 100},
contact: {
model: 'contact',
columnName:'contactId'
}
}
};
I'm using sails 10.0-rc8 / waterline 10.0-rc15
Creating an associated instance at the same time as its parent (aka "nested create") should work, but it's tricky to get things just right when you're dealing with a legacy database. In your case, the contactId attribute declaration is probably causing the issue, since Waterline expects the foreign key field to be implicit, not explicit. Try removing:
contactId: 'INTEGER',
entirely and see where that gets you.
After some research I found out that as of version 0.10.0-rc15 of waterline you can NOT have a customized foreign keys. In the above model if I change the "contactId" column to just "contact" (basically make it look exactly like it does in the docs. Then it works.
I made the following bug report
https://github.com/balderdashy/waterline/issues/529
We have recently switched from ExtJS 3.2 to 3.4 and found that grids with check box selection model stop working. It turns out that such configuration is not allowed any more:
var gridConfig = {
xtype: 'grid',
store: myStore,
columns:[
new Ext.grid.CheckboxSelectionModel(),
{
id: 'Name',
header: 'Inland Carrier',
dataIndex: 'Name'
}],
sm: new Ext.grid.CheckboxSelectionModel({
checkOnly: true
})
};
Instead selection model object must be created once and then passed both to column collection and sm property.
The problem now is that we have a very long configuration object with multitude of grids. Previously selection model was specified locally as per the sample above. But now we have to allot a variable for each selection model object, invent unique name for it, and keep these variables far away from the place where they are used. It's extremely inconvenient.
Is it possible somehow to specify selection model in one place? Or maybe to create it in one property initializer and reference this object in the second place?
you can add sm to cm after initialization of grid.
ie:
var gridConfig = {
xtype: 'grid',
store: myStore,
columns:[{
id: 'Name',
header: 'Inland Carrier',
dataIndex: 'Name'
}],
sm: new Ext.grid.CheckboxSelectionModel({
checkOnly: true
})
};
var grid = new Ext.grid.GridPanel( gridConfig );
grid.getColumnModel().config.unshift( grid.getSelectionModel() );