$getId = $this->getRequest()->getParam('id'); // 1 is coming from url
$id_from_cart = 1;
if($getId != $id_from_cart) {
echo "unset session";
Zend_Session::namespaceUnset('cart');
} else {
echo "dont unset";
}
When I use $getId = 1 as a static value, its working fine but if I use $this->getRequest()->getParam('id') as its value which is also 1 then although it goes in else condition in both the cases but it unsets the session (code written in if condition). How is that possible, code to destroy session has been written in if condition. I have tried many things but couldn't reach anywhere. Any suggestion could be a great help. I have tried switch case, in_array and if else.
Try this
$getId = (int) $this->getRequest()->getParam('id');
Related
I am using a foreach to loop through links. Do I need a $mech->back(); to continue the loop or is that implicit.
Furthermore do I need a separate $mech2 object for nested for each loops?
The code I currently have gets stuck (it does not complete) and ends on the first page where td#tabcolor3 is not found.
foreach my $sector ($mech->selector('a.link2'))
{
$mech->follow_link($sector);
foreach my $place ($mech->selector('td#tabcolor3'))
{
if (($mech->selector('td#tabcolor3', all=>1)) >= 1)
{
$mech->follow_link($place);
print $_->{innerHTML}, '\n'
for $mech->selector('td.dataCell');
$mech->back();
}
else
{
$mech->back();
}
}
You cannot access information from a page when it is no longer on display. However, the way foreach works is to build the list first before it is iterated through, so the code you have written should be fine.
There is no need for the call to back as the links are absolute. If you had used click then there must be a link in the page to click on, but with follow_link all you are doing is going to a new URL.
There is also no need to check the number of links to follow, as a for loop over an empty list will simply not be executed.
To make things clearer I suggest that you assign the results of selector to an array before the loop.
Like this
my #sectors = $mech->selector('a.link2');
for my $sector (#sectors) {
$mech->follow_link($sector);
my #places = $mech->selector('td#tabcolor3');
for my $place (#places) {
$mech->follow_link($place);
print $_->{innerHTML}, '\n' for $mech->selector('td.dataCell');
}
}
Update
My apologies. It seems that follow_link is finicky and needs to follow a link on the current page.
I suggest that you extract the href attribute from each link and use get instead of follow_link.
my #selectors = map $_->{href}, $mech->selector('a.link2');
for my $selector (#selectors) {
$mech->get($selector);
my #places = map $_->{href}, $mech->selector('td#tabcolor3');
for my $place (#places) {
$mech->get($place);
print $_->{innerHTML}, '\n' for $mech->selector('td.dataCell');
}
}
Please let me know whether this works on the site you are connecting to.
I recommend to use separate $mech object for this:
foreach my $sector ($mech->selector('a.link2'))
{
my $mech = $mech->clone();
$mech->follow_link($sector);
foreach my $place ($mech->selector('td#tabcolor3'))
{
if (($mech->selector('td#tabcolor3', all=>1)) >= 1)
{
my $mech = $mech->clone();
$mech->follow_link($place);
print $_->{innerHTML}, '\n'
for $mech->selector('td.dataCell');
#$mech->back();
}
# else
# {
# $mech->back();
# }
}
I am using WWW:Mechanize::Firefox to loop over a bunch of URLs with loads of Javascript. The page does not render immediately so need test if a particular page element is visible (similar to suggestion in Mechanize::Firefox documentation except 2 xpaths in the test) before deciding next action.
The page eventually renders a xpath to 'no info' or some wanted stuff after about 2-3 seconds. If no info we go to next URL. I think there is some sort of race condition with both xpaths not existing at once causing the MozRepl::RemoteObject: TypeError: can't access dead object error intermittently (at the sleep 1 in the loop oddly enough).
My solution that seems to work/improve reliability is to enclose all the $mech->getand$mech->is_visible in an eval{}; like this:
eval{
$mech->get("$url");
$retries = 15; #test to see if element visible = page complete
while ($retries-- and ! $mech->is_visible( xpath => $xpath_btn ) and ! $mech->is_visible( xpath => $xpath_no_info )){
sleep 1;
};
last if($mech->is_visible( xpath => $xpath_no_info) ); #skip rest if no info page
};
Others might suggest improvements on this.
I'm trying to see if its possible to test for a certain result specific to a boolean value in an SQL database.
if($result = $mysqli->query("SELECT * FROM `work_orders` WHERE `is_open` = '1' "))
{
show_workorder($result);
}
I would then want to execute:
#TRUE allows this to show
if($result = True){
echo "<p> No current work orders are open. Good Work !</p>\n";
return;
}
If i change database in work_orders.is_open , the boolean is 0, meaning its "not open" .. the if statement for TRUE above, still shows...
I am sure that I'm missing something.
Seems I have solved my own question:
the if statement should just test for rows that were returned or not.
if($result->num_rows == 0)
this would allow it to show if there is nothing returned. If results are returned then it will continue moving forward.
I am writing a function in perl which will kill a process given its PID.
sub ShutPidForWindows()
{
require Win32::Process;
$PID = 1234;
$count = 0;
$ReturnStatus = 0;
$ExitCode = 0 ;
if ($PID == 0)
{
return ($ReturnStatus);
}
Win32::Process::KillProcess($PID, $ExitCode);
print "PID = ".$PID."\n";
print "Return Code = ".$ExitCode."\n";
if ($ExitCode)
{
$ReturnStatus = 1;
}
else
{
$ReturnStatus = 2;
}
return ($ReturnStatus);
}
when this function is executed it always returns 2. Even though the process 1234 does not exists.
The o/p I get is:
PID = 1234
Return Code = 0
Perl Doc says that ExitCode will be populated by the exit code returned by the process. Then ExitCode should be 1.
Am I doing anything wrong?
The problem is that you are using require instead of use to load the module. Sometimes this is OK, but you should always follow the examples in the module's documentation.
You must also always use strict and use warnings at the top of every Perl program you write. This will make it necessary to declare all of your variables, which should be done as close as possible to their first point of use. These measures will reveal many errors that you may otherwise overlook, and is especially important when you are asking others for help with your code.
If you examine $^E after the call to Win32::Process::KillProcess, you might see a value like
The parameter is incorrect
which should tell you that you did something wrong.
I have a Perl routine that manages error checking. There are about 10 different checks and some are nested, based on prior success. These are typically not exceptional cases where I would need to croak/die. Also, once an error occurs, there's no point in running through the rest of the checks.
However, I can't seem to think of a neat way to solve this issue except by using something analogous to the following horrid hack:
sub lots_of_checks
{
if(failcond)
{
goto failstate:
}
elsif(failcond2)
{
goto failstate;
}
#This continues on and on until...
return 1; #O happy day!
failstate:
return 0; #Dead...
}
What I would prefer to be able to do would be something like so:
do
{
if(failcond)
{
last;
}
#...
};
An empty return statement is a better way of returning false from a Perl sub than returning 0. The latter value will actually be true in list context:
sub lots_of_checks {
return if fail_condition_1;
return if fail_condition_2;
# ...
return 1;
}
Perhaps you want to have a look at the following articles about exception handling in perl5:
perl.com: Object Oriented Exception Handling in Perl
perlfoundation.com: Exception Handling in Perl
You absolutely can do what you prefer.
Check: {
last Check
if failcond1;
last Check
if failcond2;
success();
}
Why would you not use exceptions? Any case where the normal flow of the code should not be followed is an exception. Using "return" or "goto" is really the same thing, just more "not what you want".
(What you really want are continuations, which "return", "goto", "last", and "throw" are all special cases of. While Perl does not have full continuations, we do have escape continuations; see http://metacpan.org/pod/Continuation::Escape)
In your code example, you write:
do
{
if(failcond)
{
last;
}
#...
};
This is probably the same as:
eval {
if(failcond){
die 'failcond';
}
}
If you want to be tricky and ignore other exceptions:
my $magic = [];
eval {
if(failcond){
die $magic;
}
}
if ($# != $magic) {
die; # rethrow
}
Or, you can use the Continuation::Escape module mentioned above. But
there is no reason to ignore exceptions; it is perfectly acceptable
to use them this way.
Given your example, I'd write it this way:
sub lots_of_checks {
local $_ = shift; # You can use 'my' here in 5.10+
return if /condition1/;
return if /condition2/;
# etc.
return 1;
}
Note the bare return instead of return 0. This is usually better because it respects context; the value will be undef in scalar context and () (the empty list) in list context.
If you want to hold to a single-exit point (which is slightly un-Perlish), you can do it without resorting to goto. As the documentation for last states:
... a block by itself is semantically identical to a loop that executes once.
Thus "last" can be used to effect an early exit out of such a block.
sub lots_of_checks {
local $_ = shift;
my $all_clear;
{
last if /condition1/;
last if /condition2/;
# ...
$all_clear = 1; # only set if all checks pass
}
return unless $all_clear;
return 1;
}
If you want to keep your single in/single out structure, you can modify the other suggestions slightly to get:
sub lots_of_checks
{
goto failstate if failcond1;
goto failstate if failcond2;
# This continues on and on until...
return 1; # O happy day!
failstate:
# Any clean up code here.
return; # Dead...
}
IMO, Perl's use of the statement modifier form "return if EXPR" makes guard clauses more readable than they are in C. When you first see the line, you know that you have a guard clause. This feature is often denigrated, but in this case I am quite fond of it.
Using the goto with the statement modifier retains the clarity, and reduces clutter, while it preserves your single exit code style. I've used this form when I had complex clean up to do after failing validation for a routine.
I have an application that waits for the user to press a key and then executes a long running method that periodically updates the GUI.
sub keypress{
my $self = shift;
my $event = shift;
if ($event->GetKeyCode() == WXK_F12){
$self->doStuff();
}else{
$event -> Skip(0);
}
}
I would like to have the application ignore any keypresses that occur while the doStuff method is doing it's thing.
I tried setting a flag and wrapping the method call in a additional if statement but the kepress method is not entered until doStuff finishes.
I'm kind of new to wxwidgets and feel like I don't know what I don't know. Any suggestions on what to explore next would be greatly appreciated.
I am not sure this is the best way to ignore events in the WxWidgets framework (since you probably don't really want to freeze the GUI every time you perform an operation!), but setting a flag should be fine. Just make sure you use a guard so that your flag is unset even if the stack unwinds due to an exception:
use Guard;
my $flag;
sub keypress{
my $self = shift;
my $event = shift;
if ($event->GetKeyCode() == WXK_F12 && !$flag){
$flag = 1;
scope_guard { $flag = 0 };
$self->doStuff();
}
else {
$event->Skip(0);
}
}
You probably really want to show a progress bar instead, though, or
perhaps only disable a single action. Nobody wants their GUI to
freeze and not provide any feedback!
I would use some sort of global or singleton to ensure the method only runs when it's not already running. Then it will just exit on subsequent keystrokes.