There's similar question here, but using cellatrr for whole column is quite overloaded. I know there's classes attribute, but it can be only set by static text. I would like to use a function instead like:
$("#jqgrid").jqGrid({
...
colModel:
[
{
name:'a',
index:'a',
classes: function() {
return (a < b ? "ui-state-error" : "ui-state-highlight");
}
]
});
Any ideas? Of course without modding jqGrid core :)
'title'=>'Name',
'name'=>'name',
'classes'=>'your class'
may be you can useful. check below link
http://guriddo.net/documentation/php/_2v70w5p2k.htm
Related
I am trying to use a value-formatter in my AG-GRID table for displaying currency information.
This works perfectly when I have a hardcoded value in the formatter, in this case the unicode for 'Euros'
currencyFormatter(params) {
return '\u20ac' + params.value;
}
However, I dont know in advance what currency I will need to format the data in, as it is dynamically generated. If I try an use a value that is available in my component (like below) it doesn't like it!
currencyFormatter(params) {
return this.currencyUnicode + params.value;
}
There it throws in the console is:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'defaultCurrency' of undefined
It seems like all 'this' component variables are not available inside the currencyFormatter. Is there a way to make this work?
In order to access your component variables, you will have to bind your component context - this to the valueFormatter
...
name : 'Currency',
field : 'currency',
valueFormatter: this.currencyFormatter.bind(this) //bind your component's context here
...
currencyFormatter(params) {
return this.currencyUnicode + params.value;
}
This is a common javascript problem. Here is a good read
Also, this answer describes the 2 ways you can reference this.
I have a table with a series of rows. I want to change them into divs, but maintain (somehow) their positional information. At the moment, this is what I'm doing:
$("./tr[1]") {
add_class("mw_old_row_1")
}
$("./tr[2]") {
add_class("mw_old_row_2")
}
$("./tr") {
name("div")
}
But this isn't ideal because:
It's super-repetitive
I don't know how many rows there are
Is there a way to take the child number and include that in the class I'm assigning?
Yup, you want to make use of the index() function. Below is the example you wrote reworked using index():
$("./tr") {
add_class("mw_old_row_" + index())
name("div")
}
Below is a link with the following example in tritium tester: http://tester.tritium.io/775895b154e8e2ce99e100967299c10d73dbeb91
I'm trying to extract the parameter from a Lift Menu.param within a snippet so that I can use it to create a named Comet. However, I get a NullPointerException when I try to pass the parameter to the snippet using SnippetDisptach in my Boot.scala, as suggested here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.lift/44299
I've created the Menu item as follows:
object AnItemPage {
// create a parameterized page
def menu = Menu.param[Item]("Item", "Item",
s => fetchItem(s), item => item._id.toString) / "item"
private def fetchItem(s:String) : Box[Item] = synchronized {
ItemDAO.findById(ObjectId.massageToObjectId(s))
}
}
I've added the menu to SiteMap. I've also created a Snippet which I would like to pick up the Item parameter. (I'm using fmpwizard's InsertNamedComet library here):
class AddCometItemPage(boxedItem: Box[Item]) extends InsertNamedComet with DispatchSnippet{
val item : Item = boxedItem.openOr(null)
override lazy val name= "comet_item_" + item._id.toString
override lazy val cometClass= "UserItemCometActor"
def dispatch = null
}
My next step is to crate an instance of this class as demonstrated by David Pollak here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.lift/44299
This is what I have added to my Boot.scala:
LiftRules.snippetDispatch.append {
case "item_page" => new AddCometItemPage(AnItemPage.menu.currentValue)
}
My item.html references this snippet:
<div class="lift:item_page">
I get the following null pointer exception when I compile and run this:
Exception occurred while processing /item/5114eb4044ae953cf863b786
Message: java.lang.NullPointerException
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.siteMap(Loc.scala:147)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.siteMap(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.allParams(Loc.scala:123)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.allParams(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.net$liftweb$sitemap$Loc$$staticValue(Loc.scala:87)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.net$liftweb$sitemap$Loc$$staticValue(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$paramValue$2.apply(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$paramValue$2.apply(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.paramValue(Loc.scala:85)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.paramValue(Menu.scala:170)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$currentValue$3.apply(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$$anonfun$currentValue$3.apply(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Loc$class.currentValue(Loc.scala:114)
net.liftweb.sitemap.Menu$ParamMenuable$$anon$9.currentValue(Menu.scala:170)
bootstrap.liftweb.Boot$$anonfun$lift$8.apply(Boot.scala:107)
bootstrap.liftweb.Boot$$anonfun$lift$8.apply(Boot.scala:106)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$$anonfun$applyBox$1.apply(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$$anonfun$applyBox$1.apply(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.common.Full.map(Box.scala:553)
net.liftweb.util.NamedPF$.applyBox(NamedPartialFunction.scala:97)
net.liftweb.http.LiftRules.snippet(LiftRules.scala:711)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance$1.apply(LiftSession.scala:1506)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance$1.apply(LiftSession.scala:1506)
net.liftweb.common.EmptyBox.or(Box.scala:646)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession.net$liftweb$http$LiftSession$$findSnippetInstance(LiftSession.scala:1505)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$locateAndCacheSnippet$1$1$$anonfun$apply$88.apply(LiftSession.scala:1670)
net.liftweb.http.LiftSession$$anonfun$locateAndCacheSnippet$1$1$$anonfun$apply$88.apply(LiftSession.scala:1669)
Has anybody any idea where I'm going wrong? I've not been able to find a lot of information on Menu.param.
Thank you very much for your help.
f
I have never tried what you are doing, so I am not sure the best way to accomplish it. The way you are using the Loc Param, you are extracting a variable from a URL pattern. In your case, http://server/item/ITEMID where ITEMID is the string representation of an Item, and which is the value that gets passed to the fetchItem function. The function call will not have a value if you just arbitrarily call it, and from what I can see you are requesting a value that is not initialized.
I would think there are two possible solutions. The first would be to use S.location instead of AnItemPage.menu.currentValue. It will return a Box[Loc[Any]] representing the Loc that is currently being accessed (with the parameters set). You can use that Loc to retrive currentValue and set your parameter.
The other option would be to instantiate the actor in your snippet. Something like this:
item.html
<div data-lift="AnItemPage">
<div id="mycomet"></div>
</div>
And then in your AnItemPage snippet, something like this:
class AnItemPage(item: Item) {
def render = "#mycomet" #> new AddCometItemPage(item).render
}
I haven't tested either of those, so they'll probably need some tweaking. Hopefully it will give you a general idea.
I could use some really good links that explain Generics and how to use them. But I also have a very specific question, relater to working on a current project.
Given this class constructor:
public class SecuredDomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity> : DomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity>
where TDomainContext : DomainContext, new()
where TEntity : Entity, new()
public SecuredDomainViewModel(TDomainContext domainContext, ProtectedItem protectedItem)
: base(domainContext)
{
this.protectedItem = protectedItem;
}
And its creation this way:
DomainViewModel d;
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Assuming I have 20 different EntityTypes within MyContext, is there any easier way to call the constructor without a large switch statement?
Also, since d is DomainViewModel and I later need to access methods from SecuredDomainViewModel, it seems I need to do this:
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
But again "MyEntityType" could actually be one of 20 diffent types. Is there anyway to write these types of statements where MyEntityType is returned from some sort of Reflection?
Additional Info for Clarification:
I will investigate ConstructorInfo, but I think I may have incorrectly described what I'm looking to do.
Assume I have the DomainViewModel, d in my original posting.
This may have been constructed via three possible ways:
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Later, I need to access methods on the SecuredDomainViewModel, which currently must be called this way:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer)d).CanEditEntity)
Assuming I have N+ entity types in this context, what I was hoping to be able to do is
something like this with one call:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, CurrentEntityType)d).CanEditEntity)
Where CurrentEntityType was some sort of function or other type of call that returned Order, Invoice or Consumer based on the current item entity type.
Is that possible?
You can create a non-generic interface that has the CanEditEntity property on it, make SecuredDomainViewModel inherit off that, then call the property through the interface...
Also, the new() constructor allows you to call a constructor on a generic type that has no arguments (so you can just write new TEntity()), but if you want to call a constructor that has parameters one handy trick I use is to pass it in as a delegate:
public void Method<T>(Func<string, bool, T> ctor) {
// ...
T newobj = ctor("foo", true);
// ...
}
//called later...
Method((s, b) => new MyClass(s, b));
I can't help on the links, and likely not on the type either.
Constructor
If you have the Type, you can get the constructor:
ConstructorInfo construtor = typeof(MyEntityType).GetConstructor(new object[]{TDomainContext, ProtectedItem});
Type
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I can only see something like
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, entityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
{
entityType=typeof(Orders)
}
being what you want.
I like to write my code slim and sexy (on the performance and memory side), I am using Mootools and was wondering if I was using it the correct way, also you can help me by telling me how to test my code to find the answers I am looking for my self.
//First we create a class like so:
var FirstClass = new Class {(
'someFunc': function() { /* do stuff */ }
})
//Now this class uses first class with "Implements"
var SecondClass = new Class ({
'Implements': [FirstClass, SomeOtherClass, SomeOtherOtherClass],
'iAlsoDoStuff': function() {/*do stuff */}
})
// finally the class that Extends second class
var ThirdClass = new Class ({
'Extends': SecondClass,
'takeOverTheWorld': function() {/*code to win lottery */}
})
How can I tell if every time secondclass is extended it doesnt make a new copy of the Implemented classes?
The reason I am doing what I am doing above is to Extend SecondClass for every class that needs it - doing so statically, while the second class cannot extend more then one class thus I am using Implements.
The main difference between Extends and Implements is that Implement changes the class's prototype, while Extend creates a copy. This means that if you implement a change into a class all instances of that class will inherit that change instantly, while if you use Extend then all existing instances will remain the same.
this is a quote from the mootorial, check it out. http://mootorial.com/wiki/mootorial/02-class/#implement-vs.-extend
as for the testing - I would very much recommend you build some sample cases with ninja classes and putting them on to http://www.jsfiddle.net - then ask for some analytical advice or the mootools mail list on google or on IRC (irc.freenode.net#mootools), SO does not seem to get many hits from the mootools core team. Ideally, you want to talk to somebody like aaron newton, arian, cpojer or rpflo :)
update: I even blogged about this but I was wrong. There simply is a difference in the order in which mutators like Extends and Implements are brought in. You can implement and extend but you need to declare Extends first for it to work.
Read more here: http://fragged.org/mootools-pattern-fun-class-implements-extends-at-the-same-time_1359.html
update Turns out, there are some cases where this is useful. Here is the problem:
var ninja = new Class({
kill: function() {
alert("kill!");
}
});
var human = new Class({
initialize: function(){
alert("i r human!");
}
});
var badass = new Class({
Implements: [ninja],
Extends: human,
initialize: function() {
alert("i r badass and.. ");
this.parent();
this.kill();
}
});
new badass(); // i r badass, i r human, this.kill is not a function exception.
... simply does not work. You need class human to implement ninja instead and class badass to simply extend human. Aside from the side-effect of humans getting a new kill method (which they may or may not know about), it will mean that badass will be able to use .kill as well as call upon his direct parent human.
Why not rewrite things the way you want them and w/o complications? Because you may be extending a native class like Request.JSONP and then decide to mixin a new storage class into your extended one. True story... Either way, you may not have the luxury of refactoring certain classes available to you.
An interesting pattern to overcome this (consider the human class your request.jsonp, defined elsewhere) - if you just want to add more methods and properties to the class you are extending but don't plan to reuse the mixin class (ninja):
human.implement(new new Class({
kill: function() {
alert("kill!");
}
}));
var badass = new Class({
Extends: human,
initialize: function() {
alert("i r badass and.. ");
this.parent();
this.kill();
}
});
new badass(); // // i r badass, i r human, kill!
Arguably, you could just do human.implement({ method: function }); but a class can be so much more.
If you want to have a saved reference to your ninja class for other uses, the above would would be the same as this (if you plan to reuse your mixin):
var ninja new Class({
kill: function() {
alert("kill!");
}
});
human.implement(new ninja);
// this is what differs from say - instantiation + shared inherited properties.
// also, a constructor will work.
// the alternative would just do:
// human.prototype.kill = function() { alert("kill"); }
var badass = new Class({
Extends: human,
initialize: function() {
alert("i r badass and.. ");
this.parent();
this.kill();
}
});
new badass(); // // i r badass, i r human, kill!
Hope this helps somebody. Here's a practical example where I am extending Request.JSONP with an additional storage class as a mixin: http://jsfiddle.net/dimitar/YacZe/
I finally got my answer on the Mootools google group, thought I would update it here in case some one finds interest in it.
http://groups.google.com/group/mootools-users/browse_thread/thread/5aec78813fa51cc1
Enjoy!
Roman
Extends and Implements are very well tested by Mootools developers themselves. Infact the whole test suite they use is available on anutron/mootools-unittester. You don't need to be testing core functionality of the framework, its done for you (and done very well too).
I'd suggest having a good read up on what Extend and Implement do on the mootools docs, clientcide website, mootorial, etc.
How many objects are you creating by the way? If its not a huge number then memory etc. should not be a major issue even if it was creating the objects in a memory heavy manner. Could this be premature optimisation?