I'm building a form with Yii that updates two models at once.
The form takes the inputs for each model as $modelA and $modelB and then handles them separately as described here http://www.yiiframework.com/wiki/19/how-to-use-a-single-form-to-collect-data-for-two-or-more-models/
This is all good. The difference I have to the example is that $modelA (documents) has to be saved and its ID retrieved and then $modelB has to be saved including the ID from $model A as they are related.
There's an additional twist that $modelB has a file which needs to be saved.
My action code is as follows:
if(isset($_POST['Documents'], $_POST['DocumentVersions']))
{
$modelA->attributes=$_POST['Documents'];
$modelB->attributes=$_POST['DocumentVersions'];
$valid=$modelA->validate();
$valid=$modelB->validate() && $valid;
if($valid)
{
$modelA->save(false); // don't validate as we validated above.
$newdoc = $modelA->primaryKey; // get the ID of the document just created
$modelB->document_id = $newdoc; // set the Document_id of the DocumentVersions to be $newdoc
// todo: set the filename to some long hash
$modelB->file=CUploadedFile::getInstance($modelB,'file');
// finish set filename
$modelB->save(false);
if($modelB->save()) {
$modelB->file->saveAs(Yii::getPathOfAlias('webroot').'/uploads/'.$modelB->file);
}
$this->redirect(array('projects/myprojects','id'=>$_POST['project_id']));
}
}
ELSE {
$this->render('create',array(
'modelA'=>$modelA,
'modelB'=>$modelB,
'parent'=>$id,
'userid'=>$userid,
'categories'=>$categoriesList
));
}
You can see that I push the new values for 'file' and 'document_id' into $modelB. What this all works no problem, but... each time I push one of these values into $modelB I seem to get an new instance of $modelA. So the net result, I get 3 new documents, and 1 new version. The new version is all linked up correctly, but the other two documents are just straight duplicates.
I've tested removing the $modelB update steps, and sure enough, for each one removed a copy of $modelA is removed (or at least the resulting database entry).
I've no idea how to prevent this.
UPDATE....
As I put in a comment below, further testing shows the number of instances of $modelA depends on how many times the form has been submitted. Even if other pages/views are accessed in the meantime, if the form is resubmitted within a short period of time, each time I get an extra entry in the database. If this was due to some form of persistence, then I'd expect to get an extra copy of the PREVIOUS model, not multiples of the current one. So I suspect something in the way its saving, like there is some counter that's incrementing, but I've no idea where to look for this, or how to zero it each time.
Some help would be much appreciated.
thanks
JMB
OK, I had Ajax validation set to true. This was calling the create action and inserting entries. I don't fully get this, or how I could use ajax validation if I really wanted to without this effect, but... at least the two model insert with relationship works.
Thanks for the comments.
cheers
JMB
Related
Am running a form using fluid with two fields, username and password. When first run, correct data is sent to the action. When different data is resubmitted, original data is sent to the controller action instead of the new values. How do I solve this problem?
EDIT: I've discovered that an array containing the user-submitted form fields and their values are obtained from the request, serialized as is and the string stored in a hidden input field called '__referrer[arguments]', which is then submitted with the form back to the user. When the user resubmits the form again with new values, the user doesn't realize that the old values are in the form, in the form of a serialized string, which is submitted together with the new values. Turns out, this is ok if no errors are reported by the validators. In that case the data is simply passed to the controller action and processing continues. But if errors are collected, processing is not sent to the controller action but is sent to the error action. The error action unserializes the old data and forwards that data (instead of the the new values) to the intended action controller. See \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Mvc\Controller\ActionController::forwardToReferringRequest().
EDIT: Steps to reproduce;
Create an action with one argument and create a form with one input element and a submit button. Create a validator for the element. Make it a string property. When all is said and done, start by sending a VALID value and let the form return. it will come back with no errors. but also if you look at it's hidden values, you find that the __referrer[arguments] has changes. That's because your previous values were serialized and are there. Now submit an INVALID value and check values entering your action. You'll be stunned they are the old ones.
This is weird. Currently if I disable the production of the __referrer[arguments] input field in the \TYPO3\CMS\Fluid\ViewHelpers\FormViewHelper::renderHiddenReferrerFields() method, everything works properly. How do I solve this? Please help.
Where things go wrong:
Here: \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Mvc\Controller\ActionController::forwardToReferringRequest() . In this method, arguments are sought from __referrer internal arguments instead of the submitted values. Normally, if errors are found, only two elements are found in the arguments form variable: controller for controller name and action for action name. This is because they were submitted originally with the form and they will recycle without changing as long as the validator finds errors. Nothing else will be added to it. This is good... until it validates. When it validates, results are sent directly to the action controller and not through the error controller. When the process goes back to the form, the object or arguments submitted will be added to the form and returned to the user. Remember it validated. When you then send a wrong value next, it goes to the error controller, but the old values (that validated) and were serialized in the __referrer[arguments] are unserialized and forwarded to your action. And that's how you end up with old values in your action. This is because it assumes that the variable carries only two values inside it; the controller and action names only. It's wrong.
Assumption:
Form post values processing seem to be built under the presumption that once a form validates, you won't need it again.
News.
The values you send are sought from extbase arguments and serialized in \TYPO3\CMS\Fluid\ViewHelpers\FormViewHelper::renderHiddenReferrerFields() method, added to the form just before presenting it to you. All TYPO3 has to do is skip your values and let the default values only be serialized. Just saw that the doc section of the function has this:
/**
* Renders hidden form fields for referrer information about
* the current controller and action.
*
* #return string Hidden fields with referrer information
* #todo filter out referrer information that is equal to the target (e.g. same packageKey)
*/
The #todo part is the news. Hope it's done in the next-patch since there are many scenarios where you want to resume the form such as in data entry.
Solution
Easiest solution: Initialize the empty argument in your action and hand the argument to the form. In my case, I use a DTO.
Example
public function accountLoginAction(DTO\Account\LoginDTO $accountLogin=null):ResponseInterface
{
if($accountLogin){
$this->repository->logon();
...
} else{
$accountLogin=DTO\Account\LoginDTO::getNewInstance();
}
$this->view->assign('object', $accountLogin);
return $this->response();
}
Hope it helps someone.
TLDR: What is request.resource.data.size() counting in the firestore rules when writing, say, some booleans and a nested Object to a document? Not sure what the docs mean by "entries in the map" (https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.firestore.Resource#data, https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.Map) and my assumptions appear to be wrong when testing in the rules simulator (similar problem with request.resource.data.keys().size()).
Longer version: Running into a problem in Firestore rules where not being able to update data as expected (despite similar tests working in the rules simulator). Have narrowed down the problem to point where can see that it is a rule checking for request.resource.data.size() equaling a certain number.
An example of the data being passed to the firestore update function looks like
Object {
"parentObj": Object {
"nestedObj": Object {
"key1": Timestamp {
"nanoseconds": 998000000,
"seconds": 1536498767,
},
},
},
"otherKey": true,
}
where the timestamp is generated via firebase.firestore.Timestamp.now().
This appears to work fine in the rules simulator, but not for the actual data when doing
let obj = {}
obj.otherKey = true
// since want to set object key name dynamically as nestedObj value,
// see https://stackoverflow.com/a/47296152/8236733
obj.parentObj = {} // needed for adding nested dynamic keys
obj.parentObj[nestedObj] = {
key1: fb.firestore.Timestamp.now()
}
firebase.firestore.collection('mycollection')
.doc('mydoc')
.update(obj)
Among some other rules, I use the rule request.resource.data.size() == 2 and this appears to be the rules that causes a permission denied error (since commenting out this rules get things working again). Would think that since the object is being passed with 2 (top-level) keys, then request.resource.data.size()=2, but this is apparently not the case (nor is it the number of keys total in the passed object) (similar problem with request.resource.data.keys().size()). So there's a long example to a short question. Would be very helpful if someone could clarify for me what is going wrong here.
From my last communications with firebase support around a month ago - there were issues with request.resource.data.size() and timestamp based security rules for queries.
I was also told that request.resource.data.size() is the size of the document AFTER a successful write. So if you're writing 2 additional keys to a document with 4 keys, that value you should be checking against is 6, not 2.
Having said all that - I am still having problems with request.resource.data.size() and any alternatives such as request.resource.size() which seems to be used in this documentation
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/solutions/role-based-access
I also have some places in my security rules where it seems to work. I personally don't know why that is though.
Been struggling with that for a few hours and I see now that the doc on Firebase is clear: "the request.resource variable contains the future state of the document". So with ALL the fields, not only the ones being sent.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/security/rules-conditions#data_validation.
But there is actually another way to ONLY count the number of fields being sent with request.writeFields.size(). The property writeFields is a table with all the incoming fields.
Beware: writeFields is deprecated and may stop working anytime, but I have not found any replacement.
EDIT: writeFields apparently does not work in the simulator anymore...
When fields are nested, there is a problem.
foreach (Word.Field field in this.Application.ActiveDocument.Fields)
{
field.Update();
text = field.Result.Text;
}
The above code does not work.
The process starts, but winds up in an endless loop or some other process that hangs the system.
Thinking about it, I can surmise that when you update a field, it might have an effect on the fields collection - thus, the loop fails.
Does anyone have any ideas on implementing this?
P.S. I know there is a Document.UpdateFields() method to update ALL fields. However, there are reasons why I cannot use this and need to only update specific field types.
My apologies! I was going to give an example of a nested field but was trying to test some more before sending anyone (Jack) on a goose-chase.
I waited and waited and waited, and after a good 2 or 3 minutes, it finished. After the last field, it crashed with this message:
Object has been deleted.
The error was generated from the following line inside the loop:
string text = field.Code.Text;
The template is being tested on mergefields that are not being found because I am testing without database connectivity. It would be odd, but explainable, that it goes through all the fields and then, at the end of the day, the very OUTER IF field's result is "Error! Reference source not found." But I still don't get why this could happen.
Nor do I understand why looping takes 3 minutes while a call to document.Fields.Update() will do the same thing in about 1 second and NOT result in the error described above.
Again, my apologies. I never considered updating inside a loop would be vastly slower that a call to doc.fields.update().
I've searched around the web for a way to achieve this, and found multiple solutions. Most of them had messy code, all of them drawbacks. Some ideas involved setting default values of all the db fields based on a record. Others worked by appending multiple SQLFORMs, which resulted in differences in indentation on the page (because it's 2 HTML tables in 1 form).
I'm looking for a compact and elegant way of providing a read-only representation of a record based on a join on two tables. Surely there must be some simple way to achieve this, right? The Web2py book only contains an example of an insert-form. It's this kind of neat solution I am looking for.
In the future I will probably need multi-table forms that provide update functionality as well, but for now I'll be happy if I can get a simple read-only form for a record.
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions.
This seems to work for me:
def test():
fields = [db.tableA[field] for field in db.tableA.keys() \
if type(db.tableA[field]) == type(db.tableA.some_field)]
fields += [db.tableB[field] for field in db.tableB.keys() \
if type(db.tableB[field]) == type(db.tableB.some_field)]
ff = []
for field in fields:
ff.append(Field(field.name, field.type))
form = SQLFORM.factory(*ff, readonly=True)
return dict(form=form)
You could add in field.required, field.requires validtaors, etc. And also, since you're using SQLFORM.factory, you should be able to validate it and to updates/inserts. Just make sure that the form you are building using this method contains all of the necessary information to validate the form for update -- I believe you can add them easily to the Field instantiation above.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and you need to get the values of the record in question to pre-populate the form based on a record id (after form is defined)... also.. I just realized that instead of those list comprehensions, you can just use SQLFORM.factory and provide the two tables:
def test():
form = SQLFORM.factory(db.tableA, db.tableB, readonly=True)
record = ... (query for your record, probably based on an id in request.args(0))
for field in record.keys():
if (*test if this really is a field*):
form.vars[field] = record[field]
return dict(form=form)
Some tweaking will be required since I only provided psuedo-code for the pre-population... but look at: http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/7#Pre-populating-the-form and the SQLFORM/SQLFORM.factory sections.
I'm using Symfony 1.2 with Doctrine. I have a Place model with translations in two languages. This Place model has also a nested set behaviour.
I'm having problems now creating a new place that belongs to another node. I've tried two options but both of them fail:
1 option
$this->mergeForm(new PlaceTranslationForm($this->object->Translation[$lang->getCurrentCulture()]));
If I merge the form, what happens is that the value of the place_id field id an array. I suppose is because it is waiting a real object with an id. If I try to set place_id='' there is another error.
2 option
$this->mergeI18n(array($lang->getCurrentCulture()));
public function mergeI18n($cultures, $decorator = null)
{
if (!$this->isI18n())
{
throw new sfException(sprintf('The model "%s" is not internationalized.', $this->getModelName()));
}
$class = $this->getI18nFormClass();
foreach ($cultures as $culture)
{
$i18nObject = $this->object->Translation[$culture];
$i18n = new $class($i18nObject);
unset($i18n['id']);
$i18n->widgetSchema['lang'] = new sfWidgetFormInputHidden();
$this->mergeForm($i18n); // pass $culture too
}
}
Now the error is:
Couldn't hydrate. Found non-unique key mapping named 'lang'.
Looking at the sql, the id is not defined; so it can't be a duplicate record (I have a unique key (id, lang))
Any idea of what can be happening?
thanks!
It looks like the issues you are having are related to embedding forms within each other, which can be tricky. You will likely need to do things in the updateObject/bind methods of the parent form to get it to pass its values correctly to its child forms.
This article is worth a read:
http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/rotapken/2009/03/13/symfony-merge-embedded-form/comment-page-1/
It gives some good info on how embedding (and mergeing) forms work. The technique the article uses will probably work for you, but I've not used I18n in sf before, so it may well be that there is a more elegant solution built in?