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.
Related
During dehydration I create a custom value:
def dehydrate(self, bundle):
bundle.data['custom_field'] = ["add lots of stuff and return an int"]
return bundle
that I would like to filter on.
/?format=json&custom_field__gt=0...
however I get an error that the "[custom_field] field has no 'attribute' for searching with."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding custom filters, but in both build_filters and apply_filters I can't seem to get access to my custom field to filter on it. On the examples I've seen, it seems like I'd have to redo all the work done in dehydrate in build_filters, e.g.
for all the items:
item['custom_field'] = ["add lots of stuff and return an int"]
filter on item and add to pk_list
orm_filters["pk__in"] = [i.pk for i in pk_list]
which seems wrong, as I'm doing the work twice. What am I missing?
The problem is that dehydration is "per object" by design, while filters are per object_list. That's why you will have to filter it manually and redo work in dehydration.
You can imagine it like this:
# Whole table
[obj, obj1, obj2, obj3, obj4, obj5, obj5]
# filter operations
[...]
# After filtering
[obj1, obj3, obj6]
# Returning
[dehydrate(obj), dehydrate(obj3), dehydrate(obj5)]
In addition you can imagine if you fetch by filtering and you get let say 100 objects. It would be quite inefficient to trigger dehydrate on whole table for instance 100000 records.
And maybe creating new column in model could be candidate solution if you plan to use a lot of filters, ordering etc. I guess its kind of statistic information in this field so if not new column then maybe django aggregation could ease your pain a little.
In order to retrieve a contact, having a cell phone number of 09362724853, I use following code:
$newSMS_contact = new Contact;
$newSMS_contact->retrieve_by_string_fields(array('phone_mobile'=>'09362724853'));
How about retrieving a contact having a cell phone number of 09362724853 OR 9362724853 OR +989362724853 with sugar internal functions?
This doesn't work:
$newSMS_contact = new Contact;
$newSMS_contact->retrieve_by_string_fields(array('phone_mobile'=>'09362724853', 'phone_mobile'=>'9362724853', 'phone_mobile'=>'+989362724853'));
The thing is that the function which you are trying to utilize was created for other goals. Since it fetches only one row from DB and fills a Bean with it, the Array of parameters will be turned into a string separated by AND operators. But you have completely different case.
I would suggest to use another approach, which is less convenient but more reliable:
$contact_bean = new Contact();
$contacts_list = $contact_bean->get_full_list(null, '(phone_mobile = "09362724853" OR phone_mobile = "9362724853" OR phone_mobile = "+989362724853")');
Eventually, you will have an array of beans.
Probably, for some modules, you will need to use table aliases for fields definition into SQL supplement.
If I were you, I'd have strict rules when the phone numbers are put in the system so you can be sure your phone numbers follow a certain format in the database. (Something like E.164: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.164) You can enforce the rules with a custom SugarField (or override one that exists) that has Javascript and Server-side validation.
This way, you won't have to worry about that logic in this piece of the code or anywhere else you want to deal with phone numbers.
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
Sorry for the length, but a picture is worth 1000 words:
In ASP.NET MVC 2, the input form field "name" attribute must contain exactly the syntax below that you would use to reference the object in C# in order to bind it back to the object upon post back. That said, if you have an object like the following where it contains multiple Orders having multiple OrderLines, the names would look and work well like this (case sensitive):
This works:
Order[0].id
Order[0].orderDate
Order[0].Customer.name
Order[0].Customer.Address
Order[0].OrderLine[0].itemID // first order line
Order[0].OrderLine[0].description
Order[0].OrderLine[0].qty
Order[0].OrderLine[0].price
Order[0].OrderLine[1].itemID // second order line, same names
Order[0].OrderLine[1].description
Order[0].OrderLine[1].qty
Order[0].OrderLine[1].price
However we want to add order lines and remove order lines at the client browser. Apparently, the indexes must start at zero and contain every consecutive index number to N.
The black belt ninja Phil Haack's blog entry here explains how to remove the [0] index, have duplicate names, and let MVC auto-enumerate duplicate names with the [0] notation. However, I have failed to get this to bind back using a nested object:
This fails:
Order.id // Duplicate names should enumerate at 0 .. N
Order.orderDate
Order.Customer.name
Order.Customer.Address
Order.OrderLine.itemID // And likewise for nested properties?
Order.OrderLine.description
Order.OrderLine.qty
Order.OrderLine.price
Order.OrderLine.itemID
Order.OrderLine.description
Order.OrderLine.qty
Order.OrderLine.price
I haven't found any advice out there yet that describes how this works for binding back nested ViewModels on post. Any links to existing code examples or strict examples on the exact names necessary to do nested binding with ILists?
Steve Sanderson has code that does this sort of thing here, but we cannot seem to get this to bind back to nested objects. Anything not having the [0]..[n] AND being consecutive in numbering simply drops off of the return object.
Any ideas?
We found a work around, by using the following:
Html.EditorFor(m => m, "ViewNameToUse", "FieldPrefix")
Where FieldPrefix is the "object[0]". This is hardly ideal, but it certainly works pretty well. It's simple and elegant.
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?