I have a many to many relationship in FuelPHP as seen below:
protected static $_many_many = array(
'members' => array(
'key_from' => 'team_id',
'key_through_from' => 'team_id',
'table_through' => 'user_has_team',
'key_through_to' => 'user_id',
'model_to' => 'Model_User',
'key_to' => 'id',
)
);
But I wanted to know if you can have a where clause in the relationship. For example:
protected static $_many_many = array(
'members' => array(
'key_from' => 'team_id',
'key_through_from' => 'team_id',
'table_through' => 'user_has_team',
'key_through_to' => 'user_id',
'model_to' => 'Model_User',
'key_to' => 'id',
'where' => array('account_status' => 'active')
)
);
So it only returns Model_User objects which have their account_status set to 'active'. I know this is pushing it a bit but Fuel is awesome in lots of other was so I though there might be a way to do this.
Obviously you could do this with a query but I wanted to know if there is a way to do it using $_many_many
public function action_your_function_where_you_call_the_user_model()
{
$user = Model_User::find()->where('account_status', 'active')->get();
}
Bit late to the party, but for people hitting this one on a search:
You can define conditions on a relationship definition. At the moment 'where' and 'order_by' clauses are supported.
This conditions are permanent, you can't switch them on or off. So if you need both full and filtered access to a related model, you will have to define two relations.
See http://fuelphp.com/docs/packages/orm/relations/intro.html#usage_rel_conditions for more information.
Related
My goal is being able to:
Create Expertise Entries in the backend (already accomplished)
Create SubExpertise Entries in the backend
(same props as Expertise but
they belong to one or many Expertise)
Create AdditionalInfoTitles Entries in the backend
(they can belong to one or many Expertise OR SubExpertise)
I want to be able to choose Objects from all Expertise AND SubExpertise when creating a new entry
Right now I can only choose between all Expertise-Entries:
That's why I thought about inheritance since then SubExpertise would be of the same type as Expertise and therefore automatically displayed in the Expertise list in a AdditionalInfoTitles entry. But that's just my theory and I'm kinda stuck in reality with typo3 TCA and other knowledge that I'm lacking...
In my extension builder I made following (don't mind the subExpertises property)
Then I added expertise to the Overrides folder, because I'm trying to extend it with subexpertise:
<?php
if (!defined('TYPO3_MODE')) {
die ('Access denied.');
}
$temporaryColumns = array (
'expertise' => array(
'exclude' => 1,
'label' => 'LLL:EXT:appoints/Resources/Private/Language/locallang_db.xlf:tx_appoints_domain_model_subexpertise.expertise',
'config' => array(
'type' => 'select',
'foreign_table' => 'tx_appoints_domain_model_subexpertise',
'MM' => 'tx_appoints_subexpertise_expertise_mm',
'size' => 10,
'autoSizeMax' => 30,
'maxitems' => 9999,
'multiple' => 0,
'wizards' => array(
'_PADDING' => 1,
'_VERTICAL' => 1,
'edit' => array(
'module' => array(
'name' => 'wizard_edit',
),
'type' => 'popup',
'title' => 'Edit',
'icon' => 'edit2.gif',
'popup_onlyOpenIfSelected' => 1,
'JSopenParams' => 'height=350,width=580,status=0,menubar=0,scrollbars=1',
),
'add' => Array(
'module' => array(
'name' => 'wizard_add',
),
'type' => 'script',
'title' => 'Create new',
'icon' => 'add.gif',
'params' => array(
'table' => 'tx_appoints_domain_model_expertise',
'pid' => '###CURRENT_PID###',
'setValue' => 'prepend'
),
),
),
),
),
);
\TYPO3\CMS\Core\Utility\ExtensionManagementUtility::addTCAcolumns(
'tx_appoints_domain_model_expertise',
$temporaryColumns
);
\TYPO3\CMS\Core\Utility\ExtensionManagementUtility::addToAllTCAtypes(
'tx_appoints_domain_model_expertise',
'expertise'
);
But I don't think I'm going into the right direction with this -
Because I think this way I'm not gonna be able to add a SubExpertise in the backend separately from an Expertise - I already have the same problem with my Objects that extend fe_user because when creating them I usually have to go through a new User and then set the extension type - but this way I don't have separate listings of the different entities that extend fe_user.
I would get rid of the separation between Expertise and SubExpertise for the most part. According to your description a SubExpertise cannot have another SubExpertise as its parent, so you can adapt the select field that it only lists Expertises which have an empty parent field.
By removing the difference the problem of selecting (Sub)Expertise's in AdditionalInfoTitles is removed; it's just one and the same type of objects.
If you need to differentiate in the presentation in the BE forms there are plenty of options to adjust the labels of the listed items, use a function of your own to build the list or even a custom form element.
In Extbase you can simply write a few functions in your repository to fetch Expertise's, SubExpertise's or both.
If the entity SubExpertise does not have a meaning in your domain model, Jigal's answer is perfect for your scenario. If it does have a meaning, you can achieve that using single table inheritance in Extbase.
class Expertise extends \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\DomainObject\AbstractEntity
{
// all common properties
}
class SubExpertise extends Expertise
{
/**
* #var \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage<\[YourVendorName]\Appoints\Domain\Model\Expertise>
*/
protected $expertises;
public function __construct()
{
$this->expertises = new \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage();
}
public function getExpertises() {}
public function setExpertises($expertises) {}
}
Via TypoScript then you have to define mapping rules, since both Expertise and SubExpertise would be stored in the same table tx_appoints_domain_model_subexpertise.
You'll find more details on single table inheritance in the Extbase book.
I've encoutered problem with filtering pages to display in WP query.
I use Codex WP query reference for custom fields with ACF (Advanced Custom Fields plugin - but it doesn't matter, couse it works same as WP custom field) parameters to filter pages.
In "Multiple Custom Field Handling" paragraph, Codex got an example with 2 conditions. We can use OR or AND relation. I works for both until you have 3rd condition (array).
They use example:
'relation' => 'OR',
array(
'key' => 'color',
'value' => 'blue',
'compare' => 'NOT LIKE'
),
array(
'key' => 'price',
'value' => array( 20, 100 ),
'type' => 'numeric',
'compare' => 'BETWEEN'
)
It has only 2 arrays. When I put 3rd, nothing shows. In debug mode I can see an error:
WordPress database error: [Lost connection to MySQL server during query]
When I use AND it works, but I got to use OR. Unfortunately it makes MySQL disconnect.
I've tryed asking phpMySQL for same query WP does. It couses problem - phpMyAdmin says same:
Lost connection
Any Idea?
Maybe I should try different aproach for filtering? (maybe I should use taxonomy?)
Here is code I use:
$query_array = array('relation' => 'OR');
array_push($query_array,
array(
'key' => 'filter1',
'value' => 'value1',
'compare' => 'LIKE'
),
array(
'key' => 'filter1',
'value' => 'value2',
'compare' => 'LIKE'
),
array(
'key' => 'filter1',
'value' => 'value3',
'compare' => 'LIKE'
)
);
$args = array(
'order' => $order_array,
'meta_key' => $meta_key,
'orderby' => $orderby,
'post_type' => 'page',
'paged' => $paged,
'post__in' => $postIDs,
'posts_per_page' => 12,
'paged' => get_query_var('paged'),
'meta_query' => $query_array
);
query_posts($args);
?>
(variables for $args are set of course)
I don't know why I can't use
'compare' => '='
but probably it is why I can't use:
$query_array = array('relation' => 'OR');
array_push($query_array,
array(
'key' => 'filter1',
'value' => array('value1', 'value2', 'value3'),
'compare' => 'IN'
)
);
Just wanted to say that your comment helped me; I'd been butting my head against a very similar problem for a while. I'm using ACF too, and using it to attach items of one post type to another custom post type was easy - for instance, to Attach Person_1 and Person_3 to "Project_A".
This made it easy to list out which users were attached to specific projects. But when it came to do the same in reverse - to show which projects were attached to which users - it became a massive headache.
I finally figured it out, in part thanks to your comment - I'll post my solution here in case someone else comes along with the same problem:
$args = array(
'numberposts' => -1,
'post_type' => 'project',
'meta_query' => array(
'relation' => 'IN',
array(
'key' => 'people',
'value' => ';s:1:"' . $person->ID . '";',
'compare' => 'LIKE'
)
)
);
In short: because the ACF values in repeater fields et cetera are serialized, the compare keyword has to be "LIKE", and I added some context to the value to eliminate false returns - just searching for an ID like "1" would match a lot of the (wrong) posts, but the ";s1;" part ensures that the given value is at index 1, which in my case is the correct index.
So it would need tweaking from case to case. Inspecting what you're trying to match up with var_dumping "get_post_meta($post->ID, 'people')" is helpful for getting the value correct.
I have a the need to add a single line of code to locallib.php in the \mod\lti directory . ('custom_user' => $USER->username,)
$requestparams = array(
'resource_link_id' => $instance->id,
'resource_link_title' => $instance->name,
'resource_link_description' => $instance->intro,
'user_id' => $USER->id,
'roles' => $role,
'context_id' => $course->id,
'context_label' => $course->shortname,
'context_title' => $course->fullname,
'launch_presentation_locale' => current_language()
);
$requestparams = array(
'resource_link_id' => $instance->id,
'resource_link_title' => $instance->name,
'resource_link_description' => $instance->intro,
'user_id' => $USER->id,
'custom_user' => $USER->username,
'roles' => $role,
'context_id' => $course->id,
'context_label' => $course->shortname,
'context_title' => $course->fullname,
'launch_presentation_locale' => current_language()
);
Is there a right way to do this? Looking at plugins, it seems that they are for adding whole new functions, not just patching individual existing code.
Just having a look at the module - haven't come across it before.
There are custom parameters but they look like literal values.
I would say its okay to put that code in. Although I would probably add // CUSTOM before and after the mod.
I usualy use Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists to update or insert a record. This works fine with one field to check against. How to do it if you have two fields to check?
$validator = new Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists(
array(
'table' => $this->_name,
'field' => 'id_sector,day_of_week'
)
);
if ($validator->isValid($fields_values['id_sector'],$fields_values['day_of_week'])){
//true
}
I tried it with an array and comma separated list, nothing works... Any help is welcome.
Regards
Andrea
To do this you would have to extend the Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists class.
It doesn't currently know how to check for the existence of more than one field.
You could just use two different validator instances to check the two fields separately. This is the only work around that I can see right now besides extending it.
If you choose to extend it then you'll have to find some way of passing in all the fields to the constructor ( array seems like a good choice ), and then you'll have to dig into the method that creates the sql query. In this method you'll have to loop over the array of fields that were passed in to the constructor.
You should look into using the exclude parameter. Something like this should do what you want:
$validator = new Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists(
array(
'table' => $this->_name,
'field' => 'id_sector',
'exclude' => array(
'field' => 'day_of_week',
'value' => $fields_values['day_of_week']
)
);
The exclude field will effectively add to the automatically generated WHERE part to create something equivalent to this:
WHERE `id_sector` = $fields_values['id_sector'] AND `day_of_week` = $fields_values['day_of_week']
Its kind of a hack in that we're using it for the opposite of what it was intended, but its working for me similar to this (I'm using it with Db_NoRecordExists).
Source: Zend_Validate_Db_NoRecordExists example
Sorry for the late reply.
The best option that worked for me is this:
// create an instance of the Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists class
// pass in the database table name and the first field (as usual)...
$validator = new Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists(array(
'table' => 'tablename',
'field' => 'first_field'
));
// reset the where clause used by Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists
$validator->getSelect()->reset('where');
// set again the first field and the second field.
// :value is a named parameter that will be substituted
// by the value passed to the isValid method
$validator->getSelect()->where('first_field = ?', $first_field);
$validator->getSelect()->where('second_field = :value', $second_field);
// add your new record exist based on 2 fields validator to your element.
$element = new Zend_Form_Element_Text('element');
$element->addValidator($validator);
// add the validated element to the form.
$form->addElement($element);
I hope that will help someone :)
Although, I would strongly recommend a neater solution which would be to extend the Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists class with the above code.
Enjoy!!
Rosario
$dbAdapter = Zend_Db_Table::getDefaultAdapter();
'validators' => array('EmailAddress', $obj= new Zend_Validate_Db_NoRecordExists(array('adapter'=>$dbAdapter,
'field'=>'email',
'table'=>'user',
'exclude'=>array('field'=>'email','value'=>$this->_options['email'], 'field'=>'is_deleted', 'value'=>'1')
))),
For those using Zend 2, If you want to check if user with given id and email exists in table users, It is possible this way.
First, you create the select object that will be use as parameter for the Zend\Validator\Db\RecordExists object
$select = new Zend\Db\Sql\Select();
$select->from('users')
->where->equalTo('id', $user_id)
->where->equalTo('email', $email);
Now, create RecordExists object and check the existence this way
$validator = new Zend\Validator\Db\RecordExists($select);
$validator->setAdapter($dbAdapter);
if ($validator->isValid($username)) {
echo 'This user is valid';
} else {
//get and display errors
$messages = $validator->getMessages();
foreach ($messages as $message) {
echo "$message\n";
}
}
This sample is from ZF2 official doc
You can use the 'exclude' in this parameter pass the second clause that you want to filter through.
$clause = 'table.field2 = value';
$validator = new Zend_Validate_Db_RecordExists(
array(
'table' => 'table',
'field' => 'field1',
'exclude' => $clause
)
);
if ($validator->isValid('value') {
true;
}
I am using zend framework v.3 and validation via InputFilter(), it uses same validation rules as zend framework 2.
In my case I need to check, if location exists in db (by 'id' field) and has needed company's id ('company_id' field).
I implemented it in next way:
$clause = new Operator('company_id', Operator::OP_EQ, $companyId);
$inputFilter->add([
'name' => 'location_id',
'required' => false,
'filters' => [
['name' => 'StringTrim'],
['name' => 'ToInt'],
],
'validators' => [
[
'name' => 'Int',
],
[
'name' => 'dbRecordExists',
'options' => [
'adapter' => $dbAdapterCore,
'table' => 'locations',
'field' => 'id',
'exclude' => $clause,
'messages' => [
'noRecordFound' => "Location does not exist.",
],
]
],
],
]);
In this case validation will pass, only if 'locations' table has item with columns id == $value and company_id == $companyId, like next:
select * from location where id = ? AND company_id = ?
I'm using lithium with mongodb and I would like to know with my models below how I could get the data of the user from Posts::find('all'); query?
Do I have to do two queries?
Thanks for your help!
<?php
namespace app\models;
class Posts extends \lithium\data\Model {
protected $_schema = array(
'_id' => array('type' => 'id'),
'name' => array('type' => 'string', 'null' => false),
'description' => array('type' => 'string', 'null' => false),
'created' => array('type' => 'datetime'),
'updated' => array('type' => 'datetime'),
'user_id' => array('type' => 'integer')
);
protected $_meta = array(
'key' => '_id',
);
public $belongsTo = array('Users');
}
?>
<?php
namespace app\models;
class Users extends \lithium\data\Model {
public $hasMany = array('Posts');
public $validates = array(
'name' => 'Please enter a name',
);
protected $_schema = array(
'_id' => array('type' => 'id'),
'name' => array('type' => 'string', 'null' => false),
'slug' => array('type' => 'string', 'null' => false),
'created' => array('type' => 'datetime', 'null' => false),
);
}
?>
Currently relationships only exist for relational databases like MySQL and SQLite3. As such you'll need to make two queries to get the data you want. We're working on adding support for relationships for document based databases now however there currently is no timeframe on that.
You can use Set::extract on your result from posts to pull all of the user id's out then use the results from that to make a single query from users - so from posts you could do $userIDs = Set::extract('/posts/user_id', $posts->data()); then User::find('all', array('conditions' => array('_id' => $userIDs)));
hope this helps.
edit: You can find set::extract information here: http://li3.me/docs/lithium/util/Set::extract()
Do I have to do two queries?
This will depend on your schema.
Case #1
If Users and Posts are two different collections then you will need two different queries.
Case #2
If Users is the top level object and Posts "belongs to" Users then you would do something equivalent to db.users.find({ posts : {$exists:true} }).
I'm not 100% clear on how Lithium handles this. I cannot find a simple example of whether Lithium is doing #1 or #2.
As Howard3 said, there is currently no relationship support for MongoDB and as a result "belongs to" won't work either.
The actual decision depends on your application, but i assume that its going to be some form of a blog (users and posts). According to MongoDB schema design best practices, i'd put both in separate collections because they are "first level collections". a better fit for embedded documents would be posts and comments.
Also, you don't have to define the 'key' stuff when you're on latest master. You can write a custom find method for now that could be easily swapped to the more generic solution when relation support is finished in the core.
if you need more interactive help, visit #li3 on freenode.