I'm creating a code generator for Xcode code and it's interface markup
I notice that the "ID" xml attribute from UI controls has some scrambled value, I was wondering what is the logic generating this info.
would it be just a apple approach to make it harder to create self generated code?
would I be able to make my generated app work with my-own-whatever-IDvalue setup?
I'm developing it anyway with any value and it is working fine so far, but not sure when it gets more complex
edwin, mine is an examination only, and from having tried to tweak the .storyboard/.nib code in the past, and having had to match up these ids, i think the only things that are critical are that:
the ids can contain "0-9" "A-Z" "a-z" and dashes ('-')
they must be unique and cannot conflict with other ids within the same xml
they must match in declaration and identifier
ids for storyboard scenes and for controllers seem to be numeric, starting at the top of the file and ascending
ids for views seem to consist of a triple of the form xxx-xx-xxx
if you stick with that, and especially if you don't expect to then tweak the generated files, you should be safe. even if you do expect to tweak the files, Xcode should honor those ids you've generated as long as they're unique. i just don't know what would happen if you then add a view that creates an id that conflicts with one you've generated.
Does anyone have a definitive answer on how these identities are created? "orR-Rm-srM" appears to be a base-62 number with each digit being a-zA-Z0-9. I've heard comments that the identity is a randomly generated value, but I have a hard time believing that since it would require unnecessary lookup tables during compilation.
Tom
Related
I have a situation as described in the ExtbaseFluid book:
I would like to store information in the intermediate table which is not recommended at all.
Here is a cite from the warning box of the above linked book chapter:
Do not store data in the Intermediate Table that concern the Domain. Though TYPO3 supports this (especially in combination with Inline Relational Record Editing (IRRE) but this is always a sign that further improvements can be made to your Domain Model. Intermediate Tables are and should always be tools for storing relationships and nothing else.
Let’s say you want to store a CD with its containing music tracks: CD -- m:n (Intermediate Table) -- Song. The track number may be stored in a field of the Intermediate Table. However, the track should be stored as a separate domain object, and the connection be realized as CD -- 1:n -- Track -- n:1 -- Song.
So I want not to do what is not recommended. But thinking about the workflow for the editor that results of the recommended solution rises a few question for me.
To stay with this example I would need the following tables:
tx_extname_domain_model_cd
tx_extname_domain_model_cd_track_mm
tx_extname_domain_model_track (which holds the track number)
tx_extname_domain_model_track_song_mm
tx_extname_domain_model_song
From what I know this would end in the situation that the editor would need to create following records:
one record for the cd
one record for the song
now the editor can create one record for the track.
There the track number is added.
Furthermore the cd record needs to be assigned as well as the song.
So here are my questions:
I guess this workflow cannot be improved with some (to me unknown) TCA setup?
An editor cannot directly reach the song when the cd record is opened?
Instead first she / he has to open the track record and can from there navigate to the song?
Is it really that bad to store data in the intermediate table? The TYPO3 table sys_file_reference does the same!? But I wonder how those data could be shown (because IRRE is not possible because it shall only be used for 1:n relations (source).
The question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to do coding by the book, or do I want to create a pragmatic approach to solve a customer's problem?
In this specific case the additional problem is, that the people who originally invented Extbase had a quite sophisticated and academic approach, but when it comes to a pragmatic use and performance, they were blocked by their own rules and stuck with coding by the book.
Especially this example and the warning message shows a way of thinking that was one of the reasons, why I never actually used Extbase but went for Core-API methods to create performant and pragmatic queries to get the desired result sets. Now that we've got Doctrine under the hood, this works like a charm even with quite exotic DB flavors.
Of course intermediate tables are a good idea and of course those intermediate tables can and should be enriched with additional data fields, that do not require a 3rd, 4th or nth table to store i.e. a simple set of dropdown options, since this can easily be handled with attributes configured in TCA, as it is shown here: https://docs.typo3.org/m/typo3/reference-tca/master/en-us/ColumnsConfig/Type/Inline/Examples.html
sys_file_reference is the most prominent example since it provides exactly that kind of additional information that should not be pumped into additional tables - and guess what, the TYPO3 core does not make use of a single line of Extbase code to deal with that data or almost any other data of the core tables.
To answer your last question: Take a look at the good old IRRE Tutorial to get a clue how to do m:n connections with intermediate inline tables.
https://docs.typo3.org/typo3cms/extensions/irre_tutorial/0.4.0/Manual/Index.html#intermediate-tables-for-m-n-relations
Depends on the issue, sometimes the intermediate table is an entity, sometimes not. In this example the intermediate table is the track, which would contain: [uid, cd, song, track_no, ... (whatever else needed to define the track)]
Be carefull when you define your data, that you do not make it too advanced.
I try to design database tables for the case shown below. I also have an account defined, but it's not important regarding my problem.
There is a list of operations (expenses). Each operation can take place in specified POI, places can be grouped in chains (optional). Each operation can have a recipient, specifically a shop chain.
My current design looks like below. I could even remove chain table in favor of direct reference to recipient, but it still leaves a loop between tables. Effectively, single row could contain references to place and receiving account having different recipient defined.
The only solution I can see is a table check to exclude described case, but I'm wondering: is there a better fix?
As far as I can tell there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with your design. There's no need to change it just because it contains a loop. The loop in this case doesn't even appear to be a circular dependency. If you believe your current design accurately models what it is intended to then I see no need to change it.
I am developing a Novell Identity Manager driver for Salesforce.com, and am trying to understand the Salesforce.com platform better.
I have had really good success to date. I can read pretty much arbitrary object classes out of SFDC, and create eDirectory objects for them, and what not. This is all done and working nicely. (Publisher Channel). Once I got Query events mapped out, most everything started working in the Publisher Channel.
I am now working on sending events back to SFDC (Subscriber channel) when changes occur in eDirectory.
I am using the upsert() function in the SOAP API, and with Novell Identity Manager, you basically build the SOAP doc, and can see the results as you build it. (You can do it in XSLT or you can use the various allowed tokens to build the document in DirXML Script. I am using DirXML Script which has been working well so far.).
The upshot of that comment is that I can build the SOAP document, see it, to be sure I get it right. Which is usually different than the Java/C++ approach that the sample code usually provides. Much more visual this way.
There are several things about upsert() that I do not entirely understand. I know how to blank a value, should I get that sort of event. Inside the <urn:sObjects> node, add a node like (assuming you get your namespaces declared already):
<urn1:fieldsToNull>FieldName</urn1:fieldsToNull>
I know how to add a value (AttrValue) to the attribute (FieldName), add a node like:
<FieldName>AttrValue</FieldName>
All this works and is pretty straight forward.
The question I have is, can a value in SFDC be multi-valued? In eDirectory, a multi valued attribute being changed, can happen two ways:
All values can be removed, and the new set re-added.
The single value removed can be sent as that sort of event (remove-value) or many values can be removed in one operation.
Looking at SFDC, I only ever see Multi-picklist attributes that seem to be stored in a single entry : or ; delimited. Is there another kind of multi valued attribute managed differently in SFDC? And if so, how would one manipulate it via the SOAP API?
I still have to decide if I want to map those multi-picklists to a single string, or a multi valued attribute of strings. First way is easier, second way is more useful... Hmmm... Choices...
Some references:
I have been using the page Sample SOAP messages to understand what the docs should look like.
Apex Explorer is a kicking tool for browsing the database and testing queries. Much like DBVisualizer does for JDBC connected databases. This would have been so much harder without it!
SoapUi is also required, and a lovely tool!
As far as I know there's no multi-value field other than multi-select picklists (and they map to semicolon-separated string). Generally platform encourages you to create a proper relationship with another (possibly new, custom) table if you're in need of having multiple values associated to your data.
Only other "unusual" thing I can think of is how the OwnerId field on certain objects (Case, Lead, maybe something else) can be used to point to User or Queue record. Looks weird when you are used to foreign key relationships from traditional databases. But this is not identical with what you're asking as there will be only one value at a time.
Of course you might be surpised sometimes with values you'll see in the database depending on the viewing user's locale (stuff like System Administrator profile becoming Systeembeheerder in Dutch). But this will be still a single value, translated on the fly just before the query results are sent back to you.
When I had to perform SOAP integration with SFDC, I've always used WSDL files and most of the time was fine with Java code generated out of them with Apache Axis. Hand-crafting the SOAP message yourself seems... wow, hardcore a bit. Are you sure you prefer visualisation of XML over the creation of classes, exceptions and all this stuff ready for use with one of several out-of-the-box integration methods? If they'll ever change the WSDL I need just to regenerate the classes from it; whereas changes to your SOAP message creation library might be painful...
I wrote my first program almost fifty years ago (yes, coding is still a blast, managing big projects with many programmers was not), but my Von Neumann thinking gets in the way.
I want to (a) load default values and (b) account for multiple languages more elegantly (?) than 60-plus iterations of NSLocalizedString. Can I park all of this data into what amounts to a record with fields like this: (key value stuff), (tweak-able user prompt / screen name / whatever), (tasteful default), (user-supplied value)? NSUserDefault has worked well so far; Core Data looks like overkill (?), and sql lite, well, where's Oracle when you need it?
It is certainly possible to store this information in plists and make them localizable; right-click the plist in the Groups & Files window -> get info then select 'Add Localization' at the bottom left.
Enter the country code you would like to support and xCode will go ahead and create a language specific version of the resource.
Your code doesn't need to know about any of this since your app will know it supports a language (when you make the file localized) so any plist key value requests that exist already will be mapped to the appropriate value (depending on the current language).
Same applies for your xibs etc.
Personally, I use NSLocalizedString for strings generated inside the code and plists for resources, since it is easier to get the strings I need translated to the translators this way (Can't assume they can edit a plist).
Hope this helps
What are some possible designs to deal with frequently changing data forms?
I have a basic CRUD web application where the main data entry form changes yearly. So each record should be tied to a specific version of the form. This requirement is kind of new, so the existing application was not built with this in mind.
I'm looking for different ways of handling this, hoping to avoid future technical debt. Here are some options I've come up with:
Create a new object, UI and set of tables for each version. This is obviously the most naive approach.
Keep adding all the fields to the same object and DB tables, but show/hide them based on the form version. This will become a mess after a few changes.
Build form definitions, then dynamically build the UI and store the data as some dictionary like format (e.g. JSON/XML or maybe an document oriented database) I think this is going to be too complex for the scope of this app, especially for the UI.
What other possibilities are there? Does anyone have experience doing this? I'm looking for some design patterns to help deal with the complexity.
First, I will speak to your solutions above and then I will give my answer.
Creating a new table for each
version is going to require new
programming every year since you will
not be able to dynamically join to
the new table and include the new
columns easily. That seems pretty obvious and really makes this a bad choice.
The issues you mentioned with adding
the columns to the same form are
correct. Also, whatever database you
are using has a max on how many
columns it can handle and how many
bytes it can have in a row. That could become another concern.
The third option I think is the
closest to what you want. I would
not store the new column data in a
JSON/XML unless it is for duplication
to increase speed. I think this is
your best option
The only option you didn't mention
was storing all of the data in 1
database field and using XML to
parse. This option would make it
tough to query and write reports
against.
If I had to do this:
The first table would have the
columns ID (seeded), Name,
InputType, CreateDate,
ExpirationDate, and CssClass. I
would call it tbInputs.
The second table would have the have
5 columns, ID, Input_ID (with FK to
tbInputs.ID), Entry_ID (with FK to
the main/original table) value, and
CreateDate. The FK to the
main/original table would allow you
to find what items were attached to
what form entry. I would call this
table tbInputValues.
If you don't
plan on having that base table then
I would use a simply table that tracks the creation date, creator ID,
and the form_id.
Once you have those you will just need to create a dynamic form that pulls back all of the inputs that are currently active and display them. I would put all of the dynamic controls inside of some kind of container like a <div> since it will allow you to loop through them without knowing the name of every element. Then insert into tbInputValues the ID of the input and its value.
Create a form to add or remove an
input. This would mean you would
not have much if any maintenance
work to do each year.
I think this solution may not seem like the most eloquent but if executed correctly I do think it is your most flexible solution that requires the least amount of technical debt.
I think the third approach (XML) is the most flexible. A simple XML structure is generated very fast and can be easily versioned and validated against an XSD.
You'd have a table holding the XML in one column and the year/version this xml applies to.
Generating UI code based on the schema is basically a bad idea. If you do not require extensive validation, you can opt for a simple editable table.
If you need a custom form every year, I'd look at it as kind of a job guarantee :-) It's important to make the versioning mechanism and extension transparent and explicit though.
For this particular app, we decided to deal with the problem as if there was one form that continuously grows. Due to the nature of the form this seemed more natural than more explicit separation. We will have a mapping of year->field for parts of the application that do need to know which data is for which year.
For the UI, we will be creating a new page for each year's form. Dynamic form creation is far too complex in this situation.