I have a large table which inserts data into the database. The problem is when the user edits the table I have to:
run the query
use lots of lines like value="<cfoutput>getData.firstname#</cfoutput> in the input boxes.
Is there a way to bind the form input boxes to the database via a cfc or cfm file?
Many Thanks,
R
Query objects include the columnList, which is a comma-delimited list of returned columns.
If security and readability aren't an issue, you can always loop over this. However, it basically removes your opportunity to do things like locking certain columns, reduces your ability to do any validation, and means you either just label the form boxes with the column names or you find a way to store labels for each column.
You can then do an insert/update/whatever with them.
I don't recommend this, as it would be nearly impossible to secure, but it might get you where you are going.
If you are using CF 9 you can use the ORM (Object Relation Management) functionality (via CFCs)
as described in this online chapter
https://www.packtpub.com/sites/default/files/0249-chapter-4-ORM-Database-Interaction.pdf
(starting on page 6 of the pdf)
Take a look at <cfgrid>, it will be the easiest if you're editing table and it can fire 1 update per row.
For security against XSS, you should use <input value="#xmlFormat(getData.firstname)#">, minimize # of <cfoutput> tags. XmlFormat() not needed if you use <cfinput>.
If you are looking for an easy way to not have to specify all the column names in the insert query cfinsert will try to map all the form names you submit to the database column names.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbec22c24-7c78.html
This is indeed a very good question. I have no doubt that the answers given so far are helpful. I was faced with the same problem, only my table does not have that many fields though.
Per the docs EntityNew() the syntax shows that you can include the data when instantiating the object:
artistObj = entityNew("Artists",{FirstName="Tom",LastName="Ron"});
instead of having to instantiate and then add the data field by field. In my case all I had to do is:
artistObj = entityNew( "Artists", FORM );
EntitySave( artistObj );
ORMFlush();
NOTE
It does appear from your question that you may be running insert or update queries. When using ORM you do not need to do that. But I may be mistaken.
Related
In my model I want to loop through the database which contains multiple columns (see example) by an event. The idea behind it is that I want to create dynamic events based on the rows in the database.
But I've no clue how to iterate through a database in anylogic and also was not able to find an example of a loop with a database.
The dummycode of my problem would look something like this:
For order in orderdatabase:
Create order based on (order.name, order.quantity, order.arrivaltime, order.deliverylocation)
Where order in the loop is every row of the database, and the value on which the creation is based based on the different column values of that specific row.
Can somebody give me a simple example of how to create such a loop for this specific problem.
Thanks in advance.
Use the database query wizard:
put your cursor into a code field
this will allow you to open the database wizard
select what you need (in your case, you want the "iterate over returned rows and do something" option
Click ok
adjust the dummy code to make it do what you want
For details and examples, check the example models and the AnyLogic help, explaining all options in detail.
How do I tell Filemaker what table to paste a value into based on the value? Is there a way to somehow have Filemaker paste a value into a table without hard coding the table name?
Using imported transaction data, I determine which ledger (table) the transaction should be posted to. But I can't seem to get the script to then post it into the right table based on the value.
Screenshot of Script
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions!
I found a way to do what I was thinking, #AndreasT your suggestion helped.
Case (
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Expenses_All"; "Expenses_All::Description";
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Liability_CrCard_BofA"; Liability_CrCard_BofA::Description;
Imported_Transactions::Debit_To = "Liability_CrCard_CitiBusiness"; Liability_CrCard_CitiBusiness::Description;
)
Using the Case function, I was able to get Filemaker to put the data in the right table. It took some doing, but by putting the tablename::field in quotes, it worked.
Ultimately, though, I found it easier to just use one table and field descriptors to store my data. Simplicity makes it easier to produce reports.
You could use the conditional If script step to determine what table to insert data into based on your input.
Set field by name[ tablename::fieldname ; value ]
I have a form based on a multiple-tables query. As some fields from different tables have the same names, I must add the corresponding table's name. However, there are hyphens in the tables' names as well as in the fields' names (both inherited from foreign Excel tables).
In VBA there is no problem: [Table-1.Field-1] always works well (also in SQL queries). However, when I write this in drafting mode as data source into the form, Access "thinks" this would be wrong and replaces it automatically with [[Table-1].[Field-1]] - with the result that the form then displays the error #Name?. I tried to replace [] by quotes but without any success.
Note that there is no error when only the table or only the field has a hyphen: both MyTable.[Field-1] and [Table-1].Myfield are accepted by the form.
The correct syntax should be:
[Table-1].[Field-1]
Or, using bang notation:
[Table-1]![Field-1]
Meanwhile I found not a true answer, but nevertheless a quite satisfactory workaround by adding following calculated field into the query:
MyWorkAround: [Table-1.Field-1]
Then I can simply refer to [MyWorkAround] in the corresponding form's field to avoid the form's bug. But this isn't really very elegant !
Note that I always use [ … ] around fields, even where not necessary. This practice helps avoiding a lot of errors.
My crystal report pulls data about books, including an identifier (isbn, issn order number etc.), author, and publisher.
The ID field stores multiple ways to identify the book. The report displays any of the identifiers for that record. If one book has two identifiers; issn and order number, the report currently displays one apparently at random.
How can I make it prioritise which type to use based on a preset order? I figured some sort of filter on the field could work, but I haven't figured out how. I can't edit the table, but I can use SQL within the report.
If all the different types of ID are stored in a single field, your best bet is to use a SQL Command inside your report to separate them into multiple virtual fields.
Go to Database Fields / Database Expert, expand the connection you want to use, and pick Add Command. From here you can write a custom SQL statement to grab the information you're currently using, and at the same time separate the ID field into multiple different fields (as far as the report will be concerned, anyway. The table will stay unchanged.)
The trick is to figure out how to write your command to do the separation. We don't know what your data looks like, so you're on your own from here.
Based on the very little information that you have provided and if i was to make a guess.I suggest you make use of the formula field in your report and then use something like this to accomplish your goal.
IF ISNULL{first_priority_field_name} OR {first_priority_field_name} = '' THEN
{second_priority_field_name}
ELSE
{first_priority_field_name}
Use nested IF statement in case there are more than 2 identifier fields.
I have a table called transactions. Within that is a field called ipn_type. I would like to create separate table occurrences for the different ipn types I may have.
For example, one value for ipn_type is "dispute". In the past I would create a global field called "rel_dispute" and I would populate that with the value of "dispute". Then I could create a new table occurrence of the transactions table, and make a relationship based on transactions::ipn_type = transactions::rel_dispute. This way only the dispute records would show up in my new table occurrence.
Not long ago, somebody pointed out to me that this is no longer necessary, and there is a simpler way to setup such a relationship to create a new table occurrence. I can't for the life of me remember how that was done, though.
Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
To show a found set of only one type, you must either perform a find or use the Go to Related Record script step to show only related records. What you describe as your previous setup fits the latter.
The simpler way is to perform a find - either on demand, or by a script triggered OnLayoutEnter.
The new 'easy' way is probably:
using one base relationship only and
filtering only the displaying portal by type. This can be done with a global field, a global variable containing current display type. Multiple portals with different filter conditions are possible as well.
~jens