I have the requirement where upon importing I need to be able to change to products' product model. I tried to do this by changing the parent in the CSV file I'm importing, but this will show the following message:
WARNING
parent: Property "parent" cannot be modified, "new_parent_code" given.
What is the proper way to make this work? I tried 'hacking' the database by manually assigning a different parent to the product by editing the parent directly in the pim_catalog_product-table, and this seemed to work, but when editing the product unexpected results occur.
Could anyone point me in the right direction how I can change a product parent upon importing?
update:
I now came up with the following solution:
In my own bundle, I added Resources/config/updaters.yml (using DependencyInjecten Extension) with the following:
parameters:
# Rewrite parent field setter so we can allow the importer to update the parent:
pim_catalog.updater.setter.parent_field.class: Vendor\Bundle\InstallerBundle\Updater\Setter\ParentFieldSetter
And my custom ParentFieldSetter.php:
namespace Vendor\Bundle\InstallerBundle\Updater\Setter;
use Akeneo\Component\StorageUtils\Exception\ImmutablePropertyException;
use Akeneo\Component\StorageUtils\Repository\IdentifiableObjectRepositoryInterface;
/**
* Class ParentFieldSetter
*/
class ParentFieldSetter extends \Pim\Component\Catalog\Updater\Setter\ParentFieldSetter
{
/**
* #var IdentifiableObjectRepositoryInterface
*/
private $productModelRepository;
/**
* ParentFieldSetter constructor.
* #param IdentifiableObjectRepositoryInterface $productModelRepository
* #param array $supportedFields
*/
public function __construct(
IdentifiableObjectRepositoryInterface $productModelRepository,
array $supportedFields
) {
$this->productModelRepository = $productModelRepository;
parent::__construct($productModelRepository, $supportedFields);
}
/**
* #param \Pim\Component\Catalog\Model\ProductInterface|\Pim\Component\Catalog\Model\ProductModelInterface $product
* #param string $field
* #param mixed $data
* #param array $options
*/
public function setFieldData($product, $field, $data, array $options = []): void
{
try {
parent::setFieldData($product, $field, $data, $options);
} catch (ImmutablePropertyException $exception) {
if ($exception->getPropertyName() === 'parent') {
// Allow us to change the product parent:
if ($parent = $this->productModelRepository->findOneByIdentifier($data)) {
$familyVariant = $parent->getFamilyVariant();
$product->setParent($parent);
$product->setFamilyVariant($familyVariant);
if (null === $product->getFamily()) {
$product->setFamily($familyVariant->getFamily());
}
}
} else {
throw $exception;
}
}
}
}
This works. Now, upon importing the parent gets saved properly. I'm only wondering if:
a). This implementation is correct.
b). I'm not causing some other major issues by changing the parent.
I also noted the following TODO-statement in the original Akeneo-code above the code that throws the error when attempting to change the parent:
// TODO: This is to be removed in PIM-6350.
Anyone from Akeneo care to shed some light on this?
Related
We are developing API with Silex and Doctrine (ODM) and we have object Story, which have property images.
class Story extends AbstractDocument
{
/** #MongoDB\Id */
protected $id;
/**
* #MongoDB\ReferenceMany(
* targetDocument="MyNamespace\Documents\Image",
* storeAs="DBRef"
* )
*/
protected $images = [];
// Other properties and methods
}
We have get method in repository (in AbstractRepository, from which extends all other repositories).
public function get(string $documentId) : array
{
$document = $this->createQueryBuilder()
->field('id')->equals($documentId)
->hydrate(false)
->getQuery()
->toArray();
}
This method returns embedded and referenced objects, but for referenceMany returns only ids without data.
Is it possible to deny lazy loading to get all documents ?
One possible solution, which we found - rewrite method toArray.
As soon as you use ->hydrate(false) you are instructing ODM to get out of your way and return you raw data from MongoDB. You are seeing the referenceMany as an array of ids because that is the raw representation, no lazy loading is involved.
The cleanest way to solve your issue would be implementing StoryRepository which would fire an additional query to get referenced images:
public function get(string $documentId) : array
{
$document = $this->createQueryBuilder()
->field('id')->equals($documentId)
->hydrate(false)
->getQuery()
->toArray();
$document['images'] = /* ... */;
return $document;
}
I am building an extension to edit tt_news records in frontend.
I set setIgnoreEnableFields(TRUE) in my repository.
But if I try edit a hidden record, I get the error
Object with identity „12345" not found.
Any solution for this?
I am guessing you are using an action like
/**
* Single view of a news record
*
* #param \Vendor\Ext\Domain\Model\News $news news item
*/
public function detailAction(\Vendor\Ext\Domain\Model\News $news = null)
Your problem is, that the Repository is not used to fetch the record.
As a solution, remove the argument, clear the caches and try something like that
/**
* Single view of a news record
*
* #param \Vendor\Ext\Domain\Model\News $news news item
*/
public function detailAction() {
$id = (int)$this->request->getArgument('news');
if ($id) {
$news = $this->newsRepository->findByUid($previewNewsId);
}
}
Now you can manipulate the QuerySettings and use those.
The problem is the PropertyMapping. If extbase try to assign an uid (12345) to an Domain Object (tt_news) the "setEnableFields" setting of the Repository isn't respected. So you must fetch the object by yourself.
the simple solution is to do this in an initialize*Action for each "show" action. For editAction an example:
public function initializeEditAction() {
if ($this->request->hasArgument('news')) {
$newsUid = $this->request->getArgument('news');
if (!$this->newsRepository->findByUid($newsUid)) {
$defaultQuerySettings = $this->newsRepository->createQuery()->getQuerySettings();
$defaultQuerySettings->setIgnoreEnableFields(TRUE);
$this->newsRepository->setDefaultQuerySettings($defaultQuerySettings);
if ($news = $this->newsRepository->findByUid($newsUid)) {
$this->request->setArgument('news', $news);
}
}
}
}
The Hard Part is to get the object to update. As I never try this I have found an TypeConverter to fetch also hidden Records at https://gist.github.com/helhum/58a406fbb846b56a8b50
Maybe Instead to register the TypeConverter for everything (like the example in ext_localconf.php) you can try to assign it only in the initializeUpdateAction
public function initializeUpdateAction() {
if ($this->arguments->hasArgument('news')) {
$this->arguments->getArgument('news')->getPropertyMappingConfiguration()
->setTypeConverter('MyVendor\\MyExtension\\Property\\TypeConverters\\MyPersistenObjectConverter')
}
}
I've got some issues with Symfony's form validation handling. I'd like to validate a form bound to an entity based on its data. There are quite a bunch of information how to dynamically modify the form fields using FormEvents. What I'm missing on this topic is how to control/modify the validation.
My simplified use case is:
A user can add an event to a calendar.
The validation checks if there's already an event.
If there's a collision, the validation will throw an error.
The user should now be able to ignore this error/warning.
The validation is implemented as a Validator with Constraint::CLASS_CONSTRAINT as the target (as it's taking some more stuff into account).
I tried to:
Hack around the validation groups, but couldn't find access to the entity wide validators.
Hack around the FormEvents and add an extra field like "Ignore date warning".
Hack around the submit button to change it to something like "Force submit".
... but never found a working solution. Even simpler hacks with a single property based validator didn't work out. :(
Is there a Symfony way to dynamically control the validation?
Edit: My code looks like this:
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping as ORM;
use Acme\Bundle\Validator\Constraints as AcmeAssert;
/**
* Appointment
*
* #ORM\Entity
* #AcmeAssert\DateIsValid
*/
class Appointment
{
/**
* #ORM\Column(name="title", type="string", length=255)
*
* #var string
*/
protected $title;
/**
* #ORM\Column(name="date", type="date")
*
* #var \DateTime
*/
protected $date;
}
The validator used as a service:
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraint;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\ConstraintValidator;
/**
* Validates the date of an appointment.
*/
class DateIsValidValidator extends ConstraintValidator
{
/**
* {#inheritdoc}
*/
public function validate($appointment, Constraint $constraint)
{
if (null === $date = $appointment->getDate()) {
return;
}
/* Do some magic to validate date */
if (!$valid) {
$this->context->addViolationAt('date', $constraint->message);
}
}
}
The corresponding Constraint class is set to target the entity class.
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraint;
/**
* #Annotation
*/
class DateIsValid extends Constraint
{
public $message = 'The date is not valid!';
/**
* {#inheritdoc}
*/
public function getTargets()
{
return self::CLASS_CONSTRAINT;
}
/**
* {#inheritdoc}
*/
public function validatedBy()
{
return 'acme.validator.appointment.date';
}
}
Edit 2: Try with FormEvents... I also tried all the different events.
$form = $formFactory->createBuilder()
->add('title', 'text')
->add('date', 'date')
->addEventListener(FormEvents::WHICHONE?, function(FormEvent $event) {
$form = $event->getForm();
// WHAT TO DO HERE?
$form->getErrors(); // Is always empty as all events run before validation?
// I need something like
if (!$dateIsValid) {
$form->setValidationGroup('ignoreWarning');
}
});
Edit 3: Constraint are correctly declared. That's not the issue:
services:
validator.acme.date:
class: AcmeBundle\Validator\Constraints\DateValidator
arguments: ["#acme.other_service"]
tags:
- { name: validator.constraint_validator, alias: acme.validator.appointment.date }
Validation is done on the entity, all Forms does is execute the Object's validations.
You can choose groups based on submitted data
public function setDefaultOptions(OptionsResolverInterface $resolver)
{
$resolver->setDefaults(array(
'validation_groups' => function(FormInterface $form) {
$data = $form->getData();
if (Entity\Client::TYPE_PERSON == $data->getType()) {
return array('person');
} else {
return array('company');
}
},
));
}
I have had issues when using this approach on embedded forms && cascade-validation
Edit: using flash to determine if validation must take place.
// service definition
<service id="app.form.type.callendar" class="%app.form.type.callendar.class%">
<argument type="service" id="session" />
<tag name="form.type" alias="my_callendar" />
</service>
// some controller
public function somAvtion()
{
$form = $this->get('app.form.type.callendar');
...
}
// In the form
public function setDefaultOptions(OptionsResolverInterface $resolver)
{
$resolver->setDefaults(array(
'validation_groups' => function(FormInterface $form) {
$session = $form->getSession();
if ($session->getFlashBag()->get('callendar_warning', false)) {
return array(false);
} else {
return array('Validate_callendar');
}
},
));
}
How does your user interact with the application to tell it to ignore the warning? Is there some kind of additional button?
In that case you could simply check the button used for submitting the form or add some kind of hidden field (ignore_validation) etc.
Wherever you end up getting that user input from (flash and dependency injection, based on submitted data etc.), I would then use validation groups and a closure to determine what to validate (just like juanmf explained in his answer).
RE your second approach (Form Events), you can add a priority to event listeners: As you can see in Symfony's Form Validation Event Listener, they use FormEvents::POST_SUBMIT for starting the validation process. So if you just add an event listener, it gets called before the validation listener and so no validation has happened yet.
If you add a negative priority to your listener, you should be able to also access the form validation errors:
$builder->addEventListener(FormEvents::POST_SUBMIT, function(){...}, -900);
Old question but...
I would first add a field (acceptCollision) in the form as suggested by you and other answers above.
Then you validator can do something like:
public function validate($appointment, Constraint $constraint)
{
if (null === $date = $appointment->getDate()) {
return;
}
if ($appointment->getAcceptCollision()) {
$valid = true;
} elseif (
// Check Unicity of the date (no collision)
) {
$valid = true;
} else {
$valid = false;
}
if (!$valid) {
$this->context->addViolationAt('date', $constraint->message);
}
}
I think you run into a problem because you are using the wrong concept. The decision which validation should be running belongs to the controller, not the validator.
So I would simply check in the controller which submit button is pressed (or weither there is a checkbox checked) and switch validation groups. However the form should be visually different, so I would probably create 2 forms for both states (both extend a base one or one form type that use options).
I want do give the function to 'restore' deleted Object in my FE-Ext. It seems, that it does not find any deleted records an so i cannot update them set deleted = 0.
What you be you sugestion to handle that from the controller?:
$query->getQuerySettings()->setIgnoreEnableFields(TRUE);
$query->getQuerySettings()->setIncludeDeleted(TRUE);
Thank you.
Im not quite sure what you mean by "from the controller". Normally you implement this in your repository and just call the method from the controller.
In your repo:
public function findRecordEvenIfItIsDeleted($uid) {
$query = $this->createQuery();
$settings = $query->getQuerySettings();
settings->setIgnoreEnableFields(TRUE);
settings->setIncludeDeleted(TRUE);
$query->matching($query->equals('uid', $uid));
return $query->execute();
}
In your controller:
$myObject = $this->myRepsository->findRecordEvenIfItIsDeleted($uid);
Done. (Of course your storage pid must be set (or disable respectStoragePage as well)
You're adding does not throw any error because you are setting the querySettings to include deleted records. But maybe, this setting has to be enabled even when you are updating, as the repository should find the object you are updating.
I haven't tested it but give this a try.
In your repository(just a pseudo code)
public function update($modifiedObject) {
settings->setIncludeDeleted(TRUE);
parent::update($modifiedObject);
}
I know this question was asked long time ago but today i had a similar problem with a hidden object. My solution was this one:
add this to your Model (in your case exchange "hidden" by "deleted"):
/**
* #var boolean
*/
protected $hidden;
/**
* #return boolean $hidden
*/
public function getHidden() {
return $this->hidden;
}
/**
* #return boolean $hidden
*/
public function isHidden() {
return $this->getHidden();
}
/**
* #param boolean $hidden
* #return void
*/
public function setHidden($hidden) {
$this->hidden = $hidden;
}
in your repository add this function to find the deleted/hidden object:
public function findHiddenByUid($uid) {
$query = $this->createQuery();
$query->getQuerySettings()->setIgnoreEnableFields(TRUE);
$query->getQuerySettings()->setEnableFieldsToBeIgnored(array('disabled','hidden'));
return $query
->matching($query->equals('uid', $uid))
->execute()
->getFirst();
}
now in your Controller you can read the object, set the "hidden" option and update it:
$yourobject = $this->yourobjectRepository->findHiddenByUid($uid);
$yourobject->setHidden(1);
$this->yourobjectRepository->update($yourobject);
Maybe not interesting for your task but for others:
In my case i additionally had the problem posting a hidden object in a form to an action. So note that if you want to post an object by a form, it is better (or probably necessary) to first set the objects deleted/hidden option to 0.
I am trying to create something with extbase, but the error-message I get is not very helpful. I took the blog_example extension as a guide. A (maybe) important difference is: I don't have a database table because I want to write a custom domain repository that connects to an external servive through REST.
The actual error message (displayed above the plugin, not as an exception message):
An error occurred while trying to call Tx_MyExt_Controller_SubscriptionController->createAction()
Classes/Controller/SubscriptionController:
Stripped down to the important parts.
class Tx_MyExt_Controller_SubscriptionController extends Tx_Extbase_MVC_Controller_ActionController
{
/**
* #var Tx_MyExt_Domain_Repository_SubscriberRepository
*/
protected $subscriberRepository;
/**
* #return void
*/
public function initializeAction()
{
$this->subscriberRepository = t3lib_div::makeInstance('Tx_MyExt_Domain_Repository_SubscriberRepository');
}
/**
* #param Tx_MyExt_Domain_Model_Subscriber $subscriber
* #dontvalidate $subscriber
* #return string The rendered view
*/
public function newAction(Tx_MyExt_Domain_Model_Subscriber $subscriber = null)
{
$this->view->assign('subscriber', $subscriber);
}
/**
* #param Tx_MyExt_Domain_Model_Subscriber $subscriber
* #return string The rendered view
*/
public function createAction(Tx_MyExt_Domain_Model_Subscriber $subscriber)
{ }
}
Classes/Domain/Model/Subscriber
class Tx_MyExt_Domain_Model_Subscriber extends Tx_Extbase_DomainObject_AbstractEntity
{
/**
* #var string
* #dontvalidate
*/
protected $email = '';
/**
* #param string $email
* #return void
*/
public function setEmail($email)
{
$this->email = $email;
}
/**
* #return string
*/
public function getEmail()
{
return $this->email;
}
}
Resources/Private/Templates/Subscription/new
<f:form action="create" controller="Subscription" objectName="Subscriber" object="{subscriber}" method="post">
<f:form.textfield property="email"></f:form.textfield>
<f:form.submit value="submit"></f:form.submit>
</f:form>
Facts
Adding $subscriber = null removes the message. But $subscriber is null then
A var_dump($this->request->getArguments()); displays the form's fields
There is an index action, and it is also the first action defined in ext_localconf.php
The hints and solutions I found aren't working for me, so I hope someone can guide me into the right direction.
I've got the same bug.
If you pass an Model as argument to an method, it will also validate the model fields.
I've had this annotation on my model property:
/**
*
* #var \string
* #validate NotEmpty
*/
It validates the "#validate" annotation.
The field in the database was empty so i got the error message
An error occurred while trying to call ...
It would be good if there was a better error message.
You need to customize the validation annotation or verify that the property is not empty in the database
Hope it helps somebody
In addtion: check any Validations in your Model and your TCA. If a field is marked as #validate NotEmpty in your Model and is not marked appropriately in the TCA, a record can be saved ignoring the #validate settings in the Model. This can happen if you change the Model and/or TCA after creating records.
An example:
Field 'textfield' is set to not validate, both in the TCA and the Model. You create a new record and save it without filling in the field 'textfield' (you can, it is not set to validate). You then change the Model setting 'textfield' to #validate NotEmpty and then try to show the record on the FE, you will get the error.
The solution for that example:
Simply remove the validation in your Model OR check validations in the TCA and Model so that they work together.
--
A German blog post covers this solution: http://www.constantinmedia.com/2014/04/typo3-extbase-an-error-occurred-while-trying-to-call-anyaction/
just override the template method getErrorFlashMessage in yout controller to provide a custom error message...
/**
* A template method for displaying custom error flash messages, or to
* display no flash message at all on errors. Override this to customize
* the flash message in your action controller.
*
* #return string|boolean The flash message or FALSE if no flash message should be set
* #api
*/
protected function getErrorFlashMessage() {
return 'An error occurred while trying to call ' . get_class($this) . '->' . $this->actionMethodName . '()';
}
classic case of "start over from scratch and it works, and if you compare it you have the same code, though".
I updated the code in the question, maybe it helps someone.