Search Results

Search found 5183 results on 208 pages for 'xsd validation'.

Page 124/208 | < Previous Page | 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131  | Next Page >

  • How would the 'Model' in a Rails-type webapp be implemented in a functional programming langauge?

    - by ceptorial
    In MVC web development frameworks such as Ruby on Rails, Django, and CakePHP, HTTP requests are routed to controllers, which fetch objects which are usually persisted to a backend database store. These objects represent things like users, blog posts, etc., and often contain logic within their methods for permissions, fetching and/or mutating other objects, validation, etc. These frameworks are all very much object oriented. I've been reading up recently on functional programming and it seems to tout tremendous benefits such as testability, conciseness, modularity, etc. However most of the examples I've seen for functional programming implement trivial functionality like quicksort or the fibonnacci sequence, not complex webapps. I've looked at a few 'functional' web frameworks, and they all seem to implement the view and controller just fine, but largely skip over the whole 'model' and 'persistence' part. (I'm talking more about frameworks like Compojure which are supposed to be purely functional, versus something Lift which conveniently seems to use the OO part of Scala for the model -- but correct me if I'm wrong here.) I haven't seen a good explanation of how functional programming can be used to provide the metaphor that OO programming provides, i.e. tables map to objects, and objects can have methods which provide powerful, encapsulated logic such as permissioning and validation. Also the whole concept of using SQL queries to persist data seems to violate the whole 'side effects' concept. Could someone provide an explanation of how the 'model' layer would be implemented in a functionally programmed web framework?

    Read the article

  • Has form post behavior changed in modern browsers? (or How are double clicks handled by the browser)

    - by Alex Czarto
    Background: We are in the process of writing a registration/payment page, and our philosophy was to code all validation and error checking on the server side first, and then add client side validation as a second step (un-obstructive jQuery). We wanted to disable double clicks server side, so we wrote some locking, thread-safe code to handle simultaneous posts/race conditions. When we tried to test this, we realized that we could not cause a simultaneous post or race condition to occur. I thought that (in older browsers anyway) double clicking a submit button worked as follows: User double clicks submit button. Browser sends a post on the first click On the second click, browser cancels/ignores initial post, and initiates a second post (before the first post has returned with a response). Browser waits for second post to return, ignoring initial post response. I thought that from the server side it looked like this: Server gets two simultaneous post requests, executes and responds to them both (unaware that no one is listening to the first response). From our testing (FireFox 3.0, IE 8.0) this is what actually happens: User double clicks submit button Browser sends a post for the first click Browser queues up second click, but waits for the response from the first click. Response returns from first click (response is ignored?). Browser sends a post for the second click. So from a server side: Server receives a single post which it executes and responds to. Then, server receives a second request wich it executes and responds to. My question is, has this always worked this way (and I'm losing my mind)? Or is this a new feature in modern browsers that prevents simultaneous posts to be sent to the server? It seems that for server side double click prevention, we don't have to worry about simultaneous posts or race conditions. Only need to worry about queued up posts. Thanks in advance for any feedback / comments. Alex

    Read the article

  • Getting a lightweight installation of java eclipse.

    - by liam
    Having dealt with yet another stupid eclipse problem, I want to try to get the lightest, most minimal eclipse installation as possible. To be clear, I use eclipse for two things: - Editing Java - Debugging Java Everything else I do through emacs/zsh (editing jsp/xml/js, file management, svn check-in, etc). I have not found any aspect of working in eclipse to do these tasks to be efficient or even reliable, so I do not want plug-ins that relate to it. From the eclipse.org site, this is the lightest install of eclipse that they have, and I don't want any of those things (bugzilla, mylyn, cvs, xml_ui), and have actually had problems with each of them even though I do not use them. So what is the minimal build I can get that will: 1) Ignore svn metadata 2) Includes the full-featured editor (intellisense and type-finding) 3) Includes the full-featured debugger (standard eclipse/jdk) Does not have any extra plug-ins, platforms, or "integrations" with other platforms, specifically, I don't want to deal with plug-ins relating to: Maven, JSP Validation, Javascript editing or validation, CVS or SVN, Mylyn, Spring or Hibernate "natures", app servers like a bundled tomcat/glassfish/etc, J2EE tools, or anything of the like. I do primarily spring/hibernate/web-mvc apps, and have never dealt with an eclipse plug-in that handles any of it gracefully, I can work effectively with my own toolset, but eclipse extensions do nothing but get in the way. I have worked with plain eclipse up to Ganymede, MyEclipse (up to 7.5), and the latest version of Spring-SourceTools, and find that they are all saddled with buggy useless plug-ins (though the combination is always different). Switching to netbeans/intellij is not an option, and my teammates work with svn-controlled .class/.project files, so it pretty much has to be eclipse. Does anyone have any good advice on how I can save a few grey hairs?

    Read the article

  • Associate "Code/Properties/Stuff" with Fields in C# without reflection. I am too indoctrinated by J

    - by AlexH
    I am building a library to automatically create forms for Objects in the project that I am working on. The codebase is in C#, and essentially we have a HUGE number of different objects to store information about different things. If I send these objects to the client side as JSON, it is easy enough to programatically inspect them to generate a form for all of the properties. The problem is that I want to be able to create a simple way of enforcing permissions and doing validation on the client side. It needs to be done on a field by field level. In javascript I would do this by creating a parallel object structure, which had some sort of { permissions : "someLevel", validator : someFunction } object at the nodes. With empty nodes implying free permissions and universal validation. This would let me simply iterate over the new object and the permissions object, run the check, and deal with the result. Because I am overfamilar with the hammer that is javascript, this is really the only way that I can see to deal with this problem. My first implementation thus uses reflection to let me treat objects as dictionaries, that can be programatically iterated over, and then I just have dictionaries of dictionaries of PermissionRule objects which can be compared with. Very javascripty. Very awkward. Is there some better way that I can do this? Essentially a way to associate a data set with each property, and then iterate over those properties. Or else am I Doing It Wrong?

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc Ajax.BeginForm clone.

    - by denis_n
    Hello, I'm using asp.net mvc ajax. The partial view is using Ajax.BeginForm (just an example): <div id="divPlaceholder"> <% using (Ajax.BeginForm(new AjaxOptions { UpdateTargetId = "divPlaceholder" })) { %> ... asp.net mvc controls and validation messages <input type="submit" value="Save" /> <% } %> </div> After update, if validation fails, the html is: <div id="divPlaceholder"> <div id="divPlaceholder"> ...form </div> </div> I don't like that the returned html is inserted, instead it should replace original div. Probably on POST I should not render <div> around form in partial view or render the div without id. What else can I do in this situation? I was thinking that maybe I should write a helper, something like Ajax.DivBeginForm, which will render form inside div on GET and hide the div on POST. Can somebody provide a good advice how to write such helper (Ajax.DivBeginForm)? I'd like it to work with using keyword: <% using (Ajax.DivBeginForm(new AjaxOptions { UpdateTargetId = "myId" })) { ... }%>

    Read the article

  • HTML Submit button vs AJAX based Post (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by Graham
    I'm after some design advice. I'm working on an application with a fellow developer. I'm from the Webforms world and he's done a lot with jQuery and AJAX stuff. We're collaborating on a new ASP.MVC 1.0 app. He's done some pretty amazing stuff that I'm just getting my head around, and used some 3rd party tools etc. for datagrids etc. but... He rarely uses Submit buttons whereas I use them most of the time. He uses a button but then attaches Javascript to it that calls an MVC action which returns a JSON object. He then parses the object to update the datagrid. I'm not sure how he deals with server-side validation - I think he adds a message property to the JSON object. A sample scenario would be to "Save" a new record that then gets added to the gridview. The user doesn't see a postback as such, so he uses jQuery to disable the UI whilst the controller action is running. TBH, it looks pretty cool. However, the way I'd do it would be to use a Submit button to postback, let the ModelBinder populate a typed model class, parse that in my controller Action method, update the model (and apply any validation against the model), update it with the new record, then send it back to be rendered by the View. Unlike him, I don't return a JSON object, I let the View (and datagrid) bind to the new model data. Both solutions "work" but we're obviously taking the application down different paths so one of us has to re-work our code... and we don't mind whose has to be done. What I'd prefer though is that we adopt the "industry-standard" way of doing this. I'm unsure as to whether my WebForms background is influencing the fact that his way just "doesn't feel right", in that a "submit" is meant to submit data to the server. Any advice at all please - many thanks.

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc ajax helper/post additional data w/o jquery.

    - by Jopache
    I would like to use the ajax helper to create ajax requests that send additional, dynamic data with the post (for example, get the last element with class = blogCommentDateTime and send the value of that last one to the controller which will return only blog comments after it). I have successfully done so with the help of jQuery Form plugin like so: $(document).ready(function () { $("#addCommentForm").submit(function () { var lastCommentDate = $(".CommentDateHidden:last").val(); var lastCommentData = { lastCommentDateTicks: lastCommentDate }; var formSubmitParams = { data: lastCommentData, success: AddCommentResponseHandler } $("#addCommentForm").ajaxSubmit(formSubmitParams); return false; }); This form was created with html.beginform() method. I am wondering if there is an easy way to do this using the ajax.beginform() helper? When I try to use the same code but replace html.beginform() with ajax.beginform(), when i try to submit the form, I am issuing 2 posts (which is understandable, one being taken care of by the helper, the other one by me with the JS above. I can't create 2 requests, so this option is out) I tried getting rid of the return false and changing ajaxSubmit() to ajaxForm() so that it would only "prepare" the form, and this leads in only one post, but it does not include the extra parameter that I defined, so this is worthless as well. I then tried keeping the ajaxForm() but calling that whenever the submit button on the form gets clicked rather than when the form gets submitted (I guess this is almost the same thing) and that results in 2 posts also. The biggest reason I am asking this question is that I have run in to some issues with the javascript above and using mvc validation provided by the mvc framework (which i will set up another question for) and would like to know this so I can dive further in to my validation issue.

    Read the article

  • Zend Form - how do I create these custom form elements?

    - by Jeremy Hicks
    This is a very specific instance where I'm having difficulty getting Zend Form to produce the correct output and supply the correct validation. I may have to go create a composite element but thought I'd ask here first. Here is the HTML I'm trying to get Zend Form to produce. I'd like this to be able to work where if the validation doesn't pass that the error messages still show up inline with the field that produced the error. <tr> <td>Budget</td> <td> <input type="radio" name="budget" value="unlimited" /> unlimited <br /> <input type="radio" name="budget" value="limited" /> $ <input type="text" name="budget_amount" /> every <select name="budget_period"> <option value="day">day</option> <option value="week">week</option> <option value="month">month</option> <option value="year">year</option> </select> </td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td><input type="checkbox" name="include_weekends" value="yes" /> include weekends?</td> </tr> The user can choose either unlimited or limited for the budget value, however, if they choose limited, then they are required to enter a value for the budget amount field and choose a value from the select for the budget period field.

    Read the article

  • Counting string length in javascript and Ruby on Rails

    - by williamjones
    I've got a text area on a web site that should be limited in length. I'm allowing users to enter 255 characters, and am enforcing that limit with a Rails validation: validates_length_of :body, :maximum => 255 At the same time, I added a javascript char counter like you see on Twitter, to give feedback to the user on how many characters he has already used, and to disable the submit button when over length, and am getting that length in Javascript with a call like this: element.length Lastly, to enforce data integrity, in my Postgres database, I have created this field as a varchar(255) as a last line of defense. Unfortunately, these methods of counting characters do not appear to be directly compatible. Javascript counts the best, in that it counts what users consider as number of characters where everything is a single character. Once the submission hits Rails, however, all of the carriage returns have been converted to \r\n, now taking up 2 characters worth of space, which makes a close call fail Rails validations. Even if I were to handcode a different length validation in Rails, it would still fail when it hits the database I think, though I haven't confirmed this yet. What's the best way for me to make all this work the way the user would want? Best Solution: an approach that would enable me to meet user expectations, where each character of any type is only one character. If this means increasing the length of the varchar database field, a user should not be able to sneakily send a hand-crafted post that creates a row with more than 255 letters. Somewhat Acceptable Solution: a javascript change that enables the user to see the real character count, such that hitting return increments the counter 2 characters at a time, while properly handling all symbols that might have these strange behaviors.

    Read the article

  • MVC4 - how to vaildate a drop down list?

    - by Grant Roy
    I have a .Net MVC4 model / view with a number of [Required] fields, one of which is selected via a drop down list, "Content_CreatedBy" [the first code block below]. Client side validation fires on all fields except the DDL [although server side validation does not allow no entry in DDL]. I have tried validating on the DDL text as well its numeric value but niether fire on the client side. Can anyone see what I am doing wrong? Thanks Model [Required] [Display(Name = "Author")] [ForeignKey("ContentContrib")] [Range(1, 99, ErrorMessage = "Author field is required.")] public virtual int Content_CreatedBy { get; set; } [Required] [Display(Name = "Date")] public virtual DateTime Content_CreatedDate { get; set; } [Required] [DataType(DataType.MultilineText)] [Display(Name = "Source / Notes ")] [StringLength(10, MinimumLength = 3)] public virtual string Content_Sources { get; set; } [Required] [Display(Name = "Keywords")] [StringLength(50, MinimumLength = 3)] public virtual string Content_KeyWords { get; set; } VIEW <div class="editor-label"> @Html.LabelFor(model => model.Content_CreatedBy, new { @class="whitelabel"}) </div> <div class="editor-field"> @Html.DropDownList("Content_CreatedBy", String.Empty) @Html.EditorFor(model => model.Content_CreatedBy) @Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Content_CreatedBy) </div>

    Read the article

  • VB.NET: Dialog exits when enter pressed?

    - by Camilo Martin
    Hi all; My problem seems to be quite simple, but it's not working the intuitive way. I'm designing a Windows Forms Application, and there is a dialog that should NOT exit when the enter key is pressed, instead it has to validate data first, in case enter was pressed after changing the text of a ComboBox. I've tried by telling it what to do on KeyPress event of the ComboBox if e is the Enter key: Private Sub ComboBoxSizeChoose_KeyPress(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.KeyPressEventArgs) Handles ComboBoxSizeChoose.KeyPress If e.KeyChar = Convert.ToChar(Keys.Enter) Then Try TamanhoDaNovaFonte = Single.Parse(ComboBoxSizeChoose.Text) Catch ex As Exception Dim Dialogo2 As New Dialog2 Dialog2.ShowDialog() ComboBoxSizeChoose.Text = TamanhoDaNovaFonte End Try End If End Sub But no success so far. When the Enter key is pressed, even with the ComboBox on focus, the whole dialog is closed, returning to the previous form. The validation is NOT done at all, and it has to be done before exiting. In fact, I don't even want to exit on the form's enter KeyPress, the only purpose of the enter key on the whole dialog is to validate the ComboBox (but only when in focus, for the sake of an intuitive UI). I've also tried appending the validation to the KeyPress event of the whole dialog's form, if the key is Enter. NO SUCCESS! It's like my code wasn't there at all. What should I do? (Visual Studio 2008, VB.NET)

    Read the article

  • How to use JQuery Validate to create a popup with all form error when the submit button is clicked?

    - by Larry
    I am using the JQuery Validation plugin for client side form validation. In addition to the colorful styling on invalid form fields, my client requires that a popup message be shown. I only want to show this message when the submit button is click because it would drive the user crazy otherwise. I tried the following code, but errorList is always empty. Anyone know the correct way to do something similar. function popupFormErrors(formId) { var validator = $(formId).validate(); var message = ''; for (var i = 0; i < validator.errorList.length - 1; i++) { message += validator.errorList[i].message + '\n'; } if (message.length > 0) { alert(message); } } $('#btn-form-submit').click(function(){ $('#form-register').submit(); popupFormErrors('#btn-form-submit'); return false; }); $('#form-register').validate({ errorPlacement: function(error, element) {/* no room on page */}, highlight: function(element) { $(element).addClass('invalid-input'); }, unhighlight: function(element) { $(element).removeClass('invalid-input'); }, ... }); Update From the info in the accepted answer I came up with this. var submitClicked = false; $('#btn-form-submit').click(function() { submitClicked = true; $('#form-register').submit(); return false; }); $('#form-register').validate({ errorPlacement: function(error, element) {/* no room on page */}, highlight: function(element) { $(element).addClass('invalid-input'); }, unhighlight: function(element) { $(element).removeClass('invalid-input'); }, showErrors: function(errorsObj) { this.defaultShowErrors(); if (submitClicked) { submitClicked = false; ... create popup from errorsObj... } } ... });

    Read the article

  • Are all of the default scripts loaded by Magento really needed?

    - by pxl
    Here's a listing of all the scripts loaded by Magento by default: ../js/prototype/prototype.js //prototype library ../js/prototype/validation.js //don't know what this does ../js/scriptaculous/builder.js //don't know what this does ../js/scriptaculous/effects.js //base scriptaculous effects library? ../js/scriptaculous/dragdrop.js //component of scriptaculous effects ../js/scriptaculous/controls.js //not sure? ../js/scriptaculous/slider.js //more scriptaculous effects ../js/varien/js.js //don't know what this is ../js/varien/form.js //form validation scripts? ../js/varien/menu.js //menu/drop down menu scripts ../js/mage/translate.js //don't know what this does ../js/mage/cookies.js //don't know what this does these scripts total 316.8K of javascript... all in various states of being minified (for example, prototype.js isn't minified). So my first question: 1) Aside from prototype.js, are all of the others really that needed? and 2) What is the "correct" way to remove these scripts? Layout updates? Or hardcoded in templates? I want to make the loading of my magento site as light weight as possible. thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to check null value of Integer type field in ASP.NET MVC view?

    - by Vikas
    Hi, I have integer type field in database which is having property "Not Null". when i create a view & do a validation, if i left that field blank, it will consider it as 0 so i can not compare it with 0 because if someone insert a value 0 then it will be considered as error! one another problem is that i am using Model error as described in the book "ASP.NET MVC 1.0" @ Scott Gu blog. And I am checking the value in partial class of object (created by LINQ-To-SQL). i.e public partial class Person { public bool IsValid { get { return (GetRuleViolations().Count() == 0); } } public IEnumerable<RuleViolation> GetRuleViolations() { if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Name)) yield return new RuleViolation("Name is Required", "Name"); if (Age == 0) yield return new RuleViolation("Age is Required", "Age"); yield break; } partial void OnValidate(ChangeAction action) { if (!IsValid) throw new ApplicationException("Rule violations prevent saving"); } } There is also problem with range. Like in database if i declared as smallint i.e. short in c#, now if i exceed that range then it gives error as "A Value is reguired". so finally is there any best way for validation in ASP.NET MVC?

    Read the article

  • Details View and integration with TinyMCE <%@ Page validateRequest="false" %>

    - by GibboK
    I use TinyMCE in a DetailView in in EDIT MODE. I would like to know if there is a solution which can prevent Request Validation to trigger an error WITHOUT USING <%@ Page validateRequest="false" %> for my page. The only way I found out at the moment is to encode TextBox used by TinyMCE using option: "xml" tinyMCE.init({ encoding: "xml", In this way Request Validation does not trigger error but at the time to read the data in the TextBox the result it is Encoded. I also tried to Decode on PageLoad the content of the TextBox using this code myTextBox.Text = HttpUtility.HtmlDecode(myTextBox.Text) But the result is not as expected, so I can visualize it just Encoded text. Any Ideas? Thanks UPDATE I found a solution to my problem. I added in _DataBound event for the DetailsView this code TextBox myContentAuthor = (TextBox)uxAuthorListDetailsView.FindControl("uxContentAuthorInput"); myContentAuthor.Text = HttpUtility.HtmlDecode(myContentAuthor.Text); So on DataBound event, (should work even on post back) the content will be decodene for textbox tinymce. Here how should work: 01 - TinyMCE ESCAPE data inserted in textbox using function encoding: "xml", 02 - Data has been stored as ESCAPED 03 - To read the data and add its content to a TextBox where apply TinyMCE use in DATABOUND EVENT for DetailView and HttpUtility.HtmlDecode (so it will look decoded) 04 - You can modify content in the textbox in edit mode. On post back TinyMCE will encoded again using encoding: "xml" an so on Hope guys can help some one else. But please give me your comment on this solution thanks! Mybe you come up with more elegant solution! :-)

    Read the article

  • Remove this URL string when login fails and simply show div error

    - by Anagio
    My developer built our registration page to display a div when logins failed based on a string in the URL. When logins fail this is added to the URL /login?msg=invalid The PHP in my login.phtml which displays the error messages based on the msg= parameter is <?php $msg = ""; $msg = $_GET['msg']; if($msg==""){ $showMsg = ""; } elseif($msg=="invalid"){ $showMsg = ' <div class="alert alert-error"> <a class="close" data-dismiss="alert">×</a> <strong>Error!</strong> Login or password is incorrect! </div>'; } elseif($msg=="disabled"){ $showMsg = "Your account has been disabled."; } elseif($msg==2){ $showMsg = "Your account is not activated. Please check your email."; } ?> In the controller the redirect to that URL is else //email id does not exist in our database { //redirecting back with invalid email(invalid) msg=invalid. $this->_redirect($url."?msg=invalid"); } I know there are a few other validation types for disabled accounts etc. I'm in the process of redesigning the entire interface and would like to get rid of this kind of validation so that the div tags display when logins fail but not show the URL strings. If it matters the new div I want to display is <div class="alert alert-error alert-login"> Email or password incorrect </div> I'd like to replace the php my self in my login.phtml and controller but not a good programmer. What can I replace $this->_redirect($url."?msg=invalid"); with so that no strings are added to the URL and display the appropriate div tags? Thanks

    Read the article

  • JPA entitylisteners and @embeddable

    - by seanizer
    I have a class hierarchy of JPA entities that all inherit from a BaseEntity class: @MappedSuperclass @EntityListeners( { ValidatorListener.class }) public abstract class BaseEntity implements Serializable { // other stuff } I want all entities that implement a given interface to be validated automatically on persist and/or update. Here's what I've got. My ValidatorListener: public class ValidatorListener { private enum Type { PERSIST, UPDATE } @PrePersist public void checkPersist(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.PERSIST); } } @PreUpdate public void checkUpdate(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.UPDATE); } } private void check(final Validateable entity, final Type persist) { switch (persist) { case PERSIST: if (entity instanceof Persist) { ((Persist) entity).persist(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; case UPDATE: if (entity instanceof Update) { ((Update) entity).update(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; default: break; } } } and here's my Validateable interface that it checks against (the outer interface is just a marker, the inner contain the methods): public interface Validateable { interface Persist extends Validateable { void persist(); } interface PersistOrUpdate extends Validateable { void persistOrUpdate(); } interface Update extends Validateable { void update(); } } All of this works, however I would like to extend this behavior to Embeddable classes. I know two solutions: call the validation method of the embeddable object manually from the entity validation method: public void persistOrUpdate(){ // validate my own properties first // then manually validate the embeddable property: myEmbeddable.persistOrUpdate(); // this works but I'd like something that I don't have to call manually } use reflection, checking all properties to see if their type is of one of their interface types. This would work, but it's not pretty. Is there a more elegant solution?

    Read the article

  • Can you stop a defered callback in jquery 1.5?

    - by chobo2
    Hi I am wondering say you have something like this // Assign handlers immediately after making the request, // and remember the jqxhr object for this request var jqxhr = $.ajax({ url: "example.php" }) .success(function(response) { alert("success"); }) // perform other work here ... // Set another success function for the request above jqxhr.success(function(response){ alert("second success"); }); So I am thinking this. I have a general function that I want to use on all my responses that would be passed into my success. This function basically does a check to see if the server validation found any errors. If it did they it formats it and displays a message. Now I am wondering if I could some how have the second success function to then do specific stuff. Like say One ajax request needs to add a row into a table. So this should be possible. I just do what I have above and in the second success I just add the row. Is it possible though that if the first success runs through and see that there are validation errors from the server that I can stop the second success from happening? Sort of If(first success finds errors) { // print out errors // don't continue onto next success } else { // go to next success } Edit I found that there is something call deferred.reject and this does stop it but I am wondering how can I specify to stop only the success one. Since my thinking is if there are other deffered ones like complete on it will the be rejected too?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between these two linq implementations?

    - by Mahesh Velaga
    I was going through Jon Skeet's Reimplemnting Linq to Objects series. In the implementation of where article, I found the following snippets, but I don't get what is the advantage that we are gettting by splitting the original method into two. Original Method: // Naive validation - broken! public static IEnumerable<TSource> Where<TSource>( this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate) { if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); } if (predicate == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate"); } foreach (TSource item in source) { if (predicate(item)) { yield return item; } } } Refactored Method: public static IEnumerable<TSource> Where<TSource>( this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate) { if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); } if (predicate == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate"); } return WhereImpl(source, predicate); } private static IEnumerable<TSource> WhereImpl<TSource>( this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate) { foreach (TSource item in source) { if (predicate(item)) { yield return item; } } } Jon says - Its for eager validation and then defferring for the rest of the part. But, I don't get it. Could some one please explain it in a little more detail, whats the difference between these 2 functions and why will the validations be performed in one and not in the other eagerly? Conclusion/Solution: I got confused due to my lack of understanding on which functions are determined to be iterator-generators. I assumed that, it is based on signature of a method like IEnumerable<T>. But, based on the answers, now I get it, a method is an iterator-generator if it uses yield statements.

    Read the article

  • When I try to pass large amounts of information using jquery $.ajax(post) method. it throws potenti

    - by dotnetrocks
    I am trying to create a preview window for my texteditor in my blog page. I need to send the content to the server to clean up the text entered before I can preview it on the preview window. I was trying to use $.ajax({ type: method, url: url, data: values, success: LoadPageCallback(targetID), error: function(msg) { $('#' + targetID).attr('innerHTML', 'An error has occurred. Please try again.'); } }); Whenever I tried to click on the preview button it returns an XMLHTTPRequest error. The error description - Description: Request Validation has detected a potentially dangerous client input value, and processing of the request has been aborted. This value may indicate an attempt to compromise the security of your application, such as a cross-site scripting attack. You can disable request validation by setting validateRequest=false in the Page directive or in the configuration section. However, it is strongly recommended that your application explicitly check all inputs in this case. The ValidateRequest for the page is set to false. Is there a way I can set validaterequest to false for the ajax call.Please advise Thank you for reading my post.

    Read the article

  • Passing session between jsf backing bean and model

    - by Rachel
    Background : I am having backing bean which has upload method that listen when file is uploaded. Now I pass this file to parser and in parser am doing validation check for row present in csv file. If validation fails, I have to log information and saving in logging table in database. My end goal : Is to get session information in logging bean so that I can get initialContext and make call to ejb to save data to database. What is happening : In my upload backing bean, am getting session but when i call parser, I do not pass session information as I do not want parser to be dependent on session as I want to unit test parser individually. So in my parser, I do not have session information, from parser am making call to logging bean(just a bean with some ejb methods) but in this logging bean, i need session because i need to get initial context. Question Is there a way in JSF, that I can get the session in my logging bean that I have in my upload backing bean? I tried doing: FacesContext ctx = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance(); HttpSession session = (HttpSession) ctx.getExternalContext().getSession(false); but session value was null, more generic question would be : How can I get session information in model bean or other beans that are referenced from backing beans in which we have session? Do we have generic method in jsf using which we can access session information throughout JSF Application?

    Read the article

  • How to update attributes without valitation

    - by Brian Roisentul
    I've got a model with its validations, and I found out that I can't update an attribute without validating the object before. I already tried to add on => :create syntax at the end of each validation line, but I got the same results. My announcement model have the following validations: validates_presence_of :title validates_presence_of :description validates_presence_of :announcement_type_id validate :validates_publication_date validate :validates_start_date validate :validates_start_end_dates validate :validates_category validate :validates_province validates_length_of :title, :in => 6..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :subtitle, :in => 0..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :subtitle, :in => 0..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :place, :in => 0..50, :on => :save validates_numericality_of :vacants, :greater_than_or_equal_to => 0, :only_integer => true validates_numericality_of :price, :greater_than_or_equal_to => 0, :only_integer => true My rake task does the following: task :announcements_expiration => :environment do announcements = Announcement.expired announcements.each do |a| #Gets the user that owns the announcement user = User.find(a.user_id) puts a.title + '...' a.state = 'deactivated' if a.update_attributes(:state => a.state) puts 'state changed to deactivated' else a.errors.each do |e| puts e end end end This throws all the validation exceptions for that model, in the output. Does anybody how to update an attribute without validating the model?

    Read the article

  • Sanitizing User Input with Ruby on Rails

    - by phreakre
    I'm writing a very simple CRUD app that takes user stories and stores them into a database so another fellow coder can organize them for a project we're both working on. However, I have come across a problem with sanitizing user input before it is saved into the database. I cannot call the sanitize() function from within the Story model to strip out all of the html/scripting. It requires me to do the following: def sanitize_inputs self.name = ActionController::Base.helpers.sanitize(self.name) unless self.name.nil? self.story = ActionController::Base.helpers.sanitize(self.story) unless self.story.nil? end I want to validate that the user input has been sanitized and I am unsure of two things: 1) When should the user input validation take place? Before the data is saved is pretty obvious, I think, however, should I be processing this stuff in the Controller, before validation, or some other non-obvious area before I validate that the user input has no scripting/html tags? 2) Writing a unit test for this model, how would I verify that the scripting/html is removed besides comparing "This is a malicious code example" to the sanitize(example) output? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • calling same function on different buttons not loaded yet

    - by Jordan Faust
    I can not get this to work for every button and I cannot find anything explaining why. I guessing it is something small that I am missing $(document).ready(function() { // delete the selected row from the database $(document).on('click', '#business-area-delete-button', { model: "BusinessArea" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#business-type-delete-button', { model: "BusinessType" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#client-delete-button', { model: "Client" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#client-type-delete-button', { model: "ClientType" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#communication-channel-type', { model: "CommunicationChannelType" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#parameter-type-delete-button', { model: "ParameterType" }, deleteRow); $(document).on('click', '#validation-method-delete-button', { model: "ValidationMethod" }, deleteRow); } the event function deleteRow(event){ $.ajax( { type:'POST', data: { id: $(".delete-row").attr("id") }, url:"/mysite/admin/delete" + event.data.model, success:function(data,textStatus){ $('#main-content').html(data); }, error:function(XMLHttpRequest,textStatus,errorThrown){ jQuery('#alerts').html(XMLHttpRequest.responseText); }, complete:function(XMLHttpRequest,textStatus){ placeAlerts() } } ); return false }; This works only for a the button with id validation-method-delete-button. I use document and not the button its self because the button is contained in a template that is loaded later via ajax. I have this working for a similar function that is selecting a row in a table however I am not attempting to pass data in that scenario.

    Read the article

  • RoR ActiveRecord f.select nil method error

    - by sellis6688
    Whenever I use an f.select statement to determine assignment_id(or student_id), and I should get a validation error, I get this error instead of the validation message: You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! You might have expected an instance of Array. The error occurred while evaluating nil.collect Extracted source (around line #11): 8: </p> 9: <p> 10: <%= f.label 'Assignment:' %><br /> 11: <%= f.select(:assignment_id, @assignments.collect {|p| [p.ass_num, p.id]})%> 12: </p> 13: <p> 14: <%= f.label 'First Student:' %><br /> My grades model: class Grade < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :students belongs_to :assignment validates_presence_of :score, :assignment_id, :student_id validates_numericality_of :score, :greater_than_or_equal_to => 0, :less_than_or_equal_to => 100, :allow_nil => true validates_uniqueness_of :student_id, :scope => :assignment_id end If I use a text_field, I don't get the error... but there's far too many students for that. Neither @assignments nor @students are nil. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131  | Next Page >