Search Results

Search found 5589 results on 224 pages for 'rules and constraints'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 24/224 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How to user Hibernate @Valid constraint with Spring 3.x?

    - by Burak Dede
    I am working on simple form to validate fields like this one. public class Contact { @NotNull @Max(64) @Size(max=64) private String name; @NotNull @Email @Size(min=4) private String mail; @NotNull @Size(max=300) private String text; } I provide getter and setters hibernate dependencies on my classpath also.But i still do not get the how to validate simple form there is actually not so much documentation for spring hibernate combination. @RequestMapping(value = "/contact", method = RequestMethod.POST) public String add(@Valid Contact contact, BindingResult result) { .... } Could you explain it or give some tutorial , except original spring 3.x documentation

    Read the article

  • How can a not null constraint be dropped?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    Let's say there's a table created as follows: create table testTable ( colA int not null ) How would you drop the not null constraint? I'm looking for something along the lines of ALTER TABLE testTable ALTER COLUMN colA DROP NOT NULL; which is what it would look like if I used PostgreSQL. To my amazement, as far as I've been able to find, the MySQL docs, Google and yes, even Stackoverflow (in spite of dozens or hundreds of NULL-related questions) don't seem to lead towards a single simple SQL statement which will do the job.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to a db constraint in for this rule?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I wish to make sure that my data has a constraint the following check (constraint?) in place This table can only have one BorderColour per hub/category. (eg. #FFAABB) But it can have multiple nulls. (all the other rows are nulls, for this field) Table Schema ArticleId INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL HubId TINYINT NOT NULL CategoryId INT NOT NULL Title NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL Content NVARCHAR(MAX) NOT NULL BorderColour VARCHAR(7) -- Can be nullable. I'm gussing I would have to make a check constraint? But i'm not sure how, etc. sample data. 1, 1, 1, 'test', 'blah...', '#FFAACC' 1, 1, 1, 'test2', 'sfsd', NULL 1, 1, 2, 'Test3', 'sdfsd dsf s', NULL 1, 1, 2, 'Test4', 'sfsdsss', '#AABBCC' now .. if i add the following line, i should get some sql error.... INSERT INTO tblArticle VALUES (1, 2, 'aaa', 'bbb', '#ABABAB') any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Variable field in a constraint annotation

    - by Javi
    Hello, I need to create a custom constraint annotation which can access the value of another field of my bean. I'll use this annotation to validate the field because it depends on the value of the other but the way I define it the compiler says "The value for annotation attribute" of my field "must be a constant expression". I've defined it in this way: @Target(ElementType.FIELD) @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy=EqualsFieldValidator.class) @Documented public @interface EqualsField { public String field(); String message() default "{com.myCom.annotations.EqualsField.message}"; Class<?>[] groups() default {}; Class<? extends Payload>[] payload() default {}; } public class EqualsFieldValidator implements ConstraintValidator<EqualsField, String>{ private EqualsField equalsField; @Override public void initialize(EqualsField equalsField) { this.equalsField = equalsField; } @Override public boolean isValid(String thisField, ConstraintValidatorContext arg1) { //my validation } } and in my bean I want something like this: public class MyBean{ private String field1; @EqualsField(field=field1) private String field2; } Is there any way to define the annotation so the field value can be a variable? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Rails: constraint violation on create but not on update

    - by justinbach
    Note: This is a "railsier" (and more succinct) version of this question, which was getting a little long. I'm getting Rails behavior on a production server that I can't replicate on the development server. The codebases are identical save for credentials and caching settings, and both are powered by Oracle 10g databases with identical schema (but different data). My Rails application contains a user model, which has_one registration; registration in turn has_and_belongs_to_many company_ownerships through a registration_ownerships table. Upon registering, users fill out data pertinent to all three models, including a series of checkboxes indicating what registration_ownerships might apply to their account. On the dev server, the registration process is seamless, no matter what data is entered. On production, however, if users check off any of the company ownership fields before submitting their registration, Oracle complains about a constraint violation on the primary key of the company_ownerships table (which is a two-field key based on company_ownership_id and registration_id) and users get the standard Rails 500 error screen. In every case, I've verified that no conflicting record on these two fields exists in the production database, so I don't know why the constraint is getting violated. To further confuse things, if a user registers without listing any ownerships and later goes back and modifies their account to reflect ownership data (which is done through the same interface), the application happily complies with their request and Oracle is well-behaved (this is both on production and dev). I've spent the past couple days trying to figure out what might be causing this problem and am reaching the end of my wits. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • SQL CHECK constraint to prevent date overlap

    - by Michael
    I have a table that describes which software versions were installed on a machine at various times: machine_id::integer, version::text, datefrom::timestamp, dateto::timestamp I'd like to do a constraint to ensure that no date ranges overlap, i.e. it is not possible to have multiple software versions installed on a machine at the same time. How can this be achieved in SQL? I am using PostgreSQL v8.4.

    Read the article

  • Rails: Oracle constraint violation

    - by justinbach
    I'm doing maintenance work on a Rails site that I inherited; it's driven by an Oracle database, and I've got access to both development and production installations of the site (each with its own Oracle DB). I'm running into an Oracle error when trying to insert data on the production site, but not the dev site: ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid (OCIError: ORA-00001: unique constraint (DATABASE_NAME.PK_REGISTRATION_OWNERSHIP) violated: INSERT INTO registration_ownerships (updated_at, company_ownership_id, created_by, updated_by, registration_id, created_at) VALUES ('2006-05-04 16:30:47', 3, NULL, NULL, 2920, '2006-05-04 16:30:47')): /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-oracle-adapter-1.0.0.9250/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/oracle_adapter.rb:221:in `execute' app/controllers/vendors_controller.rb:94:in `create' As far as I can tell (I'm using Navicat as an Oracle client), the DB schema for the dev site is identical to that of the live site. I'm not an Oracle expert; can anyone shed light on why I'd be getting the error in one installation and not the other? Incidentally, both dev and production registration_ownerships tables are populated with lots of data, including duplicate entries for country_ownership_id (driven by index PK_REGISTRATION_OWNERSHIP). Please let me know if you need more information to troubleshoot. I'm sorry I haven't given more already, but I just wasn't sure which details would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • How to enforce this constraint in sql server

    - by Jeremy
    I have a table called city, and a table called city_city. city_city correlates two city records, so it has a fromcity_id and a tocity_id. I can enforce uniqueness on fromcity_id and and tocity_id through a unique key, but how do I enforce uniqueness so that I cant insert a record if fromcity_id and tocity_id are reversed. For example, the following records are conceptually the same: id fromcity_id tocity_id 1 100 200 2 200 100

    Read the article

  • Constraining enum value in method parameter

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    enum Fruit { Banana, Orange, Strawberry ... ... // etc, very long enum } PeelFruit(Fruit.Orange); PeelFruit(Fruit.Banana); PeelFruit(Fruit.Strawberry); // huh? can't peel strawberries! Sorry for the lame example, but hopefully you get the idea. Is there a way to constrain the enum values that PeelFruit will accept? Obvisouly I could check them in the method with a switch or something, but it would be cool if there was a way to do it that is a) a bit more compact, and b) would cause a compile time error, not a run time error. [Fruit = Orange,Bannana] void PeelFruit(Fruit fruit) { ... }

    Read the article

  • T-SQL foreign key check constraint

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    When you create a foreign key constraint in a table and you create the script in MS SQL Management Studio, it looks like this. ALTER TABLE T1 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T1 FOREIGN KEY(project_id) REFERENCES T2 (project_id) GO ALTER TABLE T1 CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T1 GO What I don't understand is what purpose has the second alter with check constraint. Isn't creating the FK constraint enough? Do you have to add the check constraint to assure reference integrity ? Another question: how would it look like then when you'd write it directly in the column definition? CREATE TABLE T1 ( my_column INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_T1 REFERENCES T2(my_column) ) Isn't this enough?

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in SQL Server 2008

    - by bodziec
    I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • add Constraint on database with trigger

    - by Am1rr3zA
    Hi, I have 3 tables (Student, Course, student_course_choose(have field grade)) I defined a view on these 3 tables that get me an Average of the each student. I want to have constraint(with trigger) on these view(or on the table that need it) to limit the average of each student between 13 and 18. I somewhere read that I must use foreach statement(instead of foreach row) on trigger because when I decrease some grade of special student and his/her average become less than 13 they don't give me error (because later I increase grade of another his/her course ). how must I wrote this Trigger? (I want to implement aprh for testing trigger) note:I can write it in SQL server, oracle or Mysql no diff for me.

    Read the article

  • Conditional SQLite check constraint?

    - by Rezzie
    I have a table defined by the following SQL: CREATE TABLE test ( id integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL UNIQUE, status text NOT NULL, enddate date, /* Checks */ CHECK (status IN ("Current", "Complete")) ); I'd like to add a constraint that requires enddate to be non-null if the status is "Complete". Is this possible? I am using SQLite v3.6.16.

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in MSSQL2008

    - by bodziec
    Hi, I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • Using a check contraint in MySQL for controlling string length

    - by ptrn
    I'm tumbled with a problem! I've set up my first check constraint using MySQL, but unfortunately I'm having a problem. When inserting a row that should fail the test, the row is inserted anyway. The structure: CREATE TABLE user ( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, uname VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL, fname VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, lname VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, mail VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id), CHECK (LENGTH(fname) > 30) ); The insert statement: INSERT INTO user VALUES (null, 'user', 'Fname', 'Lname', '[email protected]'); The length of the string in the fname column should be too short, but it's inserted anyway. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something basic here.

    Read the article

  • How to declare a generic constraint that is a generic type

    - by HackedByChinese
    I have a two generic abstract types: Entity and Association. Let's say Entity looks like this: public class Entity<TId> { //... } and Association looks like this: public class Association<TEntity, TEntity2> { //... } How do I constrain Association so they can be of any Entity? I can accomplish it by the following: public class Association<TEntity, TId, TEntity2, TId2> where TEntity : Entity<TId> where TEntity2: Entity<TId2> { //... } This gets very tedious as more types derive from Association, because I have to keep passing down TId and TId2. Is there a simpler way to do this, besides just removing the constraint?

    Read the article

  • Grails: Property Null error

    - by richardhell
    I've a domain called Modulo with some properties and a Controller with a method that create a object from model and save it, when execute save the shell show this error: La propiedad [{0}] de la clase [{1}] no puede ser nulo But if i set the constraint nullable to true, the error show again. I think that i should not set this cosntraint. The model is linked to a mysql table with all properties except id allow null. I think I am not doing something wrong here. Any advice?? Domain: Modulo class Modulo { String nombre String icon String url //static constraint = { // url(nullable:true) //} } Controller: Example class ExampleController { def index = { def modulo = new Modulo( nombre:'xxx', icon:'xxx' ) if (modulo.save()){ println 'ok' }else{ modulo.errors.allErrors.each { println it.defaultMessage} } } } Thanks. José

    Read the article

  • After Trigger execute before constraint check in oracle

    - by satakare
    Hi, I have After Insert/Update trigger on Table T1 which get the referential data for Col1 from T2 and does some work and insert it into another table. The col1 is FK to Table T2. When user insert the incorrect or non existing value into the Col1 and if trigger is disabled I am getting constraint error that is fine. But when trigger is enabled and user insert the wrong value in Col1 trigger is getting fired and shows the 'no data found' error message. Actually I am expecting the table to throw constraint error, but trigger is throwing it. Please let me know your comments about this trigger behaviour.

    Read the article

  • SQL DROP TABLE foreign key constraint

    - by Polly Hollanger
    If I want to delete all the tables in my database like this, will it take care of the foreign key constraint? If not, how do I take care of that first? GO IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.[Course]','U') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE dbo.[Course] GO IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.[Student]','U') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE dbo.[Student]

    Read the article

  • Can I constrain a route parameter to a certain type in ASP.net MVC?

    - by Paul Suart
    I have the following route: routes.MapRoute( "Search", // Route name "Search/{affiliateId}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Syndication", action = "Search" } // Parameter defaults ); Is there a way I can ensure "affiliateId" is a valid Guid? I'm using MVCContrib elsewhere in my site and I'm fairly it provides a way to implement this kind of constraint.... I just don't know what it is!

    Read the article

  • Having constrains object to move X,Y at the same time?

    - by Hwang
    The stage is separated into 4 sections, and I will be moving the camera around the stage. So at each particular section the camera will have an area of constrain it can move. I mange to constrain its X & Y, but it could only navigate either X or Y. How to move in X+Y at the same time? if (mouseX>sec2maxX) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:sec2maxX}); } else if (mouseX<sec2minX) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:sec2minX}); } else { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:mouseX}); } if (mouseY<sec2minY) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:sec2minY}); } else if (mouseY>sec2maxY) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:sec2maxY}); } else { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:mouseY}); } if i were to put X & Y in a same line of code it would be a lot of possibilities when the mouse is on top left or right bottom kind of situation, so I need to have it running seperately, but how can I combine it so that it could move X+Y?

    Read the article

  • Generic Type constraint in .net

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Why is TRest in Tuple<T1... TRest> not constrained?

    - by Anthony Pegram
    In a Tuple, if you have more than 7 items, you can provide an 8th item that is another tuple and define up to 7 items, and then another tuple as the 8th and on and on down the line. However, there is no constraint on the 8th item at compile time. For example, this is legal code for the compiler: var tuple = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, double> (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1d); Even though the intellisense documentation says that TRest must be a Tuple. You do not get any error when writing or building the code, it does not manifest until runtime in the form of an ArgumentException. You can roughly implement a Tuple in a few minutes, complete with a Tuple-constrained 8th item. I just wonder why it was left off the current implementation? Is it possibly a forward-compatibility issue where they could add more elements with a hypothetical C# 5? Short version of rough implementation interface IMyTuple { } class MyTuple<T1> : IMyTuple { public T1 Item1 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1) { Item1 = item1; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2> : MyTuple<T1> { public T2 Item2 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2) : base(item1) { Item2 = item2; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2, TRest> : MyTuple<T1, T2> where TRest : IMyTuple { public TRest Rest { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2, TRest rest) : base(item1, item2) { Rest = rest; } } ... var mytuple = new MyTuple<int, int, MyTuple<int>>(1, 1, new MyTuple<int>(1)); // legal var mytuple2 = new MyTuple<int, int, int>(1, 2, 3); // illegal

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >