Search Results

Search found 13838 results on 554 pages for 'disconnected model'.

Page 37/554 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

• Accessing two sides of a user-user relationship in rails

  - by Lowgain

  Basically, I have a users model in my rails app, and a fanship model, to facilitate the ability for users to become 'fans' of each other. In my user model, I have: has_many :fanships has_many :fanofs, :through => :fanships In my fanship model, I have: belongs_to :user belongs_to :fanof, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => "fanof_id" My fanship table basically consists of :id, :user_id and :fanof_id. This all works fine, and I can see what users a specific user is a fan of like: <% @user.fanofs.each do |fan| %> #things <% end %> My question is, how can I get a list of the users that are a fan of this specific user? I'd like it if I could just have something like @user.fans, but if that isn't possible what is the most efficient way of going about this? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Joining the same model twice in a clean way, but making the code reusable

  - by Shako

  I have a model Painting which has a Paintingtitle in each language and a Paintingdescription in each language: class Painting < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :paintingtitles, :dependent => :destroy has_many :paintingdescriptions, :dependent => :destroy end class Paintingtitle < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :painting belongs_to :language end class Paintingdescription < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :painting belongs_to :language end class Language < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :paintingtitles, :dependent => :nullify has_many :paintingdescriptions, :dependent => :nullify has_many :paintings, :through => :paintingtitles end As you might notice, I reference the Language model from my Painting model via both the Paintingtitle model and Paintingdescription model. This works for me when getting a list of paintings with their title and description in a specific language: cond = {"paintingdescription_languages.code" => language_code, "paintingtitle_languages.code" => language_code} cond['paintings.publish'] = 1 unless admin paginate( :all, :select => ["paintings.id, paintings.publish, paintings.photo_file_name, paintingtitles.title, paintingdescriptions.description"], :joins => " INNER JOIN paintingdescriptions ON (paintings.id = paintingdescriptions.painting_id) INNER JOIN paintingtitles ON (paintings.id = paintingtitles.painting_id) INNER JOIN languages paintingdescription_languages ON (paintingdescription_languages.id = paintingdescriptions.language_id) INNER JOIN languages paintingtitle_languages ON (paintingtitle_languages.id = paintingtitles.language_id) ", :conditions => cond, :page => page, :per_page => APP_CONFIG['per_page'], :order => "id DESC" ) Now I wonder if this is a correct way of doing this. I need to fetch paintings with their title and description in different functions, but I don't want to specify this long join statement each time. Is there a cleaner way, for instance making use of the has_many through? e.g. has_many :paintingdescription_languages, :through => :paintingdescriptions, :source => :language has_many :paintingtitle_languages, :through => :paintingtitles, :source => :language But if I implement above 2 lines together with the following ones, then only paintingtitles are filtered by language, and not the paintingdescriptions: cond = {"languages.code" => language_code} cond['paintings.publish'] = 1 unless admin paginate( :all, :select => ["paintings.id, paintings.publish, paintings.photo_file_name, paintingtitles.title, paintingdescriptions.description"], :joins => [:paintingdescription_languages, :paintingtitle_languages], :conditions => cond, :page => page, :per_page => APP_CONFIG['per_page'], :order => "id DESC" )

  Read the article

• How do I set up MVP for a Winforms solution?

  - by JonWillis

  Question moved from Stackoverflow - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4971048/how-do-i-set-up-mvp-for-a-winforms-solution I have used MVP and MVC in the past, and I prefer MVP as it controls the flow of execution so much better in my opinion. I have created my infrastructure (datastore/repository classes) and use them without issue when hard coding sample data, so now I am moving onto the GUI and preparing my MVP. Section A I have seen MVP using the view as the entry point, that is in the views constructor method it creates the presenter, which in turn creates the model, wiring up events as needed. I have also seen the presenter as the entry point, where a view, model and presenter are created, this presenter is then given a view and model object in its constructor to wire up the events. As in 2, but the model is not passed to the presenter. Instead the model is a static class where methods are called and responses returned directly. Section B In terms of keeping the view and model in sync I have seen. Whenever a value in the view in changed, i.e. TextChanged event in .Net/C#. This fires a DataChangedEvent which is passed through into the model, to keep it in sync at all times. And where the model changes, i.e. a background event it listens to, then the view is updated via the same idea of raising a DataChangedEvent. When a user wants to commit changes a SaveEvent it fires, passing through into the model to make the save. In this case the model mimics the view's data and processes actions. Similar to #b1, however the view does not sync with the model all the time. Instead when the user wants to commit changes, SaveEvent is fired and the presenter grabs the latest details and passes them into the model. in this case the model does not know about the views data until it is required to act upon it, in which case it is passed all the needed details. Section C Displaying of business objects in the view, i.e. a object (MyClass) not primitive data (int, double) The view has property fields for all its data that it will display as domain/business objects. Such as view.Animals exposes a IEnumerable<IAnimal> property, even though the view processes these into Nodes in a TreeView. Then for the selected animal it would expose SelectedAnimal as IAnimal property. The view has no knowledge of domain objects, it exposes property for primitive/framework (.Net/Java) included objects types only. In this instance the presenter will pass an adapter object the domain object, the adapter will then translate a given business object into the controls visible on the view. In this instance the adapter must have access to the actual controls on the view, not just any view so becomes more tightly coupled. Section D Multiple views used to create a single control. i.e. You have a complex view with a simple model like saving objects of different types. You could have a menu system at the side with each click on an item the appropriate controls are shown. You create one huge view, that contains all of the individual controls which are exposed via the views interface. You have several views. You have one view for the menu and a blank panel. This view creates the other views required but does not display them (visible = false), this view also implements the interface for each view it contains (i.e. child views) so it can expose to one presenter. The blank panel is filled with other views (Controls.Add(myview)) and ((myview.visible = true). The events raised in these "child"-views are handled by the parent view which in turn pass the event to the presenter, and visa versa for supplying events back down to child elements. Each view, be it the main parent or smaller child views are each wired into there own presenter and model. You can literately just drop a view control into an existing form and it will have the functionality ready, just needs wiring into a presenter behind the scenes. Section E Should everything have an interface, now based on how the MVP is done in the above examples will affect this answer as they might not be cross-compatible. Everything has an interface, the View, Presenter and Model. Each of these then obviously has a concrete implementation. Even if you only have one concrete view, model and presenter. The View and Model have an interface. This allows the views and models to differ. The presenter creates/is given view and model objects and it just serves to pass messages between them. Only the View has an interface. The Model has static methods and is not created, thus no need for an interface. If you want a different model, the presenter calls a different set of static class methods. Being static the Model has no link to the presenter. Personal thoughts From all the different variations I have presented (most I have probably used in some form) of which I am sure there are more. I prefer A3 as keeping business logic reusable outside just MVP, B2 for less data duplication and less events being fired. C1 for not adding in another class, sure it puts a small amount of non unit testable logic into a view (how a domain object is visualised) but this could be code reviewed, or simply viewed in the application. If the logic was complex I would agree to an adapter class but not in all cases. For section D, i feel D1 creates a view that is too big atleast for a menu example. I have used D2 and D3 before. Problem with D2 is you end up having to write lots of code to route events to and from the presenter to the correct child view, and its not drag/drop compatible, each new control needs more wiring in to support the single presenter. D3 is my prefered choice but adds in yet more classes as presenters and models to deal with the view, even if the view happens to be very simple or has no need to be reused. i think a mixture of D2 and D3 is best based on circumstances. As to section E, I think everything having an interface could be overkill I already do it for domain/business objects and often see no advantage in the "design" by doing so, but it does help in mocking objects in tests. Personally I would see E2 as a classic solution, although have seen E3 used in 2 projects I have worked on previously. Question Am I implementing MVP correctly? Is there a right way of going about it? I've read Martin Fowler's work that has variations, and I remember when I first started doing MVC, I understood the concept, but could not originally work out where is the entry point, everything has its own function but what controls and creates the original set of MVC objects.

  Read the article

• What's the best way to expose a Model object in a ViewModel?

  - by Angel

  In a WPF MVVM application, I exposed my model object into my viewModel by creating an instance of Model class (which cause dependency) into ViewModel. Instead of creating separate VM properties, I wrap the Model properties inside my ViewModel Property. My model is just an entity framework generated proxy class: public partial class TblProduct { public TblProduct() { this.TblPurchaseDetails = new HashSet<TblPurchaseDetail>(); this.TblPurchaseOrderDetails = new HashSet<TblPurchaseOrderDetail>(); this.TblSalesInvoiceDetails = new HashSet<TblSalesInvoiceDetail>(); this.TblSalesOrderDetails = new HashSet<TblSalesOrderDetail>(); } public int ProductId { get; set; } public string ProductCode { get; set; } public string ProductName { get; set; } public int CategoryId { get; set; } public string Color { get; set; } public Nullable<decimal> PurchaseRate { get; set; } public Nullable<decimal> SalesRate { get; set; } public string ImagePath { get; set; } public bool IsActive { get; set; } public virtual TblCompany TblCompany { get; set; } public virtual TblProductCategory TblProductCategory { get; set; } public virtual TblUser TblUser { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblPurchaseDetail> TblPurchaseDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblPurchaseOrderDetail> TblPurchaseOrderDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblSalesInvoiceDetail> TblSalesInvoiceDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblSalesOrderDetail> TblSalesOrderDetails { get; set; } } Here is my ViewModel: public class ProductViewModel : WorkspaceViewModel { #region Constructor public ProductViewModel() { StartApp(); } #endregion //Constructor #region Properties private IProductDataService _dataService; public IProductDataService DataService { get { if (_dataService == null) { if (IsInDesignMode) { _dataService = new ProductDataServiceMock(); } else { _dataService = new ProductDataService(); } } return _dataService; } } //Get and set Model object private TblProduct _product; public TblProduct Product { get { return _product ?? (_product = new TblProduct()); } set { _product = value; } } #region Public Properties public int ProductId { get { return Product.ProductId; } set { if (Product.ProductId == value) { return; } Product.ProductId = value; RaisePropertyChanged("ProductId"); } } public string ProductName { get { return Product.ProductName; } set { if (Product.ProductName == value) { return; } Product.ProductName = value; RaisePropertyChanged(() => ProductName); } } private ObservableCollection<TblProduct> _productRecords; public ObservableCollection<TblProduct> ProductRecords { get { return _productRecords; } set { _productRecords = value; RaisePropertyChanged("ProductRecords"); } } //Selected Product private TblProduct _selectedProduct; public TblProduct SelectedProduct { get { return _selectedProduct; } set { _selectedProduct = value; if (_selectedProduct != null) { this.ProductId = _selectedProduct.ProductId; this.ProductCode = _selectedProduct.ProductCode; } RaisePropertyChanged("SelectedProduct"); } } #endregion //Public Properties #endregion // Properties #region Commands private ICommand _newCommand; public ICommand NewCommand { get { if (_newCommand == null) { _newCommand = new RelayCommand(() => ResetAll()); } return _newCommand; } } private ICommand _saveCommand; public ICommand SaveCommand { get { if (_saveCommand == null) { _saveCommand = new RelayCommand(() => Save()); } return _saveCommand; } } private ICommand _deleteCommand; public ICommand DeleteCommand { get { if (_deleteCommand == null) { _deleteCommand = new RelayCommand(() => Delete()); } return _deleteCommand; } } #endregion //Commands #region Methods private void StartApp() { LoadProductCollection(); } private void LoadProductCollection() { var q = DataService.GetAllProducts(); this.ProductRecords = new ObservableCollection<TblProduct>(q); } private void Save() { if (SelectedOperateMode == OperateModeEnum.OperateMode.New) { //Pass the Model object into Dataservice for save DataService.SaveProduct(this.Product); } else if (SelectedOperateMode == OperateModeEnum.OperateMode.Edit) { //Pass the Model object into Dataservice for Update DataService.UpdateProduct(this.Product); } ResetAll(); LoadProductCollection(); } #endregion //Methods } Here is my Service class: class ProductDataService:IProductDataService { /// <summary> /// Context object of Entity Framework model /// </summary> private MaizeEntities Context { get; set; } public ProductDataService() { Context = new MaizeEntities(); } public IEnumerable<TblProduct> GetAllProducts() { using(var context=new R_MaizeEntities()) { var q = from p in context.TblProducts where p.IsDel == false select p; return new ObservableCollection<TblProduct>(q); } } public void SaveProduct(TblProduct _product) { using(var context=new R_MaizeEntities()) { _product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; _product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; _product.CompanyId = GlobalObjects.CompanyID; context.TblProducts.Add(_product); context.SaveChanges(); } } public void UpdateProduct(TblProduct _product) { using (var context = new R_MaizeEntities()) { context.TblProducts.Attach(_product); context.Entry(_product).State = EntityState.Modified; _product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; _product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; _product.CompanyId = GlobalObjects.CompanyID; context.SaveChanges(); } } public void DeleteProduct(int _productId) { using (var context = new R_MaizeEntities()) { var product = (from c in context.TblProducts where c.ProductId == _productId select c).First(); product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; product.IsDel = true; context.SaveChanges(); } } } I exposed my model object in my viewModel by creating an instance of it using new keyword, also I instantiated my DataService class in VM. I know this will cause a strong dependency. So: What's the best way to expose a Model object in a ViewModel? What's the best way to use DataService in VM?

  Read the article

• Combobox with collection view itemssource does not update selection box item on changes to the Model

  - by Vinit Sankhe

  Hello, Sorry for the earlier lengthy post. Here is my concise (!) description. I bind a collection view to a combobox as a itemsSource and also bind its selectedvalue with a property from my view model. I must keep IsSynchronizedWithCurrentItem="False". I change the source list ofr the view and then refresh the view. The changed (added, removed, edited) items appear correctly in the item list of the combo. But problem is with the selected item. When I change its property which is also the displaymember path of the combo, the changed property value does not reflect back on the selecton box of the combo. If you open the combo dropdown it appears correctly on the item list but not on the selection box. Now if I change the combobox tag to Listbox in my XAML (keeping all attributes as it is) then when selected item's displaymember property value is updated, the changes reflect back on the selected item of the list box . Why this issue? Just FYI: My View Model has properties EmployeeCollectionView and SelectedEmployeeId which are bound to combo as ItemsSource and SelectedValue resp. This VM implements the INotifyPropertyChanged interface. My core employee class (list of which is the source for the EmployeeCollectionView) is simply a Model class without INotifyPropertyChanged. DisplayMemberPath is "Name" property of employee Model class. I change this by some means and expect the combo selection box to update the value. I tried refreshing ther SelectedEmployeeId by setting it 0 (where it correctly selects the dummy "-- Select All --" employee entry from itemsSource) and old selected value back. But no use. The old value takes me back to the old label. Items collection has latest entry though. When I make combobox's IsEditable=True before the view's refresh and after refresh I make IsEditable=False then the things work out correctly! But this is a patch and is unnecessary. Thx Vinit Sankhe

  Read the article

• Support for nested model and class validation with ASP.NET MVC 2.0

  - by Diep-Vriezer

  I'm trying to validate a model containing other objects with validation rules using the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations attributes was hoping the default MVC implementation would suffice: var obj = js.Deserialize(json, objectInfo.ObjectType); if(!TryValidateModel(obj)) { // Handle failed model validation. } The object is composed of primitive types but also contains other classes which also use DataAnnotications. Like so: public class Entry { [Required] public Person Subscriber { get; set; } [Required] public String Company { get; set; } } public class Person { public String FirstName { get; set;} [Required] public String Surname { get; set; } } The problem is that the ASP.NET MVC validation only goes down 1 level and only evaluates the properties of the top level class, as can be read on digitallycreated.net/Blog/54/deep-inside-asp.net-mvc-2-model-metadata-and-validation. Does anyone know an elegant solution to this? I've tried xVal, but they seem to use a non-recursive pattern (http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2009/01/10/xval-a-validation-framework-for-aspnet-mvc/). Someone must have run into this problem before right? Nesting objects in your model doesn't seem so weird if you're designing a web service.

  Read the article

• ASP MVC2 model binding issue on POST

  - by Brandon Linton

  So I'm looking at moving from MVC 1.0 to MVC 2.0 RTM. One of the conventions I'd like to start following is using the strongly-typed HTML helpers for generating controls like text boxes. However, it looks like it won't be an easy jump. I tried migrating my first form, replacing lines like this: <%= Html.TextBox("FirstName", Model.Data.FirstName, new {maxlength = 30}) %> ...for lines like this: <%= Html.TextBoxFor(x => x.Data.FirstName, new {maxlength = 30}) %> Previously, this would map into its appropriate view model on a POST, using the following method signature: [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Registration(AccountViewInfo viewInfo) Instead, it currently gets an empty object back. I believe the disconnect is in the fact that we pass the view model into a larger aggregate object that has some page metadata and other fun stuff along with it (hence x.Data.FirstName instead of x.FirstName). So my question is: what is the best way to use the strongly-typed helpers while still allowing the MVC framework to appropriately cast the form collection to my view-model as it does in the original line? Is there any way to do it without changing the aggregate type we pass to the view? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Complex ModelBinders and being in charge of creating part of the model

  - by Kieron

  Hi, I've a scenario where I need to bind to an interface - in order to create the correct type, I've got a custom model binder that knows how to create the correct concrete type (which can differ). However, the type created never has the fields correctly filled in. I know I'm missing something blindingly simple here, but can anyone tell me why or at least what I need to do for the model binder to carry on it's work and bind the properties? public class ProductModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder { override public object BindModel (ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) { if (bindingContext.ModelType == typeof (IProduct)) { var content = GetProduct (bindingContext); return content; } var result = base.BindModel (controllerContext, bindingContext); return result; } IProduct GetProduct (ModelBindingContext bindingContext) { var idProvider = bindingContext.ValueProvider.GetValue ("Id"); var id = (Guid)idProvider.ConvertTo (typeof (Guid)); var repository = RepositoryFactory.GetRepository<IProductRepository> (); var product = repository.Get (id); return product; } } The Model in my case is a complex type that has an IProduct property, and it's those values I need filled in. Model: [ProductBinder] public class Edit : IProductModel { public Guid Id { get; set; } public byte[] Version { get; set; } public IProduct Product { get; set; } }

  Read the article

• Putting a MovieMaterial behind a DAE model in Papervision3D

  - by didibus

  Hi, I'm doing a project using FLARManager augmented reality and the Papervision3D library. Unfortunately, Papervision is giving me a lot of problems. My scene3D contains a DAE model and a plane. The plane has a MovieMaterial and is playing a video through FLVPlayback. The DAE and the plane are both inside the same DisplayObject3D container. FLARManager transforms the container so that everything appears through the angle of the marker. My DAE model is a TV, the screen of the TV is transparent. I want to have my Plane inside of my DAE model, so that the Movie playing on the plane material appears to be what is playing on the TV. The problem is that, even if the plane has a lower Z index then the TV, it always appears in front of the TV. How do I have my plane and its MovieMaterial appear behind the TV, so that some of its corners are cut out by the TV and the part of the TV thats transparent let me see the Movie? If its impossible, anyone has an idea of how I could get the desired effect of having a movie play on the screen of my DAE tv model? Thank You.

  Read the article

• Iterating throgh mvc model lists using javascript

  - by kapil

  I want to iterate through my model values. Following is what I did to achieve this. But the varible count never increments. How can I increment it to iterate throgh my model values? <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> function AddStudentName() { var StudentName = document.getElementById('txtStudentName').value; StudentName= StudentName.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, ''); if(StudentName!= null) { <%int count = 0; %> for(var counter = 0; parseInt(counter)< parseInt('<%=Model.StudentInfo.Count%>',10); counter++) { alert('<%=count%>'); if('<%=Model.StudentInfo[count].StudentName%>' == StudentName) { alert("A student with new student name already exists."); return false; } <%count = count +1;%> } } } </script> thanks, Kapil

  Read the article

• Custom model validation of dependent properties using Data Annotations

  - by Darin Dimitrov

  Since now I've used the excellent FluentValidation library to validate my model classes. In web applications I use it in conjunction with the jquery.validate plugin to perform client side validation as well. One drawback is that much of the validation logic is repeated on the client side and is no longer centralized at a single place. For this reason I'm looking for an alternative. There are many examples out there showing the usage of data annotations to perform model validation. It looks very promising. One thing I couldn't find out is how to validate a property that depends on another property value. Let's take for example the following model: public class Event { [Required] public DateTime? StartDate { get; set; } [Required] public DateTime? EndDate { get; set; } } I would like to ensure that EndDate is greater than StartDate. I could write a custom validation attribute extending ValidationAttribute in order to perform custom validation logic. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to obtain the model instance: public class CustomValidationAttribute : ValidationAttribute { public override bool IsValid(object value) { // value represents the property value on which this attribute is applied // but how to obtain the object instance to which this property belongs? return true; } } I found that the CustomValidationAttribute seems to do the job because it has this ValidationContext property that contains the object instance being validated. Unfortunately this attribute has been added only in .NET 4.0. So my question is: can I achieve the same functionality in .NET 3.5 SP1? UPDATE: It seems that FluentValidation already supports clientside validation and metadata in ASP.NET MVC 2. Still it would be good to know though if data annotations could be used to validate dependent properties.

  Read the article

• Calling Model Functions from a Library

  - by Abs

  Hello all, I have turned a normal PHP class into a library so I can use it in Codeigniter as a library. I can load it and call the functions I need in that class. Here is that class to help with the question. However, there are quite a few points where I have to call functions in my class. These functions reside in the model that instantiated my class. How can I do this as currently normal calls don't work. Here is my code: class Controlpanel_model extends Model { var $category = ''; var $dataa = 'a'; function Controlpanel_model(){ parent::Model(); } function import_browser_bookmarks(){ $this->load->library('BookmarkParser'); /* *In this function call to the class I pass * what model functions exist that it should call * You can view how this done by clicking the link above and looking at line 383 */ $this->bookmarkparser->parseNetscape("./bookmarks.html", 0, 'myURL', 'myFolder'); return $this->dataa; } function myURL($data, $depth, $no) { $category = $this->category; $this->dataa .= 'Tag = '.$category.'<br />'.'URL = '.$data["url"].'<br />'.'Title = '.$data["descr"].'<br />'.'<br /><br />'; } function myFolder($data, $depth, $no) { $this->category = $data["name"]; } } Thanks all for any help.

  Read the article

• MVC View Model Intellisense / Compile error

  - by Marty Trenouth

  I have one Library with my ORM and am working with a MVC Application. I have a problem where the pages won't compile because the Views can't see the Model's properties (which are inherited from lower level base classes). They system throws a compile error saying that 'object' does not contain a definition for 'ID' and no extension method 'ID' accepting a first argument of type 'object' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) implying that the View is not seeing the model. In the Controller I have full access to the Model and have check the Inherits from portion of the view to validate the correct type is being passed. Controller: return View(new TeraViral_Blog()); View: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<com.models.TeraViral_Blog>" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="TitleContent" runat="server"> Index2 </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <h2>Index2</h2> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <p> ID: <%= Html.Encode(Model.ID) %> </p> </fieldset> </asp:Content>

  Read the article

• Strange ng-model behavior inside ng-repeat

  - by Mike Fisher

  I'm trying to build up a complex post request to run a report in my Angular app. I have a list of inputs all dynamically generated via an ng-repeat a simple version of my html looks like this. <div ng-repeat="filter in lists.filters"> <input type="checkbox" ng-model="report.options.filters[filter.value]['type']/> <input type="text" ng-model="report.options.filters[filter.value]['values']/> </div> ng-repeat is looping over this array [ {name: 'Advertisers', value: 'advertisers'}, {name: 'Sizes', value: 'sizes'}, {name: 'Campaign IDs', value: 'campaigns'}, {name: 'Creative IDs', value: 'creatives'}, {name: 'Publishers', value: 'publishers'}, {name: 'Placement IDs', value: 'placements'}, {name: 'Seller Types', value: 'seller_types'}, {name: 'Impression Types', value: 'impression_types'}, {name: 'Bid Types', value: 'bid_types'}, {name: 'Seller Members', value: 'seller_members'}, {name: 'Buyer Members', value: 'buyer_members'}, {name: 'Insertion Order Ids', value: 'insertion_orders'}, {name: 'Countries', value: 'countries'}, {name: 'Site Ids', value: 'sites'}, {name: 'Sources', value: 'sources'} ]; The JSON I'm sending back needs to be structured like this: "filters": { "state": "all", "campaigns": {type:"include", values":[1,2]}, "creatives": {type:"exclude","values":[1,2]}, "publishers": {"values":[1,2]}, "placements": {type:"exclude",values":[1,2]}, "advertisers": {"values":[1,2]}, "sizes": {"values":[1,2]}, "countries": {"values":[1,2]}, "insertion_orders": {"values":[1,2]}, "sites": {"values":[1,2]}, "bid_types": {"values":[1,2]}, "seller_types": {"values":[1,2]}, "impression_types": {"values":[1,2]}, "seller_members": {"values":[1,2]}, "buyer_members": {"values":[1,2]}, "sources": {"values":[1,2]} } When I do this Angular throws an error: 'Cannot set property 'values' of undefined' and 'Cannot set property 'type' of undefined' Yet if I do this (inside ng-repeat) <input type="text" ng-model="report.options.filters[filter.value]/> Or this outside of ng-repeat <input type="text" ng-model="report.options.filters[filter.value]['values']/> No errors are thrown and everything works fine. I'm positive that filter.value is defined and available on the scope even though Angular thinks it's not for some reason. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing wrong. Any help is much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Flexible design - customizable entity model, UI and workflow

  - by Ngm

  Hi All, I want to achieve the following aspects in the software I am building: 1. Customizable entity model 2. Customizable UI 3. Customizable workflow I have thought about an approach to achieve this, I want you to review this and make suggestions: Entity objects should be plain objects and will hold just data Separate Entity model and DB Schema by using an framework (like NHibernate?). This will allow easy modification of entity objects. Business logic to fetch/modify entities has to be granular enough so that they can be invoked as part of the workflow. Business objects should not hold any state, and hence will contain only static methods The workflow will decide depending upon the "state" of an entity/entities which methods on business object/objects to invoke. The workflow should obtain the results of the processing and then pass on the business objects to the appropriate UI screen. The UI screen has to contain instructions about how to display a given entity/entites. Possibly the UI has to be generated dynamically based on a set of UI instructions. (like XUL) What do you think about this approach? Suggest which existing frameworks (like NHiberante, Window Workflow) fit into this model, so that I will not spend time on coding these frameworks Also suggest is there any asp.net framework that can generate dynamic asp.net ajax pages based on a set of UI instructions (like Mozilla XUL)? I have recently been exploring Apache Ofbiz and was impressed by its ability to customize most areas of the application: UI, workflow, entities. Is there any similar (not necessarily an ERP system) application developed in C#/.Net which offers a similar level of customization? I am looking for examples of applications developed in C# that are highly customizable in terms of UI, Workflow and Entity Model

  Read the article

• Django internationalization for admin pages - translate model name and attributes

  - by geekQ

  Django's internationalization is very nice (gettext based, LocaleMiddleware), but what is the proper way to translate the model name and the attributes for admin pages? I did not find anything about this in the documentation: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/i18n/internationalization/ http://www.djangobook.com/en/2.0/chapter19/ I would like to have "???????? ????? ??? ?????????" instead of "???????? order ??? ?????????". Note, the 'order' is not translated. First, I defined a model, activated USE_I18N = True in settings.py, run django-admin makemessages -l ru. No entries are created by default for model names and attributes. Grepping in the Django source code I found: $ ack "Select %s to change" contrib/admin/views/main.py 70: self.title = (self.is_popup and ugettext('Select %s') % force_unicode(self.opts.verbose_name) or ugettext('Select %s to change') % force_unicode(self.opts.verbose_name)) So the verbose_name meta property seems to play some role here. Tried to use it: class Order(models.Model): subject = models.CharField(max_length=150) description = models.TextField() class Meta: verbose_name = _('order') Now the updated po file contains msgid 'order' that can be translated. So I put the translation in. Unfortunately running the admin pages show the same mix of "???????? order ??? ?????????". I'm currently using Django 1.1.1. Could somebody point me to the relevant documentation? Because google can not. ;-) In the mean time I'll dig deeper into the django source code...

  Read the article

• Custom model validation of dependent properties using Data Annotations

  - by Darin Dimitrov

  Since now I've used the excellent FluentValidation library to validate my model classes. In web applications I use it in conjunction with the jquery.validate plugin to perform client side validation as well. One drawback is that much of the validation logic is repeated on the client side and is no longer centralized at a single place. For this reason I'm looking for an alternative. There are many examples out there showing the usage of data annotations to perform model validation. It looks very promising. One thing I couldn't find out is how to validate a property that depends on another property value. Let's take for example the following model: public class Event { [Required] public DateTime? StartDate { get; set; } [Required] public DateTime? EndDate { get; set; } } I would like to ensure that EndDate is greater than StartDate. I could write a custom validation attribute extending ValidationAttribute in order to perform custom validation logic. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to obtain the model instance: public class CustomValidationAttribute : ValidationAttribute { public override bool IsValid(object value) { // value represents the property value on which this attribute is applied // but how to obtain the object instance to which this property belongs? return true; } } I found that the CustomValidationAttribute seems to do the job because it has this ValidationContext property that contains the object instance being validated. Unfortunately this attribute has been added only in .NET 4.0. So my question is: can I achieve the same functionality in .NET 3.5 SP1? UPDATE: It seems that FluentValidation already supports clientside validation and metadata in ASP.NET MVC 2. Still it would be good to know though if data annotations could be used to validate dependent properties.

  Read the article

• Domain model for an optional many-many relationship

  - by Greg

  Let's say I'm modeling phone numbers. I have one entity for PhoneNumber, and one for Person. There's a link table that expresses the link (if any) between the PhoneNumber and Person. The link table also has a field for DisplayOrder. When accessing my domain model, I have several Use Cases for viewing a Person. I can look at them without any PhoneNumber information. I can look at them for a specific PhoneNumber. I can look at them and all of their current (or past) PhoneNumbers. I'm trying to model Person, not only for the standard CRUD operations, but for the (un)assignment of PhoneNumbers to a Person. I'm having trouble expressing the relationship between the two, especially with respects to the DisplayOrder property. I can think of several solutions but I'm not sure of which (if any) would be best. A PhoneNumberPerson class that has a Person and PhoneNumber property (most closely resembles database design) A PhoneCarryingPerson class that inherits from Person and has a PhoneNumber property. A PhoneNumber and/or PhoneNumbers property on Person (and vis-a-versa, a Person property on PhoneNumber) What would be a good way to model this that makes sense from a domain model perspective? How do I avoid misplaced properties (DisplayOrder on Person) or conditionally populated properties?

  Read the article

• MVC View Model Intellesense / Compile error

  - by Marty Trenouth

  I have one Library with my ORM and am working with a MVC Application. I have a problem where the pages won't compile because the Views can't see the Model's properties (which are inherited from lower level base classes). They system throws a compile error saying that 'object' does not contain a definition for 'ID' and no extension method 'ID' accepting a first argument of type 'object' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) implying that the View is not seeing the model. In the Controller I have full access to the Model and have check the Inherits from portion of the view to validate the correct type is being passed. Controller: return View(new TeraViral_Blog()); View: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<com.models.TeraViral_Blog>" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="TitleContent" runat="server"> Index2 </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <h2>Index2</h2> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <p> ID: <%= Html.Encode(Model.ID) %> </p> </fieldset> </asp:Content>

  Read the article

• Reverse mapping from a table to a model in SQLAlchemy

  - by Jace

  To provide an activity log in my SQLAlchemy-based app, I have a model like this: class ActivityLog(Base): __tablename__ = 'activitylog' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) activity_by_id = Column(Integer, ForeignKey('users.id'), nullable=False) activity_by = relation(User, primaryjoin=activity_by_id == User.id) activity_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) activity_type = Column(SmallInteger, nullable=False) target_table = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) target_id = Column(Integer, nullable=False) target_title = Column(Unicode(255), nullable=False) The log contains entries for multiple tables, so I can't use ForeignKey relations. Log entries are made like this: doc = Document(name=u'mydoc', title=u'My Test Document', created_by=user, edited_by=user) session.add(doc) session.flush() # See note below log = ActivityLog(activity_by=user, activity_type=ACTIVITY_ADD, target_table=Document.__table__.name, target_id=doc.id, target_title=doc.title) session.add(log) This leaves me with three problems: I have to flush the session before my doc object gets an id. If I had used a ForeignKey column and a relation mapper, I could have simply called ActivityLog(target=doc) and let SQLAlchemy do the work. Is there any way to work around needing to flush by hand? The target_table parameter is too verbose. I suppose I could solve this with a target property setter in ActivityLog that automatically retrieves the table name and id from a given instance. Biggest of all, I'm not sure how to retrieve a model instance from the database. Given an ActivityLog instance log, calling self.session.query(log.target_table).get(log.target_id) does not work, as query() expects a model as parameter. One workaround appears to be to use polymorphism and derive all my models from a base model which ActivityLog recognises. Something like this: class Entity(Base): __tablename__ = 'entities' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) title = Column(Unicode(255), nullable=False) edited_at = Column(DateTime, onupdate=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) entity_type = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_on': entity_type} class Document(Entity): __tablename__ = 'documents' __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_identity': 'document'} body = Column(UnicodeText, nullable=False) class ActivityLog(Base): __tablename__ = 'activitylog' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) ... target_id = Column(Integer, ForeignKey('entities.id'), nullable=False) target = relation(Entity) If I do this, ActivityLog(...).target will give me a Document instance when it refers to a Document, but I'm not sure it's worth the overhead of having two tables for everything. Should I go ahead and do it this way?

  Read the article

• How to save to Django Model that Have Mulitple Foreign Keys Fields

  - by Spikie

  I have Models for business Apps class staff_name(models.Model): TITLE_CHOICES = ( ('Mr', 'Mr'), ('Miss', 'Miss'), ( 'Mrs', 'Mrs'), ( 'chief', 'chief'), ) titlename = models.CharField(max_length=10,choices=TITLE_CHOICES) firstname = models.CharField(max_length=150) surname = models.CharField(max_length=150) date = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) class meta: ordering = ["date"] get_latest_by = "date" class inventory_transaction(models.Model): stock_in = models.DecimalField(blank=True, null=True,max_digits=8, decimal_places=2) stock_out = models.DecimalField(blank=True,null=True,max_digits=8, decimal_places=2) Number_container = models.ForeignKey(container_identity) staffs = models.ForeignKey(staff_name) goods_details = models.ForeignKey(departments) balance = models.DecimalField(max_digits=8, decimal_places=2) date = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) What i want to accomplish is check if the staff have made entry to the table before if yes add the value for the stock in plus (last) balance field and assign to balance if no just assign stock in value to balance field and save these are my codes These are my codes: try: s = staffname.staffs_set.all().order_by("-date").latest() # staffname is the instant of the class model staff_name e = s.staffs_set.create(stockin=vdataz,balance=s.balance + vdataz ) # e is the instant of the class model inventory_transaction e.save e.staffs.add(s) e.from_container.add(containersno) e.goods_details.add(department) except ObjectDoesNotExist: e = staff_name.objects.create(stockin=vdataz,balance=vdataz ) e.save e.staffs.add(staffname) e.from_container.add(containersno) e.goods_details.add(department) I will really appreciate a solution Thanks I hope it make more sense now. iam on online if you need more explanation just ask in the comment.Thank you for your help

  Read the article

• Need a workaround to filter on related model and aggregated fields in Django

  - by parxier

  I opened a ticket for this problem. In a nutshell here is my model: class Plan(models.Model): cap = models.IntegerField() class Phone(models.Model): plan = models.ForeignKey(Plan, related_name='phones') class Call(models.Model): phone = models.ForeignKey(Phone, related_name='calls') cost = models.IntegerField() I want to run a query like this one: Phone.objects.annotate(total_cost=Sum('calls__cost')).filter(total_cost__gte=0.5*F('plan__cap')) Unfortunately Django generates bad SQL: SELECT "app_phone"."id", "app_phone"."plan_id", SUM("app_call"."cost") AS "total_cost" FROM "app_phone" INNER JOIN "app_plan" ON ("app_phone"."plan_id" = "app_plan"."id") LEFT OUTER JOIN "app_call" ON ("app_phone"."id" = "app_call"."phone_id") GROUP BY "app_phone"."id", "app_phone"."plan_id" HAVING SUM("app_call"."cost") >= 0.5 * "app_plan"."cap" and errors with: ProgrammingError: column "app_plan.cap" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function LINE 1: ...."plan_id" HAVING SUM("app_call"."cost") >= 0.5 * "app_plan".... Is there any workaround apart from running raw SQL?

  Read the article

• get_by_id method on Model classes in Google App Engine Datastore

  - by tarn

  I'm unable to workout how you can get objects from the Google App Engine Datastore using get_by_id. Here is the model from google.appengine.ext import db class Address(db.Model): description = db.StringProperty(multiline=True) latitude = db.FloatProperty() longitdue = db.FloatProperty() date = db.DateTimeProperty(auto_now_add=True) I can create them, put them, and retrieve them with gql. address = Address() address.description = self.request.get('name') address.latitude = float(self.request.get('latitude')) address.longitude = float(self.request.get('longitude')) address.put() A saved address has values for >> address.key() aglndWVzdGJvb2tyDQsSB0FkZHJlc3MYDQw >> address.key().id() 14 I can find them using the key from google.appengine.ext import db address = db.get('aglndWVzdGJvb2tyDQsSB0FkZHJlc3MYDQw') But can't find them by id >> from google.appengine.ext import db >> address = db.Model.get_by_id(14) The address is None, when I try >> Address.get_by_id(14) AttributeError: type object 'Address' has no attribute 'get_by_id' How can I find by id? EDIT: It turns out I'm an idiot and was trying find an Address Model in a function called Address. Thanks for your answers, I've marked Brandon as the correct answer as he got in first and demonstrated it should all work.

  Read the article

• Rails Model inheritance in forms

  - by Tiago

  I'm doing a reporting system for my app. I created a model ReportKind for example, but as I can report a lot of stuff, I wanted to make different groups of report kinds. Since they share a lot of behavior, I'm trying to use inheritance. So I have the main model: model ReportKind << ActiveRecord::Base end and created for example: model UserReportKind << ReportKind end In my table report_kinds I've the type column, and until here its all working. My problem is in the forms/controllers. When I do a ReportKind.new, my form is build with the '*report_kind*' prefix. If a get a UserReportKind, even through a ReportKind.find, the form will build the 'user_report_kind' prefix. This mess everything in the controllers, since sometimes I'll have params[:report_kind], sometimes params[:user_report_kind], and so on for every other inheritance I made. Is there anyway to force it to aways use the 'report_kind' prefix? Also I had to force the attribute 'type' in the controller, because it didn't get the value direct from the form, is there a pretty way to do this? Routing was another problem, since it was trying to build routes based in the inherited models names. I overcome that by adding the other models in routes pointing to the same controller.

  Read the article

• Django extending user model and displaying form

  - by MichalKlich

  Hello, I am writing website and i`d like to implement profile managment. Basic thing would be to edit some of user details by themself, like first and last name etc. Now, i had to extend User model to add my own stuff, and email address. I am having troubles with displaying form. Example will describe better what i would like achieve. This is mine extended user model. class UserExtended(models.Model): user = models.ForeignKey(User, unique=True) kod_pocztowy = models.CharField(max_length=6,blank=True) email = models.EmailField() This is how my form looks like. class UserCreationFormExtended(UserCreationForm): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): super(UserCreationFormExtended, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) self.fields['email'].required = True self.fields['first_name'].required = False self.fields['last_name'].required = False class Meta: model = User fields = ('username', 'first_name', 'last_name', 'email') It works fine when registering, as i need allow users to put username and email but when it goes to editing profile it displays too many fields. I would not like them to be able to edit username and email. How could i disable fields in form? Thanks for help.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >