I have 2 forms on a page, that I'd like to validate separately.
I have the following:
public function executeNew(sfWebRequest $request)
{
$this->propertyForm = new AdminNewPropertyForm();
$this->propertyCsvForm = new AdminNewPropertyImportForm();
$this->processForm($request, $this->propertyForm, $this->propertyCsvForm);
}
protected function processForm(sfWebRequest $request, sfForm $propertyForm, sfForm $propertyCsvForm)
{
if($request->hasParameter('property'))
{
if($request->isMethod('post'))
{
$propertyForm->bind($request->getParameter($propertyForm->getName()));
if($propertyForm->isValid())
{
$propertyForm->save();
$this->getUser()->setFlash('success', 'The property was successfully updated.');
} else {
$this->getUser()->setFlash('error', 'The property could not be saved.');
}
}
}
else {
if($request->isMethod('post'))
{
$propertyCsvForm->bind($request->getParameter($propertyCsvForm->getName()));
if($propertyCsvForm->isValid())
{
$propertyCsvForm->save();
}
}
}
}
I am then displaying both forms in the view.
The problem is, I'm getting an error when passing the forms in processForm()
Strict standards: Declaration of propertyActions::processForm() should be compatible with that of autoPropertyActions::processForm()
Am I passing the forms correctly?
Thanks
As the error message says you are obviously not doing it correctly ;)
As your propertyActions class extends an abstract class autoPropertyActions there are some strict standards on implementing the functions declared in the abstract class. That's why it's complaining that you have made some unexpected alterations.
In fact - do you really have to use the processForm function? After all you are calling this function yourself, so you can call it whatever you like and the class won't complain then (as the original processForm will stay intact).
Related
In a SYMFONY FORM (ORM is not use (PDO is used for DB query instead)).
I have a class MyEntityType in which the buildForm function has:
$builder->add('my_attribute',ChoiceType::class,array(
'choices'=>$listForMyAttribute,
'multiple'=>'true',
'attr'=>array('data-native-menu'=>'false'),
'label'=>'Multiple Select on my attribute'
));
My attribute is an array of an entity named MyEntity which has:
/**
* #Assert\NotBlank()
*/
private $myAttribute;
With a getter and a setter for that variable $myAttribute.
When I submit the form in the Controller, it doesn't pass the validation check and logs this error:
Unable to reverse value for property path "myAttribute" : Could not find all matching choices for the given values.
When I start to look for solution around this error message, it leads to something named "How to Use Data Transformers" in SYMFONY Cookbook; And it seems a solution would involve to create new Class and write a lot of code for something that one should be able to by-pass in a much straight forward way.
Does anyone have an idea?
My problem was that my array $listForMyAttribute was defined in the buildForm() function and its definition was relying on some conditional.
The conditional to make the array were met when this one was displayed for the first time.
After pushing the submit button, the buildForm was regenerated in the Controller, this second time, the condition were not met to make the array $listForMyAttribute as it was on the first display. Hence the program was throwing a "contraint not met error" because the value submited for that field could not be find.
Today I face exactly the same problem. Solution is simple as 1-2-3.
1) Create utility dummy class DoNotTransformChoices
<?php
namespace AppBundle\DataTransformer;
use Symfony\Component\Form\Extension\Core\ChoiceList\ChoiceListInterface;
class DoNotTransformChoices implements ChoiceListInterface
{
public function getChoices() { return []; }
public function getValues() { return []; }
public function getPreferredViews() { return []; }
public function getRemainingViews() { return []; }
public function getChoicesForValues(array $values) { return $values; }
public function getValuesForChoices(array $choices) { return $choices; }
public function getIndicesForChoices(array $choices) { return $choices; }
public function getIndicesForValues(array $values) { return $values; }
}
2) Add to your field the following additional option:
...
'choice_list' => new DoNotTransformChoices,
...
3) Congratulations!
I'm having a problem where the related table id fields return 'null' from my domain objects when using inheritance. Here is an example:
In /src/groovy/
BaseClass1.groovy
class BaseClass1 {
Long id
static mapping = {
tablePerConcreteClass true
}
}
BaseClass2.groovy
class BaseClass2 extends BaseClass1 {
String someOtherProperty
static constraints = {
someOtherProperty(maxSize:200)
}
static mapping = BaseClass1.mapping
}
In /grails-app/domain
ParentClass.groovy
class ParentClass extends BaseClass2 {
ChildClass myChild
static mapping = BaseClass2.mapping << {
version false
}
}
ChildClass.groovy
class ChildClass extends BaseClass1 {
String property
static mapping = BaseClass1.mapping
}
The problem appears here:
SomeotherCode.groovy
print parentClassInstance.myChild.id // returns the value
print parentClassInstance.myChildId // returns null
Any ideas what might be going on to get those dynamic properties to break like this?
After debugging into the get(AssociationName)Id source, I found the following:
The handler for this is:
GrailsDomainConfigurationUtil.getAssociationIdentifier(Object target, String propertyName,
GrailsDomainClass referencedDomainClass) {
String getterName = GrailsClassUtils.getGetterName(propertyName);
try {
Method m = target.getClass().getMethod(getterName, EMPTY_CLASS_ARRAY);
Object value = m.invoke(target);
if (value != null && referencedDomainClass != null) {
String identifierGetter = GrailsClassUtils.getGetterName(referencedDomainClass.getIdentifier().getName());
m = value.getClass().getDeclaredMethod(identifierGetter, EMPTY_CLASS_ARRAY);
return (Serializable)m.invoke(value);
}
}
catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// ignore
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// ignore
}
catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
// ignore
}
return null;
}
It threw an exception on the related class (value.getClass().getDeclaredMethod), saying NoSuchMethod for the method getId(). I was unable to remove the id declaration from the base class without Grails complaining that an identifier column was required. I tried marking id as public and it also complained that it wasn't there. So, I tried this
BaseClass {
Long id
public Long getId() { return this.#id }
}
and things worked on some classes, but not on others.
When I removed the ID declaration, I go an error: "Identity property not found, but required in domain class". On a whim, I tried adding #Entity to the concrete classes and viola! everything started working.
class BaseClass {
//Don't declare id!
}
#Entity
class ParentClass {}
#Entity
class ChildClass {}
I still think it is a grails bug that it needs to be added, but at least it is easy enough to work around.
I'm not sure why you are seeing this behavior, but I'm also not sure why you are doing some of the things you are doing here. Why have a domain class extend a POGO? Domains, Controllers, and Services are heavily managed by the Grails machinery, which probably was not designed for this sort of use. Specifically, I believe Grails builds the dynamic property getters for the GrailsDomainProperty(s) of GrailsDomainClass(es), not POGO's. In this case, you have an explicitly declared id field in BaseClass1 that is not a GrailsDomainProperty. I suspect that this POGO id property is not picked up by the Grails machinery that creates the dynamic property getters for Domains.
You might try putting BaseClass1/2 in /grails-app/domain, perhaps making them abstract if you don't want them instantiated, then extending them as you are and seeing if you observe the behavior you want.
I am trying to call ZFCUser from a class within my model but i keep getting this message:
Call to undefined method Members\Model\MemberTable::zfcUserAuthentication()
this is how i tried to call it:
public function getUserEntity()
{
if($this->zfcUserAuthentication()->getAuthService()->hasIdentity())
{
if (!$this->user_entity)
{
$this->setUserEntity($this->zfcUserAuthentication()->getAuthService()->getIdentity());
}
return $this->user_entity;
}
}
i suspect that i need to implement/extend a class inorder for ZFcuser to be recoginised.
i would really appriciate some quick advice on this.
thank you
by the way
the ZFCUser works when i call it from my controller so, the use Zend\Mvc\Controller\AbstractActionController obviouly enables this to be recoginised.
but what is the equivalent of the AbstractActionController for other classes in your framework.
zfcUserAuthentication() is a controller plugin, so that's why it can be called from controllers. You can't (or shouldn't) try and access this from non-controllers. If you need the user entity within another class, you should pass it in as a dependency for that class.
Edit: Update your member table factory so it sets the user entity:
'Members\Model\MemberTable' => function($sm) {
$tableGateway = $sm->get('MemberTableGateway');
$table = new MemberTable($tableGateway);
$authService = $serviceLocator->get('zfcuser_auth_service');
$userEntity = $authService->getIdentity();
$table->setUserEntity($userEntity);
return $table;
}
add a property to your MemberTable class for it:
protected $userEntity;
and getters/setter for it:
public function setUserEntity($userEntity)
{
$this->userEntity = $userEntity;
}
public function getUserEntity()
{
return $this->userEntity;
}
then just call $this->getUserEntity() when you need it.
There are various ways to do that -
One of the way is - do the following in "MemberTable.php" file.
Maybe most of the below lines of code is already available in our project.
a. Add the below lines after 'namespace' statement -
use Zend\ServiceManager\ServiceLocatorAwareInterface; //Added Line
use Zend\ServiceManager\ServiceLocatorInterface; //Added Line
b. Change the class statement as -
class MemberTable implements ServiceLocatorAwareInterface { //Modified Line
....
.....
}
c. Add the below line at the top of the class statement -
class MemberTable implements ServiceLocatorAwareInterface {
protected $serviceLocator; //Added line
....
.....
}
d. Add the following functions -
public function setServiceLocator(ServiceLocatorInterface $serviceLocator) {
$this->serviceLocator = $serviceLocator;
}
public function getServiceLocator() {
return $this->serviceLocator;
}
e. In Members/Module.php, make the changes,
'Members\Model\MemberTable' => function($sm) {
$tableGateway = $sm->get('MemberTableGateway');
$table = new MemberTable($tableGateway);
$table->setServiceLocator($sm); //This is the important line.
return $table;
}
Now you have the 'ServiceLocator' available in the MemberTable class.
For accessing the zfcUserAuthentication() or any ControllerPlugin, you can do the following -
public function getUserEntity()
{
$zfcUserAuth = $this->getServiceLocator()->get('controllerPluginManager')->get('zfcUserAuthentication');
if($zfcUserAuth->getAuthService()->hasIdentity())
{
if (!$this->user_entity)
{
$this->setUserEntity($zfcUserAuth->getAuthService()->getIdentity());
}
return $this->user_entity;
}
}
It appears the convention for converting objects in Groovy is to use the as operator and override asType(). For example:
class Id {
def value
#Override
public Object asType(Class type) {
if (type == FormattedId) {
return new FormattedId(value: value.toUpperCase())
}
}
}
def formattedId = new Id(value: "test") as FormattedId
However, Grails over-writes the implementation of asType() for all objects at runtime so that it can support idioms like render as JSON.
An alternative is to re-write the asType() in the Grails Bootstrap class as follows:
def init = { servletContext ->
Id.metaClass.asType = { Class type ->
if (type == FormattedId) {
return new FormattedId(value: value.toUpperCase())
}
}
}
However, this leads to code duplication (DRY) as you now need to repeat the above in both the Bootstrap and the Id class otherwise the as FormattedId will not work outside the Grails container.
What alternatives exist to writing conversion code in Groovy/Grails that do not break good code/OO design principals like the Single Responsibility Principal or DRY? Are Mixins are good use here?
You can use the Grails support for Codecs to automatically add encodeAs* functions to your Grails archetypes:
class FormattedIdCodec {
static encode = { target ->
new FormattedId((target as String).toUpperCase()
}
}
Then you can use the following in your code:
def formattedId = new Id(value: "test").encodeAsFormattedId
My un-elegant solution is to rename the original asType(), and make a new asType() that calls it, and to also make your BootStrap overwrite astType with a call to that method:
so, your class:
class Id {
def value
#Override
public Object asType(Class type) {
return oldAsType(type);
}
public Object oldAsType(Class type) {
if (type == FormattedId) {
return new FormattedId(value: value.toUpperCase())
}
}
}
In my app, I had asType defined in a number of classes, so I ended up using a common closure in BootStrap.groovy:
def useOldAsType = {Class clazz ->
delegate.oldAsType(clazz)
}
Id.metaClass.asType = useOldAsType;
Value.metaClass.asType = useOldAsType;
OtherClass.metaClass.asType = useOldAsType;
SubclassOfValue.metaClass.asType = useOldAsType;
Note that if you have a subclass that does not override asType, but you want it to use the superclass's, you must also set it in BootStrap.
I have a command class that needs to have 2 constructors. However,
using structuremap it seems that I can only specify one constructor to
be used. I have solved the problem for now by subtyping the specific
command class, which each implementation implementing it's own
interface and constructor. Like the code below shows. The
ISelectCommand implements two separate interfaces for the
string constructor and the int constructor, just for the sake of
registering the two subtypes using structuremap.
However, I consider this a hack and I just wonder why is it not
possible for structuremap to resolve the constructor signature by the
type passed in as parameter for the constructor? Then I could register
the SelectProductCommand as an ISelectCommand and
instantiate it like:
ObjectFactury.With(10).Use>();
orObjectFactury.With("testproduct").Use>();
public class SelectProductCommand : ISelectCommand<IProduct>,
ICommand, IExecutable
{
private readonly Func<Product, Boolean> _selector;
private IEnumerable<IProduct> _resultList;
public SelectProductCommand(Func<Product, Boolean> selector)
{
_selector = selector;
}
public IEnumerable<IProduct> Result
{
get { return _resultList; }
}
public void Execute(GenFormDataContext context)
{
_resultList = GetProductRepository().Fetch(context,
_selector);
}
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct,
Product>>();
}
}
public class SelectProductIntCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductIntCommand(Int32 id): base(x =>
x.ProductId == id) {}
}
public class SelectProductStringCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductStringCommand(String name): base(x =>
x.ProductName.Contains(name)) {}
}
P.s. I know how to tell structuremap what constructor map to use, but my again my question is if there is a way to have structuremap select the right constructor based on the parameter passed to the constructor (i.e. using regular method overloading).
The short answer is this post by the creator of Structuremap.
The long answer is regarding the structure you have in that piece of code. In my view, a command is by definition a "class" that does something to an "entity", i.e it modifies the class somehow. Think CreateNewProductCommand.
Here you are using commands for querying, if I'm not mistaken. You also have a bit of a separation of concern issue floating around here. The command posted defines what to do and how to do it, which is to much and you get that kind of Service location you're using in
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct, Product>>();
}
The way I'd structure commands is to use CreateProductCommand as a data contract, i.e it only contains data such as product information.
Then you have a CreateProductCommandHandler which implements IHandles<CreateProductCommand> with a single method Handle or Execute. That way you get better separation of concern and testability.
As for the querying part, just use your repositores directly in your controller/presenter, alternatively use the Query Object pattern
I think I solved the problem using a small utility class. This class gets the concrete type from ObjectFactory and uses this type to construct the instance according to the parameters past into the factory method. Now on the 'client' side I use ObjectFactory to create an instance of CommandFactory. The implementation of CommandFactory is in another solution and thus the 'client solution' remains independent of the 'server' solution.
public class CommandFactory
{
public ICommand Create<T>()
{
return Create<T>(new object[] {});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2, object arg3)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2, arg3});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object[] arguments)
{
return (ICommand)Activator.CreateInstance(GetRegisteredType<T>(), arguments);
}
public static Type GetRegisteredType<T>()
{
return ObjectFactory.Model.DefaultTypeFor(typeof (T));
}
}