I have a database table with questions for a competition. These are created for specific competitions from an edit page that our staff can use, so each competition may have different questions.
The Questions table has details like the field name, the type (ie checkbox) and the validation type (ie Required and Compare etc).
Is there any way when trying to build the competition view for the customer to dynamically render the questions to the view (as each competition will have different questions)?
I was thinking a dynamic model or something? I am not really sure. Any ideas are welcome.
I am a little confused about how to fit my objects into this model structure. So do I create the editor template for the question of the Answer?
Basically when an admin user set's up a competition they have an entry in the competition table with the basic comp into then they can create a number of Questions which go into the CompetitionQuestion table which is linked back to the Comp table, each comp has any number of questions - this table holds details like the field name, the type (ie checkbox) and the validation type (ie Required and Compare etc) as mentioned above.
But when the competition view is rendered for a person to enter it it pulls info from the Comp Model (which is fine) then I need to loop through the CompetitionQuestion's (don't know how to create model for this) and render out each question for the specific comp - these are then saved when the person enters in the Entry (basic user and comp details) and EntryAnswer (answer to each question) tables.
So do I link the EditorTemplate up to the CompetitionQuestion object or the EntryAnswer object?
Ah so confused right now :(
What you are looking for is Editor templates.
It's template that you can create to match your custom objects.
Here is a good tutorial on how to proceed.
http://coding-in.net/asp-net-mvc-3-how-to-use-editortemplates/
Related
This is complicated and difficult to explain, but here it goes. I have created a db that works just fine. It is a time saver, but not efficient for the user. I have a form for the merchandise where the user selects a paper type from a combobox. They are presented with two choices. They must also select a print size from another combobox. They are presented with 5 choices. I have VBA code that creates a SKU number based on these selections.
An art piece can use both paper types and be available in all 5 sizes. What I am trying to figure out is how I can offer all the possible choices on this form, allow the user to select options for that piece. As an example, the user chooses both paper types and all print sizes. This would create 10 SKU numbers for one art piece. Below is a copy of the form in it's current view:
Is this possible to do from one form? If so, how can this be accomplished in the most efficient way? I feel that it can. In VBA, this would be an IF nest nightmare, especially when concatenating the SKU variables. Either Select statements or another method that I am unaware of, could be the solution.
Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions and assistance.
EDIT: I hope this helps clarify. I would prefer to use this form
to complete the task. The checkboxes are not in an option group so they could all be checked if the user requires it. For the purposes of this question, let's assume the user has checked all the boxes. This would equal 10 total combinations.
I run this sub to generate a SKU based on the paper type and the print size:
Private Function UpdateArtwork()
Me.MerchandiseSKU = Me.cboArtworkID_A5A.Column(5) & _
Me.cboPrintTypeID_A5A.Column(2) & Me.cboPaperTypeID_A5A.Column(0) & _
Format(Me.cboPrintSizeID_A5A.Column(0), "00")
Call UpdateArtworkPic
End Function
I am trying to figure out how to write the code for the new form that allows all 10 SKU numbers to be generated and create 10 new records for Artwork_ID (Artwork table).
I think that the best way of doing this would be to create a new table, called tblArtworkSKU, which has the following fields:
ArtworkSKU_ID - Autonumber, primary key;
Artwork_ID - number, foreign key from the Artwork table;
PrintSize_ID - foreign key from the PrintSize table;
PrintType_ID - foreign key from the PrintType table;
ArtworkSKU - text.
You would then create a small continuous form based on this table, with PrintSize_ID and PrintType_ID selected through combo boxes. When you place this form onto the main form that you have, Access should automatically let you join on Artwork_ID to create a one-to-many relationship.
You could then use the AfterUpdate events of each combo box to create the SKU.
Regards,
If I'm making an Entity in Core Data to handle possible values a person can select in a questionnaire form do I have to create an attribute for every possible selectable question? For example my Entity named Person has attributes for name, date, time, and than a bunch of possible answers to select radio-button style that should be added to the Person Entity. Is it better to use a separate Entity for the questionnaire portion.
Edit for better clarity:
The app/survey form is a list of questions with a radio button style check box. If the question applies to them they touch the circle button and it fills in the circle. So its a boolean value. However I'm just not sure if I have to make each one of those questions an boolean attribute or not? This seems like a simple enough project to start learning Core Data which is the purpose of using Core Data instead of some other modeling and persistence solution.
If your properties are y/n answers, that would be boolean attribute e.g.:
Person.licensed = y/n
If your properties have more than y/n possible answer you might use a number attribute:
Person.licensed = 1(y), 0(n), -1(Unknown), -2(Ineligible)
You may need more flexible properties. Maybe there are many types of licenses:
Person.licenses --> Related Entity License with attributes- license.type, license.issueDate, license.expireDate
Then, if you are doing something like a survey, there are many other potential paths. You'll need to elaborate on what you are doing for more help.
Separating the two entities is a good idea as it avoids confusion and keeps your code cleaner. When you step away from the project and return to it 4 months later, there will be no issues discerning where data is saved and from where to retrieve it.
Your Person entity will have its attributes (name, email, etc) and the Questionnaire entity will have its attributes- yes, one for each question with a Boolean type.
Based on your comment you don't need a Boolean or any other attribute. You have a set of questions, which are just instances in the data store. You could group them into a questionnaire if you want, which would be another entity and a relationship between them. Your person is another entity, and has a to-many relationship to question. As the user ticks questions that apply to them you add those questions to the relationship.
I am working on an application that allows various people from different departments in a company log in and edit a form. Each department has specific fields in the form that only they are allowed to edit and view.
Would it be more organized code if I create one model for the entire set of fields and based on who logs in, render a different form containing the necessary fields? Or would it be better to split the department-specific fields into their own models and then based on who logs in, render a form containing their specific fields and relate the records from different departments together through a foreign key of some sort?
"It depends" is probably the best answer.
How many fields do you have? How much logic exists per department form type?
If you split all the fields to separate models (and corresponding tables) it will become a hassle if you ever want a full overview of the forms after they have been filled in, because they would be in separate tables. You'd have to go through every association of the form to get the full form.
If you still want to split them, because you have a lot of logic per department, you could point all your models to one 'main' table that contains all the fields, using table_name. That way you have all the data in one table and you can easily retrieve it. However, you'd also have to save the type of form in order to retrieve it in the correct model, probably more trouble than it's worth. (If it's the best thing to save all your fields in one table depends as well, how often does it get retrieved or does it get inserted/updated more often.)
Simple forms will probably fit just fine in one model. Unless you have a lot of non-sharable code per department it probably isn't worth it to split the form into separate models. If you do split the form into models you probably should create one main form model and have the department models extend it for whatever bit of reusable form logic there is.
After all that, I would say, I prefer simplicity so I'd probably save it in one model.
I'd split the fields and then you can setup your models with accepts_nested_attributes_for to build your form appropriately.
I've got an app with illustrations that belong_to editions that belong_to novels. Currently illustrations do not belong_to novels, and I'd prefer if they didn't. On the form I can pass the edition_id when creating the illustration but can't figure out a way to pass the novel_id since it's not an attribute of illustration. I need to identify a unique novel edition pairing to create the illustration because many editions may have the name 1st, for instance, but different publication dates, etc.... I'm thinking I can make these a hash and then handle them in the controller. I don't know how to do that though. Is that the right approach? How do you make a hash out of 2 fields in a form?
Why do you need to do it from view?
If you need just pass to illustration novel_id, knowing edition_id:
#edition=Edition.find(params[:id])
novel_id=#edition.novel.id
I'll try to be short and clear with this question.
We have an asp.net mvc app that uses entity framework 4.
Our business model is relatively straightforward:
We have an object (which corresponds to a table) called Photo(s).
That photos table has a handful of columns that match up to properties on the object.
Description,Title,Date etc.
It also has a number columns that reference foreign keys for other tables:
AuthorId,LicenseId etc...
The author and license tables are complex in their own right, with multiple fields (Title,Summary,Date etc.)
I have multiple clients using this application to view their photos. I would like each client to dictate what fields they see when viewing the photos, as well as what fields they see when editing those fields.
My thought is to have tables setup saying client-a should see Field1,Field2 and Field3 when viewing their photos - and client-b should see Field1,Field4 and Field5. But some of these fields are not simply columns in the main photos table, they may be fields in a child table. so Field1 might be: Table.Photos.Title -> which corresponds to an object as: Objects.Photo.title...
but Field3 might be: Table.Licenses.LicenseSummary -> which corresponds to an object as: Objects.Photo.License.LicenseSummary
I'm trying to figure out the methodology that we would use to have a very data driven environment so in the DB I can say, display this object/property (for viewing or editing) and then it would know how to map to whatever table it needs to pull that information. also, during editing... give it some way to pull a list of available values if it is that type of property, and not just a text field.
I'm looking for an example of what this might involve, our model is actually more complex than this, but this is just an idea of what we are trying to accomplish. I don't know if what I'm trying to do is normal, perhaps it involves reflection? This is a new area for me.
If the clients are defining their own custom fields, I would simply give them a Key/Value pairs table.
PhotoID FK
Key string
Value string
Display bool
Note that this essentially amounts to EAV, which comes with its own set of difficulties.
If it's just about permissions on existing fields, you need to capture that information:
PhotoID FK
ClientID FK
FieldName string
Display Bool
You can use this information to inhibit the display of fields in the View. The easiest way to do that would be to use a loop in the View itself, writing the field to the output only if Display is set to true.