I am looking for a simple way to get data displayed in an issue as just plain text. Basically, I want to be able to type in a lookup id in the issue creation and then once the issue is created, it would call one of our web services to retrieve data connected with that ID.
This wouldn't be coming from another issue tracker, but rather straight from one of my databases.
What would be the easiest way of accomplishing this? I would like the workflow to be: Enter id #, hit save, see the data with that ID displayed in the ticket (Doesn't need to be editable, just displayed in the ticket view).
The easiest way is to create a workflow function that is triggered at Create transition to do the job. There your code can query information from the database and replicate them into JIRA standard and custom fields of the issue itself.
Then you can prevent edition of replicated fields by tuning Edit screen for your issues.
You can also use your function to update field content from time to time, either at transition or in a trigger.
An option is to create some read-only custom fields than query each piece information from the database. It will prevent data replication but it will be probably slow and it does not apply to default fields.
Related
Dremio provides a really nice GUI to download and save data generated after your query run.
However, I want to save my query (instead of query result) in dremio so that I can anytime (in future) refer the query that I wrote. Is there a way to achieve this?
Really appreciate the help!
Although this is an old post, I thought it might be helpful to provide a solution. What you are describing can be solved with a key functionality of Dremio. Instead of going through the difficulty of searching for your old query; I would have suggested creating a VDS (Virtual Data Set) by way of the UI. After a successful run of your query you can save it
Dremio Save Dataset Button as a VDS.
After selecting the save button you will be asked where you wish to save it; you can either save it to your default directory or a named Space you have created previously Dremio VDS Save Dialog.
You can query against this new VDS as though it was an actual table. Any changes made to the VDS will be saved in a history - utilizing the breadcrumb trail on the right side of the UI one can navigate to prior versions.
You can now further accelerate this query through creation of a Dremio Reflection...but that goes beyond the scope of your question ;)
In the left upper corner, you should look for Jobs menu:
In my program I have multiple databases. One is fixed and cannot be changed, but there are also some others, the so called user databases.
I thought now I have to start for every database one connection and to connect to each data dictionary. How is it possible to connect to more than one database with one connection by handing over the data dictionary filename? Btw. I am using a local server.
thank you very much,
André
P.S.: Okay I might find the answer to my problem.
The Key word is CreateDDLink. The procedure is connecting to another data dictionary, but before a master dictionary has to be set.
Links may be what you are looking for as you indicated in the question. You can use the API or SQL to create a permanent link alias, or you can dynamically create links on the fly.
I would recomend reviewing this specific help file page: Using Tables from Multiple Data Dictionaries
for a permanent alias (using SQL) look at sp_createlink. You can either create the link to authenticate the current user or set up the link to authenticate as a specific user. Then use the link name in your SQL statements.
select * from linkname.tablename
Or dynamically you can use the following which will authenticate the current user:
select * from "..\dir\otherdd.add".table1
However, links are only available to SQL. If you want to use the table directly (i.e. via a TAdsTable component) you will need to create views. See KB 080519-2034. The KB mentions you can't post updates if the SQL statement for the view results in a static cursor, but you can get around that by creating triggers on the view.
I am trying to show/load different editor on different rows of a editorgridpanel. Like a textbox on one row combobox/superboxselect on another and it could be any order, random.
The conditions which dictate which editor will be shown reside in the database.
Please tell me if this is possible and if so, how do i go about it.. I have tried pulling the conditions asynchronously which are pulled on a click event for the respective column, but calling it async causes problems. Please advise
Anything is possible, but what you want to do would take a bit of work. The basic idea would be to configure the needed grid editor(s) dynamically and update the columns with the new editors when needed. Now... what would be required to make that actually work I couldn't say offhand without digging into the Ext source -- it would almost definitely require overriding default behavior in the grid and/or column model.
Pulling your conditions asynchronously would (I imagine) be too slow for the interaction of clicking on a row to edit inline. If it takes a second or more from click to configured editors, that would not be acceptable performance. I would try to find a way to send your conditions down along with the other row data if at all possible (they can be in the store's data model on the client without having to be shown in the grid).
Without knowing more about your business requirements, it might be more appropriate to ditch the editable grid and instead go with a dynamically-configured FormPanel tied to the grid. This way the interaction of clicking and then pausing slightly while the form is configured would appear to be more natural. Also, the functionality of rendering a form with a particular configuration is perfectly standard and would require nothing fancy on your end. See this example as a starting point (your form would be dynamic, but maybe the same type of interaction could work?)
I want to write an application that assigns Fogbugz cases programmatically, how would I accomplish this? Is it possible to achieve this given any of the following scenarios:
The user enters text in my
application's input field and the
Fogbugz report is opened in the
browser where the "note" field is
populated with the text from the user
input
The fogbugz report is assigned to the
specified user in the application
without the browser even being opened
i.e. the report is stored directly in
the DB.
I'm planning to add default values to the other fields as well so I would assume the process would be the same for adding text to the "note" field.
You can do this with the Fogbugz API. See the heading "Editing Cases" for the specifics on how to edit a case (which includes creating a new one). It's a little complicated (or perhaps just oddly designed) but, as I remember, you basically have to call cmd=new if you want to create a new case, supply your text in the 's' parameter and set the ixPersonAssignedTo to the correct person. For an existing case, use cmd=edit.
This is possible both with a regular form posted to your Fogbugz installation and some server side code that calls the API.
You might want to write a plugin for FB and allow others to use it. (share it or sell it)
I'm developing a webapp that allows the editing of records. There is a possibility that two users could be working on the same screen at a time and I want to minimise the damage done, if they both click save.
If User1 requests the page and then makes changes to the Address, Telephone and Contact Details, but before he clicks Save, User2 requests the same page.
User1 then clicks save and the whole model is updated using TryUpdateModel(), if User2 simply appends some detail to the Notes field, when he saves, the TryUpdateModel() method will overwrite the new details User1 saved, with the old details.
I've considered storing the original values for all the model's properties in a hidden form field, and then writing a custom TryUpdateModel to only update the properties that have changed, but this feels a little too like the Viewstate we've all been more than happy to leave behind by moving to MVC.
Is there a pattern for dealing with this problem that I'm not aware of?
How would you handle it?
Update: In answer to the comments below, I'm using Entity Framework.
Anthony
Unless you have any particular requirements for what happens in this case (e.g. lock the record, which of course requires some functionality to undo the lock in the event that the user decides not to make a change) I'd suggest the normal approach is an optimistic lock:
Each update you perform should check that the record hasn't changed in the meantime.
So:
Put an integer "version" property or a guid / rowversion on the record.
Ensure this is contained in a hidden field in the html and is therefore returned with any submit;
When you perform the update, ensure that the (database) record's version/guid/rowversion still matches the value that was in the hidden field [and add 1 to the "version" integer when you do the update if you've decided to go with that manual approach.]
A similar approach is obviously to use a date/time stamp on the record, but don't do that because, to within the accuracy of your system clock, it's flawed.
[I suggest you'll find fuller explanations of the whole approach elsewhere. Certainly if you were to google for information on NHibernate's Version functionality...]
Locking modification of a page while one user is working on it is an option. This is done in some wiki software like dokuwiki. In that case it will usually use some javascript to free the lock after 5-10 minutes of inactivity so others can update it.
Another option might be storing all revisions in a database so when two users submit, both copies are saved and still exist. From there on, all you'd need to do is merge the two.
You usually don't handle this. If two users happen to edit a document at the same time and commit their updates, one of them wins and the other looses.
Resources lockout can be done with stateful desktop applications, but with web applications any lockout scheme you try to implement may only minimize the damage but not prevent it.
Don't try to write an absolutely perfect and secure application. It's already good as it is. Just use it, probably the situation won't come up at all.
If you use LINQ to SQL as your ORM it can handle the issues around changed values using the conflicts collection. However, essentially I'd agree with Mastermind's comment.