I needed to create a input mask for a jQuery datepicker in my Rails app, where the first form field uses m/d/yy format and the datepicker populates a hidden input with the proper database format.
I was using SimpleForm, and so I extended my own input so that the input is preceded by the mask.
I got everything set up and when checking out the browser, it all just worked well before I thought I would be done.
The form ends up with two inputs for the same attribute, each with the same id and name. I never thought this would work. Checking the development log I only see one date getting submitted, the second of the two which is the one that has the proper format for the database.
Is this all okay? Should I take some extra steps even though this appears to work fine, and more importantly, can someone explain what's going on under the hood that results in this behavior?
Thanks!!
Rails uses the Hash params to store fields submitted. When you declare two or more inputs using the same name, it happens the same as if you do something like
h=Hash.new
h[:name]="foo"
h[:name]="bar"
Result is bar because the foo was overwritten. So the "winner" is always the field value which the browser last appended to postdata.
But if I where you, I would not rely on the browser that the second field gets appended at last.
Related
For a blog model I'm saving an RSS field as text under Blog.rss, problem is, some of this is rather long and each one prints when I'm working in the rails console, ie: Blog.last(10).
Is there a way to hide output unless I call someblog.rss specifically?
I had a similar problem and received some solutions in another forum, which were:
Use select to get just the columns you need
If you have a very long column (I had JSON data structure from a webhook cluttering the console), consider whether you really need it, and if you don't , don't store it in the table
Or, consider storing it in an associated table
if you need the whole object but just want to change how it's represented in console/log output, you can redefine inspect
yourobject.as_json(except: :unwanted_column)
Also
You could look into: https://github.com/awesome-print/awesome_print
I'm sure this is an easy fix but I can't seem to find it. I just have a form, that will be a subform of another, that needs to display the results of a query.
The query is simple enough, just displays all fields of records that fall between specified dates. The query works great, but when I attach it to the form as its record source it doesn't display the data. I can see the correct amount of record selectors so I know its understanding the query but its as if all fields are hidden!
I have also tried building a query to the forms record source that was simply Select query.* From query. Oddly I have had this working before but I had to specify every field. What I mean is:
Select title From query
Select type From query
Select date From query
...
And so on for all the fields but this seems foolish, can anyone think of what I may be doing wrong?
Thanks in advance!
Edit, forgot to mention I also tried the foolish solution that I mentioned above and it didn't work so its definitely some issue that I'm not seeing, some property that's probably not appropriately set
#sshekhar well its not really code at the moment I'm using Access 2010. I have a form that needs to display a subform that executes this query of displaying records that have a data field that fall between dates specified by the user. The query works and displays the correct records, but the form that it is attached to only shows the record selectors and all the fields appear to be "hidden." I thought it may be one of the form's properties set incorrectly but I checked on the test form from another database that I used and each have what appears to be identical settings. So I'm at a loss!
So it turns out even though I using a query that holds all the fields it will not display the content unless you go to the Add Existing Fields and add all the the fields you want to see. This seems really silly especially when the results in the query but at least its working now.
I had this problem and discovered that having the property DataEntry set to YES will only display new records. From Microsoft Help:
You can use the DataEntry property to specify whether a bound form
opens to allow data entry only. The Data Entry property doesn't
determine whether records can be added; it only determines whether
existing records are displayed. Read/write Boolean.
I ask this because I have a form with a radio button set to nil :
= f.radio_button :estimate_type, nil
I have debugger right at the beginning of my method call :
def create
debugger
When I hit the debugger, I check out my params, and they say the value is on not nil.
Enter Insanity wolf. Somehow this is getting converted on click. And I've scoured the entire app looking for possibly a leaky javascript file, or anything closely resembling the word 'on'. I've checked all my bases. Defaults in schema.rb, jquery click events, model validations, you name it. Nothing with the word "on" anywhere.
So the real question is, is there a way I can throw a debugger in a place in which if I were to click submit, the debugger would appear before the model validation, and then hopefully where the params are still what they are in the form. And then I can follow it down the trail and see where it goes wrong.
It doesn't have anything to do with your JavaScript. This is something that I've experienced before as well, but I'm not sure why it converts nil to 'on'. I do know that passing in :nil as a symbol returns a null string, as well as just simply passing in false.
A better approach to trying to solve your problem may be to put the debugger in the validation callback itself.
Nothing to do with rails - you could verify this by using your browser's network inspector to see that the browser is actually sending the parameter value "on".
By trying to set the value to nil (which doesn't really make sense - parameter values are always strings) you're suppressing the value attribute entirely from the generated HTML.
The standard says that in this case the default value for the input shall be "on" and so that is what your browser submits.
Question using Grails 1.3.4 - the 'scale' constraint does not seem to keep my decimals.
I have a field defined as: Float latitude
I have a constraint: latitude(blank: false, range:-360.0f..360.0f, scale:6)
The Oracle 10g field is defined as: NUMBER(10,6)
When I enter a value in Create or Edit, the correct value gets to the database. However, it never displays correctly in Show. If I enter 10.1234567 and update, 10.123457 is in the database but 10.123 displays in Show.
If I Edit, the value shows as 10.123, and if I update without modifying it, 10.123 will be stored in the database, replacing 10.123457 even though I never touched that field.
If I edit the value to 10.456789, but leave another required field blank, the resulting Edit screen with the error message displays the value as 10.457.
Why is Grails continually rounding the value to 3 digits? I tried the field as a Double as well, but same results. I thought maybe it was Oracle, but I tried it with the default dev database, and same result. I thought maybe it was the 'range', but I took that off with the same result.
Hmm - are you sure it's displaying correctly in your database viewer? Also - check your use of tags: See http://www.pubbs.net/200908/grails/38057-grails-user-how-does-rounding-of-decimals-work-in-gsp.html
Wasted too much time trying to figure this out, ended up using the solution suggested by snowmanjack.
The default data binding that occurs with the fieldValue call is truncating it. You can write a new data binder that handles conversion the way you want as described here http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/single.html#dataBinding
Or you can do the lazy, probably less safe method that I used and access the property directly.
I replaced.
${fieldValue(bean: countryInstance, field: "latitude")}
with
${contryInstance.latitude}
I have a difficult situation.
I let the the user create a form through a Rich Text Editor and then I save this.
So for example, I save this literally into my DB:
http://pastebin.com/DNdeetJp (how can you post HTML here? It gets interpreted, so now I use pastebin...)
On another page I wrap this in a form_tag and it gets presented as it should be.
What I want to do is save this as a template and save the answers as a hashmap to my DB.
This works well, but the problem is I want to recreate what checkbox/radiobutton/... is selected when the user goes back to the page. So I want to fill the form with the answers from the hashmap.
Is there a way to use a 'dummy' model or something else to accomplish this?
Thanks!
Since you're pasting in raw HTML which is not properly configured as a template, it is more difficult to enable the proper options based on whatever might be stored in your DB.
The reliable approach to making this work is to use Hpricot or Nokogiri to manipulate the bit of HTML you have and substitute values accordingly. This isn't too hard so long as you can define the elements in that form using a proper selector. For example, create a div with a unique id and operate on all input elements within it, comparing the name attribute with your properties. There may even be a library for this somewhere.
The second approach is to use JavaScript to enable the options in much the same fashion. This seems like a bit of a hack since the form itself will not have a proper default state.