I'm having a table called settings, which contains typcial setting information, like isactive, activationdate,... which should be associated to a lot of other entities. Now I was wondering if I could put that in a SettingsBehavior, so that I just have to load the Behavior in all Table Objects I need it.
I thought about adding something like this in SettingsBehavior::beforeFind():
$event->getSubject()
->hasOne('Settings')
->setName('Settings')
->setForeignKey('parent_id')
->setConditions(['Settings.parenttype' => $event->getSubject()->getTable()]);
But the Query is already created. At least I'm able to add a setting entity to the entity using the SettingsBehavior.
In the Behaviors initialize() as far as I know I don't have a reference to the subject.
I then tried to do this in SettingsBehavior::beforeFind():
$query->leftJoin('Settings', [
$event->getSubject()->getAlias() . '.id = Settings.parent_id',
'Settings.parenttype' => 'users'
]);
But it also didn't add a setting to my found entity. Does anyone have tried something similiar, or has an idea how to do this? Maybe I'm even wrong trying to do something like this, through a behavior?
Thank you!
The table (subject as you called it) that a behavior is being attached to, is injected via the behaviors constructor, and stored in the _table property, which you can use in the initialize() method.
public function initialize(array $config)
{
// ...
$this->_table->hasOne('Settings', /* ... */);
}
You can then contain or join the association in the behaviors beforeFind() callback.
public function beforeFind(Event $event, Query $query, \ArrayObject $options)
{
// ...
$query->contain('Settings');
}
Related
I have a has_one in one of my models. But it exceeds the dropdown_field_threshold.
But in the getCMSFields method I have changed the query for that dropdown. But since it already exceeds the threshold before this method is called, the dropdown is converted to NumericDropdown or something like that.
Is there a way to alter the query before the threshold gets checked?
By the way, I know I can make a custom dropdown with my own query. But Silverstripe already handles a lot, so it would be better to just alter the query.
Edit: Example code
public function getCMSFields() {
$fields = parent::getCMSFields();
$questionnaire = $this->QuestionnaireSection()->Questionnaire();
$nextQuestionOptions = $questionnaire->Sections();
/** #var DropdownField $dropdownField */
$dropdownField = $fields->dataFieldByName("NextQuestionID");
$dropdownField->setSource($nextQuestionOptions->map()->toArray());
return $fields;
}
Unfortunately it is not possible to alter this query within the context of the class. An alternative may be to write your own scaffold function instead of calling parent::getCMSFields, but that is not really advised in this case.
If you have some way to obtain the current Questionnaire object globally, you could add an augmentDataQueryCreation function like below to QuestionnaireSection to add a where clause to the query that is being executed. Be aware however that this function is called in every case that QuestionnaireSection::get() is executed.
public function augmentDataQueryCreation(SQLSelect $query, DataQuery $dataQuery){
$baseTable = $this->baseTable();
$filter = 1; //Your global param here
$dataQuery->where("\"$baseTable\".\"QuestionnaireID\" = $filter");
}
An alternative to prevent the DropdownField from being replaced by a NumericField is to change the threshold of this switch by adding the following code to your mysite.yml. This does not solve your problem entirely, but is a good workaround.
SilverStripe\ORM\FieldType\DBForeignKey:
dropdown_field_threshold: 100000
given a user and his coupons, I want to get a user and all of his coupons:
foreach ($this->createQueryBuilder('x')->select('u, c')->where('x.email = ?0')->setParameter(0, $email)->leftJoin('u.coupons', 'c')->getQuery()->getResult() as $entity)
{
$entity->getCoupons();
}
this is very good until I forget to join the coupons:
foreach ($this->createQueryBuilder('x')->select('u')->where('x.email = ?0')->setParameter(0, $email)->getQuery()->getResult() as $entity)
{
$entity->getCoupons();
}
sadly this still works even though no coupons were joined. Here it does an other SELECT. In additional, this 2nd select will be wrong. Id rather want to get a exception or AT LEAST an empty array instead. Is there any workaround for this?
What you're experiencing is expected doctrine behavior.
When you select a User entity, Doctrine will get the record from the database. If you aren't explicitly joining the Coupon entity (or any other entities with relationship to User), Doctrine will create a Proxy object. Once you access this proxy object by calling $user->getCoupons(), Doctrine will fire a new query to the database to get the coupons for your User entity. This is called lazy-loading.
I'm not sure if there is a way to change this in the way you described.
What you can do is to create a method in your UserRepository called findUserAndCoupons($email) and have your query there. Whenever you need to find a user and his coupons, you could simply retrieve it in your controller using:
class MyController extends Controller {
public function myAction(){
$user = $this->getDoctrine()->getRepository('UserRepository')->findUserAndCoupons($email);
foreach($user->getCoupons() as $coupon) {
// ....
}
}
}
This way you won't need to remember the actual query and copy/paste it all over the place. :)
I want to return a value from entity to view file. Below is my entity function
public function getVisitorName($id)
{
$repository = $this->getDoctrine()->getRepository('SystemVmsBundle:VisitorsDetails');
$product = $repository->findOneBy(array('id' =>$id));
$name=$product->getFirstname();
return $name;
}
This is the line in my view file which calls that function
{{ entity.visitorName(entity.visitorId) }}
Its not giving me any error. But only a blank page. How can i fix this?
This is my controller code
public function indexAction()
{
$em = $this->getDoctrine()->getManager();
$entities = $em->getRepository('SystemVmsBundle:EntryDetails')->findAll();
return array(
'entities' => $entities,
);
}
I am trying to fetch the visitors name(from visitors table) corresponding to the visitor id(in entry table).How will i do it then?
you have two ways of doing it:
1) Map your SystemVmsBundle:EntryDetails entity, to SystemVmsBundle:VisitorsDetails as OntToOne by adding field details to your EntryDetails; , and then in twig template just call it via
{{ entity.details.name }}
2) instead of creating getVisitorName(), it is better to create twig function for this, with same functionality.
Your indexAction() is not returning a response object, it is just returning an array of entities. Controller actions should return a Response containing the html to be displayed (unless they are for e.g. ajax calls from javascript). If you are using twig templates you can use the controller render() method to create your response, something like this:
return $this->render('<YourBundle>:<YourViewsFolder>:<YourView>.html.twig', array(
'entities' => $entities,
));
When you've corrected that I suspect you'll get an error because $this->getDoctrine() won't work from an entity class. The code you have in the getVisitorName() method just shouldn't be in an entity class.
As #pomaxa has already suggested, I believe there should be a relationship between your EntryDetails and VisitorsDetails entities although I don't know enough about your data from the question to know what type of relationship it should be (OneToOne / ManyToOne). If your EntryDetails entity had a relationship to VisitorsDetails, the EntryDetails class would then contain a $visitorsDetails attribute and methods to get/set it. Then the line in your twig file would look like this:
{{ entity.visitorsDetails.firstName }}
There is a section on Entity Relationships / Associations in the Symfony Manual.
Also, I hope you don't mind me giving you a little advice:
Be careful when you copy and paste code as it appears you have done in getVisitorName(). You have kept the variable name '$product' although there are no products in your system. This sort of thing can cause bugs and make the code more difficult to maintain.
I recommend you avoid tacking 'Details' onto the end of entity names unless you genuinely have two separate and related entities such as Visitor + VisitorDetails and a good reason for doing so. I think the entities in your example are actually 'Visitor' and 'VistorEntry'.
Unless you are writing a re-usable component, I recommend you use specific variable names like '$visitorEntries' rather than '$entities' in your controller and twig.
In general, the more meaningful your variable names, the more readable, maintainable and bug-free your code is likely to be. Subsequently, it will also be much easier for people on SO to understand your code and give you help when you need it.
I already used versioning on DataObjects when they contain a lot of content, now I'm wondering if it's possible to apply versioning to a many_many relation?
Assuming I have the following:
class Page extends SiteTree
{
private static $many_many = array(
'Images' => 'Image'
);
}
Then the ORM will create a Page_Images table for me to store the relations. In order to have a versioned relation, more tables would be required (eg. Page_Images_Live).
Is there any way to tell the ORM to create versioned relations? When looking at the above example with a Page * – * Images relation, I don't want the Image class to be versioned, but rather the relation. Eg. something like this:
Version Stage:
---
PageA
Images ( ImageA, ImageB, ImageC )
Version Live:
---
PageA
Images ( ImageA, ImageC, ImageD, ImageE )
Is that even possible out of the box?
I've spent a lot of time looking into this and without fundamentally modifying ManyManyList (as it doesn't expose the necessary hooks through the extension system), there isn't many choices.
I am a dessert-first kind of person, how CAN we do it?
My only suggestion to accomplish this feat is essentially a many-to-many bridge object (ie. a separate entity joining Page and Image) via $has_many though it still requires quite a bit of modification.
This is partially discussed on the forum where a solution about subverting the actual relationship by storing the versioned items against the actual object rather than in a joining table. That would work but I think we can still do better than that.
I am personally leaning towards tying the version of the relationship to the Page itself and my partial solution below covers this. Read below the fold for more info trying this as an update to ManyManyList.
Something like this is a start:
class PageImageVersion extends DataObject
{
private static $db = array(
'Version' => 'Int'
);
private static $has_one = array(
'Page' => 'Page',
'Image' => 'Image'
);
}
This contains our 2-way relationship plus we have our version number stored. You will want to specify the getCMSFields function to add the right fields required allowing you to relate it to an existing image or upload a new one. I am avoiding covering this as it should be relatively straight forward compared to the actual version handling part.
Now, we have a has_many on Page like so:
private static $has_many = array(
'Images' => 'PageImageVersion'
);
In my tests, I also added an extension for Image adding the matching $has_many onto it as well like so:
class ImageExtension extends DataExtension
{
private static $has_many = array(
'Pages' => 'PageImageVersion'
);
}
Honestly, not sure if this is necessary beyond adding the Pages
function on the Image side of the relationship. As far as I can see, it won't really matter for this particular usecase.
Unfortunately, because of this way of versioning, we can't use the standard way of calling the Images, we will need to be a bit creative. Something like this:
public function getVersionedImages($Version = null)
{
if ($Version == null)
{
$Version = $this->Version;
}
else if ($Version < 0)
{
$Version = max($this->Version - $Version, 1);
}
return $this->Images()->filter(array('Version' => $Version));
}
When you call getVersionedImages(), it will return all images that have the Version set on it aligning with the version of the current page. Also supports getting previous versions via getVersionedImages(-1) for the last version or even gets images for a specific version of the page by passing any position number.
OK, so far so good. We now need to make sure that every page write we are getting a duplicate list of images for this new version of the page.
With an onAfterWrite function on Page, we can do this:
public function onAfterWrite()
{
$lastVersionImages = $this->getVersionedImages(-1);
foreach ($lastVersionImages as $image)
{
$duplicate = $image->duplicate(false);
$duplicate->Version = $this->Version;
$duplicate->write();
}
}
For those playing at home, this is where things get a bit iffy relating to how restoring previous versions of Page would affect this.
Because we would be editing this in GridField, we will need to do a few things. First is make sure our code can handle the Add New function.
My idea is an onAfterWrite on the PageImageVersion object:
public function onAfterWrite()
{
//Make sure the version is actually saved
if ($this->Version == 0)
{
$this->Version = $this->Page()->Version;
$this->write();
}
}
To get your versioned items displaying in GridField, you would have it set up similar to this:
$gridFieldConfig = GridFieldConfig_RecordEditor::create();
$gridField = new GridField("Images", "Images", $this->getVersionedImages(), $gridFieldConfig);
$fields->addFieldToTab("Root.Images", $gridField);
You might want to link to images directly from the GridField via GridFieldConfig_RelationEditor however this is when things get sour.
Time for the veggies...
One of the big difficulties is GridField, for both linking and unlinking these entities. Using the standard GridFieldDeleteAction will directly update the relationship without the right version.
You will need to extend GridFieldDeleteAction and override the handleAction to write your Page object (to trigger another version), duplicate every version of our versioned image object for the last version while making it skip the one you don't want in the new version.
I'll admit, this last bit is just guesswork by me. From my understanding and debugging, it should work but simply there is a lot of fiddling to get it right.
Your extension of GridFieldDeleteAction then needs to be added to your specific GridField.
This would essentially be your last step away from making this solution work. Once you have the adding, removing, duplicating, version updating part down, it really is a matter of just using getVersionedImages() to get the right images.
Conclusion
Avoid. I get why you want to do this but I really don't see a clean way of being able to handle this without a decent sized update to how many_many relationships are handled in Silverstripe.
But I really want it as a ManyManyList!
The changes I see required for ManyManyList are having a 3-way key (Foreign Key, Local Key, Version Key) and the various methods for adding/removing/fetching etc updated.
If there were hooks in the add and remove functions, you might be able to sneak in the functionality as an extension (via Silverstripe's extension system) and add the needed data to the extra fields that many_many relationships allow.
While I could get this happening by extending ManyManyList directly and then forcing ManyManyList to be replaced with my custom class via Object::useCustomClass, it would be even more of a messy solution.
It is simply too long/complex for me to give a full answer for a pure ManyManyList solution at this stage (though I may get back to this later and give it a shot).
Disclaimer: I am not a Silverstripe Core dev, there may be a neater solution to this entire thing but I simply can't see how.
You can define second relation with "_Live" suffix and update it when the page is published. Note: This solution stores only two versions (live and stage).
Bellow is my implementation which automatically detects whether many-many relation is versioned or not. It then handles publishing and data retrieval. All what is needed is to define one extra many-many relation with "_Live" suffix.
$page->Images() returns items according to the current stage (stage/live).
class Page extends SiteTree
{
private static $many_many = array(
'Images' => 'Image',
'Images_Live' => 'Image'
);
public function publish($fromStage, $toStage, $createNewVersion = false)
{
if ($toStage == 'Live')
{
$this->publishManyToManyComponents();
}
parent::publish($fromStage, $toStage, $createNewVersion);
}
protected function publishManyToManyComponents()
{
foreach (static::getVersionedManyManyComponentNames() as $component_name)
{
$this->publishManyToManyComponent($component_name);
}
}
protected function publishManyToManyComponent($component_name)
{
$stage = $this->getManyManyComponents($component_name);
$live = $this->getManyManyComponents("{$component_name}_Live");
$live_table = $live->getJoinTable();
$live_fk = $live->getForeignKey();
$live_lk = $live->getLocalKey();
$stage_table = $stage->getJoinTable();
$stage_fk = $live->getForeignKey();
$stage_lk = $live->getLocalKey();
// update or add items from stage to live
foreach ($stage as $item)
{
$live->add($item, $stage->getExtraData(null, $item->ID));
}
// delete remaining items from live table
DB::query("DELETE l FROM $live_table AS l LEFT JOIN $stage_table AS s ON l.$live_fk = s.$stage_fk AND l.$live_lk = s.$stage_lk WHERE s.ID IS NULL");
// update new items IDs in live table (IDs are incremental so the new records can only have higher IDs than items in ID => should not cause duplicate IDs)
DB::query("UPDATE $live_table AS l INNER JOIN $stage_table AS s ON l.$live_fk = s.$stage_fk AND l.$live_lk = s.$stage_lk SET l.ID = s.ID WHERE l.ID != s.ID;");
}
public function manyManyComponent($component_name)
{
if (Versioned::current_stage() == 'Live' && static::isVersionedManyManyComponent($component_name))
{
return parent::manyManyComponent("{$component_name}_Live");
}
else
{
return parent::manyManyComponent($component_name);
}
}
protected static function isVersionedManyManyComponent($component_name)
{
$many_many_components = (array) Config::inst()->get(static::class, 'many_many', Config::INHERITED);
return isset($many_many_components[$component_name]) && isset($many_many_components["{$component_name}_Live"]);
}
protected static function getVersionedManyManyComponentNames()
{
$many_many_components = (array) Config::inst()->get(static::class, 'many_many', Config::INHERITED);
foreach ($many_many_components as $component_name => $dummy)
{
$is_live = 0;
$stage_component_name = preg_replace('/_Live$/', '', $component_name, -1, $is_live);
if ($is_live > 0 && isset($many_many_components[$stage_component_name]))
{
yield $stage_component_name;
}
}
}
}
Seems doesn't works:
<?php
$collection = Mage::getModel('catalog/product')->getCollection();
foreach($collection->getItems() as $key => $_product){
//product
$collection->removeItemByKey($key);
}
?>
$collection is still populated
If you'd like to work with an empty collection, the best approach would be to load it with a filter that would always produce an empty set. Here's an example:
$collection = Mage::getModel('catalog/product')->getCollection()
->addFieldToFilter('entity_id', 0);
Because Magento product ids start at 1, this collection would remain empty, until you add items to it with the addItem() method.
clear() and removeItemByKey(), on the other hand, will only trigger a second run to the database to refetch the data you don't want in there.
You question doesn't make sense. Running the following code
$c = Mage::getModel('catalog/product')->getCollection();
foreach($c->getItems() as $key=>$item)
{
$c->removeItemByKey($key);
}
foreach($c->getItems() as $key=>$item)
{
var_dump($key);
}
var_dump( "Done" );
results in only the word "done" being output (Magento 1.6.1).
My guess it something about your installation of Magento is making the call to $c->getItems(); trigger a reload of the collection. So, you remove all the items, but then when you call your second getItems, the collection is refetched.
There's clear() method in Varien_Data_Collection class which clears the collection.
I'm not sure if the method exists in the time the question was asked, but it exists in Magento 1.7
There's also a possibility to remove all the items without "fake loading" (in opposite to Shay Acrich's answer):
class MyCollection extends SomeCollection {
// ...
public function setEmpty()
{
$this->clear();
$this->_totalRecords = 0;
$this->_setIsLoaded(true);
return $this;
}
// ...
}
Setting _totalRecords to 0 is required in order not to allow getSize() method to reload the collection.
Nevertheless, one needs to extend / modify a collection's code, because both the field _totalRecords and the method _setIsLoaded() are protected.
There should be noted, that if a particular collection ignores flags like _totalRecords and _isCollectionLoaded the above solution may not work as expected.
$collection->clear()
should do the work.