I want to validate a array where it should include case sensitive.
Ex, If One value is 'Small' and another value 'small', it should say Same values are not allowed. I tried distinct, it accepts even if it in lowercase. Help me with this.
Finally I got it, well there are two ways, first convert values before validation, second use distinct with ignore case distinct:ignore_case
Related
I'm trying to "Include Only" about 40 URLs for a specific profile view. I set up three Request URI filters that use "Include Only" and the following regex:
FIRST:
/(subdirectory1|subdirectory2|subdirectory3|subdirectory4)/
(That goes on and on for about 15 subdirectories)
SECOND:
/(subdirectory16|subdirectory17|subdirectory18|subdirectory19)/
(That goes on and on for another 15 subdirectories).
THIRD:
Same thing for whatever remains.
If I only have ONE "Include Only" Request URI filter set up this way, it works. As soon as I add a second filter, it stops tracking everything. Unfortunately, I can't fit all URLs in the one filter.
How can I accomplish this?
Thanks.
The first filter includes the subdirectories 1-15 (if numbered sequentially). Everything else is thrown away. The second filter works on what is left, so from the sequence subdirectory1 to subdirectory15 it only includes those that match the pattern subdirectory16-subdirectory25. Which is none of them.
Filters are applied in the order that they are defined and they are destructive, data that has been deleted in a previous filter is not evaluated in a subsequent filter, hence you see nothing.
An standard include filter does not accept regular expressions (whith the exception of the "|" character). However as far as I know (and according to the documentation) the advanced include filter does.
I'm not great with regular expression, but the following pattern should work or at least be good enough to get you going:
\/subdirectory([1-2][1-9]|[1-9])
The first bit is your directory name. The bit in parenthesis should match the numbers. Specifically:
[1-2][1-9]
should match numbers from 11 to 29 (these are character classes, regex treats numbers as characters not as numbers. So this bit looks for something that starts with 1 or two and is followed by one of the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9).
Then there is your "or"-sign and a second expression to match numbers that have only one digit.
Change the character classes according to your needs.
You'd have to go from predefined to advanced filter, set "include", use "RequestURI" as filter field and enter the expression. That should work (I admit I haven't tested it).
I am using custom SPgridview with Filtering, and Sorting. In Filtering for the Query I have used has a condition as follows.
" AND SupplierActiveStatus LIKE '%{0}%'"
This has two values in DB. "Active" or "Inactive". This filter applies perfectly when you filter by Inactive. Due to "like" condition for the Active users it shows both types of uses without Filtering.
Please help me to find the correct filter expression to equal two strings.
Thanks in Advance.
Why not get rid of the LIKE and just say:
AND SupplierActiveStatus = '{0}'
Since you have only two statuses, there's no reason to match on a wildcard with LIKE
I have a template which uses the same multivalued attribute in various places. I often find myself in a situation where I would like to filter the attribute before a template is applied to the individual values.
I can do this:
<#col:{c|<if(cond)><# c.Attribute2 #><endif>};separator=\",\"#>
but that is not what I want, because then there are separators in the output separating "skipped" entries, like:
2,4,,,6,,4,5,,
I can modify it to
<#col:{c|<if(c.Attribute1)><# c.Attribute2 #>,<endif>};separator=\"\"#>
Which is almost OK, but I get an additional separator after the last number, which sometimes does not matter (usually when the separator is whitespace), but sometimes does:
2,4,6,4,5,
I sometimes end up doing:
<#first(col):{c|<if(cond)><# c.Attribute2 #><endif>};separator=\"\"#>
<#rest(col):{c|<if(cond)>,<# c.Attribute2 #><endif>};separator=\"\"#>
But this approach fails if the first member does not satisfy the condition, then there is an extra separator in the beginning:
,2,4,6,4,5
Can someone give me a better solution?
First, let me point out that I think you are trying to do logic inside your template. Any time you hear things like "filter my list according to some condition based upon the data" it might be time to compute that filtered list in the model and then push it in. That said something like this might work where we filter the list first:
<col:{c | <if(c.cond)>c<endif>}:{c2 | <c2.c.attribute>}>
c2.c accesses the c parameter from the first application
The answer by "The ANTLR Guy" didn't help in my case and I found another workaround. See at Filter out empty strings in ST4
I have a lot of objects with unique IDs. Every object can have several labels associated to it, like this:
123: ['a', 'hello']
456: ['dsajdaskldjs']
789: (no labels associated yet)
I'm not planning to store all objects in DynamoDB, only these sets of labels. So it would make sense to add labels like that:
find a record with (id = needed_id)
if there is one, and it has a set named label_set, add a label to this set
if there is no record with such id, or the existing record doesn't have an attribute named label_set, create a record and an attribute, and initialize the attribute with a set consisting of the label
if I used sets of numbers, I could use just ADD operation of UPDATE command. This command does exactly what I described. However, this does not work with sets of strings:
If no item matches the specified primary key:
ADD— Creates an item with supplied primary key and number (or set of numbers) for the attribute value. Not valid for a string type.
so I have to use a PUT operation with Expected set to {"label_set":{"Exists":false}}, followed (in case it fails) by an ADD operation. These are two operations, and it kinda sucks (since you pay per operation, the costs of this will be 2 times more than they could be).
This limitations seems really weird to me. Why are something what works with numbers sets would not work with string sets? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Using many records like (123, 'a'), (123, 'hello') instead of one record per object with a set is not a solutions: I want to get all the values from the set at once, without any scans.
I use string sets from the Java SDK the way you describe all the time and it works for me. Perhaps it has changed? I basically follow the pattern in this doc:
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/API_UpdateItem.html
ADD— Only use the add action for numbers or if the target attribute is
a set (including string sets). ADD does not work if the target
attribute is a single string value or a scalar binary value. The
specified value is added to a numeric value (incrementing or
decrementing the existing numeric value) or added as an additional
value in a string set. If a set of values is specified, the values are
added to the existing set. For example if the original set is [1,2]
and supplied value is [3], then after the add operation the set is
[1,2,3], not [4,5]. An error occurs if an Add action is specified for
a set attribute and the attribute type specified does not match the
existing set type.
If you use ADD for an attribute that does not exist, the attribute and
its values are added to the item.
When your set is empty, it means the attribute isn't present. You can still ADD to it. In fact, a pattern that I've found useful is to simply ADD without even checking for the item. If it doesn't exist, it will create a new item using the specified key and create the attribute set with the value(s) I am adding. If the item exists but the attribute doesn't, it creates the attribute set and adds the value(s). If they both exist, it just adds the value(s).
The only piece that caught me up at first was that the value I had to add was a SS (String set) even if it was only one string value. From DynamoDB's perspective, you are always merging sets, even if the existing set is an empty set (missing) or the new set only contains one value.
IMO, from the way you've described your intent, you would be better off not specifying an existing condition at all. You are having to do two steps because you are enforcing two different situations but you are trying to perform the same action in both. So might as well just blindly add the label and let DynamoDB handle the rest.
Maybe you could: (pseudo code)
try:
add_with_update_item(hash_key=42, "label")
except:
element = new Element(hash_key=42, labels=["label"])
element.save()
With this graceful recovery approach, you need 1 call in the general case, 2 otherwise.
You are unable to use sets to do what you want because Dynamo Db doesn't support empty sets. I would suggest just using a string with a custom schema and building the set from that yourself.
To avoid two operations, you can add a "ConditionExpression" to your item.
For example, add this field/value to your item:
"ConditionExpression": "attribute_not_exists(RecordID) and attribute_not_exists(label_set)"
Source documentation.
Edit: I found a really good guide about how to use the conditional statements
I would like to know how to detect that a node is not present in the origin. I have tried hundreds of things with the logical functoids with no success.
The third case of this page is what I am looking for:
http://danshultz.blogspot.com/2007/08/logical-existence-isnil-empty-string.html
Thanks in advance.
You can use the Logical Existence functoid. If the element is missing from the source message, this functoid will return false.
If you need to perform some logic based on the element being missing (like map a default value to the output message), pass the Logical Existence functoid output to a Logical Not to return true, then connect the Logical Not output to a Value Mapping functoid with the second input set to whatever you want the default value to be.
The only way I have managed to do it in a map is through XSLT in a scripting functoid.
if it is an element use logical string.
if you want to check record or node then use logical string and connect it to any element under that node or record.
let me know if this works out for u or not.