SysOperation Framework - CanGoBatchJournal - axapta

When canGoBatchJournal returns true, a RunBaseBatch can be created in Ax via the System administartion > Inquiries > Batch > New > Task > New >[ClassName:MyRunBaseBatch].
I have a couple of features which have been created using the SysOperation framework however. This method doesn't inherit the canGoBatchJournal method. Is there a way to make them visible in the above mentioned menu as well?

I took a dive into how to form control retrieves it's data. There is an SysOperationJournaledParametersAttribute attribute which you can use.

Below is an example of how the attribute would be applied to a controller. This example shows how the controller calls the custom service. The controller can then be used in as a batch task or you could call the controller from a menu to get the batch dialog to display.
[SysOperationJournaledParametersAttribute(true)]
class YourCustomController extends SysOperationServiceController
{
public void new()
{
super();
this.parmClassName(classStr(YourCustomService));
this.parmMethodName(methodStr(YourCustomService,processOperation));
this.parmDialogCaption("dialog caption");
}
public ClassDescription caption()
{
return "class description";
}
public static void main(Args args)
{
YourCustomController controller;
controller = new YourCustomController();
controller.startOperation();
}
}
Below would be the custom service the controller calls.
class YourCustomToolService extends SysOperationServiceBase
{
public void processOperation()
{
// Call your code to do run your custom logic
}
}

If you implement the SysOperation framework, it should already be good as SysOperationController implements the Batchable interface.
You can refer to this white paper: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29215

Related

After creating a custom projinvoice can't find created design

I need some help here. I created a custom report invoice design for PSAProjInvoice.
I did duplicate PSAProjInvoice and worked on a already made design.
Created a Controller and PrintMgmtDocTypeHandler class.
Created outputitem extension and redirected it to my ProjInvoiceController
In axapta in ProjFormletterParameters form parameters it shows me name of my custom report but when I go to project invoices and try to make a look at the invoice I just get a error: Unable to find the report design PSAProjInvoiceSZM.ReportPL.
class PSAProjInvoiceSZM
{
[PostHandlerFor(classStr(PSAProjAndContractInvoiceController),
staticMethodStr(PSAProjAndContractInvoiceController, construct))]
public static void ReportNamePostHandler(XppPrePostArgs arguments)
{
PSAProjAndContractInvoiceController controller = arguments.getReturnValue();
controller.parmReportName(ssrsreportstr(PSAprojinvoiceSZM, Report));
}
}
I think that it's a problem with my controller class because I actually have no idea how it should look like. Tried to make one based on salesinvoice tutorial found on microsoft docs but it didn't help me at all.
Tried to make it based on this article:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dynamicsaxbi/2017/01/01/how-to-custom-designs-for-business-docs/
My Controller:
class ProjInvoiceControllerSZM extends PSAProjAndContractInvoiceController
{
public static ProjInvoiceControllerSZM construct()
{
return new ProjInvoiceControllerSZM();
}
public static void main(Args _args)
{
SrsReportRunController formLetterController =
ProjInvoiceControllerSZM::construct();
ProjInvoiceControllerSZM controller = formLetterController;
controller.initArgs(_args);
Controller.parmReportName(ssrsReportStr(PSAProjInvoiceSZM, Report));
/* if (classIdGet(_args.caller()) ==
classNum(PurchPurchOrderJournalPrint))
{
formLetterController.renderingCompleted +=
eventhandler(PurchPurchOrderJournalPrint::renderingCompleted);
}*/
formLetterController.startOperation();
}
protected void outputReport()
{
SRSCatalogItemName reportDesign;
reportDesign = ssrsReportStr(PSAProjInvoiceSZM,Report);
this.parmReportName(reportDesign);
this.parmReportContract().parmReportName(reportDesign);
formletterReport.parmReportRun().settingDetail().parmReportFormatName(reportDesign);
super();
}
}

JavaFX Implementing 2 different MapChangeListeners [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to make a Java class that implements one interface with two generic types?
(9 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have the following interface, which I want to implement multiple times in my classes:
public interface EventListener<T extends Event>
{
public void onEvent(T event);
}
Now, I want to be able to implement this interface in the following way:
class Foo implements EventListener<LoginEvent>, EventListener<LogoutEvent>
{
#Override
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event)
{
}
#Override
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event)
{
}
}
However, this gives me the error: Duplicate class com.foo.EventListener on the line:
class Foo implements EventListener<LoginEvent>, EventListener<LogoutEvent>
Is it possible to implement the interface twice with different generics? If not, what's the next closest thing I can do to achieve what I'm trying to do here?
Is it possible to implement the interface twice with different generics
Unfortunately no. The reason you can't implement the same interface twice is because of type erasure. The compiler will handle type parameters, and a runtime EventListener<X> is just a EventListener
If not, what's the next closest thing I can do to achieve what I'm trying to do here?
Type erasure can work in our favor. Once you know that EventListener<X> and EventListener<Y> are just raw EventListener at run-time, it is easier than you think to write an EventListener that can deal with different kinds of Events. Bellow is a solution that passes the IS-A test for EventListener and correctly handles both Login and Logout events by means of simple delegation:
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
public class Foo implements EventListener {
// Map delegation, but could be anything really
private final Map<Class<? extends Event>, EventListener> listeners;
// Concrete Listener for Login - could be anonymous
private class LoginListener implements EventListener<LoginEvent> {
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event) {
System.out.println("Login");
}
}
// Concrete Listener for Logout - could be anonymous
private class LogoutListener implements EventListener<LogoutEvent> {
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event) {
System.out.println("Logout");
}
}
public Foo() {
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
Map<Class<? extends Event>, EventListener> temp = new HashMap<>();
// LoginEvents will be routed to LoginListener
temp.put(LoginEvent.class, new LoginListener());
// LogoutEvents will be routed to LoginListener
temp.put(LogoutEvent.class, new LogoutListener());
listeners = Collections.unmodifiableMap(temp);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public void onEvent(Event event) {
// Maps make it easy to delegate, but again, this could be anything
if (listeners.containsKey(event.getClass())) {
listeners.get(event.getClass()).onEvent(event);
} else {
/* Screams if a unsupported event gets passed
* Comment this line if you want to ignore
* unsupported events
*/
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Event not supported");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Foo foo = new Foo();
System.out.println(foo instanceof EventListener); // true
foo.onEvent(new LoginEvent()); // Login
foo.onEvent(new LogoutEvent()); // Logout
}
}
The suppress warnings are there because we are "abusing" type erasure and delegating to two different event listeners based on the event concrete type. I have chosen to do it using a HashMap and the run-time Event class, but there are a lot of other possible implementations. You could use anonymous inner classes like #user949300 suggested, you could include a getEventType discriminator on the Event class to know what do to with each event and so on.
By using this code for all effects you are creating a single EventListener able to handle two kinds of events. The workaround is 100% self-contained (no need to expose the internal EventListeners).
Finally, there is one last issue that may bother you. At compile time Foo type is actually EventListener. Now, API methods out of your control may be expecting parametrized EventListeners:
public void addLoginListener(EventListener<LoginEvent> event) { // ...
// OR
public void addLogoutListener(EventListener<LogoutEvent> event) { // ...
Again, at run-time both of those methods deal with raw EventListeners. So by having Foo implement a raw interface the compiler will be happy to let you get away with just a type safety warning (which you can disregard with #SuppressWarnings("unchecked")):
eventSource.addLoginListener(foo); // works
While all of this may seem daunting, just repeat to yourself "The compiler is trying to trick me (or save me); there is no spoon <T>. Once you scratch your head for a couple of months trying to make legacy code written before Java 1.5 work with modern code full of type parameters, type erasure becomes second nature to you.
You need to use inner or anonymous classes. For instance:
class Foo {
public EventListener<X> asXListener() {
return new EventListener<X>() {
// code here can refer to Foo
};
}
public EventListener<Y> asYListener() {
return new EventListener<Y>() {
// code here can refer to Foo
};
}
}
This is not possible.
But for that you could create two different classes that implement EventListener interface with two different arguments.
public class Login implements EventListener<LoginEvent> {
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
}
public class Logout implements EventListener<LogoutEvent> {
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
}

Scout Bean Manager: registerClass(..) or registerBean(..)

In our project we have following modules scout.client, scout.server, scout.shared and backend.
backend has no dependencies to scout.server and scout.shared, but scout.server has dependencies to backend.
Inside the backend project we have all business logic and calling all outside services.
We use the Scout Bean Manager to manage the instances of the Backend-Services in our scout.server:
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerClass(CarService.class);
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerClass(PartnerService.class);
Both, CarService.class and PartnerService.class are in the backend.
Is this registration correct? Or should I register the classes using the registerBean(..) method instead of registerClass(..)?
Question derived from an other question asked by #marko-zadravec
As explained in the registerClass(..) JavaDoc, if you do:
public class RegisterBeansListener implements IPlatformListener {
#Override
public void stateChanged(PlatformEvent event) {
if (event.getState() == IPlatform.State.BeanManagerPrepared) {
// register the class directly:
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerClass(BeanSingletonClass.class);
}
}
}
This is the same as:
public class RegisterBeansListener implements IPlatformListener {
#Override
public void stateChanged(PlatformEvent event) {
if (event.getState() == IPlatform.State.BeanManagerPrepared) {
// register with meta information
BeanMetaData beanData = new BeanMetaData(PartnerService.class);
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerBean(beanData);
}
}
}
Meaning that you will get a new instance of the PartnerService each time you call BEANS.get(IPartnerService.class). (see Bean Scopes in the Scout Docs).
If you want your bean to have only one instance for your entire application you should register it like that:
public class RegisterBeansListener implements IPlatformListener {
#Override
public void stateChanged(PlatformEvent event) {
if (event.getState() == IPlatform.State.BeanManagerPrepared) {
// register with meta information
BeanMetaData beanData = new BeanMetaData(PartnerService.class)
.withApplicationScoped(true);
BEANS.getBeanManager().registerBean(beanData);
}
}
}
I recommend setting a specific Order like in this answer only for test purpose.

Simple UnityContainerExtension

I'm working on an application that is using the bbv EventBrokerExtension library. What I'm trying to accomplish is that I want to have unity register the instance that are instantiated through the container with the EventBroker. I'm planning on doing this through a UnityContainerExtension and implementing the IBuilderStrategy. The problem is that the methods for the interface seem to be called for each parameter in the constructor. The problem is when Singleton instances get resolved when building an object they will be registered multiple times.
For instance suppose you had
class Foo(ISingletonInterface singleton){}
class Foo2(ISingletonInterface singleton){}
and you resolve them via unity using
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.AddNewExtension<EventBrokerWireupStrategy>();
container.RegisterInstance<IEventBroker>(new EventBroker());
container.RegisterInstance(new Singleton());
var foo = container.Resolve<Foo>();
var foo2 = container.Resolve<Foo2>();
Then the UnityContainerExtension will call postbuildup on the same singleton object. Here is my naive implementation of UnityContainerExtension.
using Microsoft.Practices.ObjectBuilder2;
using Microsoft.Practices.Unity;
using Microsoft.Practices.Unity.ObjectBuilder;
using bbv.Common.EventBroker;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace PFC.EventingModel.EventBrokerExtension
{
public class EventBrokerWireupExtension : UnityContainerExtension, IBuilderStrategy
{
private IEventBroker _eventBroker;
private List<object> _wiredObjects = new List<object>();
public EventBrokerWireupExtension(IEventBroker eventBroker)
{
_eventBroker = eventBroker;
}
protected override void Initialize()
{
Context.Strategies.Add(this, UnityBuildStage.PostInitialization);
}
public void PreBuildUp(IBuilderContext context)
{
}
public void PostBuildUp(IBuilderContext context)
{
if (!_wiredObjects.Contains(context.Existing))
{
_eventBroker.Register(context.Existing);
_wiredObjects.Add(context.Existing);
}
}
public void PreTearDown(IBuilderContext context)
{
}
public void PostTearDown(IBuilderContext context)
{
}
}
}
After further investigation it appears that the problem has to do with the EventBrokerExtension. If I subscribe them in a certain order then some of them don't get registered with the event broker.
UPDATE:
Wanted to update this question really quick with the answer in case anyone else witnesses similar behavior when using the bbv EventBroker library. The behavior I was seeing was that a subscriber would get events for a while but then would stop receiving events. By design the EventBroker only maintains weak references to the publishers and subscribers that have been registered. Since the eventbroker was the only class referencing the objects they were getting garbage collected at an indeterminate time and wouldn't receive events anymore. The solution was simply to create a hard reference somewhere in the application besides the EventBroker.

Injecting Lower Layer Dependency in Presenter in an ASP.NET MVP Application

I recently read Phil Haack's post where he gives an example of implementing Model View Presenter for ASP.NET. One of the code snippets shows how the code for the view class.
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.Page, IPostEditView
{
PostEditController controller;
public _Default()
{
this.controller = new PostEditController(this, new BlogDataService());
}
}
However, here the view constructs the instance of the BlogDataService and passes it along to the presenter. Ideally the view should not know about BlogDataService or any of the presenter's lower layer dependencies. But i also prefer to keep the BlogDataService as a constructor injected dependency of the presenter as it makes the dependencies of the presenter explicit.
This same question has been asked on stackoverflow here.
One of the answers suggests using a service locator to get the instance of the BlogDataService and passing it along to the presenter's constructor.This solution however does not solve the problem of the view knowing about the BlogDataService and needing to explicitly get a reference to it.
Is there a way to automatically construct the presenter object using an IoC or DI container tool such that the view does not have to deal with explicitly creating the BlogDataService object and also injecting the view and service instances into the presenter's constructor. I prefer to use the constructor injection pattern as far as possible.
Or is there a better design available to solve the problem?. Can there be a better way to implement this If i am building a WinForms application instead of a ASP.NET WebForms application?
Thanks for any feedback.
Yes there is. For example using StructureMap in a webform constructor:
public partial class AttributeDetails : EntityDetailView<AttributeDetailPresenter>, IAttributeDetailView
{
public AttributeDetails()
{
_presenter = ObjectFactory.With<IAttributeDetailView>(this).GetInstance<AttributeDetailPresenter>();
}
....
}
and as you can see here presenter needs view and service injected
public AttributeDetailPresenter(IAttributeDetailView view, IAttributeService attributeService)
{
MyForm = view;
AppService = attributeService;
}
You can also use StructureMap BuildUp feature for webforms so that you can avoid using ObjectFactory directly in your view.
I did exactly this. The solution is based on Autofac, but can be implemented on top of any container.
First, define an interface representing the authority for presenting views in a request to the MVP system:
public interface IMvpRequest
{
void Present(object view);
}
Next, create a base page which has a property of that type:
public abstract class PageView : Page
{
public IMvpRequest MvpRequest { get; set; }
}
At this point, set up dependency injection for pages. Most containers have ASP.NET integration, usually in the form of HTTP modules. Because we don't create the page instance, we can't use constructor injection, and have to use property injection here only.
After that is set up, create event arguments representing a view which is ready to be presented:
public class PresentableEventArgs : EventArgs
{}
Now, catch the events in PageView and pass them to the request (present the page as well):
protected override bool OnBubbleEvent(object source, EventArgs args)
{
var cancel = false;
if(args is PresentableEventArgs)
{
cancel = true;
Present(source);
}
else
{
cancel = base.OnBubbleEvent(source, args);
}
return cancel;
}
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e)
{
base.OnLoad(e);
Present(this);
}
private void Present(object view)
{
if(MvpRequest != null && view != null)
{
MvpRequest.Present(view);
}
}
Finally, create base classes for each type of control you'd like to serve as a view (master pages, composite controls, etc.):
public abstract class UserControlView : UserControl
{
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e)
{
base.OnLoad(e);
EnsureChildControls();
RaiseBubbleEvent(this, new PresentableEventArgs());
}
}
This connects the control tree to the MVP system via IMvpRequest, which you'll now have to implement and register in the application-level container. The ASP.NET integration should take care of injecting the implementation into the page. This decouples the page entirely from presenter creation, relying on IMvpRequest to do the mapping.
The implementation of IMvpRequest will be container-specific. Presenters will be registered in the container like other types, meaning their constructors will automatically be resolved.
You will have some sort of map from view types to presenter types:
public interface IPresenterMap
{
Type GetPresenterType(Type viewType);
}
These are the types you will resolve from the container.
(The one gotcha here is that the view already exists, meaning the container doesn't create the instance or ever know about it. You will have to pass it in as a resolution parameter, another concept supported by most containers.)
A decent default mapping might look like this:
[Presenter(typeof(LogOnPresenter))]
public class LogOnPage : PageView, ILogOnView
{
// ...
}

Resources