I have oradcle adf and jdeveloper.
I want to invisible current row in a table by click on a button(named "delete_row") .
Can anyone help me ?
I think you are looking for a soft delete of rows from table. Refer to this post Soft deletion of rows
You can make the row invisible but once you open again the application it will show again as this information is not stored anywhere. Better you have to override the remove operation for the current row. Once the remove operation is called you should change the value of a column from the table (boolean deleted for example). The query used in VO iterator for that table should not get rows with that value as false. Please check: http://husaindalal.blogspot.com/2009/11/generic-way-to-handle-soft-delete.html
Related
What I wanted is to display an alert when I move to the next row if the record that I inserted is already one of the records in the multi record block.
and in what trigger must I put it?
There are several options you can use.
One is to POST values entered (in WHEN-NEW-RECORD-INSTANCE) trigger. It will, well, post everything you entered so far. Then, you can write a WHEN-VALIDATE-ITEM trigger which SELECTs from that table and checks whether such a value already exists. Alternatively, if there's the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on that (those) column(s), database will do its job itself, i.e. raise an exception.
Another option is to literally loop through all rows in a block and compare the first row's value with all the others, then the second row's values with all of them, etc.
Or, you can use a Record Group (usually used for Lists of Values). Basically, you'd check whether value you entered exists in a record group. More info, along with a FMB file, on Craig's blog.
Or, you can use calculated items, as described enter link description here (FMB attached as well).
As you can see, quite a few ways to do that; explore each of them and pick the one you find the most useful / attractive / easy to implement.
I'm trying to implement multiple record selection feature on a grid.
It is very similar to http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=3831
It adds an extra column with check boxes. I want those check boxes!!
But it depends on a extra logical field in the underlying table. It need to create a class clscheck which inherits CHECKBOX. I'm not sure why this CLICK procedure is needed for the checkbox.
PROCEDURE CLICK
IF DODEFAULT()
KEYBOARD '{DNARROW}'
ENDIF
ENDPROC
When I removed it, row selection did not work correctly as expected. Why this?
Here is my requirement:
1) I don't want to add an extra logical field in the underlying table.
2) To work with controls in the grid, I think AllowCellSelection must be .T. I want AllowCellSelection = .F. because I don't need to work with any control in the grid except the check boxes. I need to work only with check boxes. The other columns will be read-only.
3) Can I have selected list without the logical field in the underlying table?
4) Can I remove the usage of KEYBOARD '{DNARROW}'?
In fact, I have a grid which is AllowCellSelection = .F., but it only provides single selection.
I need to enhance it with multiple selection, thus, I just want to add an extra column with check boxes so that user can know he can select multiple records.
No need Shift+Click or Ctrl+Click which is not familiar with idiot users.
I have found this - http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=433
It also depends on an extra logical field and it depends Shift+Click and Ctrl+Click.
What you are seeing is quite common for multi-select grids. I've used them SIMILAR to this in the past. However, you are afraid of the extra column in the underlying table. That may/not be true. You don't always have to update the ORIGINAL table, but a temporary CURSOR you are presenting to the user. Ex: If you want to display a list of employees in a table. No, you don't want to keep adding this column to the original employee table as then anyone else trying to do multi-select could falsely get your selection. However, if you pulled into your own local cursor and presented to the user, then no problem. Example...
Thisform.YourGrid.RecordSource = "Employees"
(bound directly to your employee table -- not necessarily the right thing)
vs
use in select( "C_MultiPickEmployees" )
select ;
.F. as IsChosen, ;
E.* ;
from ;
Employees E;
into ;
cursor C_MultiPickEmployees READWRITE
Thisform.YourGrid.RecordSource = "C_MultiPickEmployees"
NOW, you have your extra column without dealing with issues to the underlying table. If you wanted to further filter what you were showing -- such as employees for a certain division/department, then just add that to a WHERE clause, add an Order By if so needed and you are good to go.
As for the "Allow Cell Selection", I've never had to deal with that. I just add a "checkbox" to the first column and set
Thisform.YourGrid.Column[1].CurrentControl = "CheckBoxControl"
(based on the name it is added to the column).
Then, set the column 1's "ControlSource" = "C_MultiPickEmployees.IsChosen" and you should mostly be done.
As for the "CLICK" event trying to force the down arrow. This is more for automatically scrolling to the next record so you can just click, click, click for multiple entries.
Hope this helps clarify things for you.
I need a trigger to log updates on a table. As I want to log it I need to know the name of the updated column(s) in the trigger body. We have NEW and OLD but it doesn't tell me which column were updated.
If nothing else, I still have the choice between these two ugly solutions:
use one IF NEW.val <> OLD.val per column
use one trigger per column
PS: I saw this "COLUMNS_UPDATED" in SQL which represents what I am looking for.
Let’s assume that ( the first time page is created ) I manually bind GridView to some data source. Is there’s a way to configure GridView to delete a row ( by pressing row’s delete button) without handling any of the delete events ( in other words, we wouldn’t try to delete a row in data source and then rebind GridView to it)? Instead, GridView would simply remove that row from its ViewState and then display all rows minus the deleted one
thanx
So then how would you end up remembering this and deleting it in the db?
Why not do what may be simplier is to have a bit field in your table called
Deleted. That way when someone deletes something accidentally it is still there.
Your record set would make use of a WHERE clause to filter Deleted=False
Instead of binding the GridView to your data source, bind it to a collection built from your data source. You can then add to, delete from and modify the collection as much as you want, without ever affecting the underlying database table.
How Can I find all the rows that has been changed in gridview. I can not use Ajax in any form
First get the contents of your grid before it was changed (such as caching the results of the original gridview datasource binding). Then go through the dataset/datatable/however you want to store it, and compare the contents with the current rows of the gridview.
There's no real efficient way to do this, no method like GridView.GetAllChangedRows(). So, what you might do instead is keep a behind the scenes List that you add to each time a row is modified (use the RowUpdated method), then clear this list when needed.
It depends upon how many columns you want to edit in a row.
If you have only one editable column in a row then you can associate a javascript method with that control which you want to modify and in that method you can get a rowid which you can save in another hidden field and in server side you can get all rows whose ids are stored in hidden field.
If you have whole row editable in that case the best approach I think you should save the original data source somewhere and also set a javascript method with rowclick event to get rowid which user selects. Then when user clicks on submit button get all rows whose row ids are stored in hidden field then compare those with same rowid in datasource. This is the best approach from my point of you.
Let me give you an example, suppose there are 1000 rows in a grid and user clicks on only 180 rows. In that case we will compare only 180 rows and wont compare rest of the rows.
Please let me know if somebody has better idea then this.