I'm trying to add a behaviour to all users in a group (i.e. add an aspect to user if added and removed when not in group) however I get an exception at the point of binding within the init method:
public void init() {
this.policyComponent.bindClassBehaviour(OnUpdateNodePolicy.QNAME, ContentModel.TYPE_AUTHORITY_CONTAINER, new JavaBehaviour(this, "onUpdateNode"));
this.policyComponent.bindClassBehaviour(BeforeUpdateNodePolicy.QNAME, ContentModel.TYPE_AUTHORITY_CONTAINER, new JavaBehaviour(this, "beforeUpdateNode"));
}
Any other way I can get around this if this isn't possible?
If you want to act on users as they are added and removed from a group, you should be using the ChildAssociation policies. Have a look at http://dev.alfresco.com/resource/docs/java/repository/org/alfresco/repo/policy/AssociationPolicy.html to pick the ones which apply for you.
That said, it may be smarter to just extend AuthorityService and wrap calls to
public void addAuthority(String parentName, String childName);
public void removeAuthority(String parentName, String childName);
adding your custom logic.
Related
I have customized my Android Application Setting page, I use API 21 or 26. I have added a CustomListPreference java class which was inherited from ListPreference and integrated it into the SettingActivity.
But, I relisted the system doesn't work, as SettingActivity has Setting fragment inherited from androidx.preference.PreferenceFragmentCompat and packages used for the Setting Activity are as follows:
androidx.preference.Preference
androidx.preference.ListPreference
androidx.preference.PreferenceFragmentCompat
If I use packages android.preference.Preference and android.preference.ListPreference for my Custom ListPreference, all my code stops working when Android creates objects for the Setting Activity. It crashes just after the custom ListPreference constructorwith error "Error inflating class com.signatact.doorbell.dialog.preference.AppListPreference".
Digging into details I found the reason of the crash as the last step for new object creation for Setting Activity is the cast to androidx.preference.Preference:
from PreferenceInflater.java:
import androidx.preference;
...
return (Preference) constructor.newInstance(args); // line 242
It is clear, the system fails with cast between android.preference.Preference and androidx.preference.Preference.
However, if I move my custom ListPreference file implementation to androidx, almost all method I used before for customization are not available, hereby is a list of methods which are not available, where I put my custom logic:
// Error(s): Methods don't override methods from its superclass
#Override
protected void onPrepareDialogBuilder(AlertDialog.Builder builder)
...
#Override
protected void onDialogClosed(boolean positiveResult)
It looks like Google dramatically changed their API, can anybody give idea how in AndroidX one can customize ListPreference?
In general, I need standard customization things as follows:
In a row I have a custom set of controls (3 ones - 2x text boxes and 1 checkbox) - I build a custom layout for each row in onPrepareDialogBuilder with my custom ArrayAdapter for the list
I need dynamically update the CustomListPreference values. I populate those values in onResume in SettingActivity
I need to get callback when the list is pressed and new value is selected
I found only one practical guidance here for my case which is as follows: How can I change the appearance of ListPreference Dialog but it is limited and short. I analysed the AndroidX API and it looks like I need more time to come out with a solution and thus any help / idea appreciated...
Thx, Vlad.
Simply override onClick() function to pop out an AlertDialog with custom layout. Remember to call setValue() when anything selected in the dialog.
public class ColorPreference extends ListPreference {
private CharSequence[] mEntries;
private CharSequence[] mEntryValues;
private String mValue;
private String mSummary;
private AlertDialog mDialog;
public ColorPreference(Context context) {
this(context, null);
}
public ColorPreference(Context context, AttributeSet attrs) {
super(context, attrs);
setDefaultValue(Options.DEFAULT_PRIMARY_COLOR_STRING);
}
#Override
protected void onClick() {
mEntries = getEntries();
mEntryValues = getEntryValues();
mSummary = getSummary().toString();
mValue = getValue();
mClickedDialogEntryIndex = findIndexOfValue(mValue);
AlertDialog.Builder builder = new AlertDialog.Builder(getContext());
builder.setSingleChoiceItems(new ColorAdapter(getContext(), R.layout.pref_color_item),mClickedDialogEntryIndex,null);
mDialog = builder.create();
mDialog.show();
}
}
I have a UserController that has a Destroy function. It is a rather complex function because it demands to destroy all user's data. I have another action, from the Admin panel that deletes all data from a specific set of users.
Since I don't want to replicate the code from the UserController, I would like to call the Destroy function from UserController for each User to destroy its data.
How should I proceed?
Thanks in advance.
Why not move this functionality to a common class method which can be accessed from both the controllers as needed ?
public class UserManager
{
public void Destroy(List<int> userIdsToDestroy)
{
foreach(var userId in userIdsToDestroy)
{
//Execute code to destroy
}
}
}
and from your action methods, you can call it like
var mgr = new UserManager();
var badUsers = new List<int> { 1,2,3};
mgr.Destroy(badUsers);
Update the badUsers variable value as needed based on from where you are calling it.
Shared functionality like this would ideally be in a business layer, and both controllers would call that code. If it's a little app, you could just create a separate folder structure for shared code. Larger projects would have a business layer dll.
Why not make the Destroy() method as a Non-Action method then like
[Non-Action]
public void Destroy(User user)
{
// code goes here
}
You can as well make this Destroy() function as part of your business layer logic instead of handling this in controller. In that case, you call it from anywhere.
If you want it to be #controller, you can as well consider usig [ChildActionOnly] action filter attribute.
I searched around on the internet a bit but thought I might get some insight by just posting on stackoverflow and seeing if there were any opinions out there.
I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion of which is preferred between these two ways of setting up a page object:
public class LoginPage extends PageObject{
public void typeEmail(String email){
driver.findElement(EMAIL_SELECTOR).sendKeys(email);
}
public void typePassword(String pw){
driver.findElement(PASSWORD_SELECTOR).sendKeys(email);
}
public void submit(){
driver.findElement(SUBMIT_SELECTOR).click();
}
}
...and...
public class LoginPage extends PageObjects{
public void login(String email, String password){
driver.findElement(EMAIL_SELECTOR).sendKeys(email);
driver.findElement(PASSWORD_SELECTOR).sendKeys(email);
driver.findElement(SUBMIT_SELECTOR).click();
}
}
Originally, I thought the second way would be better since if the login flow changes for some reason (this is unlikely with a login, but you could theorize this happening for other types of forms), you could update the login() method and this change would affect all the tests which required login.
However, if you want to verify error conditions or more things before submit(), the second solution isn't flexible enough.
Any insights would be welcome.
Page object definition : "A PageObject need not represent an entire page. It may represent a section that appears many times within a site or page, such as site navigation."
The keys points of a PageObject :
- The public methods represent the services that the page offers
- Try not to expose the internals of the page
- Generally don't make assertions
- Methods return other PageObjects
- Need not represent an entire page
- Different results for the same action are modelled as different methods
SOURCE
Your two settings aren't PageObject but there is some similarities.
Personally I prefer to use another level of abstraction like:
public void typeEmail(String email){
fillField(EMAIL_SELECTOR, email);
}
And an implementation in your SeleniumWrapper class
public void fillField(WebElement selector, String text){
driver.findElement(selector).sendKeys(text);
}
This makes code more good-looking
This is not directly related to PageObjects, but still this is a way to prettify your code if you dont use BDD, or keyword-driven approach
I'm trying to follow the examples provided in this post, to create a dynamic list constraint in Alfresco 3.3.
So, I've created my own class extending ListOfValuesConstraint:
public class MyConstraint extends ListOfValuesConstraint {
private static ServiceRegistry registry;
#Override
public void initialize() {
loadData();
}
#Override
public List getAllowedValues() {
//loadData();
return super.getAllowedValues();
}
#Override
public void setAllowedValues(List allowedValues) {
}
protected void loadData() {
List<String> values = new LinkedList<String>();
String query = "+TYPE:\"cm:category\" +#cm\\:description:\"" + tipo + "\"";
StoreRef storeRef = new StoreRef("workspace://SpacesStore");
ResultSet resultSet = registry.getSearchService().query(storeRef, SearchService.LANGUAGE_LUCENE, query);
// ... values.add(data obtained using searchService and nodeService) ...
if (values.isEmpty()) {
values.add("-");
}
super.setAllowedValues(values);
}
}
ServiceRegistry reference is injected by Spring, and it's working fine. If I only call loadData() from initialize(), it executes the Lucene query, gets the data, and the dropdown displays it correctly. Only that it's not dynamic: data doesn't get refreshed unless I restart the Alfresco server.
getAllowedValues() is called each time the UI has to display a property having this constraint. The idea on the referred post is to call loadData() from getAllowedValues() too, so the values will be actually dynamic. But when I do this, I don't get any data. The Lucene query is the same, but returns 0 results, so my dropdown only displays -.
BTW, the query I'm doing is: +TYPE:"cm:category" +#cm\:description:"something here", and it's the same on each case. It works from initialize, but doesn't from getAllowedValues.
Any ideas on why is this happening, or how can I solve it?
Thanks
Edit: we upgraded to Alfresco 3.3.0g Community yesterday, but we're still having the same issues.
This dynamic-list-of-values-constraint is a bad idea and I tell you why:
The Alfresco repository should be in a valid state all the time. Your (dynamic) list of constraints will change (that's why you want it to be dynamic). Adding items would not be a problem, but editing and removing items are. If you would remove an item from your option-list, the nodes in the repository with this property value will be invalid.
You will not be able to fix this easily. The standard UI will fail on invalid-state-nodes. Simply editing this value and setting it to something valid will not work. You have been warned.
Because the default UI widget for a ListConstraint is a dropdown, not every dropdown should be a ListConstraint. ListConstraints are designed for something like a Status property: { Draft, Waiting Approval, Approved }. Not for a list of customer-names.
I have seen this same topic come up again and again over the last few years. What you actually want is let the user choose a value from a dynamic list of options (combo box). This is a UI problem, not a dictionary-model-issue. You should setup something like this with the web-config-context.xml (Alfresco web UI) or in Alfresco Share. The last one is more flexible and I would recommend taking that path.
i'm trying to work out the best method to perform logging in the application i'm currently developing.
right now, i have a Log table that stores the username, timestamp, action, controller, and a message. when a controller is instantiated, it gets the IoC info through Castle Windsor.
for example, my "Sites" controller is created as follows:
private ISitesRepository siteRepository;
private ILogWriter logWriter;
public SiteController(ISitesRepository siteRepository, ILogWriter logWriter)
{
this.siteRepository = siteRepository;
this.logWriter = logWriter;
}
and the log writer has a function that creates and inserts a log entry (WriteToLog). within the Sites controller's Edit and Create actions, it calls the WriteToLog function.
this is working and doing its job, but my question is- do i really need to set up each controller this way, passing through the ILogWriter interface/repository? it struck me that i could possibly set up a LogController, and just have that do the "heavy lifting" of writing to my logs.
that way, i wouldn't have to mess with the IoC stuff in every other controller. is it possible to execute an action on another controller (for example, a LogController-> WriteLog)? i'm not sure how would that be done without doing a redirect...
Could you pass by an abstract class? This abstract class having a static property referencing you log writer?
something like this
public abstract class BaseController
{
public static ILogWriter Logwriter{get;set;}
public static BaseController
{
Logwriter = YourFactory.GetLogwriter();
}
}
public class YourController:BaseController
{
public YourController(ISitesRepository siteRepository)
{
}
}
Ok, after much head scratching, i think i found an acceptable solution.
I implemented my logging action as a custom action filter as so:
public class LogAction : ActionFilterAttribute, IActionFilter
{
public LogLevel loglevel;
public string message;
public override void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext filterContext)
{
ILogWriter logWriter = AppServiceFactory.Instance.Create<ILogWriter>();
logWriter.WriteToLog(
filterContext.ActionDescriptor.ControllerDescriptor.ControllerName,
filterContext.ActionDescriptor.ActionName,
loglevel,
filterContext.HttpContext.Timestamp,
filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name.ToString(),
message + "(id=" + filterContext.RouteData.Values["id"] + ")");
}
}
but i ran into a wall trying to get the IoC to work in a custom attribute filter. scouring stackoverflow and google searches, i found that it's sort of difficult to do, with talk about using different wrappers, action invokers, etc, which all seemed more complicated than i was really willing to deal with.
trying to learn more about IoC (i'm still very new at this), i found this article,
which really helped point me in the right direction. i added his sealed AppServiceFactory class with my WindsorControllerFactory, and it worked like a charm.
As i said, i'm very new with to MVC and this IoC stuff, so i'm not sure this is an ideal way of handling things- but it seems simple and it works so far. I'd welcome any comments or criticisms on handling it through this method.
UPDATE
Figured out a different way of doing this- created a function in my WebUI project as such:
public static class Loggers
{
public static void WriteLog(ControllerContext controllerContext, LogLevel logLevel, string message)
{
ILogWriter logWriter = AppServiceFactory.Instance.Create<ILogWriter>();
logWriter.WriteToLog(
controllerContext.RouteData.Values["controller"].ToString(),
controllerContext.RouteData.Values["action"].ToString(),
logLevel,
controllerContext.HttpContext.Timestamp,
controllerContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name.ToString(),
message);
}
}
now, wherever i want to log something, i can call
Loggers.WriteLog(
this.ControllerContext,
LogLevel.Membership,
"Removed role '" + role + "'" + " from user " + _userService.Get(id).UserName );
to write a record to the log. this gives me a lot more flexibility on my "message" content, and solves the problem of including logging in the global.asax file, which would've been difficult if not impossible using the attribute filters. i'll leave the rest, as it may be of use to someone else, but i think this is the way i'll go on this.
as usual, things are usually simpler in MVC than i original think they will be :)