I need to create a fairly complex rule in Drupal - I am willing to use either code or the interface to do so.
I am more familiar with the interface, however, as opposed to the Rules API.
Anyway, the rule will be as follows:
It will happen based on a form submission from entityforms (which is one entity). It will take the checkbox value of a field (not just the true or false, but rather the value submitted when a value is true or false). It will convert this number to an integer.
At this point things get interesting - I want to create a new entity of registrations (a different entity), which as far as I can tell, means I'll have to bring a registration into scope. I also need to bring node (and not just node: type and other data selectors, but specifically node) into scope, because the next step requires it.
So at this point, I should have three entities loaded into scope:
entityforms
registration
node
I believe the best way to bring registration into scope would be entity is of type? The documentation page says that content of type should be appropriate - but that seems like it might be related to the specific use case of the example - not in my more complex example where registration isn't the first entity dealt with, but rather a second.
https://drupal.org/node/1463042
So anyway, if all three of these entities is called in correctly, the ultimate result should be the following:
Value from boolean field (not the straight 1 or 0, but whatever the value to be submitted is switched to) from the entityform is converted to an integer, and inserted where entity host ID is required. In the section where host entity type is the value should be node.
I am also open to alternative suggestions if this seems overly complex or poorly architected.
The Host Entity Type cannot be of Entityform? Why be a Node since a Registration can be attached to any entity? Then you will get the id of the Entityform as also as any other fields from that entity type instead of Node. Next steps are the same.
Related
I can't believe this hasn't come up for other people, but I'm unable to find a solution.
Let's say I have two entity types, A and B with a one-to-many relationship. A has a collection of Bs.
The form for A has a CollectionType for the Bs, with a custom entry_type for B, allow_add and allow_delete set to true. When the form is created/populated/rendered, the Bs' fields are identified by their index in the collection. When the form is posted back, the fields are mapped back onto the B entities according to the index again.
What if the database in the mean time decided to return the Bs in a different order? Then the values get swapped around on the Bs! I can't have that, as other entities will reference the Bs and now they've changed their meaning!
Even if the database doesn't change the order, the same issue appears when a B is deleted: The fields get shifted through the Bs and a different one deleted! (Ok, I'm not a 100% certain this happens, as there's a gap then in the numbering of the posted fields.) I've found this similar question where it does happen when another one is created (Symfony CollectionType regards deletion+creation as a modification of an item), but that sort of drifted from the issue and there's no usable answer.
How do I make sure the form is updating the entities the user actually edited?
I already tried to render the Bs' IDs as a HiddenType, but then the form rightfully complains that the ID has no setter. It would probably force an ID on the wrong B anyways and Doctrine doesn't like that. I suppose I could add the Bs as unmapped and copy the values over to the correct objects manually, but that would defeat a good chunk of Symfony's form system.
I've used CollectionType before, but not for entities that are referenced elsewhere. I would then delete all of the previous entities and create the collection anew from the posted data. But I can't do that now, can I?
Since doctrine 2.1, it's possible to change how associations are indexed. This will allow you to use the id as the collection key (as the field has to be unique):
#OneToMany(targetEntity="B", mappedBy="A", indexBy="id")
You might also need to enable orphanRemoval so that the data is actually removed instead of the relation just set to null.
I have a content app with a dominating unique field that I would like to use as the node name for new nodes. The problem is that it contains characters that cannot be part of a JCR node name, and thus if I were to link it to jcrName rather than a custom property it will get mutated into something that isn't useful for the fields original purpose (among others, the field value will contain slashes).
My current solution adds an additional field for the node name, and while this certainly works, it adds a UI field to the detail for no reason that is apparent to the users of the app.
Is there a way to have a field that reads and writes a string value to a custom property, yet that is also used (in its clened form) to name the node?
You could use this as a base, paying special attention to the code in 2.b.ii. (especially setNodeName), and ignoring the yaml bits.
I hope this helps!
I have a problem concerning the usage of a DataTransformer.
Basically, I am developing a translation tool for my application whose goal is to be as generic as possible.
For that, I chose to follow that model : Database modeling for international and multilingual purposes
So, in different entities in my application, I have translatable attributes that simply are references to i18n elements. Then, this i18n ID is referenced in Translation table entries, that handle translation strings.
I succeed handling my translation interface, but I now have a problem with my forms : Indeed, I want some of my entities to be created/updated via forms. The problem is that I don't want the user to set a i18n ID for the translatable fields, of course, but a text, so that it can be handled by my application to either update or create the related translation in database.
I thought then that creating a DataTransformer could be a good idea, so that I can get the related translation string from the i18nID that is in my Entity entry (for that way, no problem). But my problem here is for the opposite way :
How can I deal with creating/updating i18n entries in my reverseTransform() method without knowing the entity values context?
Is there any way to get the previous entity values so that I could get the i18 ID that is stored originally in my entity? I understand that a Data Transformer is theorically totally independent from my forms and my entities, but I'm totally blocked about how to handle this case.
Indeed, when I save my entity with my translated string, I have no way to know the entity context in my reverseTransform() method, that would have permitted me to get the i18nID of the entity and to update it.
I just have the string that typed the user, but I can't do anything with that, because I can't know if it is an update or not since I don't have access to my entities.
Do you have any clue to do that? Is trying to use a DataTransformer to perform this a bad idea?
Thank you !
As a reference, the most similar question already asked is: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667849/making-xforms-enforce-the-constraint-and-type-model-item-properties-only-when-fi The difference is that I cannot use the 'relevant' property since I do want the field to be visible and accessible.
I'm attempting to make an XForms form that has the following properties:
It displays a text field named 'information'. (for the example)
This field must not be required, since it may not be necessary to enter data. (Or this data will be entered at a later time.)
However, if data is entered in this field, it must adhere to the specified constraint.
I cannot mark the field as not relevant since this would hide the field and some data may need to be entered in it.
The trouble now is that even though the field has no data in it, the constraint is still enforced (i.e. even though it is not marked as 'required').
I have taken a look at the XForms 1.1 specification, however it does not seem to describe how the properties 'required' and 'constraint' should interact.
The only option I see, is to add a part to the constraint such that an empty value is allowed.
e.g.:
. = '' or <actual-constraint>
However, I don't like this. It feels like a workaround to add this to every such field.
Is there any other way to express that non-required fields should not need to match the constraint for that field? (Am I missing something?)
In XForms 1.1, required serves two purposes:
mark the field as required (implementations can style controls to reflect this, e.g. with a "*")
take part in the validation process
The latter is described in 4.3.3 The xforms-revalidate Event.
An instance node is valid if and only if the following conditions hold:
And one of the conditions is:
the value is non-empty if the required model item property is true
So it is a logical and between all aspects that impact validation.
I can see how things could have been different, e.g. saying required="false()" could disable the rest of the validation. However that's not the approach XForms is taking.
Based on this there is nothing wrong checking for emptiness as part of the constraint.
XForms 2.0 might add custom XPath functions, which might help with reuse of logic:
<bind ref="information" constraint="my:constraint(.)">
Also, if the constraint can be expressed with a type, you may be able to use one of the schema types in the XForms namespace, which allow empty values to be valid. For instance xforms:double considered the empty string and 42 to be valid values, but not gaga.
Using the Dynamics CRM I'm trying to create an instance of an entity. I would like to manually set the GUID, but if I had the attribute that is the primary key to the DynamicEntity, I get following error.
Service could not process request
I am building a DynamicEntity, and setting the [entityname]id attribute causes the request to fail. It's moving data between two CRM instances, so if anyone knows of a better way to copy records between CRMs, that'd work too. Otherwise, I'd like the GUID to match across instances... as that's the point of a GUID.
Happily, it IS possible to do this across two CRM instances! A co-worker knew the solution, so credit really belongs to him.
My mistake was creating a Property with type UniqueIdentifierProperty. The primary key attribute on an entity needs to be filled in with a KeyProperty. These two properties are nearly identical -- the Property types are, except that one holds a Key, the other a UniqueIdentifier. The Key/UniqueIdentifier both hold GUIDs. (Another day in the mind of Microsoft!)
Precisely, what I'm doing is creating a DynamicEntity, filling in the entity name, and filling in the majority of the attributes. The PK attribute (which you can determine from the metadata) can be filled in with a KeyProperty. I was filling it in with a UniqueIdentifierProperty, which CRM rejects and responds with a nondescript and unhelpful error message.
I apologize if I am over-simplifying the solution, but why not add a custom field in both instances that would be a mirror of the other instances guid?