JSR303: How to check that field already marked as invalid? - bean-validation

In my own class-level validator before checking value I want to know are other validators mark it as valid or not?
For instance, before checking that country exists in database I need to ensure that it passes other tests, such as valid length and matches pattern.
How to do this?
To clarify what I really wants, this is real-life example:
#ValidCredentials(groups = AuthAccountForm.FormChecks.class)
public class AuthAccountForm {
#NotEmpty(groups = Login1Checks.class)
#Size.List({
#Size(min = LOGIN_MIN_LENGTH, message = "{value.too-short}", groups = Login2Checks.class),
#Size(max = LOGIN_MAX_LENGTH, message = "{value.too-long}", groups = Login2Checks.class)
})
#Pattern(regexp = LOGIN_REGEXP, message = "{login.invalid}", groups = Login3Checks.class)
private String login;
#NotEmpty(groups = Password1Checks.class)
#Size(min = PASSWORD_MIN_LENGTH, message = "{value.too-short}", groups = Password2Checks.class)
#Pattern(
regexp = PASSWORD_REGEXP,
message = "{password.invalid}",
groups = Password3Checks.class
)
private String password;
#GroupSequence({ Login1Checks.class, Login2Checks.class, Login3Checks.class })
public interface LoginChecks { }
public interface Login1Checks { }
public interface Login2Checks { }
public interface Login3Checks { }
#GroupSequence({ Password1Checks.class, Password2Checks.class, Password3Checks.class })
public interface PasswordChecks { }
public interface Password1Checks { }
public interface Password2Checks { }
public interface Password3Checks { }
public interface FormChecks { }
}
And in controller:
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.POST)
public String processInput(
#Validated({
LoginChecks.class,
PasswordChecks.class,
FormChecks.class
}) final AuthAccountForm form,
final BindingResult result) {
So, now in ValidCredentialsValidator before checks password and login, I need to ensure that them are valid.

I think you should use Groups and Group sequence. In a Group sequence if at least one constraints fails the constraints of the following groups in the sequence get validated. More information are available here.
For example:
#GroupSequence({ Person.class, Group1.class, Group2.class })
class Person {
#Size(min=4, groups=Group1.class)
#Pattern("[a-z]+", groups=Group1.class)
#CheckExistence(groups=Group2.class)
String country;
}
In this example if we validate the Default group, constraints belonging to Person will be validated first then the constraints of Group1 and the constraints of Group2. If one constraints of Group1 is failling the Group2 is not validated.

Related

Custom get and set on attribute

I am trying to setup a product key system in my application, but I want to ensure the attribute has the right size (16 characters).
I tried the following
public class ProductKey
{
public const int ProductKeyLength = 16;
[StringLength(ProductKeyLength, MinimumLength = ProductKeyLength)]
private string _value;
[Required]
[Index(IsUnique = true)]
public string Value {
get
{
var temp = Regex.Replace(this._value, ".{4}", "$0-");
return temp.Trim('-');
}
set { this._value = value.Replace("-", "");}
}
}
I want to enable the user to insert the key with our without hyphen. I get the following error with above code:
Column 'Value' in table 'dbo.ProductKeys' is of a type that is invalid for use as a key column in an index.
As I understood, I need to set a limit to Value so it can be used as a unique key. But, _value has a limit and _value is the actual representation of Value in the database.
Is there a way to set the limit correctly in this case?
Thanks in advance.
You are getting the error because without a StringLength attribute on the Value field, the database column gets created as VARCHAR(MAX) which cannot be used as a key. You need a [StringLength] on the field being used as a key. However, as your getter is returning the key formatted with dashes, you need the key length to be 19:
public class ProductKey
{
public const int ProductKeyLength = 19;
private string _value { get; set; }
[Key]
[Required]
[StringLength(ProductKeyLength, MinimumLength = ProductKeyLength)]
[Index(IsUnique = true)]
public string Value
{
get
{
var temp = Regex.Replace(this._value, ".{4}", "$0-");
return temp.Trim('-');
}
set { this._value = value.Replace("-", ""); }
}
}
You might be better off doing your format conversion in ViewModels and client-side code, as one problem you'll have here is searching - for example...
db.Keys.Add(new ProductKey { Value = "1234-5678-9012-3456" });
db.Keys.Add(new ProductKey { Value = "1234567890123455" });
db.SaveChanges();
Console.WriteLine(db.Keys.Count(k => k.Value.Contains("89"))); // 0
Console.WriteLine(db.Keys.Count(k => k.Value.Contains("8-9"))); // 2

Constraints on parameters in api interface

I've declared an API call in an interface and was wondering if it is possible to put constraints on some of the parameters. The API I'm accessing has these constraints as well and would like to enforce them in my program.
#GET("/recipes/search")
Call<RecipeResponse> getRecipes(
#Query("cuisine") String cuisine,
#Query("diet") String diet,
#Query("excludeIngredients") String excludeIngredients,
#Query("intolerances") String intolerances,
#Query("number") Integer number,
#Query("offset") Integer offset,
#Query("query") String query,
#Query("type") String type
);
How can I do this?
I know that it is possible to do this with POST request, and passing along an object via the RequestBody through the #Body annotation. Can I do this with a GET request too, where information is passed via the query string?
Thanks!
I think I ended up finding a solution. I've made a class SearchRecipeRequest in which I declare all possible parameters as class variables. In the setters I do the data validation such as checking for null on parameters that are required, or min/max value constraints on integers as specified by the endpoint. I then made a SearchRecipeRequestBuilder class to build such an object like so to make it easier to deal with all those possible parameters:
public class SearchRecipeRequestBuilder {
private String _cuisine = null,
_diet = null,
_excludeIngredients = null,
_intolerances = null,
_query = null,
_type = null;
private Integer _number = null,
_offset = null;
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder() {}
public SearchRecipeRequest buildRequest() {
return new SearchRecipeRequest(_cuisine, _diet, _excludeIngredients, _intolerances, _number, _offset, _query, _type);
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder cuisine(String cuisine) {
_cuisine = cuisine;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder diet(String diet) {
_diet = diet;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder excludeIngredients(String excludeIngredients) {
_excludeIngredients = excludeIngredients;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder intolerances(String intolerances) {
_intolerances = intolerances;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder query(String query) {
_query = query;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder type(String type) {
_type = type;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder number(Integer number) {
_number = number;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder offset(Integer offset) {
_offset = offset;
return this;
}
}
Which allows me to build the request like so:
SearchRecipeRequest request = new SearchRecipeRequestBuilder()
.query("burger")
.buildRequest();
I then pass along that object to a different function that knows how to use the request object to pass it along to the API.
That's how I'm doing it right now, if someone has a better way I'd love to hear it. :)
I got the idea to use the Builder pattern from a different StackOverflow question: Managing constructors with many parameters in Java.

Having trouble with Nested-Objects using Nest

When I try to index a doc of my defined type, having a list which is supposed to be mapped as a nested-object ("type":"nested"), it's getting mapped as a regular object type.
Take a look at the code:
I've got a simple class like this one:
[ElasticType()]
public class MyJob
{
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int jobCode { get; set; }
[ValueFieldAttribute(Type = FieldType.nested)]
public IList<JobProfessionalFieldInfo> JobProfessionalFields { get; set; }
}
The code for the JobProfessionalFieldInfo class is:
[ElasticType()]
public class JobProfessionalFieldInfo
{
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int JobId { get; set; }
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
}
The code for the ValueFieldAttribute class is:
public class ValueFieldAttribute : ElasticPropertyAttribute
{
public ValueFieldAttribute()
: base()
{
this.Store = false;
this.Index = FieldIndexOption.not_analyzed;
}
}
My program:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ConnectionSettings node = new ConnectionSettings(new Uri("http://localhost:9200"));
node.SetDefaultIndex("jobs");
ElasticClient client = new ElasticClient(node);
List<JobProfessionalFieldInfo> list = new List<JobProfessionalFieldInfo>();
list.Add(new JobProfessionalFieldInfo { CategoryId = 1, JobId = 1 });
list.Add(new JobProfessionalFieldInfo { CategoryId = 2, JobId = 2 });
var res = client.Index<MyJob>(new MyJob
{
jobCode = 1,
JobProfessionalFields = list
},"jobs", "MyJob",1);
}
Now, when I run it, it indexes the object successfully... BUT(!!) when I get the mapping of the index with GET jobs/MyJob/_mapping, I see that jobProfessionalFields has no "type":"nested" in its mapping.
That results in a query like the following one, returning the indexed doc while it's not supposed to get it back (that's what nested-type is for right?..):
GET jobs/_search
{
"query":
{
"bool":
{
"must":
[
{"match": {"jobId":1}},
{"match": {"categoryId":2}}
]
}
}
}
It's not the end:
I'd a look at here,
there the guy that answered tells that when we use annotations we need to manually call the createIndex and Map methods, but the problem is that I don't have any generic Map method...!
Take a look at here: (just to make you get into the link - here's its start..)
namespace Nest
{
public partial class ElasticClient...
And I don't know how to use the non-generic Map method to put the mapping of my MyJob class.
How can I cause this stuff to map the jobProfessionalFields as nested-type dudes?
Thanks for any help of you guys!
OK, got it LOL!
The MapFromAttributes<> is the right generic method for putting the mapping (at least in the current Nest version I'm using - 0.12.0).
But it demands a manual call for the index creationg, o.w it gives an IndexMissing exception (like the guy in the above mentioned link said).
client.CreateIndex("jobs", new IndexSettings { });
var res = client.MapFromAttributes<MyJob>("jobs","MyJob");
But that's really interesting why isn't it enough to just define the
[ElasticProperty(Type = FieldType.nested)],
in order to get the nested mapping though..
I would be glad to get an answer for that one.

ASP.NET MVC Conditional ViewModel Abstraction

I am new to ASP.NET MVC and I am stuck on a point. I am working on a classified site. My situation is, I have a lot of categories in which a user can post their ads and each ad category have different View. I have created a Controller Action like
public ActionResult PostAd(string CategoryName, string SubCategoryName)
{
if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Cars")
{
var model = new CarAdViewModel();
// set CarAdViewModel properties...
return View("CarAdCreateView", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Bikes")
{
var model = new BikeAdViewModel();
// set BikeAdViewModel properties...
return View("BikeAdViewModel", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Property" && SubCategoryName == "RentHouse")
{
var model = new RentHouseAdViewModel();
// set RentHouseAdViewModel properties...
return View("RentHouseAdViewModel", model);
}
else................... so on and so on
}
My problem is I have huge number of Categories and Sub Categories almost 60+. And if I keep on coding like above for 60+ categories and subcategories, my PostAd method is going to blast and become unmanageable.
Please tell me some best practice or pattern which can bring me out of this problem.
Unfortunately, some of what you are doing cannot be avoided. There needs to be some form of model and view selection based on category.
Use a factory pattern. Create a base class:
public abstract class BaseCategory
{
public abstract string GetViewName();
public abstract Object CreateModelFromFormData();
}
For each category, create a sub-class derived from BaseCategory and implement the abstract functions.
In your action, do the following:
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
BaseFactory factory;
if (categoryName == "Vehicle")
{
if (subCategoryName == "Cars")
{
factory = new CarsFactory();
}
else ...
}
else ...
return View(factory.GetViewName(), factory.CreateModelFromFormData());
}
I have a couple reasons for this schema:
I am purposefully using if/else for the factory selection. Your controller is going to be created and re-created for every action call. So pre-populating a list will constantly and needlessly create objects for categories that will not be selected. A simple if/else will be more efficient. If you want to prevent the if/else, you can put your factories in a Dictionary and select based on the categories, but that would be a lot of needless constructor actions.
I made the CreateModelFromFormData a function because I assume you'll need to copy data from the posted form data. This may require passing in data, but I left the function parameterless.
I used base/derived classes because the copying of the form data will probably need to be custom from the model being created and the form data being posted. Also, saving to persistent storage (file or database) may be category-specific as well.
It would be one of some possible solutions
public class PostAdData
{
public string CategoryName;
public string SubCategoryName;
public string ViewName;
public Type Model;
}
public class PostController : Controller
{
private readonly List<PostAdData> _theData;
public HomeController()
{
_theData = InitializeData();
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
var data = _theData.FirstOrDefault(c => c.CategoryName == categoryName && c.SubCategoryName == subCategoryName);
if (data != null)
{
var model = Activator.CreateInstance(data.Model);
return View(data.ViewName, model);
}
return View("Error");
}
[NonAction]
public List<PostAdData> InitializeData()
{
var result = new List<PostAdData>
{
new PostAdData
{
CategoryName = "Vehicle",
SubCategoryName = "Cars",
ViewName = "CarAdCreateView",
Model = typeof (CarAdViewModel)
}
};
return result;
}
}
You should make this data driven. You create a lookup table that has a compound primary key of category and subcategory. Then it has a table with View in it. Then you simply ad rows for each category/subcategory/view combination.
If you absolutely don't want a database, then you can use a simple hashset or dictionary.
var views = new Dictionary<Tuple<string,string>,string>();
views.Add(new Tuple<string,string>("Vehicle", "Cars"), "CarAdCreateView");
Then in your PostAd you just lookup the correct view.
What a beautiful solution on www.asp.net to my question, here is the link : http://forums.asp.net/t/1923868.aspx/1?ASP+NET+MVC+Conditional+ViewModel+Abstraction
Edit:
My code is :
public class AdsController : Controller
{
private readonly IAdService _adService;
public AdsController(IAdService adService)
{
_adService = adService;
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string Category, string SubCategory)
{
//Here I will call
var strategy = GetStrategy(CategoryName, SubCategoryName);
strategy.FillModel(_adService );
return View(strategy.ViewName, strategy.Model);
}
}

How to serialize dynamic field names using JSON parser

I am using JSON.Net to serialize my objects. For eg, if this is my object
Class MainData
{
[JsonProperty("keyValues")]
string val;
}
the data for 'val' is a key value pair string like this key1:value1.
I have a scenario where I should not get the above 'keyValues' name in my final serialized string and instead get a serialized string which looks like this
{
"key1":"value1"
}
Currently with my serializer I am getting this, which is not what I need
{
"keyValues":"key:value1"
}
Can somebody guide me to any documentation/solution to dynamically assign the name of the field instead of using the default variable name/JSONProperty Name defined inside the object?
Thanks a lot in advance.
I've been struggling with this all day, what I've done is used a dictionary object and serialised this
however I had an error message that was "cannot serialise dictionary", should have read the whole message, "cannot serialise dictionary when the key is not a string or object"
this now works for me and gives me a key/value pair
i have the following objects
public class Meal {
public int mealId;
public int value;
public Meal(int MealId, int Value) {
mealId = MealId;
value = Value;
} }
public class Crew
{
public Meal[] AllocatedMeals {
get {
return new Meal[]{
new Meal(1085, 2),
new Meal(1086, 1) }; } }
public int AllocatedMealTotal {
get {
return this.AllocatedMeals.Sum(x => x.value); } }
}
then the following code
Dictionary<string,string> MealsAllocated = crew.AllocatedMeals.ToDictionary(x => x.mealId.ToString(), x => x.value.ToString());
return new JavaScriptSerializer().Serialize(
new {
Allocated = new {
Total = crew.AllocatedMealTotal,
Values = MealsAllocated } )
to get
"Allocated":{"Total":3,"Values":{"1085":"2","1086":"1"}}

Resources