When using .contains() on an ArrayCollection in Flex, it will always look at the memory reference. It does not appear to look at an .equals() method or .toString() method or anything overridable. Instead, I need to loop through the ArrayCollection every time and check each individual item until I find what I'm looking for.
Does anyone know why Flex/ActionScript was made this way? Why not provide a way from people to use the contains() method the way they want?
Couldn't you just extend ArrayCollection and override the contains() method? Alternatively you can paste the source for ArrayCollection into an "mx/collections" package in your project and modify the source; this "monkey-patching technique" will override the behavior throughout your entire project. However I would be extremely cautious about changing ArrayCollection in that manner: since it's used all over the place in the Flex APIs there is a good chance you'll start breaking other components in the framework.
The contains() method searches by reference, correct (I believe even for primitives), so if you're trying to find a string or an int in an ArrayCollection, you'll have to do the searching yourself, by some variation of looping or searching. I don't think any of us could tell you why there isn't, say, an optional parameter on that method indicating whether to search by ref or by val, though; so it goes, as they say.
But I'd definitely warn you off monkey-patching the framework code -- that's just asking for trouble. :)
Well, it seems like the ArrayCollection doesn't actually look directly at memory, but only as a last resort. It will attempt to find a Unique ID (UID) for the object. If the UID doesn't exist, it will create one for it using the UIDUtil.as.
You can get around this whole default UID stuff by having your object implement the IUID interface and providing your own UID for the object. The ArrayCollection will look at the UID you provide it.
I would suggest a simple:
in_array($haystack, $arrayCollection->toArray());
Related
I'm getting really confused by entity properties and what they mean. I understand that get and set allow the application to interact with protected and private properties, but what about add and remove?
When running the command
php app/console doctrine:generate:entities bundle:entity
Sometimes it will generate getters and setters and other times it will generate add and remove properties (and usually a get method as well). I've noticed that it also sometimes depends on the relationship with other entities (i.e. OnetoMany), but not always :-S
Nowhere in the Symfony documentation that I can find is this addressed, and it's causing me to see the message "Neither the property "x" nor one of the methods exist and have public access" way too often. Can anybody provide a succinct explanation of this?
add and remove are used to deal with collections. If for example your Entity (Let's say A) contains a collection of B elements, then the command will provide an addB() and a removeB() public methods to help you add and remove elements from your collection. It'll also provide a getter which returns the whole collection.
The command generates methods based on the type of attributes you're working with (ArrayCollection, string, ...)
For xxxToMany associations, Doctrine will generate a "adder" and a "remover" instead of a plain setter. The idea is to easily add and/or remove a single object from the collection without needing to pass around the entire collection everytime to the setter.
Note though that these generated methods are an implementation detail you are free to revise. If you prefer a single setter method for example, feel free to implement that one yourself.
I personally don't rely on the accessor generation of Doctrine anymore. Doing it manually allows greater control of your entity's API, and is also quite easy in an IDE like Netbeans or PHPStorm.
I would like to use collective.easytemplate to generate templated emails (for content rules). However, I am not sure if it can output an objects workflow state. Anybody know if it is possible and how it is done?
Thanks.
You can, it is possible, and one way is to use the portal_workflow tool e.g. from parts/omelette/plone/app/contentrules/tests/test_action_workflow.py:
self.assertEquals('published',
self.portal.portal_workflow.getInfoFor(self.folder.d1, 'review_state'))
More generally, something like:
context.portal_workflow.getInfoFor(context, 'review_state')
in a page template should work. Or use the portal_catalog as Spanky suggests e.g. if "obj" is a catalog "brain" (i.e. part of a result set from a catalog search) then:
obj.review_state
should work.
The portal_catalog also has an index of the workflow's Review State, so if you don't already have the object you're working on (e.g. context ≠ the object) you could use the catalog, look up the object and get the review state from the resulting "brains" object.
Apparently there are ALSO browser view methods available to you as well, and I notice that one of them is workflow_state. See:
http://plone.org/documentation/manual/theme-reference/page/otherinfo
I have the code in one of my flex file used as labelFunction in a DataGrid.
When I run the FlexPMD to do the code review, it generates an objection about the dynamic type object used in the following method signature and it suggests to use strongly type object.
public function getFormattedCreatedTime(item:Object, column:DataGridColumn):String {
var value:Date=item[column.dataField];
return dateFormatter.format(value);
}
Does anyone know how to rectify it?
Thanks
You have the answer in your question - just use a strongly type object, or perhaps an interface if item can have various types.
But basically there's nothing wrong with using dynamic type objects as long as you know what you're doing. I'd say just ignore the error.
In this case it would be of course possible to type item to something less generic than Object, but some times you can't, or Object is exactly the right type, in this case you can use //NOPMD comment - it will instruct the PMD validator to skip the definition. Of course the good practice is to also explain the reason you used //NOPMD.
We're using LCDS and the "commitRequiredOn" method in the DataService class to check if there are pending changes for an entity. However, it seems like "commitRequiredOn" does not check the complete graph of an object, but just the object itself. For now, we have implemented a recursive check on the complete object graph, but this seems like functionality that should come out of the box.
Am I missing something here, or is there just no built-in way to recursively check an entity to see if it's dirty or not?
I can confirm that commitRequiredOn is checking only the objects itself. But there is also the property DataService.commitRequired (and this is checking for all the objects managed by the dataservice) - maybe you can use it.
I use a lot of repeaters for different elements of our sites, and I've always wondered if there was a way to have the repeater skip an element if an exception occurs instead of having the whole page crash?
In particular, I've inherited a system from another developer that using a similar design, however he didn't include any kind of validation for his business objects, and it a single property is missing, the whole thing goes up in smoke.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance!
The simplest suggestion I can offer is the check the validity of the data before it's passed to the repeater. I don't believe there's any way to get the stock repeater to skip a data element on error.
The other approach is to build your own repeater, inheriting from the base Repeater, to add that functionality but I've no sample code to offer. Perhaps someone else may be able to help there.
The way I see it, you have at least three options.
You could create a custom repeater control that inherits System.Web.UI.WebControls.Repeater and override the databinding behaviour to be more try-catchy (probably fail silently on databinding errors). You couldd then easily replace all instances of the standard Repeater with this new one.
You could filter your datasources before databinding to remove items you know are going to cause problems beforehand. This option may be quite laborious and something of an iterative process.
You could try adding default values to the business objects, so that the properties you're binding to return a default instance rather than null (not nice either).
That's my thoughts anyway.
One question - you say "when a property is missing". Do you mean he's using a style of databinding syntax that offers no compile-time checking and is referencing properties that don't exist, or is referecing properties that are null?
Edit
OK, so you're referencing properties that are null. If you have access to the code for the business objects you could modify them so they return a new, non-null instance (this is the third option I gave).
You don't say if you're using .net 3.5, but I'll assume you are. You could add a new property "IsValidForDataBinding" on to each of your business objects. In the getter logic you could check each of the necessary properties and sub-objects to check for validity, non-nullness etc and return a bool. When you come to bind your repeater, write a simple linq statement that filters-out the invalid items (i.e. where IsValidForDataBinding = false). Having said that, I still think that writing a derived repeater control could be your easiest option.
Have you tried using string.isnullorempty("the string") to check for a value before referencing the property?
Here's a reference: MSDN