Compose - removeProperty(variables('Message')['Appointment'],'CustomerInfo')
What I want to see if the following.
I managed to recreate your issue without drama and unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to use the removeProperty function to make it work.
You have to call the function at the level it expects so it can remove a single named property and therefore, it only returns the level the function is called at which is, obviously, a problem.
This may not be the approach for you but to overcome this shortcoming, I used the inline Javascript action to do the work.
If you've never used the action before, you need to make sure set you flow up to use an Integration account. You can get one in the free tier so it doesn't cost you anything but may be limiting depending on the workload AND it's not supported for production workloads.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/logic-apps/logic-apps-enterprise-integration-create-integration-account?tabs=azure-portal%2Cconsumption
This did give me the desired outcome though ...
Firstly, I have initialized variable and then used compose action with removeproperty(variables('emo')['appointment'],'customerInfo') as below:
Then I again used compose as below with removeproperty(variables('emo'),'appointment'):
Then I used Compose 3 for combing both composes as below using union(outputs('Compose_2'),outputs('Compose')) :
Output:
OR:
If you have integrated account Reference. Hope this clears all your doubts.
Related
I'm getting an error when uploading my customized policy, which is based on Microsoft's SocialAccounts example ([tenant] is a placeholder I added):
Policy "B2C_1A_TrustFrameworkExtensions" of tenant "[tenant].onmicrosoft.com" makes a reference to ClaimType with id "client_id" but neither the policy nor any of its base policies contain such an element
I've done some customization to the file, including adding local account signon, but comparing copies of TrustFrameworkExtensions.xml in the examples, I can't see where this element is defined. It is not defined in TrustFrameworkBase.xml, which is where I would expect it.
I figured it out, although it doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully this helps someone else running into the same issue.
The TrustFrameworkBase.xml is not the same in each scenario. When Microsoft documentation said not to modify it, I assumed that meant the "base" was always the same. The implication of this design is: If you try to mix and match between scenarios then you also need to find the supporting pieces in the TrustFrameworkBase.xml and move them into your extensions document. It also means if Microsoft does provide an update to their reference policies and you want to update, you need to remember which one you implemented originally and potentially which other ones you had to pull from or do line-by-line comparison. Not end of the world, but also not how I'd design an inheritance structure.
This also explains why I had to work through previous validation errors, including missing <DisplayName> and <Protocol> elements in the <TechnicalProfile> element.
Yes - I agree that is a problem.
My suggestion is always to use the "SocialAndLocalAccountsWithMfa" scenario as the sample.
That way you will always have the correct attributes and you know which one to use if there is an update.
It's easy enough to comment out the MFA stuff in the user journeys if you don't want it.
There is one exception. If you want to use "username" instead of "email", the reads/writes etc. are only in the username sample.
I'm using sanity and trying to figure out what exactly the set, unset, insert functions do. As well there are methods on the PatchEvent class itself and I can't seem to find any documentation on that either.
For example I can see that set in the example takes one argument. But through more research of the code set actually takes two arguments, one being the path and the other being the value. It is unclear how path works and what it exactly does.
Since I am trying to update an object in array it looks like this is something I should be doing as this is what is done in the default ArrayInput. I tried to make it work, but no errors and no updates are happening. This is what I have:
PatchEvent.from(key ? set(key, [idx, '_key']) : unset())
On top of all this I can see that there are methods directly on the PatchEvent that are also being used like prefixAll, prepend, and append. I more or less would just like some good documentation on all of this otherwise I might as well just stick with the HTTP Api and update/manage everything on my own for the custom components.
I'm using React with Flow. If I forgot to set some requiring props when rendering, Flow gives me error so I can prevent the problem.
However Flow is not actually working on runtime. So if the value that I used were treated as number wasn't number, Flow can't catch this. For example, if the value was coming from somewhere else, like server side and if it was string, but Flow just treated as number so eventually I will get some errors in runtime.
But PropTypes works in runtime, so in the same case I'll get the error message that PropType expected number but actually it was string.
It's also possible to happen when the API were changed and returning data is different. It could undefined or whatever, possibly not actual value I expected.
So I'm using Flow and PropTypes both actually, however I searched on about using both together, but couldn't find any related informations.
Instead, all I found was just "Flow" replaces "PropTypes". I don't think so, I already mentioned about difference between these two. These two works totally different and each of them have so many good benefits to use, so combine them will have nice synergy, I think.
However now I'm using both, I have to define types for props and also define propTypes and defaultProps always, and it makes my code actually pretty long and takes lots of time just make single component.
Should I stop using Flow and PropTypes together? I think Flow is better than PropTypes, there were so much benefits when using static type checker so I want to keep using it. Also there's nice VSCode support for Flow, but not proptypes.
If I use Flow, is PropTypes doesn't needed? Any advice will appreciate it.
Flow allows you provide types for anything.
PropTypes is just for component's props so it cannot help with typing variable or method. It even does not have easy way for tyyping callback props. You will need to describe custom validator.
Also PropTypes works on per-prop basis. You cannot describe independent subsets of props. E.g. "having field NAME is required only if nickname is empty". I agree that this sounds not really helpful with this example. But it still means flow is more flexible.
And btw having typecheck in production is bad idea anyway - it would lead to performance penalty. At the same time most type issues will already be caught. While it still does not save you from issues in logic - so you will need to test that with manual/acceptance/integration tests.
As a laravel user for a couple of months now, I'm trying to better understand advanced use of Eloquent.
I ran into a case where I can't come up with a solution that feels right.
I've got the following structure (simplified)
Mandate
id
status_id
Mandate_user
mandat_id
user_id
link_status
User
id
I declared belongsToMany in both User and Mandat via the pivot table.
on User:
public function mandates(){
return belongsToMany(..)->withPivot('link_status');
}
I'm able to get accepted mandates for a user by using
public function acceptedMandates(){
return $this->mandates()->wherePivot('link_status', MandateUserStatus::Accepted);
}
This works but I'm wondering if there would be a better way by using scopes or other eloquent methods.
And I'm trying to get accepted mandates that also have a status_id lower than 4 (which comes from an enum as well)
I thought of something like :
public function runningMandates(){
return $this->acceptedMandates()->where('status_id','<', 4);
}
Then gathering mandates like so:
$mandates = User::find(1)->runningMandates();
But would the eloquent way be of doing something like:
$mandates = User::find(1)->mandates()->running()->accepted();
Thanks for your time.
It's a very subjective question and hard to give a straight answer to, but hopefully I can stop you from second-guessing yourself: what you're doing is perfectly fine and no less "eloquent-like" than the other.
Personally I like what you're doing now much more than what you present as the "Eloquent way" and have done so before in professional projects, but ultimately there is a difference in the way you design the code for a framework or package, which must be flexible to account for many different scenarios, most of which you cannot even envision when doing version one, versus how you design the code for an app which will only be consumed by itself. If you know the business logic that drives your app and the views it will present to its users (subsequently, the queries it must perform), why wouldn't you create methods that will easily achieve just that?
Eloquent relies on chaining not just because it's cool, but because it does not know (or care to know) what your business logic is. To me, the "Eloquent way" is more about fluent, readable code, and I find that $user->runningMandates is more readable than $user->mandates()->running()->accepted()->get().
I also find that the first approach is easier to get into. If you're constantly forcing yourself to separate methods so they can be chained, it can be harder to grasp which method is doing what and which method relies on which. Query scopes can modify the query as they like (join, alias, etc) so the danger lies in one method requiring another to come first, because you're conditioning based on a table or column that isn't on the original query, so a method will only work in conjunction with another; or maybe two methods are trying to join the same table, or using the same aliases, so they cannot be used together. It may seem far-fetched, but often the effort to keep things separate and tidy will make your code harder to use. But even if things don't blow up code-wise, the deal-breaker to me would be neglecting business logic: in your case, does it make sense to have two separate scopes for running and accepted? Can a mandate be running if it's not accepted? If not, you should try to prevent a less knowledgeable developer from creating that flawed query (logic-wise). And as you said, the structure is simplified so there may be other gotchas lurking around, and many more will come as the app grows in complexity.
If I'm taking over someone else's code, I'd rather have limited, self-contained methods that don't break over simple, decentralized methods that require you to read (often non-existent) documentation in order to prevent the many ways in which to mis-use them.
Basically, scopes add constraints to the query so you may use the scope approach to modify the query by calling scope methods that will eventually give you a chance to make a query dynamically. So, you may declare (as you did) one relationship method where you may do all the query and call that specific method or use scope methods two build the query using method calls where each method adds a constraint. In this case, it'll be more dynamic but still it's a preference and it gives you more flexibility (IMO). So yes, you can use query scopes for that, for example:
// Declare the main relationship
public function mandates()
{
return $this->belongsToMany(..)->withPivot('link_status');
}
Now, declare query scope for accepted (add a constraint on the query returned by mandates method call)
public function scopeAccepted($query)
{
return $query->wherePivot('link_status', MandateUserStatus::Accepted);
}
Now, add another query scope for running, for example:
public function scopeRunning($query)
{
return $query->where('status_id','<', 4);
}
Now, if you call something likethe following:
$user = User::find(1);
Now, call the relationship method (not as property)
$mendates = $user
->mandates() // The method is called and a query object is constructed
->running() // Add another constraint into the query: ->where('status_id','<', 4)
->accepted() // Add another constraint into the query: ...
->get(); // Finally, execute the query to get the result
Probably, it's clear to you now. Notice the method call mandates(), it's a method call on the relation defined which returns the Query Builder and by chaining additional scope method calls, you are just modifying the query by adding some more constraints but you can do all the query in one method without dynamic scopes, so it's up to you. While, scopes gives you more flexibility but it doesn't mean you've to follow this approach always, it depends.
I have a ComboBox and I'd like to fetch data from server first when user type at least 3 characters.
I've used dojo.data.* but it's deprecated and I cannot find something similar in dojo.store.* and xhr|ajax in one sentence. Do you have some tips?
I use declarative markup.
You probably used the dojox/data/QueryReadStore? There is no similar store at the moment I think. The best alternative you have (with the dojo/store API) is the JsonRest store.
But it isn't exactly the same, so you might have to extend it. You should probably start by looking at both API's (the old and the new API) and compare the dojox/data/QueryReadStore and the dojo/store/JsonRest to successfully extend it.