I am creating a dapp using react to store images on ipfs and the corresponding hash on the blockchain. The purpose of storing hash on the blockchain is timestamping, proof of ownership etc. and I wish to retrieve the hash also at a later stage. I need to know how can we store and retrieve hash on the blockchain.
If you just need to store and retrieve the IPFS hash of an image you can simply use Solidity's events. It may be a bit more complicated but it is a lot cheaper to deploy and use the contract.
Here is a basic approach:
event Store(string indexed id, string ipfsHash); //declare event
function setEvent(string memory _id, string memory _ipfsHash)public{
emit Store(_id, _ipfsHash);
}
When you emit the event in your smart contract, the parameters passed to it are stored in the transaction's logs, a special data structure of the blockchain.
Note that logs and their event data are not accessible within smart contracts. However, you can use libraries such as web3.js inside you app to retrieve them. The use of indexed keyword before the id parameter let's you effectively search for a particular log, containing a desired value. Without it, you would have to retrieve all logs produced by a particular event and search through them manually.
There are a few ways to retrieve past logs, but i will paste an example using getPastEvents :
var contract = new web3.eth.Contract(ABI_of_contract, address_of_contract);
contract.getPastEvents('Store', {
filter : { id : '...id corresponding to the ipfsHash'},
fromBlock : 0,
toBlock: 'latest'},
function(error, result){
console.log(result)
});
If you choose the Ethereum blockchain, the easiest way is to create a smart contract, the simplest example of which is given below.
By calling the Put method, you save the data associated with an identifier. The Get method allows you to retrieve data by identifier without any cost.
pragma solidity >=0.5.8 <0.6.0;
contract Storage
{
address Owner ;
mapping (string => string) Collection ;
//
constructor() public
{
Owner = tx.origin ;
}
//
function Put(string memory id_, string memory data_) public
{
if(msg.sender!=Owner) return ;
Collection[id_]=data_ ;
}
//
function Get(string memory id_) public view returns (string memory retVal)
{
return(Collection[id_]) ;
}
}
Related
I am currently in a bit of a bind.
struct sectionWithDatesAsName {
var sectionName : String
var sectionObjects : [SoloTransactionModel]!
init(uniqueSectionName: String?, sectionObject: [SoloTransactionModel]?) {
sectionName = uniqueSectionName ?? "nil"
if let section = sectionObject {
sectionObjects = section.reversed()
}
}
}
I currently have an array of sectionWithDatesAsName. And I can work with it, display in the tableView among other things.
The bind comes up when I want to check some information in the sectionObject before displaying it on the tableView.
I want to check the type of the sectionObject which is saved in the object itself.
How do I check the information in the sectionObject without slowing down the app? Or have a horrible time complexity calculated?
(Note: I can't change the format of the struct has this has already been used by a whole lot of other processes)
Write a function in your sectionWithDatesAsName with the signature filteredSections(type: sectionType) -> sectionWithDatesAsName
(If you don't have the ability to edit the definition of sectionWithDatesAsName you can create an extension that adds the above function)
If the sectionWithDatesAsName is defined elsewhere, define this function in an extension.
When you call it, build a new sectionWithDatesAsName object by filtering the arrays to match the specified type.
Use the resulting filtered sectionWithDatesAsName object as the data model for your table view. It will be built once and used for the lifetime of the tableView, so you will pay an O(n) time cost to filter it once when you create it.
I'm absolutely loving BreezeJS and was so surprised to see that my Enum values were being displayed as their text values and not their ordinal ones! What I would love to be able to do is, on the client side, open the MetadataStore, fetch the enumeration and modify it's textual properties for display purposes.
Is this currently possible? From my research it would appear not, but I'm wondering if there is perhaps a simple workaround. Everything I've tried has involved a large number of hacks and server-side attributes, but to no avail, or the solution just seemed overly complex and not worth the benefits.
Here is what I said about how to get the enum values from raw metadata in another SO comment.
The enum values are available in the metadata generated by EF and sent to a Breeze client. I agree Breeze should pick them up automatically and put them somewhere so you don't have to make a separate request for them or extract them from the raw metadata passed to the MetadataStore.fetchMetadata success callback. It's on our backlog.
Meanwhile, you'll have to get them by hand. There is a DocCode test that shows how:
/*********************************************************
* Can can get enum types from raw EF-generated metadata
* Related to feature request #2271: Extract enum values from server metadata
*************************************************************/
asyncTest("can get enum type from raw EF-generated metadata", function() {
var serviceName = testFns.foosMetadataServiceName;
var store = new breeze.MetadataStore();
store.fetchMetadata(serviceName)
.then(metaSuccess, metaFail).fail(handleFail).fin(start);
function metaSuccess(rawMetadata) {
ok(true, "foos metadata fetched");
var enumType = rawMetadata.schema && rawMetadata.schema.enumType;
if (enumType && enumType.name ==='Color') {
var members = enumType.member;
ok(members.length,
"should have several members; members are: " + JSON.stringify(members));
} else {
ok(false, "metadata should have had one enumType, 'Color'.");
}
}
function metaFail(error) {
ok(false, "foos metadata fetch failed: " + error.message);
}
});
we're using Breeze with NHibernate and wand to do the same. Metadata generated for NHibernate are standard breeze Metadata and doesn't contain the Schema part. Any ideas how to do it?
edit: To fix our issue I added a list of all used enums in the metadata(like the structuralTypes node). Then we cache it on the client when the metadata are retrieved.
https://github.com/lnu/breeze.server.net/commit/65ad687ad13c4dd9f4a6ab6a3ed09e407e2b58ec
Thanks
I have a top level actor (under the guardian), called Groups which on startup needs to load the list of groups from the database and create a bunch of child actors based on those groups in the database.
I have placed the database load code inside of the preStart function as I don't want any messages to be processed before the groups are loaded.
Currently my Groups actor looks like this;
var groups: Map[String, ActorRef] = Map()
override def preStart() = {
groups = getGroupsFromDB() map createGroup
}
def createGroup(pair: (String, Long)) = {
val (name, id) = pair
val group = context.actorOf(Props(new Group(id, name)), name = name)
name -> group
}
However I don't believe this is the best way to handle this, as what happens if the database server is not available? So what is the best pratice way of handling data initialization from a database?
The Akka documentation explains how to supervise top level actors for fault-tolerance.
You can apply the principles there to manage the exceptions you may find if the DB is not available.
I have the following objects: L1User, L2User, L3User (all inherits from User) and Document.
Every user can create the document but depending on the user type, the document will have a different status. So in case it's L1User, the document will be created with L1 status and so on:
Solution 1
Please note that after document is created, it will be saved in the database, so it should be natural to have a method create_document(User user) in Document object. In the method body I could check which type is the user and set manually appropriate status. Such approach seems rather not OOP to me.
Solution 2
Ok, so the next approach would be to have all users implement a common method (say create_document(Document doc)) which will set a status associated with the user and save the document in the database. My doubt here is that the document should be saved in it's own class, not the user.
Solution 3
So the final approach would similar to the above, except that the user will return modified document object to it's create_document(User user) method and save will be performed there. The definition of the method would be like this:
create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document(this);
this->save();
}
It also doesn't seems right to me...
Can anyone suggest a better approach?
I think that both Solutions 2 and 3 are ok from the OO point of view, since you are properly delegating the status assignment to the user object (contrary to solution 1, whare you are basically doing a switch based on the user type). Whether to choose 2 or 3 is more a matter of personal tastes.
However, I have a doubt: why do you pass a document to a create_document() method? I would go for a message name that best describes what it does. For example, in solution 3 (the one I like the most) I would go for:
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document();
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>create_document()
{
return new Document('L1');
}
or
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = new Document()
this = user.set_document_type(this);
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>set_document_type(document)
{
document.setType('L1');
}
Edit: I kept thinking about this and there is actually a fourth solution. However the following approach works only if the status of a document doesn't change through its lifetime and you can map the DB field with a getter instead of a property. Since the document already knows the user and the status depends on the user, you can just delegate:
Document>>getStatus()
{
return this.user.getDocumentStatus();
}
HTH
I'm reading the documentation on full text search api (java) in google app engine at https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/search/overview. They have example on getting the index:
public Index getIndex() {
IndexSpec indexSpec = IndexSpec.newBuilder()
.setName("myindex")
.setConsistency(Consistency.PER_DOCUMENT)
.build();
return SearchServiceFactory.getSearchService().getIndex(indexSpec);
}
How about on creating an index? How to create one?
Thanks
You just did. You just created one.
public class IndexSpec
Represents information about an index. This class is used to fully specify the index you want to retrieve from the SearchService. To build an instance use the newBuilder() method and set all required parameters, plus optional values different than the defaults.
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/javadoc/com/google/appengine/api/search/IndexSpec
You can confirm this by looking at the SearchService
SearchService is also responsible for creating new indexes. For example:
SearchService searchService = SearchServiceFactory.getSearchService();
index = searchService.getIndex(IndexSpec.newBuilder().setName("myindex"));
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/javadoc/com/google/appengine/api/search/SearchService
Anyway, It seems your code will create a new index if it doesn't exist. That's what the docs suggest:
// Get the index. If not yet created, create it.
Index index = searchService.getIndex(
IndexSpec.newBuilder()
.setIndexName("indexName")
.setConsistency(Consistency.PER_DOCUMENT));
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/javadoc/com/google/appengine/api/search/Index
Now, what happens if you run the code again and change the Consistency? Do you have the same index with a different consistency? Is the index overwritten? I don't know. I would use the SearchService to lookup existing indexes instead of using code that might create them just to avoid trying to get an index in my code but changing the specs inadvertantly.
An Index is implicitly created when a document is written. Consistency is an attribute of the index, i.e. you can't have two indexes of the same name with different consistencies.