I have the following code:
/** #test */
public function it_updates_customer_status_to_deactivated_for_admin_users()
{
$this->hubAdminUser = factory(User::class)->state('admin')->create();
$this->customer = Customer::first();
$this->customer->status_id = 2; //active
$this->customer->save();
// this will update status_id to 3
$this->actingAs($this->hubAdminUser)
->patch(route('hub.customer.updateStatus', $this->customer))
->assertRedirect();
$this->assertDatabaseHas('tenants', [
'id' => $this->customer->id,
'status_id' => 3, //deactivated
]);
}
The ->patch(route('hub.customer.updateStatus', $this->customer)) line will change the value of status_id from 2 to 3 which it definitely does as I have even tried $this->customer->refresh()->status_id after the ->assertRedirect(); line and that gives me 3. This is failing as it says that the customer's status_id is set to 2 in the database. Any ideas how I can fix this?
I would you recommend to change assertDatabaseHas to assertEquals.
Here is why:
"When you’re working with Eloquent, you specify a table name - or it automatically figures it out. Then, you forget about it. So, it’s ideally designed for you not to have to know the name of the table."
"Laravel is architected, then, so that we don’t have to know the names of our database tables. With assertDatabaseHas you have to know the name of the table every time you use it."
"But, I think it’s best to stop asserting directly against a database when you don’t need to. Especially since your code is not generally architected in Laravel to deal directly with the database, why would your tests? Stay in your domain and test the input and output values, not the implementation."
From a article https://www.aaronsaray.com/2020/stop-assert-database-has-laravel
Related
In a legacy project we had issues where if a developer would forget a project_id in the query condition, rows for all projects would be shown - instead of the single project they are meant to see. For example for "Comments":
comments [id, project_id, message ]
If you forget to filter by project_id you would see all projects. This is caught by tests, sometimes not, but I would rather do a prevention - the dev should see straightaway "WRONG/Empty"!
To get around this, the product manager is insisting on separate tables for comments, like this:
project1_comments [id,message]
project2_comments [id,message]
Here if you forgot the project/table name, if something were to still pass tests and got deployed, you would get nothing or an error.
However the difficulty is then with associated tables. Example "Files" linked to "Comments":
files [ id, comment_id, path ]
3, 1, files/foo/bar
project1_comments
id | message
1 | Hello World
project2_comments
id | message
1 | Bye World
This then turns into a database per project, which seems overkill.
Another possibility, how to add a Behaviour on the Comments model to ensure any find/select query does include the foreign key, eg - project_id?
Many thanks in advance.
In a legacy project we had issues where if a developer would forget a project_id in the query condition
CakePHP generates the join conditions based upon associations you define for the tables. They are automatic when you use contains and it's unlikely a developer would make such a mistake with CakePHP.
To get around this, the product manager is insisting on separate tables for comments, like this:
Don't do it. Seems like a really bad idea to me.
Another possibility, how to add a Behaviour on the Comments model to ensure any find/select query does include the foreign key, eg - project_id?
The easiest solution is to just forbid all direct queries on the Comments table.
class Comments extends Table {
public function find($type = 'all', $options = [])
{
throw new \Cake\Network\Exception\ForbiddenException('Comments can not be used directly');
}
}
Afterwards only Comments read via an association will be allowed (associations always have valid join conditions), but think twice before doing this as I don't see any benefits in such a restriction.
You can't easily restrict direct queries on Comments to only those that contain a product_id in the where clause. The problem is that where clauses are an expression tree, and you'd have to traverse the tree and check all different kinds of expressions. It's a pain.
What I would do is restrict Comments so that product_id has to be passed as an option to the finder.
$records = $Comments->find('all', ['product_id'=>$product_id])->all();
What the above does is pass $product_id as an option to the default findAll method of the table. We can than override that methods and force product_id as a required option for all direct comment queries.
public function findAll(Query $query, array $options)
{
$product_id = Hash::get($options, 'product_id');
if (!$product_id) {
throw new ForbiddenException('product_id is required');
}
return $query->where(['product_id' => $product_id]);
}
I don't see an easy way to do the above via a behavior, because the where clause contains only expressions by the time the behavior is executed.
Suppose I have normal "Add Users" module that I want to automate using Java scripting, how I can avoid data duplication to avoid error message such as "User already exist"?
There are numerous ways in which this can be automated. You are receiving 'User already exists' due to fact that you're (probably) running your 'Add Users' test cases using static variables.
Note: For the following examples I will consider a basic registration flow/scenario of a new user: name, email, password being the required fields.
Note-002: My language of choice will be JavaScript. You should be able to reproduce the concept with Java with ease.
1.) Pre-pending/Post-pending a unique identifier to the information you're submitting (e.g.: Date() returns the number of seconds that have elapsed since January 1, 1970 => it will always be unique when running your test case)
var timestamp = Number(new Date());
var email = 'test.e2e' + timestamp + '#<yourMainDomainHere>'
Note: Usually, the name & password don't need to be unique, so you can actually use hardcoaded values without any issues.
2.) The same thing can also be achieved using the Math.random() (for JS), which returns a value between 0 and 1 (0.8018194703223693), 18 digits long.
var almostUnique = Math.random();
// You can go ahead and gen only the decimals
almostUnique = almostUnique.toString().split('.')[1];
var email = 'test.e2e' + almostUnique + '#<yourMainDomainHere>'
!!! Warning: While Math.random() is not actually unique, in hundreds of regression runs of 200 functional test cases, I didn't have the chance of seeing a duplicate.
3.) (Not so elegant | Harder exponentially harder to implement) If you have access to your web-apps backend API and through it you can execute different actions in the DB, then you can actually write yourself some scripts that will run after your registration test cases, like a cleanup suite.
These scripts will have to remove the previously added user from your database.
Hope this helps!
You don't mention what language you are coding in, but use whatever language you use's random function to generate random numbers and/or text for the user id. It won't guarantee that there will not be a duplicate, but the nature of testing is such that you should be able to handle both situations anyway. If this is not clear or I don't understand your question correctly, you'll need to provide a lot more information: what you've tried, what language you use, etc.
My data model has an entity Person with 3 related (1:N) entities Jobs, Tasks and Dates.
My query looks like
var persons = (from x in context.Persons
select new {
PersonId = x.Id,
JobNames = x.Jobs.Select(y => y.Name),
TaskDates = x.Tasks.Select(y => y.Date),
DateInfos = x.Dates.Select(y => y.Info)
}).ToList();
Everything seems to work fine, but the lists JobNames, TaskDates and DateInfos are not all filled.
For example, TaskDates and DateInfos have the correct values, but JobNames stays empty. But when I remove TaskDates from the query, then JobNames is correctly filled.
So it seems that EF can only handle a limited number of these "subqueries"? Is this correct? If so, what is the max. number of these "subqueries" for a single statement? Is there a way to work around these issue without having to make more than one call to the database?
(ps: I'm not entirely sure, but I seem to remember that this query worked in LINQ2SQL - could it be?)
UPDATE
I'm getting crazy about this. I tried to repro the issue from ground up using a fresh, simple project (to post the entire piece of code here, not only an oversimplified example) - and I found I wasn't able to repro it. It still happens within our existing code base (apparently there's more behind this problem, but I cannot share this closed code base, unfortunately).
After hours and hours of playing around I found the weirdest behavior:
It works great when I don't SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED; before calling the LINQ statement
It also works great (independent of the above) when I don't use a .Take() to only get the first X rows
It also works great when I add an additional .Where() statements to cut the the number of rows returned from SQL Server
I didn't find any comprehensible reason why I see this behavior, but I started to look at the SQL: Although EF generates the exact same SQL, the execution plan is different when I use READ UNCOMMITTED. It returns more rows on a specific index in the middle of the execution plan, which curiously ends in less rows returned for the entire SQL statement - which in turn results in the missing data, that is the reason for my question to begin with.
This sounds very confusing and unbelievable, I know, but this is the behavior I see. I don't know what else to do, I don't even know what to google for at this point ;-).
I can fix my problem (just don't use READ UNCOMMITTED), but I have no idea why it occurs and if it is a bug or something I don't know about SQL Server. Maybe there's some "magic max number of allowed results in sub-queries" in SQL Server? At least: As far as I can see, it's not an issue with EF itself.
A little late, but does calling ToList() on each subquery produce the required effect?
var persons = (from x in context.Persons
select new {
PersonId = x.Id,
JobNames = x.Jobs.Select(y => y.Name.ToList()),
TaskDates = x.Tasks.Select(y => y.Date).ToList(),
DateInfos = x.Dates.Select(y => y.Info).ToList()
}).ToList();
This is an APEX code related question and is specific to a VisualForce controller class.
Question
I am trying to update a record with a known AccountId. However, when I set the ID in the sObject declaration SalesForce is appending the string "IAR" to the end of the ID!
Can someone please let me know what I am doing that is wrong and if I am going about this in the wrong way than what is the correct way to update a record from a custom method, outside of quicksave() or update().
Description
So basically, the user will come to this page with the id encoded and it will either have an id or a level. This is handled by the function decode() which takes a string; "id" / "level". I then create an Account variable "acc" which will be used to store all of the Account information before we insert or update it with the statement "insert acc;". Since, I cannot set the ID for "acc" with "acc.id = salesForceID" I have decided to set it when "acc" is created. The following APEX code occurs in the constructor when it is declaring the "acc" variable.
URL Variable Passed
/application?id=001Q000000OognA
APEX Controller Class (Abridged)
salesForceID = decode('id');
debug1 = 'salesForceID: ' + salesForceID;
acc = new Account(id = salesForceID);
debug2 = 'Account ID: ' + acc.id;
Debug Output
salesForceID: 001Q000000OognA
Account ID: 001Q000000OognAIAR
Comments
I apologise for the brevity of the code given, this is for security reasons. I am basically trying to set the ID of the acc before I insert/upsert/update it. I appreciate any explanations for why it could be appending "IAR" and or any alternate ways to update a record given an input AccountId. I do understand that if you pass the id in as a URL variable that SalesForce will automatically do this for you. However, I am passing more than one variable to the page as there are three separate use cases.
Thanks for your help.
001Q000000OognA is the "standard" 15-character Salesforce ID. 15-character ID's are case-sensitive.
001Q000000OognAIAR is the case-insensitive 18-character version of that ID.
Either one is fine. You do not need to worry about the difference. If for some reason you really need to use the 15-character version in parameters etc, you can safely truncate the last 3 digits.
More information here: http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/api/Content/field_types.htm
I have been trying to figure out how to do this and it seems that its not something that many people are trying to do in cakephp or I am just completely misunderstanding the documentation.. I am using the following query below to get a field value so I get a value where the "findbycreated" is 0... this part works fine
$unregisteredemail = $this->Testmodel->findBycreated('0');
$emailaddress = $unregisteredemail['Testmodel']['emailaddress'] ;
$emailpassword = $unregisteredemail['Testmodel']['password'] ;
But now, after I do some things with this data that I retrieved, I want to mark a field, in the same row, in the same model / table as a value of '1' to indicate that an action has taken place (email address has been successfully created, for example)... I just can't figure out how to do this in cakephp despite my efforts of going through the documentation and searching, this should be rather simple, I am tempted, at this point, to just use a regular mysql query as its a simple query.. basically the query is (please excuse my syntax as I haven't used direct mysql queries in a while) "update (database / table) set 'created'='1' where 'emailaddress'=$emailaddress"
Or I could use the row ID, if needed, as cakephp seems to prefer this, but still can't get how to do this.. this is my attempt below that is not working:
// update database to show that email address has been created
$this->Testmodel->read('emailaddress', $this->Testmodel->findBycreated('0'))
$this->Testmodel->id = 1;
$this->Testmodel->set(array(
'created' => '1'
));
$this->Testmodel->save();
There are, as you can see from the previous answers, several ways to achieve the same end. I'd just like to explain a little about why your way didn't work.
In the model, CakePHP has abstracted the database row(s) into an array according its implementation of ORM . This provides us with a handy way of manipulating the data and chucking it around the MVC architecture.
When you say:
$this->Testmodel->set(array(
'created' => '1'
));
You are dealing directly with the model, but the data is actually stored, as an array, in a class variable called $data. To access and manipulate this data, you should instead say:
$this->data['Testmodel']['created'] => '1';
The reason for specifying the model name as the first index is that where associated tables have been retrieved, these can be accessed in the same way, so you might have , for instance:
Array([Testmodel] => Array ([id] => 1,
[created] => [1],
...
)
[Relatedmodel] => Array ([id] => 1,
[data] => asd,
...
)
)
...and so on. Very handy.
Now, when you use $this->MyModelName->save() with no parameters, it uses $this->data by default and uses the part of the array of data appropriate to the model you are calling the save method on. You can also pass an array of data, formatted in the same way if, for some reason, you don't (or can't) use $this->data.
Your use of the method read() is incorrect. The first parameter should be null, a string or an array of strings (representing fieldname(s)). The second parameter should be the id of the record you wish to read. Instead, for param 2, you are passing the result of a find, which will be an array. The result, which you are not capturing, will be empty.
I would write your code like:
$this->data = $this->Testmodel->read('emailaddress',1);
$this->data['Testmodel']['created'] = 1;
$this->Testmodel->save();
or more succinctly:
$this->Testmodel->id = 1;
$this->Testmodel->saveField('created', 1);
In this situation I would let Cake deal with the id's and just focus on changing the row data and resaving it to the database
$row = $this->Model->findBycreated(0);
$row['Model']['emailaddress'] = 1;
$this->Model->save($row);
This way, you don't have to worry about the id's, as the id will be in your dataset anyway, so just change what you want and then tell Cake to save it.
Ninja edit, Be sure that you are returning a full row with an id from your findBycreated() method.
There're many ways to do your work.I suggest you to read the cookbook about saving data in cakephp.And besides david's solution another simple way would be
$this->Testmodel->id = 1;
$this->Testmodel->saveField('created' =>'1');
Ok, I think I finally found the solution, I was able to get this to work:
$this->Test->updateAll(
array(
'Test.field' => 'Test.field+100'
),
array(
'Test.id' => 1
)
);
I think you have to use updateAll as anything else will just create a new row.. basically CakePHP, for whatever reason, neglected to include a function for updating just one field so you have to put it into an array with the updateAll to make it work...
the +100 is where the updated info goes, so in this case "100" would be what the field is updated to.
In cakephp 3.x the syntax seems to be different. This is what worked for me in 3.x:
$this->Tests->updateAll(
[
'Tests.field = Tests.field+100'
],
[
'Tests.id' => 1
]
];
The difference is that the entire expression needs to be in the value of the first array.