We can add page relationship in two different ways using named relationships and pages data type which is kind of advanced content modelling in Kentico..
if we go through named relationships then we can give a meaningful relationship between to content node by providing description. So, we get a relationship name called “is related to”(example). When we use this in practice, then we get [page A] {is related to} [Page B].
if we go through pages data type then we assign some content on the form tab, records are created in the “CMS_Relationship” table as ad-hoc via the “RelationshipIsAdHoc” column and there is no relationship name for this as such. It is marked as Ad-hoc. and Relationship name is also added page type name underscore some randon guid example abc.product_3d628a37-7637-4a21-b0b4-e1dd1a00a3bc
My question is when we try to use page data type and we need to add relationship through api code, then how can we add because in kentico api to add page relationship through api code RelationShipNameID is mandatory field. We don't have this RelationShipNameID as we are not going through named relationship.
Found out the way
Need to retrieve ad-hoc relatioshipnameinfo object, e.g. like this:
string codeName = GetAdHocRelationshipNameCodeName("fillclassnamehere", field);
var relationshipNameInfo = GetRelationshipNameInfo(codeName);
and then use is with API:
RelationshipInfoProvider.AddRelationship(leftSiteId, rightSiteId, relationshipNameInfo.RelationshipNameId)
Related
If I am creating a database and I have two tables with a many-to-many relationship, I would create a third table to represent the relationship.
But how should I implement the above data model in Drupal 8, should I create three content types? so my question is, are content types in Drupal 8 the same as tables in a database, or are they something else that should be used in a different way?
To store data in a custom table in Drupal 8 you're going to want to define a custom schema and expose it through a hook. Here is Acquia's documentation on that process. This is not the same as creating a content type.
Content type data is stored across several tables that are shared by other content types (such as node and node_revision) and manipulating these tables is not easy.
The quickest way to add a content type is through the method recommended in Adding a Content Type from chapter 6 of the Drupal 8 User Guide. This allows for all the standard GUI methods for manipulating data structures.
As Isaiah says, content types in Drupal are not technically the same as tables in a database as they use many tables. But!
In your case, if you have something like table A with:
- name
- email
- phone
- id
And a second table, table B with:
- company
- something else
- etc…
- id
and are looking at a third that would likely be something like:
- id
- table A id
- table B id
Then the answer is yes.
In this case you would have content type A with fields for name, email, phone, and then an entity reference field pointing to content type B with the company fields.
You can reference in any direction with the entity reference field.
You might also find "Is there a way to input the data of multiple content types" helpful.
I'm very new to FileMaker currently working on a Mac. I've been assigned a new simple system to work towards completing and I have bumped into some issues with database relationships. I've got experience with PHP/MySQL databases connections etc. but FileMaker seems to require a somewhat different mindset and approach.
I'll try to explain this as simply as I can.
Here's the table relationships in my database
What I'm trying to do is a list of "to-do" notes, an interactive menu where the user can add things that needs to be done. I've done this with a portal on a layout based on the table "site". The portal is based on the table "todo_notes", which is connected to site through the "site_id".
Here's what it looks like in browse mode
What I'm having problems with is adding a relationship between the todo_notes and contacts. The contacts are two separate tables called "county_contacts" and "property_owner_contacts". What I want to accomplish is the possibility for the user to, from a dropdown-list, add a single contact from these two tables. Preferably I'd like to sort of merge these two tables into the same dropdown-list.
Let me know if you need any other information or a better explanation of my issue. Any help is very welcome!
If you have a single contacts table with foreign keys for both county and property owner tables, that would let you have a single list for all contacts. From there you could also build a value list based on a relationship, for example to filter only contacts that belong to either county or property owners.
If you then need to further normalize the tables, fields that pertain to either relationship exclusively could be moved to another table from there, as a one to one relationship, if that is a concern.
The Short Answer
You need to create a Contacts table. Filemaker has no way of dynamically generating value lists. Instead, you can base a value list on any field, therefore, the only way of generating a list of the contact names would be if they were all in the same table.
The Long Answer
Because Filemaker only allows us to use ONE field for a value list, we must create a new table for the contact. I would recommend that you replace the two contact tables with a single contact table,(seeing as the fields look the same between the two tables) and then add a toggle on the contact for Owner or County. However, you could also create a single contact table for all of the fields that overlap that has foreign keys to the owner and county tables.
You would then use the fullname field from the contact and be good to go.
That is, assuming that you did not want to filter the contacts at all or only show contacts associated with this site.
To start with, I highly recommend using the Anchor-buoy method for organizing the relationship graph. Here's an explanation of the anchor-buoy method: http://sixfriedrice.com/wp/six-fried-rice-methodology-part-2-anchor-buoy-and-data-structures/ . It's just a convention, but will help you with the idea of context in FileMaker. It's widely accepted among the FileMaker community as the "right" way to organize a relationship graph. I will continue my explanation using this method.
Each Table Occurrence (the boxes in the graphs, or TO) represents a unique context from which you can view and edit information. In the anchor buoy method, each Table only has one "anchor" TO. I would recommend only using anchor TO's for the context of your layouts. Then, your portal, and any other corresponding information, will be on your buoy TO's. Here is what your new portal relationship would look like. You would select fields from your buoy TO's to use in the portal.
The easiest way to filter your value list by only contacts associated with this site would be to create a foreign key from the contact table to the site, and then add a TO to the graph, for the contact table. You would then click "Include only related values starting from" radio button, and specify your new TO.
I have a system whereby you can create documents. You select the document type to create and a form is displayed. Data is then added to the form, and the document can be generated. In Laravel things are done via Models. I am creating a new Model for each document but I don't think this is the best way. An example of my database :
So at the heart of it are projects. I create a new project; I can now create documents for this project. When I select project brief from a select box, a form is displayed whereby I can input :
Project roles
Project Data
Deliverables
Budget
It's three text fields and a standard input field. If I select reporting doc from the select menu, I have to input the data for this document (which is a couple of normal inputs, a couple of text fields, and a date). Although they are both documents, they expect different data (which is why I have created a Model for each document).
The problems: As seen in the diagram, I want to allow supporting documents to be uploaded alongside a document which is generated. I have a doc_upload table for this. So a document can have one or more doc_uploads.
Going back to the MVC structure, in my DocUpload model I can't say that DocUpload belongs to both ProjectBriefDoc and ProjectReportingDoc because it can only belong to one Model. So not only am I going to create a new model for every single document, I will have to create a new Upload model for each document as well. As more documents are added, I can see this becoming a nightmare to manage.
I am after a more generic Model which can handle different types of documents. My question relates to the different types of data I need to capture for each document, and how I can fit this into my design.
I have a design that can work, but I think it is a bad idea. I am looking for advice to improve this design, taking into account that each document requires different input, and each document will need to allow for file uploads.
You don't need to have a table/Model for each document type you'll create.
A more flexible approach would be to have a project_documents table, where you'll have a project_id and some data related to it, and then a doc_uploads related to the project_documents table.
This way a project can have as many documents your business will ever need and each document can have as many files as it needs.
You could try something like that:
If you still want to keep both tables, your doc_upload table in your example can have two foreign keys and two belongsTo() Laravel Model declarations without conflicts (it's not a marriage, it's an open relationship).
Or you could use Polymorphic Relations to do the same thing, but it's an anti-pattern of Database Design (because it'll not ensure data integrity on the database level).
For a good reference about Database Design, google for "Bill Karwin" and "SQL Antipatterns".
This guy has a very good Slideshare presentation and a book written about this topic - he used to be an active SO user as well.
ok.
I have a suggestion..you don't have to have such a tight coupling on the doc_upload references. You can treat this actually as a stand alone table in your model that is not pegged to a single entity.. You can still use the ORM to CRUD your way through and manage this table..
What I would do is keep the doc_upload table and use it for all up_load references for all documents no matter what table model the document resides in and have the following fields in the doc_upload table
documenttype (which can be the object name the target document object)
documentid_fk (this is now the generic key to a single row in the appropriate document type table(s)
So given a document in a given table.. (you can derive the documenttype based on the model object) and you know the id of the document itself because you just pulled it from the db context.. should be able to pull all related documents in the doc_upload table that match those two values.
You may be able to use reflection in your model to know what Entity (doc type ) you are in.. and the key is just the key.. so you should be able.
You will still have to create a new model Entity for each flavor of project document you wish to have.. but that may not be too difficult if the rate of change is small..
You should be able to write a minimum amount of code to e pull all related uploaded documents into your app..
You may use inheritance by zero-or-one relation in data model design.
IMO having an abstract entity(table) called project-document containing shared properties of all documents, will serve you.
project-brief and project-report and other types of documents will be children of project-document table, having a zero-or-one relation. primary key of project-document will be foreign key and primary key of the children.
Now having one-to-many relation between project-document and doc-upload will solve the problem.
I also suggest adding a unique constraint {project_id, doc_type} inside project-document for cardinal check (if necessary)
As other answers are sort of alluding to, you probably don't want to have a different Model for different documents, but rather a single Model for "document" with different views on it for your different processes. Laravel seems to have a good "templating" system for implementing views:
http://laravel.com/docs/5.1/blade
http://daylerees.com/codebright-blade/
I use the Zend 2 Framework to build my web application. I implemented my database table models by this tutorial: http://framework.zend.com/manual/2.1/en/user-guide/database-and-models.html
I have a many-to-many relationship between two models in my database. To get data from them I googled and found this link: http://mattmccormick.ca/2010/04/24/how-to-easily-create-models-and-table-relationships-in-zend-framework/
The problem is that all the table models extends from Zend_Db_Table_Abstract in the example. I don't know how to get data from the models.
I have a table containing votings, every voting has a unique hash id. Every voting also has tags. Therefore I defined a table tags with all the tags available and a voting_tag_map where all many-to-many relationships are mapped.
What I have tried so far is the following, that's code from my VotingTable class:
public function getTagsByVoting($votingHash){
$select = $this->tableGateway->getSql()->select();
$select->from(array('v' => 'voting'))
->join('voting_tag_map', 'v.voting_id=voting_tag_map.voting_id')
->join('tags', 'voting_tag_map.tag_id=tags.tag_id');
$resultSet = $this->tableGateway->selectWith($select);
return $resultSet;
}
It says then:
Since this object was created with a table and/or schema in the constructor, it is read only.
Thats because of the from() method. If I delete the from() method, it says:
Statement could not be executed
Can anyone help me please?
Since this object was created with a table and/or schema in the constructor, it is read only.
This error is because you are trying to set the table name in the from clause, but it's already been set in the contructor of the TableGateway, and you can't change it once set.
If you really need to do this then you can extens AbstractTableGateway yourself then you won't have to add a string tablename to the contructor, but you don't really need to use an alias on your main table...
The SQL error you get when you comment out the from() method will be due to your referencing the votes table as it's alias 'v' in your join, when you are not using the alias v, try changing it to 'voting.XXX' from 'v.XXX'
My client requested to have a field that can be a lookup on either contacts or users.
I know that Salesforce does something like this in some standard objects. For instance, the Task objects has fields "who" (lookup on account or contact) and "what" (lookup on case, opportunity, and more stuff). Also, I know the Owner field on Case can reference either a User or a Queue.
Can I make custom fields that look up on more than one kind of object?
You can't create a custom lookup field that references multiple types. You would have to create 2 different fields.