Some of the popular software libraries can help to generate forms (for data input) to some degree.
The form fields (or form types) can be constructed based on information which is provided also by an object-relational mapping.
I am looking for ways to achieve translated data displays for field labels and descriptions according to such a software combination.
I would appreciate your advices.
I don't know if you took a look into FormType Field Reference.
You can use that cofiguration:
// instead of 'label'
$profileFormBuilder->add('address', AddressType::class, [
'label_format' => 'form.address.%name%',
]);
$invoiceFormBuilder->add('invoice', AddressType::class, [
'label_format' => 'form.address.%name%',
]);
And Then, add the following code to your translations file:
form:
address:
address: Your Address # 'address' replaced %name%
invoice: Your Invoice Address # 'invoice' replaced %name%
I am using API's to receive multiple row data from a particular user, my doubt is how one can display that data in react using AG-Grid format.
this.setState
({
data: res.data,
columnDefs: [
{
headerName: " CreateDate", field: " CreateDate"
}, {
headerName: "Task Name", field: "TaskName"
}],
rowData:[{
//facing errors while assigning these values
TaskName : data.TaskName,
CreateDate : data[0].CreateDate
}]
})
Hi Aboli I am sharing stackblitz which will help you to do what you are trying to achieve.
I have assumed a lot about your data object since we dont know much about it. usually data should come in key value pair where keys matches to the field name which you have defined in your coldef object so that ag-grid can consume it directly.
But sometimes we need to sanitize data so that it matches with the way column field have been defined. feel free to ask more question and try to be a bit elaborative with code so that you can get solution faster.
here is the stackblitz example.
I have Azure Cognitive Search running, and my index is working as expected.
We are trying to add a security filter into the search, based on the current users permissions.
The users permissions are coming to me in as IEnumerable, but I am currently selecting just a string[] and passing that into my filter, then do a string.join, which looks like this.
permission1, permission2, permission3, permission4
In our SQL database, we have a view that is where the index is getting it's data from. There is a column on the view called RequiredPermissions, it is a Collection(Edm.string) in the index, and the data looks like this.
[ 'permission1', 'permission2', 'permission3' ]
The requirement is that for a record to return in the results, a user's permissions must contain all of the RequiredPermissions for that record.
So if we have a user with the following permissions
permission1, permission3, permission5
And we have the following records
Id, SearchText, Type, Permissions
1, abc, User, [ 'permission1', 'permission2' ]
2, abc.pdf, Document, [ 'permission1' ]
3, abc, Thing, [ 'permission1', 'permission3' ]
4, abc, Stuff, [ 'permission3', 'permission4' ]
If the user searched for 'abc' and these four results would come back, I need to $filter results that do not have the proper permissions. So I would expect the following results
Id, Returned, Reason
1, no, the user does not have permission2
2, yes, the user has permission1 and nothing else is needed
3, yes, the user has both permission1 and permission3
4, no, the user does not have permission4
If I run the following filter, then I get back anything that has permission1 or permission3, which is not acceptable, since the user should not see items Id 1 or 4
RequiredPermissions/any(role: search.in(role, 'permission1, permission3', ','))
If I run this filter, then I get nothing back, everything is rejected, because no records have permission5, and the user has it
RequiredPermissions/all(role: not search.in(role, 'permission1, permission3', ','))
If I try to run the search using 'all' and without the 'not' I get the following error
RequiredPermissions/all(role: search.in(role, 'permission1, permission3', ','))
Invalid expression: Invalid lambda expression. Found a test for equality or inequality where the opposite was expected in a lambda expression that iterates over a field of type Collection(Edm.String). For 'any', please use expressions of the form 'x eq y' or 'search.in(...)'. For 'all', please use expressions of the form 'x ne y', 'not (x eq y)', or 'not search.in(...)'.\r\nParameter name: $filter
So it seems that I cannot use the 'not' with 'any', and I must use the 'not' with 'all'
What I wish for is a way to say that a user has all the permissions in their list that is in the RequiredPermissions column.
I am currently just working in Postman using the RestApi to solve this, but I will eventually move this into .Net.
Your scenario can't be implemented with Collection(Edm.String) due to the limitations on how all and any work on such collections (documented here).
Fortunately, there is an alternative. You can model permissions as a collection of complex types, which allows you to use all the way that you need to implement your permissions model. Here is a JSON example of how the field would be defined:
{
"name": "test",
"fields": [
{ "name": "Id", "type": "Edm.String", "key": true },
{ "name": "RequiredPermissions", "type": "Collection(Edm.ComplexType)", "fields": [{ "name": "Name", "type": "Edm.String" }] }
]
}
Here is a JSON example of what a document would look like with its permissions defined:
{ "#search.action": "upload", "Id": "1", "RequiredPermissions": [{"Name": "permission1"}, {"Name": "permission2"}] }
Here is how you could construct a filter that has the desired effect:
RequiredPermissions/all(perm: search.in(perm/Name, 'permission1,permission3,permission5'))
While this works, you are strongly advised to test the performance of this solution with a realistic set of data. Under the hood, all is executed as a negated any, and negated queries can sometimes perform poorly with the type of inverted indexes used by a search engine.
Also, please be aware that there is currently a limit on the number of elements in all complex collections across a document. This limit is currently 3000. So if RequiredPermissions were the only complex collection in your index, this means you could have at most 3000 permissions defined per document.
I am working in RASA NLU to extract intents and entities in Arabic language, and I have my own entities such as (places, org, and people) and i want to add these entities without any intent.
I just want to add them as an entities and their type.
How can I do this?
Are you using .md or .json as training data file? I cannot think of a solution to pass an entity in markdown format without defining an intent. But in json format you may pass a text without defining an intent by simply not writing a value for the dictionary key "intent". See example below.
The documentation https://rasa.com/docs/nlu/dataformat/ says that intent is an optional field, so it should work.
{
"text": "show me chinese restaurants",
"intent": ,
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 15,
"value": "chinese",
"entity": "cuisine"
}
]
}
I would try leaving the value of "intent" completely empty, insert None or Null.
ExtJS Model fields have mapping option.
fields: [
{name: 'brandId', mapping:'brand.id', type: 'int'},
{name: 'brandName', mapping:'brand.name', type: 'string'},
The problem is: if the response from server does not contain some field(brand field in my example) and mapping from inner fields is defined, Ext Store silently fails to load any records.
Does anybody have problems with this? Is it some kind of a bug?
UPDATE
To make it clear: suppose I have ten fields in my model. Response from server has nine fields, one is missing. If there is no nested mapping for this field (mapping:'x.y.z') everything is OK - store loads record, the field is empty. But if this field has to be loaded from some nested field and has mapping option - store fails to load ANYTHING.
UPDATE 2
I have found the code, that causes problems. The fact is: when Ext tries to load some field from Json it performs a check like this
(source["id"] === undefined) ? __field0.defaultValue : source["id"]
But when field has mapping option(mapping 'brand.id') Reader does it this way
(source.brand.id === undefined) ? __field20.defaultValue : source.brand.id
which causes error if source has no brand field.
In case you have same problems as I: you can fix it by overloading Ext.data.reader.Json's method createFieldAccessExpression
I agree that Ext should only fail to load that field, not the entire record. One option that isn't great, but should work, is instead use a mapping function:
{
name: 'brandId',
mapping: function(data, record) {
return data.brand && data.brand.id;
}
}
I could have the arguments wrong (I figured out that this feature existed by looking at the source code), so maybe put a breakpoint in there to see what's available if it doesn't work like this.
I think you're misinterpret mapping and nesting paradigms: these are not interchangeable.
If you define nesting in your data, the result MUST have the corresponding field.