Could someone point me in the right direction please?
I am trying to extract specific text/numbers from a json payload. I can access/isolate the full string of text by using triggerFormDataValue('text').
The text in question may contain 'sendSMS 1122334455 actual message' as its actual value
Is there anyway, in a logic app flow, to break the text into its component parts?
(sendsms, 1122334455 and actual message)
n.b. I have already tried interacting with the cognitive analysis app for key word searches but that doesn't return the number, nor the full sting, just the key words.
thanks
For more complex logic like the one you have, I would recommend to create an Azure Function. This is a light-weight solution that will offer you the flexibility of a microservice which offers you this possibility.
To extract the numbers, you may use a regular expression.
Edit:
I've found a similar question here on SO, but the conclusion is very similar.
I've done some small research now and it seems Microsoft deliberately does't put too much text parsing functionality in Logic Apps in order to avoid them being too complex. You might have a chance if you put them in JSON notation, but I think the better option would be to go to Azure functions, since it provides reuseability as well.
If that's all you need to do, you can use the split() function. Details: String Functions...split
I'm hoping somebody can help me.
I have added nine term reference fields, one for each of my vocabularies, to the Create New User page. What I want is to only allow one term to be selected from all nine term reference fields.
I realise that one way of doing this would be to combine the nine vocabularies into one and then choose to only allow the selection of one term. However, I would much prefer to keep my vocabularies separate.
I had a look at the Rules module but couldn't see an Action to fail the validation of a new user, even if I could test for empty fields etc.
I also had a look at the Conditional Fields module but again couldn't see a way to fail the validation.
Any help or pointers would be most gratefully received.
Many thanks,
Matt
I have managed to achieve what I wanted after discovering the excellent Rules Forms Support module. I ran into a bit of difficulty because there is no condition to check whether a form element is empty, only to compare it to a value. To overcome this I included the term 'None' to each vocabulary, set it as the default value and chose the field to be required. I was then able to set the condition to compare against this (tid) and it worked!
Hopefully this may be of help to someone someday.
Happy Drupaling to you,
Matt
There is a question very similar to this but I wanted to ask it in a different way.
I am a very customized guy, but I do like to take shortcuts at times. So here it goes.
I do find these two classes very similar although one "helps" the programmer to write code faster or have less code/repeating code. Connecting Models to Forms sounds like an obvious thing to do. One thing that is not particularly clear in the docs using a ModelForm. What happens if you need to add extra fields that are not in the Model or some way connected to another Model?
I guess you could subclass that out and make it work, but does that really help you save time than just manually doing it with a Form?
So next question may not have a definite answer if I do subclass it out, and use ModelForm. Is ModelForm particularly faster than Form? Does it still use the same Update techniques or is binding significantly faster in one or the other?
If you want a form across two models, you got a couple options:
1) create two modelforms, save each individually when posted, and if one of the two depends on the other (i.e. foreignkey), set that in your view before saving.
2) try Django's inline formset: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/forms/modelforms/#using-an-inline-formset-in-a-view
3) Add non-model fields to your modelform. On a ModelForm, you can add fields that are not tied to your model. They are available in cleaned_data as any other field would, be but are simply ignored when the model is saved.
One advantage that ModelForm's have over Form's is you can specify the ordering of fields (searching for how to order Form fields brought to your post incidentally). Obvious other advantages are you don't have to rewrite your model saving code
Which naming convention do you use and why?
I like to use employeeNameTextBox, because:
It seems more natural from an English language perspective.
I find it's easier to look up with Intellisense.
The convention is similar to the convention used for events (MouseClickEvent, MouseClickEventHandler) and dependency properties (VisiblityProperty).
Note: I am using the full name rather than an abbreviation (such as "tb"), because it is in line with MS's naming conventions that say to avoid using abbreviations.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229045.aspx
The only reason to use the control type in the name first (textBoxEmployeeName) is for easier grouping with Intellisense (All textbox controls would then show up together). Beyond that, there really is no benefit to using that way. I find the second way (employeeNameTextBox) more readable and prefer that way personally, but a lot of people will still go with the control type first, since that is the way it was done for a long time.
Naming your variables is so important. Thick client view conventions seem to be given the short end of the stick. Here are my thoughts:
Never put getters and setters for actual business values on your view. Don't do this:
public Name EmployeeName { get; set; }
To get or set an EmployeeName, your stateful code should explicitly call a method. Do it this way because it projects that the state is not stored on the view, but can be derived from or transposed to the view:
public void SetEmployeeName(Name employeeName);
public Name GetEmployeeName();
Hungarian notation is stupid. It was useful in languages <= VB6 because they used late binding of variable types. You had to protect yourself because type mismatches were runtime errors, not compile time. Only use txtEmployeeName if you also would use strEmployeeName and intEmployeeNumber.
If prefixing the pattern name isn't consistent with your naming convention, don't do it for the control type (which represents a pattern). If you wouldn't create a commandNameFormatting (instead of nameFormattingComamnd), then don't create a textBoxEmployeeName.
You'll probably need a suffix of some sort, since EmployeeName doesn't sufficiently describe the variable's purpose. An EmployeeName text box's purpose is to receive input. You could call it EmployeeNameTextBox if that makes you comfortable, but it might be better to call it EmployeNameInput. This has the added bonus that if you have a label, it's clear that EmployeeNamePrompt (or EmployeeNameLabel) is not the same as the text box. Without some sort of descriptive suffix, you don't have a good way to differentiate.
I (almost) always use [controltype][descriptive name]. I want to know right away what type of control I'm dealing with when I look at code, and if I DON'T remember the name, intellisense can help me out.
Just using a descriptive name (EmplyeeName) doesn't work for me. What type of control? Is it a label, a text box, or a combo box? Or a string? Or a file? It's important enough that the type of control or variable is always a part of it.
I propose a third option: uiEmployeName. Reasons:
It's not Hungarian. Both of the notations you mention are just flavors of Hungarian.
If you change an employee name text box over to a listbox you don't need to rename your variables.
Everything is grouped nicely in the intellisense without involving the type of the object.
The name of the object closely follows its function. It is a user-facing object that gets the employee name.
I generally try to keep the element type short, followed by a distinguishing label. I find that it quickly communicates the type and purpose of the element:
txtEmployeeName;
lblEmployeeName;
Why not EmployeeName? Seriously how does the control type as part of the name when it is already provided by your IDE assist in delivering easy to maintain code? Consider Ottenger's Rules for Variable and class Naming
K
As I read it, an article linked to in the article mentioned in the question (namely, Names of Resources) does use the control type at the end, in FileMenu (and ArgumentException though it's not a control).
My personal opinion is that this is also more readable, as it's the employee name text box and hence should be named the employeeNameTextBox, just like the words "File menu" are read in that order. (Though I substitute "Edit" for "TextBox" for brevity — I should probably kick that habit to use control names consistently with the environment name for them.)
A MUST READ is the XAML Guidelines released by Jaime:
Also read more here
WPF-specific Answer: No name at all.
Why? Because if you're developing using WPF you should not be naming your controls. If you are, you are doing something wrong.
WinForms required controls to be named because its data binding was so weak. WPF solves all that: The control itself can specify its data and behavior, so there is no need to name it.
I guess it's better to follow Microsoft's Object Naming Convention for naming your controls both in C# as well as Visual Basic.
I don't recommend hungarian notation in any form. textBoxEmployeeName is a form of hungarian notation. So I support the use of employeeNameTextBox.
Personally I don't even bother using the word TextBox, because it is not what is important about the variable. What is important is "Employee" and "Name". Not only does adding the word TextBox lock you in to a certain type, it also make it much harder to change that type, because you need to change the name to normalize your code and make it correct. Say for some reason you started this as a TextBox, but you later received a requirement to change this to a DropDownList or some other type, now you have to update all of your code and JavaScript to make it say DropDownList instead of TextBox.
It is much easier to forget about trying to type your variable names, and just simply name them. You have intellisense and compile time error checking for a reason, why not use it.
I would go with [controlType][DomainTerm] which in this case is textBoxEmployeeName. The reason is that while coding for the C# code behind you are more care about the UI controls than the domain specific terms.UI(View) side coding we need to identify/recognize the control type faster, which is little more important than the domain specific name in the View side , and since we read from 'Left to right' this naming convention is relevant.
I generally use txtEmployeeName or cmpEmployeeType , but textBox instead of txt is preferred as per MS guidelines
I have used both txtEmployeeName and employeeNameTextbox. Like many of the posts indicated, this is helpful for grouping. One groups by control types (txtEmployeeName, txtManagerName) while the other can group different related controls together (employeeNameTextbox, employeePhoneTextbox, managerNameTextBox, managerPhoneTextbox). In many cases I find the later more useful while coding.
You should do whatever it is that makes your code readable and self-documenting. Following hard and fast rules is always a mistake because they almost never cover all aspects of what needs to be done. There is nothing wrong with having guidelines (such as not using Hungarian notation), but it is more important that you are consistent and clear with your naming convention, whatever it is, than you follow some rules found on the Internet.
Ideas:
Avoid encodings/abbreviations.
The name should stand out from
similar names in the same scope.
Make the unique-most part the
left-most part. I suspect you have
several text boxes, but only one is
the employee name.
Avoid needless context. Are all the
names on this page about employees?
Is it an "employee" page? Then
EmployeeName is redundant. NameBox
or NameControl should be plenty.
Avoid needless context: do you have
names that are not controls? If so,
"Box", or "Control" is useful,
otherwise not so much.
Disclosure: I am the "ottinger" from "ottingers naming rules", which also evolved to be chapter 2 of "Clean Code". See short form at http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaningful-names.html
In VB I actually like to go with [ControlName]_[ControlType]. I can't remember how I started doing that but I suppose it's because it feels like a logical order. It also simplifies coding a bit because the code suggestions are grouped by the control description rather than the control type.
I name controls the same way in C# except I follow C#'s preference for camelCase: [controlName]_[controlType].
I also tend to use my own abbreviations for control types, though they are not vague.
Examples:
VB: Save_Btn and NewFile_MItem (menu item)
C#: save_btn and newFile_mItem
It works for me, but of course every programmer has their style.
I have rough ideas - like dealing with singular/plural, two or more words/phrases that mean the same thing, misspellings, etc. But I'm not sure of any patterns or rules of thumb for dealing with these, either programatically and automatically or by presenting them to administrators or even users to clean up.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
You should have a policy for the format of the tags (e.g. tags should be singular). Depending on how diverse the tags are, it might be useful not only to auto-complete while you are typing in a tag, but also to suggest similar tags, so that it is easy for people to use the tag system. Additionally, a cleanup process could correct common spelling mistakes and substitue deprecated tags according to a translation table.
As SO does, suggesting existing tags as you type is a very good thing.
It will (hopefully, almost) take care of the plural / singular thing and misspellings, as people will re-use existing tags much more.
Use an ajax-driven suggestion form, like StackOverflow :)
Assuming a setup not dissimiliar to SO: how about moderators being allowed to merge a smaller voted tag into a more common one, e.g. VS9 could be merged into VisualStudio2008 but not letting the larger used tag to be merged into a smaller tag grouping. Adding a badge incentive or similiar to this.