This is a design question.
I'm trying to build a booking system in cakephp3.
I've never done something like this with cake before.
I thought the best way might be to -- as the post title suggests -- build up an entity over several forms/actions.
Something like choose location -> enter customer details -> enter special requirements -> review full details and pay
So each of those stages becomes an action within my booking controller. The view for each action submits its content to the next action in the chain, and i use patch entity with the request data, and send the result to the new action's view.
I've started to wonder if this is a good way to do it. One significant problem is that the data from each of the previous actions has to be stored in hidden fields so that it can be resubmitted with the new data from the current action.
I want the data from previous actions to be visible in a read only fashion so I've used the entity that i pass to the view to fill an HTML table. That's nice and it works fine but having to also store that same data in hidden fields is not a very nice way to do it.
I hope this is making sense!
Anyway, I thought I'd post on here for some design guidance as i feel like there is probably a better way to do this. I have considered creating temporary records in the database and just passing the id but i was hoping I wouldn't have to.
Any advice here would be very much appreciated.
Cheers.
I would just store the entity in the DB and then proceed with your other views, getting data from the DB. Pseudo:
public function chooseLocation() {
$ent = new Entitiy();
patchEntity($ent,$this->request->data);
if save entity {
redirect to enterCustomerDetails($ent[id]);
}
}
public function enterCustomerDetails($id) {
$ent = $this->Modelname->get($id);
// patch, save, redirect again ...
}
Related
I'm managing a company website, where we have to display our products. We however do not want to handle the admin edit for this CPT, nor offer the ability to access to the form. But we have to read some product data form the admin edit page. All has to be created or updated via our CRM platform automatically.
For this matter, I already setup a CPT (wprc_pr) and registered 6 custom hierarchical terms: 1 generic for the types (wprc_pr_type) and 5 targeting each types available: wprc_pr_rb, wprc_pr_sp, wprc_pr_pe, wprc_pr_ce and wprc_pr_pr. All those taxonomies are required for filtering purposes (was the old way of working, maybe not the best, opened to suggestions here). We happen to come out with archive pages links looking like site.tld/generic/specific-parent/specific-child/ which is what is desired here.
I have a internal tool, nodeJS based, to batch create products from our CRM. The job is simple: get all products not yet pushed to the website, format a new post, push it to the WP REST API, wait for response, updated CRM data in consequence, and proceed to next product. Handle about 1600 products today on trialn each gone fine
The issue for now is that in order for me to put the correct terms to the new post, I have to compute for each product the generic type and specific type children.
I handled that by creating 6 files, one for each taxonomy. Each file is basically a giant JS object with the id from the CRM as a key, and the term id as a value. My script handles the category assertion like that:
wp_taxonomy = [jsTaxonomyMapper[crm_id1][crm_id2]] // or [] if not found
I have to say it is working pretty well, and that I could stop here. But I will have to take that computing to the wp_after_insert_post hook, in order to reaffect the post to the desired category on updated if something changed on the CRM.
Not quite difficult, but if I happen to add category on the CRM, I'll have to manually edit my mappers to add the new terms, and believe me that's a hassle.
Not waiting for a full solution here, but a way to work the thing. Maybe a way to computed those mappers and store their values in the options table maybe, or have a mapper class, I don't know at all.
Additional information:
Data from the CRM comes as integers (ids corresponding to a label) and the mappers today consist of 6 arrays (nested or not), about 600 total entries.
If you have something for me, or even suggestions to simplify the process, I'll go with it.
Thanks.
EDIT :
Went with another approach, see comment below.
Is there an easy way to save a recordset, i mean multiple records, but only the "new ones"?
I have a table users and a users form in the view. First field you must enter is passport number, so if user already exists in database the rest of the form will be auto completed and disabled to prevent changes but if passport dont exist then you have to enter all data. As anyone can change those existing users data controls from the browser even if they are disabled, i want to make sure only new records are saved in database. First of all i thought i could find again in database and delete existing users from recordset before save, but i wonder if there is a more elegant approach.
Ty in advance.
I write this here, cause comments are too short:
Thank you for your answer, André. I'm sorry if i didnt explain perfectly, but the form is done by disabling all controls except passport and if passport dont exist (i check it on passport focusout) then the rest of controls are set to enabled. I mean, that is already done. The question was only about the saving.
The validation method you talk about, well i'm actually validating all the controls in the form and i must disable the 'unique' rule so a user can link an existing user to the current bill, otherwise it will fail validation on submit and it wont allow the user to proceed (i did this because it happened to me when testing). The actual setting is much more complicated: the form belongs to a model (bills) which is associated with 4 other models and 2 of those relationships are many to many, bills_users and bills_clients, where users are the persons who do the job and clients pay for it, but I was trying to make the question easier. Anyway, what I am looking for is, in fact, some kind of saving setting which I can't find. In documentation I found "When converting belongsToMany data, you can disable the new entity creation, by using the onlyIds option. When enabled, this option restricts belongsToMany marshalling to only use the _ids key and ignore all other data." The first half of the sentence was promising, but the explanation says different, and I actually tried it without success.
First:
Is there an easy way to save a recordset, i mean multiple records, but only the "new ones"?
Yes there is you can validate it in model, something like this:
public function buildRules(RulesChecker $rules)
{
$rules->add($rules->isUnique('passportNumber'));
return $rules;
}
This will prevent to save a duplicate passport number register, but you can different.
I have a table users and a users form in the view. First field you must enter is passport number, so if user already exists in database the rest of the form will be auto completed and disabled to prevent changes but if passport dont exist then you have to enter all data.
There is two different ways to do this:
First you have your form, you develop an ajax function when you fill the first field (passport number) this ajax function do a request to your controller to search for a passport with that number if find something get data and fill others fields and turn them just readable, else just nothing and let user fill the fields by himself
second add a step-by-step where you first do a form to try find by pass number, user fill this only field with a number then submit, on submit this search for a record, if find fill the entire next step fields, else the next step will be the rest of form with the fields to be filled.
This may help you too: https://book.cakephp.org/3.0/en/orm/validation.html
Tell me how you decided to do :)
I am looking to create a feature whereby a User can download any available documents related to the item from a tab on the PDP.
So far I have created a custom record called Documentation (customrecord_documentation) containing the following fields:
Related item : custrecord_documentation_related_item
Type : custrecord_documentation_type
Document : custrecord_documentation_document
Description : custrecord_documentation_description
Related Item ID : custrecord_documentation_related_item_id
The functionality works fine on the backend of NetSuite where I can assign documents to an Inventory item. The stumbling block is trying to fetch the data to the front end of the SCA webstore.
Any help on the above would be much appreciated.
I've come at this a number of ways.
One way is to create a Suitelet that returns JSON of the document names and urls. The urls can be the real Netsuite urls or they can be the urls of your suitelet where you set up the suitelet to return the doc when accessed with action=doc&id=_docid_ query params.
Add a target <div id="relatedDocs"></div> to the item_details.tpl
In your ItemDetailsView's init_Plugins add
$.getJSON('app/site/hosting/scriptlet.nl...?action=availabledoc').
then(function(data){
var asHtml = format(data); //however you like
$("#relatedDocs").html(asHtml);
});
You can also go the whole module route. If you created a third party module DocsView then you would add DocsView as a child view to ItemDetailsView.
That's a little more involved so try the option above first to see if it fits your needs. The nice thing is you can just about ignore Backbone with this approach. You can make this a little more portable by using a service.ss instead of the suitelet. You can create your own ssp app for the function so you don't have to deal with SCAs url structure.
It's been a while, but you should be able to access the JSON data from within the related Backbone View class. From there, within the return context, output the value you're wanting to the PDP. Hopefully you're extending the original class and not overwriting / altering the core code :P.
The model associated with the PDP should hold all the JSON data you're looking for. Model.get('...') sort of syntax.
I'd recommend against Suitelets for this, as that's extra execution time, and is a bit slower.
I'm sure you know, but you need to set the documents to be available as public as well.
Hope this helps, thanks.
I have an Entry model as follows:
class Entry(models.Model):
date_posted = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
last_edited = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True)
author = models.ForeignKey(CustomUser)
title = models.CharField(max_length=150)
description = models.TextField()
tags = models.ManyToManyField(tags)
Now, whenever a user creates or edits an Entry object we send it to the moderation queue and the object is not available to the default manager for Entry object until it has been moderated. It makes sense when a user is initially creating an object but when a user is edit the entry object it disappears from the search results. We also offer users to save or bookmark, different entries. so the edited Entry object is not available in the saved entries anymore until it has been moderated.
What I am looking to do is to have the old Entry show up until the edited Entry is under moderation once the edited entry object is moderated we can replace the edited entry with the original one.
One way I can think of is to create a different Entry Object for each edit a user makes but I am not quite sure if that is a feasible and a sensible approach to handle this situation wouldn't it just have a lot of duplicate data in the database ??
Questions:
what are my options ? (I would also like to know which ones would be the best performance-wise)
Is there a way I can achieve this without duplicating the object ?
In my opinion, if the number of objects that are sent to the moderation queue is low to moderate, you can have a ManyToMany (Infact a One to Many is what you want) field which keeps references to the versions from the Entry object.
If this is not feasible, you can look into django-pickle-field which lets you store any object types into the database. So, you can create an additional nullable column, in which you would save the form data on edit as-is and make it available in the moderation queue.
So, the logic for moderation queue is something like:
MyObject.objects.filter(pickle_field__isnull=False)
Once the moderator approves, override the field data into the object.
else, discard the picklefield.
If you want to allow multiple edits, or keep track of moderation history, you can make that a ManyToMany with more info (such as edited by, moderated by, etc.) in the intermediary table.
I would like to ask you guys if you could review my database design. I think it is quite self-explanatory, but to be absolutely clear:
My goal is to make an application which has a super flexible user management (which is why the groups are in tree-form and the groups and users have a habtm relationship) and a super modular way to build pages (which is why the pages consist of widget-blocks).
The reason I made users and profiles separate is because the users table will not change and is only needed for authentication and authorization. However, the profiles table will change according to the wishes of the client. So it might not have a signature, but an avatar field instead. Or maybe it will be completely empty / not exist at all.
A widget could be anything, it could be a poll, it could be a piece of content, it could be a navigation, it could be a collection of comments, whatever.
The reason I chose to make subdomains, locales and layouts separate tables instead of just putting the names into pages is because I want to limit the options that are available to the client. Just because I have a three-columns.ctp in my layouts folder doesn't necessarily mean I want the client to be able to choose it.
Same goes for the widgets. And besides limiting choice, not every plugin, controller and action in my plugins-folder is a widget, so I need a table to clarify which are.
A block is a widget on a page which sits in a container (e.g. the right column in a 3 column layout) at a particular position which is decided by the index (lower index means higher).
So that's my explanation, what do you guys think? Is this as good as it can be? Or do you have (a) suggestion(s) to make it even more flexible and modular.
[edit] Oh and to be clear, the widgets will of course have their own tables to store the information they need to store.
Well, I think that everything is great except "profiles".
When you try to get data from a logged user:
$this->Auth->user();
I don't think that you will get data about "profiles" so you will have to find profile by $this->Auth->user('id') etc. I think that you should merge "profiles" and "users" tables into "users" table.
So when you want to save, let's say, "signature" you should just put it in $this->request->data; and call $this->User->save($this->request->data); and the signature will be updated.
EDIT:
You can leave it the way it is but, to get other data than user, you will have to put:
$id = $this->Auth->user('id');
$current_user = $this->User->findById($id);