I have an app that shows statuses for internal processes. It also has a separate view that allows you to set up new records. To set up a new record, you fill out a form, and upon submit a call is made to my nodejs server that:
inserts the record into a table
kicks off a stored procedure
routes you back to the status page
The issue here, is that the page hangs while this happens, as sometimes the stored procedure takes a minute or two to run. So you wait for a couple minutes, and then are routed back to the status page.
Now, I don't actually care to see any exit code for this stored proc on the front end, as you will see the status of it on the status page. I'm wondering if there's a way for me to kick this process off, but not have the front end care about the return.
I've tried adding in the $location.path() before the $http call to the server, but then the $http call never happens.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
You can wrap the stored procedure call in a promise. The browser will make the call and continue on without waiting for it to complete and you can react appropriately in the resolve or reject functions. You can use angular's $q service:
insertRecord();
$q(function() {
storedProcCall();
});
redirect();
Related
I have instance of operation entity. I'd like to execute it after some row was successfully deleted from store (ui has been gotten OK response from server).
1st Issue. How determine that row was deleted on server and execute some logic after it.
There are no callbacks for store.remove/removeAt. And it seams (from debugging) that listening 'remove' event on store is not option.
2nd Issue. It's possible just to call execute() on operation instance. But how to get know view and even store about this operation. Because simple operation.execute() does not give any effect except request to back-end.
Solution to 1st issue:
store.suspendAutoSync();
store.removeAt(this.rowIndex);
this.getView().getStore().sync({
success:function(){
...
},
failure:function(){
...
}
});
So I have an endpoint which returns the contents of many entities in parallel.
I have a shared service which calls this endpoint and puts them into a shared $cacheFactory.
When GET /base_entity/<id>/all route is hit first, then GET /entity/<id> should return the cached copy.
What's best-practice in telling the GET /entity/<id> service to not perform an HTTP get until GET /base_entity/<id>/all has had a chance to complete?
$broadcast/$emit approach seems odd. I suppose I could use that shared $cacheFactory with cache.put('START /all for ID:' +, id) and cache.put('FIN /all for ID:' +, id), but not sure if that's a strange way of solving the problem.
Ended up creating a new view and controller. The controller's constructor calls GET /base_entity/<id>/all and caches it then does a $state.go passing along current $stateParams. Concurrently the view shows a shiny graphic loading directive.
Now when /entity/<id> state is transitioned to, the service first checks ALL cache; updates its cache accordingly; then checks cache and returns that in a $q promise, or hits $http otherwise.
I have a $http.put function that updates my database, this happens on a button click. After I update the database once, and stay on the page, with no interaction at all the update function gets called and will update the database with the last information that was inputted.
I've triple checked my code, there is only one occurrence of my update function being called. And the $http.put is inside $scope.update that is an anonymous function that calls the $http.put.
If I update information and then leave the page, and then come back the function does not fire on it's own.
Here is my Github for the project. I will pull out any specific code that you want to see, but I'm not sure what to show because there are 4 files involved. Those files are
(client/scripts/app.js)
(routes/products.js)
(public/views/routes/adminIndex.html)
(public/views/routes/modProduct.html)
Code is Here
Add a console.trace() just before the $http call to see what is calling it.
You can also use the developper console of your browser and add a breakpoint that will stop the code execution and let you inspect everything (stack trace, current context, etc). Chrome is particularly good at that.
My program fills an array with data from a facebook page feed but every time i go from one tab to another it wants to reload this data, is there any way i can cache this array so that it will not reload the information unless its changed?
This is exactly why your Views should not contain Service logic. Instead, your View should dispatch an event asking for the service call and your Controller (you do have one, right?) should catch that event and decide whether to act on it or not.
How do you know the data hasn't changed without reloading it?
Maybe what you need is to store the timestamp of the last service call, than measure the amount of time before executing the service call again.
Perhaps with a 5-minute timeout, if the user continuously changes tabs within 5-minutes from the last service call, the array persists previously loaded data.
After 5-minutes, if the user changes back to that tab the service call can fire, load data, than update the timestamp to prevent loading.
I am calling an asynchronous service from my Silverlight app and I want to be able to cancel that call after it is made. There is an option for e.Cancelled once the service has finished (i.e. If e.Cancelled Then), but how to you set that cancelled to true after you have called it? How do you cancel that asynchronous call?
Let me clarify a bit... what I am trying to do is call the SAME method twice, one right after the other, and get the results of the last call into my collection. If I call an asynchronous method twice there is no guarantee that the second call will return first, so I may end up with the results of the first call coming in last and having the wrong results in my collection. So what I would like to do is cancel the first call when I make the second so I don't get results back from the first call. Seeing as how there is a Cancelled flag in the completed event args I figure you should be able to do this. But how?
It's async... the transfer is passed off to a remote server and it does not return until the server is done with it.
Basically the server will keep going, but you don't have to wait for the response. Disconnect your service completed event handler and pretend it was never called. That will give the effect of cancelling the operation.
If you really need to cancel something in progress on the server you would need to make another call to the server to cancel the first call. Assuming the first call is a very slow one, this might be possible.
Update (as question changed)
In the case you specify, it will be up to the server to cancel a operation in progress if a second one comes through, not up to the client. e.Cancelled is set server-side.
However... :)
You have exposed a client usability issue. Shouldn't you also delay sending any service request until an idle delay has passed. That way rapid selections will not result in multiple service calls.
Also... :>
You may also want to send a sequence number to your service calls and return that as part of the result. Then you will know if it is the latest request or not.
It sounds like what you really want to do is ignore the responses of all but the most recent call.
Set a unique ID (could be request #, a Guid, timestamp, or whatever) with the request, and make sure the service sends that same value back. Keep around the ID of the most recent request and ignore response that don't match that ID.
This will be safer than cancelling the first request, since if the service has already started sending the response before the cancel request happens, you still get your error condition.