Is there any built-in method or conventionally correct approach to this? I'm not asking about issuing an update, but rather, requesting one. I could query for it again, but the goal is that the object reference stay the same.
The approach I've taken so far is to define an instance method called "refresh" that gets the same resource instance by ID and then iterates over its properties, copying them over to the original object (how I love thee _.extend). But it seems like something that might already be included functionality in ngResource and I just can't find it. If not, does Angular provide a means to make such a "refresh" method default to all $resources the same way save, delete, etc already are?
So I actually found the answer as I was writing the question, but I'm going to post it and answer anyway in case it might help someone else.
While writing that and looking stuff up, I realized that get is not restricted to being a static method of the resource. What threw me here was that on an instance, it's named $get. And lo, $get does exactly what I wanted. However it does not seem to be documented on Angular's site -- in fact the site says that only non-GET actions are instance methods, so who'd have thought? I mean, aside from that it seems totally obvious now.
Related
Javascript admitted newbie and hacker here, so I suspect this question is very ignorant and a learning experience.
I'm essentially converting an old Apex/Visualforce page to LWC. The Apex code employs Database.setSavepoint() and Database.rollback() and I have no idea how something similar would be accomplished in LWC, or even if it needs to be.
Google provides nothing, and I know it's not done through #wire and #AuraEnabled.
The main pain point of migrating VF apex controllers ("regular ones", oldschool, which were working with massive hidden html field for "viewstate" and weren't using #remoteaction to be a bit more mobile-friendly) to Aura/LWC server-side controllers is the static keyword next to the method definition. You don't have "viewstate" of whole controller passed to the method magically, you need to explicitly pass the params the method needs. From LWC/Aura or (re)query them. It's bit like everything was marked transient if you know what this keyword does.
savepoint and rollback have to happen in one transaction anyway (1 interation, 1 button click). User triggered something and it either succeeds or fails. You can't save the game ;) and 3 interactions later go "gotcha, rollback". The state was written to database, the ship has sailed. And savepoints can't be serialised (you can't grab the variable, pass it to VF/Aura/LWC client-side and later back to the server). If you're passing something back - it means the transaction is almost over and they wouldn't be needed anyway.
So there are no technical problems with it. The question is what is your business logic doing with the rollbacks. Is it some funky "validate before save"? Some way to try firing all validation rules, triggers etc and see what explodes"?
LWC shouldn't care and you should be able to pass the result of this operation back nicely. It's a good question whether you still need this functionality but it's biz question, not technical.
New to backbone/marionette, but I believe that I understand how to use backbone when dealing with CRUD/REST; however, consider something like results from a search query. How should one model this? Of course the results likely relate to some model(s), but they are not meant to be tied to said model(s).
Part of me thinks that I should use a collection using a model that doesn't actually sync with a data store through the server, but instead just exists as a means of a modeling a search result object.
Another solution could be to have a collection with no models and just override parse.
I assume that the former is preferred, but again I have no experience with the framework. If there's an alternative/better solution than those listed above, please advise.
I prefer having one object which is responsible for both request and response parsing. It can parse the response to appropriate models and nothing more. I mean - if some of those parsed models are required somewhere in your page, there is something that keeps reference to this wrapper object and takes models from response it requires via wrapper methods.
Another option is to have Radio (https://github.com/marionettejs/backbone.radio) in this wrapper - you will not have to keep wrapper object in different places but call for data via Radio.
Lets say I have this
_articlesService.SaveAsync(Model, AddressOf OnSaveCompleted)
The OnSaveCompleteMethod do a couple of things, obviously. Its a
Protected Overridable Sub OnSaveCompleted(ByVal asyncValidationResult As AsyncValidationResult)
In my unittest. I need to run a mocked SaveAsync, and have OnSaveCompleted called in anyway, because the method sends out events that I need to know have been sent.
Right now, the code just walks past that method, thus its never executed.
Need help solving this because I'm stuck right now.
If I understand your context right:
you have a class under test which uses an ArticlesService
your ArticlesService (a collaborating class) is responsible for sending some events
you want to verify that your class under test is behaving correctly
you want to do that by checking for the events.
If that's the case, you may be making your class responsible for more than it needs to be. You only need to verify that the ArticlesService was asked to SaveAsync. You don't need to worry about what the ArticlesService then went off and did.
Think of it this way. You are a Class-Under-Test. You have too much work to do, so you've asked some other people to help you. You have two choices. You can either chase them up, worrying about whether they're doing it right, or you can just trust them.
Rather than micro-managing classes, you can write a separate test which gives some examples of the way the ArticlesService will work, which will check that the ArticlesService is doing its job correctly. Your CUT's responsibility is to delegate that work effectively.
If you actually need the events to be raised so that your CUT can respond, that's a separate aspect of its behaviour, and you can do it with Moq's "Raise" method, documented in "Events", here:
http://code.google.com/p/moq/wiki/QuickStart
Edit: You can also use "CallBack", documented on the same link, to do stuff with the args being passed to you, including OnSaveCompleted. Not sure if it's going to help or not; it's tricky to see what you're doing without both the code and the failing test. Good luck anyway!
Close, but not exactly like that.
We don't actually send out an event in the ArticleService.
The method SaveAsync takes an Article to be saved, and a method to be called once the saving is complete.
The problem is that the "OnSaveCompleted"-method isnt being called. (This method exists in the View Model Base class, so the service isnt sending the event, the viewmodel is.).
But we have our own implementation of WCF-service proxies so this is probably what's messing with us, since we dont use the generated code.
Think we will have to rework our infrastructure on the services abit to solve this.
So it's a special case, just wanted to throw the question out just in case. :)
Thanks anyway for the answer.
i need some help
which is when i on my index.ctp/view.ctp, i need to call to my controller function to perform some task. what code i can use to perform this action?
i need to call to my controller function, which send in a value (user_id) to the function and get me a certain action. how can i do that? i might calling in a javascript function as well.
If you need to call a Controller function from the View, you're doing it wrong. It's not proper MVC.
Having said that, requestAction would be the proper, albeit slowest way to do so. You could hack around a bit more and get an instance of the Controller from the ClassRegistry. But I'd seriously recommend you to restructure your program flow so you don't need to do this to begin with.
You should probably perform the task in the controller before you get the view. But if you need to do some view work on the data you are displaying you might want to consider making a Helper class.
http://book.cakephp.org/view/101/Creating-Helpers
If your task doesn't generate any output - you might want to consider doing it in the controller before you even get to the view stage.
If your task has some form of output - use requestAction with a view Element
http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/creating-reusable-elements-with-requestaction
That link should be a good starting point. There are also good posts by Mark Story on his blog that detail the actual performance of requestAction and it really isn't that bad if you don't abuse it all over the place.
http://mark-story.com/posts/view/how-using-requestaction-increased-performance-on-my-site
http://mark-story.com/nodes/view/reducing-requestaction-use-in-your-cakephp-sites-with-fat-models
If you really need to trigger some sort of logic in a predictable way and that logic might happen in more than one place you can also use an event observer pattern to trigger the controller action you need to run.
http://cakealot.com/2009/04/eventful-a-cakephp-event-system/
I have a User object that, upon successful authentication, is tucked into the session (sans security info) for easy recall and for determining whether we have an authenticated user or anonymous session. There are several paths by which the user can alter some or all of his or her information and I'd like to keep that session value up to date. The obvious answer is to update the value in the afterSave() callback, but that, of course, violates MVC.
Is there another way of capturing every change in one place so that I don't have to drop session writes all over the place? I can't think of anything, nor have I been able to find any other ideas. Am I the only person trying to do something like this?
Thanks.
Final Solution: I marked neilcrookes' response as the answer, frankly, because there doesn't seem to be the better way. Since this way violates my OCD senses, though, I took a slightly different path. I decided to have my User::authenticate() method return the authenticated user object to the caller so it can do whatever it wants with it. One of the things that the callers "want" to do is to drop that value in the session. It's redundancy, but it's very, very limited. In my mind, that felt better than accessing the session from the model (though it's certainly a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario).
//in users controller
if ($this->User->save()) {
$this->Auth->login($this->User->read());
$this->Session->setFlash[.. etc]
And for the record, I do not agree with the answer of neilcrooks, but I will refrain from feeding the troll.
Some might disagree but I'd screw MVC, do it in Model::afterSave() and use $_SESSION - test for the session before writing to it, in case it's not started for example you are saving against the model in a shell or something.
MVC is a general pattern - a guideline, you can bang your head against it trying to figure out how to achieve something that doesn't quite fit, or just do it another way and move onto to something more important.
Bring on the flames.
after save
Use Like this
$this->Session->write('Auth.User.mmid', $kinde['Kindle']['id']);
You should be able to just use AppController to create the necessary callback(s) that keep your session data up to date. So, for instance, you could have your User model afterSave() set a property called changed to true. Then in your AppController->afterFilter() you check that property and update the session data as necessary.
Alternatively, you could write a component through which to update your user info and also your session data. Then any controller that needs to change user info just needs to include that component.
There's no need to write redundant code or break MVC.