The below after create hook does not successfully set the gdoc key. We have to use self.write_attribute instead. Am I trying to do something stupid?
class GoogleDoc
field :gdoc_key, type: String
field :filename, type: String
after_create :after_create_hook
def after_create_hook
self.gdoc_key = "qwerty"
self.save
end
end
Thanks!
Jonathan
From Durran
You cannot call save in an after_ hook since you're going to cause the document to fire the callbacks in an infinite loop. You'll need to use something that doesn't fire callbacks, like update_attribute.
https://github.com/mongoid/mongoid/issues/2974
You should set the gdoc_key in before_create
before_create :set_gdoc_key
def set_gdoc_key
self.gdoc_key = 'qwerty'
end
Related
I need to store the bellow parameter into a table:
[{"id":"1","name":"Cheese and red deans","amount":2,"price":"0.65"},{"id":"2","name":"Pork, cheese and red beans","amount":2,"price":"0.85"},{"id":"3","name":"Soda","amount":1,"price":"0.65"}]
The controller's code is this (I'm using ActiveController):
#POST /ordertemps
def create
#ordertemp = Ordertemp.new(ordertemp_params)
if #ordertemp.save
render json: #ordertemp
else
render error: { error: 'Unable to create an order'}, status: 400
end
end
However, I'm getting an error in the next code:
private
def ordertemp_params
params.require(:ordertemp).permit(:name, :amount, :price)
end
I found the method permit is just related to hashes, so apparently my data is not in that format, so I tried to use different functions such as: .each_with_index.to_a, to_h, Hash but nothing seems to work.
So my questions are:
what function should I use to convert my data to a hash?
Do I need to iterate my data in order to save each item into the table?
Thanks a lot
You need to add more to your question. Go to your web console and copy the actual params being submitted. Also what exactly are your errors?
You can look at this: https://codersloth.medium.com/rails-creating-multiple-records-from-a-single-request-a45261085164 as it covers much of what you are talking about. I'm guessing here because of your lack of info in your question but this might work:
def create
begin
OrderTemp.transaction do
#ordertemp = Ordertemp.create!(ordertemp_params)
end
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid => exception
# omitting the exception type rescues all StandardErrors
#ordertemps = {
error: {
status: 422,
message: exception
}
}
end
render json: #ordertemp
end
And in your params method:
private
def ordertemp_params
params.permit(:name, :amount, :price)
end
I've been trying for hours to make it work and I can't do it, I hope some of you have the answer to my question because it must be very simple and I am a beginner
I am using AngularJs and NestJs in Nest used the #nestjsx/crud and I went trow the request docs so, here is the problem:
This is my Angular service function
getProductsOfPiece(pieceId: number): Observable<ProductSimple[]> {
return this.http.get<ProductSimple[]>(
'api/producto/', {
params: {
fields: "id,refFabr,refCliente,descrCorta,imagen",
filter: 'pieza.id||$eq||'+ pieceId
}
}
);
}
This request gives me a 400 Bad Request, it looks like this:
/api/producto/?fields=id,refFabr,refCliente,descrCorta,imagen&filter=pieza.id%257C%257C$eq%257C%257C1
I imagine the % and the hexadecimal have something to do with the URI coding and tried to encode/decode it, but didn't work.
I also tried using the class RequestQueryBuilder of #nestjsx/crud-request from the FrontEnd usage referenced in the docs, and append it to the URL
let queryString = RequestQueryBuilder.create()
.select(["id","refFabr","refCliente","descrCorta","imagen"])
.setFilter({
field: "coleccion.id",
operator: CondOperator.EQUALS,
value: collectionId
}).query();
return this.http.get<ProductSimple[]>(
'api/producto/?'+queryString
);
but got worse result
/api/producto/?fields=id%2CrefFabr%2CrefCliente%2CdescrCorta%2Cimagen&filter%5B0%5D=pieza.id%7C%7C%24eq%7C%7C1
What I don't understand is how I do this with my Postmand and it works!
api/producto/?fields=id,refFabr,refCliente,descrCorta,imagen&filter=coleccion.id||$eq||6
How can I make it work, what is wrong with my code?
Finally got the answer, just had to set the .query(false) on the RequestQueryBuilder, this boolean parameter is for encode, seams like Angular's HttpClient class does some encoding or something to the URL so, anyway
It Works! Here is the code:
getProductsOfPiece(pieceId: number): Observable<ProductSimple[]> {
let queryString = RequestQueryBuilder.create()
.select(["id","refFabr","refCliente","descrCorta","imagen"])
.setFilter({
field: "coleccion.id",
operator: CondOperator.EQUALS,
value: collectionId
}).query(false);
return this.http.get<ProductSimple[]>(
'api/producto/?'+queryString
);
}
And you need to import
RequestQueryBuilder of #nestjsx/crud-request
npm i #nestjsx/crud-request.
Any observations are welcome...
UPDATE
To create or update
Here are de docs
Create One https://github.com/nestjsx/crud/wiki/Controllers#create-one-resource
Update One https://github.com/nestjsx/crud/wiki/Controllers#update-one-resource
Following that guide the create and update are simple
Just do POST to the API 'api/producto/' (for example) with the object as body in the request
For the Update follows similar just using the PUT method and the API with the model id 'api/producto/1' (for example)
So there doesn't appear to be any clean way to generically allow Hash field with strong parameters. This may of course be a strong parameters issue but I'm curious if there is a workaround. I have a model with some fields...
field :name, type: String
field :email, type: String
field :other_stuff, type: Hash, default: {}
Now I could just permit everything:
params.require(:registration).permit!
But that isn't really a great idea and what I'd like to do is something like...
params.require(:registration).permit(:name, :email, { other_stuff: {} })
However this doesn't seem to be possible with strong parameters, it isn't possible to just whitelist a hash as a property (yay for SQL centric ActiveRecord APIs!). Any ideas how this might be done, or is my best bet to submit a Rails patch to allow for this scenario.
Ok, after researching this, I found an elegant solution that I will start using too:
params.require(:registration).permit(:name).tap do |whitelisted|
whitelisted[:other_stuff] = params[:registration][:other_stuff]
end
source: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/9454#issuecomment-14167664
If necessary nested attributes can also be permitted as follows:
def create_params
params[:book]["chapter"].permit(:content)
end
For a field that allows nested hashes, I use the following solution:
def permit_recursive_params(params)
params.map do |key, value|
if value.is_a?(Array)
{ key => [ permit_recursive_params(value.first) ] }
elsif value.is_a?(Hash) || value.is_a?(ActionController::Parameters)
{ key => permit_recursive_params(value) }
else
key
end
end
end
To apply it to for example the values param, you can use it like this:
def item_params
params.require(:item).permit(values: permit_recursive_params(params[:item][:values]))
end
I´m developing a grails app, and I already have a domain class "ExtendedUser" wich has info about users like: "name", "bio", "birthDate". Now I´m planning to do statistics about user´s age so I have created another controller "StatisticsController" and the idea is to store all the birthDates in a local array so I can manage multiple calculations with it
class StatisticsController {
// #Secured(["ROLE_COMPANY"])
def teststat(){
def user = ExtendedUser.findAll() //A list with all of the users
def emptyList = [] //AN empty list to store all the birthdates
def k = 0
while (k<=user.size()){
emptyList.add(user[k].birthDate) //Add a new birthdate to the emptyList (The Error)
k++
}
[age: user]
}
}
When I test, it shows me this error message: Cannot get property 'birthDate' on null object
So my question is how is the best way to store all the birthdates in an single array or list, so I can make calculations with it. Thank you
I prefer to .each() in groovy as much as possible. Read about groovy looping here.
For this try something like:
user.each() {
emptylist.push(it.birthdate) //'it' is the name of the default iterator created by the .each()
}
I don't have a grails environment set up on this computer so that is right off the top of my head without being tested but give it a shot.
I would use this approach:
def birthDates = ExtendedUser.findAll().collect { it.birthDate }
The collect method transforms each element of the collection and returns the transformed collection. In this case, users are being transformed into their birth dates.
Can you try:
List dates = ExtendedUser.findAll().birthDate
I created my web site having 2 types of users: admin and user. So, I created 3 pages mainpag.html, admin.html, user.html. and separate models, views, collections, routers.js files for each of them. After logging in, as I am sending users to separate HTML pages with different models, I can't automatically get user model. so I did like this:
First, I made AJAX call to server, asking for the _id (username in session, so I can get id)
from the id, I fetched the model, by model.fetch(), then I got my usermodel with all attributes.
then in the success callback of fetch, I did model.save({weight: "somevalue"}). According to me, it should update right, as the model is already available, that attribute weight also available with some old value, but it is sending POST request, also when I tried model.isNew(), it returned true. Where am I wrong? how can I update my model? I will post more details if required.
More details:
If I remove that save method, then I am getting correct attributes in the model.
If I don't remove that save method, that success and error callbacks are also appearing as attributes in the model.
Code:
addWeight : (e)->
arr=new Array()
arr['_id']=app._id
console.log "asdasd"
console.log arr
console.log arr['_id']
#user_model =new UserModel(arr)
#user_model.fetch({
success : (model,res,options) =>
console.log model
console.log res
arr=new Array()
arr['_id']=e.target.id
#arr['action']='weight' #means , update weight
##user_model.setArr(arr)
##user_model.set({weight : arr['_id']})
console.log "new : "+#user_model.isNew()
#user_model.save({weight : e.target.id})
##user_model.save({
# success : (model,res,options) =>
# console.log "model updated: "+JSON.stringify(model)
# console.log "Res : "+JSON.stringify(res)
# error : (model,res,options) =>
# console.log "Error : "+JSON.stringify(res)
#})
error : (model,res,options) =>
console.log "Error "
})
the above code is written in coffeescript, so even if you don't know coffeescript, don't worry, you can understand easily, and those # mean, it is a comment. here we follow indentation instead of braces.
one more doubt, a model's URL must be changed dynamically according to the requirement, right? what is the best way to achieve that? I am doing like this:
I am populating "array" containing the required fields that should be present in the URL. In model, s init func, I am using #arr=arr, then in URLs function, I check like this.
url : ->
if #arr['id']
"/user/#{#id}"
Is my approach right, or any better approach is there for dynamically setting URLs. Or can I directly set the URLs like this:
#user_model.setUrl "/someurl/someid" //this setUrl method is available in model's definition
#user_model.fetch() or save() or watever that needs url
Just a hunch, but you mentioned that you call model.fetch() to retrieve the _id field. Be sure to either return an id field instead _id (notice the underscore).
The call to model.isNew() returning true is an indicator that the id property was never set from the model.fetch() call.
I look forward to a possible further explanation with your code...
Looking at your code:
/* The model needs an 'id' attribute in order to marked as not new */
#user_model = new UserModel(id: arr['_id'])
Actually if you call
model.set({weight: "somevalue"});
It will update the value in the model, but it won't send a POST request
model.save(attribute);
Actually calls Backbone.sync as you probably know.
EDIT :
You might want ot set
m = Backbone.Model.extend({
idAttribute: '_id'
});
to every model, because the isNew method actually checks if the model has id attribute
Regarding to this you could see here that .set doesn't call backbone.sync here : http://jsfiddle.net/5M9HH/1/