I'm having a hard understanding using public, static, and global keywords with my variables and methods.
Below is a snippet of my code. What I'm trying to do is upon page load, in my constructor create a Set of accountIDs that the user has access to (8-33 this is working). This set will be used to filter queries used in later methods.
What I'm finding is that public pageReference runSearch() has access to 'terrAccSet', but the public static List getsearchAccounts does not have access to it.
If I change it to public static Set terrAccSet, I don't get data in either of the system.debugs - what can I do?
global with sharing class MyClass {
public static List<FRM_Metrics_gne__c> accountSearchGmap {get; set;}
public Set<Id> terrAccSet;
public List<String> terrIdList;
//Constructor
public MyClass() {
terrAccSet = new Set<Id>();
terrIdList = new List<String>();
Set<Id> grpIdSet = new Set<Id>();
Id uid = '00570000001R95e'; //member of TWO territories
//UserTerritory Utid = [SELECT TerritoryId FROM UserTerritory where UserId = :userInfo.getUserId()];
List<UserTerritory> Utid = [SELECT TerritoryId FROM UserTerritory where UserId =: uid ];
for(UserTerritory usrTerr: Utid){
terrIdList.add(usrTerr.TerritoryId);
}
List<Group> grp = [Select Id from Group where RelatedID IN :terrIdList];
for (Group eachgroupd : grp ){
grpIdset.add(eachgroupd.Id);
}
List<AccountShare> accountidList = [SELECT AccountId,UserOrGroupId FROM AccountShare where UserOrGroupId in :grpIdset];
//all accounst that the user has access according to territory hiearchy
for(AccountShare eachas:accountidList ){
terrAccSet.add(eachas.AccountId);
}
}
public PageReference runSearch() {
//Has Data
system.debug('**terrAccSet runSearch** '+terrAccSet);
}
public static List<Custom_Object__c> getsearchAccounts(String multiSearchString) {
//terrAccSet variable is missing
system.debug('**terrAccSet getSearchAccounts** '+terrAccSet);
//logic
return accountSearchGmap;
}
}
Below is a snippet of my code. What I'm trying to do is upon page load, in my constructor create a Set of accountIDs that the user has access to (8-33 this is working). This set will be used to filter queries used in later methods.
This set should be an instance property, not static.
Use static when you want to create a method that does not affect the state of a controller or class, eg. a text parser-text in text out.
You should make the class Global if you want to create a package and make your class available outside your package so that other Apex code can invoke it, or if your class will create webService or REST methods to be exposed.
Public should be used to expose properties to the VisualForce pages that will consume the properties. Otherwise, use Private methods and properties for controller side only processing.
public static List getsearchAccounts(String multiSearchString) {
//terrAccSet variable is missing
system.debug('terrAccSet getSearchAccounts '+terrAccSet);
//logic
return accountSearchGmap;
}
This method should not be static because it accesses an instance property (it reads state).
Simple rule of thumb, if it is a visualforce page + controller, you shouldn't need anything static to do your normal work of querying the database and returning data to the page.
Related
I have a simple new class X which holds some results of a callout to an external system.
In a flow I need a variable of type X. Is there any way to declare a variable of that new type in a flow?
My new class is:
public class FooCalloutResult {
public Boolean success;
public Map<Id, Boolean> results;
public List<String> messages;
public FooCalloutResult() {
success = false;
results = new Map<Id, Boolean>();
messages = new List<String>();
}
}
If you want to get some data in a flow from an apex class you need to have an Process Invocable method - this is done by adding the #InvocableMethod annotation.
Example:
global class lookUpAccountAnnotation {
#InvocableMethod
public static List<String> getAccountIds(List<String> names) {
List<Id> accountIds = new List<Id>();
List<Account> accounts = [SELECT Id FROM Account WHERE Name in :names];
for (Account account : accounts) {
accountIds.add(account.Id);
}
return accountIds;
}
}
With this annotation the class will appear in your list of available elements in the Flow and you need to put the Input and Output that will go into it.
Depending on what kind of operation you want to do you might need to use the Process.plugin interface instead. Please check this article to see which option supports what kind of data to decide on what you need - https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=vpm_designer_elements_apex.htm&type=5
I can't find any documentation or examples I can follow to use the SqlBuilder class.
I need to generate sql queries dynamically and I found this class. Would this be the best option?
the best place to start is to checkout the dapper source code from its github repo and have a look at the SqlBuilder code. The SqlBuilder class is only a 200 lines or so and you should be able to make an informed choice on whether it is right for your needed.
An other option is to build your own. I personally went down this route as it made sense. Dapper maps select querys directly to a class if you name your class properties the same as your database or add an attribute such as displayName to map from you can use reflection to get the property names. Put there names and values into a dictionary and you can genarate sql fairly easy from there.
here is something to get you started:
first an example class that you can pass to your sqlbuilder.
public class Foo
{
public Foo()
{
TableName = "Foo";
}
public string TableName { get; set; }
[DisplayName("name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
[SearchField("fooId")]
public int Id { get; set; }
}
This is fairly basic. Idea behind the DisplayName attribute is you can separate the properties out that you want to include in your auto generation. in this case TableName does not have a DisplayName attribute so will not be picked up by the next class. however you can manually use it when generating your sql to get your table name.
public Dictionary<string, object> GetPropertyDictionary()
{
var propDictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>();
var passedType = this.GetType();
foreach (var propertyInfo in passedType.GetProperties())
{
var isDef = Attribute.IsDefined(propertyInfo, typeof(DisplayNameAttribute));
if (isDef)
{
var value = propertyInfo.GetValue(this, null);
if (value != null)
{
var displayNameAttribute =
(DisplayNameAttribute)
Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(propertyInfo, typeof(DisplayNameAttribute));
var displayName = displayNameAttribute.DisplayName;
propDictionary.Add(displayName, value);
}
}
}
return propDictionary;
}
This method looks at the properties for its class and if they are not null and have a displayname attribute will add them to a dictionary with the displayname value as the string component.
This method is designed to work as part of the model class and would need to be modified to work from a separate helper class. Personally I have it and all my other sql generation methods in a Base class that all my models inherit from.
once you have the values in the dictionary you can use this to dynamically generate sql based on the model you pass in. and you can also use it to populate your dapper DynamicParamaters for use with paramiterized sql.
I hope this helps put you on the right path to solving your problems.
I use in my force.com application Apex Classes, and many of them have the same structure, I want to make an API to reuse it after.
For exaple, these are two classes :
//first class
public class insererActAct{
public List<Activites_actuelles__c> accts {get; set;}
public insererActAct(ApexPages.StandardController controller){
accts = new List<Activites_actuelles__c>();
accts.add(new Activites_actuelles__c());
}
public void addrow(){
accts.add(new Activites_actuelles__c());
}
public PageReference deleteRow(){
if (accts.size()>1)
{
accts.remove(accts.size()-1);
}
return null;
}
public PageReference save()
{
insert accts;
Assure__c theParent = new Assure__c(id=accts[0].Activites_actuelles__c);
PageReference acctPage = new ApexPages.StandardController(theParent).view();
acctPage.setRedirect(true);
return acctPage;
}
}
//second class
public class insererEnfants{
public List<Enfants__c> accts {get; set;}
public insererEnfants(ApexPages.StandardController controller){
accts = new List<Enfants__c>();
accts.add(new Enfants__c());
}
public void addrow(){
accts.add(new Enfants__c());
}
public PageReference deleteRow(){
if (accts.size()>1)
{
accts.remove(accts.size()-1);
}
return null;
}
public PageReference save()
{
insert accts;
Assure__c theParent = new Assure__c(id=accts[0].Parent__c);
PageReference acctPage = new ApexPages.StandardController(theParent).view();
acctPage.setRedirect(true);
return acctPage;
}
}
Can any one tell me it is possible or not, if yes, how can I do this, please ?
Do you mean you want to write code that works for different kinds of objects, rather than stating the type of object in the code?
It is possible to do this, by declaring your sObject variables with the sObject type, e.g, instead of
public List<Activites_actuelles__c> accts {get; set;}
you would put
public List<sObject> sObjects{get; set;}
and by referencing fields using get and put, e.g. instead of
Account theAccount = new Account();
theAccount.name = 'Fred';
you would put
sObject theSObject = new SObject();
theSObject.put('name', 'Fred');
I've not tried using code like this in a controller extension, but in theory since you can pass in any standard controller you ought to be OK.
You will need to think about how to create the parent object inside the save method, because you will need to pass in what type you want to create. It's quite complicated but it is possible to take in a string representing the object type (e.g. 'Account') and create a new object of that type:
Schema.getGlobalDescribe().get('Account').newSObject()
will get you a new Account. So you could replace 'Account' with any type passed in as a parameter.
For more information look up Dynamic Apex, Dynamic SOQL and Dynamic DML in the documentation.
A word of warning: Passing around object types and field names as strings means that the compiler will not know those types are mentioned in the code. So if you try and delete a custom object or rename a field, salesforce will not warn you that the object or field is in use and will allow you to do the deletion.
Another word of warning: Although this allows code reuse and that is a benefit, you may find it is not worth it. I avoid writing dynamic apex unless I absolutely have to. It is far more complex than ordinary apex and it is therefore difficult to debug and maitain, especially if someone other than yourself has to maintain it.
Say you have an domain entity with business logic for initializing its default values. E.g.
class User : IUser, Entity
{
public User()
{
StartDate = DateTime.Now;
EndDate = StartDate.AddDays(3); // This value could be user-configured.
}
public DateTime StartDate { get; set; }
public DateTime EndDate { get; set; }
}
Using RIA services, the DTO that will be generated of course does not include any logic, only public properties. Which means that when a client (e.g. Silverlight application) displays a 'create new user' dialog, it will not be able to populate the fields with any default values (without, of course, duplicating the business logic on the client).
In an attempt to achieve this, I created new DTO (UserDTO) and a query in my UserDomainService:
// Construct a new domain entity and then convert to DTO
public UserDTO CreateNewUser()
{
var user = new User(); // Business logic has now been executed.
return new UserDTO(user);
}
This does allow the client to populate fields with default values, however when it comes time to add the newly created user, RIA has already added the UserDTO to it's internally mainted collection of entities, so you cannot call .Add on your domain context. You can still just call SubmitChanges, which will trigger the [Update] method to be called, however this seems to be going against the grain of how RIA services is supposed to be used (i.e. you shouldn't be doing an INSERT operation in an UPDATE method).
Is this scenario (i.e. server-side creation of DTOs) achievable in RIA services?
I don't know what your business logic looks like, but if you used a common method to save objects (whether new or modified) on the server, than you would be able to differentiate within that method, whether it is a modified object or really a new one.
Example on the server:
[Insert]
public void InsertUser(UserDTO user)
{
this.SaveUser(user);
}
[Update]
public void UpdateUser(UserDTO user)
{
this.SaveUser(user);
}
You could add a property to your User (or the base class, if you have one):
public class UserDTO
{
[...]
// only set this within the constructor,
// unfortunately it cannot be "private set", because of RIA Services
public bool IsNewEntity { get; set; }
}
In your SaveUser method use that flag:
private void SaveUser(UserDTO user)
{
if (user.IsNewEntity)
{
// do something with a new user
}
else
{
// do something with an existing user
}
}
The Constructor for the UserDTO would then be:
public UserDTO()
{
this.IsNewEntity = true;
}
I know, this looks a little trivial, but I do not know of a more "elegant" way.
I know this must be an age-old, tired question, but I cant seem to find anything thru my trusty friend (aka Google).
I have a .net 3.5 c# winforms app, that presents a user with a login form on application startup. After a successful login, I want to run off to the DB, pull in some user-specific data and hold them (in properties) in a class called AppCurrentUser.cs, that can thereafer be accessed across all classes in the assembly - the purpose here being that I can fill some properties with a once-off data read, instead of making a call to the DB everytime I need to. In a web app, I would usually use Session variables, and I know that the concept of that does not exist in WinForms.
The class structure resembles the following:
public class AppCurrentUser {
public AppCurrentUser() { }
public Guid UserName { get; set; }
public List<string> Roles { get; set; }
public string Firstname { get; set; }
public string Lastname { get; set; }
}
Now, I have some options that I need some expert advice on:
Being a "dumb" class, I should make the properties non-static, instantiate the class and then set the properties...but then I will only be able to access that instance from within the class that it was created in, right?
Logically, I believe that these properties should be static as I will only be using the class once throughout the application (and not creating new instances of it), and it's property values will be "reset" on application close. (If I create an instance of it, I can dispose of it on application close)
How should I structure my class and how do I access its properties across all classes in my assembly? I really would appreciate your honest and valued advice on this!!
Thanks!
Use the singleton pattern here:
public class AppUser
{
private static _current = null;
public static AppUser Current
{
get { return = _current; }
}
public static void Init()
{
if (_current == null)
{
_current = new AppUser();
// Load everything from the DB.
// Name = Dd.GetName();
}
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
// App startup.
AppUser.Init();
// Now any form / class / whatever can simply do:
var name = AppUser.Current.Name;
Now the "static" things are thread-unsafe. I'll leave it as an exercise of the reader to figure out how to properly use the lock() syntax to make it thread-safe. You should also handle the case if the Current property is accessed before the call to Init.
It depends on how you setup your architecture. If you're doing all your business logic code inside the actual form (e.g. coupling it to the UI), then you probably want to pass user information in as a parameter when you make a form, then keep a reference to it from within that form. In other words, you'd be implementing a Singleton pattern.
You could also use Dependency Injection, so that every time you request the user object, the dependency injection framework (like StructureMap) will provide you with the right object. -- you could probably use it like a session variable since you'll be working in a stateful environment.
The correct place to store this type of information is in a custom implementation of IIdentity. Any information that you need to identify a user or his access rights can be stored in that object, which is then associated with the current thread and can be queried from the current thread whenever needed.
This principal is illustrated in Rocky Lhotka's CLSA books, or google winforms custom identity.
I'm not convinced this is the right way but you could do something like this (seems to be what you're asking for anyway):
public class Sessions
{
// Variables
private static string _Username;
// properties
public static string Username
{
get
{
return _Username;
}
set
{
_Username = value;
}
}
}
in case the c# is wrong...i'm a vb.net developer...
then you'd just use Sessions.USername etc etc