I'm using the FileOutputNode to write the data into the file. I have tried writing the collection messages in the file but every time the file created is of 0 byte and there is no data.
SET OutputRoot.Properties = InputRoot.Properties;
CREATE FIELD OutputRoot.Collection.IN;
DECLARE refCollection REFERENCE TO InputRoot.Collection.IN[1];
WHILE LASTMOVE(refCollection) DO
SET OutputRoot.Collection.IN= refCollection;
SET i = i + 1;
MOVE refCollection NEXTSIBLING REPEAT TYPE NAME;
END WHILE;
RETURN TRUE;
It is very difficult to provide help without knowing what your input message tree looks like.
You should follow the instructions here: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSMKHH_10.0.0/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/bc16130_.htm
If you need further help, you should
add Trace nodes into your message flow before and after the Compute node and set the Pattern property on both nodes to ${Root}. This will allow you to see (and share) the structure of InputRoot and OutputRoot.
Enable user trace using the console commands mqsichangetrace, mqsireadlog, mqsiformatlog. This will show you exactly what the message flow is doing. It will also contain the full text of any errors that are being reported.
I'm trying use slots on my dialog nodes on Watson conversation but seems that is not properly useful if you want to play with array of literal. I've an entity "#email" that is a pattern so I must use .literal if I want to store the "real value", that is sent by the user, on a context variable. Trouble starts when I try to use #entity.values to store all values that are sent by the user. Actually is not possible to store an array of literals and I'm stuck at this point.
Anyone developed a workaround for this?
The literal is a method, not an attribute. The entities contains a location field, which you can programatically use at the application layer to parse the input text.
If you want to pull them out in conversation, you can use a counter to walk through the entities.
For example:
In your slot node "Then respond with" add the following context bit.
"context": {
"counter": "<? entities.size() ?>",
"literals": ""
},
Next create three child nodes.
Node 1: Create a dummy node, set condition to true. Have it jump to the second node.
Node 2: For the second node, set the condition to $counter > 0 and add the following code to the JSON section.
"context": {
"counter": "<? $counter - 1 ?>",
"literals": "<? entities[$counter].literal + ',' + $literals ?>"
},
Have it jump back to Node 1. The reason for this is Conversation will not allow you to jump to the same node.
Node 3: Have it output the answer. For example: Literal Values: $literals
Here is a sample workspace.
https://pastebin.com/xwgnLq9n
Warning
Watson Conversation has a built in endless loop detection. If a node is hit 50 times in one request, it will throw the following error:
Detected recursion when processing the node with id
[node_20_1513835954092]. This node has been already processed [50] times
in this execution step
At which point the node will fail and you will get no result back. So if you expect more than 50 entities then you need to do this at the application layer.
since 2 weeks, we are having this problem while trying to flush new elements:
CRITICAL: Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException:
A new entity was found through the relationship 'Comment#capture' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity
But the capture is already in the database, and we are getting it by a findOneBy, so if we cascade persist it, or persist it, we get a
Table constraint violation: duplicate entry.
The comments are created in a loop with differents captures, with a new, and all required field are set.
With all of the entities persisted and / or got by a findOne (and all valid), the flush still fails.
I'm on this issue since a while, so please help me
I had the same problem and it was the same EntityManager. I wanted to insert an object related ManyToOne. And I don't want a cascade persist.
Example :
$category = $em->find("Category", 10);
$product = new Product();
$product->setCategory($category)
$em->persist($product);
$em->flush();
This throws the same exception for me.
So the solution is :
$category = $em->find("Category", 10);
$product = new Product();
$product->setCategory($category)
$em->merge($product);
$em->flush();
In my case a too early call of
$this->entityManager->clear();
caused the problem. It also disappeared by only doing a clear on the recent object, like
$this->entityManager->clear($capture);
My answer is relevant for topic, but not very relevant for your particular case, so for those googling I post this, as the answers above did not help me.
In my case, I had the same error with batch-processing entities that had a relation and that relation was set to the very same entity.
WHAT I DID WRONG:
When I did $this->entityManager->clear(); while processing batch of entities I would get this error, because next batch of entities would point to the detached related entity.
WHAT WENT WRONG:
I did not know that $this->entityManager->clear(); works the same as $this->entityManager->detach($entity); only detaches ALL of the repositorie`s entities.
I thought that $this->entityManager->clear(); also detaches related entities.
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE:
I should have iterated over entities and detach them one by one - that would not detach the related entity that the future entities pointed to.
I hope this helps someone.
First of all, you should take better care of your code, I see like 3 differents indentations in your entity and controller - this is hard to read, and do not fit the Symfony2 coding standards.
The code you show for your controller is not complete, we have no idea from where $this->activeCapture is coming. Inside you have a $people['capture'] which contains a Capture object I presume. This is very important.
If the Capture in $people['capture'] is persisted / fetched from another EntityManager than $this->entityManager (which, again, we do not know from where it come), Doctrine2 have no idea that the object is already persisted.
You should make sure to use the same instance of the Doctrine Entity Manager for all those operations (use spl_object_hash on the EM object to make sure they are the same instance).
You can also tell the EntityManager what to do with the Capture object.
// Refreshes the persistent state of an entity from the database
$this->entityManager->refresh($captureEntity);
// Or
// Merges the state of a detached entity into the
// persistence context of this EntityManager and returns the managed copy of the entity.
$captureEntity = $this->entityManager->merge($captureEntity);
If this does not help, you should provide more code.
The error:
'Comment#capture' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity
The problem:
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Capture", inversedBy="comments")
* #ORM\JoinColumn(name="capture_id", referencedColumnName="id",nullable=true)
*/
protected $capture;
dont configured the cascade persist
try with this:
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Capture", inversedBy="comments", cascade={"persist", "remove" })
* #ORM\JoinColumn(name="capture_id", referencedColumnName="id",nullable=true)
*/
protected $capture;
Refreshing the entity in question helped my case.
/* $item->getProduct() is already set */
/* Add these 3 lines anyway */
$id = $item->getProduct()->getId();
$reference = $this->getDoctrine()->getReference(Product::class, $id);
$item->setProduct($reference);
/* Original code as follows */
$quote->getItems()->add($item);
$this->getDoctrine()->persist($quote);
$this->getDoctrine()->flush();
Despite my $item already having a Product set elsewhere, I was still getting the error.
Turns out it was set via a different instance of EntityManager.
So this is a hack of sorts, by retrieving id of the existing product, and then retrieving a reference of it, and using setProduct to "refresh" the whatever connection. I later fixed it by ensuring I have and use only a single instance of EntityManager in my codebase.
I got this error too when tried to add new entity.
A new entity was found through the relationship 'Application\Entity\User#chats'
that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: ###.
To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or
configure cascade persist this association in the mapping for example #ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}).
My case was that I tried to save entity, that shouldn't be saved. Entity relations was filled and tried to be saved (User has Chat in Many2Many, but Chat was a temporary entity), but there were some collisions.
So If I use cascade={"persist"} I get unwanted behaviour - trash entity is saved. My solution was to remove non-saving entity out of any saving entities:
// User entity code
public function removeFromChats(Chat $c = null){
if ($c and $this->chats->contains($c)) {
$this->chats->removeElement($c);
}
}
Saving code
/* some code witch $chat entity */
$chat->addUser($user);
// saving
$user->removeFromChats($chat);
$this->getEntityManager()->persist($user);
$this->getEntityManager()->flush();
I want to tell about my case as that might be helpful to somebody.
Given two entities: AdSet and AdSetPlacemnt. AdSet has the following property:
/**
* #ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="AdSetPlacement", mappedBy="adSet", cascade={"persist"})
*
* #JMS\Expose
*/
protected $placement;
Then error appears when I try to delete some AdSet objects in a cycle after 1st iteration
foreach($adSetIds as $adSetId) {
/** #var AdSet $adSet */
$adSet = $this->adSetRepository->findOneBy(["id" => $adSetId]);
$this->em->remove($adSet);
$this->em->flush();
}
Error
A new entity was found through the relationship 'AppBundle\Entity\AdSetPlacement#adSet' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: AppBundle\Entity\AdSet#00000000117d7c930000000054c81ae1. To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or configure cascade persist this association in the mapping for example #ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}). If you cannot find out which entity causes the problem implement 'AppBundle\Entity\AdSet#__toString()' to get a clue.
Solution
The solution was to add "remove" to $placement cascade options to be:
cascade={"persist","remove"}. This guarantees that Placement also becomes detached. Entity manager will "forget" about Placement object thinking of it as "removed" once AdSet is removed.
Bad alternative
When trying to figure out what's going on I've seen a couple answers or recommendations to simply use entity manager's clear method to completely clear persistence context.
foreach($adSetIds as $adSetId) {
/** #var AdSet $adSet */
$adSet = $this->adSetRepository->findOneBy(["id" => $adSetId]);
$this->em->remove($adSet);
$this->em->flush();
$this->em->clear();
}
So that code also works, the issue gets solved but it's not always what you really wanna do. Indeed it's happens quite rarely that you actually need to clear entity manager.
I have a model that looks like this:
class Report(models.Model):
updater = models.CharField(max_length=15)
pub_date = models.DateTimeField(auto_add_now=True)
identifier = models.CharField(max_length=100)
... and so on...
There are some more fields but they are irrelevant to the question. Now the site has very simple functions - the users can see older reports and their data, and can edit them or add new ones.
However, the identifier field is actually an integer that symbolizes a log file that is being reported. Most of the times, each report has one log. But sometimes it has more than one. I did it as a CharField because I built the site to replace an older sharepoint 2003 website, where that field was treated as simple text. So I want that in my next version, it would be like it should be, i.e. like this:
class Report(models.Model):
updater = models.CharField(max_length=15)
pub_date = models.DateTimeField(auto_add_now=True)
... and so on...
class Log(models.Model):
report = models.ForeignKey(Report)
identifier = models.IntegerField()
The problem is, since in the old site that field was a CharField, people used this as they liked. Meaning, even if they updated various logs in the same report they just did it like this <logid1>, <logid2>. Sometimes they added some text <logid1> which is related to <logid2>.
So I want to change this, but I don't want to lose all the old data, and I can't fix all those edge cases (the DB contains around 22 thousand reports). I thought about adding this to report:
def disp_id(self):
if self.pub_date < ... #the day I'll do the update
return self.identifier
else:
return ', '.join([log.identifier for log in self.log_set.all()])
But then I'm not really getting rid of the old field now am I? I'm just adding a new one and keeping the original null from a certain date.
As far as I know, what I want to do is impossible. I'm only asking because I know that maybe I'm not the first one to deal with this sort of thing and maybe there is a solution that I'm not aware of.
Hope my explanation is clear enough, thanks in advance!
class Report(models.Model):
updater = models.CharField(max_length=15)
pub_date = models.DateTimeField(auto_add_now=True)
identifier = models.CharField(null=True)
... and so on...
logs = models.ManyToManyField(Log,null=True)
class Log(models.Model):
identifier = models.IntegerField()
Make the above model , and then make a script as follow:
ident_list = []
for reports in Report.objects.all():
identifiers = reports.identifiers.split(',')
for idents in identifiers:
if not idents in ident_list:
log = Log.create(**{'identifier' : int(idents)})
ident_list.append(int(idents))
else:
log = Log.objects.get(identifier = int(idents))
report.log.add(log)
Check the data before removing the column identifiers from the table Report.
Does it solves your purpose now ?
I have the following objects: L1User, L2User, L3User (all inherits from User) and Document.
Every user can create the document but depending on the user type, the document will have a different status. So in case it's L1User, the document will be created with L1 status and so on:
Solution 1
Please note that after document is created, it will be saved in the database, so it should be natural to have a method create_document(User user) in Document object. In the method body I could check which type is the user and set manually appropriate status. Such approach seems rather not OOP to me.
Solution 2
Ok, so the next approach would be to have all users implement a common method (say create_document(Document doc)) which will set a status associated with the user and save the document in the database. My doubt here is that the document should be saved in it's own class, not the user.
Solution 3
So the final approach would similar to the above, except that the user will return modified document object to it's create_document(User user) method and save will be performed there. The definition of the method would be like this:
create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document(this);
this->save();
}
It also doesn't seems right to me...
Can anyone suggest a better approach?
I think that both Solutions 2 and 3 are ok from the OO point of view, since you are properly delegating the status assignment to the user object (contrary to solution 1, whare you are basically doing a switch based on the user type). Whether to choose 2 or 3 is more a matter of personal tastes.
However, I have a doubt: why do you pass a document to a create_document() method? I would go for a message name that best describes what it does. For example, in solution 3 (the one I like the most) I would go for:
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document();
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>create_document()
{
return new Document('L1');
}
or
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = new Document()
this = user.set_document_type(this);
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>set_document_type(document)
{
document.setType('L1');
}
Edit: I kept thinking about this and there is actually a fourth solution. However the following approach works only if the status of a document doesn't change through its lifetime and you can map the DB field with a getter instead of a property. Since the document already knows the user and the status depends on the user, you can just delegate:
Document>>getStatus()
{
return this.user.getDocumentStatus();
}
HTH