Im wondering how I can set some variables in my controller, and then be able to access them in my model and a behaviour for that model.
I have tried the below, but with no luck:
in controller: $this->Model->data['foo']="bar";
in behaviour: $Model->data['foo'];
Grateful for any help!
One way to pass data is through user-defined functions in your model.
For example,
$flag = $this->Model->checkIntegrity($this->data);
In the Model,
function checkIntegrity($data) {
...
}
You could also pass them in as a reference if you wish to make direct changes to the data:
function checkIntegrity(&$data) {
...
}
It depends on what kind of data you're trying to pass around. If it's model/behavior settings you could use class properties. Example:
In model or behavior:
public $custom_variable = null; // or other default value
In controller:
$this->Model->custom_variable = 'new value';
or
$this->Behavior->custom_variable = 'new value';
Related
I don't want to check if a user is logged in - which normally is done. I want to check if the current view is in the allow list set in the controller.
$this->Auth->allow('testresults', 'testlist' , 'detaillist',
How can I determine if an action is allowed?
Use this to check.
$action = $this->request->params['action'];
if(in_array($action, ['testresults', 'testlist', ''])){
return true;
}
use this code anywhere to see the actions that are allowed:
debug(AuthComponent::$allowedActions);exit;
Pass info to the view
allowed actions are stored in a public property, so in your controller code, you can do:
$allowed = $this->Auth->allowedActions;
$this->set('allowedActions', $allowed);
Then simply expect that array in the view.
In principle view templates should not need to ask for information - they should only act on what they receive.
Came up with a hybrid code solutions for now.. in the beforefilter..
$this->Auth->allow('index', 'page1','page2'..);
$pagepermission = 'private';
$allowed = $this->Auth->allowedActions;
$action = $this->request->params['action'];
if(in_array($action, $allowed)){
$pagepermission = 'public';
}
$this->set('pagepermission',$pagepermission);
I want to prepopulate an input field from my controller:
Here is the input field:
<input class="form-control" type="text" name="partnerName" placeholder="Completeaza numele partenerului" ng-model="partnerNameModel.field" required validate-field="partnerNameModel">
In my controller,
If I do this:
partnerNameModel.field = 'test';
I get the following error:
TypeError: Cannot set property 'field' of undefined
So, I had to do it like this:
$scope.partnerNameModel = {field: 'dsad'};
I this good practice?
Is there a better way to prepopulate fields?
You can create the object partnerNameModel by doing
$scope.partnerNameModel = {}
at the top of your controller then you can use the dot syntax to set values like
$scope.partnerNameModel.value = "foo"
$scope.partnerNameModel.bar = "lemons"
This is how I personally work with objects in Angular
When you are dealing with an input that has a placeholder, it makes sense to put no default value.
However, the object you are using must be created or it will be a big pain in the ass.
I recommend that you simply use:
$scope.partnerNameModel = {};
Make sure to initialize your fields that don't use a non-empty default value (a dropdown as an example).
$scope.partnerNameModel = {
myDrop: $scope.myList[0]
};
There are many duplicated code among CREATE and EDIT controllers.
These controllers could be combined into one for minimizing repetitive code.
The problem: I need to distinguish which method to use on form submitting - create() or edit() for example.
The solution: I could add $scope.mode for example and set $scope.mode='edit' if user clicked 'EDIT' button or set $scope.mode='add' if user clicked 'ADD' button.
I could use services for minimizing repetitive code, but there still will be duplicated code. For example in both controllers I have cancel() method which clears the form and hide it. I could store clearForm() and hideForm() in the service, but this code will be duplicated in both controllers:
$scope.cancel = function() {
Service.clearForm();
Service.hideForm();
};
Questions:
Is it good practice to combine CREATE and EDIT controllers in AngularJS?
Is there any good practices to minimize repetitive code?
Yes. Use 1 controller.
Here is the reason why use 1 controller
The job of the controller is to support the View. Your create view and the edit view is exactly same - just that one has data pre-populated (edit) and another does not (create).
Moreover the "purpose" of this View is to have the user change or enter new values in the form. Your only difference should be something like reset(). But even there you could start with an empty model object e.g. $scope.entity = {} in case of CREATE and you will start with $scope.entity = $http.get().
Repetition Problem with 2 Controllers
With 2 different controllers and services you are going to incur at least the following duplication:
$scope.cancel = function() {
Service.cancel();
};
$scope.validate = function() {
ValidtionSvc.validate();
}
.
.
.//other stuff similar
but the problem is why even this duplication like you stated.
(UDATED here onwards since above was the answer to the 1st question)
How to use 1 controller with repetition ?
Is there any good practices to minimize repetitive code?
Question redefined: Is there a good practice of eliminating repetitive code in CREATE and EDIT forms ?
No formal 'best practice' exist to my knowledge to avoid repetitive code in this specific situation. However I am advising against mode=edit/create. The reason being for controllers in this situation there should be almost no difference since their job is to purely to fetch/update the model as the user interacts.
Here are the difference you will encounter in this situation and how you can avoid if/then/else with mode=create/edit:
1) Populating the form with existing values vs. empty form for Create.
To fetch a existing entities you need some key/query data. If such key data is present you could do
var masterEntity = {};
if(keyData) {
masterEntity = MyEntityResourceFactory.getEntity(keyData);
}
$scope.entity = masterEntity;//for Create this would be {}
2) reset() form
should be simply
$scope.reset = function() {
$scope.entity = masterEntity;
}
3) Update/Create
$http.post()//should not be different in today's world since we are treating PUT as POST
4) Validation - this is a perfect reuse - there should be no differences.
5) Initial / Default Values
You can use masterEntity = Defaults instead of {}.
Is it good practice to combine CREATE and EDIT controllers in
AngularJS?
In my experience, yes it is a good idea for 99.9% of the time. I typically inject a formType variable into my controller via the $routeProvider resolve feature. So I would have something like the following:
$routeProvider
.when('/item/create', {
templateUrl: '/app/item/itemForm.html',
controller: 'itemFormController',
resolve: {
item: ['$route', 'itemRepository', function ($route, itemRepository) {
return itemRepository.getNew();
}],
formType: function () { return Enums.FormType.CREATE; }
},
})
.when('/item/edit/:itemId', {
templateUrl: '/app/item/itemForm.html',
controller: 'itemFormController',
resolve: {
item: ['$route', 'itemRepository', function ($route, itemRepository) {
return itemRepository.get($route.current.params.itemId);
}],
formType: function () { return Enums.FormType.EDIT; },
},
});
That way you get your entity and type of form action injected into the controller. I also share the same templates, so saving a form I can either rely on my repository/service to determine what REST endpoint to call, or I can do a simple check inside the controller depending on what formType was injected.
Is there any good practices to minimize repetitive code?
Some of the things I'm using to keep things DRY:
If you keep a common convention on your server API you can go a very long way with a base factory/repository/class (whatever you want to call it) for data access. For instance:
GET -> /{resource}?listQueryString // Return resource list
GET -> /{resource}/{id} // Return single resource
GET -> /{resource}/{id}/{resource}view // Return display representation of resource
PUT -> /{resource}/{id} // Update existing resource
POST -> /{resource}/ // Create new resource
etc.
We then use a AngularJs factory that returns a base repository class, lets call it abstractRepository. Then for each resource I create a concrete repository for that specific resource that prototypically inherits from abstractRepository, so I inherit all the shared/base features from abstractRepository and define any resource specific features to the concrete repository. This way the vast majority of data access code can be defined in the abstractRepository. Here's an example using Restangular:
abstractRepository
app.factory('abstractRepository', [function () {
function abstractRepository(restangular, route) {
this.restangular = restangular;
this.route = route;
}
abstractRepository.prototype = {
getList: function (params) {
return this.restangular.all(this.route).getList(params);
},
get: function (id) {
return this.restangular.one(this.route, id).get();
},
getView: function (id) {
return this.restangular.one(this.route, id).one(this.route + 'view').get();
},
update: function (updatedResource) {
return updatedResource.put();
},
create: function (newResource) {
return this.restangular.all(this.route).post(newResource);
}
// etc.
};
abstractRepository.extend = function (repository) {
repository.prototype = Object.create(abstractRepository.prototype);
repository.prototype.constructor = repository;
};
return abstractRepository;
}]);
Concrete repository, let's use customer as an example:
app.factory('customerRepository', ['Restangular', 'abstractRepository', function (restangular, abstractRepository) {
function customerRepository() {
abstractRepository.call(this, restangular, 'customers');
}
abstractRepository.extend(customerRepository);
return new customerRepository();
}]);
What you'll find if you use this base repository pattern is that most of your CRUD controllers will also share a lot of common code, so I typically create a base CRUD controller that my controllers inherit from. Some people dont like the idea of a base controller, but in our case it has served as well.
The answer to your first question probably depends on the specific circumstances.
If the two controllers share a substantial amount of operations, and the behavior of just one or two functions needs to be altered - why not! Maybe not the most elegant solution but hey, whatever works.
If the behavior of many or all controller operations is going to depend on '$scope.mode'...I'd say be careful. That seems like a dangerous path.
Angular services have always served me well when it comes to minimizing code replication between controllers. If there is a "good practice to minimizing repetitive code," I would say it would be services. They are global to your app and can be injected into multiple controllers without issue.
I hope that helps!
i have something like
Ext.define('HS.controller.Utility', {
statics : {
state : 'Oklahoma'
}
});
Now i want to access it from my controllers, but in every method of controller, i have to write HS.controller.Utility.state to access it. currently i'm doing this : var ut = HS.controller.Utility and then accessing state as ut.state, but again, i've to declare this variable in every function. Is there a way to set it to a short name once in my controller and then access from all functions?
There are several ways you could do it, the best of which:
// Becomes a global variable
var X = Ext.define('My.long.class.Name');
// Set a reference on your main NS at launch time
launch: function() {
MyApp.X = My.long.class.Name;
}
Even easier than the current answer is to just declare an alternateClassName with no namespace. Only one line of code, no initialization or race conditions, built into ExtJs.
Ext.define('HS.controller.Utility', {
//
// Non-namespaced alternate class name will create
// 'globally defined' Utility object.
//
alternateClassName: 'Utility',
statics : {
state : 'Oklahoma'
}
});
});
I'm trying display some data loaded from a datastore and it's not reflecting changes on the UI. I created an example to show a general idea of what I'm trying to achieve.
http://plnkr.co/edit/MBHo88
Here is the link to angularjs example where they show when on click then dropdowns are clear out. If you replace the expression with one of the colors of the list dropdowns are well selected. Does this type of selection only work on user events?
http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng.directive:select
Help is appreciated!!!
Actually the problem is that ngSelect compares objects using simple comparition operator ('=='), so two objects with same fields and values are considered as different objects.
So you better use strings and numbers as values ('select' parameter in expression of ngSelect directive).
Here is kind of solution for your plunker.
Aslo there are some discussion about this topic on GitHub:
https://github.com/angular/angular.js/issues/1302
https://github.com/angular/angular.js/issues/1032
Also as I headred there is some work in progress about adding custom comparor/hashing for ngSelect to be able to use ngSelect more easier on objects.
One mistake in the initialization of your controller. You have to refer to the objects in your palette, since these are watched on the view:
$scope.selectedColors.push({col: $scope.palette[2]});
$scope.selectedColors.push({col: $scope.palette[1]});
Same with your result:
$scope.result = { color: $scope.obj.codes[2] };
Then you need to watch the result. In the below example, select 1 receives the value from the initiating select, the second receives the value below in the palette. I don't know if that's what you wanted, but you can easily change it:
$scope.$watch('result', function(value) {
if(value) {
var index = value.color.code -1;
$scope.selectedColors[0] = {col: $scope.palette[index] };
$scope.selectedColors[1] = {col: $scope.palette[Math.max(index-1, 0)] };
}
}, true);
See plunkr.
Ok, I think I figured this out but thanks to #ValentynShybanov and #asgoth.
According to angularjs example ngModel is initialized with one of the objects from the array utilized in the dropdown population. So having an array as:
$scope.locations = [{ state: 'FL', city: 'Tampa'}, {state: 'FL', city: 'Sarasota'} ....];
And the dropdown is defined as:
<select ng-options="l.state group by l.city for l in locations" ng-model="city" required></select>
Then $scope.city is initialized as:
$scope.city = $scope.locations[0];
So far so good, right?!!!.. But I have multiple locations therefore multiple dropdowns. Also users can add/remove more. Like creating a table dynamically. And also, I needed to load data from the datastore.
Although I was building and assigning a similar value (e.g: Values from data store --> State = FL, City = Tampa; Therefore --> { state : 'FL', city : 'Tampa' }), angularjs wasn't able to match the value. I tried diff ways, like just assigning { city : 'Tampa' } or 'Tampa' or and or and or...
So what I did.. and I know is sort of nasty but works so far.. is to write a lookup function to return the value from $scope.locations. Thus I have:
$scope.lookupLocation = function(state, city){
for(var k = 0; k < $scope.locations.length; k++){
if($scope.locations[k].state == state && $scope.locations[k].city == city)
return $scope.locations[k];
}
return $scope.locations[0]; //-- default value if none matched
}
so, when I load the data from the datastore (data in json format) I call the lookupLocation function like:
$scope.city = $scope.lookupLocation(results[indexFromSomeLoop].location.state, results[indexFromSomeLoop].location.city);
And that preselects my values when loading data. This is what worked for me.
Thanks