subtable or extended table, I do not know how to be more correct to call it.
I need to implement the table with the following structure:
Car | Number | Price | Date |
Mazda | 0122335 | $20000 | 01.08.10 |
____________________________| $19999 | 02.08.10 |
____________________________| $19500 | 03.08.10 |
____________________________| $19000 | 04.08.10 |
Toyota| 0254785 | $50000 | 01.08.10 |
_BMW | 1212222 | $80000 | 04.08.10 |
____________________________| $75000 | 06.08.10 |
____________________________| $70000 | 08.08.10 |
____________________________| $65000 | 10.08.10 |
____________________________| $60000 | 12.08.10 |
____________________________| $55000 | 15.08.10 |
as you see, one row of Сar - we have several lines with Price and Date.
I not found examples of such a structure, so please help on the forum. Maybe someone knows how to implement such a table.
Thks.
Grouping grid?
http://dev.sencha.com/deploy/dev/examples/grid/grouping.html
Yes, perhaps you're right, it is necessary to magic some standard examples
Related
I have an array of maps (unordered key-value pairs), and would like to filter out any map items in the array that do not have either a created or a modified date before 2019-01-01. Is there a way to accomplish this in presto without nested tables (I have to iterate over multiple columns that are structured in this way)?
BEFORE
+-----------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--+
| Category1 | Count_Items | Item_Details | | |
+===========+=============+============================================================================================================================================================+==+==+
| Fruit | 3 | [{"created":"2019-09-15","color":"red","name":"apples"},{"name":"bananas","created":"2018-08-20"},{"modified":"2019-02-01","name":"kiwi","color":"green"}] | | |
| Vegetable | 2 | [{"color":"green","modified":"2018-01-01","created":"2019-03-31","name":"kale"},{"name":"cauliflower","created":"2019-01-02"}] | | |
+-----------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--+
AFTER
+-----------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--+
| Category1 | Count_Items | Item_Details | | |
+===========+=============+==================================================================================+==+==+
| Fruit | 1 | [{"name":"bananas","created":"2018-08-20"}] | | |
| Vegetable | 1 | [{"color":"green","modified":"2018-01-01","created":"2019-03-31","name":"kale"}] | | |
+-----------+-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--+--+
You need to use array filter -- you have array(map) and want to have array(map). For this, you need to construct the filter function for the filter (a lambda).
(Let me know if you need more detailed instructions.)
I am trying to design a model for our future database of our toys and certain measurements that have to be done post-production. I have trouble grasping how to model this. I have tried multiple ways, but none of them seem optimal and in the end I've always lost out on the connectivity between entities.
What I need to achieve is some kind of meaningful relationship between the following:
A toy (with some trivial properties).
A series of toys (multiple toys can be related to one series and a toy can only belong to one series).
Measurement steps. There are currently 6 of these steps. Each step has its own input parameters and these vary in type as well as in number (eg. only 3 parameters for measurement step 1 and 10 parameters for measurement step 2).
With each series, a sequence of these measurement steps is defined. Duplicates of tests are allowed (eg. measurement step 1 > measurement step 4 > measurement step 1 is a valid sequence). The sequence along with the parameters must be stored somewhere for future reference.
Each toy goes through the sequence of measurements that is defined by its series. All of the results must be stored somewhere (for each individual toy).
If I split the measurement steps into their own tables I can't reference them conditionally (as foreign keys) to some other table.
If I try to serialize part of the data I lose the ability to make connections between individual measurement steps, measurement results (at least with queries) etc.
I know people here generally hate/don't answer these kinds of "discussion-like" questions, but I'd ask of you to at least point out what is a good practice in a system where I need to store this locally on a machine, but need a database to hold the data - to move towards serial-like data and just do general relationships where it is easy to do so or keep trying to normalize it as much as possible?
If measurements steps share most of attributes (or are of the same type, like what you called PARAMETERS), and I understood correctly your definitions, I would make something like this.
It could be a starting point.
+----------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| TOYS | | TOY_SERIES |
+-----+----------------------+ +---------+--------------------+
| PK | ID_TOY | +----------+ PK, FK1 | ID_S +--------+
| | | | +------------------------------+ |
| FK1 | ID_S +---------+ | | ... | |
+----------------------------+ | | | |
| | ... | | | | |
| | | | | | |
+-----+----------------------+ +---------+--------------------+ |
|
|
|
|
+------------------------------+ |
| BR_SER_MEAS | |
+---------+--------------------+ |
| PK, FK1 | ID_S +--------+
| | |
| PK, FK2 | ID_M +--------+
| | | |
| PK | ID_SEQ | |
| | | |
+---------+--------------------+ |
|
|
+------------------------------+ |
| MEASURE_STEPS | |
+------------------------------+ |
| PK ID_M +--------+
+------------------------------+
| PARAM_01 |
| ... |
| PARAM_10 |
| |
| |
+------------------------------+
In Cucumber, we can directly validate the database table content in tabular format by mentioning the values in below format:
| Type | Code | Amount |
| A | HIGH | 27.72 |
| B | LOW | 9.28 |
| C | LOW | 4.43 |
Do we have something similar in Robot Framework. I need to run a query on the DB and the output looks like the above given table.
No, there is nothing built in to do exactly what you say. However, it's fairly straight-forward to write a keyword that takes a table of data and compares it to another table of data.
For example, you could write a keyword that takes the result of the query and then rows of information (though, the rows must all have exactly the same number of columns):
| | ${ResultOfQuery}= | <do the database query>
| | Database should contain | ${ResultOfQuery}
| | ... | #Type | Code | Amount
| | ... | A | HIGH | 27.72
| | ... | B | LOW | 9.28
| | ... | C | LOW | 4.43
Then it's just a matter of iterating over all of the arguments three at a time, and checking if the data has that value. It would look something like this:
**** Keywords ***
| Database should contain
| | [Arguments] | ${actual} | #{expected}
| | :FOR | ${type} | ${code} | ${amount} | IN | #{expected}
| | | <verify that the values are in ${actual}>
Even easier might be to write a python-based keyword, which makes it a bit easier to iterate over datasets.
I am having a logic issue in relation to querying an SQL database. I need to exclude 3 different categories and any item that is included in those categories; however, if an item under one of those categories meets the criteria for another category I need to keep said item.
This is an example output I will get after querying the database at its current version:
ExampleDB | item_num | pro_type | area | description
1 | 45KX-76Y | FLCM | Finished | coil8x
2 | 68WO-93H | FLCL | Similar | y45Kx
3 | 05RH-27N | FLDR | Finished | KH72n
4 | 84OH-95W | FLEP | Final | tar5x
5 | 81RS-67F | FLEP | Final | tar7x
6 | 48YU-40Q | FLCM | Final | bile6
7 | 19VB-89S | FLDR | Warranty | exp380
8 | 76CS-01U | FLCL | Gator | low5
9 | 28OC-08Z | FLCM | Redo | coil34Y
item_num and description are in a table together, and pro_type and area are in 2 separate tables--a total of 3 tables to pull data from.
I need to construct a query that will not pull back any item_num where area is equal to: Finished, Final, and Redo; but I also need to pull in any item_num that meets the type criteria: FLCM and FLEP. In the end my query should look like this:
ExampleDB | item_num | pro_type | area | description
1 | 45KX-76Y | FLCM | Finished | coil8x
2 | 68WO-93H | FLCL | Similar | y45Kx
3 | 84OH-95W | FLEP | Final | tar5x
4 | 81RS-67F | FLEP | Final | tar7x
5 | 19VB-89S | FLDR | Warranty | exp380
6 | 76CS-01U | FLCL | Gator | low5
7 | 28OC-08Z | FLCM | Redo | coil34Y
Try this:
select * from table
join...
where area not in('finished', 'final', 'redo') or type in('flcm', 'flep')
Are you looking for something like
SELECT *
FROM Table_1
JOIN Table_ProType ON Table_1.whatnot = Table_ProType.whatnot
JOIN Table_Area ON Table_1.whatnot = Table_Area.whatnot
WHERE Table.area NOT IN ('Finished','Final','Redo') OR ProType.pro_type IN ('FLCM','FLEP')
Giving the names of the three tables and the joining criteria will help me improve the answer.
I want to show what my UserControl/Control is doing when I plug a list of data in it, what happens when the user press certain keys, selecting text etc...
I feel somehow a sequence diagramm is not really suited for showing several loops and doing stuff within the loops.
Am I wrong or how can I cope with that case?
If you are talking about a loop, then you have a series of operations that take place for all elements in the loop.
I would model the operations done in the loop as a sequence diagram by itself, if the operation in the loop are fairly complex.
I don't think we can have rules of thumb here, but when the process with the loop itself is complex, and the loop is relatively less complex, we can have them in a single sequence diagram.
If the process that has the loop is not very complex, but the loop is complex, then I would draw a sequence diagram for the operations of the loop and have a note that this entire sequence is called by a loop.
You can also have both sequence diagrams if needed.
Update:
We have to add some notes to the diagram because it is not straightforward to denote a "condition" in a sequence diagram.
The validate is part is something like
do validation
if validation succeeds
proceed to next (business or other) logic
if validation fails
feedback to user (or some other logic)
+----+ +----+ +----------------+ +----------------+
|User| | UI | | Your Validator | | Business Logic |
+----+ +----+ +----------------+ +----------------+
| select | | |
|--------------->| doValidation | |
| |------------------>|----+ |
| | | | Validate |
| | |<---+ |
| | | |
| | | (validation fails: |
| | Validation Fail | feedback to client) |
| |<------------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | (validation succeeds: |
| | | proceed to |
| | | business logic) |
| | | |
| | | someLogic |
| | |----------------------->|
| | | |
UPDATE 2
Why use sequence diagram in a case as mine?
Because you still have to show the sequence of operations, and the developer still needs this information for coding :-)
With UML, as you probably already know, nothing is imposed. You are at your freedom to denote something in some fashion, provided your team also understands it the way you intended. These notes are also helpful.
I should have mentioned this before, some use an "option" fragment to denote a if else. This is more or less a note (I see it this way) but is perhaps more evident. I use them only when both the IF and the ELSE parts are both complex.
+----+ +----+ +----------------+ +----------------+
|User| | UI | | UI - Backend | | Busines Logic |
+----+ +----+ +----------------+ +----------------+
| Add Record | | |
|--------------->| doinsertOrUpdate | |
| |------------------>| |
| | | exists(record) |
| | |----------------------->|
| | | |
____|________________|___________________|________________________|__________
|[Record exists] | | | |
| | | | Get Record | |
| | | |----------------------->| |
| | | | | |
| | | |--------+ | |
| | | | | Set UI Values | |
| | | |<-------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | | Update Record | |
| | | |----------------------->| |
| | | | | |
| | | Send Message | | |
| | |<------------------| | |
| | | "Record found, | | |
| | | Updated" | | |
|___|________________|___________________|________________________|_________|
| | | |
| | | |
______|________________|___________________|________________________|_________
| [Record does not | | | |
| exist] | | | |
| | | |--------+ | |
| | | | | Generate | |
| | | | | Seqeuence | |
| | | |<-------+ | |
| | | | | |
| | | | Create New Record | |
| | | |----------------------->| |
| | | Send Message | | |
| | |<------------------| | |
| | | "New Record | | |
| | | Created" | | |
|_____|________________|___________________|________________________|_________|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
See this for an example using an alt block.