See Problem Image
If UserCreationAttribute is created by Omiting one field in UserAttribute Why we using
both in that Arrow and what does it mean I'm confused.
The first generic parameter UserAttribute is used to control what fields can be in the model and the second one UserCreationAttribute is used to validate a set of fields while creating an instance of this model. Usually a primary key field is omitted from creation attributes because it's auto generated. You should add all optional fields there along with the PK field that are not needed if you create a model instance.
It's your responsibility to define creation attributes as a subset of all attributes that's why it's recommended to use Optional with attributes.
Related
Is it possible to have a OneToManyAssociationField as entity extension on for example ProductManufacturer without the ReferenceVersionField in my related custom entity?
If this is not possible, is it possible for the reference version field to have a custom name (so not product_manufacturer_version_id) On first sight, this also does not seem possible.
About the error
I am currently getting the following error when trying to search for manufacturers using $criteria->addAssociation('myCustomEntity'):
SQLSTATE[42S22]: Column not found: 1054 Unknown column 'product_manufacturer.myCustomEntity.product_manufacturer_version_id' in 'field list'
About the big picture
The use case is similar to the SeoUrl entity where there is a ‘foreign_key’ field which can have a relation to multiple entity types. My entity has not associations, but the other entities are extended to have an association to my entity. Just like the SeoUrl.
However, the DAL creates a query which uses the ‘product_manufacturer_version_id’ field, which does not exist on my custom entity…
Is it possible to have a OneToManyAssociationField as entity extension on for example ProductManufacturer without the ReferenceVersionField in my related custom entity?
No, you must set a ReferenceVersionField when adding associations to the definition of a versionized entity. This is too deeply rooted in the basic principles of the data abstraction layer to work around.
If this is not possible, is it possible for the reference version field to have a custom name (so not product_manufacturer_version_id) On first sight, this also does not seem possible.
You can change the storage name of the field. That is the name of the corresponding column within your database table. When you instantiate ReferenceVersionField you can use the second, optional argument to provide the storage name:
public function __construct(string $definition, ?string $storageName = null)
The storage name should be provided in snake case. The name of the object property for the field will then be derived from the storage name and converted to camel case. So given you provide my_version_custom_id for the storage name, the object property of the entity will be myVersionCustomId.
Your entity may have multiple associations to different entities, but if those entities are versionized your foreign key constraint has to be a combination of columns for both the foreign primary key as well as the foreign version id.
If I set up my own segmented key ID to be used with a custom DAC's identity field, Do I need anything else other than the [PXDimension] attribute on that DAC field to implement the enforcement of that segment setup?
You would have to define your custom field with the [PXDimensionSelector] attribute.
When this attribute is used, the first parameter should be the dimension name (defined in the Segmented Keys page - CS202000), followed by the ID value (this is the value persisted in the DB), and then the CD value (this is the user-friendly value).
For instance, the Item Class Dimension selector can be defined like this:
[PXDimensionSelector(INItemClass.Dimension,
typeof(Search<INItemClass.itemClassID, Where<INItemClass.stkItem, Equal<False>>>), typeof(INItemClass.itemClassCD), DescriptionField = typeof(INItemClass.descr))]
When the value is then added to the UI, the framework will recognize the Dimension-selector attribute and it will create it as a PXSegmentMask field instead of a regular PXSelector
I am making a class diagram for Class/Course Registration where students have to first register their course then select their class schedules (timetable)
I am unsure if I can have CourseRegistration and ClassRegistration table like that. The reason why I made it like that is, a student can register for a course but doesnt register to a class directly. so they can wait few days and then only register. So I have to make sure the course registration is saved in the database.
Thank you for all the help
PS: pls don't mind my attributes, they're just a draft.
Your business logic for the registration process (register both for a course and a corresponding class) is too complicated. Normally, one would only register for a class, which would then imply taking the corresponding course.
Also, what does "ClassSchedule" stand for? Is an instance of a "ClassSchedule" a class meeting?
Since your model is supposed to define a design (of database tables and of, e.g., Java classes), each entity class should have an ID attribute defined, which is expressed in UML with the keyword "id" in curly braces appended to the attribute declaration. Having "ID" in the attribute names is not a formal declaration. Also, an ID attribute seems to be missing for ClassSchedule.
Yes, that's fine this way. You could alternatively use the association class notation like this:
Some side notes:
labeling associations is not that helpful except you are on a business level analysis. Rather use role names on either end where appropriate.
Edit I somehow overlooked that you're designing tables. So my previous comment
remove all the id attributes. Each object will have its unique id assigned by the runtime system. Use such an id only if it's of public meaning (e.g. a passport id or a student's registration number). And then use that specific name (e.g. passportId) rather than a <class>id.
goes just for basic class design. If you already have a (derived) table design you can just go with those ids.
I have an odd issue.
I have client that wants a sharepoint list what is populated from a WCFService. That part is working quite well.
I have a bdcmodel that is mapping the WCF data and I can create an external list from the bdcmodel as well so that is working fine.
The issue I have is that one of the properties in the model is actually a collection of entities called Attributes. The objects in this collection simply have 2 properties Name and Value so really they are just a key value pair.
The client wants to see the list of attributes of the parent entity in the external list. So there would be an Attributes column and within that column would be the list of attributes for each parent object.
Is there even a way to do this? I am looking into Custom Field Types, but it seems like these are really intended to be singular values.
How would I create a list within and external list?
Any help anyone can give would be great even if its just to tell me that there really isn't a stable way to do this so I can go back to the client and tell them we will need to build a custom list to support this because the OOB external list and custom fields and custom field types won't support this kind of nested listing.
I decided to set up the custom field as a string and when I get my collection in from the BdcModel I am serializing it to JSON and then passing it to the field. When the field is viewed in display, edit or new I have overridden the FieldRenderingControl and I am tiling the collection out that way.
I am designing an application that will display dynamically-generated forms to the user who will then enter values into the form fields and submit those values for persistence. The form represents an employee evaluation.
One use case allows an administrator (from HR) to define the form fields. They should be able to create a new form, add/remove fields from a form and mark a form as 'deleted'.
The second use case is when a manager views the form and enters values into the form fields for a specific employee. They should be able to save the values at any time and recall the saved values when viewing the form again for the same employee.
Finally, when the manager is satisfied with the values they've entered for that employee, they can 'submit' the form data which persists the flattened data into the data warehouse for reporting purposes. When this is done, the 'working' copy of the data is removed so the form will display empty the next time they view it for that employee.
I am not concerned with the front-end at this point and working on the back-end service application that sits between the client and the data store. The application must provide a course-grained interface for all of the behavior required.
My question is how many aggregate roots do I actually have (and from that, how many repositories, etc)? Do I separate the form definition from the form data even though I need both when displaying the form to the user?
I see two main entities, 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' and 'EmployeeEvaluation'. The 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' entity would have a collection of 'FieldDefinition' value objects which would contain the properties that define a field, the most basic being the name of the field. The 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity would have a collection of 'FieldValue' value objects which contain the values for each field from the definition. In the simplest case, it would have a field name and value property. Next, the 'EmployeeEvaluation' could have a reference to 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' to specify which definition the particular evaluation is based on. This can also be used to enforce the form definition in each evaluation. You would have two repositories - one for each entity. If you were to use an ORM such as NHibernate, then when you retrieve a 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity, the associated 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' would also be retrieved even though there is a dedicated repository for it.
From your description it sounds like your objects don't have any behavior and are simple DTOs. If that is the case maybe you should not bother doing DDD. Can you imagine your entities without having getters? There are better ways to do CRUDish application than DDD. Again this is only valid if your "domain" does not have relevant behavior.