I'm going to use two types of views in the recyclerview.
Each item can be added or deleted.
Rather than checking the ViewType using a single Adapter, I know that it is a ConcatAdapter and try to use it.
By the way, is there a way to arrange the order the way I want when using ConcatAdapter?
As mentioned, the order is not consistent, as items can be added and deleted between each item.
The ConcatAdapter in the code I found was only able to find a way to list items in A and then list items in B.
ex)
AAAAA BBBBBB
what I want
ABABBBABBBABBBBBBBA
The code I studied...
val A_Items = ArrayList<RoutineModel>()
A_Items.add(aModel("e","eqw","ewqe"))
A_Items.add(aModel("e","eqw","ewqe"))
A_Items.add(aModel("e","eqw","ewqe"))
val B_Items = arrayListOf<bModel>()
B_Items.add(bModel())
B_Items.add(bModel())
B_Items.add(bModel())
B_Items.add(bModel())
A_adapter = AAdapter(A_Items)
B_adapter = BAdapter(B_Items)
concatAdapter = ConcatAdapter(A_adapter, B_adapter)
Related
The quickest method I have found is to just convert the ItemPaged object to a list using list() and then I'm able to manipulate/extract using a Pandas DataFrame. However, if I have millions of results, the process can be quite time-consuming, especially if I only want every nth result over a certain time-frame, for instance. Typically, I would have to query the entire time-frame and then re-loop to only obtain every nth element. Does anyone know a more efficient way to use query_entities OR how to more efficiently return every nth item from ItemPaged or more explicitly from table.query_entities? Portion of my code below:
connection_string = "connection string here"
service = TableServiceClient.from_connection_string(conn_str=connection_string)
table_string = ""
table = service.get_table_client(table_string)
entities = table.query_entities(filter, select, etc.)
results = pd.DataFrame(list(entities))
Does anyone know a more efficient way to use query_entities OR how to more efficiently return every nth item from ItemPaged or more explicitly from table.query_entities?
After reproducing from my end, one of the ways to achieve your requirement using get_entity() instead of query_entities(). Below is the complete code that worked for me.
entity = tableClient.get_entity(partition_key='<PARTITION_KEY>', row_key='<ROW_KEY>')
print("Results using get_entity :")
print(format(entity))
RESULTS:
I have created a custom table and made it available on the Customers screen called 'Serial Tracking'. The purpose of this screen is to track serialised items that each customer is in possession of (regardless of who the item was purchased from).
I would like a record automatically added to the table on shipment release. I have attempted to customise the Release method of SoShipmentEntry but am having trouble getting all the required data together as well as the best way to structure the code.
The custom table DAC is
AUSerialTrack
Not necessarily the answer to your question but to long for a comment.
As an alternative, what if you set your Serials tab view to the Ship Line Split table without dealing with a custom table. You could get the information you needed with something like this: (need to convert to your BQL view for your serials tab)
SELECT [ship].[CustomerID],
[ship].[ShipmentNbr],
[split].[InventoryID],
[split].[LotSerialNbr]
FROM [dbo].[SOShipLineSplit] split
INNER JOIN [dbo].[SOShipLine] line
ON [line].[CompanyID] = [split].[CompanyID]
AND [line].[ShipmentNbr] = [split].[ShipmentNbr]
AND [line].[LineNbr] = [split].[LineNbr]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[SOShipment] ship
ON [ship].[CompanyID] = [split].[CompanyID]
AND [ship].[ShipmentNbr] = [split].[ShipmentNbr]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[InventoryItem] i
ON [i].[CompanyID] = [split].[CompanyID]
AND [i].[InventoryID] = [split].[InventoryID]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[INLotSerClass] c
ON [c].[CompanyID] = [i].[CompanyID]
AND [c].[LotSerClassID] = [i].[LotSerClassID]
WHERE [c].[LotSerTrack] = 'S'
AND [ship].[Confirmed] = 1;
Then when the user goes to the tab its always the current results. No custom code to fill in a custom table so easier for upgrades/customization maintenance.
With Django/Haystack/SOLR, I'd like to be able to restrict the result of a search to those records within a particular range of django_ids. Getting these IDs is not a problem, but trying to filter by them produces some unexpected effects. The code looks like this (extraneous code trimmed for clarity):
def view_results(request,arg):
# django_ids list is first calculated using arg...
sqs = SearchQuerySet().facet('example_facet') # STEP_1
sqs = sqs.filter(django_id__in=django_ids) # STEP_2
view = search_view_factory(
view_class=SearchView,
template='search/search-results.html',
searchqueryset=sqs,
form_class=FacetedSearchForm
)
return view(request)
At the point marked STEP_1 I get all the database records. At STEP_2 the records are successfully narrowed down to the number I'd expect for that list of django_ids. The problem comes when the search results are displayed in cases where the user has specified a search term in the form. Rather than returning all records from STEP_2 which match the term, I get all records from STEP_2 plus all from STEP_1 which match the term.
Presumably, therefore, I need to override one/some of the methods in for SearchView in haystack/views.py, but what? Can anyone suggest a means of achieving what is required here?
After a bit more thought, I found a way around this. In the code above, the problem was occurring in the view = search_view_factory... line, so I needed to create my own SearchView class and override the get_results(self) method in order to apply the filtering after the search has been run with the user's search terms. The result is code along these lines:
class MySearchView(SearchView):
def get_results(self):
search = self.form.search()
# The ID I need for the database search is at the end of the URL,
# but this may have some search parameters on and need cleaning up.
view_id = self.request.path.split("/")[-1]
view_query = MyView.objects.filter(id=view_id.split("&")[0])
# At this point the django_ids of the required objects can be found.
if len(view_query) > 0:
view_item = view_query.__getitem__(0)
django_ids = []
for thing in view_item.things.all():
django_ids.append(thing.id)
search = search.filter_and(django_id__in=django_ids)
return search
Using search.filter_and rather than search.filter at the end was another thing which turned out to be essential, but which didn't do what I needed when the filtering was being performed before getting to the SearchView.
I have tried to insert many records into a table, and this table has a unique constraint, so when if one user try to add a new record with the same unique value, I get the dbUpdateException.
But I would like to know how to skipt this error and try to add the remaining records that the first user are trying to add to the table.
How can do that?
Thanks.
One approach could be to catch the DbUpdateException, and use its Entries property to remove the duplicate entities from the context.
You could then retry the save - rinse and repeat - and eventually all the non-duplicate entities will be saved.
E.g.
var duplicates = new List<MyEntity>();
...
catch(DbUpdateException ex)
{
ex.Entries.Each(e => DbContext.Entry(e).State = EntityState.Detached;
duplicates.Add(ex.Entries);
ReTrySave(); // do whatever you need todo to re-enter your saving code
}
...
// Report to user the duplicate entities
ReportToUser(duplicates);
NOTE - treat as pseudo code as I haven't attempted to compile this snippet.
I have a list that looks like:
Movie Year
----- ----
Fight Club 1999
The Matrix 1999
Pulp Fiction 1994
Using CAML and the SPQuery object I need to get a distinct list of items from the Year column which will populate a drop down control.
Searching around there doesn't appear to be a way of doing this within the CAML query. I'm wondering how people have gone about achieving this?
Another way to do this is to use DataView.ToTable-Method - its first parameter is the one that makes the list distinct.
SPList movies = SPContext.Current.Web.Lists["Movies"];
SPQuery query = new SPQuery();
query.Query = "<OrderBy><FieldRef Name='Year' /></OrderBy>";
DataTable tempTbl = movies.GetItems(query).GetDataTable();
DataView v = new DataView(tempTbl);
String[] columns = {"Year"};
DataTable tbl = v.ToTable(true, columns);
You can then proceed using the DataTable tbl.
If you want to bind the distinct results to a DataSource of for example a Repeater and retain the actual item via the ItemDataBound events' e.Item.DataItem method, the DataTable way is not going to work. Instead, and besides also when not wanting to bind it to a DataSource, you could also use Linq to define the distinct values.
// Retrieve the list. NEVER use the Web.Lists["Movies"] option as in the other examples as this will enumerate every list in your SPWeb and may cause serious performance issues
var list = SPContext.Current.Web.Lists.TryGetList("Movies");
// Make sure the list was successfully retrieved
if(list == null) return;
// Retrieve all items in the list
var items = list.GetItems();
// Filter the items in the results to only retain distinct items in an 2D array
var distinctItems = (from SPListItem item in items select item["Year"]).Distinct().ToArray()
// Bind results to the repeater
Repeater.DataSource = distinctItems;
Repeater.DataBind();
Remember that since there is no CAML support for distinct queries, each sample provided on this page will retrieve ALL items from the SPList. This may be fine for smaller lists, but for lists with thousands of listitems, this will seriously be a performance killer. Unfortunately there is no more optimized way of achieving the same.
There is no DISTINCT in CAML to populate your dropdown try using something like:
foreach (SPListItem listItem in listItems)
{
if ( null == ddlYear.Items.FindByText(listItem["Year"].ToString()) )
{
ListItem ThisItem = new ListItem();
ThisItem.Text = listItem["Year"].ToString();
ThisItem.Value = listItem["Year"].ToString();
ddlYear.Items.Add(ThisItem);
}
}
Assumes your dropdown is called ddlYear.
Can you switch from SPQuery to SPSiteDataQuery? You should be able to, without any problems.
After that, you can use standard ado.net behaviour:
SPSiteDataQuery query = new SPSiteDataQuery();
/// ... populate your query here. Make sure you add Year to the ViewFields.
DataTable table = SPContext.Current.Web.GetSiteData(query);
//create a new dataview for our table
DataView view = new DataView(table);
//and finally create a new datatable with unique values on the columns specified
DataTable tableUnique = view.ToTable(true, "Year");
After coming across post after post about how this was impossible, I've finally found a way. This has been tested in SharePoint Online. Here's a function that will get you all unique values for a column. It just requires you to pass in the list Id, View Id, internal list name, and a callback function.
function getUniqueColumnValues(listid, viewid, column, _callback){
var uniqueVals = [];
$.ajax({
url: _spPageContextInfo.webAbsoluteUrl + "/_layouts/15/filter.aspx?ListId={" + listid + "}&FieldInternalName=" + column + "&ViewId={" + viewid + "}&FilterOnly=1&Filter=1",
method: "GET",
headers: { "Accept": "application/json; odata=verbose" }
}).then(function(response) {
$(response).find('OPTION').each(function(a,b){
if ($(b)[0].value) {
uniqueVals.push($(b)[0].value);
}
});
_callback(true,uniqueVals);
},function(){
_callback(false,"Error retrieving unique column values");
});
}
I was considering this problem earlier today, and the best solution I could think of uses the following algorithm (sorry, no code at the moment):
L is a list of known values (starts populated with the static Choice options when querying fill-in options, for example)
X is approximately the number of possible options
1. Create a query that excludes the items in L
1. Use the query to fetch X items from list (ordered as randomly as possible)
2. Add unique items to L
3. Repeat 1 - 3 until number of fetched items < X
This would reduce the total number of items returned significantly, at the cost of making more queries.
It doesn't much matter if X is entirely accurate, but the randomness is quite important. Essentially the first query is likely to include the most common options, so the second query will exclude these and is likely to include the next most common options and so on through the iterations.
In the best case, the first query includes all the options, then the second query will be empty. (X items retrieved in total, over 2 queries)
In the worst case (e.g. the query is ordered by the options we're looking for, and there are more than X items with each option) we'll make as many queries as there are options. Returning approximately X * X items in total.