FYI: Products is my cms element name.
As shown in shopware 6 guides, I have created a file
DataResolver/ProductsCmsElementResolver.php
which has an enrich method which helps to extend data. In there I try to access the configs of my custom cms element with:
$config = $slot->getFieldConfig();
$productListType = $config->get('products')->getValue();
That, however always returns the default value that was set during the registration of the element:
Shopware.Service('cmsService').registerCmsElement({
name: 'products',
label: 'das.elements.customProductsElement.label',
component: 'sw-cms-el-products',
configComponent: 'sw-cms-el-config-products',
previewComponent: 'sw-cms-el-preview-products',
defaultConfig: {
products: {
source: 'static',
value: ''
}
}
});
I did it exactly as it is shown in the following guides:
https://developer.shopware.com/docs/guides/plugins/plugins/content/cms/add-cms-element
https://developer.shopware.com/docs/guides/plugins/plugins/content/cms/add-data-to-cms-elements#create-a-data-resolver
Could anyone share a sample of code where you get the value of config as a variable and not static value?
What I was doing wrong was that I forgot to write the .value in computed methods:
computed: {
products() {
return this.element.config.products.value;
}
},
However I also found such function call in shopware source codes which was not mentioned in the docs:
methods: {
createdComponent() {
this.initElementConfig('youtube-video');
this.initElementData('youtube-video'); // this line was not present in docs
}
}
I assume you haven't done any further handling of the product data in your config component, as you do not mention it.
I suggest having a look at the default cms components like for example shopware/administration/Resources/app/administration/src/module/sw-cms/elements/product-slider/config/index.js where you can see how product data is handled :)
Related
I'm trying to find a nice way to validate a body using DTO (using the brilliant class-validator and class-transformer libraries). It works really well, even for nested structures but in my case I'd like to have the body property based on some conditions.
Example that will probably help to understand:
Let's imagine my body should always have selectedCategory.
Based on that field, the content could either be from category 1, which contains prop1 OR from category 2, which contains prop2.
I do not want to allow a null for both of them, I really want to have to either have prop1 defined or prop2 based on the selectedCategory.
I think that I could use a pipe, but then how can I specify the correct DTO to use?
I've built a "base" class with all the common properties and few other classes that inherit from it.
I could instantiate the pipe manually based on the property selectedCategory, that'd be ideal but I have no clue what to pass as a second argument of the pipe (metadata).
Thanks for your help.
Have you tried using groups?
Instead of having multiple DTOs, you just create one DTO. Every property is assigned to one or multiple groups:
#Min(12, {groups: ['registration', 'update']})
age: number;
#Length(2, 20, {groups: ['registration']})
name: string;
You can then conditionally pass the groups to class transformer / validator:
#Injectable()
export class ConditionalValidationPipe implements PipeTransform {
async transform(entity: any, metadata: ArgumentMetadata) {
// Dynamically determine the groups
const groups = [];
if (entity.selectedCategory === 1) {
groups.push('registration');
}
// Transform to class with groups
const entityClass = plainToClass(EntityDto, entity, { groups })
// Validate with groups
const errors = await validate(entityClass, { groups });
if (errors.length > 0) {
throw this.createError(errors);
}
return entityClass;
}
}
Have you tried the ValidateIf statement?
You can have multiple validations for props1 or props2 and apply them if selectedCategory is "category 1" or "category 2" accordingly.
I have a multiselect bound to a store in which I implemented use of anyMatch: true to allow for True to allow any match - no regex start/end line anchors will be added (as per the comment in Filter.js). My problem is that I need to implement this as per the answer to multiselect-search-whole-string, in particular the solution provided in this fiddle https://fiddle.sencha.com/#fiddle/jf5
What I want to do is just set anyMatch: true, regardless, so I set it in Filter.js, but this has no effect on use of it. I searched the entire codebase for other instances of anyMatch: false and the only other one is in ext-all-debug.js. Why isn't setting these values having any effect? I don't see where else this default value could be set?
EDIT 1
I tried a different override, and while it is not exhibiting the right behavior, it is actually doing something this time. I figured that since the chunk of code that does work when embedded in the search attribute within the MultiSelector control was pretty much what was found in the MultiSelectorSearch's search method, that this was what I needed to focus on for the override. Any suggestions on tweaking this would be most welcome:
Ext.define('Ext.overrides.view.MultiSelectorSearch', {
override: 'Ext.view.MultiSelectorSearch',
search: function (text, me) {
var filter = me.searchFilter,
filters = me.getSearchStore().getFilters();
if (text) {
filters.beginUpdate();
if (filter) {
filter.setValue(text);
} else {
me.searchFilter = filter = new Ext.util.Filter({
id: 'search',
property: me.field,
value: text,
anyMatch: true
});
}
filters.add(filter);
filters.endUpdate();
} else if (filter) {
filters.remove(filter);
}
}
});
EDIT 2
Got it! The key was that originally, since this code was embedded in a singleton, I could reference the method by passing me from the calling form.panel. This did not work globally as an override, and required me to define the method as
search: function (text) {
var me = this,
I hope this helps someone out there!
Changing in ext-all-debug.js is not safe, when you do a production build this file will not get included.
Best way is to override the Filter class, here is how you can do it.
Ext.define('Ext.overrides.util.Filter', {
override: 'Ext.util.Filter',
anyMatch: true
});
And import this class in Application.js
Ext.require([
'Ext.overrides.util.Filter'
]);
Is there any way to define an index template with the API of elasticsearch-groovy or elasticsearch-java? I want to apply "settings" (custom analyzers) and "mappings" (apply analyzer on fields) on it. The documentation only refers to index templatex but does not show a vaild example, how to apply them in a groovy closure. The example shown in the docs, adds the "settings" in the data (source) field.
edit: #Val Thank you for your reply, but if I use the source field as follows:
def templateR = client.admin.indices.putTemplate {
name "template_name"
source {
template "template_*"
}
}.actionGet()
... this results in a compiler-error: MissingMethodException No signature of method: ...source(). The following code:
def templateR = client.admin.indices.putTemplate {
name "lemato_template"
template "lemato_*"
settings {
number_of_shards= 1
}
}.actionGet()
gives me the compiler error No such property: number_of_shards. I'm not sure if I use the closure delegation correctly. Is something like .asMap() missing?
elasticsearch-groovy definitely provides support for creating/deleting index templates. The source closure may contain anything you can define for index templates. Something like this should work.
PutIndexTemplateResponse response = client.admin.indices.putTemplate {
name "my_template"
source {
template "index_*"
settings {
index {
number_of_shards = 5
number_of_replicas = 1
}
}
mappings {
// your mapping definitions
}
aliases {
// your aliases
}
}
}.actionGet()
I'm trying to create a small EmberJS application, but I'm struggling about how to architecture it correctly. I have a main view called "library" which displays on a sidebar a list of folders. User can click on each folder and display the content at the center (while the sidebar is still active).
I therefore have a library resource, and nested resources to display the folders in this specific context:
this.resource('library', function() {
this.resource('libraryFolders', {path: 'folders'}, function() {
this.resource('libraryFolder', {path: ':folder_id'};
}
};
To be able to access the folders in the parent root, I set up a dependency:
App.LibraryController = Ember.Controller.extend({
needs: ["libraryFolders"],
folders: null,
foldersBinding: "controllers.libraryFolders"
});
App.LibraryRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
setupController: function(controller) {
controller.set('controllers.libraryFolders.model', App.Folder.find());
}
});
First question: is this a good way? I feel it a bit strange that a parent controller have a dependency to its children.
Now, another problem arises: what if I want to reuse folders in another context? All the methods I would write in LibraryFoldersController would be specific to this one, not really DRY. What I came up is adding a root "folders" resource, and add the dependency to this one instead:
this.resources('folders');
App.LibraryController = Ember.Controller.extend({
needs: ["Folders"],
folders: null,
foldersBinding: "controllers.folders"
});
App.LibraryRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
setupController: function(controller) {
controller.set('controllers.folders.model', App.Folder.find());
}
});
What do you think? Am I doing it wrong?
IMO it looks good so far. You are using the needs API which is the correct (ember) way to setup dependencies between controllers.
Maybe if you find yourself writing repeating code you could consider creating a Mixin for a more general controller an put there your logic, that should be agnostic to the use cases it handles.
For example defined a mixin:
App.ControllerMixin = Ember.Mixin.create({
// "use case" agnostic logic here
});
You mix mixins into classes by passing them as the first arguments to .extend.
App.LibraryController = Ember.ObjectController.extend(App.ControllerMixin, {
// now you can use here the logic defined in your mixin
// and add custom code as you please
});
Another possibility is to write a super class and then extend from it to inherit common logic:
Snippet taken from the docs:
App.Person = Ember.Object.extend({
helloWorld: function() {
alert("Hi, my name is " + this.get('name'));
}
});
var tom = App.Person.create({
name: 'Tom Dale'
});
tom.helloWorld(); // alerts "Hi, my name is Tom Dale".
One thing worth mentioning (though I think it's simply a typo) is: needs: ["Folders"] should be needs: ["folders"],
Hope it helps.
I have been working with backbone for a while and I am now using a number of views. In some of my views I sometimes add custom attributes like:
var DataGrid = Backbone.View.extend({
className:"datagrid",
lookup: {
header: "", //Header wrapper row element
headers: [], //Views in header
body: "", //Body wrapper row element
rows: [] //Views in body
},
events: {
...
},
initialize: function() {
...
},
render: function() {
...
}
});
As you can see I have "lookup" as an extra attribute to the Object. I use DataGrid in a number of my views and I am experiencing a very strange behaviour. When I switch between views that use DataGrid, "lookup" would still be populated with the old data. I use "new" when creating a new DataGrid but I still find old data. Am I missing something?
EDIT: Following #rabs reply. I did a search on static variables in Backbone and found this: Simplify using static class properties in Backbone.js with Coffeescript
I know an answer has been accepted on this (a while ago), but as I came across this question while working on a backbone project recently, I thought it would be worth mentioning that you can define attributes as a function also. This is especially useful for views that need to have attributes set to values in their current models.
By defining attributes as a function you can do something like
var myObject = Backbone.View.extends({
attributes: function() {
if(this.model) {
return {
value: this.model.get('age')
}
}
return {}
}
});
Hope that helps someone
Declaring variables in this way the scope of the variable is to the class not the instance, similar to s static or class variable.
So yeah the lookup object will shared between your different instances.
You could pass the lookup object in to your instance when you create it that way it will behave as an instance variable.