I create business process itemtype with custom attribute(Mapm persistence=jalo).
After the execution of the first action this attribute is filled, but when the second action is running, in the execute method this attribute is null.
Could you please explain why this may happen?
I starts business process like businessProcessService.startProcess(id,name)
Dear Никита Синицин -
Jalo attributes are deprecated and replaced by Dynamic Attributes. Hence would not recommended to use.
Also, Jalo attributes have non-persistent in nature. May be you need to use use persistence type attribute for your need to persist the value in process model.
Hope it helps. Thanks
Related
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.
To not have to keep repeating some validations, for example, who can see a button in a certain status of a document in the worlflow, I'm using session, scope, and session variables to store the user roles and application variable to store the Status related to each area.
I was evaluating whether it would be better from a performance and build point of view to implement a managed bean, to return the user roles and the possible statuses of each participating workflow area. Would it be the best structure in fact? What do you think? I do not have much experience in java. How could I construct the structure in java, several methods, one for roles and the other for set of status associated with the area that would name the related method? You could return the results of this method in arrays, or there is a better return structure.
Thanks a lot!
My best suggestion is to adopt the pageController Methodology. Then it's more like true MVC. This has been talked about on NotesIn9 screencast many times but basically you have a java object that's bound to your XPage. In effect it's a viewScoped bean that holds all your page logic. Then you can have methods like isGroupMember(), hasRole() etc and calculate that on the pageInit. There's little need to hold onto that in sessionScope in my opinion. So for example I have this in my pageController :
public boolean isGroupMember(String groupName) {
return JSFUtil.getXSPContext().getUser().getGroups().contains(groupName);
}
So that's available to each page. BUT I don't need to copy that snippet onto every page controller. In Java you can have your page controllers extend a more generic class. so I have a "base.pageController" class. All the specific page controllers extend that. So this isGroupMember() code goes into the base and then it's available to be used on every XPage. Doing it this way gives you the ability to have generic functions like this and then hold more specific function that are only for the individual page.
You can also have a hasRole() function etc...
Recommend you check out this video : http://www.notesin9.com/2016/08/25/notesin9-196-no-dependency-page-controllers/
Also for a question like this, I recommend you just use the xpages tag. Adding others like javabeans can bring people in who know nothing about XPages and XPages is unique enough of a beast that outsiders can cause some confusion on occasion.
I have an non-persistent attribute (SITEID) on my WOCHANGE object that originates from the parent object, WORKORDER. For some particular reason, this attribute has a few problems that I've never really seen with other attributes before.
Based on various configurations I have tried in an attempt to remedy the issue, here are the main issues:
It doesn't trigger the WOCHANGE to save when changed.
In addition to the value not being saved, I can change the value on one record, go to another and the value persists on the different record.
The field is readonly unless I define it to have an inputmode of DEFAULT. This is odd to me, because not defining inputmode usually implies default behavior (NOT readonly).
Here are the definitions for the SITEID attribute on both the WORKORDER
and WOCHANGE objects.
SITEID also uses a TABLE domain belonging to the SITE table.
Are there any attribute rules being applied from other sources that I should be checking?
That workorder field class on there may not be desired and may be messing with things, like setting the field to read-only. Site Id is commonly a read-only field, especially when the record is no longer a new record. Because of that, the logic to make that field read-only could be buried deeper in the Maximo business logic than just that field class. You are working with a field that has a lot of special meaning in Maximo, you are likely going to stumble into many built-in business rules.
Since non-persistent fields are not saved in the database (they are in memory fields only), I don't believe they trigger the flag for a record to be saved. What would be saved? Nothing in the database (a save) is to be changed yet.
Your screenshot however shows the field as persistent. Is WOCHANGE a view? I can't recall and no longer have the resources to check.
I have a NSArrayController subclass which sets an instance variable of a newly inserted object and prevents the user to remove it if this variable is zero.
I'd like to do this inside an entity subclass. Setting the variable is possible in the awakeFromInsert method. Is there a way to prevent the deletion, a sort of:
if (self.testVariable == 0) return; ?
I didn't find it, but maybe I missed something.
Implement this in your NSManagedObject:
- (BOOL)validateForDelete:(NSError **)error
based on a few tests, i believe the validateForDelete will not work to prevent deletion as desired.
validateForDelete is used to perform added validation prior to delete. essentially, the method name is misleading. Just like for example, for
moreover, prepareForDelete is called prior and will delete any Cascade relationships and mark null any Nullify ones. hence, those have to be 'backed out.' or alter your data model to only permit Deny that will leave those relationships alone in prepareForDelete. which is applying a stiff backhand to your business model and logic.
further, a Deny relationship is 'denied' when the user saves the data -- which might be too late for the user to undo and rectify the situation.
i believe the best option is to unactive the Remove Button that is bound to the canRemove method in the Controller.
Some solid opinions
Some possible solutions at SO
It seems controllerDidChangeContent: is being called as soon as I create a new managed object in my context. The documentation seems to suggest this method is called only once you save: the context.
This "bug" if it is one, is causing my application to crash because as part of my table view cell, I need to load other managed objects that don't exist at the time of creating the main managed object.
Someone seems to have spotted this too, please check out the following link and I would love to hear your opinions on this: http://openradar.appspot.com/10207615
More information
Although the link I added to this post showcases an example using two NSManagedObjectContext, my application is using one context, but the controllerDidChangeContent: is being messaged none the less as soon as an object is created in the one and only context, and controllerDidChangeContent: is being called a second time when I save: this context. It is to my understanding that this method should only be messaged when the context is saved.
The solution is to avoid dealing with more than one managedObjectContext. If your cell needs to load other managed objects, it should still use the same managed object context as the main managed object.
I have yet to see a use case where it is absolutely unavoidable to use more than one managed object context referring to the same model active at the same time.