What would I have to do in the database and what in code?
Beyond the subclass in the item_template table I haven't been able to find where the logic for defining potions actually is.
Related
I am refactoring an old web app into React and Material-UI, and I find myself stuck when trying to find the proper way of presenting a "property table". I have looked into several data table implementations, but neither a data table nor Material-UI's List seems to be the right tool for the work.
Data tables are meant for each row having the same properties (columns) repated for different entities, whilst I need a kind of table where each row is a key+value presentation. I will call it a property table unless someone can tell me there is already a better name.
Below is a picture of current view in the refactored app (contains only test data). I realize I might need to think differently and not just copy the old structures.
So what would be the correct way to present a similar list of properties with Material Design?
I seem to find no explicit component or view type for my "property table", so I will simply make a table with Material-UI <Table>component, and skip the header.
I’ve created new Segmented Keys in ACUMATICA for use in a specific module. I would like to assign the Dimension name dynamically but I noticed it works only with hard code or name like [PXDimension(“VENDOR”)]
Also, I have some limitation to create an IF Conditional inside the customized field… it does not recognize the IF clause (see the image).
I would appreciate any suggestion how to solve this issue.
I haven't seen how your original attempt at PXDimension looked, but I'm going to take a guess and assume you tried to reference a new custom field contained in a setup table, something like:
[PXDimension(typeof(XXMySetup.usrMyCustomField))]
If that's indeed what you tried to do, one very important thing to do is to ensure that you have a view for your table in your graph, otherwise the attribute will not find the table and record in your cache. For instance:
public PXSetup<XXMySetup> XXMySetup;
Without this view declared in the graph, the dimension attribute will not work as expected. It would be nice if a clear exception was thrown in this case - I made the same mistake recently and it would have been helpful.
I have a 'document' table (very original) that I need to dynamically subset at runtime so that my API consumers can't see data that isn't legal to view given some temporal constraints between the application/database. JOOQ created me a nice auto-gen Document class that represents this table.
Ideally, I'd like to create an anonymous subclass of Document that actually translates to
SELECT document.* FROM document, other_table
WHERE document.id = other_table.doc_id AND other_table.foo = 'bar'
Note that bar is dynamic at runtime hence the desire to extend it anonymously. I can extend the Document class anonymously and everything looks great to my API consumers, but I can't figure out how to actually restrict the data. accept() is final and toSQL doesn't seem to have any effect.
If this isn't possible and I need to extend CustomTable, what method do I override to provide my custom SQL? The JOOQ docs say to override accept(), but that method is marked final in TableImpl, which CustomTable extends from. This is on JOOQ 3.5.3.
Thanks,
Kyle
UPDATE
I built 3.5.4 from source after removing the "final" modifier on TableImpl.accept() and was able to do exactly what I wanted. Given that the docs imply I should be able to override accept perhaps it's just a simple matter of an erroneous final declaration.
Maybe you can implement one of the interfaces
TableLike (and delegate all methods to a JOOQ implementation instance) such as TableImpl (dynamic field using a HashMap to store the Fields?)
Implement the Field interface (and make it dynamic)
Anyway you will need to remind that there are different phases while JOOQ builds the query, binds values, executes it etc. You should probably avoid changing the "foo" Field when starting to build a query.
It's been a while since I worked with JOOQ. My team ended up building a customized JOOQ. Another (dirty) trick to hook into the JOOQ library was to use the same packages, as the protected identifier makes everything visible within the same package as well as to sub classes...
Is it possible to associate a view with different documents (not simultaneously of course)?
What I want to achieve: the application can have multiple documents of the same type, that can be added during runtime, and set of suitable views, the main of which is CFormview-based. The user can choose the number of the document to show per combobox in the toolbar. The views then associate themselves with this document and update with data from it.
Is it possible to achieve with CMultiDocTemplate?
If yes, how? especially is it possible to retrieve a document by it order number?
If not I'll probably have to abstain from using the templates altogether, which of course means more coding (and more questions to friendly community), but it will do what I want it to do and not Microsoft thought I should be doing
Yes, you could but not out of the 'box'. Instead I'd recommend a different strategy. Rather than trying to attach a View to an existing CDocument derived class LOAD the Views CDocument with the information you want. That could done by adding a simple Copy method to the CDocument or you could move your actual data into a separate class then just point the CDocument to 'data' you want.
Trying to change the CDocument instance for a CView is going against the MFC grain which normally means lot of ASSERTS.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle a requirement I have for an Orchard module I'm building.
I have a ContentPart that has a few fields. One field is a ContentPicker that allows for multiple items to be associated to the part. The rest are descriptive information.
The issue I have is that I actually need to be able to include more than one of this ContentPart into a ContentType. I need to create a ContentType that has exactly 3 of this part.
Should I be making this into a field instead of a part? Is it even possible to have a ContentField that has other fields in it?
Or, should I somehow use all the same models and data structures, but somehow define it as 3 distinct parts?
Just wondering what the best practice to do something like this would be.
You can only have one part of each kind on a given type. You can't have fields that have other fields in it (instead - take an existing field and extend it with custom stuff).
As I understand, the actual problem is "how to make groups of fields with some metadata for each group", right? If so, there are a few approaches to solve the problem:
Create a custom field based on Content Picker (basically - take existing Content Picker and extend it with your metadata) and use this without the need for a separate part
Create one part to hold only the metadata for each field attached to it and attach 1 or more fields to it
Create 3 distinct parts. Parts should be thought of as extensions that add some unique features to an item. If you think it's logically ok to have 3 parts then go for it.