I have multiple buttons and form inputs in one page. All these buttons and form inputs need to be disabled or enabled depending on a condition.
I know that it is possible to use the disabled keyword inside a tag to disable a specific input or button. Also, I can just add the code
:disabled="true"
to disable the inputs depending of the boolean value of a variable.
However, this solution is not acceptable for me, since I will have to add this line of code to every inputs on my page (I may create new pages in the future, containing as many inputs).
I would like to know if there's a way that allows me to simply disable the parent container of all the inputs so that the children item (the inputs) are disabled.
If you inspect the Vue instance itself of the VM when running your code you can have something like this when you console.log(this),
It will give you output similar to this if you use the correct scope:
{
$attrs
$options
.......
$el
}
Inside $el there's object properties for accessing firsElementChild, previousElementChild, previousElementSibling, etc. There's a lot of HTML related properties, however, accessing HTML element this way can get messy pretty fast. I think that your best solution is the one you already mentioned or changing the CSS class dynamically.
If you use v-if to conditional render on a parent you can achieve pretty similar functionality too.
See: Conditional rendering
Related
The Situation: I've got a mid-sized chunk of html/javascript that contains an authentication script/input (it's a text input, radio control, and a combo box and a few buttons). What it is is less important than the concept that it's a mass of static client side code that the marketing department can pretty easily accidentally the whole thing.
The Desire: I want the users to be able to add it as a whole to a page, but not be able to modify it. When something needs to change, I want to change it in one place and have it be changed on all the pages.
What I've Tried: Widget with a default text. It works, but feels wrong. Users can edit it, and if they do when I fix it one place it doesn't propagate to all the instances. I'm a bit of a Kentico noob, but it seems like there should be a better way to do this.
Also note: I'm using portal engine if that makes a difference.
A widget is the proper usage. What you make your widget inherit from is the key in this case. I'd suggest creating a new widget based on a static HTML webpart. This way you can set the static HTML markup and hide the property from the content editor on the front end. You can do this by going to the Properties tab of the widget and setting the visibility of the field on the form. Don't delete the field, just hide it. It should be a checkbox that says hide on public form or editing form.
** Edit **
As I read through my answer and comments, I realized I meant to say clone the static HTML webpart and set its default text to your javascript. Then create a widget based on that cloned webpart. The text will reside in the web part and will allow you to update it in one place later, if needed.
I will not do it this way because you will be not able to make changes in the future. You can better create a new webpart this can be an empty webpart and then create a custom layout. In this layout you can put you're code. In this way you can always change you're code in the future and then it will be changed on all the places where the widget is placed.
I'd use a new widget based on the Static HTML webpart (make the field read only or hide it as Brenden mentioned), but store the data in a new custom setting.
no coding needed (only a macro to read the custom setting)
able to edit the script on the fly on any instance in the settings module. If you have multiple of these settings you won't need to go through all kinds of widgets to adjust their default setting but find them on a central place.
Cheers!
David
In this case I think it makes sense to create a custom web part to store all your code in it and use it that way. If you want to achieve it without creating a custom web part, you have to store the code in some non-web part and not widget specific object. I like the suggestion of creating a custom setting. You can then access this custom setting via a macro. This macro can be used as a default property of a newly created web part (inherited e.g. from the static text web part, you'd use the text property). You may as well create a widget out of it. Another approach is to use Kentico localization keys as a workaround. you can create a key in the Localization application and access it again, via a macro, e.g. {?customkey.myhtml?}. The approach with a custom setting however sounds cleaner to me.
This syntax should be working to access a custom setting value via macro:
{%Settings.CustomSettings.xxx%}
{%Settings.CustomSettings["xxx"]%}
{%Settings.CustomSettings.GetValue("xxx")%}
I have a question regarding coded ui UIMap.
Every time I record an action on the same application, coded ui generates a new object for the same window in the application.
It looks like:
UIAdminWindow
UIAdminWindow1
UIAdminWindow2
and so on...
every window class holds different buttons, even though it's the same window.
Thus it's very hard to keep code maintenance.
What i would like is that every time i perform actions and records on a window, even if not at the same time, the already generated class for this window, will be updated with the new controls.
any suggestions to why it happens?
Thanks a lot!
You can clean up your UIMaps by doing two things:
Use the UIMap Toolbox (from codeplex) to move controls within the UIMap so they are all under one control tree.
When you have duplicate UI controls, go to the properties for the action that references the duplicate control and change the UI Control property to point to the original control in the UIMap.
The duplicate trees should now be unreferenced and you can delete it from your map, keeping things clean.
And yes, it's a pain to do, but it's worth it for maintainability.
In UIMap.uitest you can change the action name and the control name for better maintenance.
For example: you can set UIAdminWindow as FirstAcessWindow or other name that will express comfortably the control or the action.
What I can guess is that there is some randomly generated content or element identification data such as class or title that may be causing it. This may be caused by different username for example. Also you can update the element from UI map element tree.
I have a simple ContactEditPanel which contains a form and a number of textfields. Up until now I included an AjaxSubmitLink in this panel which, if the form content is valid, saves/updates the Contact instance contained in the Panel model. So far so simple. However now I'd like to remove the link in order that I may, depending on the context in which I use the ContactEditPanel, place the submit link at different levels of my overall component hierarchy. For instance in one context I'd like to use to flip between ContactEditPanel and ContactViewPanel with a bar of actions above the current view (edit | save , cancel). Another context would be to use ContactEditPanel in a standalone way (maybe part of a multi-step process) with just a save link below.
I was contemplating refactoring my ContactEditPanel to extends FormComponentPanel rather than Panel as described here but I'm not sure whether this is the right approach and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Any help would be most appreciated!
Many Thanks,
A
Your using the panel like a FormComponent so extend FormComponentPanel, it will allow you to keep all the validation you write contained to the component and also allow you to reuse it as you wish.
Just think of it as you've created a new FormComponent, like a TextField or DropDownChoice.
I want to use the Watir to click a link that looks like a button attached the image.
I use the following method,but doesn't works:
#browser.div(:id,"NetworkAnalysisTabPanel").div(:index,1).div(:index,1).ul(:index,1).li(:index,1).link(:index,2).click
Note:
#browser.div(:id,"NetworkAnalysisTabPanel").div(:index,1).div(:index,1).ul(:index,1).li(:index,1).link(:index,2).flash
is working fine but click is not working in IE and FF
Link looks like this:
And HMTL like this:
Note: I am able to click on the element using selenium IDE with clickAt method
Try this (not tested):
browser.link(:class => "x-tab-strip-menu").click
If you can flash the link, but click does not do what you want, see this: How to find out which JavaScript events fired?
FYI what you have are links that are using standard background images controlled via CSS magic that keys on the class of the link to know what background to set. That's where the image comes from, and why you don't see it as part of the link in the HTML.
In that control, each tab is a list item element (li) in an unordered list (ul), and each list item has an ID, so that's the easiest way to tell it which tab you are trying to click inside.
Try identifying things starting with the LI that is the tab container, as within that container there is only one instance of each link of a given class. Of the 4 links, only one is without any kind of easy identifier, and if you need to click that one you'd need to use :index, but for the other 3 links using :class ought to work. This should result in code that is less brittle and subject to being broken if the order of tabs changes, or the page is refactored.
#browser.li(:id,"NetworkAnalysisTabPanel__ext-comp-1038").link(:class, "x-tab-strip-menu").click
If the number at the end of the ID is subject to change, you can try a regular expression to match the part you can predict and is unique from the others
#browser.li(:id,/NetworkAnalysisTabPanel__ext-comp-/).link(:class, "x-tab-strip-menu").click
If you can reliably identify the object and use .flash but .click does not seem to do anything, you may have to use .fire_event('onclick') instead or .click.
#browser.li(:id,/NetworkAnalysisTabPanel__ext-comp-/).link(:class, "x-tab-strip-menu").fire_event('onclick')
If that does not work, then you need to start experimenting with likely events that the control might be looking for (which will not necessarily show up in the HTML btw.. it may be in javascript or CSS etc)
UPDATE
This is where having an live example of the control that we can interact with is critical. doing some googling on the class names I was able to find one here and that let me play with it a little, and what I discovered is that it is looking for onmousedown. so, on that site, this works
browser.li(:id, 'TabPanel1__ctl07').link(:class, 'x-tab-strip-menu').fire_event('onmousedown')
Now since those ID's may not be the best identifier, a bit more digging (using .text on the li that holds the tab parts) found me some text, which in a menu like that ought to be unique.. SO, we can change this to make things a bit more robust and clearer as to what tab I'm clicking on (this will also be less subject to breaking if the tabs change around.
browser.li(:text, 'Menu 1').link(:class, 'x-tab-strip-menu').fire_event('onmousedown')
Lastly, since the click is causing client side code to execute, you may need a brief pause (a one or two second sleep) to wait for that portion of the page to re-render etc.
** New EDIT **
so what I'm trying to do is this.
I want the to add new form elements generated by my module on the product view of the following url
http://magento.example.com/catalog/product/view/id/46
ultimately these elements will be determined to show up by a related table in my module
I expected that if I extended Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View in my module as shown below I would be able to create a block in the product form that would contain such form fields, only if he are in the related table in my module
so I created a test.phtml file in
app/design/frontend/default/default/templates/<module>/test.phtml
then as you can see in my the View.php file described bellow I built the block and displayed it in the product view.
It did appear but 5 times too many. from the answers below this is normal so that answers the question as to why the it shows up five times but leaves the question what is the proper way to proceecd since this plan is not going to work
** End New Edit **
in my module I call _prepareLayout() and it does this 5 times when i pull up the page
here's my code
in
/app/code/local/Namespace/Module/Product/Veiw.php
class <Namespace>_<module>_Block_Product_View extends Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View {
protected function _toHtml() {
return parent::_toHtml();
}
public function _prepareLayout() {
$block = $this->getLayout()->createBlock(
'Mage_Core_Block_Template',
'my_block_name_here',
array('template' => '<module>/test.phtml')
);
if ($block){
$this->getLayout()->getBlock('content')->insert($block)->toHtml();
}else{
echo "no block";
}
return parent::_prepareLayout();
}
}
NOTE:
I just noticed this also takes away the price availability qty and add to cart button. which is also a problem
EDIT
First I want to thank you all for your answers. Second i want to give you more context
the reason for choosing to do this in the module is that I don't want the block to show up on every product . What i have is a table of what I'll call custom options containing properties of the product sort of like hair color height weight etc and depending on what set of properties are attached to the product (if any) will depend on what html content will show up on the page.
so in one case it my get a drop down menu and in another case it may get an input box. the other very important piece is that this must be setup so that I can give the end result out as a module that can be installed and not worrry that it won't show up if someone upgrades there magento
that said does it still make sense to do this all in the xml file ?
It seems to me that your code is overriding a core Magento module in order to achieve what could be easily done in the layout xml configuration. I would strongly recommend the follwing:
Use the built-in configuration mechanisms (e.g. layout xml - read Alan's excellent tutorial here) instead of writing code whenever possible.
Don't override the core code
if you must change the behaviour of the core code, use an Observer rather than Rewrite/Override
if you absolutely must Override, always call parent::whatever()
For example, if you create a <module>.xml layout file in your theme (app/design/frontend/default/<theme>/layout), you could use the following code:
<catalog_product_view>
<reference name="content">
<block type="module/block" name"my_block_name_here" template="module/test.phtml"/>
</reference>
</catalog_product_view>
You would then need to use a getChildHtml('my_block_name_here'); call within your phtml to position the block.
So unless there is other functionality happening inside your _prepareLayout, there's no need to override the core, or even to override the default catalog.xml.
EDIT (small edit above)
So now in your Block (I would recommend that you call it Namespace_Module_Block_Product_Customattributes or something like that), you are not overriding the core Product_View block, but merely processing your logic for what html widgets to use to render your custom attributes. Leave the rest of the tier prices, add to cart, other generic product block code, etc to Magento to work out.
If you are worried about the upgrade path for your module's users, you should definitely NOT be overriding core code. Use the configuration approach and very selectively introduce code that "plays nice" with the system rather than try to boss it around with overrides.
I took a look at a stock Magento install of CE 1.4.1, and unmodified the _prepareLayout method is called six times when loading the URL
http://magento.example.com/catalog/product/view/id/46
That's because the class is instantiated six times. So that's the correct behavior.
As for the vanishing element, I can'y say for sure, but your override to _prepareLayout doesn't appear to either
Do the same things as Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View::_prepareLayout
Call parent::_prepareLayout();
When you override a class in a Magento you're replacing an existing class with your own. If you change a method, you're responsible for that old code being run.
It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish here. You should consider breaking your problem down into smaller problems, and then posting one (or more) "I tried X, expected Y, and got Z" type questions. As written no one's going to be able to answer your question.