Broadleaf Commerce site
I need to sort the OrderItems in the cart by its product category. Currently, I am using the comparator to sort the OrderItems.
What is the best or right way to customize the default sort for Cart OrderItems?
I assume that you are currently doing something like this:
List<OrderItem> items = cart.getOrderItems();
Collections.sort(items, comparator);
and I also assume that by "default sort" you mean that you want to change the behavior when you call cart.getOrderItems().
Unfortunately, there is no way to change the behavior of the query that occurs when you call getOrderItems() as this is a JPA-generated query on the OrderItem collection within OrderImpl:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "order", targetEntity = OrderItemImpl.class, cascade = {CascadeType.ALL})
#Cache(usage = CacheConcurrencyStrategy.NONSTRICT_READ_WRITE, region="blOrderElements")
#AdminPresentationCollection(friendlyName="OrderImpl_Order_Items",
tab = TabName.General)
protected List<OrderItem> orderItems = new ArrayList<>();
Because of this you really only have 3 options:
Override the OrderImpl class and change the implementation of the getOrderItems() method. Unless you really needed to extend this (like to add another column to BLC_ORDER) then this isn't a great solution since it will add another table to the database that isn't actually used. See the Broadleaf extending entities tutorial. You can also technically avoid the multi-table inheritance by switching to single-table inheritance which is detailed at the bottom of that doc
Add your own query somewhere in a service method that manually queries for OrderItem for the order with a JPA query
Do what you are currently doing and sort the order items manually after retrieval with your comparator. You might consider adding a Thymeleaf utility method to have it available to you in your templates
How to make a query filter bound to a request parameter inactive if the parameter is not present?
For example: I have a query MyQuery that can be accessed through the projection MyProjection. I add a filter to that query where I say that MyDate field should be equal to {Request.QueryString:MyDate}. I want URLs like ~/MyProjection?MyDate=2016-03-08 to filter content items by the given value, but the url ~/MyProjection to just not filter by that field. But this is not what happens: a condition gets added to the query anyway and it's of the form '[minimum DateTime value] < MyDate < [maximum DateTime value]'. This is not good because it will filter out fields with NULL values. If I try to do the same with a numeric field, it's even worse because it throws exceptions when the parameter is not present.
I know I can create a new query and projection to get different options, but that seems like an overkill - also, what if I wanted to create an advanced search form, it would have to target a single projection.
Is there an "official" way to do this? Or a workaround? Or is this simply not supported in Orchard?
I'm not aware of a way to do this out of the box. However, you could pretty easily create your own filter with the behavior you want by implementing IFilterProvider.
Take a look at the Orchard.Projections module. That's where you'll find many of the default query filters (including the date field filter you referenced). Your's will likely be even simpler if you only need to handle a specific case.
For a very simple example, checkout the Orchard.Tags module (look in the projections folder). The contents of this folder will give you pretty much all the boilerplate you'll need to get started creating your own. Just plug in your own logic.
Domino Data Service is a good thing but is it possible to search for documents by key.
I didnt find anything in the api and the url parameters about it.
I tried the above and the requests usually fail on the server timeout after 30 seconds. Calls to /api/data/documents won't serve the purpose with parameters like sortcolumn or keysexactmatch, therefore calls to
/api/data/collections should be used for these.
Also, I don't think that arguments like sortcolumn would work on a document collection, because there isn't a column to be sorted in the first place, columns are in the views and not in documents, so view collection should be queried instead. That also mimics the behavior of getDocumentByKey method, which can't be called against document, but against the view. So instead:
http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/documents?search=QUERY&searchmaxdocs=N
I would call
http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/collections/name/viewname?search=QUERY&searchmaxdocs=N
and instead of
http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/documents?sortcolumn=COLUMN&sortorder=ascending&keys=ROWVALUE&keysexactmatch=true
I would call:
http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/collections/name/viewname?sortcolumn=COLUMN&sortorder=ascending&keys=ROWVALUE&keysexactmatch=true
where 'viewname' is the name of the view that is searched.
That is much faster, which comes in handy when working with larger databases.
You would do something like the following:
GET http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/documents?search=QUERY&searchmaxdocs=N
N would be the total number of documents to return and QUERY would be your search phrase. The QUERY would be the same as doing a full text search.
For column lookups it should be something like this:
GET http://HOSTNAME/DATABASE.nsf/api/data/documents?sortcolumn=COLUMN&sortorder=ascending&keys=ROWVALUE&keysexactmatch=true
COLUMN would be the column name. ROWVALUE would be the key you are looking for.
There are further options for this. More details here.
http://infolib.lotus.com/resources/domino/8.5.3/doc/designer_up1/en_us/DominoDataService.html#migratingtowebsphereportalversion7.0
Background (ie what the heck is a relative complement?)
Relative Complement
What I'm trying to do
Let's say I've got a custom Vehicle entity that has a VehicleType option set that is either "Car", or "Truck". There is a 1 to many relationship between Contact and Vehicle (ie. ContactId is on the vehicle entity). How do I write an XRM query (Linq To CRM, QueryExpression, fetch Xml, whatever) that returns the contacts with only cars?
Option 1:
I’d prefer a modification of the proposal that AdamV makes above. I can’t think of a way that you’d get this particular query answered using Linq to CRM, Query Expressions, FetchXML alone. Daryl doesn’t offer what the client is, but I would suppose if Linq and Query Expressions were acceptable offerings, .NET is on the table. Creating aggregate fields containing the count of the related entity on the parent entity (contact in this case) offers more than the Boolean option. If the query requirements ever changed to a threshold (more than X cars, less than Y trucks, between X and Y total vehicles) the Boolean options fails to deliver. The client in this question isn’t known, but I can’t think of many (any?) cases where pulling all the records to the client on a set of 500K+ rows is more efficient than a the SQL query that CRM would make on your behalf against several integer fields with range clauses.
Upside:
Maintains client purity in Query approach
Simple client query
Probably as performant as possible
Downside:
Setups for Aggregate fields
Workflow or plugin to manage the increment and decrement of the aggregate fields
SQL Script for initial load of the aggregates.
Risk that aggregate fields get out of sync (workflow or plugin fails)
Option 2:
If purity within the client isn’t essential, and .NET is on the table – skip the aggregate fields and the setup and just run SQL against the Views. If you don’t want to work with the ADO.NET, a thin ORM like Dapper, Massive, or PetaPOCO can still give you an object model. As Andreas offers in his comment on the OP’s first answer, it seems like something fairly trivial to do in SQL.
Sketching something from top of mind:
SELECT c.*
FROM Contact
WHERE C.Contactid in (
Select contactid
FROM Vehicle v
group by v.contactid , v.type
having v.type = ‘Car’ and count(contactid) > 1
)
AND NOT IN (
Select contactid
FROM Vehicle v
group by v.contactid , v.type
having v.type <> ‘Car’ and count(contactid) > 1
)
Upside:
Much less work
CRM Entities get left alone
Downside:
Depending on the client and/or the application mixing DataAccess methods is a bit kludgy.
Likely less performant than Option 1
Option 3:
Mix and Match: Take the aggregate fields from Option 1. But update them using a scheduled SQL job (or something similar) with a query similar to the initial load job you’d need to write in Option 1
Upside:
Takes most of the work and risk out of Option 1
Keeps all of the performance of Option 1
Downside:
Some will see this as an unsupported feature.
In order to order to perform a true Relative Complement Query you need to be able to perform a subquery.
Your query would basically say give me all the contacts with cars, and then, within those results, remove any contacts that have a vehicle that isn't a car. This is what the SQL in #JasonKoopmans answer does. Unfortunetly, CRM does not support SubQueries.
Therefore, the only way to achieve this is to either perform the sub query on the client side, as I resorted to doing, or storing the results of what would be the subquery in a manner that can be accessed through the main query (ie storing counts on the contact entity).
You could theoretically do this "on the fly" by making a SubQueryResult entity that stores a ContactId, and SubQueryId. You'd first pull back the contacts that have at least 1 car, and create a SubQueryResult record for each record, with it's contactId, and a single SubQueryId that is generated client side to tie them all together.
Then you'd do another query that says give me all the contacts that are in this SubQueryResult with this SubQueryId, that do not have any vehicles that aren't cars.
I could only assume that this wouldn't be any more efficient than performing the two separate queries and performing the filter client side. Although with the new ExecuteMultipleRequests in the new CRM release, it may be close.
I have resorted to pulling back all of my records in CRM, and performing the check on the client side since CRM 2011 doesn't support this via Query Expressions.
You could write two Fetch XML statements, one to return all contacts and the count of their vehicles, and another to return all contacts and the count of their cars, then compare the list on the client side. But once again, you're having to return every contact and filter it client side.
It's not tested but how about this query expression? I'm linking in the Vehicle entity as an inner join, requiring that it's a Car. I'm assuming that the field VehicleType is a String because I'm a bit lazy and don't want to test it (I'm typing this hardcore style, no compilation - pure brain work).
Optionally, you might want to add a Criteria section as well to control which of the Contact instances that actually get retrieved. Do tell how it went!
Sorry for the verbosity. I know you like it short. My brains work better when circumlocutory.
new QueryExpression
{
EntityName = "contact",
ColumnSet = new ColumnSet("fullname"),
LinkEntities =
{
new LinkEntity
{
JoinOperator = JoinOperator.Inner,
LinkFromEntityName = "contact",
LinkFromAttributeName = "contactid",
LinkToEntityName = "vehicle",
LinkToAttributeName = "contactid",
Columns = new ColumnSet("vehicletype"),
EntityAlias = "Vroom",
//LinkCriteria = { Conditions =
//{
// new ConditionExpression(
// "vehicletype", ConditionOperator.Equal, "car")
//} }
LinkCriteria = { Conditions =
{
new ConditionExpression(
"vehicletype", ConditionOperator.NotEqual, "truck")
} }
}
}
};
EDIT:
I've talk to my MVP Gustaf Westerlund and he's suggested the following work-around. Let me stress that it's not an answer to your original question. It's just a way to solve it. And it's cumbersome. :)
So, the hint is to add a flag in the Contact or Person entity. Then, every time you create a new instance of Vehicle, you need to fire a message and using a plugin, update the information on the first about the creation of the latter.
This has several drawbacks.
It requires us to do stuff.
It's not the straight-forward do-this-and-that type of approach.
Maintenance is higher for every new type of Vehicle one adds.
Buggibility is elevated since there are many cases to regard (what happens to the flagification when a Vehicle instance is reasigned, deleted etc.).
So, my answer to your question is changed to: "can't be done". This remains effective until (gladly) proven wrong by presented alternative solution. Duck!
Personally, I'd fetch (almost) everything and unleash the hounds of LINQ onto it. But I'd do that without smiling nor proud. :)
I'm starting to do some test on SubSonic 3 and I'm missing some stuff.
1st: Where's the Table names constants? The place where we could ask for the same of a certain table using intelisense...
2nd: Same as the above but for the table columns... where are they?
This is very useful mostly when you need to pass those names as string... it you need to refactor your DB we don't need to look through all the code to find where was I using that column!! Once you re-generate the code the compiler tells you!
3rd: Now how can I perform an ExecuteReader on a certain table like I'm used to on 2.x through the Query object? I used this a lot for list where I really don't need the business objects (BO) overhead... When I needed a BO (for showing a grid row details) I create it from the row itself...
I'm using ActiveRecord btw...
Thanks guys!
Alex
1st: Where's the Table names constants? The place where we could ask for the same of a certain table using intelisense...
In Structs.tt find the following line of code at line 47:
<# foreach(var col in tbl.Columns){#>
Add the following code above it:
public static string TableName { get { return "<#=tbl.Name#>"; } }
Now you'll have a property that returns the name of the table.
2nd: Same as the above but for the table columns... where are they?
In the generated Structs.cs file, this is included in the 3.0.0.3 version
3rd: Now how can I perform an ExecuteReader on a certain table like I'm used to on 2.x through the Query object? I used this a lot for list where I really don't need the business objects (BO) overhead... When I needed a BO (for showing a grid row details) I create it from the row itself...
If you're using SqlQuery object you can call ExecuteReader on it. Alternatively you can use Linq syntax to generate return custom shaped objects and they'll get mapped automatically.
1st and 2nd: It's not implemented in the default tt-files.
A similiar question:
SubSonic 3 Simple Query Tool
Problem is that's not a correct implementation if you want the 2.x way - the XColumn properties used to be column objects and not string constants, those were found under the Columns struct. So I hope that check-in will not be accepted and that someone will 2.x-ify it correctly.
Anyway as you can see it seems pretty easy to fix it on your own.