hi does anyone encountered this error? everytime I use PXSelect on a foreach loop in which on the other source code does but on my code does not, could anyone identify the cause? the code below is also the the original source code from Acumatica but I only changed the Datamember from PaymentCharges to OtherCharges
[PXOverride]
public void VoidCheckProc(ARPayment doc)
{
foreach (PXResult<ARPaymentChargeTran> paycharge in PXSelect<ARPaymentChargeTran, Where<ARPaymentChargeTran.docType, Equal<Required<ARPayment.docType>>, And<ARPaymentChargeTran.refNbr, Equal<Required<ARPayment.refNbr>>>>>.
Select(this, doc.DocType, doc.RefNbr))
{
ARPaymentChargeTran charge = PXCache<ARPaymentChargeTran>.CreateCopy((ARPaymentChargeTran)paycharge);
charge.DocType = Document.Current.DocType;
charge.CuryTranAmt = -1 * charge.CuryTranAmt;
charge.Released = false;
charge.CuryInfoID = Document.Current.CuryInfoID;
charge.CashTranID = null;
//PaymentCharges.Insert(charge);
OtherCharges.Insert(charge);
}
}
I believe, you are writing this method in an extension for the base BLC
So instead of using 'this', use 'this.Base'
The Select method is non-static, as the error message says, but you call it on the PXSelect<...>-type. You need to have an instance of that type.
Based on Hybridzz answer, I assume you used the wrong overload of the Select-method. Probably your arguments do not have the correct type, so the compiler selects the best fitting overload of the method. In this case, it selects the one accepting only the argument params object[] o, which is non-static. A bit misleasing design of the API you use.
Related
I am having problems to decorate the final class "DocumentGenerator" (in vendor/shopware/core/Checkout/Document/Service/DocumentGenerator.php) and overwrite the "generate" function inside of it.
I tried to decorate it the usual way, but an error is thrown because the "DocumentController" class excepts the original class and not my decorated one?
Argument 2 passed to Shopware\Core\Checkout\Document\DocumentGeneratorController::__construct() must be an instance of Shopware\Core\Checkout\Document\Service\DocumentGenerator
Its also not possible to extend from the class in my decorated class, because the "DocumentGenerator" is a final class.
My goal is to execute additional code, after an order document is generated. Previously I successfully used to decorate the "DocumentService" Class, but its marked as deprecated and shouldnt be used anymore. Also the "DocumentGenerator" class is used for the new "bulkedit" function for documents as of Version 6.4.14.0
I'm grateful for every tip.
As #j_elfering already wrote it's by design that you should not extend that class and therefore also shouldn't decorate it.
To offer a potential alternative:
Depending on what you want to do after a document has been generated it might be enough to add a subscriber to listen to document.written, check if it was a new document created and then work with the data from the payload for fetching/persisting data depending on that.
public static function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return [
'document.written' => 'onDocumentWritten',
];
}
public function onDocumentWritten(EntityWrittenEvent $event): void
{
foreach ($event->getWriteResults() as $result) {
if ($result->getOperation() !== EntityWriteResult::OPERATION_INSERT) {
// skip if the it's not a new document created
continue;
}
$payload = $result->getPayload();
// do something with the payload
}
}
Probably not what you want to hear but: The service is final in purpose as it is not intended to be decorated.
So the simple answer is you can't. Depending on your use case there may be other ways that don't rely on decoration.
For my JUnit Tests with Mockito, I am doing the following:
Mockito.lenient().when(tokenService.create(String id, Any)).thenReturn(new String (id))
Mockito.lenient().when(voucherRepo.findById(id String).thenReturn(new Voucher(id));
I would like to access the String id given to tokenService.create() and voucherRepo.findById() methods, create and then return mock objects using it. How it can be done?
Mockito.when(voucherRepo.findById(id)).thenReturn(new Voucher(id));
Your solution should work and is probably the preferred solution for any clear defined test.
As you know in your test what the exact id is, you can just return the specific object for it.
Another way to do this - for arbitrary strings - is using mockito's thenAnswer funtionality:
Mockito.when(voucherRepo.findById(Mockito.any(String.class))).thenAnswer(new Answer<Voucher>() {
#Override
public Voucher answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
String id = (String) args[0];
return new Voucher(id);
}
});
I am not sure what reason you have to do that in your test (as this a rather arbitrary defintion), but in doubt consider adding some more context to your question.
I have the current method example:
public void MethodName(string param1,int param2)
{
object[] obj = new object[] { (object) param1, (object) param2 };
//Code to that uses this array to invoke dynamic methods
}
Is there a dynamic way (I am guessing using reflection) that will get the current executing method parameter values and place them in a object array? I have read that you can get parameter information using MethodBase and MethodInfo but those only have information about the parameter and not the value it self which is what I need.
So for example if I pass "test" and 1 as method parameters without coding for the specific parameters can I get a object array with two indexes { "test", 1 }?
I would really like to not have to use a third party API, but if it has source code for that API then I will accept that as an answer as long as its not a huge API and there is no simple way to do it without this API.
I am sure there must be a way, maybe using the stack, who knows. You guys are the experts and that is why I come here.
Thank you in advance, I can't wait to see how this is done.
EDIT
It may not be clear so here some extra information. This code example is just that, an example to show what I want. It would be to bloated and big to show the actual code where it is needed but the question is how to get the array without manually creating one. I need to some how get the values and place them in a array without coding the specific parameters.
Using reflection you can extract the parameters name and metadata but not the actual values :
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program p = new Program();
p.testMethod("abcd", 1);
Console.ReadLine();
}
public void testMethod(string a, int b)
{
System.Diagnostics.StackTrace st = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace();
StackFrame sf = st.GetFrame(0);
ParameterInfo[] pis = sf.GetMethod().GetParameters();
foreach (ParameterInfo pi in pis)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(pi.Name);
}
}
}
I am currently using CSS to change everything I write to upperCase when I create an entry, but that is not enough. When I save things, the text shown in the text fields is upper case, but the real value that Grails stores stays in lower case.
I am assuming I'd need to change something in the controller or anything.
Maybe transforming the $fieldValue CSS could work??
Any ideas would help!
Thnks!
You could just write setters for your domain object?
class Domain {
String aField
void setAField( String s ){
aField = s?.toUpperCase()
}
}
I think you are asking how to change values on your domain objects to uppercase. If this is not the case please clarify the question.
You have a bunch of options. I would recommend
1) In a service method, before you save, using String.toUpperCase() to modify the appropriate values on the domain object.
or
2) You can use the underlying Hibernate interceptors by defining a beforeInsert method on your domain object, and doing the toUpperCase there. (see 5.5.1 of the grails documentation)
or
3) You could do this client side. However, if it is a "business requirement" that the values are stored as upper, then I recommend doing the translation server side. It is easier to wrap tests around that code....
Using annotations is cleanest approach
import org.grails.databinding.BindingFormat
class Person {
#BindingFormat('UPPERCASE')
String someUpperCaseString
#BindingFormat('LOWERCASE')
String someLowerCaseString
}
Here is link for it: Grails doc for data binding
You can use Groovy metaprogramming to change the setter for all domain class String-typed properties without actually writing a custom setter for each property.
To do this, add something like the following to the init closure of Bootstrap.groovy
def init = { servletContext ->
for (dc in grailsApplication.domainClasses) {
dc.class.metaClass.setProperty = { String name, value ->
def metaProperty = delegate.class.metaClass.getMetaProperty(name)
if (metaProperty) {
// change the property value to uppercase if it's a String property
if (value && metaProperty.type == String) {
value = value.toUpperCase()
}
metaProperty.setProperty(delegate, value)
} else {
throw new MissingPropertyException(name, delegate.class)
}
}
}
}
I have an interesting need for an extension method on the IEumerable interface - the same thing as List.ConvertAll. This has been covered before here and I found one solution here. What I don't like about that solution is he builds a List to hold the converted objects and then returns it. I suspect LINQ wasn't available when he wrote his article, so my implementation is this:
public static class IEnumerableExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<TOutput> ConvertAll<T, TOutput>(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Func<T, TOutput> converter)
{
if (null == converter)
throw new ArgumentNullException("converter");
return from item in collection
select converter(item);
}
}
What I like better about this is I convert 'on the fly' without having to load the entire list of whatever TOutput's are. Note that I also changed the type of the delegate - from Converter to Func. The compilation is the same but I think it makes my intent clearer - I don't mean for this to be ONLY type conversion.
Which leads me to my question: In my repository layer I have a lot of queries that return lists of ID's - ID's of entities. I used to have several classes that 'converted' these ID's to entities in various ways. With this extension method I am able to boil all that down to code like this:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.ConvertAll<Part>(PartRepository.Find);
}
where the 'converter' is really the repository's Find-by-ID method. In my case, the 'converter' is potentially doing quite a bit. Does anyone see any problems with this approach?
The main issue I see with this approach is it's completely unnecessary.
Your ConvertAll method is nothing different than Enumerable.Select<TSource,TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource>, Func<TSource,TResult>), which is a standard LINQ operator. There's no reason to write an extension method for something that already is in the framework.
You can just do:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.Select<int,Part>(PartRepository.Find);
}
Note: your method would require <int,Part> as well to compile, unless PartRepository.Find only works on int, and only returns Part instances. If you want to avoid that, you can probably do:
IEnumerable<Part> GetBlueParts()
{
IEnumerable<int> keys = GetBluePartKeys();
return keys.Select(i => PartRepository.Find<Part>(i)); // I'm assuming that fits your "Find" syntax...
}
Why not utilize the yield keyword (and only convert each item as it is needed)?
public static class IEnumerableExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<TOutput> ConvertAll<T, TOutput>
(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Func<T, TOutput> converter)
{
if(null == converter)
throw new ArgumentNullException("converter");
foreach(T item in collection)
yield return converter(item);
}
}