how to create method getAll without finder-column
in service.xml write
because i need get all data in province table without input parameter.
when run liferay:build-service accrued exception:
The content of element type "finder" is incomplete, it must match "(finder-column)
Given that the Entity (read table) is called Foo.
I think you could add the getAll method manually to the FooLocalServiceImpl and rerun service-builder. That should do the trick.
Something like:
public List<Foo> getAll() {
return FooLocalServiceUtil.get(QueryUtil.AllPos, QueryUtil.AllPos);
}
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.
I'm learning DDD and here is a problem I faced. I have two Aggregates (simplified):
class NoteType : AggregateRoot {
int noteTypeId
string name
string fields[]
... code omitted ...
}
class Note : AggregateRoot {
int noteId
int noteTypeId
map<str, str> fieldValues
setFieldValue(fieldName, fieldValue) {
// I want to check that fieldName is present in Notes.fields
// and later fieldValues[field.name] = fieldValue
}
... code omitted ...
}
I've heard that aggregates should reference to each other by ID's only. It this case I can't access NoteType.fields. I found several ways to do so, but not sure which one is better:
Pass NoteType instance into the Note model via constructor (do not reference by ID)
Use repository in setFieldValue to load NoteType
Use service which will do the check (this may cause all the Note logic to be implemented in this service, since Note highly dependent on NoteType)
What do you suggest?
What do you suggest?
Pass the information that the aggregate needs to the aggregate when it needs it.
setFieldValue(fieldName, fieldValue, noteType) {
// Now you have the data that you need to verify the noteType.fields
}
Sometimes, if you can't tell from outside the aggregate what information you need, then you instead pass the capability to look up that information
setFieldValue(fieldName, fieldValue, notes) {
// Use the provided capability to get what you need
noteType = notes.get(this.noteTypeId)
// the do the useful work
this.setFieldValue(fieldName, fieldValue, noteType)
}
Of course, if the only thing you need is the fields, then you might prefer to work only with that property:
setFieldValue(fieldName, fieldValue, fields)
Design is what we do, when we want to get more of what we want than we'd get by just doing it. -- Ruth Malan
In Domain Driven Design, a common "what we want" is to have the "business logic", meaning our implementation of the policies of information change that are important to our business, separated from the "plumbing" that describes how to read and store that information.
EF 5.0, using code-first on existing database workflow.
Database has your basic SalesOrder and SalesOrderLine tables with required foreign key on the SalesOrderLine as follows;
public class SalesOrder
{
public SalesOrder()
{
this.SalesOrderLines = new List<SalesOrderLine>();
}
public int SalesOrderID { get; set; }
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<SalesOrderLine> SalesOrderLines { get; set; }
}
public class SalesOrderLine
{
public SalesOrderLine()
{
}
public int SalesOrderLineID { get; set; }
public int SalesOrderID { get; set; }
public virtual SalesOrder SalesOrder { get; set; }
}
public SalesOrderLineMap()
{
// Primary Key
this.HasKey(t => t.SalesOrderLineID);
// Table & Column Mappings
this.ToTable("SalesOrderLine");
this.Property(t => t.SalesOrderLineID).HasColumnName("SalesOrderLineID");
this.Property(t => t.SalesOrderID).HasColumnName("SalesOrderID");
// Relationships
this.HasRequired(t => t.SalesOrder)
.WithMany(t => t.SalesOrderLines)
.HasForeignKey(d => d.SalesOrderID);
}
Now according to this page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj713564
...we are told that:
The following code removes a relationship by setting the foreign key
to null. Note, that the foreign key property must be nullable.
course.DepartmentID = null;
Note: If the reference is in the added state (in this example, the
course object), the reference navigation property will not be
synchronized with the key values of a new object until SaveChanges is
called. Synchronization does not occur because the object context does
not contain permanent keys for added objects until they are saved. If
you must have new objects fully synchronized as soon as you set the
relationship, use one of the following methods.
By assigning a new object to a navigation property. The following code
creates a relationship between a course and a department. If the
objects are attached to the context, the course is also added to the
department.Courses collection, and the corresponding foreign key
property on the course object is set to the key property value of the
department.
course.Department = department;
...sounds good to me!
Now my problem:
I have the following code, and yet both of the the Asserts fail - why?
using (MyContext db = new MyContext ())
{
SalesOrder so = db.SalesOrders.First();
SalesOrderLine sol = db.SalesOrderLines.Create();
sol.SalesOrder = so;
Trace.Assert(sol.SalesOrderID == so.SalesOrderID);
Trace.Assert(so.SalesOrderLines.Contains(sol));
}
Both objects are attached to the context - are they not? Do I need to do a SaveChanges() before this will work? If so, that seems a little goofy and it's rather annoying that I need to set all of the references on the objects by hand when a new object is added to a foreign-key collection.
-- UPDATE --
I should mark Gert's answer as correct, but I'm not very happy about it, so I'll wait a day or two. ...and here's why:
The following code does not work either:
SalesOrder so = db.SalesOrders.First();
SalesOrderLine sol = db.SalesOrderLines.Create();
db.SalesOrderLines.Add(sol);
sol.SalesOrder = so;
Trace.Assert(so.SalesOrderLines.Contains(sol));
The only code that does work is this:
SalesOrder so = db.SalesOrders.First();
SalesOrderLine sol = db.SalesOrderLines.Create();
sol.SalesOrder = so;
db.SalesOrderLines.Add(sol);
Trace.Assert(so.SalesOrderLines.Contains(sol));
...in other words, you have to set all of your foreign key relationships first, and then call TYPE.Add(newObjectOfTYPE)
before any of the relationships and foreign-key fields are wired up. This means that from the time the Create is done until the time you do the Add(), the object is basically in a half-baked state. I had (mistakenly) thought that since I used Create(), and since Create() returns a sub-classed dynamic object (as opposed to using "new" which returns a POCO object) that the relationships wire-ups would be handled for me. It's also odd to me, that you can call Add() on an object created with the new operator and it will work, even though the object is not a sub-classed type...
In other words, this will work:
SalesOrder so = db.SalesOrders.First();
SalesOrderLine sol = new SalesOrderLine();
sol.SalesOrder = so;
db.SalesOrderLines.Add(sol);
Trace.Assert(sol.SalesOrderID == so.SalesOrderID);
Trace.Assert(so.SalesOrderLines.Contains(sol));
...I mean, that's cool and all, but it makes me wonder; what's the point of using "Create()" instead of new, if you're always going to have to Add() the object in either case if you want it properly attached?
Most annoying to me is that the following fails;
SalesOrder so = db.SalesOrders.OrderBy(p => p.SalesOrderID).First();
SalesOrderLine sol = db.SalesOrderLines.Create();
sol.SalesOrder = so;
db.SalesOrderLines.Add(sol);
// NOTE: at this point in time, the SalesOrderId field has indeed been set to the SalesOrderId of the SalesOrder, and the Asserts will pass...
Trace.Assert(sol.SalesOrderID == so.SalesOrderID);
Trace.Assert(so.SalesOrderLines.Contains(sol));
sol.SalesOrder = db.SalesOrders.OrderBy(p => p.SalesOrderID).Skip(5).First();
// NOTE: at this point in time, the SalesOrderId field is ***STILL*** set to the SalesOrderId of the original SO, so the relationships are not being maintained!
// The Exception will be thrown!
if (so.SalesOrderID == sol.SalesOrderID)
throw new Exception("salesorderid not changed");
...that seems like total crap to me, and makes me feel like the EntityFramework, even in version 5, is like a minefield on a rice-paper bridge. Why would the above code not be able to sync the SalesOrderId on the second assignment of the SalesOrder property? What essential trick am I missing here?
I've found what I was looking for! (and learned quite a bit along the way)
What I thought the EF was generating in it's dynamic proxies were "Change-Tracking Proxies". These proxy classes behave more like the old EntityObject derived partial classes from the ADO.Net Entity Data Model.
By doing some reflection on the dynamically generated proxy classes (thanks to the information i found in this post: http://davedewinter.com/2010/04/08/viewing-generated-proxy-code-in-the-entity-framework/ ), I saw that the "get" of my relationship properties was being overridden to do Lazy Loading, but the "set" was not being overriden at all, so of course nothing was happening until DetectChanges was called, and DetectChanges was using the "compare to snapshot" method of detecting changes.
Further digging ultimately lead me to this pair of very informative posts, and I recommend them for anyone using EF:
http://blog.oneunicorn.com/2011/12/05/entity-types-supported-by-the-entity-framework/
http://blog.oneunicorn.com/2011/12/05/should-you-use-entity-framework-change-tracking-proxies/
Unfortunately, in order for EF to generate Change-Tracking Proxies, the following must occur (quoted from the above):
The rules that your classes must follow to enable change-tracking
proxies are quite strict and restrictive. This limits how you can
define your entities and prevents the use of things like private
properties or even private setters. The rules are: The class must be
public and not sealed. All properties must have public/protected
virtual getters and setters. Collection navigation properties must be
declared as ICollection<T>. They cannot be IList<T>, List<T>,
HashSet<T>, and so on.
Because the rules are so restrictive it’s easy to get something wrong and the result is you won’t get a change-tracking proxy. For example,
missing a virtual, or making a setter internal.
...he goes on to mention other things about Change-Tracking proxies and why they may show better or worse performance.
In my opinion, the change-tracking proxy classes would be nice as I'm coming from the ADO.Net Entity Model world, and I'm used to things working that way, but I've also got some rather rich classes and I'm not sure if I will be able to meet all of the criteria. Additionally that second bullet point makes me rather nervous (although I suppose I could just create a unit test that loops through all of my entities, does a Create(0 on each and then tests the resulting object for the IEntityWithChangeTracker interface).
By setting all of my properties to virtual in my original example I did indeed get IEntityWithChangeTracker typed proxy classes, but I felt a little ... I don't know... "dirty" ...for using them, so I think I will just have to suck it up and remember to always set both sides of my relationships when doing assignments.
Anyway, thanks for the help!
Cheers,
Chris
No, SalesOrderLine sol is not attached to the context (although it is created by a DbSet). You must do
db.SalesOrderLines.Add(sol);
to have it attached to the context in a way that the ChangeTracker executes DetectChanges() (DbSet.Add() is one of the methods that trigger this) and, thus, also executes relationship fixup, which sets sol.SalesOrderID and ensures that so.SalesOrderLines contains the new object.
So, no, you don't need to execute SaveChanges(), but the object must be added to the context and relationship fixup must have been triggered.
In jcouchdb I used to extend BaseDocument and then, in a transparent manner, mix Annotations and not declared fields.
Example:
import org.jcouchdb.document.BaseDocument;
public class SiteDocument extends BaseDocument {
private String site;
#org.svenson.JSONProperty(value = "site", ignoreIfNull = true)
public String getSite() {
return site;
}
public void setSite(String name) {
site = name;
}
}
and then use it:
// Create a SiteDocument
SiteDocument site2 = new SiteDocument();
site2.setProperty("site", "http://www.starckoverflow.com/index.html");
// Set value using setSite
site2.setSite("www.stackoverflow.com");
// and using setProperty
site2.setProperty("description", "Questions & Answers");
db.createOrUpdateDocument(site2);
Where I use both a document field (site) that is defined via annotation and a property field (description) not defined, both get serialized when I save document.
This is convenient for me since I can work with semi-structured documents.
When I try to do the same with Ektorp I have documents using annotations and Documents using HashMap BUT I couldn't find an easy way of getting the mix of both (I've tried using my own serializers but this seems to much work for something that I get for free in jcouchdb). Also tried to annotate a HashMap field but then is serialized as an object and I get the fields automatically saved BUT inside an object with the name of the HashMap field.
Is it possible to do (easily/for free) using Ektorp?
It is definitely possible. You have two options:
Base your class on org.ektorp.support.OpenCouchDbDocument
Annotate the you class with #JsonAnySetter and #JsonAnyGetter. Red more here: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonFeatureAnyGetter
To start: This is also for REST deserialiaztion, so a custom XmlSerializer is out of the question.
I have a hjierarchy of classes that need to be serializable and deserializable from an "Envelope". It has an arrayelement named "Items" that can contain subclasses of the abstract "Item".
[XmlArray("Items")]
public Item [] Items { get; set; }
Now I need to add XmlArrayItem, but the number is not "fixed". We use so far reflection to find all subclasses with a KnownTypeProvider so it is easy to extend the assembly with new subtypes. I dont really want to hardcode all items here.
The class is defined accordingly:
[XmlRoot]
[KnownType("GetKnownTypes")]
public class Envelope {
but it does not help.
Changing Items to:
[XmlArray("Items")]
[XmlArrayItem(typeof(Item))]
public Item [] Items { get; set; }
results in:
{"The type
xxx.Adjustment
was not expected. Use the XmlInclude
or SoapInclude attribute to specify
types that are not known statically."}
when tyrying to serialize.
Anyone an idea how I can use XmlInclude to point to a known type provider?
The KnownTypesAttribute does not work for XmlSerializer. It's only used by a DataContractSerializer. I'm quite sure that you can exchange the serializer in WCF, because I have done that for the DataContractSerializer. But if that's not an option, you have to implement IXmlSerializable yourself and handle type lookup there.
Before disqualifying this solution: You just have to implement IXmlSerializable just for a special class which replaces Item[]. Everything else can be handled by the default serializer.
According to: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/asmxandxml/thread/83181d16-a048-44e5-b675-a0e8ef82f5b7/
you can use different XmlSerializer constructor:
new XmlSerializer(typeof(Base), new Type[] { typeof(Derived1), ..});
Instead of enumerating all derived classes in the base definition like this:
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Derived1))]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Derived2))]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(DerivedN))]
I think you should be able to use your KnownTypeProvider to fill the array in the XmlSerializer's constructor.