I have method
public override void InitializeRow(object sender, InitializeRowEventArgs e)
{
if (!e.ReInitialize)
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
AfterInitializeRow(sender, e);
});
}
public override void AfterInitializeRow(object sender, InitializeRowEventArgs e)
{
foreach (UltraGridColumn ugc in e.Row.Band.Columns)
{
if (IsNumeric(ugc.Key))
{
e.Row.Cells[ugc].DroppedDown = true;
e.Row.Cells[ugc].ValueList = “Some value”;
e.Row.Cells[ugc].SetValue(e.Row.Cells[ugc.Key].Value, false);
e.Row.Cells[ugc].Style = Infragistics.Win.UltraWinGrid.ColumnStyle.DropDownList;
}
}
}
But its Giving error at e.Row.Cells[ugc].DroppedDown = true;
I learned that only Main thread can update the UI.
But is it possible that while updating the DroppedDown only it switch to main thread. Bcoz more than 1000’s rows are initialized in this way making the load of Grid very slow. So I want to do some kind of parallelism in this process.
In any function in your Form or UserControl, you can use the following type of code:
public void SetText(string text)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
BeginInvoke(new Action<string>(SetText), text);
}
else
{
label1.Text = text;
}
}
label1 would be the control to update in this case.
This will make sure that you invoke the function on the UI-thread.
You should still be careful with syncrhonization, though, but simply updating your UI from another thread can be easily done like that.
The answer to this question is that you shouldn't be using threading in the InitialzieRow event to set or even access properties on the grid or its related objects.
What you should do instead is look for ways to optimize what you are doing in this method first. For example why are you setting the value of a cell to the value it already has, this line of code should be able to be removed without impacting behavior.
Also all of the logic provided is only based on the column key so if the column has a consistent set of values, you could set the ValueList on the column in InitializeLayout instead of using InitializeRow.
Related
Within the Acumatica 19.201.0070 framework I have created a custom processing page that utilizes PXFilteredProcessing with the old style processing UI public override bool IsProcessing => false; I have defined a cancel button (below) that will clear the graph and set some values of the processing filter.
public PXCancel<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter> Cancel;
[PXCancelButton()]
protected virtual IEnumerable cancel(PXAdapter adapter)
{
NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter row = Filter.Current;
if (row != null)
{
this.Clear();
Filter.SetValueExt<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter.segmentID>(Filter.Current, row.SegmentID);
if (!(row.NewSegment ?? false)) Filter.SetValueExt<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter.segmentValue>(Filter.Current, row.SegmentValue);
}
return adapter.Get();
}
This works perfectly fine except for a single use case, after processing results are shown if the user then presses the cancel button the corresponding action is never hit. ( My fellow office devs state that core Acumatica processing pages seem to operate the same. )
Setting of the processing delegate is within the filter RowSelected event.
GeneratedSubs.SetProcessDelegate(list => CreateSubaccounts(list, row));
I have implemented a few iterations of my processing method but the current is below.
protected virtual void CreateSubaccounts(List<NPGeneratedSub> subs, NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter filter)
{
if (filter.NewSegment ?? false)
{
try
{
SegmentMaint segGraph = PXGraph.CreateInstance<SegmentMaint>();
segGraph.Segment.Update(segGraph.Segment.Search<Segment.dimensionID, Segment.segmentID>(AADimension.Subaccount, filter.SegmentID.Value));
SegmentValue value = segGraph.Values.Insert(new SegmentValue() { Value = filter.SegmentValue, Descr = filter.Description });
segGraph.Actions.PressSave();
}
catch
{
throw new PXOperationCompletedSingleErrorException(NonProfitPlusMessages.SegmentValueCannotCreate);
}
}
SubAccountMaint subGraph = PXGraph.CreateInstance<SubAccountMaint>();
NPSubAccountMaintExtension subGraphExt = subGraph.GetExtension<NPSubAccountMaintExtension>();
subGraphExt.save.ConfirmSaving = false;
Sub newSub;
bool errored = false;
foreach (NPGeneratedSub sub in subs)
{
PXProcessing<NPGeneratedSub>.SetCurrentItem(sub);
try
{
newSub = subGraph.SubRecords.Insert(new Sub() { SubCD = sub.SubCD, Description = sub.Description });
subGraph.Save.Press();
subGraph.Clear();
PXProcessing<NPGeneratedSub>.SetProcessed();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
PXProcessing<NPGeneratedSub>.SetError(e);
errored = true;
}
}
if (errored)
{
throw new PXOperationCompletedWithErrorException();
}
}
What needs to be adjusted to allow the buttons action to be triggered on press after processing results have been returned?
After stepping through the javascript I discovered that it wasn't sending a request to the server when you click the cancel button on this screen after processing. The reason is because SuppressActions is getting set to true on the Cancel PXToolBarButton. I compared what I was seeing on this screen to what was happening on screens that work correctly and realized that Acumatica is supposed to set SuppressActions to true on the Schedule drop down PXToolBarButton but for some reason, on this screen, it is incorrectly setting it to true on whatever button is after the Schedule drop down button.
I looked through the code in PX.Web.UI and it looks like they set SuppressActions to true when a drop down button is disabled and PXProcessing adds a FieldSelecting event to the Schedule button which disables the button after you click process. However, I didn't notice any obvious issues as to why the code would be setting it on the wrong PXToolBarButton so someone will likely need to debug the code and see what's going on (we are unable to debug code in PX.Web.UI.dll).
I tried commenting out the other grids in the aspx file that aren't related to the PXProcessing view and this resolved the issue. So my guess would be that having multiple grids on the PXProcessing screen somehow causes a bug where it sets SuppressActions on the wrong PXToolBarButton. However, since the multiple grids are a business requirement, removing them is not a solution. Instead, I would suggest moving all buttons that are after the schedule button to be before the schedule button. To do this, just declare the PXActions before the PXFilteredProcessing view in the graph.
Please try this
Override IsDirty property
Use PXAction instead of PXCancel
Add PXUIField attribute with enable rights
action name should start from lowercase letter
delegate name should start from uppercase letter
see code below
public override bool IsDirty => false;
public override bool IsProcessing
{
get { return false;}
set { }
}
public PXAction<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter> cancel;
[PXUIField(MapEnableRights = PXCacheRights.Select)]
[PXCancelButton]
protected virtual IEnumerable Cancel(PXAdapter adapter)
{
NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter row = Filter.Current;
if (row != null)
{
this.Clear();
Filter.SetValueExt<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter.segmentID>(Filter.Current, row.SegmentID);
if (!(row.NewSegment ?? false)) Filter.SetValueExt<NPMasterSubGeneratorFilter.segmentValue>(Filter.Current, row.SegmentValue);
}
return adapter.Get();
}
How to create field variable automatically when I create method used that field. I've create template like this:
void $METHOD_NAME$() {
$FIELD_NAME$ = true;
}
when I type field name (e.g. mState) in method will create field as:
private boolean mState = false;
Hope someone help. Sorry my bad.
Given the screenshot of your template, you can also create a field with the following live template:
private boolean $param$ = false;
#Override
public void onBackPressed() {
if ($param$) super.onBackPressed();
android.widget.Toast.makeText(this, "$message$",
android.widget.Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
$param$ = true;
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
$param$ = false;
}
}, 100);
}
Where $param$ and $message$ are regular variables without anything special.
However, like I said in the comment on your question, I suggest to split it up in several smaller templates.
Consider to split it up in:
field + method with just:
private boolean $param$ = false;
#Override
public void onBackPressed() {
if ($param$) super.onBackPressed();
$param$ = true;
}
Then create a template for the message:
android.widget.Toast.makeText(this, "$message$", android.widget.Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
And last but not least, create a template for the postDelayed:
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
$END$
}
}, $delay$);
Note: the $delay$ as a bonus you can even give it a default value or create a list of predefined values for ease of use.
Note2: Instead of $param$ = false; I've replaced it with $END$. This will position your cursor here once you've selected the delay. Now you can type mState = false manually here, or whatever code you need in the context at that moment. This makes the template much more flexible and easier to use.
PS. I suppose you want to call super.onBackPressed() only when the value is false (on the first invocation). In that case use if (!$param$) instead.
// Update:
In order to group the newly added field with the other fields and not halfway somewhere in your class between other methods, rearrange the code
via the menu with: Code -> rearrange code.
To customise this, check your arrangement settings under: settings -> code style -> <language> -> arrangement
Regarding the 'Run Allocations by Projects' process - I have a customization where I'd like to add conditions to the Allocation process so that it doesn't execute unless those conditions are met. I've added a checkbox user field to the 'Allocation Rules' screen (PM207500), and I'd like that field to be used (in combination with other criteria) to determine whether or not to actually execute the Allocation for that PMTask row.
I've overriden the PMAllocator.Execute method as follows, but it doesn't seem to be working properly. Here is the code I've come up with in an extension of the PMAllocator graph:
[PXOverride]
public virtual void Execute(List<PMTask> tasks)
{
Base.PreselectAccountGroups();
if (Base.PreSelectTasksTransactions(tasks))
{
foreach (PMTask task in tasks)
{
//Get the allocation id for the task...
var pmalloc = (PMAllocation)PXSelect<PMAllocation,
Where<PMAllocation.allocationID, Equal<Required<PMAllocation.allocationID>>>>.Select(Base, task.AllocationID);
//if (pmalloc == null) return;
//Get the cache extension / user field...
var pmallocext = PXCache<PMAllocation>.GetExtension<PMAllocationExt>(pmalloc);
if (pmallocext.UsrRunAfterProjectCompletion == true)
{
//Get the project...
var pmproj = (PMProject)PXSelect<PMProject,
Where<PMProject.contractID, Equal<Required<PMProject.contractID>>>>.Select(Base, task.ProjectID);
if (pmproj.ExpireDate > DateTime.Today || pmproj.ExpireDate == null)
{
//do nothing..
}
else
{
Base.Execute(task, false);
}
}
else
{
Base.Execute(task, false);
}
}
}
}
But I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do it. It seems to be adding an extra allocation line. I'm not really even sure if the base execute method is NOT being called if I don't explicitly call it here.
Can someone point out the best way of accomplishing this?
When you use just [PXOverride] - base Execute(...) method will be called before yours.
To replace the base method you should specify additional parameter - a delegate. In your case it can be like that:
public delegate void ExecuteDelegate(List<PMTask> tasks);
[PXOverride]
public virtual void Execute(List<PMTask> tasks, ExecuteDelegate BaseExecute)
{
... your code
}
I have a MainForm class (as you'd expect, it is a form) that has a text box on it. I also have another class called 'Application_Server' That does a load of other stuff (not just form-background related, quite a lot of network based stuff etc.).
The Application_Server class runs in it's own thread, but needs to be able to update the controls on the form, for this question, we will stick with just the textbox.
The problem is that even though I am executing the command to set the text of the textBox control via 'Invoke' I am still getting the following exception during runtime:
Additional information: Cross-thread operation not valid: Control
'DebugTextBox' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was
created on.
What could be causing this? I am definitely invoking a delegate within MainForm.
Here are the relevant code segments (cut down for readability):
MainForm.h:
public ref class MainForm : public System::Windows::Forms::Form {
delegate void del_updateDebugText(String^ msg);
del_updateDebugText^ updateDebugText = gcnew del_updateDebugText(this, &MainForm::postDebugMessage);
private: void postDebugMessage(String^ message);
};
MainForm.cpp:
void EagleEye_Server::MainForm::postDebugMessage(String^ message)
{
Monitor::Enter(DebugTextBox);
if (this->DebugTextBox->InvokeRequired)
{
this->Invoke(updateDebugText, gcnew array<Object^> { message });
}
else
{
this->DebugTextBox->AppendText(message);
}
Monitor::Exit(DebugTextBox);
}
And finally, the code calling it:
void ServerAppManager::postDebugMessage(System::String^ message)
{
mainFormHandle->updateDebugText(message);
}
void ServerAppManager::applicationStep()
{
postDebugMessage("Starting\n");
// This is Run in seperate thread in MainForm.cpp
while (s_appState == ApplicationState::RUN)
{
postDebugMessage("Testing\n");
}
}
Thanks!
From background worker called bwSearch we do the call as following from the DoWork event handler:
private: System::Void bwSearch_DoWork(System::Object^ sender, System::ComponentModel::DoWorkEventArgs^ e) {
//... logic
UpdateTxtOutput("Some message");
//... more logic
}
I have a RitchTextBox called txtOutput, also the windows form control containing this code is called frmMain, the UpdateTxtOutput is defined in three parts as follows:
delegate void UpdateTxtOutputDelegate(String^ text);
void UpdateTxtOutput(String^ text)
{
UpdateTxtOutputDelegate^ action = gcnew UpdateTxtOutputDelegate(this, &frmMain::Worker);
this->BeginInvoke(action, text);
}
void Worker(String^ text)
{
txtOutput->AppendText("\t" + text + "\n");
}
I managed to get it working by simplifying the method within the 'MainForm' class to:
void EagleEye_Server::MainForm::postDebugMessage(String^ message)
{
Monitor::Enter(DebugTextBox);
DebugTextBox->AppendText(message);
Monitor::Exit(DebugTextBox);
}
And then moving the 'Invoke' call to the method calling the delegate, not pretty but it works for now. I think the issue may have been caused by the form getting stuck inside an Invoke loop. I say this as I noticed that the form would lock up and stop responding after it hit the recursive Invoke statement.
I spend a lot of time working with Windows Forms controls but from a background worker thread - I suppose this is good practice really since you don't want your form to be locking up when people click buttons. To be honest, with just about everything GUI related action I normally do in a background worker thread, so the interface is nice an responsive to the user (Wish more people would do that!).
So my question is... every time I have to interact with controls I have to "Invoke" them, with something like:
if (control.InvokeRequired)
{
//
}
Standard practice right? However, this leads me to some terribly messy code, because just about every control type I have, I need a MethodInvoker delegate or something. It's adding thousands of lines of code to my protects, and its terribly time consuming.
I currently have hundreds of "property setting" methods like:
private void Safe_SetLableText(Label control, string text)
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
{
control.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
control.Text = text;
});
}
else
{
control.Text = text;
}
}
So, is there some other technique, or way to do this, or some way to being able to always alter a property of a control, no matter what the control is and no matter what thread im in?
something like: (pseudocode)
BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerAsync();
private void thing_to_do()
{
// We are in a background thread now
DoSomeDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
InvokeAnyControls();
// Do some stuff...
controlX.Text = "123"
controlY.Height = 300;
controlZ.text = ControlA.text;
RestoreAnyControls();
}
You could wrap your InvokeRequired code with a delegate, like so:
public static void Invoke2<TControl>(this TControl c, Action<TControl> code) where TControl : Control {
if( c.InvokeRequired ) c.Invoke( delegate() { code(c); } );
else code(c);
}
Then use it like so:
private void Safe_SetLableText(Label control, string text) {
control.Invoke2( c => c.Text = text );
}
Of course you might want better names than Invoke2, but I hope the idea sits will with you. Note that the lambda-expression syntax is a C# 3.0 feature, but the Action<T> delegate is part of .NET 2.0, so this will compile against the .NET Framework 2.0 so long as you're VS2008 or later.
I'm posting an answer to my own question because I think it will add value to the community.
1) I wanted to "simplify" my code, and one if the most important finds was that that the:
control.InvokeRequired
really isnt needed... its pretty much a given. Importantly, you CAN rely on the fact that the control will need to be invoked if you are in a background (or non-UI) thread.
2) The invocation travels "UP" the control tree, so if you have:
Form > Control > Control inside Control > etc > etc
You only need to invoke "Form" (top most), and then you can alter the properties of the child elements.
So here is my clean and simple solution to working with background workers (or non-UI threads). I have just tested this now and it works great.
public partial class Form1: Form
{
public Form1()
{
BackgroundWorker bgw = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(this.bgDoWork);
bgw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(this.bgComplete);
bgw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void bgComplete(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// You are not in the UI thread now, so you can Invoke without error
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
// Now you can change any property an any control within this form.
// Remember "this" refers to Form1.
this.label1.Text = "test123";
this.label2.Text = "test456";
this.label3.Text = this.label4.Text;
// You can set progress bars too, not just label text
}
}
private void bgDoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// Do something that takes a long time
}
}
As you are already using the Background worker why don't you 'misuse' OnProgressChanged?
private void thing_to_do()
{
// We are in a background thread now
DoSomeDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
BackgroundWorker.ReportProgress(1, "state");
DoSomeMoreDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
BackgroundWorker.ReportProgress(2, YourObjectHere);
}
void OnProgressChanged(ProgressChangedEventArgs progressArgs)
{
switch(progressArgs.ProgressPercentage)
{
case 1:
// Do some stuff...
controlX.Text = "123"
controlY.Height = 300;
controlZ.text = ControlA.text;
break;
case 2:
// other stuff
YourObject obj = (YourObject) progressArgs.UserState;
// wahtever...
break;
default:
break;
}
}