When I design a QueryExpression, I've always used the following, hard-coded syntax.
QueryExpression expression = new QueryExpression
{
EntityName = "account";
...
}
In this blog the following syntax based on this enumeration is used.
QueryExpression expression = new QueryExpression
{
EntityName = EntityName.account.ToString();
...
}
I liked it much better but I couldn't find it using intellisense. Then I've found this discussion where it's explained that the syntax is deprecated.
So, what should one use instead of EntityName? I've googled it a bit but can't find anything useful. It seems to me that some kind of enumeration is to be preferred before the hard-coded expression. Is that correct? And if so, how to do that in CRM 2011?
If you are using early bound classes you could use following syntax also for your custom entities. If not, this will work for all standard entities.
Account.EntityLogicalName
And if you are using late bound entities you can use Entity.LogicalName.
you can write for example Contact.EntityLogicalName.ToString() but you in this case you must
use early bound classes
Related
In FileNet, using FEM or ACCE, it is possible to use JScript in order to set attributes' values to an object. The official IBM guide provides this example (for Strings):
importClass(Packages.com.filenet.api.property.Properties);
importClass(Packages.com.filenet.api.constants.RefreshMode);
function OnCustomProcess (CEObject)
{
CEObject.refresh();
CEObject.getProperties().putValue("DocumentTitle", "Test1");
CEObject.save(RefreshMode.REFRESH);
}
But is it possible to do the same thing for more complex objects? I'm referring, in particular, to StringList type. There are no examples on the web, and defining a JS-like array doesn't work.
It is definitely possible to do this for more complex objects. Most of it is just following the path you would follow using Java, but changing the name of the variable types to var. Therefore the code for setting the value of a multivalue string property is as follows:
importClass(Packages.com.filenet.api.constants.RefreshMode);
importClass(Packages.com.filenet.api.core.Factory);
function OnCustomProcess (CEObject)
{
CEObject.refresh();
var list = Factory.StringList.createList();
list.add("Value 1");
list.add("Value 2");
CEObject.getProperties().putObjectValue("TestMultiValueProperty1", list);
CEObject.save(RefreshMode.REFRESH);
}
I often use the putObjectValue() method instead of the putValue() method because JavaScript sometimes has problems determining which type safe version of the putValue() it should use.
For a lot of examples you could go to the Global Configuration > Data Design > Add-ons section in the domain tab of the ACCE. The pre- and post-import scripts of the different Add-ons contain a lot of relevant JavaScript code.
In iOS 11, a new attribute type was introduced for Core Data Entities: UUID. I'd like to use that type for storing my uniqueIdentifiers for Ensembles. Is it safe to do so? Can Ensembles handle syncing the UUID attributes?
Here's how I plan to provide unique identifiers to the delegate method using my identifier properties:
- (NSArray *)persistentStoreEnsemble:(CDEPersistentStoreEnsemble *)ensemble
globalIdentifiersForManagedObjects:(NSArray *)objects
{
NSArray <UUID *> *uuidArray = [objects valueForKeyPath:#"uniqueIdentifier"];
return [uuidArray valueForKeyPath:#"UUIDString"];
}
I somehow missed this feature. I have nothing in Ensembles to handle this specially, so it may not work. I would expect the fix to be fairly straightforward if it doesn't work, so if you find it is not working, let me know, and I'll look into it.
The problem will probably be in the conversion to JSON. See JSONValueFromCoreDataValue and CoreDataValueFromJSONValue. You probably just need to add an extra branch in the if-else to handle UUID explicitly.
I have an annotation which adds some methods and default constructor to annotated class.
I have managed to create a gdsl, to enable autocompletion in idea for methods, but I'm stuck with constructor and documentation is very poor.
Does anyone have any ideas, how to do this?
Maybe I could find a solution, in existing gdsl, but I can't remember any Transformation, related to constructors. Maybe you can remind me of any of them.
def objectContext = context(ctype: "java.lang.Object")
contributor(objectContext) {
if (hasAnnotation("com.xseagullx.SomeAnnotation")) {
// Here I want to add constructor's declaration(with empty arg's)
// …
// And then my methods.
method name: 'someMethod', type: 'void', params: [:]
}
}
EDITED: OK, if it's as #jasp say, and there is no DSL construct for declaring Constructors, I'm still asking for a good documentation sources, other than JB's confluence page. Tutorials and other sources. I'm familiar with embedded dsl's for groovy, grails and gradle.
Need smth. more structured, if it's possible.
All function invocations inside of GroovyDSL are just calls to wrappers around internal IDEA's Program Structure Interface (PCI). However it doesn't cover all of PCI's abilities, including default constructors functionality I believe. One of an evidence for that is singletonTransform.gdsl, which is bundled into IDEA from 9 version and describes #Singleton AST transformation. Here is it's code:
contributor(context()) {
if (classType?.hasAnnotation("groovy.lang.Singleton")) {
property name: "instance",
type: classType?.getQualifiedName() ?: "java.lang.Object",
isStatic: true
}
}
As you can see it doesn't change a constructor and it's visibility, so IDEA will autocomplete this invalid code:
#Singleton class Foo {}
def foo = new Foo()
Futhermore GDSL that describes the semantics of GroovyDSL (which is actually the part of /plugins/groovy/resources/standardDsls/metaDsl.gdsl of IDEA sources) doesn't provide any ability for describing of constructors.
In this case I suggest you use newify transformation which allows you to describe targetClass.name method returning created instance.
I know this is a bit old, but I found myself looking for something similar.
The DSL you are looking for is
method params: [:], constructor: true although I don't understand why you'd need it; if a class doesn't declare any constructors doesn't IDEA always suggest the default one?
I am currently reviewing code written in c#, visual studio 2012.
In lot of places, the code is written using this key word, for ex:
this.pnlPhoneBasicDtls.Visible = true;
this.SetPhAggStats(oStats);
There are many other places where the controls of the page are referred using this key word.
Can somebody advise do we really need to use this here?
Any consequences of removing this keyword?
Thanks in advance..
No, "this" is optional. It's usually included in code generated by a tool and by people who feel the need to be explicit or who want to differentiate it from an argument to the method.
Its Optional you can use the
Property directly like pnlPhoneBasicDtls.Visible = true;
The this keyword is usually optional.
It's sometimes used to disambiguate fields from arguments if the same name is being used for both, for example:
void Main()
{
var sc = new SomeClass();
sc.SomeMethod(123);
Console.WriteLine(sc.thing);
}
public class SomeClass
{
public int thing;
public void SomeMethod(int thing)
{
this.thing = thing + 1;
}
}
In the example above it does make a difference. Inside SomeMethod, this.thing refers to the field and thing refers to the argument.
(Note that the simpler assignment thing = thing is picked up as a compiler error, since it is a no-op.)
Of course, if you use ReSharper then any unnecessary this. (together with unused using statements, unreachable code, etc.) will be greyed out and you can remove them very quickly. The same is probably true of similar tools like CodeRush.
I've been a little surprised, because I have read before, that __gc metamethod is only called for userdata and never for tables. (LuaFAQ : Why don't the __gc and __len metamethods work on tables?)
But, recently, I have tried it and found it actually works! Try this code with Lua 5.2.1:
do
local b = setmetatable({a = 1}, {__gc = function(self) print(self.a); end});
end
collectgarbage();
But I can't find anywhere the changelog for this, so I'm little frustrated and afraid to use it.
Maybe, someone can prove my suggestion? Or it is an undocumented behaviour?
As for me it will be nice to have a regular way to create table destructor, and I will be glad if my observation is right.
The Lua 5.2 Reference Manual section 2.5.1 indicates that tables do support the __gc metamethod. Specifically, it says
For an object (table or userdata) to be finalized when collected, you must mark it for finalization. You mark an object for finalization when you set its metatable and the metatable has a field indexed by the string "__gc".
The similar documentation in the 5.1 Reference Manual says
Using the C API, you can set garbage-collector metamethods for userdata
It seems pretty clear that Lua 5.2 now explicitly supports the __gc metamethod for tables.