In my controller, I have a before() function that calls parent::before() and then does some additional processing once the parent returns. based on a specific condition, I want to "save" the original request and pass execution to a specific action. Here is my before() function.
public function before() {
parent::before();
$this->uri = Request::Instance()->uri;
$match = ORM::factory('survey_tester')
->where('eid','=',$this->template->user->samaccountname)
->find();
if (!$match->loaded()) {
self::action_tester("add",$this->template->user);
}
}
And the action that is being called..
public function action_tester($op=null,$user=null) {
$testers = ORM::factory('survey_tester')->find_all();
$tester = array();
$this->template->title = 'Some new title';
$this->template->styles = array('assets/css/survey/survey.css' => 'screen');
$this->template->scripts = array('assets/js/survey/tester.js');
$tester['title'] = $this->template->title;
$tester['user'] = $this->template->user;
switch ($op) {
case "add":
$tester = ORM::factory('survey_tester');
$tester->name = $user->displayname;
$tester->email = $user->mail;
$tester->division = $user->division;
$tester->eid = $user->samaccountname;
if ($tester->save()) {
$this->template->content = new View('pages/survey/tester_add', $admin);
} else {
$this->template->content = new View('pages/survey/tester_error', $admin);
}
break;
default:
break;
}
}
This all seems to work fine. This is designed to prompt the user for a specific piece of information that is not provided by $user (populated by LDAP) if this is the first time they are hitting the controller for any reason.
The problem is the views are not rendering. Instead control passes back to whatever action was originally requested. This controller is called survey. If i browse to http://my.site.com/survey and login with new user info, the record gets written and i get the action_index views instead of my action_tester views.
I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong here. Any ideas will be appreciated. Thank you.
EDIT: I managed to get this working (sort-of) by using $this->request->action = 'tester'; but I'm not sure how to add/set new params for the request yet.
The issue is that you are calling your method (action_tester), but then Kohana is still going to call the original action after the before method is called, which is going to change the response content overwriting the changed made in action_tester().
You can change the action being called (after before is called) inside your before() method:
$this->request->action('action_tester');
After the before method is called, it should then call the new Action (action_tester) rather than the old one, but then you need to do something about the way you are passing your parameters then.
Or you could just redirect the request upon some condition:
if($something) {
$this->request->redirect('controller/tester');
}
This doesn't seem like a nice way to do it anyway.
Related
On an xpage I calculate the message for an xp:confirm control:
var arr = viewScope.get("attachmentsAll");
if(arr.length>0){
return "";
}else{
return arr.length + " Are you sure want to upload the file?";
}
the viewScope is being updated after the event has been executed. I check this via a xp:text and I notice that this assumption is true.
<xp:text escape="true" id="computedField1"><xp:this.value><![CDATA[#{javascript:var arr = viewScope.get("attachmentsAll")
return arr.length + " number?"}]]></xp:this.value></xp:text>
The xp:confirm and xp:text reside in the same panel that is being partially updated after the event.
Can anyone explain me why the value for the viewScope variable is updated in the xp:text control and not in the xp:confirm control?
The main idea of my answer to your previous question was to put hidden input with computed value. What if you try to use <xp:this.script> instead of xp:confirm, and get the confirmation message from that hidden input the same way?
Update
The reason and the alternative solution that does not require to make any changes to existing xpage
It came out that the back-end instance of xp:confirm evaluates the new message correctly. The new value is even being sent to the browser with the response to ajax request. But one of the functions of XSP client module is built so that it won't update the querySubmit listener function if there already exists one with the same name. So, we are stuck with the old confirmation function that contains the old message. There is a way to override this behavior without breaking any other features. I have tried this and it works for me.
Create a new JavaScript library (client-side). Add the code:
if (!XSP._pushListenerTuned) {
XSP.__pushListener = XSP._pushListener;
XSP._pushListener = function x__pl(listeners, formId, clientId, scriptId, listener) {
if (scriptId && scriptId.endsWith("_confirm")) {
for (var i = 0; i < listeners.length; i++) {
if (scriptId == listeners[i].scriptId) {
listeners.splice(i, 1);
}
}
listeners.push(new this._SubmitListener(formId, listener, clientId, scriptId));
} else {
XSP.__pushListener(listeners, formId, clientId, scriptId, listener);
}
}
XSP._pushListenerTuned = true;
}
Attach your new library as resource globally via theme or as page resource on required page. I guess placing the above code as scriptBlock on a required page should also work. Now, any xp:confirm component on any page (if you used theme resource), or on particular page and everywhere after visiting this page (if you used page resource or scriptBlock), will work as naturally expected.
I have a custom module that uses Kentico API (DocumentHelper) to update certain fields of my document and then publish but I do not want it to trigger the event handlers that are linked to my document page type. I tried adding comments to .Publish("admin_edit") hoping that I can catch it from the WorkflowEventargs parameter but the VersionComment property always return null. Is there a way to accomplish this in Kentico?
update field:
var document = DocumentHelper.GetDocument(documentID, tree);
var workflowManager = WorkflowManager.GetInstance(tree);
var workflow = workflowManager.GetNodeWorkflow(document);
if (workflow != null)
{
document.CheckOut();
document.SetValue("SomeFIeld", "some value");
document.Update(true);
document.CheckIn();
document.Publish("admin_edit");
}
event handler:
public override void Init()
{
WorkflowEvents.Publish.After += Publish_After;
}
private void Publish_After(object sender, WorkflowEventArgs e)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(e.VersionComment) &&
e.VersionComment.Contains("admin_edit"))
return;
}
You always get null for Version information, because that is related to the 'Page versioning' events, specially for 'SaveVersion'. You can find more about that on this link. If you expand 'Properties' you will see which properties are populated for the specific event. In your case, you can try something like this, to add your message for last version and then check for that comment on 'Publish_After' event, see code bellow:
var document = DocumentHelper.GetDocument(documentID, tree);
var workflowManager = WorkflowManager.GetInstance(tree);
var workflow = workflowManager.GetNodeWorkflow(document);
if (workflow != null)
{
document.CheckOut();
document.SetValue("SomeFIeld", "some value");
document.Update(true);
document.CheckIn(versionComment: "admin_edit");
document.Publish();
}
and then, in event handler, take last version and check for comment like this:
if (e.PublishedDocument?.VersionHistory?.Count > 0)
{
var lastVersion = e.PublishedDocument.VersionHistory[0] as VersionHistoryInfo;
if (lastVersion.VersionComment.Equals("admin_edit"))
{
return;
}
}
NOTE: In case that you have a lot of concurrent content editors, there is a chance that your last version is not version from API (someone changed content and saved it right after your API call made change). There is a low chance for that, but still is possible. If this is something that you will use often, you must take it in consideration. This code is tested for Kentico 11.
Here's my problem : I'm doing a background work, where I parse some JSON and write some Objects into my Realm, and in the main thread I try to update the UI (reloading the TableView, it's linked to an array of Object). But when I reload the UI, my tableView doesn't update, like my Realm wasn't updated. I have the reload my View to see the updates. Here's my code :
if (Realm().objects(Objects).filter("...").count > 0)
{
var results = Realm().objects(Objects) // I get the existing objects but it's empty
tableView.reloadData()
}
request(.GET, url).responseJSON() {
(request, response, data, error) in
let priority = DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(priority, 0)) {
// Parsing my JSON
Realm().write {
Realm().add(object)
}
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
// Updating the UI
if (Realm().objects(Objects).filter("...").count > 0)
{
results = Realm().objects(Objects) // I get the existing objects but it's empty
tableView.reloadData()
}
}
}
}
I have to do something bad with my threads, but I couldn't find what. Can someone know what's wrong?
Thank you for your answer!
such workflow makes more sense to me for your case:
let priority = DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(priority, 0)) {
// Parsing my JSON
Realm().write {
Realm().add(object)
dispatch_sync(dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
// Updating the UI
if (Realm().objects(Objects).filter("...").count > 0)
{
results = Realm().objects(Objects) // I get the existing objects but it's empty
tableView.reloadData()
}
}
}
}
NOTE: you have a problem with timing in your original workflow: the UI might be updated before the write's block executed, that is why your UI looks abandoned; this idea above would be a more synchronised way between tasks, according their performance's schedule.
You are getting some new objects and storing them into "results".
How is tableView.reloadData () supposed to access that variable? You must change something that your tableView delegate will access.
PS. Every dispatch_sync () is a potential deadlock. You are using one that is absolutely pointless. Avoid dispatch_sync unless you have a very, very good reason to use it.
I'm trying to make my MVC4-website check to see if people should be alerted with an email because they haven't done something.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to approach this. I checked if the shared hosting platform would allow me to activate some sort of cronjob, but this is not available.
So now my idea is to perform this check on each page-request, which already seems suboptimal (because of the overhead). But I thought that with using an async it would not be in the way of people just visiting the site.
I first tried to do this in the Application_BeginRequest method in Global.asax, but then it gets called multiple times per page-request, so that didn't work.
Next I found that I can make a Global Filter which executes on OnResultExecuted, which would seemed promising, but still it's no go.
The problem I get there is that I'm using MVCMailer to send the mails, and when I execute it I get the error: {"Value cannot be null.\r\nParameter name: httpContext"}
This probably means that mailer needs the context.
The code I now have in my global filter is the following:
public override void OnResultExecuted(ResultExecutedContext filterContext)
{
base.OnResultExecuted(filterContext);
HandleEmptyProfileAlerts();
}
private void HandleEmptyProfileAlerts()
{
new Thread(() =>
{
bool active = false;
new UserMailer().AlertFirst("bla#bla.com").Send();
DB db = new DB();
DateTime CutoffDate = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-5);
var ProfilesToAlert = db.UserProfiles.Where(x => x.CreatedOn < CutoffDate && !x.ProfileActive && x.AlertsSent.Where(y => y.AlertType == "First").Count() == 0).ToList();
foreach (UserProfile up in ProfilesToAlert)
{
if (active)
{
new UserMailer().AlertFirst(up.UserName).Send();
up.AlertsSent.Add(new UserAlert { AlertType = "First", DateSent = DateTime.Now, UserProfileID = up.UserId });
}
else
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(up.UserName);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}).Start();
}
So my question is, am I going about this the right way, and if so, how can I make sure that MVCMailer gets the right context?
The usual way to do this kind of thing is to have a single background thread that periodically does the checks you're interested in.
You would start the thread from Application_Start(). It's common to use a database to queue and store work items, although it can also be done in memory if it's better for your app.
I have a simple IBackgroundTask implementation that performs a query and then either performs an insert or one or more updates depending on whether a specific item exists or not. However, the updates are not persisted, and I don't understand why. New items are created just as expected.
The content item I'm updating has a CommonPart and I've tried authenticating as a valid user. I've also tried flushing the content manager at the end of the Sweep method. What am I missing?
This is my Sweep, slightly edited for brevity:
public void Sweep()
{
// Authenticate as the site's super user
var superUser = _membershipService.GetUser(_orchardServices.WorkContext.CurrentSite.SuperUser);
_authenticationService.SetAuthenticatedUserForRequest(superUser);
// Create a dummy "Person" content item
var item = _contentManager.New("Person");
var person = item.As<PersonPart>();
if (person == null)
{
return;
}
person.ExternalId = Random.Next(1, 10).ToString();
person.FirstName = GenerateFirstName();
person.LastName = GenerateLastName();
// Check if the person already exists
var matchingPersons = _contentManager
.Query<PersonPart, PersonRecord>(VersionOptions.AllVersions)
.Where(record => record.ExternalId == person.ExternalId)
.List().ToArray();
if (!matchingPersons.Any())
{
// Insert new person and quit
_contentManager.Create(item, VersionOptions.Draft);
return;
}
// There are at least one matching person, update it
foreach (var updatedPerson in matchingPersons)
{
updatedPerson.FirstName = person.FirstName;
updatedPerson.LastName = person.LastName;
}
_contentManager.Flush();
}
Try to add _contentManager.Publish(updatedPerson). If you do not want to publish, but just to save, you don't need to do anything more, as changes in Orchard as saved automatically unless the ambient transaction is aborted. The call to Flush is not necessary at all. This is the case both during a regular request and on a background task.