I have an entity with an transient attribute, and it's optional flag is set to NO.
If I fetch an instance of this entity from persistent store, change something and save back, need I set this transient attribute ?
Transient values are not saved at all so optional or required has no effect on them.
Update:
Okay, I got that completely wrong. I am in the habit of setting default values and/or my transients always have calculated values so I'd forgotten that required transients do have to have a value. I tested it make sure.
If you have a transient attributes without values and its required the logic of the app should enforce that. Since you don't seem to use the transient every time, I suggest setting a default value or calculating the value in a custom getter method.
Related
I have an non-persistent attribute (SITEID) on my WOCHANGE object that originates from the parent object, WORKORDER. For some particular reason, this attribute has a few problems that I've never really seen with other attributes before.
Based on various configurations I have tried in an attempt to remedy the issue, here are the main issues:
It doesn't trigger the WOCHANGE to save when changed.
In addition to the value not being saved, I can change the value on one record, go to another and the value persists on the different record.
The field is readonly unless I define it to have an inputmode of DEFAULT. This is odd to me, because not defining inputmode usually implies default behavior (NOT readonly).
Here are the definitions for the SITEID attribute on both the WORKORDER
and WOCHANGE objects.
SITEID also uses a TABLE domain belonging to the SITE table.
Are there any attribute rules being applied from other sources that I should be checking?
That workorder field class on there may not be desired and may be messing with things, like setting the field to read-only. Site Id is commonly a read-only field, especially when the record is no longer a new record. Because of that, the logic to make that field read-only could be buried deeper in the Maximo business logic than just that field class. You are working with a field that has a lot of special meaning in Maximo, you are likely going to stumble into many built-in business rules.
Since non-persistent fields are not saved in the database (they are in memory fields only), I don't believe they trigger the flag for a record to be saved. What would be saved? Nothing in the database (a save) is to be changed yet.
Your screenshot however shows the field as persistent. Is WOCHANGE a view? I can't recall and no longer have the resources to check.
Quick question.
I have a custom two-option field on an entity, with "Yes"/"No" as the values; "Yes" has the underlying value 1, while "No" has the underlying value 0. I've set the default value for this field to "Yes". However, when I create new entity records, the field always gets the value "No" (0 in the database). It seems to be ignoring the default value I've set. Why?
The field is not present on any of the entity forms, as it's only used in underlying plugin code. Should that matter?
Are you creating a new record for this entity using code that uses the strongly-typed objects? If so, when you create a "new" entity in code, I'm guessing the class itself is setting that field to "false" by default. I don't think those generated classes respect the default values in the metadata. I also think that all fields are submitted on a create when you use these generated classes. That means that your class is setting it to "no" by default and then on create, the system thinks that you explicitly set it to "no" so default values are not applied. I think you need to explicitly remove that attribute from the attribute collection of your entity before you create it. That way the system should respect the default value on create. Sorry for all the "I thinks" but I'm not in a place that I can test or verify all of this. :)
Ok I know scope questions come up all the time but I'm interested in a slightly different approach to the solution. The #ViewScope is a fantastic bridge between the #RequestScope and the #SessionScope.
However there is still a common use case (at least for me) where I really don't want to use #SessionScope but I need the data over a couple of views. A really simple case is when I have multiple datatables chained together each one depending on previous selections.
It's perfectly possible to use <f:paramView> and pass a single or even a couple of pieces of data as params in the address and then retrieve everything from the database again. I am more interested in finding a way of creating a 'snapshot' of the beans state / variables, creating the new #ViewScope and then 'restoring' the 'snapshot state' to the new bean.
Does such a thing exist? Ideas? Opinions?
I don't know if this is the 'accepted solution' but I've implemented an idea that works for me. (Feedback appreciated!)
So I have created a #SessionScoped class with a couple of static maps:
private static Map<String, Object> objectVariableMap;
// Getters, setters and methods etc. are omitted for simplicity
The idea being that I have specified a map that accepts a String as the key and an Object as the value. I've specifically not set the type of object to allow me to store any type of object in there. The caveat is that you need to be sure of the type of object when retrieving it so you can cast it back into its original type.
Now comes the time to set the data from the first #ViewScoped. I generate a random UUID (or what ever you want) as the Map key and then set the value to the object I'm working with (ie. this, or indeed any other objects you might want to pass to the next view). Save the key, value into the map and set the URL param to the key.
I'm never keen on passing data like user id's etc. in URL params (even when its encrypted). This idea has the added benefit of offering disposable URL values that have a specifiable life span.
On the receiving end (ie. The new #ViewScoped bean, or any other scope for that matter) you read in the URL param (the map key) using <f:paramView> and then use a preRenderView event to retrieve and set the Object where working with.
At this point you can choose to remove the key pair from the Map and invalidate the ability to retrieve that object or you can keep keep the key pair for a longer duration by simply updating the object if there are any changes.
UPDATE: Conceptually this has been really successful (for me at least). I've created a handfull of useful methods and classes surrounding the concept to make it more universal. If anybody wants more specific instructions or I might even create a small library if anybody wants.
You can use the CDI "Conversation Scope" for this. This is narrower than the session scope but wider than the view scope.
If the pages between which you pass parameters are a unit, you can also make them a flow in JSF 2.2 and use the flow scope.
Projects like CODI offer various other scopes that can be used between pages.
I'm trying to make a field read only when a given value is selected from a PickList.
I'm using a flag that is set to Y when the list has that value, and N otherwise.
I created a Business Component User Prop with the name Field Read Only Field: MyField set to the flag.
Thing is, this works with the vanilla component but it wont work on my custom component.
I can't figure out what is going on, the properties of the fields and flag are exactly the same. It should work...
Thanks for any help you can give me.
That user property is only supported on the business component class CSSBCBase and its subclasses. My guess is that you probably used CSSBusComp as the class of your business component. CSSBusComp is actually a superclass of CSSBCBase, and is very minimal and does not support Field Read Only Field. If that's the case, change it to CSSBCBase and you should be good to go.
Other option is that- if the record become read-only when the picklist value is being selected- that you'll need to make the picklist field Immediate Post Changes to be sure the user property is triggered.
Hopefully there's a solution/patch to SubSonic SimpleRepository where I can specify a column/property with a default value so that it populates the DB with the default value set.
I'm still reading the SubSonic Docs and just ran across that issue. Maybe someone has an answer/solution for this that I can start using.
If you want a default value then set it on your object - an attribute shouldn't be used to set values.
Looks like you nailed it... In your class, simply set the default value in the constructor...
You could also set the value as a default in the appropriate DB column.
To my knowledge this feature doesn't currently exist in SimpleRepository and in my opinion it doesn't belong there. I like the SimpleRepository because it's so simple. You don't need to know about or understand a ton of configuration options or attributes; you just plug in your POCO objects and go. There are a handful of attributes that you can use to influence the underlying database table schemas, but I think that a good job was done with respect to keeping those attributes to the absolute bare minimum needed.
If you need to set 'default' values for some reason I think that's something that should be done within your "domain" related code. Setting them in the constructor of the object might make sense, or using a wrapper repository object that could set them prior to passing along to the SimpleRepository could also work. I've always kind of thought that having default value constraints defined in the database was a bit of a smell anyway; it won't always be immediately evident where that value came from or why it was chosen.