I am dynamically generating a selectlist in Drupal and I want to create an associative array to populate the node ID as the value, and the title of the node as the option.
By default, it makes the value for each option the index of the select list. This is no good because the select list is dynamic, meaning the values won't be in the same order.
I used drupal_map_assoc to make the value the same as the option, but I have queries based on the value stored in this field, so if someone updates the value stored, the queries won't match.
<option value="Addison Reserve Country Club Inc.">Addison Reserve Country Club Inc.</option>
I want to replace the value with the Node ID also pulled with the query.
$sql = 'SELECT DISTINCT title, nid FROM {node} WHERE type = \'accounts\' ';
$result = db_query($sql);
while ($row = db_fetch_array($result)) {
$return[] = $row['title'];
//Trying to do something like 'Addison Reserve Country Club' => '2033' - where 2033 is the nid
}
$return = drupal_map_assoc($return);
I think you just want to do this inside the loop:
$return[$row['nid']] = $row['title'];
Based on your comment, you would also want to do an array_flip() right after the loop, but I think your comment may just have it backwards.
Related
I am trying to create a formula to obtain a list of items that have no open transactions.
I cant just filter out by status as this filters out transactions that are open, as opposed to showing me only items with nothing open.
So basically if an item has anything open then i dont want it on the search. I do need it on the search if it has all closed or it has no transactions at all.
Hoping someone can help put me in the right direction.
I am a little bit stuck at where to start with the formulas and tried a case formula.
You can use item saved search adding under criteria as "Transaction Fields-status-anyOf-select all closed/rejected/declined statuses" not in filter reason of saved search.
Thanks.
To get the value of non transaction items as well, You need to check the check box use expression under criteria in standard subtab use parens() with OR expression.
And add one more condition as "Transaction Fields-Internal Id-anyOf-none with
"Transaction Fields-status-anyOf-select all closed/rejected/declined statuses".
Add both condition with OR logic.
It will work for both items condition if it has transaction status with closed or with none of transaction internal ids.
Thanks.
I think this is possible in a saved search, and requires a change in the way the filtering is done. Rather than filtering on the "Filters", using grouping and summary calculations to determine if an item qualifies, basically :
Create the item saved search as you would normally, but don't include a "Standard" filter for the openness of the transaction.
In the results, group by item name (or internalid), and another fields you want to include in the top-level results.
In the Criteria - Summary list, add a Formula (Number) condition :
Summary Type= Sum (Count won't work here)
Formula = case when {transaction.status} = 'Open' then 1 else 0 end
Equal to 0
Whether this is more or less elegant than bknight's answer is debatable.
I don't think this is the sort of thing you can do with a single saved search.
It would be fairly easy to do with SuiteQL though.
The script below runs in the console and finds items that are not on any Pending Billing Sales Orders. It's adapted from a script with a different purpose but illustrates the concept.
You can get a list of the status values to use by creating a saved search that finds all the transactions with open statuses you want to exclude , take note of that saved search's id and running the second script in the console
require(['N/query'], query => {
const sqlStr = `
select item.id, itemid, count(po.tranid) as po, count(bill.tranId) as bill, max(bill.tranDate) as lastBilled, count(sale.tranId) as sales, count(tran.tranId) as trans
from item
left outer join transactionLine as line
on line.item = item.id
left outer join transaction as tran on line.transaction = tran.id
left outer join transaction as po on line.transaction = po.id and po.type = 'PurchOrd'
left outer join transaction as bill on line.transaction = bill.id and bill.type = 'VendBill'
left outer join transaction as sale on line.transaction = sale.id and sale.type in ('CustInvc', 'CashSale')
where item.id not in (select otl.item from transactionLine otl, transaction ot where
otl.transaction = ot.id and ot.status in ('SalesOrd:F'))
group by item.id, item.itemid
`;
console.log(sqlStr);
console.log(query.runSuiteQL({
query: sqlStr
}).asMappedResults().map((r, idx)=>{
if(!idx) console.log(JSON.stringify(r));
return `${r.id}\t${r.itemid}\t${r.po}\t${r.bill}\t${r.lastBilled}\t${r.sales}\t${r.trans}`;
}).join('\n'));
});
require(['N/search'], search=>{
const filters = search.load({id:304}).filters;
console.log(JSON.stringify(filters.find(f=>f.name == 'status'), null, ' '));
});
In terms of doing something with this you could run this in a saved search and email someone the results, show the results in a workbook in SuiteAnalytics or build a portlet to display the results - for this last Tim Dietrich has a nice write up on portlets and SuiteQL
I need to find the order value (unit price multiplied by quantity of products). However, my results show duplication of order_id. How can i remove the duplication such that i get the order_id followed by order value? Any help is appreciated! Thanks!
Code:
orderdetails = load '/user/bigdata/order_detail.tbl' using PigStorage('|') as
(ORDER_ID:int,PRODUCT_ID:int,CUSTOMER_ID:int,SALESPERSON_ID:int,UNIT_PRICE:float,QUANTITY:int,DISCOUNT:float);
ordervalue = FOREACH orderdetails GENERATE ORDER_ID, UNIT_PRICE*QUANTITY as VALUE;
order_filter = FILTER ordervalue BY (ORDER_ID > 10269) AND (ORDER_ID < 10280);
groupOrder = GROUP order_filter BY (ORDER_ID);
groupOrdersum = FOREACH groupOrder GENERATE (order_filter.ORDER_ID),SUM(order_filter.VALUE) as ORDERVALUE;
dump groupOrdersum;
Results
({(10270),(10270)},1376.0) ({(10271)},48.0) ({(10272),(10272),(10272)},1455.9999694824219) ({(10273),(10273),(10273),(10273),(10273)},2142.399932861328) ({(10274),(10274)},538.5999908447266) ({(10275),(10275)},307.1999969482422) ({(10276),(10276)},420.0) ({(10277),(10277)},1200.8000183105469) ({(10278),(10278),(10278),(10278)},1488.7999877929688) ({(10279)},468.0)
I think you need to change the:
groupOrdersum = FOREACH groupOrder GENERATE (order_filter.ORDER_ID),SUM(order_filter.VALUE) as ORDERVALUE;
to
groupOrdersum = FOREACH groupOrder GENERATE
group AS ORDERID,
SUM(order_filter.VALUE) as ORDERVALUE;
I think right now you're generating the grouped bag of order ids (i.e the value) and not the actual key.
Is there a way to get the index of the results within an aql query?
Something like
FOR user IN Users sort user.age DESC RETURN {id:user._id, order:{index?}}
If you want to enumerate the result set and store these numbers in an attribute order, then this is possible with the following AQL query:
LET sorted_ids = (
FOR user IN Users
SORT user.age DESC
RETURN user._key
)
FOR i IN 0..LENGTH(sorted_ids)-1
UPDATE sorted_ids[i] WITH { order: i+1 } IN Users
RETURN NEW
A subquery is used to sort users by age and return an array of document keys. Then a loop over a numeric range from the first to the last index of the that array is used to iterate over its elements, which gives you the desired order value (minus 1) as variable i. The current array element is a document key, which is used to update the user document with an order attribute.
Above query can be useful for a one-off computation of an order attribute. If your data changes a lot, then it will quickly become stale however, and you may want to move this to the client-side.
For a related discussion see AQL: Counter / enumerator
If I understand your question correctly - and feel free to correct me, this is what you're looking for:
FOR user IN Users
SORT user.age DESC
RETURN {
id: user._id,
order: user._key
}
The _key is the primary key in ArangoDB.
If however, you're looking for example data entered (in chronological order) then you will have to have to set the key on your inserts and/or create a date / time object and filter using that.
Edit:
Upon doing some research, I believe this link might be of use to you for AI the keys: https://www.arangodb.com/2013/03/auto-increment-values-in-arangodb/
I am creating BOOK_Issue table which will contain id of person to whom the book is issued.
i have a column name user_id witch will contain ids from tbl_student as well as tbl_faculty. so how to set user_id field of book_issue table with reference to two primary key columns.
Your database schema is not correct.
If you expect unique IDs then they should be in one table.
You can create a table with all the users, and have a column to set their type (student, faculty). Then create 2 different tables for each type that has the proper information for each user based on their type.
Create a "person" superclass that can be either of type "student" or type "faculty". Reference this from the BOOK_Issue table instead.
Basically to create this relationship, you'll need one unique ID that spans both "student" and "faculty". Put this in a table (tbl_person?) and have each row in tbl_student and tbl_faculty reference this new table. It's probably also best to then pull out the fields present in both tbl_student and tbl_faculty and put them in this new supertable instead.
You can solve the problem by either having an extra column in BOOK_Issue table, next to user_id, which indicates if this is a Student ID or a Faculty ID.
Alternatively, the IDs themselves may readily include some pattern which indicate their nature (for example no all faculty Ids may start with say "UC", and none of the student Id are so).
The two solutions above then allow using queries similar to the following
SELECT B.*,
CASE B.BorrowerType -- could be LEFT(user_id, 2) etc...
WHEN 'S' THEN S.Name
WHEN 'F' Then F.Name
END As Name,
CASE B.BorrowerType
WHEN 'S' THEN S.PhoneNumber
WHEN 'F' Then F.Phone -- Note that these constructs allow
-- mapping distinct columns names etc.
END As PhoneNr
FROM BOOK_Issue B
LEFT JOIN tbl_student S ON B.BorrowerType = 'S' AND B.user_id = S.id
LEFT JOIN tbl_faculty F ON B.BorrowerType = 'F' AND B.user_id = F.id
WHERE B.DueDate < '11/23/2009' -- or some other condition
This can get a bit heavy when we need to get multiple columns from the student/faculty tables. A possible alternative is a UNION, but this would then cause the repeating of the search clause.
Finally, the best solution but not avaible on all DBMS is a sub-query driven by an "IF B.BorrowerType = 'S' " condition.
This should be your table design:
FacultyTable (FacultyID, FacultyName)
StudentsTable (StudentID, StudentName, FacultlyID, ...)
BookTable (BookID, BookName, ...)
UsersTable(UserID, UserName, UserPassword, StudentID, LastLogin, ...)
Now this is the main thing:
BookIssedTable(BookIssedID, BookID, UserID)
//This table tells me that a book of "BookID was issued to a user of "UserID"
//this can be better for this is certainly a great improvement from the initial design.
I have a list that looks like:
Movie Year
----- ----
Fight Club 1999
The Matrix 1999
Pulp Fiction 1994
Using CAML and the SPQuery object I need to get a distinct list of items from the Year column which will populate a drop down control.
Searching around there doesn't appear to be a way of doing this within the CAML query. I'm wondering how people have gone about achieving this?
Another way to do this is to use DataView.ToTable-Method - its first parameter is the one that makes the list distinct.
SPList movies = SPContext.Current.Web.Lists["Movies"];
SPQuery query = new SPQuery();
query.Query = "<OrderBy><FieldRef Name='Year' /></OrderBy>";
DataTable tempTbl = movies.GetItems(query).GetDataTable();
DataView v = new DataView(tempTbl);
String[] columns = {"Year"};
DataTable tbl = v.ToTable(true, columns);
You can then proceed using the DataTable tbl.
If you want to bind the distinct results to a DataSource of for example a Repeater and retain the actual item via the ItemDataBound events' e.Item.DataItem method, the DataTable way is not going to work. Instead, and besides also when not wanting to bind it to a DataSource, you could also use Linq to define the distinct values.
// Retrieve the list. NEVER use the Web.Lists["Movies"] option as in the other examples as this will enumerate every list in your SPWeb and may cause serious performance issues
var list = SPContext.Current.Web.Lists.TryGetList("Movies");
// Make sure the list was successfully retrieved
if(list == null) return;
// Retrieve all items in the list
var items = list.GetItems();
// Filter the items in the results to only retain distinct items in an 2D array
var distinctItems = (from SPListItem item in items select item["Year"]).Distinct().ToArray()
// Bind results to the repeater
Repeater.DataSource = distinctItems;
Repeater.DataBind();
Remember that since there is no CAML support for distinct queries, each sample provided on this page will retrieve ALL items from the SPList. This may be fine for smaller lists, but for lists with thousands of listitems, this will seriously be a performance killer. Unfortunately there is no more optimized way of achieving the same.
There is no DISTINCT in CAML to populate your dropdown try using something like:
foreach (SPListItem listItem in listItems)
{
if ( null == ddlYear.Items.FindByText(listItem["Year"].ToString()) )
{
ListItem ThisItem = new ListItem();
ThisItem.Text = listItem["Year"].ToString();
ThisItem.Value = listItem["Year"].ToString();
ddlYear.Items.Add(ThisItem);
}
}
Assumes your dropdown is called ddlYear.
Can you switch from SPQuery to SPSiteDataQuery? You should be able to, without any problems.
After that, you can use standard ado.net behaviour:
SPSiteDataQuery query = new SPSiteDataQuery();
/// ... populate your query here. Make sure you add Year to the ViewFields.
DataTable table = SPContext.Current.Web.GetSiteData(query);
//create a new dataview for our table
DataView view = new DataView(table);
//and finally create a new datatable with unique values on the columns specified
DataTable tableUnique = view.ToTable(true, "Year");
After coming across post after post about how this was impossible, I've finally found a way. This has been tested in SharePoint Online. Here's a function that will get you all unique values for a column. It just requires you to pass in the list Id, View Id, internal list name, and a callback function.
function getUniqueColumnValues(listid, viewid, column, _callback){
var uniqueVals = [];
$.ajax({
url: _spPageContextInfo.webAbsoluteUrl + "/_layouts/15/filter.aspx?ListId={" + listid + "}&FieldInternalName=" + column + "&ViewId={" + viewid + "}&FilterOnly=1&Filter=1",
method: "GET",
headers: { "Accept": "application/json; odata=verbose" }
}).then(function(response) {
$(response).find('OPTION').each(function(a,b){
if ($(b)[0].value) {
uniqueVals.push($(b)[0].value);
}
});
_callback(true,uniqueVals);
},function(){
_callback(false,"Error retrieving unique column values");
});
}
I was considering this problem earlier today, and the best solution I could think of uses the following algorithm (sorry, no code at the moment):
L is a list of known values (starts populated with the static Choice options when querying fill-in options, for example)
X is approximately the number of possible options
1. Create a query that excludes the items in L
1. Use the query to fetch X items from list (ordered as randomly as possible)
2. Add unique items to L
3. Repeat 1 - 3 until number of fetched items < X
This would reduce the total number of items returned significantly, at the cost of making more queries.
It doesn't much matter if X is entirely accurate, but the randomness is quite important. Essentially the first query is likely to include the most common options, so the second query will exclude these and is likely to include the next most common options and so on through the iterations.
In the best case, the first query includes all the options, then the second query will be empty. (X items retrieved in total, over 2 queries)
In the worst case (e.g. the query is ordered by the options we're looking for, and there are more than X items with each option) we'll make as many queries as there are options. Returning approximately X * X items in total.