I have a problem in my model declaration, in Kohana 3.0.4 with the fields $_created_column and $_updated_column.
The problem is that :
- When I create and update objects from my controllers, the fields in the database corresponding to $_created_column and $_updated_column declaration are modified, according to the current create/modification date, just as it should be.
When I create and update objects from the models (using DB::insert, DB::update) (this is the best practice -> handling data operations from models) the fields corresponding to the declaration are NOT updating.
The code for DB::update and DB::insert:
public function add_productimage($zoom, $particular, $thumbnail, $presentation, $product, $order){
$insert_id = DB::insert('product_image', array('zoom','particular','thumbnail','presentation','product','order'))
->values(array($zoom, $particular, $thumbnail,$presentation, $product, $order))
->execute();
return $insert_id;
}
Any idea why?
You are not using ORM for inserts and updates, thus these specific settings are not applied. You use DB Query Builder instead of ORM. Use ORM for inserts / updates and you will be then employing best practice in this case.
By the way: your version of Kohana (3.0.4) should be easily updated to 3.0.12 (the most up-to-date in 3.0.x line), and this will fix multiple bugs that existed in 3.0.4.
First of all I don't see any reason not to use ORM inside your method:
public function add_productimage($post)
{
$this->values($post);
$this->save();
}
This is the preffered way to go, since this way you'll have your model validated before saving.
To answer your question - have you tried doing it exactly the same way as docs say?
Oh and also make sure you point to the right table - in your example it's product_image while Kohana style is product_images. Maybe you forgot the add the 's' at the end.
Related
I'm using laravel but it's not important, when you create a controller with laravel command line tool, it puts 4 default function in there for create and update.
create and store for save
edit and update for well update!
This is what laravel suggest for Shop controller.
class ShopController extends Controller
{
public function create()
{
// return create view
}
public function store(Request $request)
{
// save a shop
}
public function edit($id)
{
// find a shop , return edit view
}
public function update(Request $request, $id)
{
// find the shop with id , update the shop
}
}
But I like to use the same methods for showing view and store/update my row and avoid writing lots of extra code.
class ShopController extends Controller
{
public function create($id = 0)
{
return view('shop-create' , ['edit'=> Shop::find($id)]);
}
public function store(Request $request , $id = 0 )
{
$whitelist = [
'title'=>'required',
'phone'=>'present|numeric' ,
'address'=>'present' ,
];
$this->validate($request, $whitelist );
$shop = Shop::findOrNew($id) ;
// find a shop with given id or create a new shop instance
foreach($whitelist as $k=>$v)
$shop->$k = $request[$k];
$shop->save();
}
}
Naturally I go with what I like (second option), but since laravel suggest the first way, just out of curiosity is there any reason why I shouldn't do it like this? Is this considered bad practice in any way?
Nothing wrong, but you code will be harder to understand, IMHO.
e.g.:
What does this method do? It's called create, but it also edits?
The view is called shop-create but it also edits?
Passing a 0 parameter as default for id and trying to find it every time is unnecessary.
public function create($id = 0)
{
return view('shop-create' , ['edit'=> Shop::find($id)]);
}
Although you're thinking that you are simplifying your code, you are turning it more complicated since you are breaking the Single Responsibility principle from SOLID.
It's easier to understand if you have something like the Laravel suggestion.
Also you keep a very common pattern that any Laravel developer will understand, so you can hire someone to take care of your code and do not worry if he will understand.
There is nothing wrong with doing it your way. The "laravel" way you mention is when you create a Restful resource controller and is simply one way to tackle it.
I guess those controller methods were picked because they line up nicely to a "restful" type of controller. If you were to be building a true rest api, then how you do it becomes far more strict from a standards point of view (not imposed by laravel, but line up better to the laravel way).
If you aren't creating a public facing api, or something that is going to be consumed by external entities, then I say design your controllers that work best for you and your team
This is how i usually do it, this way you can still have different validation by using the requests and it's still clear (imo) what the functions do.
public function store(AdminPartnerRequest $request)
{
return $this->handleCreateOrUpdate($request);
}
public function update(AdminPartnerRequest $request, $id)
{
return $this->handleCreateOrUpdate($request,true, $id);
}
private function handleCreateOrUpdate($request, $edit = false, $id = null)
{
if ($edit){
$partner = Partner::find($id);
} else{
$partner = new Partner();
}
$partner->name = $request->input('name');
$partner->picture = $request->input('image');
$partner->save();
return \Redirect::route('admin.partners.index');
}
Using same function for save() and update() is good idea but at the same time it will increase complexity .. One point is If in future you want to change anything you need to change it only at one place.
But at the same time you need to take some extra care.
As your function should be more dynamic.
1) Multiple records manipulation : you may require to update more than one raws at the same time so your function should be enough flexible to insert/update single/multiple values by the same function. Meaning , single query should be fired for multiple records in both the cases.
2) Validation if value already exist : When you are going to check some validation ...
in insert case you only need to check if the value is exist in db or not
when in update case you need to check with exclusion of current id
e.g.
for insert case
$this->validate($request, [
'email' => 'required|string|email|unique:tablename,email'
]);
for update case
$this->validate($request, [
'email' => 'required|string|email|unique:tablename,email,'.$id.',id'
]);
And at last very small point but need to be considered ..
3) Success message : At the time of insertion message should be "added successfully" and at updation time Record "updated successfully"
Small project, do whatever you want. Large with other developers, follow the conventions.
Coding conventions are a set of guidelines for a specific programming language that recommend programming style, practices, and methods for each aspect of a program written in that language. These conventions usually cover file organization, indentation, comments, declarations, statements, white space, naming conventions, programming practices, programming principles, programming rules of thumb, architectural best practices, etc. These are guidelines for software structural quality. Software programmers are highly recommended to follow these guidelines to help improve the readability of their source code and make software maintenance easier. Coding conventions are only applicable to the human maintainers and peer reviewers of a software project. Conventions may be formalized in a documented set of rules that an entire team or company follows, or may be as informal as the habitual coding practices of an individual. Coding conventions are not enforced by compilers. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_conventions
I used this method in a last project of mine, we called the store() and update() function manage() instead and had a getManage() which would use the same view for creating and editing. I liked this method a lot yet came across a few things worth noting. Sadly the cons outway the pros if you ever have to face those issues :(
Pros:
Smaller code - No longer do you have duplicate lines of code in your store() and update() function.
Faster to re-use with basic models - ctrl+c ctrl+v ctrl+f ctrl+r if you know what I mean.
Easier to add/change input values - An extra value would not mean having to change store() and update() to make sure they both utilize the extra input.
One function to rule them all - As long as you are not doing anything special, you can even define one function for everything. Need to change something? You've got one function, no worries.
Cons:
Code is harder to understand for others (or an older you) - If someone is new to this method or hasn't used it in a while, understanding what happens within your function is a little harder than having two separate ones.
Validation is a nuisance - As stated in this answer validation may be different for create and update. Meaning you may sometimes have to write two validations which will eventually lead to messy code and we don't want that!
Value insertion wasn't as cool as I thought - If you want to use the same predefined array to create or update then you may run into the problem of wanting to insert values on create yet never want to update them. This eventually led to either ugly if statements or two predefined arrays.
Eventually it's up to what you're going to make and what you want to do. If you have a basic website which will manage blog posts and pages then have no worries going for a shared store() and update() function. Yet if you're creating a huge CMS with many models, relations and different create and update input values (which may mean different validation) then I'd go with what Laravel recommends. It would be much easier to maintain in the long run and you won't have to deal with headaches, hacky fixes and unclean code.
Whatever you do, don't do both in different controllers! That would be confusing.
By the way, if you're wondering what kind of project I had - it was a huge CMS. So even though it was very useful and easy in some cases, it was sadly not worth it.
Nothing wrong, but in that case you have to maintain proper comments that specify that your function perform add / edit and for that you are using some variable like $id or some thing else. If it is available than you can update the record otherwise insert it.
I have problem with phalcon framework namely with models methods...
As you know models has included methods find() and findFirst()
I have generated model with phalcon-dev tools and now I am trying to do Model::find on it but I am getting an exception but dont know why...
There is some more informations (e.g stacktrace) :
http://exception.mateuszmarzecki.pl/
You can try change methods in model file
public static function find($parameters = array())
{
return self::find($parameters);
}
Does not look like your passing it the right parms.
SELECT FROM `nacionality`
Notice that your not selecting any fields from the database, and that is why your getting the Exception.
So... after some time of debugging I've found the problem...
For the next generation... if you don't want to lose a week as I did. Just read carefully your application config.
Problems occurs because I missed table and column annotations as well.
In my application config I have something like:
$metaData->setStrategy(new \Engine\Db\Model\Annotations\Metadata());
so Phalcon was looking for annotations in my model files, more info about this you can find there:
https://forum.phalconphp.com/discussion/1933/column-types-for-model-annotations
Happy New Year
I am using Caching Database Queries. My code is below.
$Categories = \App\Models\Skill\Category_Model::paginate(1)->remember(60);
Then I got the below runtime error.
Method remember does not exist.
Am I missing something ?
remember used to be part of Eloquent before at 4.2 but with the new Laravel now it's part of caching itself.
As I quote from Laravel documentation in this link:
Eloquent Caching
Eloquent no longer provides the remember method for caching queries.
You now are responsible for caching your queries manually using the
Cache::remember function. For more information on caching, consult the
full documentation.
Answering your question the best way to cache Database queries in Laravel 5.1:
$value = Cache::remember('Categories', 60, function() {
return \App\Models\Skill\Category_Model::paginate(1);
});
If the item does not exist in the cache, the Closure passed to the remember method will be executed and its result will be placed in the cache.
You may also combine the remember and forever methods, like what you used to do with 4.2 as part of eloquent itself:
$value = Cache::rememberForever('Categories', function() {
return \App\Models\Skill\Category_Model::paginate(1);
});
Since you are using pagination you might want to add postfix to your caching keys like Categories_1
I just switched an existing Model to be Versionable.
After debugging quite a lot, I now realized that there are a quite a few cases that I use $this->save() in the model quite a few times and that this finally causing duplicate entries in the Version table.
Is the only way to prevent this by removing the -save() methods out of the model (I tried it out, it works) or is there another, more simple way to prevent the internal loop during version-creation and its saving?
Since you don't specify a version of Propel, I'm assuming the stable version 1.x, though the following might well apply to 2.x, which is in alpha5 at the time of writing.
As per this documentation, you can specify when it is appropriate to save a new version of model rows using this method:
class Book extends BaseBook
{
public function isVersioningNecessary($con = null)
{
return $this->getISBN() !== null && parent::isVersioningNecessary($con);
}
}
If that method returns false, the last version is overwritten; if it is true, a new version is created.
(The docs are slightly wrong in that I assume the parent should take a $con parameter: missing there, fixed here).
I am currently a beginner in CakePHP, and have played around with CakePHP 1.3, but recently CakePHP 2.0 has been released.
So far I like it but the only thing is being a pain is the fact that it doesn't return Objects, rather it just returns arrays. I mean, it hardly makes sense to have to do $post['Post']['id']. It is (in my opinion) much more practical to just do $post->id.
Now after Google I stumbled upon this link, however, this kept generating errors about indexes not being defined when using the Form class (guessing this is because it was getting the objectified version rather than the array version).
I am following the Blog tutorial (already have followed it under 1.3 but going over it again for 2.0)
So, anyone know how to achieve this without it interfering with the Form class?
Hosh
Little known fact: Cake DOES return them as objects, or well properties of an object, anyway. The arrays are the syntactical sugar:
// In your View:
debug($this->viewVars);
Shwoing $this is a View object and the viewVars property corresponds with the $this->set('key', $variable) or $this->set(compact('data', 'for', 'view')) from the controller action.
The problem with squashing them into $Post->id for the sake of keystrokes is Cake is why. Cake is designed to be a heavy lifter, so its built-in ORM is ridiculously powerful, unavoidable, and intended for addressing infinity rows of infinity associated tables - auto callbacks, automatic data passing, query generation, etc. Base depth of multidimensional arrays depends on your find method, as soon as you're working with more than one $Post with multiple associated models (for example), you've introduced arrays into the mix and there's just no avoiding that.
Different find methods return arrays of different depths. From the default generated controller code, you can see that index uses $this->set('posts', $this->paginate()); - view uses $this->set('post', $this->Post->read(null, $id)); and edit doesn't use $this->set with a Post find at all - it assigns $this->data = $this->Post->read(null, $id);.
FWIW, Set::map probably throws those undefined index errors because (guessing) you happen to be trying to map an edit action, amirite? By default, edit actions only use $this->set to set associated model finds to the View. The result of $this->read is sent to $this->data instead. That's probably why Set::map is failing. Either way, you're still going to end up aiming at $Post[0]->id or $Post->id (depending on what you find method you used), which isn't much of an improvement.
Here's some generic examples of Set::map() property depth for these actions:
// In posts/index.ctp
$Post = Set::map($posts);
debug($Post);
debug($Post[0]->id);
// In posts/edit/1
debug($this-viewVars);
debug($this->data);
// In posts/view/1
debug($this-viewVars);
$Post = Set::map($post);
debug($Post->id);
http://api13.cakephp.org/class/controller#method-Controllerset
http://api13.cakephp.org/class/model#method-Modelread
http://api13.cakephp.org/class/model#method-ModelsaveAll
HTH.
You could create additional object vars. This way you wouldn't interfere with Cake's automagic but could access data using a format like $modelNameObj->id; format.
Firstly, create an AppController.php in /app/Controller if you don't already have one. Then create a beforeRender() function. This will look for data in Cake's standard naming conventions, and from it create additional object vars.
<?php
App::uses('Controller', 'Controller');
class AppController extends Controller {
public function beforeRender() {
parent::beforeRender();
// camelcase plural of current model
$plural = lcfirst(Inflector::pluralize($this->modelClass));
// create a new object
if (!empty($this->viewVars[$plural])) {
$objects = Set::map($this->viewVars[$plural]);
$this->set($plural . 'Obj', $objects);
}
// camelcase singular of current model
$singular = lcfirst(Inflector::singularize($this->modelClass));
// create new object
if (!empty($this->viewVars[$singular])) {
$object = Set::map($this->viewVars[$singular]);
$this->set($singular . 'Obj', $object);
}
}
}
Then in your views you can access the objects like so:
index.ctp
$productsObj;
view.ctp
$productObj->id;
All we're doing is adding 'Obj' to the variable names that Cake would already provide. Some example mappings:
Products -> $productsObj
ProductType -> $productTypesObj
I know this is not perfect but it would essentially achieve what you wanted and would be available across all of your models.
While I like the idea Moz proposes there are a number of existing solutions to this problem.
The quickest one I found is https://github.com/kanshin/CakeEntity - but it looks like you might need to refactor it for 2.x - there might even already be a 2.x branch or fork but I didn't look.
I also ran this question couple of time in my head. Now a few Cake based apps later, I see the benefit to be able to branch and merge (am, in_array etc.) result sets more conveniently with arrays than using objects.
The $Post->id form would be a sweet syntactic sugar, but not a real benefit over arrays.
You could write a function that iterates over your public propertys (see ReflectionClass::getProperties) and save it in an array (and return the array).
If you have access to the class, you can implement the ArrayAccess Interface and easily access your object as an array.
P.S.: Sorry, i've never used CakePHP but i think object-to-array conversion doesn't have to be a framework specific problem