I am new the ember , what is the difference between memberAction and collectionAction in ember-api-actions.
i know these are used to get response data from backend . thanks .
A member action happens on a specific resource and a collection action happens on the whole collection. For instance, POST /users/sync is a collection action and POST /users/1/promote is a member action.
You might also find Ember Custom Actions of use for this kind of thing.
Related
I defined the queryParams in the controller and I need to add additional query parameters which is not used in the Ember application and it can have any name. It's an analytics thing. Those query parameters are not known in advance thus, we are not able to define those analytics values in the queryParams property. What happens now is Ember deletes all additional parameter after the queryParams and URL binding is triggered.
Example:
In the Controller:
queryParams: ['fin', 'ftw'],
fin: null,
ftw: null,
url:
localhost:3000?fin=111&ftw=121&anatylicsvalue=1
when I change the value of fin or ftw, anatylicsvalue is removed. I need the app to retain that bit of string.
What is the best way of doing this?
You need to define analyticsvalue within queryParams array of the controller, or queryParams json object of the router whether or not it is going to be used by the controller. So, if you declare queryParams as ['fin', 'ftw', 'analyticsvalue'] it will retain.
In order to achieve a somewhat dynamic query parameter (where even the name of the parameter is not known in advance), the only option I can suggest is using a named query parameter and using JSON.stringify to put the query parameters with that name. Take a look at the following twiddle. index.js route defines queryParams as queryParams: ['fin', 'ftw', 'additionalParams'] and additionalParams query parameter holds dynamic parameters since it is a JSON object that can hold any dynamic sub-parameter. Take a look at the updateAdditionalParams inside actions it defines a dynamic property and dynamic values as you can see.
Unfortunately, Ember does not support custom query parameters that are not known in advance. You can use the approach I have illustrated in the twiddle. Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, Ember does not support custom query parameters that are not known in advance.
It's a shame there's no "remainder" capability, if I understand what you're saying correctly. If an SPA was called with the requirement that any query parameters that it does not understand must be passed through verbatim on all its outgoing URLs, the SPA would need to scrape these off itself during routing, outside the Ember mechanisms? Do I have this right?
With controllers going away, will all of the query parameter support end up on the route? Is there something we should be doing to "future-proof" our design now?
If an user modifies the dynamic segment (object ID) in the URL of an Ember App with Ember Data, what's the best practice to handle these URLs as these might refer to non existing Model entries?
In a minimal example one can observe, that for each call with a non-existent ID (for example http://emberjs.jsbin.com/hurozaju/9#/color/30) there is an empty object added to the local ember data store. This is easily observable by the increasing number of "dots" in the output.
The error-action of App.ColorRoute redirects (as intended) to "colors" in case there is a 404 occurring while fetching the model by ID.
Why is there a "new" Object in the store?
Shouldn't the data be left unmodified?
Is there a chance to prevent the creation of new objects in this case?
I spend some time with this problem and i think this is ember-data beta-7 bug. Please report this issue in github.
here is example code how to work around this issue jsbin. This is tested with data-beta.7 and work and with data-beta.4 not working.
Sorry for not waiting as anounced...
This issue is now reported to ember-data on github.
In the notes of this commit, the Ember team have made it very clear that App.__container__.lookup() is not the way to get at controllers. Instead we should use the needs property.
I understand the rationale behind this, and the idiomatic way to access singleton controllers.
However, in my app, I have some cases where I need instance controllers. In that case, I am using App.__container__.lookupFactory() to get at the prototype which I can then create() or extend()
Is there a better way to do this (without using __container__?
Edit:
Here is an example use case.
App.MyContainerView = Ember.ContainerView.extend
...
addChildView: ->
#get("content").pushObject(App.MyChildView.create(...))
The above example will push a new view onto the stack (allowing views to be dynamically created)
However, these views will (may?) not have the right container (and other properties?) set due to being created using App.MyChildView.create(). This is especially true in cases where we are doing a partial integration of Ember into an existing app.
The way to create these views would instead be:
App.__container__.lookupFactory("view:my_child").create()
In which case everything would be ok.
Additional use cases exist, for creating instance controllers outside the context of the router.. but the idea is the same.
I don't know if you're still looking for an answer. I am also struggling with how to do things "the Ember way".
This answer put me on the right track, and should be relevant to your question:
"Please ensure this controller was instantiated with a container"
As for me, I had the same problem as in the above question: when I manually instantiated my App.AnyOtherController with App.AnyOtherController.create(...), then inside this controller, I could not access dependency injections (such as a session object that I make available to all my controllers and routes).
Instantiating the same controller this way solves the problem by giving the controller a container:
this.container.lookupFactory('controller:any_other').create(...)
You should be able to access this.container from any view, and I guess, any controller, as long as they have been given a container.
You can Ember.String.decamelize('AnyOther') to convert the CamelCase controller name to a suitable string.
More on containers here: http://ember.zone/beginning-to-understand-the-ember-js-container/
If it doesn't help you, I still hope this helps someone out there, as this container stuff is a bit tricky at first...
I am trying to do authorization in away that only owners of the objects can edit them.
How can i get the ids of the objects being edited in the post call in my authorization method?
Eg: If someone PUTs to the url /api/v1/resource_name/1, I want to get '1'
Also, tastypie allows a collection of objects to be edited at one go. (http://django-tastypie.readthedocs.org/en/latest/interacting.html#updating-a-whole-collection-of-resources-put)
Is there a way for me to get a list of the objects being edited in any call?
Thanks!
I have been struggling with this as well. Right now, I determine the object by parsing request.path. I believe a more direct method (via the object parameter in Authorization() for example) will become available in 0.9.12 and beyond.
You might watch this question as well: How can I pass a detail object to custom authorization in tastypie?.
Good luck.
I understand how to use REST for doing general entity interactions - using urls names to map to entities and the HTTP verbs to map to actions on those entities. But what is the generally accepted way of looking at "actions" more like RPC?
For example, let's say I want to send a command for the device to reset? There's no real "entity" here or do I do something like POST to http://mydevice/device/reset?
/device/reset or /system/reset are ok.
The REST "design pattern" does encourage you to NOT use any verbs.. You could do:
POST http://mydevice/system/state
<stateType>RESET</stateType>
Related information:
How to create REST URL’s without verbs?
Threads tagged with restful-url
I don't think that's the case to use POST. The "RESET action" is a idempotent action (if you call it n times you will always get the same result), so IMHO you should use a PUT call instead POST (as POST is not idempotent).
Also, as you are Putting a resource, you can use
PUT http://system
<device>
<status>RESET</status>
</device>
or
PUT http://system/status/reset
But I think the first one is "more restful", since you are putting a resource, while the second one you just use the URL.
I usually name the entity "system" or something like that. So you do "/system/reset". You've chosen device so that works too.
But yea, I usually consider these types of actions to be updates, which would use the POST method. So I think you are right to POST to /device/reset