Can I define a custom validation with options for Loopback? - loopbackjs

Is there a prescribed way to create a custom validator in loopback? As an example, assume that I want to create something like:
Validatable.validatesRange('aProperty', {min: 0, max: 1000})
Please note that I am aware of:
Validatable.validates(propertyName, validFn, options)
The problem I have with validates() is that validFn does not have access to the options. So, I'm forced to hard code this logic; and create a custom method for every property that needs this type of validation. This is undesirable.
Similarly, I am familiar with:
Model.observes('before save', hookFn)
Unfortunately, I see no way to even declare options for the hookFn(). I don't have this specific need (at least, not yet). It was just an avenue I explored as a possible alternative to solve my problem.
Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance!

There is a mention of how to do this over at https://docs.strongloop.com/display/public/LB/Validating+model+data
You can also call validate() or validateAsync() with custom validation
functions.
That leads you to this page https://apidocs.strongloop.com/loopback-datasource-juggler/#validatable-validate
Which provides an example.
I tried it out on my own ...
Question.validate('points', customValidator, {message: 'Negative Points'});
function customValidator(err) {
if (this.points <0) err();
}
And since that function name isn't really used anywhere else and (in this case) the function is short, I also tried it out with anonymous function:
Question.validate('points',
function (err) { if (this.points <0) err(); },
{message: 'Question has a negative value'})
When points are less than zero, it throws the validation error shown below.
{
"error": {
"name": "ValidationError",
"status": 422,
"message": "The `Question` instance is not valid. Details: `points` Negative Points (value: -100).",
"statusCode": 422,
"details": {
"context": "Question",
"codes": {
"points": [
"custom"
]
},
"messages": {
"points": [
"Negative Points"
]
}

What you are looking for is validatesLengthOf(). For example:
Validatable.validatesLengthOf('aProperty', {min: 0, max: 1000});
Here is the documentation links:
All the methods of Validatable class and
Model-wise validation.

Related

searchContacts with phone number query is broken

Using the [searchContacts API method] (https://developers.google.com/people/api/rest/v1/people/searchContacts) used to support searching by telephone number - indeed this is called out in the documentation:
The query matches on a contact's names, nickNames, emailAddresses, phoneNumbers, and organizations fields that are from the CONTACT source.
It no longer returns results when using a phone number as the query. Is this deliberate, or a bug?
As per google people api search by phonenumbers I have tried a query of "canonical format without plus". I have also tried "canonical format with plus" and "exact number as stored".
Name query still works
https://people.googleapis.com/v1/people:searchContacts?readMask=names%2cphoneNumbers&query=Go Ogle&pageSize=30
returns
{
"results": [
{
"person": {
"resourceName": "people/c832768086350305259",
"etag": "%EgcBAgsuNz0/GgECIgwxZGVYd20reHpEUT0=",
"names": [
{
"metadata": {
"primary": true,
"source": {
"type": "CONTACT",
"id": "b8e96298f3117eb"
}
},
"displayName": "Go Ogle",
"familyName": "Ogle",
"givenName": "Go",
"displayNameLastFirst": "Ogle, Go",
"unstructuredName": "Go Ogle"
}
],
"phoneNumbers": [
{
"metadata": {
"primary": true,
"source": {
"type": "CONTACT",
"id": "b8e96298f3117eb"
}
},
"value": "020 7031 3000",
"canonicalForm": "+442070313000"
}
]
}
}
]
}
Phone number query fails
https://people.googleapis.com/v1/people:searchContacts?readMask=names%2cphoneNumbers&query=442070313000&pageSize=30
returns
{}
The query function does indeed seem to be broken at the moment. My tests gave the same results and the question you linked shows that it clearly worked in the past.
I found a bug report on Google's issue tracker. A Googler already replied to it saying that they were able to reproduce it and filed an internal report. It's a matter of time until they fix it so you may want to keep track of that thread or post on it yourself to apply some pressure.
The bug didn't went away although they say it was closed and verified
In order to get the same functionality I had to be creative, the documentation says:
The query matches on a contact's names, nickNames, emailAddresses,
phoneNumbers, and organizations fields that are from the CONTACT
source.
The names, emailAddresses, phoneNumbers and organizations are important fields where you don't want to have garbage, but on my case at least the nickNames had no usage, so I simply add the phone number as nick name and the search works like charm.
Keep in mind that if you have many previous contacts you will have to write a script that will copy their phone number to the one of the nicknames fields.
Enjoy :)

How to provide updateMask during Google People update contact?

If I need to update the name or address of a contact, giving the field as "names, addresses" works.
How do I need to give the updateMask to update a specific field like "middleName" alone.
Providing updateMask as "names.middleName" does not work and throws the following error:
{
"error": {
"code": 400,
"message": "Invalid updatePersonFields mask path: \"names.middle_name\". Valid paths are documented at https://developers.google.com/people/api/rest/v1/people/updateContact.",
"status": "INVALID_ARGUMENT"
}
}
Anyone help?
Answer:
You need to use names as updatePersonFields, but all names need to be specified. This may be a bug, as linked below, but it is also not clear from the documentation.
More Information:
It is possible this is a bug, though until a response is obtained from the issue tracker report (which I assume was you -but if not - hit the star to help it gain more attention) about this it is not possible to know for sure.
While FieldMasks do accept sub-fields, these are not specified on the updatePersonFields documentation page, only the broader names.
You can see the list of definitely supported fields here under the Query Parameters.
Current Workaround:
While waiting for Google to respond to the bug report, the only way you can get around this is by using the names field mask, but also including the firstName and lastName parameters too when making the patch:
{
"names": [
{
"givenName": "Rafa",
"middleName": "Guillermo",
"familyName": "Rocks"
}
],
"etag": "%XxXXXx00XxxXXXXXXxXXXX00XXXXXXxXxxX0"
}
Remember: If you leave out any of these fields this is tantamount to replacing it with empty string - so be careful!

Adding pages to a multi-column notion database works flawlessly sometimes and gives a validation error sometimes for the same input

Basically, I'm using Postman to send POST requests to
https://api.notion.com/v1/pages
It works for 70% of the times and rest of the times it gives the following error sometimes. That is, for the same input.
{
"object": "error",
"status": 400,
"code": "validation_error",
"message": "body failed validation. Fix one: body.parent.type should be not present, instead was `\"database_id\"`. body.parent.page_id should be defined, instead was `undefined`."
}
Here's how my body starts
{
"parent": {
"type": "database_id",
"database_id": "a94c42320ef04b6a9c1a7e5e73455557"
},
"properties": {
"Title": {
..................
I'm not posting the entire body because it works flawlessly sometimes.
Please help me out. Is there a way to check logs of the requests that come to my page?
First, I found out that type: database_id is not necessary in parent.
I also found out that syntax errors in the payload returns a 400 error:
body failed validation. Fix one: body.parent.type should be not present, instead was `\"database_id\"`. body.parent.page_id should be defined, instead was `undefined`.
In my case, I wrongly added a value in the same level as parent, properties. Like this:
{
"parent": {
"database_id": "<database_id>"
},
"properties": {
...
},
"wrong_value": {}
}
Since the errors are not that specific, check if you made the same misktake like me, and please also double check if the parent you are trying to post to is actually a database, not a page.
The issue was with having "type: database_id" inside "parent" in the request data.
{
"parent": {
"type": "database_id",(REMOVE THIS LINE)
"database_id": "a94c42320ef04b6a9c1a7e5e73455557"
},
"properties": {
"Title": {
..................
After removing "type" it worked fine. Notion needs to update their docs.

Returning record(s) after store pushPayload call

Is there a better way to return the record(s) after DS.Store#pushPayload is called? This is what I'm doing...
var payload = { id: 1, title: "Example" }
store.pushPayload('post', payload);
return store.getById('post', payload.id);
But, with regular DS.Store#push you get the inserted record returned. The only difference between the two, from what I can tell, is that DS.Store#pushPayload serializes the payload data with the correct serializers.
DS.Store#pushPayload is able to take an array of items, not just one, and may contain side-loaded data. It processes a full payload and expects root keys in the payload:
{
"posts": [{
"id": 1,
"title": "title",
"comments": [1]
}],
"comments": [
//.. and so on ...
]
}
DS.Store#push expects a single record which has been normalized and contains no side loaded data (notice there is no root key):
{
"id": 1,
"title": "title",
"comments": [1]
}
For this reason, it makes sense for push to return the record, but for pushPayload to return nothing.
When you use pushPayload, a second lookup of store.find('post', 1) (or store.getById('post', 1)) is the way to go, I don't believe there is a better way.
As of this PR pushPayload can now return an array of all the records pushed into the store, once the 'ds-pushpayload-return' feature flag has been enabled.
At the moment, this feature isn't available in a standard or beta release-- you'll have to use
"ember-data": "emberjs/data#master",
(i.e. Canary) in your package.json in order to access it. I'm not sure when the feature will be generally available.

How to write CouchDb views?

I have list of such documents in my database of couchDB.
{
"_id": "9",
"_rev": "1-f5a9a0b76c6ae1fe5e20f1a1f9e6f8ba",
"Project": "Vaibhava",
"Type": "activity",
"Name": "Civil_Clearence",
"PercentComplete": "",
"DateAndTime": "",
"SourcePMSId": "1049",
"ProgressUpdatedToPMSFlag": "NO",
"UserId": "Kundan",
"ParentId": "5"
}
How to write a view function so that when i pass a doc._id as a key then i must get all siblings of that doc._id(docs with ParentId same as the key which I have sent)??
As said in another answer, it is not possible to do that with a single request.
However, you can do the following instead:
Define a map (with no reduce) view indexed on ParentID:
function(o) {
if (o.ParentID) {
emit(o.ParentID);
}
}
Send a first request to your object to know the ID of its parent:
GET /myDatabase/myObject
Then send a request to your view
GET /myDatabase/_design/myApp/_view/myView/?key="itsParent"&include_docs=true
Having several requests should not cause much harm here, since their number (2) is constant.
Moreover you can hide them behind a single request handled by NodeJS.
Unfortunately, you would need to chain together two map-reduce functions to achieve this result and that functionality is not available in CouchDB. See this question for further information.