So I'm working on some unit tests and relational fixtures.
I'm creating a model dynamically like:
$model = CActiveRecord::model('Post');
$post = $model->findByPk(1);
But after that I cannot for some reason get $post->id. I traced the problem to CActiveRecord class:
public function __get($name)
{
if(isset($this->_attributes[$name]))
return $this->_attributes[$name];
...
Where $name = "id". It says that $this->_attributes[$name] does not exist! As a matter of fact _attributes is empty.
My Post class does not define id (or any other properties) as a public property and I don't want to do so either. I just let the AR map it to table columns for me.
What am I missing?
Edit 1
My fixtures are regular Yii fixtures - nothing really special about them.
What differs is the way I load them really. I extended the CDbFixtureManager to be able to specify the order in which they should be loaded by overloading load() method. Only thing of interest that actually fails is that in the fixtures that have foreign keys I use the following:
'comment1' => array('post_id' => $this->getRecord('Post', 'post1')->id);
That's where it fails. getRecord returns the actual Post record (since I know the Post fixture has already been successfully loaded and exists in DB), but on the ->id part I get an exception about that attribute not existing.
If I go into Post model and add public $id; to it, then everything works! But I'm not sure if it's good practice to go about declaring all properties public like that.
If you look at this page carefully:
http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/guide/1.1/en/test.unit
you'll see that they use an array form for retrieving fixtures:
$this->posts['sample1']['id']
There is an alias defined in their fixture array for each record and fixture items aren't loaded as models really ...
Does that help? If not, it would be helpful to see your fixture file :-)
I think I found the root cause of this issue for me. While my FixtureManager was using the testdb DBConnection, the models still used the regular one.
For whatever reason, my debugger was giving me misleading errors like the one described in my original post.
Once I was able to set the DBConnection of all Models in the unit test the puzzle snapped into place and everything is now working smoothly!
Related
I set up a simple Ember Twiddle to show you my error that is occurring when trying to update a model.
It's considerable that I'm using ember-cli-mirage for mocking the data.
According to the docs, I created a shorthand route that should handle the PUT request.
It does, but with the error: Your handler for the url /api/shops/1 threw an error: Cannot convert undefined or null to object
When using the JSONAPISerializer, everything is working with shorthands (mirage/config.js) and I'm able to update models, but in my case I have to use the RESTSerializer with serialized IDs in the responses.
The request payload when I'm sending the model's attrs are without Id at the end of the property name, f.e.:
// attrs object in PUT request
{
name: "Shop 1",
city: "1" // belongsTo relationship,
}
Now Mirage is trying to find those properties on the respective database model that has to be updated, but cannot find it, because in the database it's cityId and not just city...
I also found this issue report and it’s working, but I was hoping I could avoid something like this. As far as I can remember, in previous versions of ember-cli-mirage (v0.1.x) it was also not needed to override the normalize method in the serializer to be able to make use of the RestSerializer with serializedIds…
My question is:
Is there a way to stick to shorthand route handlers only, or do I really have to write a helper or other custom solution only because I have to use the RestSerializer?
That would be really sad, but at least I would know then.
Thanks for your support!
Short answer: it looks like you need the custom serializer for now until the bug fix for it is merged.
Long answer: that issue looks to be an issue that occurred in the 0.2 -> 0.3 upgrade for Mirage, likely because of underlying DB changes made in Mirage. It'll probably get fixed, but for now you'll need to work around it.
Without scrutinizing why I want this (it may sound like a bad approach, but I have good reason) I want to know if there is a way in the standard-framework-edition 3.1+ to create a relational association to an entity that may not exist...
Firstly I do realize this determines the schema and that's fine. So if an entity does not exist, it doesn't create a foreign key and the field is always null, or if the target entity does exist, it creates the foreign key and the field works like a normal association...
Secondly, this only changes project to project, and may change down the line as an update to which I realize a manual schema update could be necessary.
Preferably without 3rd party bundle dependencies... hoping for the standard framework to do this,
Anybody?
Thanks in advance
Edit
I am using annotations in my entities with doctrine ORM
Furthermore
The simplest version of why I am doing this is because certain bundles are optional project-to-project, and bundle A may make use of entities in bundle B only if it is present. I have considered using services and if container->has then container->get, or the XML on-invalid="null" approach, but that doesn't address property persistence. I was happy with storing a non-mapped value as a custom relational field, which is fine, just lengthier and wondered if perhaps there was a way Doctrine could ignore a missing targetEntity...
Hm, perhaps I misunderstand your question, but this sounds like a normal 'nullable' association to me?
Create your assocation via annotation:
/**
*
* #var Child
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Child")
*/
private $child;
and use
setChild(Child $child = null)
{
$this->child = $child;
}
as a Setter to allow nullable values.
And your getter might look like:
getChild()
{
return $this->child;
}
In case there isn't any child it will return null.
I will keep the other answer as it responds to the question for a 'nullable association target' live data.
This is the answer for a 'nullable association target' meta data which is a different thing.
OP asks to provide a targetEntity in the metadata which cannot exist in his case, e.g. is not there in a different bundle (or whatever OP's mysterious reason might be).
In that case I recommend to build upon Doctrine's TargetEntityListener which is able to resolve the targetEntity during runtime and targetEntity can be set to an Abstract Class or an Interface:
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Acme\InvoiceBundle\Model\InvoiceSubjectInterface")
* #var InvoiceSubjectInterface
*/
protected $subject;
InvoiceSubjectInterface will then be replaced during runtime by a specific class provided by config e.g.:
# app/config/config.yml
doctrine:
# ...
orm:
# ...
resolve_target_entities:
Acme\InvoiceBundle\Model\InvoiceSubjectInterface: AppBundle\Entity\Customer
So this should be eiter an extendable behaviour for providing no class or implementing an own solution.
I would like to ask about this controller.
In past versions like 1.5 I could find it in admin/tabs and add additional functions.
In 1.6 version I can`t find any admin classes files. So I should edit controllers/admin/AdminOrdersController yes?
elseif(isset($_POST['submitInvoice'])){
if ($this->tabAccess['edit'] === '1')
{
mysql_query('UPDATE `'._DB_REFIX_.'orders` SET `invoice_number` = \''.$_POST['invoice_number'].'\',`order_date` = \''.$_POST['order_date'].'\', `changed_invoice`=1, `manager`=\''.$cookie->firstname.' '.$cookie->lastname.'\', `changedStatus`= \''.$_POST['changedStatus'].'\' WHERE `id_order` = '.$_GET['id_order']);
}
}
I add this code to update some values like invoice number or order date. But I can`t to update this. Got same date and number. Is it bad method to update or what?
You should always use modules and hooks to modify PrestaShop logic if possible
If you need to override a function and there is nor suitable hook, you should use overrides: override/controllers/admin/AdminOrderController.php. Contents of this files should look like : AdminOrderController extends AdminOrderControllerCore. If you're unsure what I mean, you should try searching for any override classes in overide folder.
You code is extremely unsafe. You should at least use Db::getInstance()->execute($sql);.
You code might not be working because you are writing you values somewhere in the middle of a function, and the Order is an object, which mean that possibly the Order object is saved after you wrote you values to database. When the order object is saved, it overwrites your values
Using DrupalUnitTestCase to unit test a Drupal module, fails. I probably forget something.
The test runs fine untill I create an instance of some class:
$foo = new FooBar();
In that case, Drupal decides to do some magic and attempts to call the database, in order to find some file in its registry.
Test PDOStatement->execute() failed: <em class="placeholder">PDOException</em>: SQLSTATE[42S02]: Base table [error]
or view not found: 1146 Table 'td_development.simpletest50921registry' doesn't exist: SELECT
filename FROM {registry} WHERE name = :name AND type = :type; Array
(
[:name] => FooBar
[:type] => interface
)
DrupalUnitTestCase, as opposed to DrupalWebTestCase do not set up a database, by design. So the reason why this fails is clear.
However, I don't want Drupal to go looking in a database when all I want is to create some instance. How to avoid Drupal looking up the file in its registry?
You probably can't.
The possibilities of using UnitTestCase as the parent class are very limited. As soon as you do anything that requires the database (and creating a new class does because the autoload features of Drupal 7 depend on the database), you have to use WebTestCase.
The only thing that might work is explicitly including all files that are required for that class to work. Because the autoload is only called if the class does not exist yet (could also be a class that your class uses or depends on). But that is relatively fragile and you will always have to include all these files manually in the correct order, which means that your unit tests depend on the inner workings of your class. Which isn't nice either.
You can also try this
spl_autoload_register('your_function');
if (function_exists('drupal_autoload_class')) {
spl_autoload_unregister('drupal_autoload_class');
spl_autoload_register('drupal_autoload_class');
spl_autoload_unregister('drupal_autoload_interface');
spl_autoload_register('drupal_autoload_interface');
}
This will move the Drupal autoload to the bottom and solve the problem.
Is it possible to have a fixture change between test methods? If so, how can I do this?
My syntax for this problem :
In the cakephp framework i am building tests for a behavior that is configured by adding fields to the table. This is intended to work in the same way that adding the "created"
and "modified" fields will auto-populate these fields on save.
To test this I could create dozens of fixtures/model combos to test the different setups, but it would be a hundred times better, faster and easier to just have the fixture change "shape" between test methods.
If you are not familiar with the CakePHP framework, you can maybe still help me as it uses SimpleTest
Edit: rephrased question to be more general
I'm not familiar specifically with CakePHP, but this kind of thing seems to happen anywhere with fixtures.
There is no built in way in rails at least for this to happen, and I imagine not in cakePHP or anywhere else either because the whole idea of a fixture, is that it is fixed
There are 2 'decent' workarounds I'm aware of
Write a changefixture method, and just before you do your asserts/etc, run it with the parameters of what to change. It should go and update the database or whatever needs to be done.
Don't use fixtures at all, and use some kind of object factory or object generator to create your objects each time
This is not an answer to my quetion, but a solution to my issue example.
Instead of using multiple fixtures or changing the fixtures, I edit the Model::_schema arrays by removing the fields that I wanted to test without. This has the effect that the model acts as if the fields was not there, but I am unsure if this is a 100% test. I do not think it is for all cases, but it works for my example.