once a certain process is done I need to set a boolean to true in order to update the template.
I can easily get the object, but setting a property seems to be more difficult. What I use to get the object is
var found = self.get('content').findProperty('id', self.datasetid);
If I do that in the chrome console I can clearly see that I get an ember object back:
Object {id: 1, active: true}
__ember1364221685101_meta: Meta
active: true
get data_set: function () {
id: 1
set data_set: function (value) {
__proto__: Object
When I do:
found.set('data_set.fully_geocoded', true);
I do get the error mentioned in title. I've tried as many different flavours as I could think of, but all with the same result.
Could somebody shine a light on this?
An Object isn't an instance of Ember.Object, but the base Javascript class Object, so it won't have a get and set method.
You can get much of the same functionality by using Ember.get and Ember.set directly, passing in the object, as such:
Ember.set(found, 'data_set.fully_geocoded', true)
Ember.get(found, 'data_set.fully_geocoded')
Computed properties and observers can also fire based on using Ember.set this way.
Related
I am doing a store query in the controller and then passing the result down to a child component.
// Controller
#tracked comment;
#action
async fetchComment() {
const comment = await this.store.query('note', {
filter: {
listing: this.listing.id,
},
});
if (comment && comment.length > 0) {
this.comment = comment.firstObject;
}
}
// Template
<MyComponent #comment={{this.comment}} />
I want to use the arg to populate a tracked property in the child component.
// Component
#tracked comment = this.args.comment;
I found this does not work but works well as a getter. However with a getter I am unable to set this to null when deleting that record.
I have also tried to set the tracked property in the Constructor but that didnt work either.
I suspect this has something to do with passing in a promise or store object in the args because this works fine with static data.
why your code does not work
this code can not work:
#tracked comment = this.args.comment;
this is because comment on the controller is initially undefined but will later bet set to comment.firstObject when the network request is done and the await in your fetchComment function returns.
Generally everythings on args basically always behaves like its #tracked (while more accurate you would describe it as getters). So this usually will just update fine. But the assignment #tracked comment = this.args.comment; only happens once when you create the component, so you no longer depend on updates on args.
why you can not set this.args.comment to null
If you use a getter or directly always use this.args.comment you can not change this reference. This is because this.args is always readonly. you can change objects on this.args.something, but you never can change the reference or primitive value on this.args.
Sidenote: this is only true if the component was called with <AngleBracket /> syntax. For the older {{curly-component}} syntax this is not true. So this does not depend on the component itself but how the component gets called.
you could notify the controller to remove the reference
one good thing to do is to pass down a deleteComment action to the component that basically does something like this.comment = null on the controller. then you use this.args.comment directly or by a getter and you can call this.args.deleteComment() to set comment on the controller to null, which will update anything that uses this.args.comment or a getter that returns this.args.comment.
this is essentially because in your architecture the controller owns the data (because it loads it). so the controller is also responsible to delete it.
if you use ember-data you can check isDeleted
if its a ember-data model (which it probably is if you call this.store) then it has a isDeleted property. you can use this to check if the record is deleted, since ember-data records dont disappear if they get deleted. which is exactly because of problems like this.
how you use another property to shadow a argument
you could do something like this to shadow an argument in your component:
#tracked commentIsDeleted = false;
get comment() {
return this.commentIsDeleted
? null
: this.args.comment;
}
this way at first this.comment will work like a normal getter, but you can shadow delete it by setting this.commentIsDeleted = true;. From that on this.comment will be null.
My question is two-fold:
Where is the best place to put some kind of polling logic - in the route file right?
How do I pass this constantly updating value from the Route to some child component? Labeling some variable as "#tracked" and then passing the tracked variable via the model hook?
Let's say I have something like this:
routes/index.js
export default class IndexRoute extends Route {
#tracked
recent: {
A: 0,
...
},
constructor() {
super(...arguments);
this.getRecent();
}
getRecent() {
// poll data / fetch latest
const {A, ...partialObject} = this.recent;
this.recent = { ...partialObject, A: <some new value fetched>};;
later(this, this.getRecent, 2000);
}
model() {
return this.recent;
}
}
application.hbs
<p>constantly updating "this.recent": {{ this.model.A }} </p>
I thought if I use the model hook like this, it would be tracked and therefore auto-update but that was not the case. I have this sample Ember Twiddle that emulates what I'm trying to do. I tried to force a re-compute by reassigning the entire variable but it didn't work.
This question is a deeper dive from my initial question here.
You are returning a reference to object stored in this.recent in your model hook. But the getRecent method does not change that object but overrides this.recent. After the first execution of getRecent method the model of the route and this.recent aren't the same object anymore. The model of the route, which you can access through this.modelFor(this.routeName) is the initial value and this.recent is the new value.
You want to mutate the object returned from model hook instead.
The object given in your example has a fixed schema. This allows you to mark the property A as tracked:
recent: {
#tracked A: 0,
...
}
As currently you return the value of this.recent in your model hook. But instead of overwriting it in getRecent method, you are only changing the value of it's property A:
getRecent() {
this.recent.A = <some new value fetched>;
later(this, this.getRecent, 2000);
}
If you don't know the schema of the object returned in model hook or if you are dealing with an array, it's a little bit more complicated. You wouldn't have a property to decorate with #tracked. I would recommend to use the tracked-built-ins package in that case.
For arrays you can also fallback to legacy MutableArray from #ember/array/mutable package. But you must make sure in that case that you use it's custom methods to manipulate the array (e.g. pushObject instead of push).
Hello StackOverflow experts,
I would like to know if it would be possible to use Ember.js' computed properties to modify the value of the property before returning to whatever object requests it.
Imagine this simple example:
I have a User object with mail property
When I set the property, I want the email address to change from first.last#example.com to first.last#anotherexample.com, then return it
When I request the property ( via User.get ) I want to get the modified property back.
I think it should be pretty simple by utilising another 'helper' property, like formatted_mail, where I would store and retrieve the formatted value, but I wonder if something like this can be done without additional model properties.
So far, I have this coffescript code, but I always get 'undefined' when reading the property, even though I set it before, so I suspect the value does not get saved by Ember anywhere:
mail: ( ( key, value ) ->
if arguments.length == 1
return this.get 'mail'
else
return value.split( '#' )[0] + '#anotherexample.com'
).property 'mail'
Thank you for your assistance!
You are close to solution.
As computed properties are always cached by default in Ember (you could disable this behaviour using .volatile()), you do not have to specify what to do when arguments.length is 1, except if you want to specify a default value.
So here it should looks like:
App.User = Ember.Object.extend({
mail: function(key, value) {
if (arguments.length === 2) {
return value.split('#')[0] + "#tieto.com";
}
return null;
}.property()
});
The return null just specify the default value.
When you set the mail property, it will cache the returned value and always returns it without recomputing this property.
Note that you can do that only because the mail property does not depend on other properties. If you were declaring it with .property('anotherProperty'), the mail property will be recomputed any time anoterProperty changes. So in the example above it will reset it to null.
You can try it in this JSFiddle.
I'm looping through a content of an ArrayController whose content is set to a RecordArray. Each record is DS.Model, say Client
{{# each item in controller}}
{{item.balance}}
{{/each}}
balance is a property of the Client model and a call to item.balance will fetch the property from the model directly. I want to apply some formatting to balance to display in a money format. The easy way to do this is to add a computed property, balanceMoney, to the Client object and do the formatting there:
App.Client = DS.Model({
balance: DS.attr('balance'),
balanceMoney: function() {
// format the balance property
return Money.format(this.get('balance');
}.property('balance')
});
This serves well the purpose, the right place for balanceMoney computed property though, is the client controller rather than the client model. I was under the impression that Ember lookup properties in the controller first and then tries to retrieve them in the model if nothing has been found. None of this happen here though, a call to item.balanceMoney will just be ignored and will never reach the controller.
Is it possible to configure somehow a controller to act always as a proxy to the model in all circumstances.
UPDATE - Using the latest version from emberjs master repository you can configure the array controller to resolve records' methods through a controller proxy by overriding the lookupItemController method in the ArrayController. The method should return the name of the controller without the 'controller' suffix i.e. client instead of clientController. Merely setting the itemControllerClass property in the array controller doesn't seem to work for the moment.
lookupItemController: function( object ) {
return 'client';
},
This was recently added to master: https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/commit/2a75cacc30c8d02acc83094b47ae8a6900c0975b
As of this writing it is not in any released versions. It will mostly likely be part of 1.0.0.pre.3.
If you're only after formatting, another possibility is to make a handlebars helper. You could implement your own {{formatMoney item.balance}} helper, for instance.
For something more general, I made this one to wrap an sprintf implementation (pick one of several out there):
Ember.Handlebars.registerHelper('sprintf', function (/*arbitrary number of arguments*/) {
var options = arguments[arguments.length - 1],
fmtStr = arguments[0],
params = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1, -1);
for (var i = 0; i < params.length; i++) {
params[i] = this.get(params[i]);
}
return vsprintf(fmtStr, params);
});
And then you can do {{sprintf "$%.2f" item.balance}}.
However, the solution #luke-melia gave will be far more flexible--for example letting you calculate a balance in the controller, as opposed to simply formatting a single value.
EDIT:
A caveat I should have mentioned because it's not obvious: the above solution does not create a bound handlebars helper, so changes to the underlying model value won't be reflected. There's supposed to be a registerBoundHelper already committed to Ember.js which would fix this, but that too is not released yet.
How do I test which view was rendered from a controller action if what I get is a T4MVC_ActionResult? Under normal circumstances I should be able to directly use TestHelper's methods, like in the examples:
pooController.Details().AssertViewRendered().ForView("Details")
...but, since through T4MVC I get a T4MVC_ActionResult instead of a ViewResult, the part AssertViewRendered<>().ForView("Details") fails. What alternative do I have if I want to test which view was invoked?
UPDATE:
Here's the test code:
[TestMethod]
public void Theme_Controller_Details_Action_Returns_Details_View()
{
var builder = new TestControllerBuilder();
var mockThemeRepository = new Mock<IThemeRepository>();
var themeController = builder.CreateController<Evalgrid.Website.Controllers.ThemeController>(mockThemeRepository.Object);
builder.InitializeController(themeController);
var result = themeController.Details();
result.AssertViewRendered().ForView("Details");
}
I used the debugger setting a breakpoint after the result line, and its variable type is T4MVC_ActionResult, while themeController is Evalgrid.Website.controllers.ThemeController. Note that I have used the fully qualified name of the controller.
I get this:
Expected result to be of type
ViewResult. It is actually of type
T4MVC_ActionResult.
I don't know what's going on.
Actually, T4MVC should not make a difference here. If you directly instantiate your controller and call an action method, you'll get the same thing back whether you use T4MVC or not. i.e. you won't get a T4MVC_ActionResult.
It's only when you write MVC.Foo.Details() that you'll get a T4MVC_ActionResult. That's because MVC.Foo returns an instance of a derived class which does special thing, and not directly your controller class.
Does that make sense?
Update: I'm confused, as looking at the sources for TestControllerBuilder.CreateController, it has:
public T CreateController<T>(params object[] constructorArgs) where T : Controller
{
var controller = (Controller)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), constructorArgs);
InitializeController(controller);
return controller as T;
}
So it's directly instantiating the type that you pass in, which should just call your normal action.
One question about your code: does your Details action method take any parameters? If so, that would explain the problem, as you're calling it with no params, which would be a T4MVC method added in the partial class.