I need a way for ember router to route to a recursive path.
For Example:
/:module
/:module/:submodule
/:module/:submodule/:submodule
/:module/:submodule/:submodule/...
Can this be done with Embers router, and if so, how?
I've been looking for examples, tearing apart the source, and I've pretty much come to the conclusion, it's not possible.
In a previous question, someone had pointed me to a way to get the url manually and split it, but I'm stuck at creating the state for the router to resolve to.
As of now, in my project, I currently just use the Ember.HashLocation to setup my own state manager.
The reason for the need of this, is because the module definitions are stored in a database, and at any given point a submodule of a submodule, recursively, could be added. So I'm trying to make the Application Engine handle the change.
Do your submodules in the database not have unique IDs? It seems to me that rather than representing your hierarchy in the path, you should just go straight to the appropriate module or submodule. Of course the hierarchy is still in your data model, but it shouldn't have to be represented in your routing scheme. Just use:
/module/:moduleId
/submodule/:submoduleId
And don't encode the hierarchy in the routes. I understand it might be natural to do so, but there's probably not a technical reason to.
If your submodules don't have unique ids, it's maybe a little tougher...you could build a unique ID by concatenating the ancestor ids together (say, with underscores), which is similar to splitting the URL, but a little cleaner probably. I will say that Ember/Ember Data doesn't seem to be too easy to use with entities with composite keys--if everything has a simple numeric key everything becomes easier (anyone want to argue with me on this, please explain to me how!).
DO you mean like this:
App.Router.map(function(match) {
match('/posts').to('blogPosts');
match('/posts/:blog_post_id').to('showBlogPost');
});
Related
Creating in-repo-addon in Ember.JS gives a lot of possibilities. Today I've stumbled into a case when I wanted to register all classes in directory (for example my-dir) into Dependency Injector (same way it's done with services by Ember, but I wanted to use some other namespace).
For example I want to allow developer to create multiple classes inside proxy directory, and register all of them in DI under proxy: namespace. So later we can use:
Ember.Component.extend({
myProxy: Ember.inject('proxy:my'),
});
You'll need to do this using an initializer. More details on this here: https://guides.emberjs.com/v2.12.0/applications/dependency-injection/
The hard part may be getting all proxy items in s folder to automatically register ...
Edit
Looks like I didn't spend enough time thinking about this. You should be able to do at least part of this easily. There are two parts to this.
Part 1
Ember currently uses the ember-resolver to handle lookups for various items. If you check the tests for the resolver you'll notice that you should be able to map in anything you want: https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-resolver/blob/master/tests/unit/resolvers/classic/basic-test.js
So in your case, if you do a Ember.getOwner(this).lookup('proxy:main') from within an Ember instantiated class (a route, controller or component for instance) it would look in app/proxy/main.js which your addon could be populating.
Details on the Ember.getOwner lookup are available here: https://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.html#method_getOwner
Part 2
So at this point you can lookup proxies (which would be doable in an init method). But if we want to get truly elegant we'd want to allow Ember.inject.proxy('main') syntax.
Doing so would involve calling a private method inside of Ember.inject in an initializer. Because that naming scheme is changing in the new Javascript modules RFC, it may be unwise to try to add this syntactic sugar ...
So I'd advise avoiding touching that private API unless it's really important to your app design.
We're new to Ember, and our intended (ember-cli) app first works by opening a project (which we can think of a JSON object), and then acting on various sections of that project with various functions. We have this "pick your project first" approach neatly encapsulated in a Django REST api structure, e.g.
/projects/ lists all projects
/projects/1/ gives information about project 1
/projects/1/sectionA/ list all elements in sectionA of project 1
/projects/1/sectionA/2/ gives information about element 2 of sectionA in project 1
/projects/1/sectionA/2/sectionB/... and so on.
We made relatively good progress with the first two points in Ember using ember-data and this.store('project').find(...) etc. However, we've come unstuck trying to add further to our url (e.g. points 3., 4., and 5.). I believe our issues come from routing and handling multiple models (e.g. project and sectionA).
The question: what is the best way to structure the routes in Ember.js to match a non-trivial REST API, and use ember-data similarly?
Comments:
the "Ember way", and stuff working out of the box is preferred. Custom adapters and .getJSON might work, but we're not sure if we'll then lose out on what Ember offers.
we want the choice of project to affect the main app template. E.g. if a project does not have "sectionA", then a link to "sectionA" is not displayed in the main app. And, if the project does have "sectionA", we need the link to be to e.g. "/project/1/sectionA", i.e. dependant on the project open.
This seems similar to handling users (i.e. first I must "pick a user" and then continue), where the problem is solved outside of the URL (and is similar to using sessions as we have done in the past). However, we specifically want the project ID to be inside the URL, to remain stateless.
Bonus questions (if relevant):
how would we structure the models? Do we need to use hasMany/belongsTo and, if so, is this equivalent to just loading the whole project JSON in the first place?
can ember-data handle such complex requests? I.e. "give me item 2 from sectionA of project 1"? Can it do this "in one go", or do there have to be nested queries (i.e. "first give me project 1" and then from this "give me sectionA" and then from this "give me item 1")?
Finally, apologies if this is documented well somewhere. We've spent nearly a week trying to figure this out and have tried our best to find resources -- it's possible we just don't know what we're looking for.
I think this one will be a good thing to read: discuss.emberjs.com/t/… - you've got Tom Dale and Stefan Penner involved in the thread
My suggestion would be to change it to query params:
/projects?id=1&selectionA=a&selectionB=b
then, you won't have such problems. And yes, you can still use all the hasMany and belongsTo fields.
If there's anything unclear, I'll provide you with a longer answer (if I'm able to).
Check out ember-api-actions and ember-data-actions also ember-data-url-templates
Here's a few more resources from a blog I found. ember-data-working-with-custom-api-endpoints and ember-data-working-with-nested-api-resources
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'm helping develop a new API for an existing database.
I'm using Python 2.7.3, Django 1.5 and the django-rest-framework 2.2.4 with PostgreSQL 9.1
I need/want good documentation for the API, but I'm shorthanded and I hate writing/maintaining documentation (one of my many flaws).
I need to allow consumers of the API to add new "POS" (points of sale) locations. In the Postgres database, there is a foreign key from pos to pos_location_type. So, here is a simplified table structure.
pos_location_type(
id serial,
description text not null
);
pos(
id serial,
pos_name text not null,
pos_location_type_id int not null references pos_location_type(id)
);
So, to allow them to POST a new pos, they will need to give me a "pos_name" an a valid pos_location_type. So, I've been reading about this stuff all weekend. Lots of debates out there.
How is my API consumers going to know what a pos_location_type is? Or what value to pass here?
It seems like I need to tell them where to get a valid list of pos_locations. Something like:
GET /pos_location/
As a quick note, examples of pos_location_type descriptions might be: ('school', 'park', 'office').
I really like the "Browseability" of of the Django REST Framework, but, it doesn't seem to address this type of thing, and I actually had a very nice chat on IRC with Tom Christie earlier today, and he didn't really have an answer on what to do here (or maybe I never made my question clear).
I've looked at Swagger, and that's a very cool/interesting project, but take a look at their "pet" resource on their demo here. Notice it is pretty similar to what I need to do. To add a new pet, you need to pass a category, which they define as class Category(id: long, name: string). How is the consumer suppose to know what to pass here? What's a valid id? or name?
In Django rest framework, I can define/override what is returned in the OPTION call. I guess I could come up with my own little "system" here and return some information like:
pos-location-url: '/pos_location/'
in the generic form, it would be: {resource}-url: '/path/to/resource_list'
and that would sort of work for the documentation side, but I'm not sure if that's really a nice solution programmatically. What if I change the resources location. That would mean that my consumers would need to programmatically make and OPTIONS call for the resource to figure out all of the relations. Maybe not a bad thing, but feels like a little weird.
So, how do people handle this kind of thing?
Final notes: I get the fact that I don't really want a "leaking" abstaction here and have my database peaking thru the API layer, but the fact remains that there is a foreign_key constraint on this existing database and any insert that doesn't have a valid pos_location_type_id is raising an error.
Also, I'm not trying to open up the URI vs. ID debate. Whether the user has to use the pos_location_type_id int value or a URI doesn't matter for this discussion. In either case, they have no idea what to send me.
I've worked with this kind of stuff in the past. I think there is two ways of approaching this problem, the first you already said it, allow an endpoint for users of the API to know what is the id-like value of the pos_location_type. Many API's do this because a person developing from your API is gonna have to read your documentation and will know where to get the pos_location_type values from. End-users should not worry about this, because they will have an interface showing probably a dropdown list of text values.
On the other hand, the way I've also worked this, not very RESTful-like. Let's suppose you have a location in New York, and the POST could be something like:
POST /pos/new_york/
You can handle /pos/(location_name)/ by normalizing the text, then just search on the database for the value or some similarity, if place does not exist then you just create a new one. That in case users can add new places, if not, then the user would have to know what fixed places exist, which again is the first situation we are in.
that way you can avoid pos_location_type in the request data, you could programatically map it to a valid ID.
I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right?
Example Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:222-555-1212
So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update.
Example Update Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:111-555-1212
I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?
This is not specific to SOAP. It may simply be how the service is designed. In general, there will be fields that can only be updated if you have the original value: you can't add one to a field unless you know the original value, for instance. The service seems to have been designed for the general case.
I don't think that it is a very "common" practice. However I've seen cases where the old values are posted together with the new values, in order to validate that noone else has updated the values in the meantime.