Based on the docs, I'm able to rearrange child views A,B,C of a container view to C,A,B by doing a "removeObject(A/B/C)" followed by a "pushObject(C/A/B)". For larger sets (my actual example is currently 64), is there a possibly more efficient way (such as say, just modifying a couple of values in the existing child views array? Although the remove/pushObject is probably just fine, given the relatively larger time for the actual UI re-render.
Thanks so much.
If you were using an ArrayController in combination with a CollectionView, you could use SortableMixin support to order its content according to your needs. Then your collection rendering would be updated as needed without any intervention on your side.
You could, for example, bind the sortProperties property of you controller to reflect the sorting criteria to apply.
(If you need further explanation, some code extract from your app will be welcome)
Related
Our Application has components which consume components with consume components of varying complexity. So i just want the input on the page, to validate when an object is set that the text is correct. The issue is that it is one of these subcomponents.
My colleague told me that there is 2 ways to do this, The first is to use Page Objects, and Chaining annotation to find it on my page, and then find the next id etc until my input is found. It requires me to look through another teams' Component Markup to narrow it down to the input i want to leverage. I dont believe I should have to go into another component definition, or a definition of a definition to get the appropriate chain to get this arbitrary input. It starts to create issues where if a lateral team creates changes unbeknownst to me, my PO will be broken.
The other option my friend asked was to use fixture.query to find the component. This would be as simple as:
fixture.query((el)=> el.attribute["id"] == "description",
(comp){
expect(comp.value, value);
});`
Using Query looks at the markup but then will automatically componentize it as the appropriate SubComponent. In this case, comp.value is the value stored in the HTML. So, if i did something like:
fixture.update((MainComponent comp) {
comp.myinput.value = new Foo();
});
Then I am setting and getting this programmatically, so i am a bit unsure if it properly would reflect what is on the screen.
Whats the best course of action? It seems PO would be better, but im not sure if there is a way around having to deep query for input boxes outside of the component i am testing.
Thanks
I don't think I have a definitive answer for you but I can tell you how we do it at Google. For pretty much any component we provide the page object alongside the component. This is twofold it is for testing that widget, and also so we can have this as a shareable resource for other tests.
For leaf widgets the page objects are a little less fleshed out and are really just there for the local test. For components that are shared heavily the page object is a bit more flushed out for reusability. Without this much of the API for the widget (html, css, etc) we would need to consider public and changes to them would be very hard (person responsible for making the public breaking change needs to fix all associated code.) With it we can have a contract to only support the page object API and html structure changes are not considered breaking changes. At times we have even gone so far as to have two page objects for a widget. One for the local test, and one to share. Sometimes the API you want to expose for a local test is much more than you want people to use themselves.
We can then compose these page objects into higher level page objects that represent the widget. Good page objects support a higher level of abstraction for that widget. For example a calendar widget would let you go to the next/previous month, get the current selected date, etc. rather than directly exposing the buttons/inputs that accomplish those actions.
We plan to expose these page objects for angular_components eventually, but we are currently working on how to expose these. Our internal package structure is different than what we have externally. We have many packages per individual widget (page_objects, examples, widget itself) and we need to reconcile this externally before we expose them.
Here is an example:
import 'package:pageloader/objects.dart';
import 'material_button_po.dart';
/// Webdriver page object for `material-yes-no-buttons` component.
#EnsureTag('material-yes-no-buttons')
class MaterialYesNoButtonsPO {
#ByClass('btn-yes')
#optional
MaterialButtonPO yesButton;
#ByClass('btn-no')
#optional
MaterialButtonPO noButton;
}
Is there a way to control the order of slides displayed to users in a carousel from the Experience Editor perspective? (or even the Content Editor)
Basically, based on the user that has been identified or not identified, I would like to display a different slide as the first slide of the carousel. All the other slides would still be present, just in a different, specified order.
Is there a way to accomplish this via rules or should I look at having to create separate datasources that have the different slide orders already specified?
TL;DR
Personalization can do three things:
vary a datasource for a rendering
vary a rendering (use another rendering basically)
hide a rendering.
I guess the question you need to answer is whether what you need can be accomplished by doing either one of these actions.
If you've used nested structures to represent your carousel (like we do in SCORE, you can see how it looks like here or here) it's not hard to show/hide certain panels based on personalization conditions and thus reorder the carousel. Depending on how exactly it looks on the published site you may only need to repoint datasources. Either way, it's personalization out of the box and your content structures working nicely together.
If you've used a (variation of a) MultiList field to represent a list of your panels with panels themselves being items somewhere in the shared content area it's not something personalization engine can change based on a condition. Changing a field value is, unfortunately, not on the menu. I am sure you can code around it thanks to Sitecore being so open and flexible but I am not sure you can make it seamless (e.g. variations preview in Page Editor).
Rendering parameters is also not something you can change but if yours are static and defined on the rendering definition item (as opposed to being supplied when component is bound to the placeholder and thus recorded inside the presentation details) you can get away with having two definition items for your carousel component (same code behind it) and picking the right one based on the personalization condition.
Hope it helps.
I have an application scheme implemented in Ember that basically follows this layout:
The concept is that the user can interact with features on the Map View (which is always present) and basic navigation occurs between various views in the Parent View and an arbitrary stack of Sub Views. The user can create new features on the map, edit existing ones etc.
The URL for a particular feature could be /features/123/edit
Since input into my interaction panels is very much dependent on interaction with the Map View (drawing a polygon, placing a marker etc.) my controllers for these views are setup to "need" the Map Controller. When a particular panel view is present interaction with the map should affect the panels in various ways.
My question is - how does one scale such tight controller coupling? I essentially need to switch between different Map modes based on which panel is currently active. I also, I believe, need to observe events on the map and act upon such events depending on the current active panel.
I setup a proof of concept where a certain Sub View Controller observes certain properties of the Map Controller (with for example .observes("controllers.map.activecoords") however, such an observer will continue to trigger even after the user has navigated away from the particular Sub view (i.e. as soon as the controller has been initialised). Must I setup and tear down such observers manually (i.e. using addObserver) when entering and leaving the route? Is this the right pattern? I've gotten the impression that requires that I manually remove all such observers during transitions to avoid unexpected behaviour and memory leaks.
Perhaps I'm going about this completely the wrong way? Are there any others patterns that fits my use case with an always present map with different states and intercommunication with interaction panels?
Perhaps the architecture of your application shouldn't be connecting controllers, but rather ask yourself "What is the model here, really?"
In each case, I think the model is your map, or at least its "contents". The features are really decorating the interaction with your central model, which is the map, underlying it all.
So really you have a single model here. You effectively have a map resource, and many feature routes on that resource, viewed from the URL/API.
The question is now not so much "how to manage a dependency hierarchy between controllers?" as "how do I manage a view and a subview on the same model?" which is answered quite simply in the standard ember nested route. Your outer view is always present and it has an outlet which is where your feature goes. How it's rendered is the inverse of how the standard nested route is rendered, but nevertheless it's the same pattern.
So, the TL;DR answer is... go through your model and the routes... use them to talk about your common data: the model is, afterall, your data, and the controllers and views are simply augmenting and enabling the user experience, presentation and interaction of them.
Most of these sorts of architectural problems can be resolved by moving the data up and down the hierarchy (template view / component / controller / route / model) until you find a place which is low enough to still be accessible to objects that need access to it, yet high enough that it makes sense by not being tightly bound with too many things, but still is in the right spot and "feels right".
If it's too high, you'll tend to be doing the wrong kind of work with your objects (ie controllers should not be mucking with view mechanics, models shouldn't really have presentation stuff in them, etc.
If it's too low, you'll tend to be doing too much work with the framework and you'll tend to be repeating yourself a lot... ie controllers will be doing a lot of work to get the data they need, for example.
Quite often we deal with lists of things on our site. These initially get loaded with the rest of the page from the server. However, any updates received we would like to update these lists using Ember.
All of the examples I have seen so far with Ember views deal with controlling content on a page that has always been created purely by Ember. What options are there for dealing with DOM elements that already exist on the page with Ember views?
There has been some discussion around this idea here: https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/issues/563
In the current situation two approaches come to my mind:
Replace the static rendered list with an Ember.CollectionView as soon as all list items are available to ember as data objects (e.g through ember-data)
Use plain old jQuery to append the latest updates at the beginning / end of the list
I guess it depends on how complex your list items and the updating logic is. If updates need reordering of items and your list needs complex interaction, the first approach using ember might be better suited, although there could be a "flickering" of content while the lists are replaced. The second approach is much simpler but also limited. I would only use jQuery for appending / prepending content. Still, if the lists are simple it would be overkill to even use ember in this case.
The whole point of an MVC framework is to separate design (templates) from logic (controllers). However, template languages often afford a limited degree of "design logic" to occur. This includes basic if statements, loops, filtering, etc.
I've created a Django template tag that can take any list or QuerySet and "pagify" it. It splits the list up into pages based on a specified page size then adds the pages into the Context. The usage is as follows:
{% pagify articles by 20 as pages %}
I can then call a separate include to iterate over the pages and produce a nice list of pages wherever I needed it.
This seemed like an optimal way to do it because it allowed me to page any list in the context; I didn't have to rely on the controller to return paged results. But a colleague argued that this seemed like too much logic for the template. I thought this still fell within the realm of design-based logic since the page would still function even without paging, and determining page size feels like a template responsibility.
My question, is this too much logic for the template? or is this a clean way to be handling this?
It's always been my understanding that the view isn't supposed to be devoid of logic. It's just supposed to be devoid of any controller logic. Paging just has to do with how the data is displayed which is exactly what the view logic is supposed to contain.
Put it this way; what if you were using your data model in another medium, say, not on the web but via some kind of console-based application or background task? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to get "pages" of data through a controller (or manager) rather than having to somehow rely on a template to do this work for you?
While I'd certainly agree that the "look" of the paged data should be handled by your template, the "act" of paging should be left up to a controller (Django view) or even through some kind of custom manager (models.Manager) method.
The view should not contain business logic or navigation logic. What you are describing is presentation functionality (carefully avoiding the l-word here), which can be placed in the view layer.
You may want to check out django-pagination, which provides a similar template tag.
I agree with your colleague; the template should be fed paginated data rather than performing the pagination. The key question, I think, is whether determining page size is a template duty, and I don't think so; I'd say it should be handled at a higher level.