I have an object table in Workshop and I have a column which I want to display yes values with a tick mark and no with a "X". Just another visual representation.
Now in ontology we have conditional formatting, but that just colors the cell and the data is the same. I just want a tick in that place.
Is there anyway to achieve this? Kindly help.
I'd do this with a "derived property" function and an emoji. Structurally this looks like building a FunctionMap return type that maps each object to the corresponding new value. To do this efficiently (especially if need do make some other aggregation or Ontology API call for each element then you should write a little helper function:
#Function()
public async flagBooleanWithIcon(objects: ObjectSet<MyObjectType>): Promise<FunctionsMap<LifecycleStage,string>> {
const map = new FunctionsMap<MyObjectType,string>()
const objectsList = objects.all();
await Promise.all(
ObjectList.map(o => this.setIconInResult(map, o))
);
return map;
}
private async setIconInResult(result: FunctionsMap<MyObjectType,string>, object: MyObjectType) {
result.set(object, ❌)
if (object.booleanProperty ?? false) {
result.set(stage, '🔲')
}
}
Then in your Workshop Object Table, follow the instructions for a function-backed column.
Related
I am trying to cast my http.get response to actual object -> in my specific case array of complex objects.
In a normal scenario, where you don't need any specific casting, you could do the following (simplified):
return this.httpClient.get(api, this._options_get)
.pipe(
map((response: any) => {
return response.value as NewProduct[];
})
);
As my need is to actually cast this to an object, I have created this static method which does that:
static toProduct(otherProduct: any): NewProduct {
let item = new NewProduct();
Object.keys(otherProduct).forEach(prop => {
if (typeof otherProduct[prop] === "object" && otherProduct[prop]) {
if (!item.hasOwnProperty(prop))
item[prop] = otherProduct[prop];
Object.assign(item[prop], otherProduct[prop]);
}
else
item[prop] = otherProduct[prop];
})
return item;
}
Under Object.assign I am taking already existing object which was initialized under first line and I am simply copying all the properties from the otherProduct to it. However I start to face problem when it comes to array of objects. Example (with simplified class):
export class Person {
name:string;
age:number;
addresses:Address[] = [];
}
export class Address {
street:string;
city:string;
fullAddress() : string { return this.street + this.city; }
}
As soon as I have this sort of array, I don't have any initial object in item. This means that there is no initial constructor of a class which results in simple Object. This is no error for JavaScript or TypeScript; however when I am trying to access internal method of a class (in our simplified case fullAddress(), I won't be able to.
The reason why I need that is that I am overriding toString() method on my sub-classes, which is necessary for MatTableDataSource when you use the filter method (which works with strings).
Is there a way how to retrieve elements from http.get() and properly map results to typed objects?
You're being too generic. You're creating objects of objects, not objects of Product with children of Addresses.
If you want to create a new product you're going to have to understand the relationship between the api's results and the data you want in the UI.
Because you're using classes and not interfaces and want to inherit the functions, the only way to get new Addresses into the new object is with the new keyword.
And you'll have to loop through. You're not going to find a shortcut for this. You're going to need to loop through the data and transform it. If your api is giving you an ApiPerson then you'll want to do something like this:
const addresses = apiPerson.addresses.map((apiAddress) => {
const address = new Address();
// map properties of apiAddress to address...
return address;
});
Now that you have the addresses, you can map the apiPerson to a new Person()'s properties and then set the newPerson.addresses = address.
Given that you can't use arrow functions when you need to yield in its body, is it possible to set the this value for use in side the body.
I have made myself a database library which extends the "tedious" library that allows me to do something like the following
const self = this;
db.exec(function*(connection) {
let sql = 'SELECT * FROM myTable WHERE id = #id';
let request = connection.request(sql);
request.addParameter('id',db.TYPE.Int, myIdValue);
let count = yield connection.execSql(function*() {
let row = yield;
while(row) {
//process row with somthing like self.processRow(row);
row=yield;
}
});
if (count > 0) {
request = connection.request('some more sql');
//etc
}
return something;
}).then(something => {
//do some more things if the database access was a success
}).catch(error => {
// deal with any errors.
}) ;
I find I am increasingly needing to access the this value from the outside and am constantly doing the trick of assigning it to self at the head of the surrounding function.
Is it possible to set the this value with something like bind? inside the function* (at multiple levels down!)
Since I have full access to the iterators that I use to implement db.exec and connection.execSql I can change them if it's possible. to support it.
Generator use this as normal functions would.
You have few solutions:
use .bind on generator expression
pass this as first/second argument to generator named self
make db.exec take second argument thisArg, similar to array methods
If a thisArg parameter is provided to forEach(), it will be passed to callback when invoked, for use as its this value. Otherwise, the value undefined will be passed for use as its this value. The this value ultimately observable by callback is determined according to the usual rules for determining the this seen by a function.
I would suggest going with the last solution.
I want to create a JSON file for use as part of a simple web prototyping exercise. LinqPAD is perfect for accessing the data from my DB in just the shape I need, however I cannot get it out as JSON very easily.
I don't really care what the schema is, because I can adapt my JavaScript to work with whatever is returned.
Is this possible?
A more fluent solution is to add the following methods to the "My Extensions" File in Linqpad:
public static String DumpJson<T>(this T obj)
{
return
obj
.ToJson()
.Dump();
}
public static String ToJson<T>(this T obj)
{
return
new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer()
.Serialize(obj);
}
Then you can use them like this in any query you like:
Enumerable.Range(1, 10)
.Select(i =>
new
{
Index = i,
IndexTimesTen = i * 10,
})
.DumpJson();
I added "ToJson" separately so it can be used in with "Expessions".
This is not directly supported, and I have opened a feature request here. Vote for it if you would also find this useful.
A workaround for now is to do the following:
Set the language to C# Statement(s)
Add an assembly reference (press F4) to System.Web.Extensions.dll
In the same dialog, add a namespace import to System.Web.Script.Serialization
Use code like the following to dump out your query as JSON
new JavaScriptSerializer().Serialize(query).Dump();
There's a solution with Json.NET since it does indented formatting, and renders Json dates properly. Add Json.NET from NuGet, and refer to Newtonsoft.Json.dll to your “My Extensions” query and as well the following code :
public static object DumpJson(this object value, string description = null)
{
return GetJson(value).Dump(description);
}
private static object GetJson(object value)
{
object dump = value;
var strValue = value as string;
if (strValue != null)
{
var obj = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(strValue);
dump = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(obj, Newtonsoft.Json.Formatting.Indented);
}
else
{
dump = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(value, Newtonsoft.Json.Formatting.Indented);
}
return dump;
}
Use .DumpJson() as .Dump() to render the result. It's possible to override more .DumpJson() with different signatures if necessary.
As of version 4.47, LINQPad has the ability to export JSON built in. Combined with the new lprun.exe utility, it can also satisfy your needs.
http://www.linqpad.net/lprun.aspx
If the value in my control only have one value the following code will return a String, if there are more than one value the code will return a java.util.Vector.
getComponent("mycontrol").getValue();
I want this code to return a vector even if there is only one value.
I have seen several code snippets that converts my string to an Array, but I want to get back a vector.
There is no way to force a singular value to be returned as a java.util.vector (or Array for that matter). The only way would be to test to see if it is a vector, then build a vector if not. You could place it into a function and wrap the call into that... for example (this is untested code so you'll need to verify syntax, etc):
asVector(getComponent("mycontrol").getValue());
function asVector(obj) {
if (obj.constructor === java.util.Vector) {
return obj;
} else {
var x:java.util.Vector = new java.util.Vector();
x.add(obj);
return x;
}
}
I've been spending some of my spare time working a set of collections for ActionScript 3 but I've hit a pretty serious roadblock thanks for the way ActionScript 3 handles equality checks inside Dictionary Objects.
When you compare a key in a dictionary, ActionScript uses the === operator to perform the comparison, this has a bit of a nasty side effect whereby only references to the same instance will resolve true and not objects of equality. Here's what I mean:
const jonny1 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26);
const jonny2 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26);
const table : Dictionary = new Dictionary();
table[jonny1] = "That's me";
trace(table[jonny1]) // traces: "That's me"
trace(table[jonny2]) // traces: undefined.
The way I am attempting to combat this is to provide an Equalizer interface which looks like this:
public interface Equalizer
{
function equals(object : Object) : Boolean;
}
This allows to to perform an instanceOf-esq. check whenever I need to perform an equality operation inside my collections (falling back on the === operator when the object doesn't implement Equalizer); however, this doesn't get around the fact that my underlying datastructure (the Dictionary Object) has no knowledge of this.
The way I am currently working around the issue is by iterating through all the keys in the dictionary and performing the equality check whenever I perform a containsKey() or get() operation - however, this pretty much defeats the entire point of a hashmap (cheap lookup operations).
If I am unable to continue using a Dictionary instance as the backing for map, how would I go about creating the hashes for unique object instances passed in as keys so I can still maintain equality?
How about you compute a hash code for your objects when you insert them, and then look them up by the hash code in your backing dictionary? The hashcode should compare === just fine. Of course, that would require you to have a Hashable interface for your object types instead of your Equalizer interface, so it isn't much less work than you are already doing, but you do get the cheap lookups.
How about rather doing this:
public interface Hashable {
function hash():String;
}
personally, I ask myself, why you want to do this ... hashing objects to obtain keys makes little sense if they are mutable ...
also, you might consider using a different approach, as for example this factory:
package {
public class Person {
/**
* don't use this!
* #private
*/
public function Person(name:String, age:int) {
if (!instantiationAllowed)
throw new Error("use Person.getPerson instead of constructor");
//...
}
private static var instantiationAllowed:Boolean = false;
private static var map:Object = {};
private static function create(name:String, age:int):Person {
instantiationAllowed = true;
var ret:Person = new Person(name, age);
instantiationAllowed = false;
}
public static function getPerson(name:String, age:int):Person {
var ageMap:Array = map[name];
if (ageMap == null) {
map[name] = ageMap = [];
return ageMap[age] = Person.create(name, age);
}
if (ageMap.hasOwnProperty(age))
return ageMap[age];
return ageMap[age] = Person.create(name, age);
}
}
}
it ensures, there's only one person with a given name and age (if that makes any sense) ...
Old thread I know, but still worth posting.
const jonny1 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26); const jonny2 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26);
is creating two completely different objects that will not compare using ==, guess I don't see why it's any more of a road block because of as3
The problem with AS3/JavaScript/EcmaScript is not that they create two different, equivalent objects.
The problem is that they cannot equate those two equivalent objects--only identity works, since there is no equals or hashCode methods that can be overriden with class-specific comparison logic.
For Map implementations such as dynamic Object or Dictionary, this means that you have to either use Strings or references as keys: you cannot recover objects from a map using different but equivalent objects.
To work around that problem, people either resort to strict toString implementations (for Object maps) which is undesirable, or to instance control for Dictionaries, as in #back2dos example, which introduces different problems (Also, note that #back2dos solution does not really guarantee unique Person instances since there is a time window during which asynchronous threads will be allowed to instantiate new Persons).
#A.Levy's solution is good except that in general, hashCodes are not strictly required to issue unique values (they are meant to map entries to buckets allowing for fast lookups, wherein fine-grained differentiation is done through equals method).
You need both a hashCode and an equals method, e.g.
public interface IEquable
{
function equals(object : Object) : Boolean;
function hash():String;
}
In any programming language,
const jonny1 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26);
const jonny2 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26);
is creating two completely different objects that will not compare using ==, guess I don't see why it's any more of a road block because of as3