I'm trying to set a data model inside my manifest.json within my webapp.
Im using sapui5 and I'm quite new to it.
the resource I'm getting from my api is a jsonObject but somehow the model is not initiated properly. I checked the model with console.log() and it's empty.
when I do the same with an jsonArray it is working.
I should mention that I use a mockserver.js
Here is the code I'm using.
manifest.json:
"sap.app": {
...
"dataSources": {
"invoiceRemote": {
"uri": "https://services.odata.org/V2/Northwind/Northwind.svc/",
"type": "OData",
"settings": {
"odataVersion": "2.0",
"localUri": "localService/metadata.xml"
}
}
}
}
...
"sap.ui5": {
...
"models": {
"i18n": {
"type": "sap.ui.model.resource.ResourceModel",
"settings": {
"bundleName": "MyInboxUI5.i18n.i18n"
}
},
"invoice": {
"dataSource": "invoiceRemote"
}
...
and with JsonObject I mean a .json of this style:
{
"field1": value1,
"field2": value2,
"field3": [
{
"field4": value4,
"field5": value5
},
{
"field6": value6,
"field7": value7
} ]
}
(that's the one not working)
and with JsonArray I meant
[
{
"field4": value4,
"field5": value5
},
{
"field6": value6,
"field7": value7
}
]
(This one is working)
To check my model I used the simple console.log()
Component.js (part of it)
init: function() {
console.log(this.getModel("invoice"));
UIComponent.prototype.init.apply(this, arguments);
this.getRouter().initialize();
}
I did not post the mockserver.js or metadata.xml because I'm not sure it's that relevant and they take a lot of space.
So does anyone know if there is a way to load the model of a JsonObject inside the manifest.json?
I'm aware that there are other possibilities to load the model that do work, but I'm only interestet in that specific case.
Without having additional information about what you actually try to achieve it's hard to point you into the right direction.
The important information is that you are using an ODataModel + a mockserver. Thanks to the mockserver you can easily mock your data for the entities of your OData service - actually you can even mock much more...
Basically, the mock data files need to contain flat lists. In other words, you have always an array of flat objects. The mockserver gets the data (i.e. entities by id) from exactly from these files. The mockserver can only find the files if they have the correct name (see walkthrough tutorial for details). As a rule of thumb "1 file contains data for one entity/entityset".
There is no way to model JsonObjects inside the manifest. What you can do is mocking your mockserver (i.e. by reading json files manually), that works perfectly (the explored app has some examples). However, don't forget we are talking about OData!
Hint: your data looks like a tree, so I guess you want to model a tree structure. If you check the explored app there are a few examples for OData Tree binding and there I'm using the mockserver as well. Maybe that helps...
Related
I'm writing a google doc using the google docs api, and I found that there is a json 'dump' feature that helps you understand the structure of your google doc.
The only problem is, the JSON dump is different than the JSON used to actually write the doc.
For example, this is where I found out about the JSON dump:
https://developers.google.com/docs/api/samples/output-json
The truncated JSON example looks like this:
{
"body": {
"content": [
{
"endIndex": 1,
"sectionBreak": {
"sectionStyle": {
"columnSeparatorStyle": "NONE",
"contentDirection": "LEFT_TO_RIGHT"
}
}
},
{
"endIndex": 75,
"paragraph": {
"elements": [
{
"endIndex": 75,
"startIndex": 1,
"textRun": {
"content": "This is an ordinary paragraph. It is the first paragraph of the document.\n",
"textStyle": {}
}
}
],
"paragraphStyle": {
"direction": "LEFT_TO_RIGHT",
"namedStyleType": "NORMAL_TEXT"
}
},
"startIndex": 1
},
And here is documentation for making update requests to your document:
https://developers.google.com/docs/api/reference/rest/v1/documents/request
Basically what I'm seeing is that the two have some general structures in common, but the notation for actually writing the JSON is different.
For instance, here's an example of how to write to the document:
const updateObject = {
documentId: 'documentID',
resource: {
requests: [ {
insertText: {
text: 'hello world',
location: {
index: 1,
},
},
} ],
},
};
I'm hoping there is a way I can write the json in the same way that the dump is structured, and then pass that format through to create new documents. Otherwise I'm going to have to tediously translate everything from one format to the other (and there's a lot),
Does anyone have any advice on this? Maybe there is something I'm missing. Thanks!
It appears to be intended. The JSON dump in the example matches the Document object. You can also find this same structure returned when you create a document via thedocuments.create API. Unfortunately, pretty much all of the fields are output-only. I tried to plug in the body from the sample into the API, and while it didn't fail, it also ignored the input and just created a basic document.
Meanwhile, the batchUpdate methods that you found to send update requests all seem focused on specific changes and none of them take a Document object. I think your best bet would be to follow up the feature request that you found, the Docs API is still considered in v1 after all.
Azure Function with a complex (List of objects) configuration type is working locally (with that complex type in local.settings.json) but fails to read / create list of objects in Azure (with that complex type in Azure Function configuration settings). I'm looking for the recommended / optimal way to support that across both platforms / methods of access.
This works great in my local.settings.json where I use the configuration builder and pull data out like
var myList = config.GetSection("ConfigurationList").Get<List<MyType>>();
however this doesn't seem to work in Azure Functions?? Now I think that is because in local.settings.json it is a json file and looks like
"ConfigurationList" : [ { "Name": "A", "Value": 2 }, { "Name": "B", "Value": 3 }]
while in Azure Functions it is a setting "ConfigurationList" with the value
[ { "Name": "A", "Value": 2 }, { "Name": "B", "Value": 3 }]
(so there isn't really a "section" in Azure Functions?)
It seems like the "easy" solution to this is to just change the .json to be a quoted string and deserialize the string (and then it would work the same in both places); but that doesn't seem like it would be the "best" (or "recommended" solution)
i.e. something like
"ConfigurationList" : "[ { \"Name\": \"A\", \"Value\": 2 }, { \"Name\": \"B\", \"Value\": 3 }]"
var myList = (List<MyType>)JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(config["ConfigurationList"], typeof(List<MyType>));
Which isn't the worst; but makes the json a bit "not as nice" and doesn't "flow" across the two platforms ... if it is what I have to do, fine; but hoping for a more standard approach / recommendation
As I metioned in the comment, on local you can process local.settings.json as a json file, but when on azure, the value in configuration settings is environment variable. There is no section, it just string.
Please notice that only string values are allowed, and that anything nested will break. Learn how to use nest settings on azure web app(azure functon is based on azure app service sandbox, so it is the same.):
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/waws/asp-net-core-settings-for-azure-app-service
For example, if this is the json structure:
{
"Parent": {
"ChildOne": "C1 from secrets.json",
"ChildTwo": "C2 from secrets.json"
}
}
Then in web app, you should save it like this:
(source: windows.net)
Not sure if you are looking something like this , it seems a list but if it is a simple JObject like
"ConfigurationList" : {
"Name": "A",
"Value": 2
}
Then you can declare ConfigurationList:Name , ConfigurationList:Value in the configuration settings of function app
I'm having trouble properly formatting one particular soap parameter using the node-soap module for node.js as a client, to a 3rd-party SOAP service.
The client.describe() for this method says this particular input should be in the shape of:
params: { 'param[]': {} }
I have tried a bunch of different JSON notations to try to fit my data to that shape.
Examples of formats that do NOT work:
"params": { "param": [ {"myParameterName": "myParameterValue"} ] }
"params": [ "param": { "name": "myParameterName", "_": "myParameterValue"} ]
"params": { "param" : [ {"name": "myParameterName", "_": "myParameterValue"} ] }
"params": { "param[]": {"myParameterName": "myParameterValue" } }
"params": { "param[myParameterName]": {"_": "myParameterValue" } }
I must be overlooking something, and I suspect I'm going to feel like Captain Obvious when some nice person points out what I'm doing wrong.
Here is what DOES work, using other soap clients, and how they handle the "named parameter with a value"
soapUI for this method successfully accepts this particular input via XML in the shape of:
<ns:params>
<ns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</ns:param>
</ns:params>
Also, using PHP, I can successfully make the call by creating a stdClass of arrays like so:
$parms = new stdClass;
$parms->param = array(
array(
"name"=>"myParameterName","_"=>"myParameterValue"
)
);
and then eventually passing
'params' => $parms
to the PHP soap client
Many thanks!
To get a better look at what XML was being generated by node-soap, I added a console.log(message) statement to the node_modules/soap/lib/client.js after the object-to-XML encoding. I then began experimenting with various JSON structures to figure out empirically how they were mapping to XML structures.
I found a JSON structure for node-soap to generate the XML in my 3rd-party's required named-parameter-with-value format. I was completely unaware of the "$value" special keyword. Looks like this may have been added in the 0.4.6 release from mid-June 2014. See the change history
"params": [
{
"param": {
"attributes": {
"name": "myParameterName"
},
$value: "myParameterValue"
}
}
]
(note the outer array, which gives me the luxury of specifying multiple "param" entries, which is sometimes needed by this particular 3rd-party API)
generates this XML:
<tns:params>
<tns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</tns:param>
</tns:params>
which perfectly matches the structure in soapUI (which I already knew worked) of:
<ns:params>
<ns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</ns:param>
</ns:params>
I would like to generate JAVA classes from a given JSON Schema draft 4 version
I evaluated couple of tools and jsonschema2pojo was found to be useful. But it supports json schema draft-3 version only(although json schema draft 4 is in their roadmap).
Can anyone suggest me a tool or a way to generate java classes from a json schema (compliant to json schema draft4)
?
Thanks in advance.
You might try cog, a general purpose code generator written in Ruby. I put a simple project on github called json2java which demonstrates how cog might be used to generate Java classes from json data.
Not sure exactly what you want to do, but here is what I assumed. The json data would look something like this
{
"classname": "Sample",
"methods": [
{
"name": "foo",
"rtype": "void",
"params": [
{
"name": "arg1",
"type": "int"
}
]
},
{
"name": "bar",
"rtype": "int",
"params": []
}
]
}
And the corresponding Java class would look something like this
public class Sample {
void foo(int arg1) {
// keep: foo {
// While the interface in this example is generated,
// the method bodies are preserved between multiple invocations
// of the generator.
// It doesn't have to be done this way, the method bodies can be
// generated aswell, all depends on what your json data encodes
// keep: }
}
int bar() {
// keep: bar {
return 1;
// keep: }
}
}
If you want to try cog, install it like this gem install cog, and run generators like this cog gen. Check out the cog homepage for documentation.
I really need a hand here. In the last 2 or 3 hours I tried to simply list a JSON object in freemarker with a javascript backed webscript and no luck.
let's name my script as x, so:
x.get.js
function main(){
//model.data = {'name':'Test Object','size':100};
model.data={
"2012": {
"A": {
"a": "on",
"b": "off",
"list": [
1,
2,
3,
4
]
}
},
"2013": {
"B": {
"c": "on",
"d": "off"
}
}
};
logger.log(jsonUtils.toJSONString(model.data));
}
main();
x.get.html.ftl
<#assign keys = data?keys>
<#list keys as tag>
${jsonUtils.encodeJSONString(tag)}<#if tag_has_next>,</#if>
</#list>
When I try just with the first model.data (commented out) it works fine, and the logger writes out the full JSON, i get the "name, size" in the rendered HTML.
However, when I try like this, I get nothing in the rendered HTML, and logger says weird things:
{"2012":"org.mozilla.javascript.UniqueTag#1a31e0a: NOT_FOUND","2013":"org.mozilla.javascript.UniqueTag#1a31e0a: NOT_FOUND"}
So what? This JSON is valid too, so I miss some conversation or misterious function or what?
Thanks for the help
J.
normally you should fill your model using nornmal objects/values in js and generate the json in your ftl template x.get.json.ftl