What is the proper way to use booleans in Logic Apps conditions? If the bool is set to true, the workflow should continue in the YES branch but I allways end up with this error-message :
ActionBranchingConditionNotSatisfied. The execution of template action 'HTTP' skipped: the branching condition for this action is not satisfied.
{
"reservations": {
"sendBooking": true
}}
If you switch to "Advanced mode" in the condition card, you should see the expression looks like #equals(triggerBody()?['sendBooking'], 'true')
Update it to #equals(triggerBody()?['sendBooking'], true) and your logic should work.
This is because, by default, we treat true as a string, but in this case it needs to be a Boolean.
Workaround above should unblock you, I will discuss with the team to see how can be better handle this scenario.
The workaround was to remove the '' in code view, then I was able to save the logic app. But the error still exists in the designer.
Related
I have a question about a line of code in a vba project I am working on. What does this statement actually mean? I know there is no context here and I could post more code but I'm not sure if someone could just look at this and let me know what this is doing.
txtTerminationDate.Locked = (isLocked Or cboTypeSelect.Column(1) = "Regular")
.locked is a boolean that sets whether you can edit the text box. So it is trying to set it to either true or false based on the logic that follows.
In English, set locked to true if the boolean isLocked is true, or if the value of cboTypeSelect.Column(1) equals "Regular".
if you are asking about TextBox.Locked research can be found here (as answered above) TextBox.Locked
if you are asking about the equal signs, it is useful to know that the first one is an assignment operator and the second is a comparison operator (like an inline if comparison). The equal sign is said to be 'overloaded' in vb.
Well, this scenario may be quite familiar but I couldn't find the solution.
Scenario:
I am making a REST API call through tFileFetch and I get a json out of it. I parse it to get paging token and more result through tflowtoiterate. Now if more result is equals true, I have to call the same tFileFetch component to get the new set of json using new pagination result.
I have to loop through tFileFetch until the 'more result' is false.
My approach:
Access token-pagination-tFileFetch_1->JSON->tflowtoIterate->more result=true->IF [moreresult=true]->tFileFetch_2->JSON->tFlowtoIterate->more result=true->tLOOP [moreresult.equals{true)->tFileFetch_2->
After tFileFetch2 I have used tSetGlobalVar to put pagination as common var to pass to tFileFetch2
I am not sure whether this approach is appreciable or not, please suggest any improvements if any?
I have actually covered it by myself. 'code' Add SubJob Ok from tLoop to tFileFetch and add condition in tLoop which say until your condition matches 'more result' is false. Finally added delimited output with append mode
I just wrote a custom DM type to help me with this thing. Inherits from String, and all that jazz. Just now I'd like to have a default validation. So, something that I as a user don't need to define, it is just implicitly there. For instance, for an attribute of Boolean type, if you pass something other than true or false, it invalidates it's object. I'd like to have something like that. Do you know whether this is possible, and where in the architecture to insert it at best?
I think you can add it in the dump method, for example
def dump(value)
if valid_type?(value)
value
else
raise "Invalid type specified"
end
end
def valid_type?(value)
#your validation code
end
Other way is using one of the dm-validations
In your case it would be
#Skipping class Definition
property :something, Your_dm_type
validates_with_block :something do
if condition
true
else
[false, "Invalid property specified"]
end
Or other validations as per the requirement
I have a Linq2Sql query that looks like this:
var data = from d in dc.GAMEs
where (d.GAMEDATE + d.GAMETIME.Value.TimeOfDay) >= DateTime.Now
&& d.GAMESTAT == 'O' && d.GAMETYPE == 0 select d;
Resharper is underlining the "d.GAMETIME.Value.TimeOfDay" in blue and telling me it's a possible System.InvalidOperationException. While I get that if it were C# code, referencing Value without checking if it has a value would be such, i'm not sure if that is true of a Linq query.
The actual SQL generated looks horrendous, and makes me want to burn my eyes out, but I see nothing that looks like it could be a null reference. Can I safely ignore this?
(ignore for the moment the other issues, such as if it returns the expected results)
EDIT:
Upon further thought, I can see how the above might cause an exception in a LinqToObjects query, and possibly other kinds (XML?). So yeah, I suppose Resharper is just being safe.
When dealing with expression trees (as this LINQ to SQL query) it totally depends on the LINQ provider used (in your case LINQ to SQL). Therefore, it is (almost) impossible for Resharper to say anything useful about your query. I think it just interprets this code as normal C# delegates. I would say it is safe to ignore, but perhaps add a comment for the next developer.
Without seeing the data schema my guess is that GAMETIME is Nullable<DateTime> - i.e. maps to datetime/time field in the DB that can be null. Resharper is simply giving you a static analysis warning that you are referencing Nullable<T>.Value without checking that it has a value.
You can rewrite the query in this way:
var data = from d in dc.GAMEs
where (d.GAMEDATE + (d.GAMETIME.HasValue ? d.GAMETIME.TimeOfDay : new TimeSpan())) >= DateTime.Now
&& d.GAMESTAT == 'O' && d.GAMETYPE == 0 select d;
The above query will just use a TimeSpan of 0 when GAMETIME is NULL.
Considering that GAMEDATE is a non-nullable database field and GAMETIME is a nullable one, I recommend that you make GAMETIME non-nullable too. This way the two fields are consistent and do not need extra logic to handle NULL values.
EDIT I have just confirmed that trying to call Nullable<T>.Value does indeed throw InvalidOperationException, not NullReferenceException.
From the horse's mouth (bolding is mine):
The two fundamental members of the
Nullable structure are the HasValue
and Value properties. If the HasValue
property for a Nullable object is
true, the value of the object can be
accessed with the Value property. If
the HasValue property is false, the
value of the object is undefined and
an attempt to access the Value
property throws an
InvalidOperationException.
Our access client generates on the fly SQL inserts, update and delete instructions to be sent on a MS-SQL Server. Most users have the runtime version of Access 2007, and a few use the complete MS-Access version, 2003 or 2007. This morning one of our new users abroad, using a french/complete version of Access 2003, was unable to update data containing boolean fields.
It appeared that these fields are, in the french version of Access, populated with "Vrai/Faux" instead of "True/False" values. The problem was solved by installing the 2007 access runtime.
But I'd like to find a permanent solution, where I'd be able to read from somewhere which localized version of Access is in use and 'translate' the localized True/False values to standard True/False. I already checked the regional settings of the computer without success, so it is somewhere else. Any idea?
EDIT: Following JohnFX proposal, it is effectively possible to convert from local True/False to universal True/False with this simple function:
Function xBoolean(xLocalBooleanValue) as Boolean
if cint(xLocalBooleanValue) = -1 Then
xBoolean = True
endif
if cint(xLocalBooleanValue) = 0 Then
xBoolean = False
endif
end function
EDIT: following #David's comments, I changed the favorite solution. His proposal is smarter than mine.
EDIT: I am getting the Vrai/Faux values by reading the value of a field in a recordset:
? debug.print screen.activeForm.recordset.fields(myBooleanField).value
Vrai
True is NOT FALSE, or NOT 0, in all cases, no matter the localization or the database format.
So, if you replace all tests for True with NOT 0 and all tests for False with =0, then you've avoided the issue of localization of the Access keywords (I'm surprised that VBA and the Jet and Access expression services would not still understand True/False, though), as well as whichever convention your database engine uses for storing Boolean values.
In general, your data access layer ought to be abstracting that away for you. Both ODBC and ADO do it automatically, so you work with the Boolean values you know and it's taken care of for you transparently, in my experience.
I'm also still puzzled about the question, as it sounds like a display/formatting issue, but use NOT 0 and =0 for True and False avoids the problem entirely in all cases.
EDIT: In regard to the function edited into Philippe's question:
Is there a reason you've implicitly defined your function's parameter as a variant? Is that what you mean? If it's passed a Null, it's going error out on the first CInt(), as CInt() can't accept a Null.
Also, there's a logic problem in that in VBA any number but 0 is supposed to return True. It's also completely redundant code. This is simpler and returns the correct result in all cases:
Function xBoolean(xLocalBooleanValue As Vriant) as Boolean
If CInt(xLocalBooleanValue) <> 0 Then
xBoolean = True
End If
End Function
Or, pithier still:
Function xBoolean(xLocalBooleanValue As Variant) as Boolean
xBoolean = (CInt(xLocalBooleanValue) <> 0)
End Function
And to handle Nulls passed in the parameter:
Function xBoolean(xLocalBooleanValue As Variant) as Boolean
xBoolean = (CInt(Nz(xLocalBooleanValue, 0)) <> 0)
End Function
I'm not sure that's necessary in the context you're currently using it, but I always hate writing code where I can imagine a case where it will error out -- even if I know it can't break in its present context, you never know where it might end up getting used, so should you anticipate a condition that can be handled, you should handle it.
Premature optimization?
No -- it's putting a safety lock on a weapon that keeps it from being misused.
(on the other hand, if it took more lines of code to handle the antipated error than the function started out with, I'd think twice about it)
Have you considered using -1/0 (Access is weird about booleans) instead of true/false in your update and delete queries?
Math is the universal language, yaknow.
Also, to avoid having to localize the UI so much, why not use check-boxes instead of a text field for booleans on your UI?
Simple:
Function xBoolean(bool As Variant) As Boolean
xBoolean = Abs(Nz(bool, 0))
End Function