I trying to find a way to determine if meeting details have changed so I can update the records of it in a database that is used to display the details for the meetings on a web site.
I know there is Appointment.LastModifiedTime but that also changes when a response is returned. I want something that will change only if there was an update to the meeting details.
I've seen Appointment.IsUnmodified and tested it with a new meeting but it still returned false.
Does anyone know of a reliable way to check this?
On a side note, is there any id associated with an item that I can use as a reference in the db? I've been using itemID, but i read that under certain circumstances that will change. Is that true?
You can store the ChangeKey along with the UniqueId in the database.
Related
This should be a pretty common issue: let's say I'm updating a users table as well as a users_organizations table. From the UI perspective, there is only one button "Save".
I can either:
1) Create a single API route
2) Create one API route for each resource (one for users, one for users_organizations)
And then, suppose I choose 1). Should I update both tables in a single database call or should I split it up into 2 database calls?
In general I'm never sure how to approach these problems. Sometimes there's an action that affects more than 2 database tables at once. How do I ensure robustness, proper error handling, and keep my code sane all at once?
Definitely a problem I struggle with as well.
From what I've seen in the past, most operations that go along with a UI action are related, and can be given a common action name like update-user when clicking "Save". I'd have a single API endpoint to update the user, such as PUT /api/users/123 in a REST API. The body of that request would contain updated fields and new organizations the user belongs to.
Then on the server side I would make 2 database calls, one to update the user table and one to update the user_organization table.
If you feel 2 operations are so different that it's difficult to come up with a common API endpoint name, or if they need to be called independently in other parts of the app, I would argue that they should be 2 different API endpoints.
At the end of the day I try to ask, if a new developer were to try to understand this code, what would be the simplest approach?
I want to build a small Access database to better keep track of the companies we are looking at. I read Access 2010 Inside Out by Conrad/Viescas, did a lot of their examples and had the feeling I understood the basics, so I started with my own data base. Now the struggle begins, I think I have a basic misunderstanding here.
The relation I started with is quite simple: Each company we look at can have listed peers that we want to use to compare this company to. Of course, each company can have many peers and each peer can be the peer of many of our companies. So I modelled this relation as a many-to-many relationship:
Next, I created the form for a company, which looked something like this:
I related the subform I used to show the peers with a query that is based on tblPeersCompanies_1 and gives some additional information. What I now want from a user perspective is straightforward: A user should simply add peers to this subform for the company he is currently viewing. Access should then automatically update tblPeersCompanies_1 and tblPeers_1. The peers really serve no other purpose than to relate them to a company.
However, I struggle implementing this. Adding a new peer to the subform does not work, simply because it is not based on tblPeers_1 and if I enter the information there, Access notices that the peer is not in that table yet. (That is at least what I think the problem is). How can this be achieved though? I don't want the user to open another form, enter the peer first, go back to this form, type the peer again and the other related information. I hope that there must a simple way to do that automatically. Or is this indeed not so simple.
In summary, the question probably can be phrased as: "How to add records to a matching table and a related one-table on the fly in a form?"
Thanks to the great comment by #Remou, I found a solution to this problem. It contais three steps:
Use a combo box as outlined in another SO post
Use this function to automatically enter new records in case the peer is missing. Call this function in the "On Not in List" event
Show other values from tblPeers by linking it to the selected value in the combo box, as explained here
I have to say, this is much harder than I hoped it to be. Let's hope that the learning curve is steep and that it will at least be easy to use for the user and quite robust.
I need to set up user permissions within the same table, based on the value of a field. I know that this is not directly possible in Access but a post on Allenbrown.com points to a way of doing this see here. I'm not proficient in coding so I'm hoping that I can get some directions from you. Here are the details:
I have two tables in the database, a parent one populated via a form and a children one populated via a subform. The parent contains companies and the child contain subsidiaries of those companies. In the child table, I have a field called "Domicile" and I want to discriminate user access based on that. Because the database will be used by a variety of people worldwide, my plan is to create user groups based on location and allow users to edit (or add) information based on a match between their location (as specified in the group) and the domicile of the subsidiary. For example, a person in Europe will only be allowed to edit data for subsidiaries that are in Europe, even though companies from other domiciles may be stored in the same table.
I'm looking for some guidance here as well as suggestions as to how you think may be done most effectively. I'm not partial to this method, that's just something I came up with to put some logic behind what I'm doing.
Thank you so much!
The important thing to note in Allen's description is (emphasis mine):
Assuming all updates are performed through forms, the Current event of the form then locks the fields based on this property.
There would be no practical, bulletproof way to prevent users from viewing and altering any data in the table(s) if they open the back-end database file directly.
Since you are asking for advice on how "[row- or column-level restrictions] may be done most effectively" the first issue you need to address is how "effective" those restrictions really need to be:
If you can accept that these will be "soft restrictions" (really a matter of convenience to the user so they don't accidentally alter certain records or fields while using the forms), then Allen's approach might be sufficient. (If so, then follow Allen's instructions as best you can and ask new question if you need help with a specific aspect of that implementation.)
On the other hand, if you need "hard restrictions" (serious protection against mischievous or malevolent user activity) then you'll have to employ a different database back-end -- something like Microsoft SQL Server -- with a richer set of security tools for you to use.
PROBLEM
I am developing an app where the data model will be very similar to JSFiddle's. A user will create a new entry that will be assigned a GUID in the database. My question is how to handle when other users want to modify/fork/version the original entry. JSFiddle handles this by versioning the entry (so the URL becomes something like jsfiddle.net/GUID/1).
What is the benefit to JSFiddle's method over assigning a new GUID to the modified version and just recording a relationship to the original entry in the database?
It seems like no matter what I will have to create a new entry in the database that will essentially be a modified copy of the original.
Also, there will be both registered and anonymous users just like JSFiddle. The registered users should be able to log in and see all of their own entries and possibly the versions/forks that exist off of their own entries (though this isn't currently a requirement).
Am I missing something? Is there a right and wrong way to do this?
TECH
Using parse.com's RESTful API for data CRUD; node on the server.
What is the benefit to JSFiddle's method over assigning a new GUID to the modified version and just recording a relationship to the original entry in the database?
I would imagine none, both would require the same copy operation and the same double query (in MongoDB) to get the parent.
The only difference is what field you go by.
Am I missing something?
Not that I can see.
Is there a right and wrong way to do this?
It seems as though you have this pretty well covered frankly.
MVCC does seem the right way to do this in some respects, however you don't have to go the full hog. If you were there might be cause for you to change to a database that has it built in like CouchDB or something because MongoDBs implementation would be on top of its current existing lock mechanisms, its like adding a lock on a lock.
I haven't started the coding yet and really just want to get feedback on my ideas.
I would like to know how to store a users shopping cart contents in order to be able to retrieve them once they have returned to the website.
I'm confused with the idea of allowing users to create accounts, as I've read on this website that forcing people to create an account with you in order to put items in their shopping basket is bad practice. However, if I do give the ability to have an account, then I can create a table holding the accounts information, along with having a column for storing that users shopping cart content via the CI Cart class' function $this->cart->contents; (which I would then have to serialize before putting it in the table, right?).
I also wanted to know if it is possible to store the contents of a users shopping basket into a column as stated above, and then retrieve it back to display as the users shopping basket contents once they log back in.
Having an account would benefit in terms of having your shopping cart items available in different browsers, as they would be associated with the account and not your session.
But if I don't want to implement customers having accounts, do I just have to implement the Cart class, with no interaction with the database (and just setting the session variables in the config file to not expire, or expire in a year etc)? I don't understand why I would need the ci_sessions table in this case (any arguments for using it?)
Really confused because I've pondered over this for a long time, getting more confused as time goes by :(. Could someone please shed some light for me. Thanks
I think its always a good idea to get customers to create accounts because
Its a good way to stop span. Only allowing registered and logged in users to access the checkout stages is a lot better than just letting anyone get to it
Its also a good way to gather information about your customers that can be used for marketing
In regards to the cart you can save sessions to a database by making sure sess_use_database is set to true in the config files
$config['sess_use_database'] = TRUE;
That way you can add the customer previous items into the cart when they log back in.
But I agree with #dispake you've asked quite a lot of questions so its hard to give you a definitive answer