• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Weird problem with D2W rules


  • Subject: Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
  • From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:02:54 -0700

I merged the fix to the master and integration branches. As far as I can tell, I've got everything done except pushing the tag on master. It just wasn't in my push configuration. I can try again when I get home tonight.

As for releasing other integration changes, I tend to use eGit for everything. Is there anything in that command line magic which wouldn't happen if I just make a local branch at a9426 and merged that into master?

Ramsey

On Apr 1, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:

> In that case, do a real 6.0.3 release
>
> • Switch into the master branch
>
> • Check the Git history of the integration branch and note the last commit that should be integrated into master (a9426b5ed8a806b6a7292209f8783416bce1a046 is a good candidate for 6.0.3).
>
> • Do a merge with the commit id of the previous step: git merge -s recursive -Xpatience -Xtheirs XXXXXX
>
> • Push the release candidate to GitHub: git push origin master
>
> • Tag the merge with a "wonder-6.x.x" tag:
>
> 	• git tag -a wonder-6.x.x
> 	• git push --tags
>
>> And evidently, I didn't configure my push to push the new 6.0.3 tag :P
>>
>> Anyway, try the latest master Freddie and see if your problem goes away.
>>
>> Ramsey
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 29, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Freddie Tilley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 	at er.modern.directtoweb.components.header.ERMD2WSimpleHeader.headerString(ERMD2WSimpleHeader.java:25)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My wonder says that line is:
>>>>>
>>>>> return stringValueForBinding(Keys.displayNameForPageConfiguration);
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your rule for displayNameForPageConfiguration? It doesn't look like your stack trace goes through ERDDefaultDisplayNameAssignment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kieran,
>>>>>
>>>>> This also looks like a bug in wonder. ERXGenericRecord doesn't handle a null editingContext() in handleQueryForUnboundKey(). That's going to be the case on deleted objects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that should just check entity().primaryKeyAttributeNames().contains(key) first. That method is called a lot and there's no reason to be building pk dictionaries every time. This shouldn't wait for the next integration merge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ramsey
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, even calling entity() repeatedly is going to add overhead. Adding a private static
>>>
>>> er.. transient :P Can't be static since every eo would share the same entity.
>>>
>>>> entity var may be needed to cache the EOEntity and prevent constantly searching through the models :-/ The other problem I see is that entity() may result in null when there's no ec and the entity is not in the default model group. Not sure how often that happens.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking this method should look something like to prevent the NPE:
>>>>
>>>> public Object handleQueryWithUnboundKey(String key) {
>>>> 	// Handles primary key attribute values
>>>> 	if(entity().primaryKeyAttributeNames().contains(key)) {
>>>> 		// Deleted object. Return null.
>>>> 		if(editingContext() == null) {
>>>> 			return null;
>>>> 		}
>>>> 		NSDictionary pkDict = EOUtilities.primaryKeyForObject(editingContext(), this);
>>>> 		// New object. Return null.
>>>> 		if(pkDict == null) {
>>>> 			return null;
>>>> 		}
>>>> 		// Return value for key
>>>> 		return pkDict.objectForKey(key);
>>>> 	}
>>>> 	return super.handleQueryWithUnboundKey(key);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Alternately, is this something that we could simply remove and put into an eogen template for anyone who needs this? The more I look at this the less I like it. This method is going to get called a ton for any ERD2W app that uses object.someKey in rules.
>>>>
>>>> In my ERUsers framework I have
>>>>
>>>> 55 : (pageConfiguration = 'CreateERUser' and propertyKey = 'clearPassword' and object.password.length > 0) => componentName = "R2D2WPropertyMessage" [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment]
>>>>
>>>> Which means the current method is called and creating a pkDict for every single property level component on every single page that isn't an ERUser. I just tested it on a ListMovie page. On a ten item page, handleQueryWithUnboundKey is called 960 times.
>>>
>>> Also, I obviously need to change the way I'm doing componentName here because even creating 960 UnknownKeyExceptions is just excessive.
>>>
>>>> This is not good. This method needs to be very fast or it needs to be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Ramsey
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>
>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
>


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
      • From: Pascal Robert <email@hidden>
    • Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
      • From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Weird problem with D2W rules (From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Weird problem with D2W rules (From: Pascal Robert <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: AjaxObserveField problems
  • Next by Date: Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
  • Previous by thread: Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
  • Next by thread: Re: Weird problem with D2W rules
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread