| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:50 |
TonkaTruck |
Eddie_CRO: Yeah basically just design the result you want from find()...the only rule seems to be that you cannot violate your relationships...which is obvious...but still is worth noting because it seems to be the only rule. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:49 |
polerin |
P |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:49 |
polerin |
too many things to do that aren't "manually create this join table fixture" |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:48 |
polerin |
sorry, but i'm dead tired and I'm going to need to minimize this window so I can concentrate |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:48 |
polerin |
Eddie_CRO: not sure, just see if you can get the group conditions working first |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:48 |
Eddie_CRO |
polerin: can i use Item.field in conditions this way? |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:47 |
ChipotleCoyote |
polerin: Hmm. I'd thought of something like that, with 'section' just being paragraphs, but figured you could end up with an *awful* lot of paragraph records that way, particularly if you allow for each text file to go through revisions. :) But I guess that might not be a problem in practice. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:47 |
polerin |
and making it a first level contain, then work your way back |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:47 |
Eddie_CRO |
it doesn't seem to do the trick |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:47 |
polerin |
Eddie_CRO: try doing the find from Item->User-> |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:47 |
Eddie_CRO |
http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1158867500 |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:46 |
Eddie_CRO |
it is not working yet, i get some data just with group empty. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:46 |
polerin |
ChipotleCoyote: depending on how you decide to do it, you could actually just have "section" be a character range for the file, and whatever view you use uses those character range to bust it up |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:45 |
polerin |
ChipotleCoyote: that way you could arbitraily bust up any single file into multiple sections and assign comments |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:44 |
polerin |
ChipotleCoyote: TextFile hasMany Section hasMany Comment |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:44 |
TonkaTruck |
Eddie_CRO: let me know if the cake-php group post made sense...and if that works. If so you should post a reply with your contain. I was surprised by how few people have noted complex contain examples on their blogs. When I say "complex" I just mean arrays wider than 2 deep I guess. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:43 |
TonkaTruck |
Eddie_CRO: To answer your last question I'm not sure it matter whether contain is defined via contain() or 'contain' as a key in your find(). |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:41 |
ChipotleCoyote |
Sort of weird implementation question/problem. I have a project in mind that I'd like to allow people to upload text files to and have other people comment on by paragraph, sort of the way Microsoft Word allows comments on files. But I haven't thought of a good way to implement that kind of comment system. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:41 |
polerin |
almost as badly as I do |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:41 |
polerin |
sorry, but lawereese slaughteres the language |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:41 |
TonkaTruck |
haha |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:40 |
TonkaTruck |
Somewhere there is a law professor who is very proud of me for articulating that. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
TonkaTruck |
It's a bit counter-intuitive because contain() is either a) semantically inclusive and b) logically exclusive or vise versa. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
polerin |
then I can actually start coding |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
polerin |
thankfully this I should only have one more after this one |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
polerin |
back to writing fixtures |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
polerin |
anyhow |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:39 |
polerin |
not 100% but that's my first instinct |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:38 |
polerin |
yes, because they are wanting to make sure contain is correctly fiddling with the recursive setting I think |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:38 |
TonkaTruck |
polerin: did you notice in the contain test cases that they set recursive before contain() ? |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:38 |
polerin |
s/result array/ resultant record/ |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:38 |
polerin |
because cake has to process each result array into the nested result |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
polerin |
and really really saves processing |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
TonkaTruck |
polerin: Yeah good point I didn't even think of that. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
polerin |
no way, when you have 15 associations and they go deep, contains is WAY easier than going through and unbinding each of them |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
TonkaTruck |
recursive notwithstanding. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
polerin |
(yay limiting fields to needed! ) |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:37 |
TonkaTruck |
I could be very wrong but I would say contain() is more like find() result beautification. |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:36 |
polerin |
TonkaTruck: or reduce the load that M has to get back from the db |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:36 |
polerin |
and contain uses the best of that |
| # |
Aug 7th 2008, 00:36 |
polerin |
I used to use the old ModelWhatever->unbindAll(array('except for these')); |