| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:47 |
 dereuromark |
in 2.x it was annoying as it needs an app here |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:47 |
Neon1024 |
..and I canâ??t find a repo with a setup which works |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:46 |
Neon1024 |
Running tests directly with phpunit isnâ??t covered in the book |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:46 |
Neon1024 |
But the App class assumes you have an application |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:46 |
Neon1024 |
Which means I to bootstrap stuff in my Test/bootstrap.php |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:46 |
Neon1024 |
So I canâ??t call Console/cake test |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:45 |
Neon1024 |
As itâ??s a plugin, so doesnâ??t have an application, which the bootstrap file seems to assume |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:45 |
Neon1024 |
Iâ??m really struggling |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:45 |
Neon1024 |
How can I test my helper in Cake 2 |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:39 |
birdy247 |
who are adamant that nothing has changed |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:39 |
birdy247 |
and it suddenly stopped after my hosting company performed a migration of servers |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:38 |
birdy247 |
^^ This was working perfectly until 2 days ago |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:38 |
birdy247 |
What would typically lead to a connection timeout when sending Smtp mail |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:33 |
dereuromark |
Just blogged again after months, about migration plugin in 2.x apps :slightly_smiling_face: http://www.dereuromark.de/2016/10/03/use-3-x-migrations-for-your-2-x-cakephp-app/ |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:12 |
maikh |
hm, sounds logical... |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:12 |
hmic |
if the client decides to send all, replace whats in like you do already |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:12 |
hmic |
thats the thing to do. |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:12 |
hmic |
+1 @dakota |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:11 |
dakota |
likewise, if something has changed, it should only be sending the data that did change |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:11 |
dakota |
My opinion here is that your js/client side code should not be sending a request to the server if data hasnâ??t changed |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:11 |
maikh |
yes, youre right. but i dont have a other idea... im not the high end coder ;) |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:09 |
hmic |
its is not a feasable solution at any scale bigger than your dev box :p |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:09 |
hmic |
*and* you put a lot of stress to your database still if you check for the data every second when your js sends in data - which you will need to admit is completely pointless if nothing changed |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:09 |
maikh |
hmmm... where then? |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:08 |
hmic |
maikh: its not the place to do it |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:05 |
maikh |
@dakota would it possible to check for existing data in the Entity Class? |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 13:05 |
maikh |
@hmic |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:52 |
maikh |
hm, ok... i will try. |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:51 |
hmic |
maybe you better change the frontend to only send changed data |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:51 |
hmic |
in your case, you would add a unique constrait not so save all data again. but still yoiu put a lot of stres on your database for no good reason |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:51 |
hmic |
so its as i said: its up to you to decide if you want to save or not based on your business data/model |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:47 |
maikh |
but then, the rooms table creates new records on every save. |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:47 |
maikh |
ok... |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:46 |
dakota |
Itâ??s entire job is to delete all the join data |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:46 |
dakota |
Ok. First thing is donâ??t use the replace strategy |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:45 |
maikh |
hm, i try to explain in my bad english... i have a n:m association ```n:forms - m:rooms``` my saving process is runnin all few seconds with a jQuery serialize. and on every save() the data in the rooms table is deleted and new created with new id. Even if the data for the rooms is not changed. i want that the rooms data is only saved if the data is new respectively not in the db at this point. |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:45 |
hmic |
so he just needs to save hasMany (joinTable) instead of belongsToMany (otherTable) |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:44 |
dakota |
I think you might be right :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:43 |
dakota |
hmic, itâ??s already a hasMany relation :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:43 |
hmic |
i do think that is a common solution to your question |
| # |
Oct 3rd 2016, 12:43 |
hmic |
so you might be better of dont using belongsToMany but hasMany to the jointable from both sides |