| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:25 |
 spriz |
I was wondering if we should just jump into https://github.com/CakeDC/Enum with the to make sure we don’t recreate magic - but we’d use “Const Configuration” so I’ll have to check what benefit that plugin adds :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:25 |
dereuromark |
=> https://www.dereuromark.de/2010/06/24/static-enums-or-semihardcoded-attributes/ => for 3.x (incl bake template support and stuff possible) |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:25 |
dereuromark |
they can still be translated, and you can always use subsets in forms (e.g. user vs admin backend) |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:24 |
spriz |
@dereuromark what do you mean by semi-static? ,:( |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:23 |
spriz |
It is - it’s our “own” SAAS with single db and single app :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:23 |
dereuromark |
if hardcoding in code is an option at least. |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:23 |
spriz |
Yeah, I’ll try it out with wiuthout the type table just to see if it’s worth the increased complexity - it’s not like we’ll add types every month from some UI anyway. In the past we’ve always made `_type` tables but we’ve never really added anything in those without also changing code anyway for this new type :P |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:23 |
rogerpro |
I’m more about normalizing in tables |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:23 |
dereuromark |
spriz: I use semi-static enums in these cases :slightly_smiling_face: The perfect mixture of easy to change, super-fast and lightweight. |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:22 |
neon1024 |
I sometimes set static config maps using `Configure::write()` |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:22 |
rogerpro |
with `id`, `source_product_id`, related_product_id`, `related_product_type_id`, `created`, `modified`, `deleted` |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:22 |
neon1024 |
Or set a const |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:22 |
spriz |
I’m actually thinking of just using a enum/string rather than creating another type table :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:22 |
neon1024 |
I mean you could use an ENUM type thing, but normalising the association is probably better |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:21 |
rogerpro |
ah ok so yes then I would create a `related_product_types` table |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:19 |
spriz |
I’ll have more actually @rogerpro :slightly_smiling_face: `alternative`, `replacement`, `related´, `often_bought_with` etc |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 09:18 |
rogerpro |
@neon1024 I understood @spriz is going to have only 1 product association type (“alternative product”) so why is association_type_id for? |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 08:42 |
palak.vasani25 |
I believe CakePHP doesn't support namespace |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 08:41 |
palak.vasani25 |
Hi Everyone, I am trying to integrate Razorpay with Cakephp 2. Can anyone help me to place Razorphp SDK in proper place with CakePHP Structure and use it |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 08:31 |
dereuromark |
why not Form->text() etc then? those produce nothing else. ->control() sure does add the div. |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 08:18 |
conehead |
I only need the input tag and nothing else. But the template is used for this. And it contains a div around it which will still be rendered |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:58 |
admad |
Form->hidden() would just generate the input tag nothing else, so you actually went in the opposite direction to achieve want you want |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:58 |
conehead |
@admad ah thanks. already tried that. Had to change from Form->hidden to Form->control to get it to work |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:58 |
admad |
@conehead use the 'template' key in options to override required template(s) |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:58 |
admad |
cast your votes guys https://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/issues/13103 :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:43 |
conehead |
is it possible to disable a form template for a single field? I get several divs around an hidden field :S |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
spriz |
that’s a good #dislacimer |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
spriz |
:,) |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
neon1024 |
I will qualify it that I’ve just arrived at work and haven’t had a coffee yet! :P |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
spriz |
Yeah, I think I will :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
spriz |
I’ll explore youre idea and check pros and cons though |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:24 |
neon1024 |
Give it a go in a branch perhaps and bake some stuff, see how you like it |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:23 |
spriz |
Just `Products BelongsToMany Products through RelatedProducts` - same same though |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:23 |
spriz |
That was my original idea |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:23 |
neon1024 |
..and the store the association type in the join table? :man-shrugging: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:23 |
neon1024 |
Perhaps Products hasAndBelongsToMany Products Through AssociatedProducts |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:22 |
neon1024 |
Or maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps you just want a hasAndBelongsToMany Through |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:22 |
neon1024 |
Perhaps I explained it badly! :P |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:22 |
neon1024 |
That’s the many-to-many part, so you can have the products to choose from :slightly_smiling_face: |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:21 |
spriz |
thanks though! |
| # |
Apr 9th 2019, 07:21 |
spriz |
I have to draw it to understand I think :P |