Menu
▾
▴
#112 Delete hard code to set a Column, Tab , Window
closed
3
2008-06-14
2007-05-03
No
Hi everybody
I need add 3 mthos in MColumn , MTab , MWindow to delete hard code in libero, I set here the patch.
What do you think, can vote to add into trunk?
MColumn
//begin vpj-cd e-evolution
/**
* get Column ID
* @param String columnName
* @return int retValue
*/
public static int getColumn_ID(String columnName) {
int retValue = 0;
String SQL = "SELECT AD_Column_ID FROM AD_Column WHERE columnname = ?";
try
{
PreparedStatement pstmt = DB.prepareStatement(SQL, null);
pstmt.setString(1, columnName);
ResultSet rs = pstmt.executeQuery();
if (rs.next())
retValue = rs.getInt(1);
rs.close();
pstmt.close();
}
catch (SQLException e)
{
retValue = -1;
}
return retValue;
}
//end vpj-cd e-evolution
MTab:
// begin e-evolution vpj-cd
/**
* get Tab ID
* @param String AD_Window_ID
* @param String TabName
* @return int retValue
*/
public static int getTab_ID(int AD_Window_ID , String TabName) {
int retValue = 0;
String SQL = "SELECT AD_Tab_ID FROM AD_Tab WHERE AD_Window_ID= ? AND Name = ?";
try
{
PreparedStatement pstmt = DB.prepareStatement(SQL, null);
pstmt.setInt(1, AD_Window_ID);
pstmt.setString(2, TabName);
ResultSet rs = pstmt.executeQuery();
if (rs.next())
retValue = rs.getInt(1);
rs.close();
pstmt.close();
}
catch (SQLException e)
{
retValue = -1;
}
return retValue;
}
//end vpj-cd e-evolution
MWindow:
//vpj-cd begin e-evolution
/**
* get Window ID
* @param String windowName
* @return int retValue
*/
public static int getWindow_ID(String windowName) {
int retValue = 0;
String SQL = "SELECT AD_Window_ID FROM AD_Window WHERE Name = ?";
try
{
PreparedStatement pstmt = DB.prepareStatement(SQL, null);
pstmt.setString(1, windowName);
ResultSet rs = pstmt.executeQuery();
if (rs.next())
retValue = rs.getInt(1);
rs.close();
pstmt.close();
}
catch (SQLException e)
{
retValue = -1;
}
return retValue;
}
//end vpj-cd e-evolution
kind regards
Victor Perez
Logged In: YES
user_id=332830
Originator: YES
File Added: MColumn.patch
Logged In: YES
user_id=332830
Originator: YES
File Added: MTab.patch
MTab
MWindow
Logged In: YES
user_id=332830
Originator: YES
File Added: MWindow.patch
Logged In: YES
user_id=993007
Originator: NO
Victor, at least I see no problems with it..
Those methods are just reading data from the database, not setting anything..
No problems in reading..
If you need it I'll cast a vote. +1
Tested it here, on pg..
Logged In: YES
user_id=1180760
Originator: NO
Victor, the getColumn_ID looks incomplete, I suppose it must have the table_id as parameter.
Also, I'm not sure, but please verify if the tables have the corresponding unique keys needed:
column = table_id + name
tab = window_id + name
window = name
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Logged In: YES
user_id=195397
Originator: NO
Hi Victor,
Carlos is right.
getColumn_ID MUST have AD_Table_ID as parameter. In Db we have columns with the swme name but in different tables.
Kind regards,
Trifon
Logged In: YES
user_id=332830
Originator: YES
Committed revision 2414.
Logged In: YES
user_id=1180760
Originator: NO
Victor, with revision 4077 I enhanced the logging of these changes.
I also reverted the changes to MPrintFormat. The getPrintFormat_ID is being called just with PrintFormat name and there is a big possibility of having duplicate records with the same name (key is client+table+name) - I think this must be enhanced adding enough parameters as needed (I still don't know how is being used this method).
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Logged In: YES
user_id=1180760
Originator: NO
Brought from
https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=2002559&forum_id=610548
The issue is you created a method to access dictionary by AD_PrintFormat.Name - but there can be lots of print formats with the same name because of the unique index.
You must define an accessor method that has all keys on the index.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Logged In: YES
user_id=1180760
Originator: NO
Hi, the method MPrintFormat.getPrintFormat_ID now take account of AD_Table_ID & AD_Client_ID.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Logged In: YES
user_id=1312539
Originator: NO
This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 15 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).