I'm sorry, again I'm not reading everything first. You weren't asking how to do it, just if we should add the element.
I would say that it's not generally needed as it's not a difficult operation, but I'm sure if someone went through the trouble of adding the logic, it would get added. --- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, that snippet, I want to verify that you're using it correctly. > > Moving target: > to do a create or store you'll need to do an entity-one or > find-by-primary key and if it returns empty then create, otherwise > update the parameters and store > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > > Send the code snippet that you're working on and I'll tweak it. > > > > Which snippet? You mean the <iterate-map> thing? Just create any > map > > with types other than String, > > then try to use <set> within <iterate-map> to copy fields to a new > > map. > > > > Sorry another question! Sorry for moving target. > > > > I noticed there's no usage of delegator.createOrStore() in > Minilang. > > Is the true? Should we add > > something like <create-or-store-value>? > > > > Jonathon > > > > Chris Howe wrote: > > > Send the code snippet that you're working on and I'll tweak it. > > > > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Chris, > > >> > > >> Never mind the conjecture. Your recommendation works! Thanks! > And > > the > > >> title is possibly > > >> irrelevant, since I can't find any reason now to change > > <clear-field> > > >> after reading your > > >> recommendation. > > >> > > >> A question here about <iterate-map>, small digression. You can > > ignore > > >> it and ask for a new thread > > >> if you want. > > >> > > >> I was doing it via <iterate-map>, <if>, <field-to-field>, so > that > > I > > >> could simply copy over from > > >> map "parameters" those fields that are not in my own service. > > >> > > >> Using <set> instead of <field-to-field> doesn't work, because I > > >> couldn't get the fields' types > > >> (String, Double, etc) from <iterate-map>. > > >> > > >> There's a warning about <field-to-field> being deprecated. Is > > there a > > >> need to enhance > > >> <iterate-map> to include "field type" in it's results? > > >> > > >> Jonathon > > >> > > >> Chris Howe wrote: > > >>> sorry about the conjecture on screens/java...didn't read the > > title > > >> :-) > > >>> --- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I'm not quite sure I'm following you as to which has the extra > > >>>> fields, > > >>>> your input map or the interface. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm thinking your input map has the extra fields otherwise the > > >> extra > > >>>> fields in the interface would be optional, or you would likely > > end > > >> up > > >>>> with inconsistent result from the interface. > > >>>> > > >>>> So, assuming it's your input map and you would only be coming > > >> across > > >>>> this situation in simple-method because the screens->service > > picks > > >>>> the > > >>>> fields from context and java->service has you specify the map > > >>>> specifically. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> So, if you're running this from simple-methods...you're > > solution, > > >> I > > >>>> believe, is the following > > >>>> > > >>>> <set-service-fields map-name="myInputMap" > > service-name="myService" > > >>>> to-map-name="inputMap"/> > > >>>> <call-service service-name="myService" > in-map-name="inputMap"/> > > >>>> > > >>>> Does that help? > > >>>> > > >>>> --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I can't find any usage of > ContextAccessor.remove(MethodContext) > > >> in > > >>>>> Minilang's source codes at > > >>>>> src/org/ofbiz/minilang/method/envops . > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Shall I add an option to <clear-field> that will trigger a > > >>>>> ContextAccessor.remove() rather than a > > >>>>> ContextAccessor.put() that merely replaces a field with null? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm doing a custom service that <implements> an existing > > service > > >> in > > >>>>> OFBiz, and I need to trim away > > >>>>> the extra input fields before putting them to the existing > > >> service. > > >>>>> Jonathon > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
