You can force the entity name to use with an EntityAssignment in the rule system when you create page configurations which might make it difficult for the system to parse your entity. This is particularly an issue if you have compound and non-compound entity names. For example:
100 : pageConfiguration = 'ListEmbeddedProjectUsersForUser' => entity = "ProjectUser" [com.webobjects.directtoweb.EntityAssignment] Of course, this is just an example and I would never use such a crazy page configuration myself, or indeed create a model with such redundancy in names... Mark > On 10 Feb 2015, at 15:45, Lize Anthonin (@JCOMMOPS) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Wow. > > I just renamed - as you suggested - "Ship" into "DaShip", and there is no > problem anymore... > > A thing to know, no "Ship" named entity for D2W apps. Must be conflicting > with "relationSHIP" indeed... > > Anyway, thank you for your help and patience! > > Anthonin > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 07:28 -0800, David Holt wrote: >> >> It looks to me like SHIP may be the problem especially if you have other >> entities with that word contained in it. It is also contained in the word >> relationSHIP, so I'm wondering if you're running into something obscure >> here. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Lize Anthonin (@JCOMMOPS) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> Yes I agree on that, must be tied to a D2W rule problem. Yes I have >>> entities with similar names, but they are not the ones involved in this >>> issue (at least the entites "Ship" and "ShipLoc" are causing any trouble). >>> Another example, quite paradoxical, when I open a page for creating a new >>> record of the Ship Entity, this problem happens for some fields (e.g. Ship >>> is bound to the Entity Doc via a M-to-N relationship, but it appears in the >>> Docs section "No matching Ship records found"). >>> >>> I have not added so many rules. Here is my rule configuration : >>> <rules.png> >>> >>> You see I have added nothing more than the defaults ones, except for the >>> top five ones. I haven't dived into rule system yet, just enough to handle >>> tabs in ERModernLook. >>> >>> Is it possible that it is caused by WOLips dev server ? Like it would mix >>> up rules ? >>> I use WOLips 4.4 under eclipse 4.4, working on ubuntu. WebObjects 5.4.3, >>> Wonder 6.1.3-SNAPSHOT. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Anthonin >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 06:32 -0800, David Holt wrote: >>>> This looks like a D2W rule problem to me. Do you have two entities with >>>> similar names? Are you using 'like' to qualify on the LHS? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:11 AM, Lize Anthonin (@JCOMMOPS) <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I ran into the following - quite classic - error, and I don't know what >>>>> is causing this : >>>>> <com.webobjects.eocontrol.EOGenericRecord 0x4813735d> valueForKey(): >>>>> lookup of unknown key: 'autonomy'. This class does not have an instance >>>>> variable of the name autonomy or _autonomy, nor a method of the name >>>>> autonomy, _autonomy, getAutonomy, or _getAutonomy >>>>> >>>>> Just to present the situation, in my design, a Platform (PTF) is bound to >>>>> a Ship (SHIP). >>>>> It's a D2W app and it appears when I want to edit a PTF, but not when I >>>>> want to edit a SHIP (so probably tied to a not nullable constraint or >>>>> something like that). >>>>> >>>>> Here is what I have checked so far : >>>>> - Given the attached stack trace, I checked the Ship entity and the >>>>> "autonomy" field is indeed present in my table. >>>>> - The Ship_id field in PTF is indeed nullable. >>>>> - If I delete from my eomodel the 'autonomy' field (which is the first in >>>>> alphabetical order), the next one fires the same exception. >>>>> - If you look at the stacktrace, you can see that the rule >>>>> 'pageConfiguration' is set to EditEmbeddedRelationshipObs : >>>>> "D2W-PageConfiguration" = "EditRelationshipEmbeddedObs"; >>>>> Obs is another table (a PTF is bound to * Obs). But Obs is not bound >>>>> to Ship in the model. It is like it is looking for Ship fields when >>>>> listing the Obs and obviously it does not find the ship fields inside the >>>>> obs entity. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to be a quite obvious problem to resolve, but I can't see it >>>>> apparently. >>>>> If someone has an idea, it would be very helpful! >>>>> >>>>> I keep digging. >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark%40wardle.org > > This email sent to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
