How can I validate multicolumn uniqueness in strongloop?
{
"name": "Table1",
"base": "PersistedModel",
"idInjection": true,
"options": {
"validateUpsert": true
},
"properties": {
"column1": {
"type": "string"
},
"column2": {
"type": "string"
},
"column3": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"validations": [],
"relations": {}
},
"acls": [],
"methods": {}
}
In above model, how can I make column1 and column2 as unique key in loopback model? I checked validatesUniquenessOf but it doesn't validate multiple columns.
Thanks
It is working with below:
Table1.validatesUniquenessOf('column1', 'column2');
Not sure, I tried it previously also but that time it was not working. Probably I didn't have re-started loopback server.
Related
I have a complex object that I need to validate in parts (each part is validated by a different party). I guess I can create a schema file per each part, but I really want to be able to use one file.
For example, my schema could be the following, and I want to be able to validate an object against obj1.
I'm trying to figure out a standard way of defining such a situation and what I can expect from implementations. Not looking necessarily for a specific library. But if some libraries support this and some don't, I'm interested in Javascript ones.
{
"required": [
"prop1",
"another",
"obj1",
"obj2"
],
"properties": {
"prop1": {
"type": "integer"
},
"another": {
"type": "string"
},
"obj1": {
"$ref": "#/$defs/obj1"
},
"obj2": {
"type": "object",
"required": [
"foo"
],
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"$defs": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"required": [
"sub1",
"sub2",
"a_number"
],
"properties": {
"sub1": {
"type": "string"
},
"sub2": {
"type": "string"
},
"a_number": {
"type": "integer"
}
}
}
}
}
Our school receives data from a source during a sync.
I'm familiar with JavaScript but would like to ask for a litle help before I make a change.
Here is the scenario: The source sending the information to us has the default value as "tobedeleted". We need this to be translated to "inactivate". and then put into our DB.
What's being sent I think is simply ignored because it doesn't match any of our enum values.
My idea is to get help writing: if the get value = "tobedeleted" then translate it to "inactivate" and then update our database.
{
"path": "/v1/courses/{course_id}/enrollments/{id}",
"description": "Conclude, deactivate, or delete an enrollment. If the +task+ argument isn't given, the enrollment\nwill be concluded.",
"operations": [
{
"method": "DELETE",
"summary": "Conclude, deactivate, or delete an enrollment",
"notes": "Conclude, deactivate, or delete an enrollment. If the +task+ argument isn't given, the enrollment\nwill be concluded.",
"nickname": "conclude_deactivate_or_delete_enrollment",
"parameters": [
{
"paramType": "path",
"name": "course_id",
"description": "ID",
"type": "string",
"format": null,
"required": true,
"deprecated": false
},
{
"paramType": "path",
"name": "id",
"description": "ID",
"type": "string",
"format": null,
"required": true,
"deprecated": false
},
{
"paramType": "query",
"name": "task",
"description": "The action to take on the enrollment.\nWhen inactive, a user will still appear in the course roster to admins, but be unable to participate.\n(\"inactivate\" and \"deactivate\" are equivalent tasks)",
"type": "string",
"format": null,
"required": false,
"deprecated": false,
"enum": [
"conclude",
"delete",
"inactivate",
"deactivate"
]
}
],
"response_fields": [
],
"deprecated": false,
"deprecation_description": "",
"type": "Enrollment"
}
]
},
Thank you in advance!
Lets assign the JSON to a variable named data. Then you can do
data.operations.map((operation) => {
if (operation.method === 'DELETE') {
operation.parameters.map((param, queryIndex) => {
if (param.paramType === 'query') {
param.enum.map((item, enumIndex) => {
if (item === 'tobedeleted') {
operation.parameters[queryIndex].enum[enumIndex] = 'inactivate';
//item = 'inactivate';
}
});
}
});
}
return operation;
});
Note: This may not be an optimized code but it does the work.
Given:
Say that I am defining a schema for Contacts. But, I can have "Primary Contact", "Student" or one who is both; and different properties that go with all three choices. The contact types are defined in an array of contact_type: [ "Primary Contact", "Student" ] which can be either one, or both.
Say that the fields are as such per contact type:
If Primary Contact, then I want phone_number
If Student, then I want first_name
If Student and Primary Contact then I want phone_number and first_name
Usage
I use Ajv library to validate in Node.js using a code like such:
function validator(json_schema){
const Ajv = require('ajv');
const ajv = new Ajv({allErrors: true});
return ajv.compile(json_schema)
}
const validate = validator(json_schema);
const valid = validate(input);
console.log(!!valid); //true or false
console.log(validate.errors)// object or null
Note: I've had trouble with allErrors: true while using anyOf for this, and I use the output of allErrors to return ALL the missing/invalid fields back to the user rather than returning problems one at a time. Reference: https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv/issues/980
Schema
I have written the following schema and it works if I do either "Student" or "Primary Contact" but when I pass both, it still wants to validate against ["Student"] or ["Primary Contact"] rather than both.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema",
"type": "object",
"required": [],
"properties": {},
"allOf": [
{
"if": {
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"contains": {
"allOf": [
{
"type": "string",
"const": "Primary Contact"
},
{
"type": "string",
"const": "Student"
}
]
}
}
}
},
"then": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"type": "array",
"items": [
{
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"Student",
"Primary Contact"
]
}
]
},
"phone": {
"type": "string"
},
"first_name": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"phone",
"first_name"
]
}
},
{
"if": {
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"contains": {
"type": "string",
"const": "Student"
}
}
}
},
"then": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"type": "array",
"items": [
{
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"Student",
"Primary Contact"
]
}
]
},
"first_name": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"first_name"
]
}
},
{
"if": {
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"contains": {
"type": "string",
"const": "Primary Contact"
}
}
}
},
"then": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"type": "array",
"items": [
{
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"Student",
"Primary Contact"
]
}
]
},
"phone": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"phone"
]
}
}
]
}
Example Valid Inputs:
For just ["Primary Contact"]:
{
"contact_type":["Primary Contact"],
"phone":"something"
}
For just ["Student"]:
{
"contact_type":["Student"],
"first_name":"something"
}
For ["Primary Contact", "Student"]
{
"contact_type":["Primary Contact", "Student"],
"phone":"something",
"first_name":"something"
}
Question:
I would like this to validate even if allErrors: true, is this possible? If not, how should I change the schema?
Footnotes
I don't want to change the "contact_type" from being an array unless it is the last resort. (it is a requirement, but can be broken only if there's no other way)
I can't allow any additionalItems, therefore I'm fully defining each object in the if statements although contact_type is common. If I move contact_type out, then I get error messages about passing contact_type as an additionalItem (it looks at the if statement's properties and doesn't see contact_type when it's taken out to the common place). This is why my initial properties object is empty.
Here's how I might go about solving the validation issue: https://jsonschema.dev/s/XLSDB
Here's the Schema...
(It's easier if you try to break up concerns)
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema",
"type": "object",
First, we want to define our conditional checking subschemas...
"definitions": {
"is_student": {
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"contains": {
"const": "Student"
}
}
}
},
"is_primay_contact": {
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"contains": {
"const": "Primary Contact"
}
}
}
}
},
Next, I'm assuming you always want contact_type
"required": ["contact_type"],
"properties": {
"contact_type": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"enum": ["Primary Contact", "Student"]
}
},
And we need to define all the allowed properties in order to prevent additional properties. (draft-07 cannot "see through" applicator keywords like allOf. You can with draft 2019-09 and beyond, but that's another story)
"phone": true,
"first_name": true
},
"additionalProperties": false,
Now, we need to define our structural constraints...
"allOf": [
{
If the contact is a student, first name is required.
"if": { "$ref": "#/definitions/is_student" },
"then": { "required": ["first_name"] }
},
{
If the contact is a primary contact, then phone is required.
"if": { "$ref": "#/definitions/is_primay_contact" },
"then": { "required": ["phone"] }
},
{
However, additionally, if the contact is both a student and a primary contact...
"if": {
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/is_student" },
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/is_primay_contact" }
]
},
Then we require both phone and first name...
"then": {
"required": ["phone", "first_name"]
},
Otherwise, one of phone or first name is fine (which one is covered by the previous section)
"else": {
"oneOf": [
{
"required": ["phone"]
},
{
"required": ["first_name"]
}
]
}
}
]
}
I'm not convinced this is the cleanest approach, but it does work for the requirements you've provided.
As for getting validation errors you can pass back to your END user... given the conditional requirements you lay out, it's not something you can expect with pure JSON Schema...
Having said that, ajv does provide an extension to add custom error messages, which given the way I've broken the validation down into concerns, might be useable to add custom errors as you're looking to do (https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv-errors).
I have used an "include" : "organization" query in the scope of my request.json file, which is a related model. But, the relation is not being included in the resulting output from a query.
The model (request.json file) looks like...
{
"name": "request",
"base": "PersistedModel",
"idInjection": true,
"options": {
"validateUpsert": true
},
"properties": {
"amount": {
"type": "number",
"required": true
},
"deadline": {
"type": "date",
"required": true
}
},
"validations": [],
"relations": {
"organization": {
"type": "belongsTo",
"model": "organization",
"foreignKey": "",
"options": {
"nestRemoting": true
}
}
},
"scope" : {
"include" : "organization"
}
}
In order to include another model, you must have a foreignKey defined in your model relations.
"relations": {
"organization": {
"type": "belongsTo",
"model": "organization",
"foreignKey": "organizationId",
"options": {
"nestRemoting": true
}
}
},
set the name of the foreignKey that you want to use. organizationId in this case, and this field will be added to your model request
in loopback, I started with this model:
[
{
"mov_id": 0,
"mov_tipo": "string",
"mov_valore": 0,
"mov_causale_fk": 0,
"mov_conto_fk": 0,
"mov_data": "2017-10-04T09:02:19.620Z",
"mov_note": "string",
"mov_utente_fk": 0,
"mov_aggiunta": "2017-10-04T09:02:19.620Z"
}
]
then I added two relations, which correspond to two Foreign Keys in my MySQL database:
"relations": {
"causale_fk": {
"type": "hasOne",
"model": "causali",
"foreignKey": "causale_id",
"options": {
"nestRemoting": true
}
},
"conto_fk": {
"type": "hasOne",
"model": "conti",
"foreignKey": "conto_id",
"options": {
"nestRemoting": true
}
}
},
I would also like to see the fields in those models, as if I did make a query with JOIN.
it's possible??
ok, i resolved with scope.
this is the model:
{
"name": "movimenti",
"plural": "movimenti",
"base": "PersistedModel",
"idInjection": true,
"options": {
"validateUpsert": true
},
"scope": {
"include": [
"causale_fk",
"conto_fk"
]
},
"properties": {
"mov_id": {
"type": "number",
"id": true,
"required": true
},
"mov_valore": {
"type": "number",
"required": true
}
},
"validations": [],
"relations": {
"causale_fk": {
"type": "hasOne",
"model": "causali",
"foreignKey": "causale_id"
},
"conto_fk": {
"type": "hasOne",
"model": "conti",
"foreignKey": "conto_id",
"include": "conti"
}
},
"acls": [],
"methods": {}
}
bye!!
You can your to add options in your filter, and the particular option you need to set is include. Check here for more details.
This is an example for you particular needs:
{
Model.find({include:['causale_fk','conto_fk']}, function(){});
}