I've tried to prepare data from an OData source to show it in a bar graph in my fiori app. For this, I setup the OData model in the manifest.json. A test with a list, simply using
items="{path : 'modelname>/dataset'}
works fine and shows the content.
To prepare data for a diagram (VizFrame), I used the onInit() function in the controller of the view (mvc:XMLView). The data preparation is similar to the one discussed in question.
At first I obtain the ODataModel:
var oODataModel = this.getOwnerComponent().getModel("modelname");
Next I do the binding:
var oBindings = oODataModel.bindList("/dataset");
Unfortunately, the oBindings().getContexts() array is always empty, and also oBindings.getLength() is zero. As a consequence, the VizFrame shows only "No Data".
May it be that the data model is not fully loaded during the onInit() function, or do I misunderstand the way to access data?
Thanks in advance
Update
I temporary solved the problem by using the automatically created bind from the view displaying the data as list. I grep the "dataReceived" event from the binding getView().byId("myList").getBindings("items") and do my calculation there. The model for the diagram (since it is used in a different view) is created in the Component.js, and registered in the Core sap.ui.getCore().setModel("graphModel").
I think this solution is dirty, because the graph data depends on the list data from a different view, which causes problems, e.g. when you use a growing list (because the data in the binding gets updated and a different range is selected from the odata model).
Any suggestions, how I can get the odata model entries without depending on a different list?
The following image outlines the lifecycle of your UI5 application.
Important are the steps which are highlighted with a red circle. Basically, in your onInit you don't have full access to your model via this.getView().getModel().
That's probably why you tried using this.getOwnerComponent().getModel(). This gives you access to the model, but it's not bound to the view yet so you don't get any contexts.
Similarly metadataLoaded() returns a Promise that is fullfilled a little too early: Right after the metadata has been loaded, which might be before any view binding has been done.
What I usually do is
use onBeforeRendering
This is the lifecycle hook that gets called right after onInit. The view and its models exist, but they are not yet shown to the user. Good possibility to do stuff with your model.
use onRouteMatched
This is not really a lifecycle hook but an event handler which can be bound to the router object of your app. Since you define the event handler in your onInit it will be called later (but not too late) and you can then do your desired stuff. This obviously works only if you've set up routing.
You'll have to wait until the models metadata has been loaded. Try this:
onInit: function() {
var oBindings;
var oODataModel = this.getComponent().getModel("modelname");
oODataModel.metadataLoaded().then(function() {
oBindings = oODataModel.bindList("/dataset");
}.bind(this));
},
May it be that the data model is not fully loaded during the onInit()
function, or do I misunderstand the way to access data?
You could test if your model is fully loaded by console log it before you do the list binding
console.log(oODataModel);
var oBindings = oODataModel.bindList("/dataset");
If your model contains no data, then that's the problem.
My basic misunderstanding was to force the use of the bindings. This seems to work only with UI elements, which organize the data handling. I switched to
oODataModel.read("/dataset", {success: function(oEvent) {
// do all my calculations on the oEvent.results array
// write result into graphModel
}
});
This whole calculation is in a function attached to the requestSent event of the graphModel, which is set as model for the VizFrame in the onBeforeRendering part of the view/controller.
Since I'm not totally sure on which level my issue actually is to be solved best, I'd like to summarise the path I went and the things I tried first:
It's more or less about $el (I think).
As most basic backbone examples state, I started with having the $el defined within its view, like
Invoice.InvoiceView = Backbone.View.extend({
el: $('#container'),
template: ..,
..
});
It didn't feel right, that the view is supposed to know about its parent (=container). The paragraph 'Decouple Views from other DOM elements' written on http://coenraets.org/blog/2012/01/backbone-js-lessons-learned-and-improved-sample-app/) perfectly puts it into words.
Following this article's advice, I switched to passing $el over to the view while calling the render()-method. Example:
$('#container').html( new WineListView({model: app.wineList}).render().el );
So far so good - but now render() gets called, while it maybe shouldn't (yet).
For example the View asynchronously fetches a model in its initialize()-routine. Adding a binding to reset or sync (e.g. like this.model.bind('sync', this.render, this)) makes sure, render() gets definitely called once the model is fetched, however above stated way, render() still might get called while the model isn't fetched yet.
Not nice, but working(TM), I solved that by checking for the model's existence of its primary key:
render: function() {
if(this.model.get('id')) {
...
}
However, what I didn't expect - and if it really isn't documented (at least I didn't find anything about it) I think it really should be - the fetch operation doesn't seem to be atomic. While the primary key ('id') might be already part of the model, the rest might not, yet. So there's no guarantee the model is fetched completely that way. But that whole checking seemed wrong anyway, so I did some research and got pointed to the deferred.done-callback which sounded exactly what I was looking for, so my code morphed into this:
render: render() {
var self = this;
this.model.deferred.done(function() {
self.model.get('..')
};
return this;
}
..
$('#container').html( new WineListView({model: app.wineList}).render().el);
It works! Nice, hu? Ehrm.. not really. It might be nice from the runtime-flow's point of view, but that code is quite cumbersome (to put it mildly..). But I'd even bite that bullet, if there wouldn't be that little, tiny detail, that this code sets (=replaces) the view instantly, but populates it later (due to the deferred).
Imagine you have two (full-page) views, a show and an edit one - and you'd like to instantly switch between the two (e.g. after hitting save in the edit-view it morphs into the show-view. But using above code it sets (=resets) the view immediately and then renders its content, once the deferred fires (as in, once fetching the model is completed).
This could be a short flickering or a long blank transition page. Either way, not cool.
So, I guess my question is: How to implement views, which don't know about their container, involve models which need to be fetched, views which should be rendered on demand (but only once the model is fetched completely), having no need to accept UI/UX trade-offs and - the cherry on the cake - having maintainable code in the end.
First of all, the first method you found is terrible (hard coding selector in view's constructor)
The second: new WineListView({model: app.wineList}).render().el is very common and ok. This requires you to return the reference to view from render method, and everyone seems to follow this, which is unnecessary.
The best method (imo) is to simply attach the views element to the container, like this
$('#container').html(new WineListView({model: app.wineList}).el);
The WineListView doesn't need to know about where it's going to be used, and whatever is initializing WineListView doesn't need to worry about when to render the WineListView view instance:
because the el is a live reference to an HTML Element, the view instance can modify it anytime it wants to, and the changes will reflect wherever it is attached in DOM/ when it gets attached in DOM.
For example,
WineListView = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function(){
this.render(); // maybe call it here
this.model.fetch({
success: _.bind(this,function(){
this.render(); // or maybe here
})
});
}
});
Regarding flickering: this hardly has to do anything with rendering or backbone, it's just that you're replacing one element with another and there will be an emptiness for a tiny bit of time even if your new view renders instantly. You should handle this using general techniques like transitions, loaders etc, or avoid having to switch elements (For example convert labels into inputs in the same view, without switching view)
First off, the linked example is outdated. It's using version 0.9.2,
whereas the current version (2016-04-19) is 1.3.3. I recommend
you have look at the change log and note the differences, there are many.
Using the el property is fine. Like everything though, there's a time and place.
It didn't feel right, that the view is supposed to know about its parent (=container). The paragraph 'Decouple Views from other DOM elements' written on http://coenraets.org/blog/2012/01/backbone-js-lessons-learned-and-improved-sample-app/) perfectly puts it into words.
I wouldn't define an el property on every view, but sometimes it makes sense, such as your example. Which is why, I'm assuming, Backbone allows the use of the el property. If you know container is already in the DOM, why not use it?
You have a few options:
The approach outlined in my original answer, a work-around.
fetch the model, and in the success callback, insert the view element into the DOM:
model.fetch({
success:function() {
$('#container').html(new View({model:model}).render().el);
}
});
Another work-around.
Define an el property on the view and fetch the model in the view initialize function. The new content will be rendered in the container element (also the view), when the content/model data is ready, by ready, I mean when the model has finished fetching from the server.
In short,
If you don't want to define an el property, go with number 1.
If you don't want to let the view fetch the model, go with number 2.
If you want to use the el property, go with number 3.
So, I guess my question is: How to implement views, which don't know about their container
In your example, I would use the el property, it's simple a solution with the least amount of code. Not using the el property here, turns into hacky work-arounds that involve more code (complexity) without adding any value (power).
Here's what the code looks like using el:
var Model = Backbone.Model.extend({url:'/model_url'});
var model = new Model();
// set-up a view
var View = Backbone.View.extend({
el:'#container',
template:'model_template',
initialize:function() {
this.model.fetch();
this.listenTo(this.model,'sync',this.render);
},
render:function() {
this.$el.html(this.template(this.model.toJSON()));
return this;
}
});
var view = new View({model:model});
Check out the documentation for el.
Here is an updated working example.
If there is an obvious flicker because, your model takes a noticeable amount of time
to be fetched from the server...maybe you should think about displaying a loading bar/variation thereof
while fetching the model. Otherwise instead of seeing the flicker, it will appear the
application is slow, delayed, or hanging..but in reality - it's waiting to render the next view,
waiting for the model to finish fetching from the server. Sitting on old content, just waiting for
the model to load new data to show new content.
I'm using SAPUI5 to make an application and I'm having an issue with an update to the model not being reflected immediately in the view.
A slightly simplified scenario: I created a text field that is taking its text from the model:
currentText = new sap.m.Text({
width: '100%',
text: '{/currentTrip/perHour}'
});
Then I create a select and attach a change handler:
sourceSelect.attachChange(oController.changeTripSource);
Inside that controller function I'm updating the view model:
var model = this.getView().getModel().getData();
model.currentTrip.perHour = 5;
All the things I do with this number flowing from this change event work (like updating a connected graph, which uses this number directly). The view itself however will not reflect the change to the model until I take another action like push a button or something. I'm not understanding why that is, or what triggers UI5 to check the changed values to the model and update the view. Does anyone have a fix for this?
Why don't you call setProperty() on the model directly? This saves you superfluous calls to update your bindings as the model will do it internally.
model.setProperty("/currentTrip/perHour", 5);
By the way, I don't see why updateBindings() shall work while refresh does not. Both methods call the checkUpdate() behind the curtains.
Always good practice to call updateBindings() whenever data is updating. Try:
model.updateBindings()
I am using Ember.js in my application, but there is a point where I update a property of the view's context(controller) but right after the update there is a parser(MathJax) that looks at the dom for the updated fields to parse it into math. However even though the update is taking place, it happens after mathjax looks for the update. What I need to do is force ember to update the view or wait for ember to update before I tell mathjax to parse the html. Is there a way to achieve this?
This is a fairly common use-case. To specify code that should execute after a property's changes have propogated, use an observer. Ember triggers observers after it successfully propagates the change. For example:
App.MathView = Ember.View.extend({
controller: null,
template: Ember.Handlebars.compile("<div>{{myProperty}}</div>"),
myPropertyDidChange: function() {
// From here the controller value is changed but DOM has not been updated
Ember.run.next(this, function() {
// This code will run when after changes have propagated to the DOM
// Call MathJax parser here
// If needed you can access the view's DOM element via this.$()
alert("New property value is in dom: "+ this.$().text());
});
}.observes('controller.myProperty')
});
See the Ember Managing-Asynchrony Guide and API docs for Ember.run:
http://emberjs.com/guides/understanding-ember/managing-asynchrony/
http://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.run.html#method_next
I am trying to trace all of the zombies in my application and get better understanding of how the event binding happens.
I have a view that binds its collection "add" event to its render function.
_.bindAll(this, "render");
this.collection.bind("add", this.render);
So if I log something in my render function I can see in console that rendering happened twice right after user adds new model through UI. The console output looks like this:
rendering index.js?body=1 (line 88)
POST http://localhost:3000/tasks jquery.js?body=1 (line 8103)
rendering index.js?body=1 (line 88)
I wonder why is this happening. I know for a fact that model was added only once to the collection so that makes me think that event should only be fired once. Then I don't understand why render was executed twice.
I have looked in similar question here but it is different because I am using add event instead of change.
Did you instantiate your view twice? It might be 2 different views.
I think that you are calling render two times.
Yoy are doing something like this:
var yourView = new YourDefinedView();
yourView.render(); // this is your manual call to render
//here you call to the server and when data arrives is the second render
this.collection.fetch();
I do not think that render is the best method to bind when a collection receives a new item.
Check this example how we bind a specific event for add items from the Collection to the View:
http://danielarandaochoa.com/backboneexamples/blog/2012/02/22/real-world-usage-of-a-backbone-collection/
It turned out that there was an additional binding to render through Event Aggregator. It was added by another developer.