Search Results

Search found 144 results on 6 pages for 'uniqueness'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • Rails uniqueness constraint and matching db unique index for null column

    - by Dave
    I have the following in my migration file def self.up create_table :payment_agreements do |t| t.boolean :automatic, :default => true, :null => false t.string :payment_trigger_on_order t.references :supplier t.references :seller t.references :product t.timestamps end end I want to ensure that if a product_id is specified it is unique but I also want to allow null so I have the following in my model: validates :product_id, :uniqueness => true, :allow_nil => true Works great but I should then add an index to the migration file add_index :payment_agreements, :product_id, :unique => true Obviously this will throw an exception when two null values are inserted for product_id. I could just simply omit the index in the migration but then there's the chance that I'll get two PaymentAgreements with the same product_id as shown here: Concurrency and integrity My question is what is the best/most common way to deal with this problem

    Read the article

  • Rails Model multiple column uniqueness

    - by Jty.tan
    I am making a Viewer model with belongs_to :users belongs_to :orders that joins the models Users and Orders with a :has_many :through => :viewers. And the Viewer model has the attributes of user_id and order_id. How would I set it up so that new viewers are only accepted if both user_id and order_id are unique in the same row? I remember in MySQL being able to do so with a flag (although I can't for the life of me remember what it was), but I'm not sure how to do it with Rails. Can I do something like (for Viewer.rb) validates_uniqueness_of :user_id, :scope => :order_id?

    Read the article

  • Verify uniqueness of new content

    - by rogerkk
    I'm working on a review site, where there is a minor issue with almost duplicate reviews across items. Just a few words are changed. It would be very nice to be able to uncover these duplicates before they are approved by a moderator, and I'm hoping someone could chime in on the best strategy to get there. The site is running Ruby on Rails on a Postgres database and using Thinking Sphinx for search (all on Heroku), and so far the best option I see is to be pulling all the reviews out of the db and using a module like amatch to compare the strings. Not very efficient, so in this case I guess I'll have to limit the number/age of reviews to scan for dupes. Anyone got a better idea?

    Read the article

  • Methods for content uniqueness calculation on C#

    - by sashaeve
    I have a set of text files. I want to calculate a content uniqueness for different subsets. E.g. we have 10 documents (A1 - A10) and want to calculate the uniqueness for subset of documents A1 and A2. So the result must be some value from 0 to 1 (1 - absolutely unique content, 0 - absolutely dublicated content). What methods for content uniqueness calculation do you know? Please suggest these methods with .NET implementations. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • App Engine Django Form Uniqueness Validation?

    - by GeekTantra
    Is there a simpler way to use uniqueness validation with Django Forms in AppEngine? I understand that performance would be problem if we keep an uniqueness constraint but since the amount of data being added is very small performance is not a big concern, rather development time is a concern here. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • UID uniqueness of IMAP mails

    - by SecStone
    In our internal webmail system, we'd like to attach notes and contacts to certain mails. In order to do this, we have to keep track of every mail on our IMAP server. Unfortunately the IMAP standard doesn't enforce the uniqueness of the UID of a mail in a mailbox (just in subfolders). Is there any tool/IMAP server which generates UIDs which are truly unique? Or is there any other way how we can identify each mail? (the Message-ID header field is not unique as some mails do not contain such a field). Additional resources: Unique ID in IMAP protocol - Limilabs.com

    Read the article

  • Rails 2.3 uniqueness validation - how can I capture the value causing the error

    - by sa125
    Hi - I'm trying to capture the value that's throwing a uniqueness error (or for that matter, any other type of built-in validation) to display it in the :message option. Here's what I tried (didn't work) # inside the model validate_uniqueness_of :name, :message => "#{name} has already been taken" # also tried using #{:name} I could use a custom validation, but this beats the point of using something that's already integrated into AR. Any thoughts? thanks.

    Read the article

  • Validate uniqueness within a recent set

    - by Matchu
    Is there a standard Rails 3 way of detecting uniqueness within a particular scope, or is this custom validation all I can do? class Post < ActiveRecord::Base # [named scope for recent posts] validates do |post| if Post.recent.where('url = ?', post.url).count > 0 errors[:url] = 'has already been posted recently - thanks anyway!' end end end (Haven't yet tried that exact code, so there may be errors, but you get the idea.)

    Read the article

  • C# dictionary uniqueness for sibling classes using IEquatable<T>

    - by anthony
    I would like to store insances of two classes in a dictionary structure and use IEquatable to determine uniqueness of these instances. Both of these classes share an (abstract) base class. Consider the following classes: abstract class Foo { ... } class SubFoo1 : Foo { ... } class SubFoo2 : Foo { ... } The dictionary will be delcared: Dictionary<Foo, Bar> Which classes should be declared as IEquatable? And what should the generic type T be for those declarations? Is this even possible?

    Read the article

  • EF problem with entity re-ordering and uniqueness constraint

    - by wpfwannabe
    I am using Entity Framework and I've come to an interesting stumbling block. Let's say there is a db table "Item" with "sequence" column of type int (and others of course). Column "sequence" must be unique and it is used for (re)ordering of items. EF maps this table to "Item" class with "sequence" int property. Now let's say I want to swap position of two items by mutually exchanging each other's sequence number. Upon calling SaveChanges() EF throws an exception complaining about "sequence" uniqueness. It probably generates two UPDATEs and the first one probably fails. I assume that plain SQL solution to this issue is using a third UPDATE to introduce a unique sequence value in the process but I am stuck with EF. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • hibernate column uniqueness question

    - by Seth
    I'm still in the process of learning hibernate/hql and I have a question that's half best practices question/half sanity check. Let's say I have a class A: @Entity public class A { @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO) private Long id; @Column(unique=true) private String name = ""; //getters, setters, etc. omitted for brevity } I want to enforce that every instance of A that gets saved has a unique name (hence the @Column annotation), but I also want to be able to handle the case where there's already an A instance saved that has that name. I see two ways of doing this: 1) I can catch the org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException that could be thrown during the session.saveOrUpdate() call and try to handle it. 2) I can query for existing instances of A that already have that name in the DAO before calling session.saveOrUpdate(). Right now I'm leaning towards approach 2, because in approach 1 I don't know how to programmatically figure out which constraint was violated (there are a couple of other unique members in A). Right now my DAO.save() code looks roughly like this: public void save(A a) throws DataAccessException, NonUniqueNameException { Session session = sessionFactory.getCurrentSession(); try { session.beginTransaction(); Query query = null; //if id isn't null, make sure we don't count this object as a duplicate if(obj.getId() == null) { query = session.createQuery("select count(a) from A a where a.name = :name").setParameter("name", obj.getName()); } else { query = session.createQuery("select count(a) from A a where a.name = :name " + "and a.id != :id").setParameter("name", obj.getName()).setParameter("name", obj.getName()); } Long numNameDuplicates = (Long)query.uniqueResult(); if(numNameDuplicates > 0) throw new NonUniqueNameException(); session.saveOrUpdate(a); session.getTransaction().commit(); } catch(RuntimeException e) { session.getTransaction().rollback(); throw new DataAccessException(e); //my own class } } Am I going about this in the right way? Can hibernate tell me programmatically (i.e. not as an error string) which value is violating the uniqueness constraint? By separating the query from the commit, am I inviting thread-safety errors, or am I safe? How is this usually done? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Examples of interesting implementations of character stats?

    - by Tchalvak
    I've got this BBG going ( http://ninjawars.net ), and the character stats currently are simplistic. I'm looking to add a few stats to the current 1/2 (strength and maximum hitpoints, essentially). I've come up with: (strength (unchanged), speed, stamina, and some others that are somewhat interesting wildcard stats). However, I'm not satisfied with how boring the effects of some of these stats are, because they're very linear. Better stat, better effects of the stat, but the stats don't interact with each-other, there's no Rock-Paper-Scissors interaction, having more is always better all the time. So what I'd really like is to see examples of interesting character stats or effects of stats? Examples that I can think of off hand: Call of Cthulu's Insanity stat (things get really weird/chaotic if you start losing sanity) White Wolf stats, to a certain extent (the stats themselves have some basic effects, and all skills effectiveness base themselves off of stats as well) What are some other ways people have used stats to check out?

    Read the article

  • Logging IP address for uniqueness without storing the IP address itself for privacy

    - by szabgab
    In a web application when logging some data I'd like to make sure I can identify data that came at differetn times but from the same IP address. On the other hand for privacy concerns as the data will be released publicly I'd like to make sure the actual IP cannot be retrieved. So I need some one way mapping of the IP addresses to some other strings that ensures 1-1 mapping. If I understand correctly then MD5, SHA1 or SHA256 could be a solution. I wonder if they are not too expensive in terms of processing needed? I'd be interested in any solution though if there is implementation in Perl that would be even better.

    Read the article

  • Active Record Validations : uniqueness of

    - by Elliot
    Hey guys, I'm using http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000086 to validate records. My form is currently a remote form, using RJS. My question, is how to I return the :message (for errors) to the page through ajax (and I assume the create.rjs file)? Best, Elliot

    Read the article

  • convert a number to the shortest possible character string while retaining uniqueness

    - by alumb
    I have a list of digits, say "123456", and I need to map it to a string, any string. The only constraint on the map functions are: each list of digits must map to a unique character string (this means the string can be arbitrarily long) character string can only contain 0-9, a-z, A-Z What map function would produce the shortest strings? Solutions in JavaScript are preferred. note: Clearly the simplest solution is to use the original list of digits, so make sure you solution does better than that.

    Read the article

  • Enforcing a Uniqueness Constraint in a Nested Form

    - by Euwyn
    I'm trying not to fight the defaults here and use Rails built-in support for nested attributes (from http://ryandaigle.com/articles/2009/2/1/what-s-new-in-edge-rails-nested-attributes). I'm labeling Things with Tags, and all works swell, and for each Thing I have a form with a nested field that creates a new Tag by a name. Trouble is, I need to make sure that each Tag has a unique name. Instead of creating a new Tag, if a user enters the name of one that already exists, I need to create the associate with that pre-existing Tag. How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Using unless in rails uniqueness validation

    - by dunxd
    I am just starting out in Rails, and trying to develop a simple application. I need to validate three values submitted to the application - each must meet the same validation criteria. The validation is pretty simple: Value is valid if unqiue, null or equal to "p" or "d". The following gets me halfway there: validates_uniqueness_of :value1, :value2, :value3, :allow_nil => true I think I can use :unless to check whether the value is either "p" or "d", however I can't figure out how. I guess I am trying to combine validates_uniqueness_of with validates_inclusion_of. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • validate uniqueness amongst multiple subclasses with Single Table Inheritance

    - by irkenInvader
    I have a Card model that has many Sets and a Set model that has many Cards through a Membership model: class Card < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :sets, :through => :memberships end class Membership < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :card belongs_to :set validates_uniqueness_of :card_id, :scope => :set_id end class Set < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :cards, :through => :memberships validates_presence_of :cards end I also have some sub-classes of the above using Single Table Inheritance: class FooCard < Card end class BarCard < Card end and class Expansion < Set end class GameSet < Set validates_size_of :cards, :is => 10 end All of the above is working as I intend. What I'm trying to figure out is how to validate that a Card can only belong to a single Expansion. I want the following to be invalid: some_cards = FooCard.all( :limit => 25 ) first_expansion = Expansion.new second_expansion = Expansion.new first_expansion.cards = some_cards second_expansion.cards = some_cards first_expansion.save # Valid second_expansion.save # **Should be invalid** However, GameSets should allow this behavior: other_cards = FooCard.all( :limit => 10 ) first_set = GameSet.new second_set = GameSet.new first_set.cards = other_cards # Valid second_set.cards = other_cards # Also valid I'm guessing that a validates_uniqueness_of call is needed somewhere, but I'm not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? UPDATE 1 I modified the Expansion class as sugested: class Expansion < Set validate :validates_uniqueness_of_cards def validates_uniqueness_of_cards membership = Membership.find( :first, :include => :set, :conditions => [ "card_id IN (?) AND sets.type = ?", self.cards.map(&:id), "Expansion" ] ) errors.add_to_base("a Card can only belong to a single Expansion") unless membership.nil? end end This works when creating initial expansions to validate that no current expansions contain the cards. However, this (falsely) invalidates future updates to the expansion with new cards. In other words: old_exp = Expansion.find(1) old_exp.card_ids # returns [1,2,3,4,5] new_exp = Expansion.new new_exp.card_ids = [6,7,8,9,10] new_exp.save # returns true new_exp.card_ids << [11,12] # no other Expansion contains these cards new_exp.valid? # returns false ... SHOULD be true

    Read the article

  • Merging rows with uniqueness constraints

    - by Flambino
    I've got a little time-tracking web app (implemented in Rails 3.2.8 & MySQL). The app has several users who add their time to specific tasks, on a given date. The system is set up so a user can only have 1 time entry (i.e. row) per task per date. I.e. if you add time twice on the same task and date, it'll add time to the existing row, rather than create a new one. Now I'm looking to merge 2 tasks. In the simplest terms, merging task ID 2 into task ID 1 would take this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 10 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 10 | 1 | 2 | 2012-10-29 5 | 3 | 2 | 2012-10-29 and change it into this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 20 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- time values merged (summed) 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- no change 5 | 3 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- task_id changed (no merging necessary) I.e. merge by summing the time values, where the given user_id/date/task combo would conflict. I figure I can use a unique constraint to do a ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ... if I do an insert for every task_id=2 entry. But that seems pretty inelegant. I've also tried to figure a way to first update all the rows in task 1 with the summed-up times, but I can't quite figure that one out. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Ensuring uniqueness on a varchar greater than 255 in MYSQL/InnoDB

    - by Vijay Boyapati
    I have a table which contains HTML entries for news pages. When I initially designed it I used URL as the primary key. I've learned the error of my ways because left-joining is super slow. So I want to redesign the table with an integer (id) primary key, but still keep the rows unique based on the URL. The problem is that I've found URLs longer than 255 characters, and MySQL isn't letting my create a key on the URL. I'm using an InnoDB/UTF8 table. From what I understand it's using multiple bytes per character with a limit of 766 bytes for the key (in InnoDB). I would really love suggestions on an elegant way of keeping the rows unique based on URL, while using an integer primary key. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Are hash collisions with different file sizes just as likely as same file size?

    - by rwmnau
    I'm hashing a large number of files, and to avoid hash collisions, I'm also storing a file's original size - that way, even if there's a hash collision, it's extremely unlikely that the file sizes will also be identical. Is this sound (a hash collision is equally likely to be of any size), or do I need another piece of information (if a collision is more likely to also be the same length as the original). Or, more generally: Is every file just as likely to produce a particular hash, regardless of original file size?

    Read the article

  • Are has collisions with different file sizes just as likely as same file size?

    - by rwmnau
    I'm hashing a large number of files, and to avoid hash collisions, I'm also storing a file's original size - that way, even if there's a hash collision, it's extrememly unlikely that the file sizes will also be identical. Is this sound (a hash collision is equally likely to be of any size), or do I need another piece of information (if a collision is more likely to also be the same length as the original). Or, more generally: Is every file just as likely to produce a particular hash, regardless of original file size?

    Read the article

  • Rails 3: Validate combined values

    - by Cimm
    In Rails 2.x you can use validations to make sure you have a unique combined value like this: validates_uniqueness_of :husband, :scope => :wife In the corresponding migration it could look like this: add_index :family, [:husband, :wife], :unique => true This would make sure the husband/wife combination is unique in the database. Now, in Rails 3 the validation syntax changed and the scope attribute seems to be gone. It now looks like: validates :husband, :presence => true Any idea how I can achieve the combined validation in Rails 3? The Rails 2.x validations still work in Rails 3 so I can still use the first example but it looks so "old", are there better ways?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >