Skip to content

Update query-over.md #9735

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update query-over.md #9735

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 2 additions & 3 deletions content/en/docs/refguide/modeling/domain-model/associations/query-over.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -104,9 +104,8 @@ Here is an example inheritance:

{{< figure src="/attachments/refguide/modeling/domain-model/associations/query-over/limitation.png" class="no-border" >}}

In this example, a list of **Specializations** cannot be retrieved when using a standard by-association retrieve in a microflow if the input is the specialization.

However, there is a workaround for this limitation: The list of Specializations can be retrieved with a Java action using the Java API. This Java action needs two parameters: the **Specialization** and a Boolean **Reverse** via this code snippet:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it is worth putting a text description of the Java as well.

But on a more general note, however - although my programming days are about 30 years in the past, I'm not so happy with the class name or that the reverse is a parameter to it.
Would it not be better to have a class called RetrieveGeneralizationViaAssociation which is just dedicated to doing that (and perhaps name the object something more meaningful than B?

Perhaps this is clearer to a Java developer, but this might be needed by a low-code developer whose Java skills are as weak as mine.

If the customer wants to implement a more general-purpose version, then they can adapt the simple version?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, there seems to be a disconnect in names between the Java action and the model.

In this example, if a standard by-association retrieve in a microflow is used starting from a `Specialization` this will return the `Specialization` that the starting point `Specialization` points to.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to be clearer that you do not get the generalization. How about:

Suggested change
In this example, if a standard by-association retrieve in a microflow is used starting from a `Specialization` this will return the `Specialization` that the starting point `Specialization` points to.
In this example, if a standard by-association retrieve in a microflow is used starting from a `Specialization` this will return the `Specialization` that the starting point `Specialization` points to and not the list of `Generalization` which are associated via the `Generalization_Specialization` association.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, this looks more understandable.

The list of `Generalization`'s that points to `Specialization` can be retrieved with a Java action using the Java API:

```java
public class RetrieveAsAssociatedWithB extends CustomJavaAction<java.util.List<IMendixObject>>
Expand Down