https://twill.io logo
Powered by
# ❓questions
  • l
    Ah - I think I may be thinking about this wrong - i'm now thinking that this relationship should only be selected in one direction via the BelongsTo browser field, though it would be good to know if the list of relations could be edited on the owner module too
  • p
    @User Yes, browsers (and repeaters, to some extent...) are a common source of confusion. Can you share a bit more on your specific use case? What kind of modules are your trying to link up? Also, have a look at HandleRelatedBrowsers, which (in my opinion) simplifies browser stuff considerably: https://github.com/area17/twill/blob/2.x/src/Repositories/Behaviors/HandleRelatedBrowsers.php
  • l
    I have a Brand module, and a brand has many Products, and a Product can only belong to one Brand - so the Brand has a HasMany relationship, and the Product has a BelongsTo.
  • l
    I have successfully added a browser on a Product using the 
    $browsers
    property which works via BelongsTo, that lets me select one Brand, which updates the Product's 
    brand_id
    field. I thought it would be nice to allow the client to work in the other direction too, and use a browser within the Brand to select which Products it owns via the HasMany relationship.
  • l
    I was thinking each of these modules would be handled within its own CMS section, rather than in a Repeater field, so both sets of entries could be edited independently.
  • l
    I'm now starting to think that maybe the Products could be defined in the Brand's in a repeater, as they're unlikely to change brand 😆
  • p
    Just to make sure I understand, what is the repeater doing in this case?
  • l
    If i chose to use a repeater on the Brand, it would only be used to add new products and associate them with the Brand via the hasMany relationship
  • p
    Ah, I see! Yeah, I think both options are good... Both modules accessible in the CMS + a browser field to create associations. Or only brands accessible in the CMS + a repeater for products. I guess it depends on the number of items really, managing a large amount of products through a repeater will become a pain quickly.
  • l
    Yeah I thought that! So I guess my original confusion still stands, can a browser manage a HasMany relationship? 🙂
  • p
    To your browser question — I have implemented a 2-way browser recently using a pivot table and 
    belongsToMany
    , but you may be right about `belongsTo`/`hasMany`, there could be something missing to make this work 2-way.
  • l
    Ah... okay! That's cool. I like the simplicity of a simple BelongsTo/HasMany setup, so I'm happy to just define it on one module. I just wanted to make sure if the inverse was possible or not. Thank you.
  • i
    native belongsTo in the browser was only added recently and it'd totally make sense to support hasMany. Initially the browser field was really intended for belongsToMany with a pivot table, which does obviously work both ways
  • l
    That's cool - I guess if the feature gets implemented in the future I can easily add in the HasMany browser at a later point 👍
  • l
    Loving Twill btw, day 2 of using it and just figuring my way through
  • i
    twill-transformers
  • l
    Hi all - i have enabled 
    HandleRevisions
    on a module with a browser powered by a BelongsTo relationship, and i'm getting an error when clicking 'Preview changes' in the Twill UI under the Revisions details. The log shows the following:
  • l
    Copy code
    [2021-08-06 11:43:54] local.ERROR: Call to undefined method Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Relations\BelongsTo::getTable() {"userId":1,"exception":"[object] (BadMethodCallException(code: 0): Call to undefined method Illuminate\\Database\\Eloquent\\Relations\\BelongsTo::getTable() at /Users.../vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Support/Traits/ForwardsCalls.php:50)
[stacktrace]
#0 /Users.../vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Support/Traits/ForwardsCalls.php(36): Illuminate\\Database\\Eloquent\\Relations\\Relation::throwBadMethodCallException('getTable')
#1 /Users.../vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Database/Eloquent/Relations/Relation.php(439): Illuminate\\Database\\Eloquent\\Relations\\Relation->forwardCallTo(Object(Illuminate\\Database\\Eloquent\\Builder), 'getTable', Array)
#2 /Users.../vendor/area17/twill/src/Repositories/Behaviors/HandleRevisions.php(102): Illuminate\\Database\\Eloquent\\Relations\\Relation->__call('getTable', Array)
  • p
    hey @User , I think this issue is solved in the 
    dev
    branch. Would you like to give it a try?
  • l
    thanks @User, will give it a go
  • l
    Is the branch listed on Github?
  • p
    2.x
    is the one
  • l
    thanks - i'll give this a go over the weekend!
  • k
    Look for a recommendation on how to handle this situation: I created a laravel application, then later brought in Twill. So I therefore already had a Users table with database relationships and such. But now I'm trying to get laravel's phpunit testing going. Each time it runs the feature tests it rebuilds the database. This is all fine, except twill's default migration:rollback that tries to run each time attempts to drop my user table event though it can't be dropped in that order (it needs to be the final table to be dropped in fact). So my unit test fails saying 
    Cannot drop table 'users' referenced by a foreign key constraint 'page_revisions_user_id_foreign' on table 'page_revisions'
    Any recommendations on how to tackle this? For now I've just updated twill's vendor migration to fix it, but that's obviously not ideal, lol. Is there perhaps a way I can selectively have a vendor migration NOT run?
  • i
    Hey @KyleAF, am I correct to guess you changed 
    twill.users_table
    to 
    users
    ?
  • i
    you can disable twill migrations and publish them to have full control instead
  • i
  • k
    @User you're correct! And alright, I'll do that. Thanks 🙂
  • l
    Hi @User the fix in 
    dev
    worked, thank you
  • l
    Another quick question - several of my modules have no fields attached and are just used for categorisation and filtering mechanisms - is there a way to hide the default Content fieldset if there is no content to edit?
1...747576...484Latest