Hello,

I am modifying the template crudEdit.jet to include a way to select a parent object without knowing the id, namely a "popup" list of values on which you double click the object's description and it assigns the textbox its id.

Anyways, by now I am able to read the child object's relationships and see if they are one to many or one to one and get the parent object's primary key but I was wondering if there is a way to get the child object's foreign key fields.

Is this possible?

Something like $fieldRelatedType/@primaryKey = 'true' in the example below but rather $dataType/@foreignKey = 'true' or similar...

Code:

...                             <jet:iterate select="$dataType/relationships" var="relationship">                               <jet:setVariable select="$relationship/targetDataType" var="relatedType" />                                  <jet:choose>                                    <jet:when test="string($relationship/@cardinality) = 'MANY'">                                                     <!-- do nothing -->                                    </jet:when>                                  <jet:otherwise>                                     <jet:iterate select="$relatedType/fields" var="fieldRelatedType">                                        <jet:choose>                                           <jet:when test="string($fieldRelatedType/@primaryKey) = 'true'"> ...

Thanks for your time!

Sorry, but it doesn't look like it's posible to do by querying a property on the model.

The DataType has these properties:

fields
relationships
modifiers
annotateGetters
persistent


The Field has these properties:

primaryKey
dataType
description
collection
name
initialValue
type
visibility
modifiers

The Relationship has these properties:

targetDataType
reverseRelationship
cardinality
parentDataType
description
collection
name
initialValue
type
visibility
modifiers

The only way I can think to do it is to iterate the relationships looking for primary keys that match the fields in the current data type.

Thanks! I was doing exactly what you suggested but I wanted to know if there was a "more proper" way of doing it.