Skip to content

easier way to refresh rating model binding (chapter 04) #6

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.

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: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lutzfe
Copy link

@lutzfe lutzfe commented Jul 7, 2025

use odata context binding from rating indicator to refresh only the model binding of this context

… the model bindings of this context (description should be updated)
@lutzfe lutzfe requested a review from nicoschoenteich as a code owner July 7, 2025 21:22
Copy link

cla-assistant bot commented Jul 7, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link

cla-assistant bot commented Jul 7, 2025

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

@nicoschoenteich
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @lutzfe,
Thank you very much for that. I tested it, and unfortunately the label displaying the average rating doesn't update (make a new call) when calling the refresh on the operation. That's because the operation of the rating indicator is createRating(), but the label call getAvgRating(), so refreshing the operation has no effect on the label.
Please provide more info in case I missed something.
Best, Nico

@lutzfe
Copy link
Author

lutzfe commented Jul 9, 2025

Hi @nicoschoenteich,
i will check this again. Thanks for the answer.
Felix

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants