Forums / Developer / Writing out data_map attribute

Writing out data_map attribute

Author Message

Claus Jensen

Tuesday 02 September 2003 3:50:09 am

Hi folks,
eZ wont write out my attribute. I've tried so many different ways, but it just dont wont do it. Here's the code:

{section loop=fetch(content,list,hash(parent_node_id,$top_cat, class_filter_type, "include", class_filter_array, array(1),sort_by,array(array(priority))))}

<strong>{$:item.name|wash}</strong>
As you can see im looping through some objects, and instead of $:item.name i want to write out an attribute called menu_title, so i have tried: $:item.data_map.menu_title, $:item.object.data_map.menu_title and a lot more.

Also this is not working, i want to display only objects that dont have node_id = 131, should it not be like this?
{section show=not(eq($:item.node_id, 131)))}
{/section}

Please help me, thanks.
claÜs

Claus Jensen

Tuesday 02 September 2003 6:33:11 am

Oki,
i figured the first part. I can do a {attribute_view_gui attribute=$:item.data_map.menu_title} or a {$:item.data_map.menu_title.data_text}

but i still have problems with the not() function how should it be used? the sdk explains this bad I think (http://ez.no/sdk/eztemplate/view/operator_list/)...

Anybody knows this?
cheers,
claÜs

Bjørn Kaarstein

Tuesday 02 September 2003 6:39:02 am

You might want to try {$:item|attribute(show)} or {$:item.data_map|attribute(show)}.

Also I would check the rights of the anonymous user. If you've created a new class, the anonymous user won't have the right to read it.. (I've burnt myself on this several times)

Try to give your section a name=test, so you can access the $test:item.... from the nested section.

I think your {section show} can be written like this:

{section show=ne($test:item.node_id, 131)}

{/section}

or you could use a switch/case statement:
http://ez.no/developer/ez_publish_3/documentation/development/libraries/ez_template/functions/switch

Hope this helps.

Regards Bjørn

Claus Jensen

Tuesday 02 September 2003 6:47:49 am

THANKS!

I'd already figured the first part, but you were right about the ne() instead of the not(eq())... so thanks a lot:)

best,
claÜs