I have a requirement where I am making use of lightning:recordEditForm to create a new record. I am using standard save functionality. After successful save of record I need to make use of the record Id. Is there is any native way to get Id of record without making server call?  Following is my UI code  &lt;lightning:recordEditForm  onsuccess="{!c.handleSuccess}" onerror="{!c.handleError}"         aura:id="recordEditForm"        objectApiName="Address__c"&gt;              &lt;lightning:messages /&gt;             &lt;lightning:inputField fieldName="Customer__c" value="{!v.accountRecord.Id}" class='slds-hide'/&gt;               &lt;aura:iteration items="{!v.displayListAddress}" var="item" &gt;                 &lt;lightning:inputField fieldName="{!item}" onchange="{!c.fieldValChange}"/&gt;                                          &lt;/aura:iteration&gt;           &lt;div class="slds-modal__footer"&gt;            &lt;div class="slds-align_absolute-center"&gt;               &lt;lightning:button label="Cancel" title="Neutral action" onclick="{! c.closeEdit }"/&gt;               &lt;lightning:button variant="brand" type="submit" name="save" label="Save" /&gt;            &lt;/div&gt;         &lt;/div&gt;     I thought that after successful record creation the recordId attribute will get populated with appropriate value and will give proper value via this  alert("Id : "+component.find("recordEditForm").get("v.recordId"));   But this returns undefined.  Though I can make a server call with appropriate filters in SOQL to get Id of the record, but seems there should be some easier way around without server call.
I am using lightning:recordEditForm and lightning:inputField for creating a new record. this component is being used inside a lightning community builder. When i click the submit button, i am able to create a new record in my custom object. However i need the created record ID as i need to pass it in the URL for the next page.
I have been reading Geoff Cumming's 2008 paper  [~200 citations in Google Scholar] -- and  am confused by one of its central claims. This is one in the series of papers where Cumming argues against $p$-values and in favour of confidence intervals; my question, however, is not about this debate and only concerns one specific claim about $p$-values.   Let me quote from the abstract:     This article shows that, if an initial   experiment results in two-tailed $p= .05$, there is an $80\%$   chance the one-tailed $p$-value from a replication will fall in   the interval $(.00008, .44)$, a $10\%$ chance that $p &lt; .00008$,   and fully a $10\%$ chance that $p &gt; .44$. Remarkably, the   interval—termed a $p$ interval—is this wide however large   the sample size.   Cumming claims that this "$p$ interval", and in fact the whole distribution of $p$-values that one would obtain when replicating the original experiment (with the same fixed sample size), depend only on the original $p$-value $p_\mathrm{obt}$ and do not depend on the true effect size, power, sample size, or anything else:     [...] the probability distribution of $p$ can be derived without   knowing or assuming a value for $\delta$ (or power). [...] We do not assume any prior knowledge   about $\delta$, and we use only the information $M_\mathrm{diff}$ [observed between-group difference] gives about $\delta$ as   the basis for the calculation for a given $p_\mathrm{obt}$ of the distribution of   $p$ and of $p$ intervals.      $\quad\quad\quad$    I am confused by this because to me it seems that the distribution of $p$-values strongly depends on power, whereas the original $p_\mathrm{obt}$ on its own does not give any information about it. It might be that the true effect size is $\delta=0$ and then the distribution is uniform; or maybe the true effect size is huge and then we should expect mostly very small $p$-values. Of course one can start with assuming some prior over possible effect sizes and integrate over it, but Cumming seems to claim that this is not what he is doing.  Question: What exactly is going on here?    Note that this topic is related to this question:  with an excellent answer by @whuber. Cumming has a paper on this topic to:  -- but that one is clear and unproblematic.  I also note that Cumming's claim is repeated several times in the 2015 Nature Methods paper  that some of you might have come across (it already has ~100 citations in Google Scholar):     [...] there will be substantial variation in the $P$ value of repeated experiments. In reality, experiments are rarely repeated; we do not know how different the next $P$ might be. But it is likely that it could be very different. For example, regardless of the statistical power of an experiment, if a single replicate returns a $P$ value of $0.05$, there is an $80\%$ chance that a repeat experiment would return a $P$ value between $0$ and $0.44$ (and a $20\%$ change [sic] that $P$ would be even larger).   (Note, by the way, how, irrespective of whether Cumming's statement is correct or not, Nature Methods paper quotes it inaccurately: according to Cumming, it's only $10\%$ probability above $0.44$. And yes, the paper does say "20% change". Pfff.) Extruding Vector Files in Blender I am sure this has been discussed quite a few times, but I found a tutorial recently doing the exact same thing as I did, but in my case my logo is messing up!  Here is the link to the workflow:   This is what it looks like after adding the solidify modifier:   I already recalced the normals of my spline, but besides that it messes up my spline shape, it had no effect.  Any suggestions on how to fix it? The reason that I ask is because this is happening to LiDAR, and I am inclined to use lidar because it is easier to read. I have a question about using the phrase "some kind of _".  Is it incorrect to say "some kind of + plural noun"?     For example, is it wrong to say "are these rock-like things some kind of chocolates?"   I didn't use "kinds" and that kind of adds to my question. Is "kind" always plural, like "some kinds of chocolates"? Because although I'm using "some", it feels like "kind" shouldn't be a countable noun.  Anyway, I don't think I've heard of "some kind of + plural", but I think it makes more sense then using singular, since I think chocolates are countable. Please help! What is the dot product and why do we need it? I understand how to calculate the dot product of the vectors. But I don't actually understand what a dot product is, and why it's needed.  Could you answer these questions? Most of something is plural or singular? I am writing a literature review. My question is which sentence is correct?   Most of the existing work focus on... Most of the existing work focuses on ... Most of the existing studies focus on ...   Thanks Derivatives of $ \frac{1}{r} $ and Dirac delta function I am trying to understand the formula \begin{equation} \nabla^2\left(\frac{1}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|}\right) = - 4 \pi \delta(\bf{r}-\bf{r}'), \qquad\qquad {\rm (I)} \end{equation} where ${\bf r}=(x,y,z)$. This is something heavily used in electrostatics and the steps to 'show' this is often the following: The first derivative reads \begin{equation} \nabla \frac{1}{| {\bf r} - {\bf r}' |} = - \frac{ {\bf r} - {\bf r}'}{| {\bf r} - {\bf r}'|^3} \end{equation} And taking the second derivative gives zero, except for the singularity at ${\bf r} = {\bf r'}$. Then from the divergence theorem we have \begin{equation} \int dV \,  \nabla^2 \frac{1}{| {\bf r} - {\bf r'}|} = \int dS  \,\,{\bf n} \cdot ( \nabla\frac{1}{|{\bf r} - {\bf r}'|}) = -4 \pi \end{equation} where the integration is performed over a sphere centered at ${\bf r}'$. Q1: Is there a more direct proof for equation (I)? Then my main question is about the separate second-order differentials. For instance, we can obtain, by direct computation \begin{equation} \partial_x^2 \, \frac{1}{| {\bf r} - {\bf r}'|} = \frac{ 3 (x-x')^2 }{| {\bf r} - {\bf r'} |^5} - \frac{1}{| {\bf r} - {\bf r}'|^3} \end{equation} Q2: Should there be a $\delta$ function on the r.h.s of this equation? How can we change root password? $$ \sum_{i=1}^N\left\lfloor\frac{N}{i}\right\rfloor $$ Is there a closed form expression to the above sum? (Mathematica doesn't give me anything) The other day I was looking at Stack Overflow on my Android phone. All is made very nice and all, but I could not find the Review button/link. Is it being implemented, did I miss it, or it is not available? The standard font packages make global changes to the fonts in my document. What if I want to use a particular font for just a portion of my text?   How do I find the right name of the font? How do I select the font? How do I restrict the scope of the font change?     There are separate answers for different flavors of TeX (quick links): My regex is matching too much. How do I make it stop? I have this gigantic ugly string: J0000000: Transaction A0001401 started on 8/22/2008 9:49:29 AM J0000010: Project name: E:\foo.pf J0000011: Job name: MBiek Direct Mail Test J0000020: Document 1 - Completed successfully  I'm trying to extract pieces from it using regex. In this case, I want to grab everything after Project Name up to the part where it says J0000011: (the 11 is going to be a different number every time). Here's the regex I've been playing with: Project name:\s+(.*)\s+J[0-9]{7}:  The problem is that it doesn't stop until it hits the J0000020: at the end. How do I make the regex stop at the first occurrence of J[0-9]{7}? I'm using post thumbnails to link to a page.  Is it possible to add a class name to the post thumbnail image.  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="&lt;?php the_permalink(); ?&gt;" &gt;&lt;?php the_post_thumbnail(); ?&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt; String processing in windows batch files: How to pad value with leading zeros? How can I contribute to Ubuntu? I would like to know what kinds of contributions someone can make to Ubuntu. Such as Programmer, User, Proofreader, etc. Is it bad to marinate meat for too long? From my experience it is always best to marinate meat for a decent amount of time, so the meat can "soak" up the marinade and be more flavourful.  However, I came across this recipe here:   In the directions, it says: Add pork and marinade for a minimum of 6 hours or overnight, but no longer than 12 hours.  I was wondering, why does it say "no longer than 12 hours"? Isn't it good to let meat marinate for as long as possible?  Thanks. Give a sequence such that root test works while ratio test fails I am working on a game and would like to include a few jump scares. So here is a rather simple question — What makes a good jump scare and when and how should they happen? I have a laptop with a full keyboard (it has numpad), but the laptop is not that big, and because of that the keys are relatively small, which means I am constantly finding myself pressing keys accidentally on the numpad part.  Is there a way to disable specific keys that I simply don't want? I basically need to highlight a particular word in a block of text. For example, pretend I wanted to highlight the word &quot;dolor&quot; in this text: &lt;p&gt;     Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;     Quisque bibendum sem ut lacus. Integer dolor ullamcorper libero.     Aliquam rhoncus eros at augue. Suspendisse vitae mauris. &lt;/p&gt;  How do I convert the above to something like this: &lt;p&gt;     Lorem ipsum &lt;span class=&quot;myClass&quot;&gt;dolor&lt;/span&gt; sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;     Quisque bibendum sem ut lacus. Integer &lt;span class=&quot;myClass&quot;&gt;dolor&lt;/span&gt; ullamcorper     libero. Aliquam rhoncus eros at augue. Suspendisse vitae mauris. &lt;/p&gt;  Is this possible with jQuery? Edit: As  , this is quite possible without jQuery - but I was hoping there might be a special method of jQuery which would let you do selectors on the text itself. I'm already using jQuery heavily on this site, so keeping everything wrapped up in jQuery would make things perhaps a bit more tidy.