Assume that there is a query such as:
query test1 {
students {
id
name
address_pin
address_city
yearAdmitted
laptopOS
phoneOS
}
}
I can access this entire query text at runtime in graphql-java.
Is there anyway to get the query-name 'students'?
Tried this and it works for basic queries, not sure if this is the correct way to do so.
private String getQueryName(String input) {
Document doc = new Parser().parseDocument(input);
List<OperationDefinition> definitionList = doc.getDefinitionsOfType(OperationDefinition.class);
for (OperationDefinition definition : definitionList) {
if (definition != null && definition.getOperation().toString().equalsIgnoreCase("QUERY")) {
Field field = definition.getSelectionSet().getSelectionsOfType(Field.class).stream().findFirst().orElse(null);
if (field != null) {
return field.getName();
}
}
}
return null;
}
Related
I'm using the webflux framework for spring boot, the behavior I'm trying to implement is creating a new customer in the database, if it does not already exist (throw an exception if it does)
and also maintain another country code database (if the new customer is from a new country, add to the database, if the country is already saved, use the old information)
This is the function in the service :
public Mono<Customer> createNewCustomer(Customer customer) {
if(!customer.isValid()) {
return Mono.error(new BadRequestException("Bad email or birthdate format"));
}
Mono<Customer> customerFromDB = customerDB.findByEmail(customer.getEmail());
Mono<Country> countryFromDB = countryDB.findByCountryCode(customer.getCountryCode());
Mono<Customer> c = customerFromDB.zipWith(countryFromDB).doOnSuccess(new Consumer<Tuple2<Customer, Country>>() {
#Override
public void accept(Tuple2<Customer, Country> t) {
System.err.println("tuple " + t);
if(t == null) {
countryDB.save(new Country(customer.getCountryCode(), customer.getCountryName())).subscribe();
customerDB.save(customer).subscribe();
return;
}
Customer cus = t.getT1();
Country country = t.getT2();
if(cus != null) {
throw new CustomerAlreadyExistsException();
}
if(country == null) {
countryDB.save(new Country(customer.getCountryCode(), customer.getCountryName())).subscribe();
}
else {
customer.setCountryName(country.getCountryName());
}
customerDB.save(customer).subscribe();
}
}).thenReturn(customer);
return c;
}
My problem is, the tuple returns null if either country or customer are not found, while I need to know about them separately if they exist or not, so that I can save to the database correctly.
country == null is never true
I also tried to use customerFromDB.block() to get the actual value but I receive an error that it's not supported, so I guess that's not the way
Is there anyway to do two queries to get their values?
Solved it with the following solution:
public Mono<Customer> createNewCustomer(Customer customer) {
if(!customer.isValid()) {
return Mono.error(new BadRequestException("Bad email or birthdate format"));
}
return customerDB.findByEmail(customer.getEmail())
.defaultIfEmpty(new Customer("empty", "", "", "", "", ""))
.flatMap(cu -> {
if(!cu.getEmail().equals("empty")) {
return Mono.error(new CustomerAlreadyExistsException());
}
return countryDB.findByCountryCode(customer.getCountryCode())
.defaultIfEmpty(new Country(customer.getCountryCode(), customer.getCountryName()))
.flatMap(country -> {
customer.setCountryName(country.getCountryName());
customerDB.save(customer).subscribe();
countryDB.save(country).subscribe();
return Mono.just(customer);});
});
}
Instead of doing both queries simulatneaously, I queried for one result and then queries for the next, I think this is the reactive way of doing it, but I'm open for corrections.
I began learn Groovy, and faced the challenge.
I have this code, that stores meta-data to object:
class Meta {
final MetaItem name
final MetaItem description
// ...
// And more fields with type MetaItem
// ...
Meta() {
name = new MetaItem("name")
description = new MetaItem("description")
}
void setName(String name) {
this.name.value = name
}
String getName() {
return this.name.value
}
void setDescription(String description) {
this.description.value = description
}
String getDescription() {
return this.description.value
}
// ...
// And more methods. Two for each field
// ...
}
class MetaItem {
private final def id
def value
MetaItem(String id) {
this.id = id
}
}
// Validating
def meta = new Meta()
assert meta.name == null
assert meta.description == null
meta.with {
name = "Name"
description = "Desc"
}
assert meta.name == "Name"
assert meta.description == "Desc"
print "Success!"
As you can see from the code, it increases quicly in volumes when new fields are added, because for each field you need to add two methods. Can this somehow be optimized? Redirect the assignment operation from object to his member. I've looked on Delegate, but this is not what I need.
P.S. I can't use access by .value because this class is used in Gradle extension and I need to configure it like this:
myExtension {
meta {
name = "Name"
description = "Desc"
// And many others
}
}
P.P.S. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language
I am currently having a performance problem with the following query written in NHibernate. I am trying to transform the data I queried into DTO's. With this complex structure I cannot use QueryOver to transform the entities. On the other side Linq provider is so useful but it takes ~10 seconds to load and transform ~6000 entities with each 30 child items. It creates an SQL query with left outer join. Are there any other ways to write this query with a better approach?
var Entities = session.Query<crmEntity>()
.Where(x => x.EntityType.ID == EntityType)
.Select(entity => new EntityDTO()
{
ID = entity.ID,
EntityType = entity.EntityType.ID,
InstanceID = entity.Instance.ID,
Values = entity.Values.Select(
value => new CustomFieldValueDTO()
{
ID = value.ID,
FieldID = value.Field.ID,
Value = value.Value
}).ToList<CustomFieldValueDTO>()
}).ToList();
Here is my solution. if there is any other better way, I am completely open to it:
session.CreateQuery(#"select vals.ID,
vals.Field.ID,
vals.Value,
ent.ID
from crmEntity ent inner join ent.Values vals
with vals.Value IS NOT NULL
where ent.EntityType.ID=:eID and ent.Instance.ID=:instanceID order by ent.ID")
.SetGuid("instanceID", InstanceID)
.SetGuid("eID", EntityType)
.SetResultTransformer(new EntityListTransformer()).Future<ReadOnlyEntityDTO>();
And this is my custom result transformer to get the same hierarchy like my linq query
public class EntityListTransformer : IResultTransformer
{
private List<ReadOnlyEntityDTO> list;
private ReadOnlyEntityDTO lastEntity;
private Guid instanceID;
public EntityListTransformer()
{
list = new List<ReadOnlyEntityDTO>();
lastEntity = new ReadOnlyEntityDTO();
}
public System.Collections.IList TransformList(System.Collections.IList collection)
{
return list;
}
public object TransformTuple(object[] tuple, string[] aliases)
{
string ValueID = tuple[0].ToString();
string FieldID = tuple[1].ToString();
string Value = (string)tuple[2];
string EntityID = tuple[3].ToString();
if (lastEntity.ID != EntityID)
{
if (lastEntity.ID != null)
{
list.Add(lastEntity);
}
lastEntity = new ReadOnlyEntityDTO()
{
ID = EntityID
};
}
lastEntity.Values.Add(new ReadOnlyCustomFieldValueDTO()
{
FieldID = FieldID,
ID = ValueID,
Value = Value
});
return tuple;
}
}
Trying to save selections from a CheckBoxList as a comma-separated list (string) in DB (one or more choices selected). I am using a proxy in order to save as a string because otherwise I'd have to create separate tables in the DB for a relation - the work is not worth it for this simple scenario and I was hoping that I could just convert it to a string and avoid that.
The CheckBoxList uses an enum for it's choices:
public enum Selection
{
Selection1,
Selection2,
Selection3
}
Not to be convoluted, but I use [Display(Name="Choice 1")] and an extension class to display something friendly on the UI. Not sure if I can save that string instead of just the enum, although I think if I save as enum it's not a big deal for me to "display" the friendly string on UI on some confirmation page.
This is the "Record" class that saves a string in the DB:
public virtual string MyCheckBox { get; set; }
This is the "Proxy", which is some sample I found but not directly dealing with enum, and which uses IEnumerable<string> (or should it be IEnumerable<Selection>?):
public IEnumerable<string> MyCheckBox
{
get
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Record.MyCheckBox)) return new string[] { };
return Record
.MyCheckBox
.Split(new[] { ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Select(r => r.Trim())
.Where(r => !String.IsNullOrEmpty(r));
}
set
{
Record.MyCheckBox = value == null ? null : String.Join(",", value);
}
}
To save in the DB, I am trying to do this in a create class:
proxy.MyCheckBox = record.MyCheckBox; //getting error here
but am getting the error:
Cannot implicitly convert 'string' to System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable'
I don't know, if it's possible or better, to use Parse or ToString from the API for enum values.
I know that doing something like this will store whatever I put in the ("") into the DB, so it's just a matter of figuring out how to overcome the error (or, if there is an alternative):
proxy.MyCheckBox = new[] {"foo", "bar"};
I am not good with this stuff and have just been digging and digging to come up with a solution. Any help is much appreciated.
You can accomplish this using a custom user type. The example below uses an ISet<string> on the class and stores the values as a delimited string.
[Serializable]
public class CommaDelimitedSet : IUserType
{
const string delimiter = ",";
#region IUserType Members
public new bool Equals(object x, object y)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(x, y))
{
return true;
}
var xSet = x as ISet<string>;
var ySet = y as ISet<string>;
if (xSet == null || ySet == null)
{
return false;
}
// compare set contents
return xSet.Except(ySet).Count() == 0 && ySet.Except(xSet).Count() == 0;
}
public int GetHashCode(object x)
{
return x.GetHashCode();
}
public object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, string[] names, object owner)
{
var outValue = NHibernateUtil.String.NullSafeGet(rs, names[0]) as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(outValue))
{
return new HashSet<string>();
}
else
{
var splitArray = outValue.Split(new[] {Delimiter}, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
return new HashSet<string>(splitArray);
}
}
public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, object value, int index)
{
var inValue = value as ISet<string>;
object setValue = inValue == null ? null : string.Join(Delimiter, inValue);
NHibernateUtil.String.NullSafeSet(cmd, setValue, index);
}
public object DeepCopy(object value)
{
// return new ISet so that Equals can work
// see http://www.mail-archive.com/nhusers#googlegroups.com/msg11054.html
var set = value as ISet<string>;
if (set == null)
{
return null;
}
return new HashSet<string>(set);
}
public object Replace(object original, object target, object owner)
{
return original;
}
public object Assemble(object cached, object owner)
{
return DeepCopy(cached);
}
public object Disassemble(object value)
{
return DeepCopy(value);
}
public SqlType[] SqlTypes
{
get { return new[] {new SqlType(DbType.String)}; }
}
public Type ReturnedType
{
get { return typeof(ISet<string>); }
}
public bool IsMutable
{
get { return false; }
}
#endregion
}
Usage in mapping file:
Map(x => x.CheckboxValues.CustomType<CommaDelimitedSet>();
Let's I define my entity like this:
public class User : TableServiceEntity
{
/// <summary>Unique Id (Row Key)</summary>
public string Id
{
get { return RowKey; }
set { RowKey = value; }
}
/// <summary>Gets or sets the username (Partition Key)</summary>
public string Username
{
get { return PartitionKey; }
set { PartitionKey = value; }
}
}
will the following Linq query use the partition key or not?
var ctx = ServiceLocator.Get<UserDataServiceContext>();
return ctx.Users.Where(x => x.Username == Username).FirstOrDefault();
Pretty sure it will not. You can verify this with Fiddler however. If you do not see a $filter on the wire with PartitionKey and RowKey in it, then you are not querying by them (which is probably bad). I believe what you will have on the wire is an entity that has 4 properties (PK, RK, Id, and Username) and the properties that you will be querying on will not be indexed.