How to update related cases and fields from one recordtype to other recordtype in lead - apex-code

public class UpdaterecordtypeforLead {
Public static void Leadtootherupdate() {
List<Lead> OlderLead = [SELECT Id,Name, RecordTypeId from Lead where RecordType.Name = 'Enquiries'];
List<Lead> NewLead = New List<Lead> ();
If(NewLead.Id == null)
{
for( Lead l : OlderLead) {
for(Lead l1 : NewLead) {
l1.LastName = l.LastName;
l1.Email= l.Email;
NewLead.add(l1);
NewLead.add(l1);
Insert l1;
}
}
If ( (l1. LastName == l.LastName && l1.Email == l.Email))
{
NewLead.add(OlderLead.Related_Cases__c);
NewLead.add(l.Id);
Update NewLead;
}
}
}
}
I'm getting error while saving.

I think you have a lot of issues:
What is the context / aim of this code ?
Query using DeveloperName not Name as it's language dependent
Testing if (NewLead.Id == null) when ``NewLead` is a list will not work
Looping on NewLead for what reason ?
Duplicate NewLead.add(l1)
Insert in a loop will gets you to governor limits and should be avoided, go for bulk insert
The if is outside the loop
Don't update something you just insert, instead make sure everything is okay before insert
NewLead is a list of Lead so you can't add OlderLead.Related_Cases__c or l.Id to it
Think about indenting correctly your code, it's easier for others to read
Use naming conventions
A fixed code would probably be something like this:
public class UpdateRecordtypeForLead {
public static void leadToOtherUpdate () {
List<Lead> olderLeads = [
SELECT
Id,
LastName,
Email,
RecordTypeId
FROM
Lead
WHERE
RecordType.DeveloperName = 'Enquiries'
];
List<Lead> newLeads = New List<Lead>();
for (Lead olderLead : olderLeads) {
newLeads.add(new Lead(
Id = olderLead.Id,
LastName = olderLead.LastName,
Email = olderLead.Email,
RecordTypeId = 'the_new_record_type_id'
));
}
}
update newLeads;
}
}

Related

Querydsl - filter on Left join with subquery

I have one of the complex query dynamically generated through Querydsl predicate and JPQL. I am also using the Q classes.
I am able to generate the following query by passing a predicate to the JPA repository.
select company0_.id as id1_18_,
company0_.name as name2_18_
from company company0_
left outer join companyAddress companyadd1_ on company0_.id=companyadd1_.company_id
where company0_.id in
(select companyadd2_.company_id
from companyAddress companyadd2_
where companyadd2_.address_type='1')
order by companyadd1_.addressline1;
but I want the query mentioned below
select company0_.id as id1_18_,
company0_.name as name2_18_
from company company0_
left outer join companyAddress companyadd1_ on company0_.id=companyadd1_.company_id
and companyadd1_.status = 'Active' -- New added(Failed to implement this)
where company0_.id in
(select companyadd2_.company_id
from companyAddress companyadd2_
where companyadd2_.address_type='1'
and and companyadd2_.status = 'Active') -- New Added(I am able to achieve this)
order by companyadd1_.addressline1;
We are using following kind of code, I can not possibly to share exact code due to security concern but you can help me by providing basic structure or code to achieve this.
final JPQLQuery<QCompanyAlias> subQuery = new JPAQuery<>();
BooleanExpression exp = null;
QueryBase<?> q = (QueryBase<?>) subQuery.from(qCompanyAddress);
if (requestMap.containsKey(CompanyQueryConstants.ADDRESS_TYPE)) {
BooleanExpression addrExp = null;
for (String addressType : addressTypes) {
if (addrExp == null) {
addrExp = qCompanyAddress.addressType.addressTypeCode.eq(addressType);
} else {
addrExp = addrExp.or(qCompanyAddress.addressType.addressTypeCode.eq(addressType));
}
}
exp = addrExp;
}
To add join on two conditions use
new JPAQuery(em)
.from(qCompany)
.leftJoin(qCompany, qCompanyAddress.company)
.on(
qCompany.id.eq(qCompanyAddress.company.id)
.and(qCompanyAddress.status.eq(status))
);
For subquery try to use this
final JPQLQuery<QCompanyAlias> subQuery = new JPAQuery<>();
BooleanExpression exp = null;
QueryBase<?> q = (QueryBase<?>) subQuery.from(qCompanyAddress);
if (requestMap.containsKey(CompanyQueryConstants.ADDRESS_TYPE)) {
BooleanExpression addrExp = null;
for (String addressType : addressTypes) {
if (addrExp == null) {
addrExp = qCompanyAddress.addressType.addressTypeCode.eq(addressType);
} else {
addrExp = addrExp.or(qCompanyAddress.addressType.addressTypeCode.eq(addressType));
}
}
exp = addrExp;
}
BooleanExpression statusExp = qCompanyAddress.status.eq(status);
if(exp == null) {
exp = statusExp;
} else {
exp = statusExp.and(exp);
}
But in your case I can't understand the reason for filtering by status twice. Subquery filtering should be enought. I suspect that you can achieve the same result without subquery. It depends on your entities.

How to get out of repetitive if statements?

While looking though some code of the project I'm working on, I've come across a pretty hefty method which does
the following:
public string DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
if (data != null)
{
if (data.A == null)
{
data.A = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return "A";
}
if (data.B == null)
{
data.B = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return "B";
}
// keep going data.C through data.Z doing the exact same code
}
}
Obviously having 26 if statements just to determine if a property is null and then to update that property and do a database call is
probably very naive in implementation. What would be a better way of doing this unit of work?
Thankfully C# is able to inspect and assign class members dynamically, so one option would be to create a map list and iterate over that.
public string DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
List<string> props = new List<string>();
props.Add("A");
props.Add("B");
props.Add("C");
if (data != null)
{
Type t = typeof(data).GetType();
foreach (String entry in props) {
PropertyInfo pi = t.GetProperty(entry);
if (pi.GetValue(data) == null) {
pi.SetValue(data, fieldName);
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return entry;
}
}
}
}
You could just loop through all the character from 'A' to 'Z'. It gets difficult because you want to access an attribute of your 'data' object with the corresponding name, but that should (as far as I know) be possible through the C# reflection functionality.
While you get rid of the consecutive if-statements this still won't make your code nice :P
there is a fancy linq solution for your problem using reflection:
but as it was said before: your datastructure is not very well thought through
public String DataField(int id, string fieldName)
{
var data = new { Z = "test", B="asd"};
Type p = data.GetType();
var value = (from System.Reflection.PropertyInfo fi
in p.GetProperties().OrderBy((fi) => fi.Name)
where fi.Name.Length == 1 && fi.GetValue(data, null) != null
select fi.Name).FirstOrDefault();
return value;
}
ta taaaaaaaaa
like that you get the property but the update is not yet done.
var data = _dataRepository.Find(id);
If possible, you should use another DataType without those 26 properties. That new DataType should have 1 property and the Find method should return an instance of that new DataType; then, you could get rid of the 26 if in a more natural way.
To return "A", "B" ... "Z", you could use this:
return (char)65; //In this example this si an "A"
And work with some transformation from data.Value to a number between 65 and 90 (A to Z).
Since you always set the lowest alphabet field first and return, you can use an additional field in your class that tracks the first available field. For example, this can be an integer lowest_alphabet_unset and you'd update it whenever you set data.{X}:
Init:
lowest_alphabet_unset = 0;
In DataField:
lowest_alphabet_unset ++;
switch (lowest_alphabet_unset) {
case 1:
/* A is free */
/* do something */
return 'A';
[...]
case 7:
/* A through F taken */
data.G = fieldName;
_dataRepository.InsertOrUpdate(data);
return 'G';
[...]
}
N.B. -- do not use, if data is object rather that structure.
what comes to my mind is that, if A-Z are all same type, then you could theoretically access memory directly to check for non null values.
start = &data;
for (i = 0; i < 26; i++){
if ((typeof_elem) *(start + sizeof(elem)*i) != null){
*(start + sizeof(elem)*i) = fieldName;
return (char) (65 + i);
}
}
not tested but to give an idea ;)

Facing problem in Linq to sql

//Below mentioned class is created to understand the problem, while this is created through Linq2Sql.
public class JobAds
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public int EmployerRef { get; set;}
}
int? employerId = null;
var jobAdListing = JobAds.Where
( n => (!employerId.HasValue || n.EmployerRef == employerId.Value )).ToList();
The Issue is I'm getting "Nullable object must have a value." at the above line. After doing some debugging, I feel n.EmployerRef == employerId.Value is making some trouble, but unable to find anything good.
Just write liks this, you don't have to worry about the null values (since NULL == NULL equals false)
int? employerId = null;
var jobAdListing = tblCompanies.Where
(n => (n.fkUserID_responsible == employerId)).ToList();
Or you can keep your code and just remove the ".value"
var jobAdListing = JobAds.Where
( n => (!employerId.HasValue || n.EmployerRef == employerId)).ToList();
in my local playground a simmilar case works with this easiest approach:
using (UnitOfWork.Begin("LinqToSql"))
{
Guid? id1 = null;
Guid? id2 = this.personRepository.GetAll().First().FavouriteProjectId;
var all = this.personRepository.GetAll().Where(o => o.FavouriteProjectId == id1 || o.FavouriteProjectId == id2).ToArray();
}
for you, this should work too:
int? employerId = null;
int? employerType = null; /* OTHER Conditions */
var list = JobAds.Where(n => n.EmployerRef == employerId &&
n.EmployerTypeRef == employerType)).ToArray();

save new or update exist record with linq

this is the way i used to save record with linq: (my Q is below)
public void SaveEmployee(Employee employee)
{
using (BizNetDB db = new BizNetDB())
{
BizNet.SqlRep.Data.Employee oldEmployee = (from e in db.Employees
where e.EmployeeID == employee.EmployeeID
select e).SingleOrDefault();
if (oldEmployee == null)
{
oldEmployee = new BizNet.SqlRep.Data.Employee();
oldEmployee.BirthDate = employee.BirthDate;
oldEmployee.WorkRole = employee.WorkRole;
oldEmployee.CurrentFlag = employee.CurrentFlag;
oldEmployee.HireDate = employee.HireDate;
...
db.Employees.InsertOnSubmit(oldEmployee);
}
else
{
if (oldEmployee.BirthDate.Date != employee.BirthDate.Date)
oldEmployee.BirthDate = employee.BirthDate;
if (oldEmployee.CurrentFlag != employee.CurrentFlag)
oldEmployee.CurrentFlag = employee.CurrentFlag;
if (oldEmployee.HireDate.Date != employee.HireDate.Date)
oldEmployee.HireDate = employee.HireDate;
}
oldEmployee.ModifiedDate = DateTime.Now;
db.SubmitChanges();
employee.EmployeeID = oldEmployee.EmployeeID;
}
}
my questions are:
a. are the if statements nesccery? why not to make the assigning without the
check?
mybe the if block take more cpu..
b. why to spearate the new record block and the update block?
when the record is new it will do
db.Employees.InsertOnSubmit(oldEmployee);
and then proceed with the update routine...
The way you're doing it the only reason you need the if statement is to new it up and insert it, so I would use the if statement just for that.
I would do this instead:
public void SaveEmployee(Employee employee)
{
using (BizNetDB db = new BizNetDB())
{
BizNet.SqlRep.Data.Employee oldEmployee =
(from e in db.Employees
where e.EmployeeID == employee.EmployeeID
select e).SingleOrDefault();
if (oldEmployee == null)
{
oldEmployee = new BizNet.SqlRep.Data.Employee();
db.Employees.InsertOnSubmit(oldEmployee);
}
if (oldEmployee.BirthDate.Date != employee.BirthDate.Date)
oldEmployee.BirthDate = employee.BirthDate;
if (oldEmployee.CurrentFlag != employee.CurrentFlag)
oldEmployee.CurrentFlag = employee.CurrentFlag;
if (oldEmployee.HireDate.Date != employee.HireDate.Date)
oldEmployee.HireDate = employee.HireDate;
oldEmployee.ModifiedDate = DateTime.Now;
db.SubmitChanges();
employee.EmployeeID = oldEmployee.EmployeeID;
}
}
I also think there's a way to map one object's properties to the other, but it escapes me at the moment. It may not work for what you're trying to do anyway since it seems that you're doing some other things later anyway with the ModifiedDate and EmployeeID.

How Can I Get the Identity Column Value Associated with a SubSonic 3 LinqTemplate Insert?

I am using SubSonic 3.0.0.3 along with the Linq T4 Templates. My ProjectRepository, for example, has the following two methods:
public int Add(Project item)
{
int result = 0;
ISqlQuery query = BuildInsertQuery(item);
if (query != null)
{
result = query.Execute();
}
return result;
}
private ISqlQuery BuildInsertQuery(Project item)
{
ITable tbl = FindTableByClassName();
Insert query = null;
if (tbl != null)
{
Dictionary<string, object> hashed = item.ToDictionary();
query = new Insert(_db.Provider).Into<Project>(tbl);
foreach (string key in hashed.Keys)
{
IColumn col = tbl.GetColumn(key);
if (col != null)
{
if (!col.AutoIncrement)
{
query.Value(key, hashed[key]);
}
}
}
}
return query;
}
Along with performing the insert (which works great), I'd really like to get the value of the auto-incrementing ProjectId column. For the record, this column is both the primary key and identity column. Is there perhaps a way to append "SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY();" to the query or maybe there's an entirely different approach which I should try?
You can do this with the ActiveRecord templates which does all of the wiring above for you (and also has built-in testing). In your scenario, the Add method would have one line: Project.Add() and it would return the new id.
For your needs, you can try this:
var cmd=query.GetCommand();
cmd.CommandSql+=";SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY() as newid";
var newID=query.Provider.ExecuteScalar(cmd);
That should work..
*Edit - you can create an ExtensionMethod for this on ISqlQuery too, to save some writing...

Resources