for a search using lucene, I made a bridge,
public class EntityIDFieldBridge implements FieldBridge {
#Override
public void set(String name, Object value, Document document, LuceneOptions luceneOptions) {
BaseEntity baseEntity = (BaseEntity) value;
if(value !=null){
Field field = new LongField(name, baseEntity.getId(),Field.Store.NO);
document.add(field);
}
}
}
when I search for the value, I dont get the correct documents. when I search term:* I do get the ones that are not null, so I see that its getting indexed.... StringField is working fine. But I think it should be a long field. Any ideas?
Based on the little information you provided, I am assuming that you are not trying to get a value whihc is null.
Field Bridge provided more information on what it is, what lucene supports and how it works:
In Lucene all index fields have to be represented as Strings. For this
reason all entity properties annotated with #Field have to be indexed
in a String form. For most of your properties, Hibernate Search does
the translation job for you thanks to a built-in set of bridges. In
some cases, though you need a more fine grain control over the
translation process.
Also for Null values
null elements are not indexed. Lucene does not support null elements
and this does not make much sense either.
Related
I have following Model class that is used during the Web API Post. As you can see Id field is annotated as Required.
public class Model
{
[Required]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
}
The Post for API is as follows
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Post([FromBody]Model value)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return BadRequest();
Model newModel = new Model() { Id = value.Id };
return Ok(newModel);
}
On a sunny day, this is what I see. All good
enter image description here
On a rainy day, when Id is not provided, I get following.
enter image description here
Given that in the second example, a Required field is not provided, shouldn't a BadRequest is returned rather than a 200 with invalid id guid with 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000?
Using the Required annotation
In the Web API Docs, your issue is known as 'under-posting'.
The issue is that Guid has a default value, so when no value is provided, it is initialized with the default value... which then satisfies the Required constraint.
To prevent this, counter-intuitively you make the Guid nullable using Guid?.
Then if the value is not provided, the deserializer will set the value to null, which will cause the Required constraint to be violated.
If the value is provided, it will be set, and all will be well.
See https://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/formats-and-model-binding/model-validation-in-aspnet-web-api for more details, there is an example of a similar issue for a decimal property.
The key distinction to understand is that Guid.Empty is really a valid Guid. The only way to distinguish between the user providing a Guid (which is empty) and not providing one at all is to make it nullable, so null = not provided, and Empty = the user provided the empty Guid.
Using a Custom Annotation
If you really don't want to make your Guid nullable, you need to consider what would you do for a 'normal' value type, e.g. an integer. Rather than making it required, you'd use a Range attribute and specify that it must be > 0.
Similarly for Guids, you'd ideally have an attribute that would simply test that it is != Guid.Empty
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/mvc/models/validation#custom-validation for guidance on creating a custom validation atribute.
I am trying to sort the result set based on a field name. But Sort doesn't works with string type.
Tried Code:-
public class Company
{
public long Number { get; set; }
public string Name{ get; set; }
}
My problem is : Sorting is not done when I use SortAscending API, like below
var resultSet = client.Search<Article>(s => s
.Type("Company")
.From(0)
.Size(200)
.QueryString("Stack OverFlow")
.SortAscending(f => f.Name));
Note: Documents are listed as Sorted if I set field name as Number(f => f.Number)
Please help
Your issue with sorting on the name field in your index is probably related to the fact that the field is being analyzed/tokenized. From the Elasticsearch Sort Guide:
For string based types, the field sorted on should not be analyzed / tokenized.
Therefore, you need to provide an additional field that is not analyzed/tokenized to perform your sort against. You can accomplish this by adding an additional field to your documents and setting the mapping for that type/field to not_analyzed or you can leverage multi_field (now just fields in version 1.x) on your existing name field. Please refer to the following for guidance on how to accomplish either of these options:
Multi-Fields (or Fields in v1.X)
Mapping
What I'm trying to accomplish is:
Have a bean backed form being validated, for example using the following class
public class PersonForm {
#NotNull
String name;
List<Long> interests;
// This attribute is not filled out in the form
List<Interest> realInterests;
}
So, "name" and "interests" come from the web form. "name" has some constrains (NotNull) and using #Valid does what it is supposed to do.
"interests" is a list of Interest ids.
After doing the initial validation of the "name" I fill out the List collection.
#CustomValidInterest
public class Interest {
Long id;
String name;
boolean available;
}
I want to validate this structure afterwards. "#CustomValidInterest" is a custom validation annotation.
I can do a 2-stage validation using do this with Validation Groups.
The problem is, if some "Interest" object is not valid I want to associate the error message with the "interests" field (List< Long > type), so when I retrieve the form errors the error is associated with the right field.
Maybe I'm trying to use validation the wrong way. I was trying to avoid having a bunch of programmatic comparisons which filled errors manually.
Answering my own question, this is achievable using PropertyEditors. The form might return a List< Long > but the form object can have only a List < Interest > which is built using said Property mapper. After that a #Valid on that list should validate any constraints that "Interest" enforces.
A 3rd party is sending me part of the data to fill in my domain object via a query string. I need to partially fill in my domain object, and then have the user fill in the rest via a form. I don't have any control over the query string parameters coming in, so I can't change those, but I'd really like to be able to use Spring MVC's data binding abilities, rather than doing it by hand.
How can I do this?
To add some complication to this, some of the parameters will require extensive processing because they map to other objects (such as mapping to a user from just a name) that may not even exist yet and will need to be created. This aspect, I assume, can be handled using property editors. If I run into trouble with this, I will ask another question.
Once I have a partially filled domain object, passing it on to the edit view, etc. is no problem, but I don't know how to properly deal with the initial domain object population.
The only thing I have been able to come up with so far is to have an extra class that has it's properties named to match the inbound query parameters and a function to convert from this intermediary class to my domain class.
This seems like a lot of overhead though just to map between variable names.
Can you not just have the getter named differently from the setter, or have 2 getters and 2 setters if necessary?
private int spn;
// Standard getter/setter
public int getSpn() {
return spn;
}
public void setSpn(int spn) {
this.spn = spn;
}
// More descriptively named getter/setter
public int getShortParameterName() {
return spn;
}
public void setShortParameterName(int spn) {
this.spn = spn;
}
Maybe that is not standard bean convention, but surely would work?
I have a database that has a user search screen that is "dynamic" in that I can add additional search criteria on the fly based on what columns are available in the particular view the search is based on and it will allow the user to use them immediately. Previously I had been using nettiers for this database, but now I am programming a new application against it using RIA and EntFramework 4 and LINQ.
I currently have 2 tables that are used for this, one that fills the combobox with the available search string patterns:
LastName
LastName, FirstName
Phone
etc....
then I have an other table that splits those criteria out and is used in my nettiers algorithms. It works well, but I want to use LINQ..and it doesnt fit this model very well. Besides I think I can pare it down to just one table with linq...
using a format similar to this or something very close...
ID Criteria WhereClause
1 LastName 'Lastname Like '%{0}%'
now I know this wont fit specifically into a linq query..but I am trying to use a univeral syntax for clarity here...
the real where clause would look something like this: a=>a.LastName.Contains("{0}")
My first question is: Is that even possible to do? Feed a lambda in to a string and use it in a Linq Query?
My second question is: at one point when I was researching this before I found a linq syntax that had a prefix like it.LastName{0}
and I appear to have tried using it because vestiges of it are still in my test databases...but I dont know recall where I read about it.
Is anyone doing this? I have done some searches and found similar occurances but they mostly have static fields that are optional, not exactly the way I am doing it...
As for your first question, you can do this using Dynamic Linq as described by Scott Gu here
var query = Northwind.Products.Where("Lastname LIKE "test%");
I'm not sure how detailed your dynamic query needs to be, but when I need to do dynamic queries, I create a class to represent filter values. Then I pass that class to a search method on my repository. If the value for a field is null then the query ignores it. If it has a value it adds the appropriate filter.
public class CustomerSearchCriteria{
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string PhoneName { get; set; }
}
public IEnumberable<Customer> Search(CustomerSearchCriteria criteria){
var q = db.Customers();
if(criteria.FirstName != null){
q = q.Where(c=>c.FirstName.Contains(criteria.FirstName));
}
if(criteria.LastName!= null){
q = q.Where(c=>c.LastName.Contains(criteria.LastName));
}
if(criteria.Phone!= null){
q = q.Where(c=>c.Phone.Contains(criteria.Phone));
}
return q.AsEnumerable();
}