I'm having a problem ordering numbers that are saved as string in CRM,
Its working fine until 10, then it says that 9 > 10 I know a simple solution where I can append zeros to the strings into a fixed length.
Wondering if there is a way to order by a string by int in some way.
My code:
QueryExpression query = new QueryExpression(entity);
query.ColumnSet.AddColumn(ID);
query.AddOrder(ID, OrderType.Descending); //there is a problem because the type is string.
EntityCollection entityCollection = organizationService.RetrieveMultiple(query);
I don't think there is any easy way of achieving this. I faced the same issue for the post code and ended up storing both values i.e. string and int. And while querying i used the int field to sort it.
Hope this helps,
Ravi Kashyap
Another possible solution to this problem would be to sort the results of the query using LINQ's OrderBy() method instead of using QueryExpression's built in ordering.
EntityCollection results = _client.RetrieveMultiple(query);
var sortedResults = results.Entities.OrderBy((e) =>
int.Parse(e.GetAttributeValue<string>("nameofattribute"))
);
This will yield the results your looking for. It isn't an ideal solution but at least you don't have to store everything twice.
Related
Does anyone know if there's an easy way to negate a parse query? Something like this:
Parse.Query.not(query)
More specifically I want to do a relational query that gets everything except for the objects within the query. For example:
const relation = myParseObject.relation("myRelation");
const query = relation.query();
const negatedQuery = Parse.Query.not(query);
return await negatedQuery.find();
I know one solution would be to fetch the objects in the relation and then create a new query by looping through the objectIds using query.notEqualTo("objectId", fetchedObjectIds[i]), but this seems really circuitous...
Any help would be much appreciated!
doesNotMatchKeyInQuery is the solution as Davi Macedo pointed out in the comments.
For example, if I wanted to get all of the Comments that are not in an Article's relation, I would do the following:
const relationQuery = article.relation("comments").query();
const notInRelationQuery = new Parse.Query("Comment");
notInRelationQuery.doesNotMatchKeyInQuery("objectId", "objectId", relationQuery);
const notRelatedComments = await notInRelationQuery.find();
How I understand it is that the first argument is specifying the key in the objects that we are fetching. The second argument is specifying the key in the objects that are in the query that we're about to argue. And lastly we argue a query for the objects we don't want. So, it essentially finds the objects you don't want and then compares the values of the objects you do want to the values of the objects you don't want for the argued keys. It then returns all the objects you do want. I could probably write that more succinctly, but w/e.
There is a table, it is a poco entity generated by entity framework.
class Log
{
int DoneByEmpId;
string DoneByEmpName
}
I am retrieving a list from the data base. I want distinct values based on donebyempid and order by those values empname.
I have tried lot of ways to do it but it is not working
var lstLogUsers = (context.Logs.GroupBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpId).Select(item => item.First())).ToList(); // it gives error
this one get all the user.
var lstLogUsers = context.Logs.ToList().OrderBy(logList => logList.DoneByEmpName).Distinct();
Can any one suggest how to achieve this.
Can I just point out that you probably have a problem with your data model here? I would imagine you should just have DoneByEmpId here, and a separate table Employee which has EmpId and Name.
I think this is why you are needing to use Distinct/GroupBy (which doesn't really work for this scenario, as you are finding).
I'm not near a compiler, so i can't test it, but...
Use the other version of Distinct(), the one that takes an IEqualityComparer<TSource> argument, and then use OrderBy().
See here for example.
Im using entity framework 4 and linq/lamda expressions. Im sure its an easy one but im trying to query a collection with an array but get records which contain all the arrays values.
basically what im doing is this
var records = collection.where(x.classifications.Any(y=> Array.Contains(y.ClassificationID))).ToList()
This works in a sense that it returns records that contain any of the arrays values but how do i get only records that contain all of the values in the array.
Hope that makes sense
EDIT:
Im marking the comment below as the answer as I did have to use ALL in my query to get it to work, however I also had to re - write my query slightly. This is what i eventually had...
var records = collection.Where(x=> Array.All(c=> x.Classifications.Select(l=>l.ClassificationID).Contains(c)))
What about using All instead of Any?
var records = collection.Where(x => x.classifications.All(y => Array.Contains(y.ClassificationID)))
.ToList()
I am new to LINQ queries and to EF too, I usually work with MySQL and I can't guess how to write really simples queries.
I'd like to select all results from a table. So, I used like this:
ZXContainer db = new ZXContainer();
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties.All();
But I see that I have to write something inside All(---).
Could someone guide me in how could I do that? And if someone has any good link for references too, I thank so much.
All() is an boolean evaluation performed on all of the elements in a collection (though immediately returns false when it reaches an element where the evaluation is false), for example, you want to make sure that all of said ZXproperties have a certain field set as true:
bool isTrue = db.ZXproperties.All(z => z.SomeFieldName == true);
Which will either make isTrue true or false. LINQ is typically lazy-loading, so if you're calling db.ZXproperties directly, you have access to all of the objects as is, but it isn't quite what you're looking for. You can either load all of the objects at the variable assignment with an .ToList():
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties.ToList();
or you can use the below expression:
ViewBag.ZXproperties = from s in db.ZXproperties
select s;
Which is really no different than saying:
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties;
The advantage of .ToList() is that if you are wanting to do multiple calls on this ViewBag.ZXproperties, it will only require the initial database call when it is assigning the variable. Alternatively, if you do any form of queryable action on the data, such as .Where(), you'll have another query performed, which is less than ideal if you already have the data to work with.
To select everything, just skip the .All(...), as ZXproperties allready is a collection.
ZXContainer db = new ZXContainer();
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties;
You might want (or sometimes even need) to call .ToList() on this collection before use...
You don't use All. Just type
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties;
or
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties.ToList();
The All method is used to determine if all items of collection match some condition.
If you just want all of the items, you can just use it directly:
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties;
If you want this evaluated immediately, you can convert it to a list:
ViewBag.ZXproperties = db.ZXproperties.ToList();
This will force it to be pulled across the wire immediately.
You can use this:
var result = db.ZXproperties.ToList();
For more information on linq see 101 linq sample.
All is some checking on all items and argument in it, called lambda expression.
Why do I get the error:
Unable to create a constant value of type 'Closure type'. Only
primitive types (for instance Int32, String and Guid) are supported in
this context.
When I try to enumerate the following Linq query?
IEnumerable<string> searchList = GetSearchList();
using (HREntities entities = new HREntities())
{
var myList = from person in entities.vSearchPeople
where upperSearchList.All( (person.FirstName + person.LastName) .Contains).ToList();
}
Update:
If I try the following just to try to isolate the problem, I get the same error:
where upperSearchList.All(arg => arg == arg)
So it looks like the problem is with the All method, right? Any suggestions?
It looks like you're trying to do the equivalent of a "WHERE...IN" condition. Check out How to write 'WHERE IN' style queries using LINQ to Entities for an example of how to do that type of query with LINQ to Entities.
Also, I think the error message is particularly unhelpful in this case because .Contains is not followed by parentheses, which causes the compiler to recognize the whole predicate as a lambda expression.
I've spent the last 6 months battling this limitation with EF 3.5 and while I'm not the smartest person in the world, I'm pretty sure I have something useful to offer on this topic.
The SQL generated by growing a 50 mile high tree of "OR style" expressions will result in a poor query execution plan. I'm dealing with a few million rows and the impact is substantial.
There is a little hack I found to do a SQL 'in' that helps if you are just looking for a bunch of entities by id:
private IEnumerable<Entity1> getByIds(IEnumerable<int> ids)
{
string idList = string.Join(",", ids.ToList().ConvertAll<string>(id => id.ToString()).ToArray());
return dbContext.Entity1.Where("it.pkIDColumn IN {" + idList + "}");
}
where pkIDColumn is your primary key id column name of your Entity1 table.
BUT KEEP READING!
This is fine, but it requires that I already have the ids of what I need to find. Sometimes I just want my expressions to reach into other relations and what I do have is criteria for those connected relations.
If I had more time I would try to represent this visually, but I don't so just study this sentence a moment: Consider a schema with a Person, GovernmentId, and GovernmentIdType tables. Andrew Tappert (Person) has two id cards (GovernmentId), one from Oregon (GovernmentIdType) and one from Washington (GovernmentIdType).
Now generate an edmx from it.
Now imagine you want to find all the people having a certain ID value, say 1234567.
This can be accomplished with a single database hit with this:
dbContext context = new dbContext();
string idValue = "1234567";
Expression<Func<Person,bool>> expr =
person => person.GovernmentID.Any(gid => gid.gi_value.Contains(idValue));
IEnumerable<Person> people = context.Person.AsQueryable().Where(expr);
Do you see the subquery here? The generated sql will use 'joins' instead of sub-queries, but the effect is the same. These days SQL server optimizes subqueries into joins under the covers anyway, but anyway...
The key to this working is the .Any inside the expression.
I have found the cause of the error (I am using Framework 4.5). The problem is, that EF a complex type, that is passed in the "Contains"-parameter, can not translate into an SQL query. EF can use in a SQL query only simple types such as int, string...
this.GetAll().Where(p => !assignedFunctions.Contains(p))
GetAll provides a list of objects with a complex type (for example: "Function"). So therefore, I would try here to receive an instance of this complex type in my SQL query, which naturally can not work!
If I can extract from my list, parameters which are suited to my search, I can use:
var idList = assignedFunctions.Select(f => f.FunctionId);
this.GetAll().Where(p => !idList.Contains(p.FunktionId))
Now EF no longer has the complex type "Function" to work, but eg with a simple type (long). And that works fine!
I got this error message when my array object used in the .All function is null
After I initialized the array object, (upperSearchList in your case), the error is gone
The error message was misleading in this case
where upperSearchList.All(arg => person.someproperty.StartsWith(arg)))