My documents have the property docType that separated them based on the purpose of each type, in the specific case template or audit. However, when I do the following:
document.getProperty("docType").equals("template");
document.getProperty("docType").equals("audit");
The results of them are always the same, it returns every time all documents stored without filtering them by the docType.
Below, you can check the query function.
public static Query getData(Database database, final String type) {
View view = database.getView("data");
if (view.getMap() == null) {
view.setMap(new Mapper() {
#Override
public void map(Map<String, Object> document, Emitter emitter) {
if(String.valueOf(document.get("docType")).equals(type)){
emitter.emit(document.get("_id"), null);
}
}
}, "4");
}
return view.createQuery();
}
Any hint?
This is not a valid way to do it. Your view function must be pure (it cannot reference external state such as "type"). Once that is created you can then query it for what you want by setting start and end keys, or just a set of keys in general to filter on.
Related
I am using rxjava2 for the first time on an Android project, and am doing SQL queries on a background thread.
However I am having trouble figuring out the best way to do a simple SQL query, and being able to handle the case where the record may or may not exist. Here is the code I am using:
public Observable<Record> createRecordObservable(int id) {
Callable<Record> callback = new Callable<Record>() {
#Override
public Record call() throws Exception {
// do the actual sql stuff, e.g.
// select * from Record where id = ?
return record;
}
};
return Observable.fromCallable(callback).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation());
}
This works well when there is a record present. But in the case of a non-existent record matching the id, it treats it like an error. Apparently this is because rxjava2 doesn't allow the Callable to return a null.
Obviously I don't really want this. An error should be only if the database failed or something, whereas a empty result is perfectly valid. I read somewhere that one possible solution is wrapping Record in a Java 8 Optional, but my project is not Java 8, and anyway that solution seems a bit ugly.
This is surely such a common, everyday task that I'm sure there must be a simple and easy solution, but I couldn't find one so far. What is the recommended pattern to use here?
Your use case seems appropriate for the RxJava2 new Observable type Maybe, which emit 1 or 0 items.
Maybe.fromCallable will treat returned null as no items emitted.
You can see this discussion regarding nulls with RxJava2, I guess that there is no many choices but using Optional alike in other cases where you need nulls/empty values.
Thanks to #yosriz, I have it working with Maybe. Since I can't put code in comments, I'll post a complete answer here:
Instead of Observable, use Maybe like this:
public Maybe<Record> lookupRecord(int id) {
Callable<Record> callback = new Callable<Record>() {
#Override
public Record call() throws Exception {
// do the actual sql stuff, e.g.
// select * from Record where id = ?
return record;
}
};
return Maybe.fromCallable(callback).subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation());
}
The good thing is the returned record is allowed to be null. To detect which situation occurred in the subscriber, the code is like this:
lookupRecord(id)
.observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe(new Consumer<Record>() {
#Override
public void accept(Record r) {
// record was loaded OK
}
}, new Consumer<Throwable>() {
#Override
public void accept(Throwable throwable) {
// there was an error
}
}, new Action() {
#Override
public void run() {
// there was an empty result
}
});
I know how to retrieve a bean from a service in a datafetcher:
public class MyDataFetcher implements DataFetcher {
...
#Override
public Object get(DataFetchingEnvironment environment) {
return myService.getData();
}
}
But schemas with nested lists should use a BatchedExecutionStrategy and create batched DataFetchers with get() methods annotated #Batched (see graphql-java doc).
But where do I put my getData() call then?
///// Where to put this code?
List list = myService.getData();
/////
public class MyDataFetcher implements DataFetcher {
#Batched
public Object get(DataFetchingEnvironment environment) {
return list.get(environment.getIndex()); // where to get the index?
}
}
WARNING: The original BatchedExecutionStrategy has been deprecated and will get removed. The current preferred solution is the Data Loader library. Also, the entire execution engine is getting replaced in the future, and the new one will again support batching "natively". You can already use the new engine and the new BatchedExecutionStrategy (both in nextgen packages) but they have limited support for instrumentations. The answer below applies equally to both the legacy and the nextgen execution engine.
Look at it like this. Normal DataFetcherss receive a single object as source (DataFetchingEnvironment#getSource) and return a single object as a result. For example, if you had a query like:
{
user (name: "John") {
company {
revenue
}
}
Your company resolver (fetcher) would get a User object as source, and would be expected to somehow return a Company based on that e.g.
User owner = (User) environment.getSource();
Company company = companyService.findByOwner(owner);
return company;
Now, in the exact same scenario, if your DataFetcher was batched, and you used BatchedExecutionStrategy, instead of receiving a User and returning a Company, you'd receive a List<User> and would return a List<Company> instead.
E.g.
List<User> owners = (List<User>) environment.getSource();
List<Company> companies = companyService.findByOwners(owners);
return companies;
Notice that this means your underlying logic must have a way to fetch multiple things at once, otherwise it wouldn't be batched. So your myService.getData call would need to change, unless it can already fetch data for multiple source object in one go.
Also notice that batched resolution makes sense in nested queries only, as the top level resolver can already fetch a list of object, without the need for batching.
Using Orchard CMS, I am dealing with a record and a part proxy, but cannot figure out how to save it into the DB. In fact, I confess I don't even know how to get the items I'm trying to save into this paradigm. I was originally using enum's for choices:
MyEmum.cs:
public enum Choices { Choice1, Choice2, Choice3, Choice4 }
MyRecord.cs:
public virtual string MyProperty { get; set; }
MyPart.cs:
public IEnumerable<string> MyProperty
{
get
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Record.MyProperty)) return new string[] { };
return Record
.MyProperty
.Split(new[] { '.' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Select(r => r.Trim())
.Where(r => !String.IsNullOrEmpty(r));
}
set { Record.MyProperty = value == null ? null : String.Join(",", value); }
}
Now, in my service class, I tried something like:
public MyPart Create(MyPartRecord record)
{
MyPart part = Services.ContentManager.Create<MyPart>("My");
...
part.MyProperty = record.MyProperty; //getting error here
...
return part;
}
However, I am getting the following error: Cannot implicitly convert 'string' to System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>'
Essentially, I am trying to save choices from a checkboxlist (one or more selections) as a comma-separated list in the DB.
And this doesn't even get me over the problem of how do I use the enum. Any thoughts?
For some background:
I understand that the appropriate way to handle this relationship would be to create a separate table and use IList<MyEnum>. However, this is a simple list that I do not intend to manipulate with edits (in fact, no driver is used in this scenario as I handle this on the front-end with a controller and routes). I am just capturing data and redisplaying it in the Admin view for statistical/historical purposes. I may even consider getting rid of the Part (considering the following post: Bertrand's Blog Post.
It should be:
part.MyProperty = new[] {"foo", "bar"};
for example. The part's setter will store the value on the record's property as a comma-separated string, which will get persisted into the DB.
If you want to use enum values, you should use the Parse and ToString APIs that .NET provide on Enum.
I have IQueryable object and I need to take the data inside the IQueryable to put it into Textboxs controls. Is this possible?
I try something like:
public void setdata (IQueryable mydata)
{
textbox1.text = mydata.????
}
Update:
I'm doing this:
public IQueryable getData(String tableName, Hashtable myparams)
{
decimal id = 0;
if (myparams.ContainsKey("id") == true)
id = (decimal)myparams["id"];
Type myType= Type.GetType("ORM_Linq." + tableName + ", ORM_Linq");
return this.GetTable(tableName , "select * from Articu where id_tipo_p = '" + id + "'");
}
public IQueryable<T> GetTable<T>(System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate) where T : class
{
return _datacontext.GetTable<T>().Where(predicate);
}
This returns a {System.Data.Linq.SqlClient.SqlProvider+OneTimeEnumerable1[ORM_Linq.Articu]}`
I don't see any method like you tell me. I see Cast<>, Expression, ToString...
EDIT: Updated based on additional info from your other posts...
Your getData method is returning IQueryable instead of a strongly typed result, which is why you end up casting it. Try changing it to:
public IQueryable<ORM_Linq.Articu> getData(...)
Are you trying to query for "Articu" from different tables?
With the above change in place, your code can be rewritten as follows:
ORM_Linq.Articu result = mydata.SingleOrDefault();
if (result != null)
{
TextBoxCode.Text = result.id.ToString();
TextBoxName.Text = result.descrip;
}
If you have a single result use SingleOrDefault which will return a default value if no results are returned:
var result = mydata.SingleOrDefault();
if (result != null)
{
textbox1.text = result.ProductName; // use the column name
}
else
{
// do something
}
If you have multiple results then loop over them:
foreach (var item in mydata)
{
string name = item.ProductName;
int id = item.ProductId;
// etc..
}
First, you should be using a strongly-typed version of IQueryable. Say that your objects are of type MyObject and that MyObject has a property called Name of type string. Then, first change the parameter mydata to be of type IQueryable<MyObject>:
public void setdata (IQueryable<MyObject> mydata)
Then we can write a body like so to actually get some data out of. Let's say that we just want the first result from the query:
public void setdata (IQueryable<MyObject> mydata) {
MyObject first = mydata.FirstOrDefault();
if(first != null) {
textbox1.Text = first.Name;
}
}
Or, if you want to concatenate all the names:
public void setdata(IQueryable<MyObject> mydata) {
string text = String.Join(", ", mydata.Select(x => x.Name).ToArray());
textbo1.Text = text;
}
Well, as the name suggests, an object implementing IQueryable is... Queryable! You'll need to write a linq query to get at the internal details of your IQueryable object. In your linq query you'll be able to pull out its data and assign bits of it where ever you'd like - like your text box.
Here's a great starting place for learning Linq.
I think you find the same mental struggle when coming from FoxPro and from DataSet. Really nice, powerful string-based capabilities(sql for query, access to tables and columns name) in these worlds are not available, but replaced with a compiled, strongly-typed set of capabilities.
This is very nice if you are statically defining the UI for search and results display against a data source known at compile time. Not so nice if you are trying to build a system which attaches to existing data sources known only at runtime and defined by configuration data.
If you expect only one value just call FirstOrDefault() method.
public void setdata (IQueryable mydata)
{
textbox1.text = mydata.FirstOrDefault().PropertyName;
}
I have two tables in my database connected by foreign keys: Page (PageId, other data) and PageTag (PageId, Tag). I've used LINQ to generate classes for these tables, with the page as the parent and the Tag as the child collection (one to many relationship). Is there any way to mark PageTag records for deletion from the database from within the Page class?
Quick Clearification:
I want the child objects to be deleted when the parent DataContext calls SubmitChanges(), not before. I want TagString to behave exactly like any of the other properties of the Page object.
I would like to enable code like the following:
Page page = mDataContext.Pages.Where(page => page.pageId = 1);
page.TagString = "new set of tags";
//Changes have not been written to the database at this point.
mDataContext.SubmitChanges();
//All changes should now be saved to the database.
Here is my situation in detail:
In order to make working with the collection of tags easier, I've added a property to the Page object that treats the Tag collection as a string:
public string TagString {
get {
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder();
foreach (PageTag tag in PageTags) {
output.Append(tag.Tag + " ");
}
if (output.Length > 0) {
output.Remove(output.Length - 1, 1);
}
return output.ToString();
}
set {
string[] tags = value.Split(' ');
PageTags.Clear();
foreach (string tag in tags) {
PageTag pageTag = new PageTag();
pageTag.Tag = tag;
PageTags.Add(pageTag);
}
}
}
Basically, the idea is that when a string of tags is sent to this property, the current tags of the object are deleted and a new set is generated in their place.
The problem I'm encountering is that this line:
PageTags.Clear();
Doesn't actually delete the old tags from the database when changes are submitted.
Looking around, the "proper" way to delete things seems to be to call the DeleteOnSubmit method of the data context class. But I don't appear to have access to the DataContext class from within the Page class.
Does anyone know of a way to mark the child elements for deletion from the database from within the Page class?
After some more research, I believe I've managed to find a solution. Marking an object for deletion when it's removed from a collection is controlled by the DeleteOnNull parameter of the Association attribute.
This parameter is set to true when the relationship between two tables is marked with OnDelete Cascade.
Unfortunately, there is no way to set this attribute from within the designer, and no way to set it from within the partial class in the *DataContext.cs file. The only way to set it without enabling cascading deletes is to manually edit the *DataContext.designer.cs file.
In my case, this meant finding the Page association, and adding the DeleteOnNull property:
[Association(Name="Page_PageTag", Storage="_Page", ThisKey="PageId", OtherKey="iPageId", IsForeignKey=true)]
public Page Page
{
...
}
And adding the DeleteOnNull attribute:
[Association(Name="Page_PageTag", Storage="_Page", ThisKey="PageId", OtherKey="iPageId", IsForeignKey=true, DeleteOnNull = true)]
public Page Page
{
...
}
Note that the attribute needed to be added to the Page property of the PageTag class, not the other way around.
See also:
Beth Massi -- LINQ to SQL and One-To-Many Relationships
Dave Brace -- LINQ to SQL: DeleteOnNull
Sorry, my bad. That won't work.
It really looks like you need to be doing this in your repository, rather than in your Page class. There, you have access to your original data context.
There is a way to "attach" the original data context, but by the time you do that, it has become quite the code smell.
Do you have a relationship, in your Linq to SQL entity diagram, linking the Page and PageTags tables? If you don't, that is why you can't see the PageTags class from the Page class.
If the foreign key in the PageTags database table is set to Allow Nulls, Linq to SQL will not create the link when you drag the tables into the designer, even if you created a relationship on the SQL Server.
This is one of those areas where OR mapping can get kind of hairy. Providing this TagString property makes things a bit more convenient, but in the long run it obfuscates what is really happening when someone utilizes the TagString property. By hiding the fact that your performing data modification, someone can very easily come along and set the TagString without using your Page entity within the scope of a DataContext, which could lead to some difficult to find bugs.
A better solution would be to add a Tags property on the Page class with the L2S model designer, and require that the PageTags be edited directly on the Tags property, within the scope of a DataContext. Make the TagString property read only, so it can be genreated (and still provide some convenience), but eliminate the confusion and difficulty around setting that property. This kind of change clarifies intent, and makes it obvious what is happening and what is required by consumers of the Page object to make it happen.
Since Tags is a property of your Page object, as long as it is attached to a DataContext, any changes to that collection will properly trigger deletions or insertions in the database in response to Remove or Add calls.
Aaron,
Apparently you have to loop thru your PageTag records, calling DeleteOnSubmit for each one. Linq to SQL should create an aggregate query to delete all of the records at once when you call SubmitChanges, so overhead should be minimal.
replace
PageTags.Clear();
with
foreach (PageTag tag in PageTags)
myDataContext.DeleteOnSubmit(tag);
Aaron:
Add a DataContext member to your PageTag partial class.
partial class PageTag
{
DataClassesDataContext myDataContext = new DataClassesDataContext();
public string TagString {
..etc.
Larger code sample posted at Robert Harvey's request:
DataContext.cs file:
namespace MyProject.Library.Model
{
using Tome.Library.Parsing;
using System.Text;
partial class Page
{
//Part of Robert Harvey's proposed solution.
MyDataContext mDataContext = new TomeDataContext();
public string TagString {
get {
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder();
foreach (PageTag tag in PageTags) {
output.Append(tag.Tag + " ");
}
if (output.Length > 0) {
output.Remove(output.Length - 1, 1);
}
return output.ToString();
}
set {
string[] tags = value.Split(' ');
//Original code, fails to mark for deletion.
//PageTags.Clear();
//Robert Harvey's suggestion, thorws exception "Cannot remove an entity that has not been attached."
foreach (PageTag tag in PageTags) {
mDataContext.PageTags.DeleteOnSubmit(tag);
}
foreach (string tag in tags) {
PageTag PageTag = new PageTag();
PageTag.Tag = tag;
PageTags.Add(PageTag);
}
}
}
private bool mIsNew;
public bool IsNew {
get {
return mIsNew;
}
}
partial void OnCreated() {
mIsNew = true;
}
partial void OnLoaded() {
mIsNew = false;
}
}
}
Repository Methods:
public void Save() {
mDataContext.SubmitChanges();
}
public Page GetPage(string pageName) {
Page page =
(from p in mDataContext.Pages
where p.FileName == pageName
select p).SingleOrDefault();
return page;
}
Usage:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Edit(string pageName, FormCollection formValues) {
Page updatedPage = mRepository.GetPage(pageName);
//TagString is a Form value, and is set via UpdateModel.
UpdateModel(updatedPage, formValues.ToValueProvider());
updatedPage.FileName = pageName;
//At this point NO changes should have been written to the database.
mRepository.Save();
//All changes should NOW be saved to the database.
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Pages", new { PageName = pageName });
}