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.
Related
I am trying to build a custom sorting for the product listings in shopware 6.
I want to include a foreign table (entity is: leasingPlanEntity), get the min of one of the fields of that table (period_price) and then order the search result by that value.
I have already built a Subscriber, and try it like that, what seems to work.
public static function getSubscribedEvents(): array
{
return [
//ProductListingCollectFilterEvent::class => 'addFilter'
ProductListingCriteriaEvent::class => ['addCriteria', 5000]
];
}
public function addCriteria(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->addAggregation(new MinAggregation('min_period_price', 'leasingPlan.periodPrice'));
// Sortierung hinzufügen.
$availableSortings = $event->getCriteria()->getExtension('sortings') ?? new ProductSortingCollection();
$myCustomSorting = new ProductSortingEntity();
$myCustomSorting->setId(Uuid::randomHex());
$myCustomSorting->setActive(true);
$myCustomSorting->setTranslated(['label' => 'My Custom Sorting at runtime']);
$myCustomSorting->setKey('my-custom-runtime-sort');
$myCustomSorting->setPriority(5);
$myCustomSorting->setFields([
[
'field' => 'leasingPlan.periodPrice',
'order' => 'asc',
'priority' => 1,
'naturalSorting' => 0,
],
]);
$availableSortings->add($myCustomSorting);
$event->getCriteria()->addExtension('sortings', $availableSortings);
}
Is this already the right way to get the min(periodPrice)? Or is it taking just a random value out of the leasingPlan table to define the sort-order?
I didn't find a way, to define the min_period_price aggregate value in the $myCustomSorting->setFields Methods.
Update 1
Some days later, I asked a less complex question in the shopware community on slack:
Is it possible to use the DAL to define a subquery for an association in the product-listing?
It should generate something like:
FROM
JOIN (
SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE ... GROUP BY ... ORDER BY ...
) AS ...
The answer there was:
Don't think so
Update 2
I also did an in-deep anlysis of the DAL-Query-Builder, and it really seems to be not possible, to perform a subquery with the current version.
Update 3 - Different approach
A different approach might be, to define custom fields in the main entity. Every time a change is made on the main entity, the values of this custom fields should be recalculated.
It is a lot of overhead work, to realize this. Especially when the fields you are adding, are dependend on other data like the availability of a product in the store, for example.
So check, if it is worth the extra work. Would be better, to have a solution for building subqueries.
Unfortunately it seems that in your case there is no easy way to achieve this, if I understand the issue correctly.
Consider the following: for each product you can have multiple leasingPlan entities, and I assume that for a given context (like a specific sales channel or listing) that still holds. This means that you would have to sort the leasingPlan entities by price, then take the one with the lowest price, and then sort the products by their lowest-price leasingPlan's price.
There seems to be no other way to achieve that, and unfortunately for you, sorting is applied at the end, even if it is sort of a subquery.
So, for example, if you have the following snippet
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->setLimit(1)
;
The actual price-sorting would be applied AFTER the leasingPlan entities are fetched - essentially the results would be sorted, meaning that you would not get the cheapest leasing plan per product, instead getting the first one.
You can only do something like that with filters, but in this case there is nothing to filter by - I assume you don't have one leasingPlan per SalesChannel or per language, so that you could limit that list to just one entry that could be used for sorting
That is not to mention that this could not be included in a ProductSortingEntity, but you could always work around that by plugging into the appropriate events and modifying the criteria during runtime
I see two ways to resolve your issue
Making another table which would store the cheapest leasingPlan per product and just using that as your association
Storing the information about the cheapest leasingPlans in e.g. cache and using that for filtering (caution: a mistake here would probably break the sorting, for example if you end up with too few or too many leasingPlans per product)
public function applyCustomSorting(ProductListingCriteriaEvent $event): void
{
// One leasingPlan per one product
$cheapestLeasingPlans = $this->myCustomService->getCheapestLeasingPlanIds();
$criteria = $event->getCriteria();
$criteria->addAssociation('leasingPlan');
$criteria->getAssociation('leasingPlan')
->addSorting(new FieldSorting('price', FieldSorting::ASCENDING))
->addFilter(new EqualsAnyFilter('id', $cheapestLeasingPlans))
;
}
And then you could sort by
$criteria->addSorting(new FieldSorting('leasingPlan.periodPrice', FieldSorting::ASCENDING));
There should be no need to add the association manually and to add the aggregation to the criteria, that should happen automatically behind the scenes if your custom sorting is selected in the storefront.
For more information refer to the official docs.
Is there a way to restrict the "columns" returned from a Realm Xamarin LINQ query?
For example, if I have a Customer RealmObject and I want a list of all customer names, do I have to query All<Customer> and then enumerate the results to build the names list? That seems cumbersome and inefficient. I am not seeing anything in the docs. Am I missing something obvious here? Thanks!
You have to remember that Realm is an object based store. In a RDBMS like Sqlite, restricting the return results to a sub-set of "columns" of an "record" makes sense, but in an object store, you would be removing attributes from the original class and thus creating a new dynamic class to then instantiate these new classes as objects.
Thus is you want just a List of strings representing the customer names you can do this:
List<string> names = theRealm.All<Customer>().ToList().Select(customer => customer.Name).ToList();
Note: That you take the Realm.All<> results to a List first and then using a Linq Select "filter" just the property that you want. Using a .Select directly on a RealmResults is not currently supported (v0.80.0).
If you need to return a complex type that is a subset of attributes from the original RealObject, assuming you have a matching POCO, you can use:
var custNames = theRealm.All<Customer>().ToList().Select((Customer c) => new Name() { firstName = c.firstName, lastName = c.lastName } );
Remember, once you convert a RealmResult to a static list of POCOs you do lose the liveliness of using RealmObjects.
Personally I avoid doing this whenever possible as Realm is so fast that using a RealmResult and thus the RealObjects directly is more efficient on processing time and memory overhead then converting those to POCOs everytime you need to new list...
I've the following Entity Model : Employee has a Company and a Company has Employees.
When using the Include statement like below:
var query = context.Employees.Include(e => e.Company);
query.Dump();
All related data is retrieved from the database correctly. (Using LEFT OUTER JOIN on Company table)
The problem is hat when I use the GroupBy() from System.Linq.Dynamic to group by Company.Name, the Employees are missing the Company data because the Include is lost.
Example:
var groupByQuery = query.GroupBy("new (Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery.Dump();
Is there a way to easily retrieve the applied Includes on the 'query' as a string collection, so that I can include them in the dynamic GroupBy like this:
var groupByQuery2 = query.GroupBy("new (Company, Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery2.Dump();
I thought about using the ToString() functionality to get the SQL Command like this:
string sql = query.ToString();
And then use RegEx to extract all LEFT OUTER JOINS, but probably there is a better solution ?
if you're creating the query in the first place - I'd always opt to save the includes (and add to them if you're making a composite query/filtering).
e.g. instead of returning just 'query' return new QueryContext {Query = query, Includes = ...}
I'd like to see a more elegant solution - but I think that's your best bet.
Otherwise you're looking at expression trees, visitors and all those nice things.
SQL parsing isn't that straight either - as queries are not always that simple (often a combo of things etc.).
e.g. there is a `span' inside the query object (if you traverse a bit) which seems to be holding the 'Includes' but it's not much help.
how can I build a table of "orders" containing "IdOrder", "Description" and "User"?... the "User" field is a reference to the table "Users", which has "IdUser" and "Name". I'm using repositories.
I have this repository:
Repository<Orders> ordersRepo = new OrderRepo<Orders>(unitOfWork.Session);
to return all Orders to View, I just do:
return View(ordersRepo.All());
But this will result in something like:
IdOrder:1 -- Description: SomeTest -- User: UserProxy123ih12i3123ih12i3uh123
-
When the expected result was:
IdOrder:1 -- Description: SomeTest -- User: Thiago.
PS: I don't know why it returns this "UserProxy123ih12i3123ih12i3uh123". In Db there is a valid value.
The View:
It is showed in a foreach (var item in Model).
#item.Description
#item.User //--> If it is #item.User.Name doesn't work.
What I have to do to put the Name on this list? May I have to do a query using LINQ - NHibernate?
Tks.
What type of ORM are you using? You mention "repositories" but does that mean LinqToSql, Entity Framework, NHibernate, or other?
It looks like you are getting an error because the User field is not loaded as part of the original query. This is likely done to reduce the size of the result set by excluding the related fields from the original query for Orders.
There are a couple of options to work around this:
Set up the repository (or context, depending on the ORM) to include the User property in the result set.
Explicitly load the User property before you access it. Note that this would be an additional round-trip to the database and should not be done in a loop.
In cases where you know that you need the User information it would make sense to ensure that this data in returned from the original query. If you are using LinqToSql take a look at the DataLoadOptions type. You can use this type to specify which relationships you want to retrieve with the query:
var options = new DataLoadOptions();
options.LoadWith<Orders>(o => o.User);
DataContext context = ...;
context.LoadOptions = options;
var query = from o in context.Orders
select o;
There should be similar methods to achive the same thing whatever ORM you are using.
In NHibernate you can do the following:
using (ISession session = SessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
var orders = session.Get<Order>(someId);
NHibernateUtil.Initialize(orders.User);
}
This will result in only two database trips (regardless of the number of orders returned). More information on this can be found here.
In asp.net MVC the foreign key doesn't work the way you are using it. I believe you have to set the user to a variable like this:
User user = #item.User;
Or you have to load the reference sometimes. I don't know why this is but in my experience if I put this line before doing something with a foreign key it works
#item.UserReference.load();
Maybe when you access item.User.Name the session is already closed so NHib cannot load appropriate user from the DB.
You can create some model and initialize it with proper values at the controller. Also you can disable lazy loading for Orders.User in your mapping.
But maybe it is an other problem. What do you have when accessing "#item.User.Name" from your View?
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)))