I am creating a repository that using entity framework (also domain objects) and I need to query all records that does not contain value "BADGE/" (undesired value). I found a method that is ".Contains", but cannot find something equivalent to "notContains" or way to exclude records that have the undesired value. I would like the replace "p.Lname.Contains("BADGE/") with something like "p.Lname.NotContains("BADGE/") or something like that where it excludes the values during the return. Here is what I have so far:
public IQueryable<Personnel> NoBadgePersonnels
{
get {
return Context.Personnels.Where(p => p.Lname.Contains("BADGE/"));
}
}
additionally, this what my context looks like:
public class EmployeeRepository
{
private readonly EFContextProvider<EmployeeDbContext>
_contextProvider = new EFContextProvider<EmployeeDbContext>();
private EmployeeDbContext Context
{
get { return _contextProvider.Context; }
}
thanks community
Nick
Try:
return Context.Personnels.Where(p => p.Lname.IndexOf("BADGE/") == -1);
This excludes any strings which contain your target string.
Related
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 two classes - MyBaseClass and BaseClassContainer - that are declared like such:
public class MyBaseClass
{
private Guid id;
public Guid ID
{
if (id == Guid.Empty)
{
id = Guid.NewGuid();
}
return id;
}
//...Other Properties omitted for brevity
}
and
public class BaseClassContainer : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private ObservableCollection<MyBaseClass> baseClasses;
public ObservableCollection<MyBaseClass> BaseClasses
{
//...Omitted for brevity...
}
}
Then in my code I have an ObservableCollection of type BaseClassContainer (BaseClassContainerCollection). What I'm trying to figure out is how can I use LINQ to select a single BaseClassContainer from the ObservableCollection where one of its MyBaseClass.ID matches a specific Guid. The reason I'm using the Single() method is because I know they're all going to be unique.
I've tried the following but it doesn't work:
var result = BaseClassContainerCollection.Single(container => container.BaseClasses.Single(baseClass => baseClass.ID == specificGuid));
I get an error saying: Cannot implicitly convert type 'MyBaseClass' to 'bool'. What am I missing?
Lets break apart your query:
BaseClassContainerCollection.Single(yourPredicate);
Single, as it is used here, basically says "filter BaseClassContainerCollection on this predicate" (a "filter" function that evaluates to true or false for whether or not to include it in the results). Instead of a function that returns true/false, you're saying you want it to evaluate to a MyBaseClass, which doesn't make sense. Your inner call to Single makes sense, because x => x.Id == guid is a function that returns true/false and filters to only those elements that meet the criteria (then states that you know there will only be one of them in the results or else throw an exception).
What you want to do is Select the single MyBaseClass result from the inner query, then call Single on the result (without a predicate) since you know the result should only have one item returned. I believe you're looking for:
BaseClassContainerCollection.Select(container => container.BaseClasses.Single(baseClass => baseClass.ID == specificGuid)).Single();
I am in the middle of a refactoring cycle where I converted some extension methods that used to look like this:
public static IQueryable<Family> FilterOnRoute(this IQueryable<Family> families, WicRoute route)
{
return families.Where(fam => fam.PODs
.Any(pod => pod.Route.RouteID == route.RouteID));
}
to a more fluent implementation like this:
public class SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder
{
private IQueryable<Family> _families;
public SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder Load(IQueryable<Family> families)
{
_families = families;
return this;
}
public SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder OnRoute(WicRoute route)
{
_families = _families.Where(fam => fam.PODs
.Any(pod => pod.Route.RouteID == route.RouteID));
return this;
}
public IQueryable<Family> AsQueryable()
{
return _families;
}
}
which I can call like this: (note this is using Linq-to-Nhibernate)
var families =
new SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder()
.Load(session.Query<Family>())
.OnRoute(new WicRoute() {RouteID = 1})
.AsQueryable()
.ToList();
this produces the following SQL which is fine with me at the moment: (of note is that the above Linq is being translated to a SQL Query)
select ... from "Family" family0_
where exists (select pods1_.PODID from "POD" pods1_
inner join Route wicroute2_ on pods1_.RouteID=wicroute2_.RouteID
where family0_.FamilyID=pods1_.FamilyID
and wicroute2_.RouteID=#p0);
#p0 = 1
my next effort in refactoring is to move the query part that deals with the child to another class like this:
public class SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder
{
private IQueryable<POD> _pods;
public SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder Load(IQueryable<POD> pods)
{
_pods = pods;
return this;
}
public SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder OnRoute(WicRoute route)
{
_pods = _pods.Where(pod => pod.Route.RouteID == route.RouteID);
return this;
}
public IQueryable<POD> AsQueryable()
{
return _pods;
}
}
with SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder changing to this:
public SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder OnRoute(WicRoute route)
{
_families = _families.Where(fam =>
_podLinqBuilder.Load(fam.PODs.AsQueryable())
.OnRoute(route)
.AsQueryable()
.Any()
);
return this;
}
only I now get this error:
Remotion.Linq.Parsing.ParserException : Cannot parse expression 'value(Wic.DataTests.LinqBuilders.SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder)' as it has an unsupported type. Only query sources (that is, expressions that implement IEnumerable) and query operators can be parsed.
I started to implement IQueryable on SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder(as that seemed more logical than implementing IEnumberable) and thought I would be clever by doing this:
public class SimplifiedPODLinqBuilder : IQueryable
{
private IQueryable<POD> _pods;
...
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return _pods.GetEnumerator();
}
public Expression Expression
{
get { return _pods.Expression; }
}
public Type ElementType
{
get { return _pods.ElementType; }
}
public IQueryProvider Provider
{
get { return _pods.Provider; }
}
}
only to get this exception (apparently Load is not being called and _pods is null):
System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
is there a way for me to refactor this code out that will parse properly into an expression that will go to SQL?
The part fam => _podLinqBuilder.Load(fam.PODs.AsQueryable() is never going to work, because the linq provider will try to parse this into SQL and for that it needs mapped members of Family after the =>, or maybe a mapped user-defined function but I don't know if Linq-to-Nhibernate supports that (I never really worked with it, because I still doubt if it is production-ready).
So, what can you do?
To be honest, I like the extension methods much better. You switched to a stateful approach, which doesn't mix well with the stateless paradigm of linq. So you may consider to retrace your steps.
Another option: the expression in .Any(pod => pod.Route.RouteID == route.RouteID)); could be paremeterized (.Any(podExpression), with
OnRoute(WicRoute route, Expression<Func<POD,bool>> podExpression)
(pseudocode).
Hope this makes any sense.
You need to separate methods you intend to call from expressions you intend to translate.
This is great, you want each of those methods to run. They return an instance that implements IQueryable<Family> and operate on that instance.
var families = new SimplifiedFamilyLinqBuilder()
.Load(session.Query<Family>())
.OnRoute(new WicRoute() {RouteID = 1})
.AsQueryable()
.ToList();
This is no good. you don't want Queryable.Where to get called, you want it to be an expression tree which can be translated to SQL. But PodLinqBuilder.Load is a node in that expression tree which can't be translated to SQL!
families = _families
.Where(fam => _podLinqBuilder.Load(fam.PODs.AsQueryable())
.OnRoute(route)
.AsQueryable()
.Any();
You can't call .Load inside the Where expression (it won't translate to sql).
You can't call .Load outside the Where expression (you don't have the fam parameter).
In the name of "separation of concerns", you are mixing query construction methods with query definition expressions. LINQ, by its Integrated nature, encourages you to attempt this thing which will not work.
Consider making expression construction methods instead of query construction methods.
public static Expression<Func<Pod, bool>> GetOnRouteExpr(WicRoute route)
{
int routeId = route.RouteID;
Expression<Func<Pod, bool>> result = pod => pod.Route.RouteID == route.RouteID;
return result;
}
called by:
Expression<Func<Pod, bool>> onRoute = GetOnRouteExpr(route);
families = _families.Where(fam => fam.PODs.Any(onRoute));
With this approach, the question is now - how do I fluidly hang my ornaments from the expression tree?
I know there is a way to use Expressions and Lambdas to accomplish this but I having a hard time piecing it all together. All I need is a method that will dynamically query an Entity Framework DBSet object to find the row where the propery with the given name matches the value.
My context:
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public IDbSet<Account> Accoounts{ get { return Set<Account>(); } }
}
The method that I'm looking to write:
public T Get<T>(string property, object value) : where T is Account
{...}
I would rather not have to use Dynamic SQL to accomplish this so no need to suggest it because I already know it's possible. What I'm really looking for is some help to accomplish this using Expressions and Lambdas
Thanks in advance, I know it's brief but it should be pretty self-explanatory. Comment if more info is needed
I'm trying to avoid dynamic linq as much as possible because the main point of linq is strongly typed access. Using dynamic linq is a solution but it is exactly the oppose of the linq purpose and it is quite close to using ESQL and building the query from sting concatenation. Anyway dynamic linq is sometimes real time saver (especially when it comes to complex dynamic ordering) and I successfully use it in a large project with Linq-to-Sql.
What I usually do is defining some SearchCriteria class like:
public class SearchCriteria
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public int? Property2 { get; set; }
}
And helper query extension method like:
public static IQueryable<SomeClass> Filter(this IQueryable<SomeClass> query, SearchCriteria filter)
{
if (filter.Property1 != null) query = query.Where(s => s.Property1 == filter.Property1);
if (filter.Property2 != null) query = query.Where(s => s.Property2 == filter.Property2);
return query;
}
It is not generic solution. Again generic solution is for some strongly typed processing of classes sharing some behavior.
The more complex solution would be using predicate builder and build expression tree yourselves but again building expression tree is only more complex way to build ESQL query by concatenating strings.
Here's my implementation:
public T Get<T>(string property, object value) : where T is Account
{
//p
var p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
//p.Property
var propertyExpression = Expression.Property(p, property);
//p.Property == value
var equalsExpression = Expression.Equal(propertyExpression, Expression.Constant(value));
//p => p.Property == value
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<T,bool>>(equalsExpression, p);
return context.Set<T>().SingleOrDefault(lambda);
}
It uses EF 5's Set<T>() method. If you are using a lower version, you'll need to implement a way of getting the DbSet based on the <T> type.
Hope it helps.
Dynamic Linq may be an option. Specify your criteria as a string and it will get built as an expression and ran against your data;
An example from something I have done;
var context = new DataContext(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["c"].ConnectionString);
var statusConditions = "Status = 1";
var results = (IQueryable)context.Contacts.Where(statusConditions);
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
I've implemented the specification pattern with Linq as outlined here https://www.packtpub.com/article/nhibernate-3-using-linq-specifications-data-access-layer
I now want to add the ability to eager load and am unsure about the best way to go about it.
The generic repository class in the linked example:
public IEnumerable<T> FindAll(Specification<T> specification)
{
var query = GetQuery(specification);
return Transact(() => query.ToList());
}
public T FindOne(Specification<T> specification)
{
var query = GetQuery(specification);
return Transact(() => query.SingleOrDefault());
}
private IQueryable<T> GetQuery(
Specification<T> specification)
{
return session.Query<T>()
.Where(specification.IsSatisfiedBy());
}
And the specification implementation:
public class MoviesDirectedBy : Specification<Movie>
{
private readonly string _director;
public MoviesDirectedBy(string director)
{
_director = director;
}
public override
Expression<Func<Movie, bool>> IsSatisfiedBy()
{
return m => m.Director == _director;
}
}
This is working well, I now want to add the ability to be able to eager load. I understand NHibernate eager loading can be done by using Fetch on the query.
What I am looking for is whether to encapsulate the eager loading logic within the specification or to pass it into the repository, and also the Linq/expression tree syntax required to achieve this (i.e. an example of how it would be done).
A possible solution would be to extend the Specification class to add:
public virtual IEnumerable<Expression<Func<T, object>>> FetchRelated
{
get
{
return Enumerable.Empty<Expression<Func<T, object>>>();
}
}
And change GetQuery to something like:
return specification.FetchRelated.Aggregate(
session.Query<T>().Where(specification.IsSatisfiedBy()),
(current, related) => current.Fetch(related));
Now all you have to do is override FetchRelated when needed
public override IEnumerable<Expression<Func<Movie, object>>> FetchRelated
{
get
{
return new Expression<Func<Movie, object>>[]
{
m => m.RelatedEntity1,
m => m.RelatedEntity2
};
}
}
An important limitation of this implementation I just wrote is that you can only fetch entities that are directly related to the root entity.
An improvement would be to support arbitrary levels (using ThenFetch), which would require some changes in the way we work with generics (I used object to allow combining different entity types easily)
You wouldn't want to put the Fetch() call into the specification, because it's not needed. Specification is just for limiting the data that can then be shared across many different parts of your code, but those other parts could have drastically different needs in what data they want to present to the user, which is why at those points you would add your Fetch statements.