Does anyone know of any way to overcome NotSupportedException? I have a method against a User:
public virtual bool IsAbove(User otherUser)
{
return HeirarchyString.StartsWith(otherUser.HeirarchyString);
}
And I want to do:
_session.Query<User>.Where(x => loggedInUser.IsAbove(x));
But this throws a NotSupportedException. The real pain though is that using
_session.Query<User>.Where(x => loggedInUser.HeirarchyString.StartsWith(x.HeirarchyString));
works absolutely fine. I don't like this as a solution, however, because it means that if I change how the IsAbove method works, I have to remember all the places where I have duplicated the code whenever I want to update it
Name the specification expression and reuse that, e.g:
public Expression<Func<....>> IsAboveSpecification = (...) => ...;
public virtual bool IsAbove(User otherUser)
{
return IsAboveSpecification(HeirarchyString, otherUser.HeirarchyString);
}
Reuse IsAboveSpecification in the query as needed. If the IsAbove() method is used often use can cache the result of the Compile() method on the expression.
Related
I got this piece of code, I am learning from tutorial. I want to return an element by url which looks like clients/1 instead of clients?id=1. How can I achieve this? Also, can the code below be made easier way?
#GetMapping
public Client getClient(#RequestParam int id) {
Optional<Client> first = clientList.stream().filter(element -> element.getId() == id).findFirst();
return first.get();
}
You may want to use #PathVariable as follows:
#Controller
#RequestMapping("/clients")
public class MyController {
#GetMapping("/{id}")
public Client getClient(#PathVariable int id) {
return clientList.stream().filter(element -> element.getId() == id).findFirst().orElseThrow();
}
Please note, the Optional can be unpacked with orElseThrow method. This will throw a NoSuchElementException in case there is no element found for the id.
Other solution would be to use orElse(new Client(...)) to return a default value if nothing is found.
get() is not really recommended to be used. From the JavaDoc of the get() method:
API Note:
The preferred alternative to this method is orElseThrow().
Even though get() may also throw a NoSuchElementException, similar to orElseThrow, usually the consensus is that get should not be used without isPresent, or should not be used at all. There several other methods to unpack the Optional without forcing you write an if.
The whole idea of the Optional is to overcome this by forcing you to think about the case when there is no value inside.
I'm in the process of rewriting one little WPF-App I wrote to make use of ReactiveUI, to get a feeling about the library.
I really like it so far!
Now I've stumbled upon the Throttle method and want to use it when applying a filter to a collection.
This is my ViewModel:
namespace ReactiveUIThrottle
{
public class MainViewModel : ReactiveObject
{
private string _filter;
public string Filter { get => _filter; set => this.RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _filter, value); }
private readonly ReactiveList<Person> _persons = new ReactiveList<Person>();
private readonly ObservableAsPropertyHelper<IReactiveDerivedList<Person>> _filteredPersons;
public IReactiveDerivedList<Person> Persons => _filteredPersons.Value;
public MainViewModel()
{
Filter = string.Empty;
_persons.AddRange(new[]
{
new Person("Peter"),
new Person("Jane"),
new Person("Jon"),
new Person("Marc"),
new Person("Heinz")
});
var filterPersonsCommand = ReactiveCommand.CreateFromTask<string, IReactiveDerivedList<Person>>(FilterPersons);
this.WhenAnyValue(x => x.Filter)
// to see the problem
.Throttle(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(2000), RxApp.MainThreadScheduler)
.InvokeCommand(filterPersonsCommand);
_filteredPersons = filterPersonsCommand.ToProperty(this, vm => vm.Persons, _persons.CreateDerivedCollection(p => p));
}
private async Task<IReactiveDerivedList<Person>> FilterPersons(string filter)
{
await Task.Delay(500); // Lets say this takes some time
return _persons.CreateDerivedCollection(p => p, p => p.Name.Contains(filter));
}
}
}
The filtering itself works like a charm, also the throttling, when using the GUI.
However, I'd like to unittest the behavior of the filtering and this is my first attempt:
[Test]
public void FilterPersonsByName()
{
var sut = new MainViewModel();
sut.Persons.Should().HaveCount(5);
sut.Filter = "J";
sut.Persons.Should().HaveCount(2);
}
This test fails because the collection still has 5 people.
When I get rid of the await Task.Delay(500) in FilterPersons then the test will pass, but takes 2 seconds (from the throttle).
1) Is there a way to have the throttle be instant within the test to speed up the unittest?
2) How would I test the async behavior in my filter?
I'm using ReactiveUI 7.x
Short answers:
Yes, by making sure you're using CurrentThreadScheduler.Instance when running under test
Instead of using CurrentThreadScheduler, use a TestScheduler and manually advance it
The longer answer is that you need to ensure your unit tests can control the scheduler being used by your System Under Test (SUT). By default, you'll generally want to use CurrentThreadScheduler.Instance to make things happen "instantly" without any need to advance the scheduler manually. But when you want to write tests that do validate timing, you use a TestScheduler instead.
If, as you seem to be, you're using RxApp.*Scheduler, take a look at the With extension method, which can be used like this:
(new TestScheduler()).With(sched => {
// write test logic here, and RxApp.*Scheduler will resolve to the chosen TestScheduler
});
I tend to avoid using the RxApp ambient context altogether for the same reason I avoid all ambient contexts: they're shared state and can cause trouble as a consequence. Instead, I inject an IScheduler (or two) into my SUT as a dependency.
I get this error when opening one specific form. The rest is working fine and I have no clue why this one isn't.
Error: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported.
I get the error at _oDBConnection when I try to save. When I watch _oDBConnection while running through the code, it does not exist. Even when I open the main-window it does not exist. So this form is where the DataContext is built for the very first time.
Every class inherits from clsBase where the DataContext is built.
My collegue is the professional one who built it all. I am just expanding and using it (learned it by doing it). But now I'm stuck and he is on holiday. So keep it simple :-)
What can it be?
clsPermanency
namespace Reservation
{
class clsPermanency : clsBase
{
private tblPermanency _oPermanency;
public tblPermanency PermanencyData
{
get { return _oPermanency; }
set { _oPermanency = value; }
}
public clsPermanency()
: base()
{
_oPermanency = new tblPermanency();
}
public clsPermanency(int iID)
: this()
{
_oPermanency = (from oPermanencyData in _oDBConnection.tblPermanencies
where oPermanencyData.ID == iID
select oPermanencyData).First();
if (_oPermanency == null)
throw new Exception("Permanentie niet gevonden");
}
public void save()
{
if (_oPermanency.ID == 0)
{
_oDBConnection.tblPermanencies.InsertOnSubmit(_oPermanency);
}
_oDBConnection.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
clsBase
public class clsBase
{
protected DBReservationDataContext _oDBConnection;
protected int _iID;
public int ID
{
get { return _iID; }
}
public DBReservationDataContext DBConnection
{
get { return _oDBConnection; }
}
public clsBase()
{
_oDBConnection = new DBReservationDataContext();
}
}
Not a direct answer, but this is really bad design, sorry.
Issues:
One context instance per class instance. Pretty incredible. How are you going to manage units of work and transactions? And what about memory consumption and performance?
Indirection: every entity instance (prefixed o) is wrapped in a cls class. What a hassle to make classes cooperate, if necessary, or to access their properties.
DRY: far from it. Does each clsBase derivative have the same methods as clsPermanency?
Constructors: you always have to call the base constructor. The constructor with int iID always causes a redundant new object to be created, which will certainly be a noticeable performance hit when dealing with larger numbers. A minor change in constructor logic may cause the sequence of constructor invocations to change. (Nested and inherited constructors are always tricky).
Exception handling: you need a try-catch everywhere where classes are created. (BTW: First() will throw its own exception if the record is not there).
Finally, not a real issue, but class and variable name prefixes are sooo 19xx.
What to do?
I don't think you can change your colleague's design in his absence. But I'd really talk to him about it in due time. Just study some linq-to-sql examples out there to pick up some regular patterns.
The exception indicates that somewhere between fetching the _oPermanency instance (in the Id-d constructor) and saving it a new _oDBConnection is created. The code as shown does not reveal how this could happen, but I assume there is more code than this. When you debug and check GetHashCode() of _oDBConnection instances you should be able to find where it happens.
I've just modified a method for handling my DDD commands (previously it had no return type):
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand, TReturn>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
The method is fine, and does what I want it to do, however using it creates some fugly code:
CommandResult<Customer> result =
DomainCommands.Execute<CustomerCreateCommand, Customer>
(
new CustomerCreateCommand(message)
);
Before I added the Customer return type TReturn, it was nice and tidy and the method could infer the types from its usage. However that's no longer possible.
Is there any way using any new C# features that I could rewrite the above to make it tidier, i.e. using Func, Action, Expression, etc? I'm probably expecting the impossible, but I'm getting fed up of writing so much code to just call a single method that used to be very simple.
One option to reduce it slightly is to have a static generic type for the type parameter that can't be inferred, allowing you to have a generic method with just one type parameter that can be inferred:
public static class DomainCommands<TReturn>
{
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
}
Then:
var result = DomainCommands<Customer>.Execute(new CustomerCreateCommand(msg));
It's not much nicer, but it's slightly better. Of course, if the domain command type itself could be generic, that might help - so CustomerCreateCommand would implement IDomainCommand<Customer> for example. If you still needed a nongeneric IDomainCommand, you could make IDomainCommand<T> derive from IDomainCommand.
I am attempting to be a good TDD citizen as I design an application. I'm using Moq, and I've run into a little repository issue.
My repository has a Find method:
public IEnumerable<T> Find(Expression<Func<T, bool>> where)
{
return _objectSet.Where(where);
}
Then I attempt to set up a mock of the repository:
mock.Setup(m => m.Find(c => c.ConferenceID == conferenceID))
.Returns(ConferenceTestObjectContainer.CreateConferences().Where(c => c.ConferenceID == conferenceID).ToList());
The test will work if I test against the mock directly in the test, but if I inject the mock into my production code (an ASP.NET page in this case,) and test the page method, it doesn't work.
Justin Etheredge addresses the problem in his post here. The issue is that the comparer between the call and the setup can't handle Expressions so well.
The problem that I'm having is with his comparer function:
public static Expression<Func<T,bool>> AreEqual<T>(Expression<Func<T,bool>> expr)
{
return Match<Expression<Func<T, bool>>>
.Create(t => t.ToString() == expr.ToString());
}
This raises a compiler error:
The type arguments for method 'Moq.Match.Create(System.Predicate)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly.
I understand that the compiler can't infer the type of "T", but I'm not clear on how to fix that. The good Mr. Etheredge made this work, but I don't understand what I'm doing wrong.
TIA.
OK, so this question is going Tumblweed...
For the record, I worked around the problem by deriving a new Entity-specific Repository and added a FindById() method, which works great.
Why don't you use somenthing like this:
public static Expression<Func<T,bool>> AreEqual<T>(Expression<Func<T,bool>> expr)
{
return Match.Create<Expression<Func<T, bool>>>(t => t.ToString() == expr.ToString());
}
In this way I'm handling generic as well.