I am working on a MVC3 application with nhibernate and SQL server. Have written a normal method which is re-usable. Please find the below code and let me know a better way to handle it. I have observed to execute this piece of code it is taking a long time.
private void GetParentCompany(IEnumerable<Company> companiesList)
{
foreach (var company in companiesList)
{
long? dunsUltimateParent = company.DUNSUltimateParent;
Company ultimateParent = _companyService.GetCompanyByDUNS(Convert.ToInt64(dunsUltimateParent));
if (ultimateParent != null)
{
company.UltimateParentName = ultimateParent.CompanyName;
company.UltimateCompanyId = ultimateParent.CompanyId;
company.UltimateParentDuns = ultimateParent.DUNS;
}
}
}
Adding an index to your company.DUNS column might help. However consider to introduce a many-to-one relationship from company to (parent) company.
Place a UltimateParent property with type company in the company class. The fields UltimateParentName and UltimateParentDuns would then be redundant and you could simply get company.UltimateParent.Name for example. The mapping of UltimateParent can be done using 'References' in fluent-nhibernate.
References(x => x.UltimateParent);
I have the following code -
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
var db = new ContextDB();
var contacts = db.LocalContacts.ToList();
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.Areas.OrderBy(y => y.Name));
grdItems.DataBind();
}
I'm trying to sort the list of the contacts according to the area name that is contained within each contact. When I tried the above, I get "At least one object must implement IComparable.". Is there an easy way instead of writing a custom IComparer?
Thanks!
try this:
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
var db = new ContextDB();
var contacts = db.LocalContacts.ToList();
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.Areas.OrderBy(y => y.Name).First().Name);
grdItems.DataBind();
}
this will order the contacts by the first area name, after ordering the areas by name.
Hope this helps :)
Edit: fixed error in code. (.First().Name)
I was in a discussion with #AbdouMoumen but in the end I thought I'd provide my own answer :-)
His answer works, but there two performance issues in this code (both in the answer as in the original question).
First, the code loads ALL contacts in the db. This may or may not be a problem, but in general I would recommend NOT to do this. Many modern controls support paging/filtering out of the box, so you'd be better off supplying an not-yet-evaluated IQueryable<T> instead of List<T>. If however you need everything in memory, you should delay the ToList to the last possible moment.
Second, in AbdouMoumen's answer, there is a so-called 'SELECT N+1' problem. Entity Framework will by default use lazy loading to fetch additional properties. I.e. the Areas property will not be fetched from the database until it's accessed. In this case this will happen in the controls 'for loop', while it's ordering the result set by name.
Open up SQL Server Profiler to see what I mean: you will see a SELECT statement for all the contacts, and an additional SELECT statement for each contact that fetches the Areas for that contact.
A much better solution would be the following:
public void LoadAllContacts()
{
using (var db = new ContextDB())
{
// note: no ToList() yet, just defining the query
var contactsQuery = db.LocalContacts
.OrderBy(x => x.Areas
.OrderBy(y => y.Name)
.First().Name);
// fetch all the contacts, correctly ordered in the DB
grdItems.DataSource = contactsQuery.ToList();
grdItems.DataBind();
}
}
Is it one to one relation (Contact->Area)?
if yeah then try the following :
public partial class Contact
{
public string AreaName
{
get
{
if (this.Area != null)
return this.Area.Name;
return string.Empty;
}
}
}
then
grdItems.DataSource = contacts.OrderBy(x => x.AreaName);
I'm trying to wrap my head around this in LINQPAD and keep failing. Basically I need the entries that have a corresponding entry ending with "_SCHEMA".
So from the list below, I need "Dumbo" entry only
void Main()
{
var users = new List<User> {new User{Name="Dummy"}, new User{Name="Dumbo"},
new User{Name="Dunno"}, new User{Name="Dumbo_SCHEMA"}};
}
class User
{
public string Name{get;set;}
}
Any thoughts are welcome.
Like this?
from user in users
where users.Any(inner => inner.Name == user.Name + "_SCHEMA")
select user
Edit: Beware of performance issues on too large sets.
The functionality I am trying to use is:
- Create a ObjectDataSource for selection and updating controls on a web page (User Control).
- Use the DataObjectTypeName to have an object created that would send the data to an UpdateMethod.
- Before the values are populated in the DataObjectTypeName’s object, I would like to pre-populate the object so the unused items in the class are not defaulted to zeros and empty strings without me knowing whether the zero or default string was set by the user or by the application.
I cannot find a way to pre-populate the values (this was an issue back in 2006 with framework 2.0). One might ask “Why would anyone need to pre-populate the object?”. The simple answer is: I want to be able to randomly place controls on different User Controls and not have to be concerned with which UpdateMethod needs to handle which fields of an object.
For Example, let’s say I have a class (that reflects a SQL Table) that includes the fields: FirstName, LastName, Address, City, State, Zip. I may want to give the user the option to change the FirstName and LastName and not even see the Address, City, State, Zip (or vice-versa). I do not want to create two UpdateMethods where one handled FirstName and LastName and the other method handles the other fields. I am working with a Class of some 40+ columns from multiple tables and I may want some fields on one screen and not another and decide later to change those fields from one screen to another (which breaks my UpdateMethods without me knowing).
I hope I explained my issue well enough.
Thanks
This is hardly a solution to the problem, but it's my best stab at it.
I have a GridView with its DataSourceID set to an ObjectDataSource.
Whenever a row is updated, I want the property values in the object to be selectively updated - that is - only updated if they appear as columns in the GridView.
I've created the following extension:
public static class GridViewExtensions
{
public static void EnableLimitUpdateToGridViewColumns(this GridView gridView)
{
_gridView = gridView;
if (_gridView.DataSourceObject != null)
{
((ObjectDataSource)_gridView.DataSourceObject)
.Updating += new ObjectDataSourceMethodEventHandler(objectDataSource_Updating);
}
}
private static GridView _gridView;
private static void objectDataSource_Updating(object sender, ObjectDataSourceMethodEventArgs e)
{
var newObject = ((object)e.InputParameters[0]);
var oldObjects = ((ObjectDataSource)_gridView.DataSourceObject).Select().Cast<object>();
Type type = oldObjects.First().GetType();
object oldObject = null;
foreach (var obj in oldObjects)
{
if (type.GetProperty(_gridView.DataKeyNames.First()).GetValue(obj, null).ToString() ==
type.GetProperty(_gridView.DataKeyNames.First()).GetValue(newObject, null).ToString())
{
oldObject = obj;
break;
}
}
if (oldObject == null) return;
var dynamicColumns = _gridView.Columns.OfType<DynamicField>();
foreach (var property in type.GetProperties())
{
if (dynamicColumns.Where(c => c.DataField == property.Name).Count() == 0)
{
property.SetValue(newObject, property.GetValue(oldObject, null), null);
}
}
}
}
And in the Page_Init event of my page, I apply it to the GridView, like so:
protected void Page_Init()
{
GridView1.EnableLimitUpdateToGridViewColumns();
}
This is working well for me at the moment.
You could probably apply similar logic to other controls, e.g. ListView or DetailsView.
I'm currently scratching my head to think of a way this can be done in a rendering-agnostic manner - i.e. without having to know about the rendering control being used.
I hope this ends up as a normal feature of the GridView or ObjectDataSource control rather than having to hack it.
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 });
}