I'm a total LINQ noob so I guess you'll probably have a good laugh reading this question. I'm learning LINQ to create queries in LightSwitch and what I don't seem to understand is to select an entity based on a value in a lookup table. Say I want to select all employees in a table that have a job title that is picked from a related lookup table. I want the descriptive value in the lookup table for the user to pick from a list to use as a parameter in a query, not the non-descriptive id's.
Can someone point me to an article or tutorial that quickly explains this, or give me a quick answer? I AM reading books and have a Pluralsight account but since this is probably the most extensive knowledge I will need for now a simple tutorial would help me more that watching hours of videos and read thousands of pages of books.
Thanks in advance!
Edit: this is the code. As far as I know this should but won't work (red squigly line under EmployeeTitle, error says that EmployeeContract does not contain a definition for EmployeeTitle even though there is a relationship between the two).
partial void ActiveEngineers_PreprocessQuery(ref IQueryable<Employee> query)
{
query = from Employee e in query
where e.EmployeeContract.EmployeeTitle.Description == "Engineer"
select e;
}
Edit 2: This works! But why this one and not the other?
partial void ActiveContracts_PreprocessQuery(ref IQueryable<EmployeeContract> query)
{
query = from EmployeeContract e in query
where e.EmployeeTitle.Description == "Engineer"
select e;
}
The red squiggly line you've described is likely because each Employee can have 1-to-many EmployeeContracts. Therefore, Employee.EmployeeContracts is actually an IEnumerable<EmployeeContract>, which in turn does not have a "EmployeeTitle" property.
I think what you're looking for might be:
partial void ActiveEngineers_PreprocessQuery(ref IQueryable<Employee> query)
{
query = from Employee e in query
where e.EmployeeContract.Any(x => x.EmployeeTitle.Description == "Engineer")
select e;
}
What this is saying is that at least one of the Employee's EmployeeContracts must have an EmployeeTitle.Description == "Engineer"
Try something like this:
partial void RetrieveCustomer_Execute()
{
Order order = this.DataWorkspace.NorthwindData.Orders_Single
(Orders.SelectedItem.OrderID);
Customer cust = order.Customer;
//Perform some task on the customer entity.
}
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff851990.aspx#ReadingData)
Assuming you have navigation properties in place for the foreign key over to the lookup table, it should be something like:
var allMonkies = from employee in context.Employees
where employee.EmployeeTitle.FullTitle == "Code Monkey"
select employee;
If you don't have a navigation property, you can still get the same via 'manual' join:
var allMonkies = from employee in context.Employees
join title in context.EmployeeTitles
on employee.EmployeeTitleID equals title.ID
where title.FullTitle == "Code Monkey"
select employee;
Related
I have been trying for hours to get a Distinct to work for my code.
I am using EF 4.3, MVC3, Razor and trying to get a list downto product id and name.
When I run the Sql query against the DB, it's fine.
Sql Query is
SELECT DISTINCT [ProductId]
,[Product_Name]
FROM [dbo].[PRODUCT]
The only other column in that table is a country code so that's why a standard distinct() isn't working.
I have gone as far as creating an IEqualityComparer
Here is code:
public class DistinctProduct : IEqualityComparer<PRODUCT>
{
public bool Equals(PRODUCT x, PRODUCT y)
{
return x.ProductId.Equals(y.ProductId);
}
public int GetHashCode(PRODUCT obj)
{
return obj.ProductId.GetHashCode();
}
}
here is where I called it.
IEqualityComparer<PRODUCT> customComparer = new DistinctProduct();
IEnumerable<PRODUCT> y = db.PRODUCTs.Distinct(customComparer);
But when it hit's that Last line I get an error out of it stating...
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.Linq.IQueryable`1[MyService.Models.PRODUCT] Distinct[PRODUCT](System.Linq.IQueryable`1[MyService.Models.PRODUCT], System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer`1[MyService.Models.PRODUCT])' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks,
David
Is there any reason you could just not use a distinct like the following?
var distinctProdcts = (from p in db.PRODUCTs
select new {
ProductId = p.ProductId,
Product_Name = p.ProductName
}).Distinct();
This would remove the country code from the query before you do the distinct.
Entity Framework is trying to translate your query to a SQL query. Obviously it does not know how to translate the IEqualityComparerer. I think the question is whether you want to do the Distinct in the datbase (in which case your client gets only filtered results) or you are OK with bringing all the data to the client and select distinct on the client. If you want the filtering to happen on the database side (which will make your app perform much better) and you want to be able to use different strategies for comparing you can come up with a code that builds distinct criteria on top of your query. If you are fine with bringing your data to the client (note that it can be a lot of data) you should be able just to do (.ToList() will trigger querying the database and materializing results):
IEnumerable<PRODUCT> y = db.PRODUCTs.ToList().Distinct(customComparer);
I'm a long time dev, but still kind of new to LINQ. I'm OK when dealing with one set of object, but things get tougher when I need to pull from several sources, and I could use some guidance in getting what I need here.
I have three tables in my database, two related tables and one that holds the PK/FK to tie them together. So something like:
Users
UserID
UserName
Surveys
SurveyID
SurveyName
UserSurveys
UserID
SurveyID
I am using EF and so all of this data has been pulled into Objects.
So... what I want to do is return a List of all Surveys that are associated with a given User. So something like (pseudo-code):
// currentUserID = the UserID I need to get matching Surveys for
var surveys = from Survey where (s => s.SurveyID == UserSurvey.SurveyID && UserSurvey.UserID == currentUserID);
I assume I need to make a sub-query and use a Contains() or something like that, but I keep tripping over myself. Help?
Should be something like this:
from us in UserSurveys
where us.UserId == currentUserID
join s in Surveys on us.SurveyID equals s.SurveyID
select s
If this is EF you should be able to do someUser.Surveys.
Assuming your database and entity model has all of your FK references you should be able to do something like this....
// currentUserID = the UserID I need to get matching Surveys for
var surveys = from s in Survey
where s.User.UserID == currentUserID
select s;
I want to do the following...
FROM o IN orders
SELECT new OrderContainer { Contact = (PostalContact) o.Contact }
So hopefully you can see that the order's 'Contact' will be of a derived type. Unfortunately however it doesn't seem to do a polymorphic fetch! Is there anyway of achieving this?
Cheers, Ian.
Try using the extention method .OfType()
from o in orders
select new OrderContainer { Contact = o.Contact.OfType<PostalContact>().FirstOrDefault() }
Edit:
a way to get the full object data, but i doubt that this is good enough for your needs.
from c in contacts.OfType<PostalContact>()
where c.Orders.Any(o=>o.Contact.Id == c.id)
select new OrderContainer { Contact = c }
on the other hand, if you set the base class (entity) to abstract, you may find that entity will load the full objects. but this is not recomended due to the queries that are generated. if you are looking into this you may want to look at (TPH) Table per Hierarchy for your contacts
Let's say I have an Order table which has a FirstSalesPersonId field and a SecondSalesPersonId field. Both of these are foreign keys that reference the SalesPerson table. For any given order, either one or two salespersons may be credited with the order. In other words, FirstSalesPersonId can never be NULL, but SecondSalesPersonId can be NULL.
When I drop my Order and SalesPerson tables onto the "Linq to SQL Classes" design surface, the class builder spots the two FK relationships from the Order table to the SalesPerson table, and so the generated Order class has a SalesPerson field and a SalesPerson1 field (which I can rename to SalesPerson1 and SalesPerson2 to avoid confusion).
Because I always want to have the salesperson data available whenever I process an order, I am using DataLoadOptions.LoadWith to specify that the two salesperson fields are populated when the order instance is populated, as follows:
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson1);
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson2);
The problem I'm having is that Linq to SQL is using something like the following SQL to load an order:
SELECT ...
FROM Order O
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP1 ON SP1.salesPersonId = O.firstSalesPersonId
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP2 ON SP2.salesPersonId = O.secondSalesPersonId
This would make sense if there were always two salesperson records, but because there is sometimes no second salesperson (secondSalesPersonId is NULL), the INNER JOIN causes the query to return no records in that case.
What I effectively want here is to change the second INNER JOIN into a LEFT OUTER JOIN. Is there a way to do that through the UI for the class generator? If not, how else can I achieve this?
(Note that because I'm using the generated classes almost exclusively, I'd rather not have something tacked on the side for this one case if I can avoid it).
Edit: per my comment reply, the SecondSalesPersonId field is nullable (in the DB, and in the generated classes).
The default behaviour actually is a LEFT JOIN, assuming you've set up the model correctly.
Here's a slightly anonymized example that I just tested on one of my own databases:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (TestDataContext context = new TestDataContext())
{
DataLoadOptions dlo = new DataLoadOptions();
dlo.LoadWith<Place>(p => p.Address);
context.LoadOptions = dlo;
var places = context.Places.Where(p => p.ID >= 100 && p.ID <= 200);
foreach (var place in places)
{
Console.WriteLine(p.ID, p.AddressID);
}
}
}
}
This is just a simple test that prints out a list of places and their address IDs. Here is the query text that appears in the profiler:
SELECT [t0].[ID], [t0].[Name], [t0].[AddressID], ...
FROM [dbo].[Places] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT 1 AS [test], [t1].[AddressID],
[t1].[StreetLine1], [t1].[StreetLine2],
[t1].[City], [t1].[Region], [t1].[Country], [t1].[PostalCode]
FROM [dbo].[Addresses] AS [t1]
) AS [t2] ON [t2].[AddressID] = [t0].[AddressID]
WHERE ([t0].[PlaceID] >= #p0) AND ([t0].[PlaceID] <= #p1)
This isn't exactly a very pretty query (your guess is as good as mine as to what that 1 as [test] is all about), but it's definitively a LEFT JOIN and doesn't exhibit the problem you seem to be having. And this is just using the generated classes, I haven't made any changes.
Note that I also tested this on a dual relationship (i.e. a single Place having two Address references, one nullable, one not), and I get the exact same results. The first (non-nullable) gets turned into an INNER JOIN, and the second gets turned into a LEFT JOIN.
It has to be something in your model, like changing the nullability of the second reference. I know you say it's configured as nullable, but maybe you need to double-check? If it's definitely nullable then I suggest you post your full schema and DBML so somebody can try to reproduce the behaviour that you're seeing.
If you make the secondSalesPersonId field in the database table nullable, LINQ-to-SQL should properly construct the Association object so that the resulting SQL statement will do the LEFT OUTER JOIN.
UPDATE:
Since the field is nullable, your problem may be in explicitly declaring dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<>(). I'm running a similar situation in my current project where I have an Order, but the order goes through multiple stages. Each stage corresponds to a separate table with data related to that stage. I simply retrieve the Order, and the appropriate data follows along, if it exists. I don't use the dataLoadOptions at all, and it does what I need it to do. For example, if the Order has a purchase order record, but no invoice record, Order.PurchaseOrder will contain the purchase order data and Order.Invoice will be null. My query looks something like this:
DC.Orders.Where(a => a.Order_ID == id).SingleOrDefault();
I try not to micromanage LINQ-to-SQL...it does 95% of what I need straight out of the box.
UPDATE 2:
I found this post that discusses the use of DefaultIfEmpty() in order to populated child entities with null if they don't exist. I tried it out with LINQPad on my database and converted that example to lambda syntax (since that's what I use):
ParentTable.GroupJoin
(
ChildTable,
p => p.ParentTable_ID,
c => c.ChildTable_ID,
(p, aggregate) => new { p = p, aggregate = aggregate }
)
.SelectMany (a => a.aggregate.DefaultIfEmpty (),
(a, c) => new
{
ParentTableEntity = a.p,
ChildTableEntity = c
}
)
From what I can figure out from this statement, the GroupJoin expression relates the parent and child tables, while the SelectMany expression aggregates the related child records. The key appears to be the use of the DefaultIfEmpty, which forces the inclusion of the parent entity record even if there are no related child records. (Thanks for compelling me to dig into this further...I think I may have found some useful stuff to help with a pretty huge report I've got on my pipeline...)
UPDATE 3:
If the goal is to keep it simple, then it looks like you're going to have to reference those salesperson fields directly in your Select() expression. The reason you're having to use LoadWith<>() in the first place is because the tables are not being referenced anywhere in your query statement, so the LINQ engine won't automatically pull that information in.
As an example, given this structure:
MailingList ListCompany
=========== ===========
List_ID (PK) ListCompany_ID (PK)
ListCompany_ID (FK) FullName (string)
I want to get the name of the company associated with a particular mailing list:
MailingLists.Where(a => a.List_ID == 2).Select(a => a.ListCompany.FullName)
If that association has NOT been made, meaning that the ListCompany_ID field in the MailingList table for that record is equal to null, this is the resulting SQL generated by the LINQ engine:
SELECT [t1].[FullName]
FROM [MailingLists] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [ListCompanies] AS [t1] ON [t1].[ListCompany_ID] = [t0].[ListCompany_ID]
WHERE [t0].[List_ID] = #p0
I need to implement 3 public methods that all rely on the same initial join. Would a solution like the one described below work?
The code below is an example, the real stuff is much more complicated, that's why I want to reuse it.
private Tuple<Customer,Order> GetCustomerOrders()
{
from c in customers
join o in orders
on c.customerid equals o.customerid
select Tuple.Create(c, o)
}
public MyCustomerOrder GetCustomerOrder(int customerId)
{
return (from co in GetCustomerOrders()
where co.Item1.customerid == customerId
select new MyCustomerOrder(co.Item1, co.Item2)).FirstOrDefault();
}
public IEnumerable<MyCustomerOrder> GetCustomerOrders()
{
return from co in GetCustomerOrders()
orderby co.Item1.Name
select new MyCustomerOrder(co.Item1, co.Item2);
}
The question is, does the tuple break the query? In other words, will this end up in the SQL query that gets generated where co.Item1.customerid == customerId?
It really depends on whether LINQ to SQL understands the point of Tuple.Create. I suspect that it does in .NET 4.0 - but the only way to find out is to try it.
It certainly makes conceptual sense, and composability is part of the goal of LINQ - which is why I'd hope it's supported. Effectively it's just like using an anonymous type, except you get to "export" the type information out of the method, which is the point of Tuple.