When using ria service for SL app, I can issue following async call to get a group of entity list.
LoadOperation<Person> ch =
this.AMSContext.Load(this.AMSContext.GetPersonQuery().Where(a => a.PersonID == this.performer.PersonID));
But I want to get some calculation, for example, sum(Commission), sum(Salary), the result is not entity, just a scalar value. How can I do this?
You could use methods that return any values with WCF methods.
On the server side you will have something like this
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class AMSContext : DomainService
{
public float CalucalteCommissionSum()
{
// make your linq query and return the result here
}
}
And you can access it from the client like this :
this.AMSContext.CalucalteCommissionSum(x => context_CalucalteCommissionSumCompleted(x), null);
void context_CalucalteCommissionSumCompleted(System.Windows.Ria.InvokeOperation<float> op)
{
// you will have the value in op.Value
}
Check this question for more details.
Related
I am using the repository pattern with Entity Framework as described in this article: repository pattern with Entity Framework
In the part where the GenericRepository is described (Generic Repository) there is a method which is used to get entities from the database set called Get. It has an orderBy but no groupBy. I am wondering how one might implement a groupBy in the same manner as the orderBy so that you can specify which field to group by dynamically on the entity.
What I have come up with is this:
Func<IQueryable<TEntity>, IGrouping<string, TEntity>> groupBy = null
and then in the method code it should be used something like this:
if(groupBy != null)
{
query = groupBy(query).ToList();
}
But this is not compiling since the IGrouping is not queryable. Does someone know how to point me in the right direction or has a solution to this?
Edit: The reason for doing this instead of using groupby on the returned list is for performance reasons. I want the groupby to be sent as an sql statement to the database and resolved there.
Grouping has no sense without projection. So you have to define new method which returns IEnumerable with new type.
I have added sample of such method. Also removed includeProperties because EF Core ignores Includes during grouping.
Usage sample:
_orderRepostory
.GetGrouped(e => e.UserId, g => new { UserId = g.Key, Count = g.Count()});
And implementation:
public class GenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
... // other code
public virtual IEnumerable<TResult> GetGrouped<TKey, TResult>(
Expression<Func<TEntity, TKey>> groupingKey,
Expression<Func<IGrouping<TKey, TEntity>, TResult>> resultSelector,
Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>>? filter = null)
{
var query = dbSet.AsQueryable();
if (filter != null)
{
query = query.Where(filter);
}
return query.GroupBy(groupingKey).Select(resultSelector);
}
}
I have this linq query (using linq 4.3.0):
return ExecuteODataQuery(Db.AdvisorFees, f => f.Advisor);
Implemented as follows:
protected IQueryable<TType> ExecuteODataQuery<TType>(IQueryable<TType> queryFunc, Func<TType, Advisor> advisorFunc) where TType : Entity
{
var systemAccount = GetSystemAccountThrow();
var results = queryFunc.Where(x => x.Active).AsEnumerable().Where(x => CheckAdvisorOrChannel(systemAccount, advisorFunc(x)));
return results;
}
This is my custom method:
public static bool CheckAdvisorOrChannel(SystemAccount systemAccount, Advisor advisor)
{
return (systemAccount.IsChannelSystemAccount ? systemAccount.Channel.Code == advisor.Channel.Code : systemAccount.Advisor.Code == advisor.Code);
}
This currently works. If I remove the AsEnumerable() I get a LinqToEntities not supported exception on my custom method. I cannot use AsEnumerable() as I have too many records and do not want to do the rest of the filtering in memory. Is it possible to call a custom method on IQueryable instead? I've been playin with extension methods and expressions but have not managed to get this working yet. Any pointers?
I would prefer to not use expression trees as much as possible.
Currently I'm developing an OAuth2 authorization server using DotNetOpenAuth CTP version. My authorization server is in asp.net MVC3, and it's based on the sample provided by the library. Everything works fine until the app reaches the point where the user authorizes the consumer client.
There's an action inside my OAuth controller which takes care of the authorization process, and is very similar to the equivalent action in the sample:
[Authorize, HttpPost, ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public ActionResult AuthorizeResponse(bool isApproved)
{
var pendingRequest = this.authorizationServer.ReadAuthorizationRequest();
if (pendingRequest == null)
{
throw new HttpException((int)HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, "Missing authorization request.");
}
IDirectedProtocolMessage response;
if (isApproved)
{
var client = MvcApplication.DataContext.Clients.First(c => c.ClientIdentifier == pendingRequest.ClientIdentifier);
client.ClientAuthorizations.Add(
new ClientAuthorization
{
Scope = OAuthUtilities.JoinScopes(pendingRequest.Scope),
User = MvcApplication.LoggedInUser,
CreatedOn = DateTime.UtcNow,
});
MvcApplication.DataContext.SaveChanges();
response = this.authorizationServer.PrepareApproveAuthorizationRequest(pendingRequest, User.Identity.Name);
}
else
{
response = this.authorizationServer.PrepareRejectAuthorizationRequest(pendingRequest);
}
return this.authorizationServer.Channel.PrepareResponse(response).AsActionResult();
}
Everytime the program reaches this line:
this.authorizationServer.Channel.PrepareResponse(response).AsActionResult();
The system throws an exception which I have researched with no success. The exception is the following:
Only parameterless constructors and initializers are supported in LINQ to Entities.
The stack trace: http://pastebin.com/TibCax2t
The only thing I've done differently from the sample is that I used entity framework's code first approach, an I think the sample was done using a designer which autogenerated the entities.
Thank you in advance.
If you started from the example, the problem Andrew is talking about stays in DatabaseKeyNonceStore.cs. The exception is raised by one on these two methods:
public CryptoKey GetKey(string bucket, string handle) {
// It is critical that this lookup be case-sensitive, which can only be configured at the database.
var matches = from key in MvcApplication.DataContext.SymmetricCryptoKeys
where key.Bucket == bucket && key.Handle == handle
select new CryptoKey(key.Secret, key.ExpiresUtc.AsUtc());
return matches.FirstOrDefault();
}
public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>> GetKeys(string bucket) {
return from key in MvcApplication.DataContext.SymmetricCryptoKeys
where key.Bucket == bucket
orderby key.ExpiresUtc descending
select new KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>(key.Handle, new CryptoKey(key.Secret, key.ExpiresUtc.AsUtc()));
}
I've resolved moving initializations outside of the query:
public CryptoKey GetKey(string bucket, string handle) {
// It is critical that this lookup be case-sensitive, which can only be configured at the database.
var matches = from key in db.SymmetricCryptoKeys
where key.Bucket == bucket && key.Handle == handle
select key;
var match = matches.FirstOrDefault();
CryptoKey ck = new CryptoKey(match.Secret, match.ExpiresUtc.AsUtc());
return ck;
}
public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>> GetKeys(string bucket) {
var matches = from key in db.SymmetricCryptoKeys
where key.Bucket == bucket
orderby key.ExpiresUtc descending
select key;
List<KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>> en = new List<KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>>();
foreach (var key in matches)
en.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, CryptoKey>(key.Handle, new CryptoKey(key.Secret, key.ExpiresUtc.AsUtc())));
return en.AsEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,CryptoKey>>();
}
I'm not sure that this is the best way, but it works!
It looks like your ICryptoKeyStore implementation may be attempting to store CryptoKey directly, but it's not a class that is compatible with the Entity framework (due to not have a public default constructor). Instead, define your own entity class for storing the data in CryptoKey and your ICryptoKeyStore is responsible to transition between the two data types for persistence and retrieval.
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 am using Entity Framework 4.0 and trying to use the "Contains" function of one the object sets in my context object. to do so i coded a Comparer class:
public class RatingInfoComparer : IEqualityComparer<RatingInfo>
{
public bool Equals(RatingInfo x, RatingInfo y)
{
var a = new {x.PlugInID,x.RatingInfoUserIP};
var b = new {y.PlugInID,y.RatingInfoUserIP};
if(a.PlugInID == b.PlugInID && a.RatingInfoUserIP.Equals(b.RatingInfoUserIP))
return true;
else
return false;
}
public int GetHashCode(RatingInfo obj)
{
var a = new { obj.PlugInID, obj.RatingInfoUserIP };
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(obj, null))
return 0;
return a.GetHashCode();
}
}
when i try to use the comparer with this code:
public void SaveRatingInfo2(int plugInId, string userInfo)
{
RatingInfo ri = new RatingInfo()
{
PlugInID = plugInId,
RatingInfoUser = userInfo,
RatingInfoUserIP = "192.168.1.100"
};
//This is where i get the execption
if (!context.RatingInfoes.Contains<RatingInfo>(ri, new RatingInfoComparer()))
{
//my Entity Framework context object
context.RatingInfoes.AddObject(ri);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
i get an execption:
"LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Boolean Contains[RatingInfo](System.Linq.IQueryable1[OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo], OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo,
System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer1[OlafCMSLibrary.Models.RatingInfo])' method, and his method cannot be translated into a store expression."
Since i am not proficient with linQ and Entity Framework i might be making a mistake with my use of the "var" either in the "GetHashCode" function or in general.
If my mistake is clear to you do tell me :) it does not stop my project! but it is essential for me to understand why a simple comparer doesnt work.
Thanks
Aaron
LINQ to Entities works by converting an expression tree into queries against an object model through the IQueryable interface. This means than you can only put things into the expression tree which LINQ to Entities understands.
It doesn't understand the Contains method you are using, so it throws the exception you see. Here is a list of methods which it understands.
Under the Set Methods section header, it lists Contains using an item as supported, but it lists Contains with an IEqualityComparer as not supported. This is presumably because it would have to be able to work out how to convert your IEqualityComparer into a query against the object model, which would be difficult. You might be able to do what you want using multiple Where clauses, see which ones are supported further up the document.