I have the following class:
public class ReturnDto
{
[Column("PARC_NUM")]
public int ParcelNumber { get; set; }
~[Column("CUSTOM_TAXE")] or [Column("AUTOMATIC_TAXE")]~
public decimal Taxe { get; set; }
}
I'm working in this Api using Dapper/Dommel and that class is supposed to be filled with the values from the data base. The problems is that it doesn't work for the second property (the "Taxe" one) because, as follows, the Query have two possible columns to take the value from:
...
ag.PARC_NUM AS ,
case when pp.IDT_MODALID = 3 then ag.CUSTOM_TAXE else ag.AUTOMATIC_TAXE end AS Taxe,
...
I tried setting the column name as Taxe (because that's how I name it, after all), but it just doesn't get mapped correctly. Actually, it just throws an exception poiting that such thing doesn't exist.
I am missing some standard setting or it just can't be done that way?
Try assign one of the valid column name
case when pp.IDT_MODALID = 3
then ag.CUSTOM_TAXE
else ag.AUTOMATIC_TAXE
end AS AUTOMATIC_TAXE ,
or add a field in the class
public class ReturnDto
{
[Column("PARC_NUM")]
public int ParcelNumber { get; set; }
~[Column("CUSTOM_TAXE")] or [Column("AUTOMATIC_TAXE")]~
public decimal Taxe { get; set; }
[Column("TAXE")]
public decimal Taxe { get; set; }
}
Related
I have two simple models in .net backend based Azure Mobile Service Project, as shown below & I am not able to query the child table (querying parent table, UserItem, works just fine)
(The Id is nvarchar(128) & is autogenerated as newId by DB)
public class AnswerItem: EntityData
{
public string Content { get; set; }
public UserItem By { get; set; }
public QuestionItem ForQuestion { get; set; }
public double Rating { get; set; }
public string Comment { get; set; }
}
& a child to this UserItem Table as shown below
public class QuestionItem: EntityData
{
public string Content { get; set; }
public bool IsAnswered { get; set; }
public int NumberOfAnswers {get; set;}
public UserItem By { get; set; }
public string ById { get; set; }
public string AtLocation { get; set; }
}
As you notice, the QuestionItem has a FK relationship to UserItem table on ById field (Referencing Id field in UserItem Table)
The issue is I am getting a Bad Request error when I try to query the data from child table
Following are some queries that I tried
private IMobileServiceTable<QuestionItem> questionTable = App.MobileService.GetTable<QuestionItem>();
questions = await questionTable.Where(x=>x.IsAnswered==true).ToCollectionAsync(); (Does not Work)
questions = await questionTable.Where(x=>x.ById="UserIdGoesHere").ToCollectionAsync(); (Does Not Work)
questions = await questionTable.Where(x=>x.Content.StartsWith("q")).ToCollectionAsync(); (This Works)
questions = await questionTable.ToCollectionAsync(); (This Works as well)
If I fire a TSQL query in Sql Server Object explorer they all return correct values.
I am at my wits end on what could be wrong with my approach.
Any help is really appreciated.
Thanks
Supreet
Investigating further the Request it was generating was like this
192.168.2.4:50002/tables/QuestionItem?$filter=(byid eq 'myUniqueGuId')
analyzing fiddler output shows this error
"The query specified in the URI is not valid. Could not find a property named 'byid' on type 'x2Service.DataObjects.QuestionItem'"
Off course there is no fields in the table by the name of 'byid' the one I have is called 'ById' Its the JsonProperty adorner that changed it [JsonProperty(PropertyName = "byid")] In my client class.
Removed the Json Property & it worked just fine
I keep getting error when I try to access a model from an edit or details action.
The model backing the 'InjuriesContext' context has changed since the
database was created. Consider using Code First Migrations to update
the database (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=238269).
First I tried adding a migration even though I was sure I hadn't changed anything. Still recieved the same error after an update-database.
Then I removed all the migrations and the database and started a clean database with an inital migration and update. Same error. Nothing was changed.
Model is:
public class InjuriesContext : DbContext
{
public InjuriesContext()
: base("DBCon")
{
}
public DbSet<Patient> Patients { get; set; }
public DbSet<Injury> Injuries { get; set; }
}
public class Injury
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
public int PatientId { get; set; }
}
Here is controller --
public ActionResult Edit(int id = 0)
{
Injury injury = db.Injuries.Find(id);
if (injury == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(injury);
}
It errors on the injuries.find. I do not have any injuries entered so I expect it to return a 404 like my other controllers but it doesn't like something about this. The only difference between this and my other models is the y to ies for plural. Does Entity Framework not handle this?
There should not be any plural restriction, as you defined everything clearly in your classes anyway.
Have you created the Injuries table?
I belive the table Injury will get created automatically. the variable injury might be a bit close, but I have to test this myself.
Rather try:
public class Injury
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Type { get; set; }
[Required]
public int PatientId { get; set; }
}
private InjuriesContext db = new InjuriesContext();
Injury objInjury = db.Injuries.Find(id);
if (objInjury == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(objInjury);
Hope this helps
It turns out my issue was with multiple contexts. I thought you had to create a separate context for each model class. Apparently Entity Framework needs one context. I went through and created a class for my context and put all my DBsets in that class.
public class ProjContexts : DbContext
{
public ProjContexts()
: base("ProjDBCon")
{
}
public DbSet<Patient> Patients { get; set; }
public DbSet<PreHosp> PreHosps { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserProfile> UserProfiles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Injury> Injuries { get; set; }
}
}
Then I removed all the migrations as per this post and enabled the migrations again did an add migration and update then I got the expected result.
Bottom Line--- Don't have multiple context classes in your project. Not sure if this is possible but after changing the above everything is working as expected. Not sure why it was working when I had two separate contexts and added the third? Maybe because they had foreign keys with one another?
I have a simple class hierarchy looking like this:
public class Top
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public List<Middle> Middles { get; set; }
}
public class Middle
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public List<Bottom> Bottoms { get; set; }
}
public class Bottom
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
The whole thing is saved as entity of type 'Top'. Document is designed to preserve and reflect relationships/hierarchy but half but at time I will, for example, care only about an 'Id' and 'Description' of a given relationship. So, the types of queries I'd want to run are
select all Top,
select all Middle,
select Middle where Top.Id=somevalue
select Bottom where Top.Id=somevalue and Middle.Id=somevalue
I would like the results to be transformed and returned to me like this:
public class Result
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
How can I implement TransformResults (I presume that that's the feature that can be used) to achieve this? I've read quite a few examples but all of the sudden I see parameters/values, which were not declared anywhere and as a result I don't understand what's happening.
TransformResults doesn't have access to the outside world, you can't execute logic based on the query that you run.
You can flatten this structure, sure, but unless you will create multiple indexes with different TransformResults, you can't do this.
Note that this is a strange thing to do in the first place, because it doesn't matches the standard modeling of documents as a transaction boundary.
I am using MVC3 and Entity Framework. I have a class called User with 20 different properties. I have already created a database and filled it with some data. I want to break out the Addresses property and make it it's own class.
namespace NameSpace.Domain.Entities
{
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
...
...
public string AddressOne { get; set; }
public string AddressTwo { get; set; }
}
}
I want to break out both Addresses like so
namespace NameSpace.Domain.Entities
{
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
...
...
public Addresses Addresses { get; set; }
}
public class Addresses
{
public string AddressOne { get; set; }
public string AddressTwo { get; set; }
}
}
HERE'S MY QUESTION:
Since I already have the data table filled with data, how can I update this in the Server Explorer?
Thanks ( if you need more info please let me know )
If you are using EF code first 4.3 you can use the concept of migrations to achive what you want.
You will need to do a code based manual migration since you change is a bit to advanced for the framework to figure it out itselfe.
Further reading: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2012/02/09/ef-4-3-code-based-migrations-walkthrough.aspx
I have a class like this:
public class test
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual char testType { get; set; }
public virtual char testType2 { get; set; }
}
When I create this, but don't specificy testType2, I want the value to be "null" in the database. Instead, the value is an empty char. One way that I found to force this to be null is to use char? for the type. However, this apparently doesn't work for strings (doesn't compile), and I really don't want to mess with nullable types. Is there any way to get fluent nhibernate to always save uninitialized variables as "null"?
Edit: uninitialized string variables are saved as "null" in the db. I still need a solution for char and int.
public class test
{
public virtual int? Id { get; private set; }
public virtual DateTime? SomeDate { get; private set; }
public virtual char? testType { get; set; }
public virtual char? testType2 { get; set; }
}
All you need to do is to add a ? after the type.