what is wrong with this linq query that show me the error of Does not contain a definition for 'union'
(from rev in db.vM29s
where Years.Contains(rev.FinancialYear) && rev.Exclude=="No"
group rev by new { rev.RevenueCode, rev.FinancialYear } into g
select new
{
Revenuecode = g.Key.RevenueCode,
totalRevenue = g.Sum(x => x.RevenueAmount),
RevenueEnglish = (from a in db.RevenueCodes where a._RevenueCode == g.Key.RevenueCode select a.RevenueEng).FirstOrDefault(),
// MinorCode = (from a in db.MinorCodes where a._MinorCode == g.Key.MinorCode select a.MinorEng),
RevenueDari = (from a in db.RevenueCodes where a._RevenueCode == g.Key.RevenueCode select a.RevenueDari).FirstOrDefault(),
Yearss = g.Key.FinancialYear
}
)
.Union
(from u in db.rtastable
where Years.Contains(u.Year)
group u by new { u.objectcode, u.Year } into g
select new
{
Revenuecode = g.Key.objectcode,
totalRevenue = g.Sum(x => x.amount),
RevenueEnglish = (from a in db.RevenueCodes where a._RevenueCode == g.Key.objectcode select a.RevenueEng).FirstOrDefault(),
// MinorCode = (from a in db.MinorCodes where a._MinorCode == g.Key.MinorCode select a.MinorEng),
RevenueDari = (from a in db.RevenueCodes where a._RevenueCode == g.Key.objectcode select a.RevenueDari).FirstOrDefault(),
Yearss = g.Key.Year
}
)
.ToList();
If you included using System.Linq; and both Anonymous Types have exactly the same property names + property types, then what you did should work.
Yet it does not work. The solution is to check your Anonymous Types for subtle property name differences and/or subtle property type differences.
E.g. even an int vs a smallint or double or decimal will cause this build error:
'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<AnonymousType#1>' does not contain a definition for 'Union' and the best extension method overload 'System.Linq.Queryable.Union(System.Linq.IQueryable, System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable)' has some invalid arguments
Switching to .Concat() will not fix this: it has the same (obvious) restriction that the types on both sides must be compatible.
After you fix the naming or typing problem, I would recommend that you consider switching to .Concat(). The reason: .Union() will call .Equals() on all objects to eliminate duplicates, but that is pointless because no two Anonymous Objects that were created independently will ever be the same object (even if their contents would be the same).
If it was your specific intention to eliminate duplicates, then you need to create a class that holds your data and that implements .Equals() in a way that makes sense.
You should use Concat or using addRange if the data is allready in memory.
Related
I apologize for the title, I don't exactly know how to word it. But essentially, this is a graph-type query but I know RavenDB's graph functionality will be going away so this probably needs to be solved with Javascript.
Here is the scenario:
I have a bunch of documents of different types, call them A, B, C, D. Each of these particular types of documents have some common properties. The one that I'm interested in right now is "Owner". The owner field is an ID which points to one of two other document types; it can be a Group or a User.
The Group document has a 'Members' field which contains an ID which either points to a User or another Group. Something like this
It's worth noting that the documents in play have custom IDs that begin with their entity type. For example Users and Groups begin with user: and group: respectively. Example IDs look like this: user:john#castleblack.com or group:the-nights-watch. This comes into play later.
What I want to be able to do is the following type of query:
"Given that I have either a group id or a user id, return all documents of type a, b, or c where the group/user id is equal to or is a descendant of the document's owner."
In other words, I need to be able to return all documents that are owned by a particular user or group either explicitly or implicitly through a hierarchy.
I've considered solving this a couple different ways with no luck. Here are the two approaches I've tried:
Using a function within a query
With Dejan's help in an email thread, I was able to devise a function that would walk it's way down the ownership graph. What this attempted to do was build a flat array of IDs which represented explicit and implicit owners (i.e. root + descendants):
declare function hierarchy(doc, owners){
owners = owners || [];
while(doc != null) {
let ownerId = id(doc)
if(ownerId.startsWith('user:')) {
owners.push(ownerId);
} else if(ownerId.startsWith('group:')) {
owners.push(ownerId);
doc.Members.forEach(m => {
let owner = load(m, 'Users') || load(m, 'Groups');
owners = hierarchy(owner, owners);
});
}
}
return owners;
}
I had two issues with this. 1. I don't actually know how to use this in a query lol. I tried to use it as part of the where clause but apparently that's not allowed:
from #all_docs as d
where hierarchy(d) = 'group:my-group-d'
// error: method hierarchy not allowed
Or if I tried anything in the select statement, I got an error that I have exceeded the number of allowed statements.
As a custom index
I tried the same idea through a custom index. Essentially, I tried to create an index that would produce an array of IDs using roughly the same function above, so that I could just query where my id was in that array
map('#all_docs', function(doc) {
function hierarchy(n, graph) {
while(n != null) {
let ownerId = id(n);
if(ownerId.startsWith('user:')) {
graph.push(ownerId);
return graph;
} else if(ownerId.startsWith('group:')){
graph.push(ownerId);
n.Members.forEach(g => {
let owner = load(g, 'Groups') || load(g, 'Users');
hierarchy(owner, graph);
});
return graph;
}
}
}
function distinct(value, index, self){ return self.indexOf(value) === index; }
let ownerGraph = []
if(doc.Owner) {
let owner = load(doc.Owner, 'Groups') || load(doc.Owner, 'Users');
ownerGraph = hierarchy(owner, ownerGraph).filter(distinct);
}
return { Owners: ownerGraph };
})
// error: recursion is not allowed by the javascript host
The problem with this is that I'm getting an error that recursion is not allowed.
So I'm stumped now. Am I going about this wrong? I feel like this could be a subquery of sorts or a filter by function, but I'm not sure how to do that either. Am I going to have to do this in two separate queries (i.e. two round-trips), one to get the IDs and the other to get the docs?
Update 1
I've revised my attempt at the index to the following and I'm not getting the recursion error anymore, but assuming my queries are correct, it's not returning anything
// Entity/ByOwnerGraph
map('#all_docs', function(doc) {
function walkGraph(ownerId) {
let owners = []
let idsToProcess = [ownerId]
while(idsToProcess.length > 0) {
let current = idsToProcess.shift();
if(current.startsWith('user:')){
owners.push(current);
} else if(current.startsWith('group:')) {
owners.push(current);
let group = load(current, 'Groups')
if(!group) { continue; }
idsToProcess.concat(group.Members)
}
}
return owners;
}
let owners = [];
if(doc.Owner) {
owners.concat(walkGraph(doc.Owner))
}
return { Owners: owners };
})
// query (no results)
from index Entity/ByOwnerGraph as x
where x.Owners = "group:my-group-id"
// alternate query (no results)
from index Entity/ByOwnerGraph as x
where x.Owners ALL IN ("group:my-group-id")
I still can't use this approach in a query either as I get the same error that there are too many statements.
I try to implement a search with entity when a search field is provided
but I get a weird casting error I just dont understand
Unable to cast object of type 'Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query.Internal.EntityQueryable`1[SomeApp.Models.Partner]' to type 'Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.DbSet`1[SomeApp.Models.Partner]'.
here is the code of my controller entry point
I tried forcing the cast, but apparently there is something wrong with my code
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult<PartnersFetch>> GetPartners(PartnersSearch partnersSearch)
{
DbSet<Partner> data = _context.Partners;
if (partnersSearch.SearchById != null)
{
// the following line causes problems :
data = (DbSet <Partner>) data.Where( p => p.Id == partnersSearch.SearchById.GetValueOrDefault());
}
thanks for helping me on this
I forgot to use AsQueryable
var data = _context.Partners.AsQueryable();
if (partnersSearch.SearchById != null)
{
data = data.Where( p => p.Id == partnersSearch.SearchById.GetValueOrDefault());
}
data.Where(...) will return an IQueryable which you can materialize as follows
List<Partner> myResult = data.Where(...).ToList();
The DbSet<Partner> is only the set on which you can query data. Your goal very likely is to get the partners out of it, right?
I am storing some filter data in my table. Let me make it more clear: I want to store some where clauses and their values in a database and use them when I want to retrieve data from a database.
For example, consider a people table (entity set) and some filters on it in another table:
"age" , "> 70"
"gender" , "= male"
Now when I retrieve data from the people table I want to get these filters to filter my data.
I know I can generate a SQL query as a string and execute that but is there any other better way in EF, LINQ?
One solution is to use Dynamic Linq Library , using this library you can have:
filterTable = //some code to retrive it
var whereClause = string.Join(" AND ", filterTable.Select(x=> x.Left + x.Right));
var result = context.People.Where(whereClause).ToList();
Assuming that filter table has columns Left and Right and you want to join filters by AND.
My suggestion is to include more details in the filter table, for example separate the operators from operands and add a column that determines the join is And or OR and a column that determines the other row which joins this one. You need a tree structure if you want to handle more complex queries like (A and B)Or(C and D).
Another solution is to build expression tree from filter table. Here is a simple example:
var arg = Expression.Parameter(typeof(People));
Expression whereClause;
for(var row in filterTable)
{
Expression rowClause;
var left = Expression.PropertyOrField(arg, row.PropertyName);
//here a type cast is needed for example
//var right = Expression.Constant(int.Parse(row.Right));
var right = Expression.Constant(row.Right, left.Member.MemberType);
switch(row.Operator)
{
case "=":
rowClause = Expression.Equal(left, right);
break;
case ">":
rowClause = Expression.GreaterThan(left, right);
break;
case ">=":
rowClause = Expression.GreaterThanOrEqual(left, right);
break;
}
if(whereClause == null)
{
whereClause = rowClause;
}
else
{
whereClause = Expression.AndAlso(whereClause, rowClause);
}
}
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<People, bool>>(whereClause, arg);
context.People.Where(lambda);
this is very simplified example, you should do many validations type casting and ... in order to make this works for all kind of queries.
This is an interesting question. First off, make sure you're honest with yourself: you are creating a new query language, and this is not a trivial task (however trivial your expressions may seem).
If you're certain you're not underestimating the task, then you'll want to look at LINQ expression trees (reference documentation).
Unfortunately, it's quite a broad subject, I encourage you to learn the basics and ask more specific questions as they come up. Your goal is to interpret your filter expression records (fetched from your table) and create a LINQ expression tree for the predicate that they represent. You can then pass the tree to Where() calls as usual.
Without knowing what your UI looks like here is a simple example of what I was talking about in my comments regarding Serialize.Linq library
public void QuerySerializeDeserialize()
{
var exp = "(User.Age > 7 AND User.FirstName == \"Daniel\") OR User.Age < 10";
var user = Expression.Parameter(typeof (User), "User");
var parsExpression =
System.Linq.Dynamic.DynamicExpression.ParseLambda(new[] {user}, null, exp);
//Convert the Expression to JSON
var query = e.ToJson();
//Deserialize JSON back to expression
var serializer = new ExpressionSerializer(new JsonSerializer());
var dExp = serializer.DeserializeText(query);
using (var context = new AppContext())
{
var set = context.Set<User>().Where((Expression<Func<User, bool>>) dExp);
}
}
You can probably get fancier using reflection and invoking your generic LINQ query based on the types coming in from the expression. This way you can avoid casting the expression like I did at the end of the example.
I'm sorting a large database by the quantity of outgoing relationships. I have a working Cypher query as follows:
optional match (n)-[r]->(m)
return n, Count(r) as c
order by c DESC limit 1;
The Cypher query is working as anticipated. However, as I am debugging and stepping through the Cypher -> Neo4jClient conversion, I cannot seem to find the root of the issue.
public ReturnPayload[] getByConnections()
{
var query = client.Cypher
.OptionalMatch("(p)-[r]->(m)")
.Return((p, r, m, c) => new
{
p = p.As<Person>(),
pid = (int)p.Id(),
e = r.As<RelationshipInstance<Object>>(),
m = m.As<Metadata>(),
c = r.Count()
}).OrderByDescending("c").Limit(1);
var res = query.Results;
var payload = new List<ReturnPayload>();
foreach (var el in res)
{
var t = new ReturnPayload();
t.e = el.e;
t.m = el.m;
t.pid = el.pid;
t.p = el.p;
payload.Add(t);
}
return payload.ToArray<ReturnPayload>();
}
I suspect that a part of the problem may be that I am not utilizing CollectAs<T>() and thus it is referring a count of '1' per each person. Unfortunately, I have attempted using CollectAs<T>() and CollectAsDisctinct<T>() and my resultant JSON architecture is only wrapping each individual element in an array, as opposed to aggregating identical elements into an array proper.
The FOREACH loop is there to assist in converting from the anonymous type into my relatively standard <ReturnPayload> which does not utilize a c object within its parameters.
Your time is appreciated, thank you.
Debugged Query Test:
OPTIONAL MATCH (p)-[r]->(m)
RETURN p AS p, id(p) AS pid, r AS e, m AS m, count(r) AS c
ORDER BY c DESC
LIMIT {p0}
And my 'functional' Cypher query:
optional match (n)-[r]->(m)
return n, Count(r) as c
order by c DESC limit 1;
So, you've identified yourself that you're running two different queries. This is the issue: your C# does not match the Cypher you're expecting.
To make the C# match the working Cypher, change it to this:
var query = client.Cypher
.OptionalMatch("(n)-[r]->(m)")
.Return((n, r) => new
{
n = n.As<Person>(),
c = r.Count()
})
.OrderByDescending("c")
.Limit(1);
That should now produce the same query, and thus the same output as you're expecting from the working Cypher.
On a purely stylistic note, you can also simplify your foreach query to a more functional equivalent:
var payload = query
.Results
.Select(r => new ReturnPayload {
n = r.n,
c = r.c
})
.ToArray();
return payload;
However, as I look closer as your query, it looks like you just want the count for the sake of getting the top 1, then you're throwing it away.
Consider using the WITH clause:
optional match (n)-[r]->(m)
with n as n, count(r) as c
order by c desc
limit 1
return n
You can map that back to C# using similar syntax:
var query = client.Cypher
.OptionalMatch("(n)-[r]->(m)")
.With((n, r) => new
{
n = n.As<Person>(),
c = r.Count()
})
.OrderByDescending("c")
.Limit(1)
.Return(n => new ReturnPayload // <-- Introduce the type here too
{
n = n.As<Person>()
});
Then, you don't need to query for data and just throw it away with another foreach loop. (You'll notice I introduce the DTO type in the Return call as well, so you don't have to translate it out of the anonymous type either.)
(Disclaimer: I'm just typing all of this C# straight into the answer; I haven't double checked the compilation, so my signatures might be slightly off.)
Hope that helps!
Understanding Magento Models by reference of SQL:
select * from user_devices where user_id = 1
select * from user_devices where device_id = 3
How could I perform the same using my magento models? getModel("module/userdevice")
Also, how can I find the number of rows for each query
Following questions have been answered in this thread.
How to perform a where clause ?
How to retrieve the size of the result set ?
How to retrieve the first item in the result set ?
How to paginate the result set ? (limit)
How to name the model ?
You are referring to Collections
Some references for you:
http://www.magentocommerce.com/knowledge-base/entry/magento-for-dev-part-5-magento-models-and-orm-basics
http://alanstorm.com/magento_collections
http://www.magentocommerce.com/wiki/1_-_installation_and_configuration/using_collections_in_magento
lib/varien/data/collection/db.php and lib/varien/data/collection.php
So, assuming your module is set up correctly, you would use a collection to retrieve multiple objects of your model type.
Syntax for this is:
$yourCollection = Mage::getModel('module/userdevice')->getCollection()
Magento has provided some great features for developers to use with collections. So your example above is very simple to achieve:
$yourCollection = Mage::getModel('module/userdevice')->getCollection()
->addFieldToFilter('user_id', 1)
->addFieldToFilter('device_id', 3);
You can get the number of objects returned:
$yourCollection->count() or simply count($yourCollection)
EDIT
To answer the question posed in the comment: "what If I do not require a collection but rather just a particular object"
This depends if you still require both conditions in the original question to be satisfied or if you know the id of the object you wish to load.
If you know the id of the object then simply:
Mage::getModel('module/userdevice')->load($objectId);
but if you wish to still load based on the two attributes:
user_id = 1
device_id = 3
then you would still use a collection but simply return the first object (assuming that only one object could only ever satisfy both conditions).
For reuse, wrap this logic in a method and place in your model:
public function loadByUserDevice($userId, $deviceId)
{
$collection = $this->getResourceCollection()
->addFieldToFilter('user_id', $userId)
->addFieldToFilter('device_id', $deviceId)
->setCurPage(1)
->setPageSize(1)
;
foreach ($collection as $obj) {
return $obj;
}
return false;
}
You would call this as follows:
$userId = 1;
$deviceId = 3;
Mage::getModel('module/userdevice')->loadByUserDevice($userId, $deviceId);
NOTE:
You could shorten the loadByUserDevice to the following, though you would not get the benefit of the false return value should no object be found:
public function loadByUserDevice($userId, $deviceId)
{
$collection = $this->getResourceCollection()
->addFieldToFilter('user_id', $userId)
->addFieldToFilter('device_id', $deviceId)
;
return $collection->getFirstItem();
}