I'm using MOxy to load an XSD at run-time and understand the structure of an XML matching the XSD. To clarify, I don't yet have any XML matching the XSD, I just want to understand the possible structure such an XML might have.
My problem is I can't find a way to check if an element is a list of elements, in other words if this element has a maxOccurs greater than 1.
I get an object of type DynamicType and I don't see any difference between an object matching an xs:element with one occurrence and an object for xs:element with more than one occurrence.
If MOxy can't do this, are there other libraries that can?
Thanks
Found a better library to explore an XSD - apache XMLSchema.
This library let's me walk the XSD and retrieve among other things the maxOccurs attribute.
Related
Is it possible to dynamically identify the closest common hierarchy or inheritance of two or more unknown typed objects? In other words, I'd like to test if, say, Integer and String have a common hierarchy, without knowing the objects I'm testing are going to be an Integer and String due to user selection. I found a C++ question posted that seems similar to my issue here: Check if two types are of the same template
However, I'm not familiar with any VB.net equivalents of the answers posted there, and online translators simply provide an error when I attempt to translate them. So is this even possible in VB.net in the first place?
The closest to this action that I know of is the .IsAssignableFrom() function, but in my case I don't know what the parent class/interface/whatever is to test against in the first place. the above function is the only thing even remotely related to this issue that pops up on any search I do.
The context I need this is in the Revit API; I'm trying to see if user selected elements have a similar hierarchy/inheritance that is not the Object Type, and if so to allow an action, otherwise, give a warning dialog box.
EDIT: Due to the nature of the Revit API and the desired effects of my command, the users of my plugin could select anything in the model, and I'm not able to determine which of the MANY common ancestors I could be looking for to compare using IsAssignableFrom. I could test for the (I think universal) common ancestor of Element type, but I don't want to allow users to run the command if you select a wall and an element tag. I need to find the common ancestors of the user-selected elements and confirm that the closest common ancestor is below Element type in hierarchy.
For example, the room tag element in the API has a hierarchy sort of like this:
Object -> Element -> SpatialElementTag -> RoomTag
There may be more intermediate inheritances, but I'm not going to track them down in the API documentation. And then each element may have a slightly different ancestry. IsAssignableFrom would be great if I knew the base ancestry I wanted to test for.
TnTinMn's answer gives me the type of solution I'm looking for.
The Type.BaseType Property returns:
The Type from which the current Type directly inherits, or null if the current Type represents the Object class or an interface.
Using this information, it is possible to define an iterator to enumerate the inheritance tree.
Private Iterator Function SelfAndAncestors(srcType As Type) As IEnumerable(Of Type)
Do Until srcType Is Nothing
Yield srcType
srcType = srcType.BaseType
Loop
End Function
Now you can use the Enumerable.Intersect Method to find all common types in the inheritance between two ancestry enumerations and return the first common ancestry type.
Dim t1 As Type = GetType(Form)
Dim t2 As Type = GetType(UserControl)
Dim highestCommonAncestor As Type = Enumerable.Intersect(SelfAndAncestors(t1), SelfAndAncestors(t2)).First()
For this case, the highest common ancestor is ContainerControl.
Trying to find any method name in my project matching a specific sub-string.
The example I'm currently looking for is "domain", so I'd want to see getDomain(), setDomain(), domainThing(), etc. in the results. Looking for static/instance methods of any visibility.
Find Symbol (Ctrl+Alt+Shift+N) comes close, but there's too many classes and fields cluttering up the results. Is there a way to restrict Find Symbol to only methods? Or at least group the results by symbol type?
Structural Search might be the answer, but it's comically unusable interface and documentation have defeated me once again.
SSR is the way to go. There is an existing template for the methods of the class you can start with.
Click on $Method$, Edit filters, Add filter, Text.
Enter regex to match your methods, for example .*domain.*.
Uncheck the Match case checkbox.
The final result should look like this:
I have a task that i have to complete. I know the solution but i want to make sure that my solution is according to proper OOP/Design Patterns. Here is the scenerio
1- I have 2 files with different formats. (Lets say FormatA and FormatB).
2- I want to convert data in FormatA to FormatB.
3- FormatA is plain text file with keys. Each new line is a new
key/value pair. FormatB is XML.
4- The keys in FormatA file can be same as the keys in FormatB but can also be different. Sometimes we might need to do some calculations to convert the
value to FormatB.
5- There are some chances that more keys will
be added in future to either the old one or the new one.
My solution:
I want the solution to be generic and no hardcoding. So, that if in future some key mapping change then i should not change the code.
1- First i created a "Mapping" XML file that has all the data that which key in FormatA maps to which field in FormatB. The XML structure is something like this
//oldKey = name of the key in the old file format
//newKey = name of the key in the new format
//ignore = optional. set it to true if you want to ignore this field during conversion
//function = optional.Name of a function that will be called. This function will have all the logic to do the calculations
//functionparams = optinal .key names from the old file that need calculation
//defaultvalue = optional parameter. This value will be replaced no matter what if given.
<field oldKey="abc" newKey="def" ignore="false" function="MultiplyBy2" functionparams="abc" defaultvalue="4">
2- I created a class named "TextFileParser" that loads the text file and creates a dictionary with all the keys.
3- I created a class named "MappingXMLParser" which loads the Mapping XML file and populates a dictionary with all the data.
3- I created a class "TextFileToXML" that uses the above 2 classes to write the data in the XML file. No composition is used.
4- I created a class named "Conversion". If the Mapping XML file has declared some function (like "MultiplyBy2") then the definition of functions will be in this class. I will use reflection to call the methods of this class from the class "TextFileToXML".
This is my design but i donot know that it is correct in terms of OOP/Design Patterns/architecture. Can you point out the mistakes ? What can be done better or any good approach ?
As you probably understand, there is no such thing as correct design. I would suggest following standard practices. I would follow these steps:
Translate the key-value file to a simple XML file following the simplest possible XML schema
I would use an XSLT to describe the translation between the simple XML files generated in step 1, and the final result.
Execute the transformation described in XSLT using an XML operations library. I suppose you could find one, on the specific programming language you use.
This way, in case of changing something (adding more keys in future, changing the target XML schema etc), you would only have to change the translation process described in XSLT, which is not application code but an XML file. You have nothing regarding the specific translation process hard-coded in your application.
Regarding the overall design, I would choose to use the Factory pattern. I think it matches perfectly your situation.
Hope I helped!
I wanted to know what is the use of MessageParameterAttribute in wcf.
In my function:
[OperationContract]
public float GetAirfare(
[MessageParameter(Name=”fromCity”)] string originCity,
[MessageParameter(Name=”toCity”)] string destinationCity);
I dont use fromCity or toCity anywhere in the implementation or even while using a service. Then whats the point in giving it a name?
This attribute is used to control serialization. It can be particularly useful when you want to use a keyword or type name in the resulting XSD schema that describes an incoming message. Likewise, you can control the XML element name for the return value in a response message. It can also be a useful attribute for standardizing on XML element naming conventions, separate from CLR naming conventions. For example, you may prefer to use camel case for parameter names and Pascal case for XML.
If we were to use your provided code snippet as an example, the request would look like:
<s:Body>
<GetAirFare xmlns="yournamespacehere">
<fromCity>Chicago</fromCity>
<toCity>Las Vegas</toCity>
</GetAirFare>
</s:Body>
Ok so I'm trying to use the JavaScriptSerializer to work with this code. However it crashes when it reaches the last line;
Dim json As New String(sr.Serialize(dt))
I get this error message;
A circular reference was detected
while serializing an object of type
'System.Reflection.Module'.
I would really appreciate any insights that could help solve this problem.
Circular reference means that serialising the object would result in an infinite loop.
For example if you would try to serialize object "A" having a 1 to 1 reference to object "B".
Declare a class containg the data you want to serialize with JSON to solve this issue.
As hkda150 has already said, you could use a class specifically tailored for being serialized.
This will furthermore enable you to have foreign key values serialized instead of having related full objects serialized. Thus, if you are serializing object a which has a property a.SomeB of type B, then you will often want the ID of a.someB to be present in your webpage. Obviously I don't know enough to be able to say if this is relevant in your specific use case.
BTW, If you find yourself doing a lot of mapping between "business objects" and "objects meant for serialization" you may want to consider using AutoMapper.