I've been making use of binding to sample data so that I can get a feel of what the app is going to look like during runtime.
Things have been going great until I had to bind to a List<>. I made a sample application to demonstrate the problem.
Person.cs
public string FullName { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
public string Sex { get; set; }
public List<string> Friends { get; set; }
MainViewModelSampleData.xaml
<vm:MainViewModel
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:vm="clr-namespace:StackoverflowQuestion.ViewModels">
<vm:MainViewModel.Items>
<vm:Person FullName="Homer Simpson" Age="45" Sex="Male" />
<vm:Person FullName="Bruce Wayne" Age="32" Sex="Male" Friends="" />
</vm:MainViewModel.Items>
I can get the design view to correctly shows the string FullName, int Age, and string Sex.
What I don't know and can't figure out is how to bind data from List<string> Friends so that I can view it on the design view.
The solution is 'extracting' the Friends value
<vm:Person FullName="Bruce Wayne" Age="32" Sex="Male">
<vm:Person.Friends>
<x:String>First</x:String>
<x:String>Second</x:String>
</vm:Person.Friends>
Depending on the version of App x:String is necessary or the literal directly
<vm:Person FullName="Bruce Wayne" Age="32" Sex="Male">
<vm:Person.Friends>
First
Second
</vm:Person.Friends>
And the last option is add the following namespace
xmlns:System="clr-namespace:System;assembly=mscorlib"
<phone:PhoneApplicationPage.DataContext>
<local:Person Name="ww">
<local:Person.Friends>
<System:String>one</System:String>
<System:String>one</System:String>
</local:Person.Friends>
</local:Person>
Related
I created a custom field and trying to add the warehouse selector to it.I try to read from the customization guide and tried it but,the selector does not show up in the custom field.
This is the code I tried.
#region UsrCustomSite
[PXDBInt]
[PXUIField(DisplayName="Warehouse", Visibility = PXUIVisibility.SelectorVisible)]
[PXSelector(typeof(Search<IN.INSite.siteCD>),typeof(IN.INSite.descr),DescriptionField =(typeof(IN.INSite.siteCD)),SubstituteKey =(typeof(IN.INSite.siteCD)),DirtyRead =true)]
public virtual int? UsrCustomSite { get; set; }
public abstract class usrCustomSite : PX.Data.BQL.BqlInt.Field { }
#endregion
Am I missing something here?
I would try changing
[PXSelector(typeof(Search<IN.INSite.siteCD>)
to
[PXSelector(typeof(Search<IN.INSite.siteID>)
You are storing an int so you want the id, the substitute Key setting will make it so that the UI will show the CD.
I am trying to learn, and I want to create a application that works like this: When they click a button, it will choose a random food(for example baked potato), and whey they click the label(or button) with the food, the recipe for that food will open in a browser.
I have tried making a list or some sort, but not sure how to do this:
<local:People x:Food="ArrayFood">
<sys:String Pasta="One" URL="http://food.com/pasta"/>
<sys:String Corn="Two" URL="http://food.com/corn"/>
<sys:String Salsa="Three" URL="http://food.com/Salsa"/>
</local:People>
I think the problem you're running into is the String type doesn't have those properties of Pasta, Corn, Salsa, or URL.
Probably the easiest thing is not to store that in the resource dictionary at all. I would store a list of custom objects in the ViewModel.
Something like:
public class Food
{
public Food() {}
public Food(string name, string url) {Name=name;Url = url;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public string Url {get; set;}
}
public class MyViewModel
{
public List<Food> Foods {get;set;} = new List<Food>
{
new Food("Corn", "http://..."),
new Food("Pasta", "http://blah/pasta" )
}
.. other view model stuff ..
}
Then bind it to a list view. When they tap, then visit the url
In ASP.NET MVC application I have a model named CarSearchCriteria:
public class CarSearchCriteria{
public int CarMake {get;set;} // This is selected from a dropdownlist
public int YearOfFirstReg {get;set;}
public string ModelVariant {get;set}
}
I have two views - one for editing and the other one for viewing. In the editing view for the CarMake property I can do the following. I know I could have used DropDownListFor but didn't want to mess with SelectList for the time being:
<select name="CarMake">
<option value="1">BMW</option>
<option value="2">Mercedes</option>
<option value="3">Toyota</option>
</select>
So the model binding mechanism will easily bind the selected value to the appropriate model property. But what about the reading mode. I can't show 1s or 2s. I need to show BMW, Mercedes and so on. My question is what is the preferred way, do I have to have a property name that holds the actual textual information, something like CarMakeText?
You could have both the identifier (which you currently have) as well as the Make object itself. The latter would never need to be accessed when building the model, but can be accessed when reading the model. A lazy-loaded read-only property often works well for that. Something like this:
public int CarMakeID { get; set; }
public Make CarMake
{
get
{
if (CarMakeID == default(int))
return null;
// fetch the Make from data and return it
}
}
Naturally, this depends a lot on what a Make actually is and where you get it. If there's just some in-memory list somewhere then that should work fine. If fetching an instance of a Make is a little more of an operation (say, fetching from a database) then maybe some in-object caching would be in order in case you need to access it more than once:
public int CarMakeID { get; set; }
private Make _carMake;
public Make CarMake
{
get
{
if (CarMakeID == default(int))
return null;
if (_carMake == null)
// fetch the Make from data and save it to _carMake
return _carMake;
}
}
David's solution is just fine but for some reason I find my own solution to better fit my needs and besides that I find it more elegant. So basically what I do is I create a class that holds the textual descriptions of all the properties that keep just ID. For example, I have the following model:
public class EmployeeModel{
public int EmployeeID {get;set;}
public string FullName {get;set}
*public int DepartmentID {get;set}
*public int SpecialityID {get;set;}
public int Age {get;set;}
}
The properties marked with asterisk are the properties that keep ids of possible many predefined options and when showing we're supposed to show the actual descriptions, not the number representations. So for this purpose, we create a separate class:
public class EmployeeTextValues{
public string DepartmentName {get;set;}
public string SpecialityName {get;set;}
}
And then I just add this class as a property to my model:
public EmployeeTextValues TextValues {get;set;}
After that, it's quite easy to access it from anywhere, including Razor.
P.S. I'm sure that a lot of people will tend to do the following before initializing this property:
Employee emp=new Employee;
emp.Age=25;
emp.TextValues.DepartmentName="Engineering";// Don't do this
If you try to access or set Textvalues.Someproperty you'll get Object reference not set to an instance of an object. So do not forget to set TextValues first to some initialized object. Just a kind reminder, that's all.
public class SearchText
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Text { get; set; }
}
public class SearchTextLog
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual SearchText SearchText { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
public virtual int SearchCount { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime LastSearchDate { get; set; }
}
I am trying to select the top 5 SearchText items based on the sum of their count within the SearchTextLog. Currently I have only been able to resolve this by first performing a query to get the top 5 items, and then using the result within a second query. I was wondering if someone could show me the light and teach me how I could integrate these two seperate queries into a single unit.
Here is what I have currently:
var topSearchCriteria = Session.CreateCriteria(typeof (SearchTextLog))
.SetProjection(Projections.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.GroupProperty("SearchText.Id"))
.Add(Projections.Alias(Projections.Sum("SearchCount"), "SearchCount")))
.AddOrder(Order.Desc("SearchCount"))
.SetMaxResults(topSearchLimit)
.List<int>();
return Session.CreateCriteria<SearchText>()
.Add(Restrictions.In("Id", topSearchCriteria.ToArray()))
.List<SearchText>();
Edit:
Oh no, I just realised my current solution will lose the important order by of the results. So I will definitely have to incorporate the queries. :-/
Edit:
I tried a bidirectional mapping too to allow the following statement, however, I can't get it to return SearchText items. It simply complains that the SearchText properties aren't in a grouping.
return Session.CreateCriteria<SearchText>()
.CreateAlias("SearchTextLogs", "stl")
.AddOrder(Order.Desc(Projections.Sum("stl.SearchCount")))
.SetMaxResults(topSearchLimit)
.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToEntityMap)
.List<SearchText>();
Excuse my ignorance, but Nhibernate is completely new to me, and requires a completely different way of thinking.
Ok, I think I have figured out a solution.
My original solution as per my question won't work because NHibernate doesn't yet support the ability to do a group by property without adding it to the select clause (see: link text).
While fooling around however, I came across these cool things called ResultTransformers. Using the AliasToBean result transformer Nhibernate will automatically map the alias's I give to each projection item to properties by the same name within a type I specify. I simply specified my SearchText object (however, I had to add an additional TotalSearchCount property for the sum projection item). It populated my objects perfectly and returned them.
return Session.CreateCriteria(typeof(SearchTextLog))
.CreateAlias("SearchText", "st")
.SetProjection(Projections.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.Alias(Projections.GroupProperty("st.Id"), "Id"))
.Add(Projections.Alias(Projections.GroupProperty("st.Text"), "Text"))
.Add(Projections.Alias(Projections.Sum("SearchCount"), "TotalSearchCount")))
.SetMaxResults(topSearchLimit)
.AddOrder(Order.Desc("TotalSearchCount"))
.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToBean(typeof(SearchText)))
.List<SearchText>();
I am surprised this wasn't easier to do. It's taken me about 4 to 5 hours of research and dev to figure this one out. Hopefully my NHibernate experience will get easier with more and more experience.
I hope this helps someone else out there!
doesn't this work?
var critterRes = Session.CreateCriteria(typeof (SearchTextLog))
.SetProjection(Projections.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.GroupProperty("SearchText"))
.Add(Projections.Property("SearchText"))
.Add(Projections.Alias(Projections.Sum("SearchCount"), "SearchCount")))
.AddOrder(Order.Desc("SearchCount"))
.SetMaxResults(topSearchLimit)
.List<SearchText>()
I have a somewhat ridiculous question regarding DDD, Repository Patterns and ORM. In this example, I have 3 classes: Address, Company and Person. A Person is a member of a Company and has an Address. A Company also has an Address.
These classes reflect a database model. I removed any dependencies of my Models, so they are not tied to a particular ORM library such as NHibernate or LinqToSql. These dependencies are dealt with inside the Repositories.
Inside one of Repositories there is a SavePerson(Person person) method which inserts/updates a Person depending on whether it already exists in the database.
Since a Person object has a Company, I currently save/update the values of the Company property too when making that SavePerson call. I insert / update all of the Company's data - Name and Address - during this procedure.
However, I really have a hard time thinking of a case where a Company's data can change while dealing with a Person - I only want to be able to assign a Company to a Person, or to move a Person to another Company. I don't think I ever want to create a new Company alongside a new Person. So the SaveCompany calls introduce unnecessary database calls. When saving a Person I should just be able to update the CompanyId column.
But since the Person class has a Company property, I'm somewhat inclined to update / insert it with it. From a strict/pure point of view, the SavePerson method should save the entire Person.
What would the preferred way be? Just inserting/updating the CompanyId of the Company property when saving a Person or saving all of its data? Or would you create two distinct methods for both scenarios (What would you name them?)
Also, another question, I currently have distinct methods for saving a Person, an Address and a Company, so when I save a Company, I also call SaveAddress. Let's assume I use LinqToSql - this means that I don't insert/update the Company and the Address in the same Linq query. I guess there are 2 Select Calls (checking whether a company exists, checking whether an address exists). And then two Insert/Update calls for both. Even more if more compound model classes are introduced. Is there a way for LinqToSql to optimize these calls?
public class Address
{
public int AddressId { get; set; }
public string AddressLine1 { get; set; }
public string AddressLine2 { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
}
public class Company
{
public int CompanyId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
public class Person
{
public int PersonId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public Company Company { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
Edit
Also see this follow up question. How are Value Objects stored in a Database?
I myself have used the IRepository approach lately that Keith suggests. But, you should not be focusing on that pattern here. Instead, there are a few more pieces in the DDD playbook that can be applied here.
Use Value Objects for your Addresses
First, there is the concept of Value Objects (VO) you can apply here. In you case, it would be the Address. The difference between a Value Object and an Entity Object is that Entities have an identity; VOs do not. The VO's identity really is the sum of it's properties, not a unique identity. In the book Domain-Drive Design Quickly (it's also a free PDF download), he explains this very well by stating that an address is really just a point on Earth and does not need a separate SocialSecurity-like identity like a person. That point on Earth is the combination of the street, number, city, zip, and country. It can have latitude and longitude values, but still those are even VOs by definition because it's a combination of two points.
Use Services for combining your entities into a single entity to act upon.
Also, do not forget about the Services concept in the DDD playbook. In your example, that service would be:
public class PersonCompanyService
{
void SavePersonCompany(IPersonCompany personCompany)
{
personRepository.SavePerson();
// do some work for a new company, etc.
companyRepository.SaveCompany();
}
}
There is a need for a service when you have two entities that need both need a similar action to coordinate a combination of other actions. In your case, saving a Person() and creating a blank Company() at the same time.
ORMs usualyl require an identity, period.
Now, how would you go about saving the Address VO in the database? You would use an IAddressRepository obviously. But since most ORMs (i.e. LingToSql) require all objects have an Identity, here's the trick: Mark the identity as internal in your model, so it is not exposed outside of your Model layer. This is Steven Sanderson's own advice.
public class Address
{
// make your identity internal
[Column(IsPrimaryKey = true
, IsDbGenerated = true
, AutoSync = AutoSync.OnInsert)]
internal int AddressID { get; set; }
// everything else public
[Column]
public string StreetNumber { get; set; }
[Column]
public string Street { get; set; }
[Column]
public string City { get; set; }
...
}
From my recent experience of using the repository pattern I think you would benefit from using a generic repository, the now common IRepository of T. That way you wouldn't have to add repository methods like SavePerson(Person person). Instead you would have something like:
IRepository<Person> personRepository = new Repository<Person>();
Person realPerson = new Person();
personRepository.SaveOrUpdate(realPerson);
This method also lends itself well to Test Driven Development and Mocking.
I feel the questions about behavior in your description would be concerns for the Domain, maybe you should have an AddCompany method in your Person class and change the Company property to
public Company Company { get; private set; }
My point is; model the domain without worrying about the how data will be persisted to the database. This is a concern for the service that will be using your domain model.
Back to the Repository, have a look at this post for good explanation of IRepository over LinqToSql. Mike's blog has many other posts on Repositories. When you do come to choose an ORM I can recommend HHibernate over LinqToSql, the latter is now defunct and NHibernate has a great support community.