I'm updating a web app from using Knockout.js Templates to Vue 3 Components. This issue is not in the components but in the JS where I'm creating objects to be used in the components.
I'm running into strange behaviour around using refs where an object member is not always being set as a ref. I haven't been able to recreate this in an example but a simplified version of the structure is that we have an attribute that returns an object that contains the ref value.
function Attribute(val) {
var value = ref(val);
return {
value: value
}
}
We have a builder that is used to add labels and other items such permissions and classes to the UI.
function UIBuilder() {
var self = this;
var newElement = {};
function newText(value) {
newElement.inputType = 'TEXT';
newElement.value = value;
return self;
}
function addLabel(lbl) {
newElement.label = lbl;
return self;
}
function build() {
return newElement;
}
this.newText = newText;
this.addLabel = addLabel;
this.build = build;
}
Finally there is a function that returns an object that contains everything that the component needs.
function TextInput(initValue) {
var self = this;
self.label = initValue.label;
self.value = initValue.value;
var textInput = {
label: self.label,
value: self.value
};
return textInput;
}
Then I create an object to be passed to the component.
var attr = new Attribute(5225);
var textBox = new TextInput(new UIBuilder().newText(attr).addLabel('Description').build());
This structure works using Knockout and I'm trying to keep as much of the existing code as possible.
Most of the time this works but there are some occasions where the value is coming in as a string rather then a ref. I haven't been able to isolate why this is happening. While debugging most of the time the values for initValue.value and self.value look like this in the watch on VS Code.
On some occasions it changes to string values even though the objects were created using the same functions.
I checked the initValue object when taking the screenshot and it appeared to be a ref
As far as I can see the value should stay as a ref. I'm not unwrapping it in code. Why is this happening? What should I look for?
I am using Automapper in my .net core application to map. I have a method like below
public MyEntity TransformtoToEntity(MyDTO dto)
{
var entity = _mapper.Map<MyEntity, MyDTO>(dto, opts => opts.Items["isUpdate"] = "N");
return entity;
}
My test method looks like
[Fact]
public void Returns_Data_After_Mapping()
{
// Arrange
var mockEntityData = new MyEntity
{
Id = 1,
Name = "John"
};
var mockDto = new MyDTO
{
Id = 1,
Name = "John"
};
var mappingOperationMock = new Mock<IMappingOperationOptions<MyDTO, MyEntity>>(MockBehavior.Strict);
mappingOperationMock.Setup(x => x.Items).Returns(new Dictionary<string, object>() { { "isUpdate", "N" }});
_mapper.Setup(x => x.Map(It.IsAny<MyDTO>(),
It.IsAny<Action<IMappingOperationOptions<MyDTO, MyEntity>>>()))
.Returns(mockEntityData);
// Act
var result = _myMapper.TransformDtoToEntity(mockDto);
// Assert
Assert.NotNull(result);
_mapper.VerifyAll();
mappingOperationMock.VerifyAll();
}
Here how can I verify that IMappingOperationOptions parameters are correctly passed. Or is there any better way to do a unit test here. Basically I am stuck with how to effectively unit test methods who are having Action delegate parameters. I referred the thread Testing a method accepting a delegate with Moq, but could not find anything I can assert or verify inside the callback.
If you would like to test what is happening in your action delegate you can use the callback from moq.
Something like
Action<IMappingOperationOptions<MyEntity, MyDto>> mappingOperationAction = default;
_mapper.setup(x.Map(myDto, It.IsAny<Action<IMappingOperationOptions<MyEntity,MyDto>>>())
.callBack<MyDto, Action<IMappingOperationOptions<MyEntity,MyDto>>>( (callbackMyDto, callbackMappingOperationAction) => mappingOperationAction = callbackMappingOperationAction);
var mappingOperation = new MappingOperationOptions<MyEntity, MyDto>(_ => default);
mappingOperationAction.Invoke(mappingOperation);
Assert.AreEqual("N", mappingOperation.Items["isUpdate"])
All of my entities (that are mapped to a database table) inherit from an entity class with a dynamic component on it called Attributes e.g.:
public abstract class Entity<T> {
public virtual T Id { get; set; }
private IDictionary _attributes;
public virtual IDictionary Attributes {
get { return _attributes ?? (_attributes = new Hashtable()); }
set { _attributes = value; }
}
}
The Attributes collection allows me to add extra fields to each entity without directly changing the entity itself. This allows me to make my application more modular.
For example say I have the following entity:
public class User : Entity<int> {
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
Now say I have a Forum module which needs a NumPosts property against the User. I would add the field against the Users table in the database. This field is non nullable and has a default value of 0. I then map the field using the dynamic component against the User entity.
However when I try inserting the user by saying:
session.Save(new User() { Name = "Test" });
It throws an error as it's expecting me to set a value for NumPosts and the generated SQL would be something like:
INSERT INTO Users (Name, NumPosts) VALUES ('Test', NULL)
However NumPosts does not allow nulls and hence the error. Ideally I'd like it to say the following if the Attributes collection does not contain an entry for NumPosts:
INSERT INTO Users (Name) VALUES ('Test')
An alternative is to say the following which would work fine:
session.Save(new User() { Name = "Test", Attributes = new Hashtable() { { "NumPosts", 0 } } });
The problem I have is that I don't want the modules to have a dependency on each other and I can't really say this.
For reference here's a bare bones version of session factory method which maps the NumPosts field:
return Fluently.Configure()
...
.ExposeConfiguration(c => {
// Get the persistent class
var persistentClass = c.GetClassMapping("User");
// Create the attributes component
var component = new Component(persistentClass);
// Create a simple value
var simpleValue = new SimpleValue(persistentClass.Table);
// Set the type name
simpleValue.TypeName = "Int32";
// Create a new db column specification
var column = new Column("NumPosts");
column.Value = simpleValue;
column.Length = 10;
column.IsNullable = false;
column.DefaultValue = "0";
// Add the column to the value
simpleValue.AddColumn(column);
// Ad the value to the component
component.AddProperty(new Property() { Name = column.Name, Value = simpleValue });
// Add the component property
persistentClass.AddProperty(new Property() { Name = "Attributes", Value = component });
})
.BuildConfiguration();
I'd appreciate if someone could let me know if this is possible. Thanks
You know how to make it working as described above:
... An alternative is to say the following which would work fine:
session.Save(new User()
{
Name = "Test", Attributes = new Hashtable() { { "NumPosts", 0 } }
});
... The problem I have is that I don't want the modules to have a dependency on each other and I can't really say this...
In case, that the biggest issue is the explicit Attributes initialization ("...I don't want the modules to have a dependency...") we can use:
12.2. Event system
So, with Listener like this:
[Serializable]
public class MyPersistListener : NHibernate.Event.ISaveOrUpdateEventListener
{
public void OnSaveOrUpdate(SaveOrUpdateEvent #event)
{
var entity = #event.Entity as Entity<int>; // some interface IHaveAttributes
if (entity == null) // would be more appropriate
{
return;
}
var numPosts = entity.Attributes["NumPosts"] as int?;
if (numPosts.HasValue)
{
return;
}
entity.Attributes["NumPosts"] = 0;
}
}
Based on this doc snippet:
Configuration cfg = new Configuration();
ILoadEventListener[] stack = new ILoadEventListener[] { new MyLoadListener(), new DefaultLoadEventListener() };
cfg.EventListeners.LoadEventListeners = stack;
This should be the init in our case:
.ExposeConfiguration(c => {
var stack = new ISaveOrUpdateEventListener [] { new MyPersistListener() };
c.EventListeners.SaveEventListeners= stack;
I have a entity record which is shared with or more users. I would like to unshare this record when Deactivate it. I want to do that in Plugin. But I can't understand how to get all users from sharing list who have access to this record. How to do that?
Here is my code snippet:
protected void ExecutePostPersonSetStateDynamicEntity(LocalPluginContext localContext)
{
if (localContext == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("localContext");
}
var context = localContext.PluginExecutionContext;
var targetEntity = (Entity)context.InputParameters["EntityMoniker"];
var state = (OptionSetValue)context.InputParameters["State"];
var columns = new ColumnSet(new[] { "statecode" });
var retrivedEntity = localContext.OrganizationService.Retrieve(targetEntity.LogicalName, targetEntity.Id, columns);
if (state.Value == 1)
{
RevokeAccessRequest revokeRequest = new RevokeAccessRequest()
{
Target = new EntityReference(personEntity.LogicalName, personEntity.Id),
Revokee = new EntityReference(neededEntity.LogicalName, needed.Id)
};
// Execute the request.
}
}
As you can see, I need an entity "neededEntity", I don't know how to get it from "targetEntity" or "retrievedEntity".
You need to use a RetrieveSharedPrincipalsAndAccessRequest
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.crm.sdk.messages.retrievesharedprincipalsandaccessrequest.aspx
You can start from the included example, basically inside the foreach you call your RevokeAcessRequest
I'm getting the following error:
'object' does not contain a definition for 'RatingName'
When you look at the anonymous dynamic type, it clearly does have RatingName.
I realize I can do this with a Tuple, but I would like to understand why the error message occurs.
Anonymous types having internal properties is a poor .NET framework design decision, in my opinion.
Here is a quick and nice extension to fix this problem i.e. by converting the anonymous object into an ExpandoObject right away.
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this object anonymousObject)
{
IDictionary<string, object> anonymousDictionary = new RouteValueDictionary(anonymousObject);
IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();
foreach (var item in anonymousDictionary)
expando.Add(item);
return (ExpandoObject)expando;
}
It's very easy to use:
return View("ViewName", someLinq.Select(new { x=1, y=2}.ToExpando());
Of course in your view:
#foreach (var item in Model) {
<div>x = #item.x, y = #item.y</div>
}
I found the answer in a related question. The answer is specified on David Ebbo's blog post Passing anonymous objects to MVC views and accessing them using dynamic
The reason for this is that the
anonymous type being passed in the
controller in internal, so it can only
be accessed from within the assembly
in which it’s declared. Since views
get compiled separately, the dynamic
binder complains that it can’t go over
that assembly boundary.
But if you think about it, this
restriction from the dynamic binder is
actually quite artificial, because if
you use private reflection, nothing is
stopping you from accessing those
internal members (yes, it even work in
Medium trust). So the default dynamic
binder is going out of its way to
enforce C# compilation rules (where
you can’t access internal members),
instead of letting you do what the CLR
runtime allows.
Using ToExpando method is the best solution.
Here is the version that doesn't require System.Web assembly:
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this object anonymousObject)
{
IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();
foreach (PropertyDescriptor propertyDescriptor in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(anonymousObject))
{
var obj = propertyDescriptor.GetValue(anonymousObject);
expando.Add(propertyDescriptor.Name, obj);
}
return (ExpandoObject)expando;
}
Instead of creating a model from an anonymous type and then trying to convert the anonymous object to an ExpandoObject like this ...
var model = new
{
Profile = profile,
Foo = foo
};
return View(model.ToExpando()); // not a framework method (see other answers)
You can just create the ExpandoObject directly:
dynamic model = new ExpandoObject();
model.Profile = profile;
model.Foo = foo;
return View(model);
Then in your view you set the model type as dynamic #model dynamic and you can access the properties directly :
#Model.Profile.Name
#Model.Foo
I'd normally recommend strongly typed view models for most views, but sometimes this flexibility is handy.
You can use the framework impromptu interface to wrap an anonymous type in an interface.
You'd just return an IEnumerable<IMadeUpInterface> and at the end of your Linq use .AllActLike<IMadeUpInterface>(); this works because it calls the anonymous property using the DLR with a context of the assembly that declared the anonymous type.
Wrote a console application and add Mono.Cecil as reference (you can now add it from NuGet), then write the piece of code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var asmFile = args[0];
Console.WriteLine("Making anonymous types public for '{0}'.", asmFile);
var asmDef = AssemblyDefinition.ReadAssembly(asmFile, new ReaderParameters
{
ReadSymbols = true
});
var anonymousTypes = asmDef.Modules
.SelectMany(m => m.Types)
.Where(t => t.Name.Contains("<>f__AnonymousType"));
foreach (var type in anonymousTypes)
{
type.IsPublic = true;
}
asmDef.Write(asmFile, new WriterParameters
{
WriteSymbols = true
});
}
The code above would get the assembly file from input args and use Mono.Cecil to change the accessibility from internal to public, and that would resolve the problem.
We can run the program in the Post Build event of the website. I wrote a blog post about this in Chinese but I believe you can just read the code and snapshots. :)
Based on the accepted answer, I have overridden in the controller to make it work in general and behind the scenes.
Here is the code:
protected override void OnResultExecuting(ResultExecutingContext filterContext)
{
base.OnResultExecuting(filterContext);
//This is needed to allow the anonymous type as they are intenal to the assembly, while razor compiles .cshtml files into a seperate assembly
if (ViewData != null && ViewData.Model != null && ViewData.Model.GetType().IsNotPublic)
{
try
{
IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();
(new RouteValueDictionary(ViewData.Model)).ToList().ForEach(item => expando.Add(item));
ViewData.Model = expando;
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("The model provided is not 'public' and therefore not avaialable to the view, and there was no way of handing it over");
}
}
}
Now you can just pass an anonymous object as the model, and it will work as expected.
I'm going to do a little bit of stealing from https://stackoverflow.com/a/7478600/37055
If you install-package dynamitey you can do this:
return View(Build<ExpandoObject>.NewObject(RatingName: name, Comment: comment));
And the peasants rejoice.
The reason of RuntimeBinderException triggered, I think there have good answer in other posts. I just focus to explain how I actually make it work.
By refer to answer #DotNetWise and Binding views with Anonymous type collection in ASP.NET MVC,
Firstly, Create a static class for extension
public static class impFunctions
{
//converting the anonymous object into an ExpandoObject
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this object anonymousObject)
{
//IDictionary<string, object> anonymousDictionary = new RouteValueDictionary(anonymousObject);
IDictionary<string, object> anonymousDictionary = HtmlHelper.AnonymousObjectToHtmlAttributes(anonymousObject);
IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();
foreach (var item in anonymousDictionary)
expando.Add(item);
return (ExpandoObject)expando;
}
}
In controller
public ActionResult VisitCount()
{
dynamic Visitor = db.Visitors
.GroupBy(p => p.NRIC)
.Select(g => new { nric = g.Key, count = g.Count()})
.OrderByDescending(g => g.count)
.AsEnumerable() //important to convert to Enumerable
.Select(c => c.ToExpando()); //convert to ExpandoObject
return View(Visitor);
}
In View, #model IEnumerable (dynamic, not a model class), this is very important as we are going to bind the anonymous type object.
#model IEnumerable<dynamic>
#*#foreach (dynamic item in Model)*#
#foreach (var item in Model)
{
<div>x=#item.nric, y=#item.count</div>
}
The type in foreach, I have no error either using var or dynamic.
By the way, create a new ViewModel that is matching the new fields also can be the way to pass the result to the view.
Now in recursive flavor
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this object obj)
{
IDictionary<string, object> expandoObject = new ExpandoObject();
new RouteValueDictionary(obj).ForEach(o => expandoObject.Add(o.Key, o.Value == null || new[]
{
typeof (Enum),
typeof (String),
typeof (Char),
typeof (Guid),
typeof (Boolean),
typeof (Byte),
typeof (Int16),
typeof (Int32),
typeof (Int64),
typeof (Single),
typeof (Double),
typeof (Decimal),
typeof (SByte),
typeof (UInt16),
typeof (UInt32),
typeof (UInt64),
typeof (DateTime),
typeof (DateTimeOffset),
typeof (TimeSpan),
}.Any(oo => oo.IsInstanceOfType(o.Value))
? o.Value
: o.Value.ToExpando()));
return (ExpandoObject) expandoObject;
}
Using the ExpandoObject Extension works but breaks when using nested anonymous objects.
Such as
var projectInfo = new {
Id = proj.Id,
UserName = user.Name
};
var workitem = WorkBL.Get(id);
return View(new
{
Project = projectInfo,
WorkItem = workitem
}.ToExpando());
To accomplish this I use this.
public static class RazorDynamicExtension
{
/// <summary>
/// Dynamic object that we'll utilize to return anonymous type parameters in Views
/// </summary>
public class RazorDynamicObject : DynamicObject
{
internal object Model { get; set; }
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result)
{
if (binder.Name.ToUpper() == "ANONVALUE")
{
result = Model;
return true;
}
else
{
PropertyInfo propInfo = Model.GetType().GetProperty(binder.Name);
if (propInfo == null)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(binder.Name);
}
object returnObject = propInfo.GetValue(Model, null);
Type modelType = returnObject.GetType();
if (modelType != null
&& !modelType.IsPublic
&& modelType.BaseType == typeof(Object)
&& modelType.DeclaringType == null)
{
result = new RazorDynamicObject() { Model = returnObject };
}
else
{
result = returnObject;
}
return true;
}
}
}
public static RazorDynamicObject ToRazorDynamic(this object anonymousObject)
{
return new RazorDynamicObject() { Model = anonymousObject };
}
}
Usage in the controller is the same except you use ToRazorDynamic() instead of ToExpando().
In your view to get the entire anonymous object you just add ".AnonValue" to the end.
var project = #(Html.Raw(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Model.Project.AnonValue)));
var projectName = #Model.Project.Name;
I tried the ExpandoObject but it didn't work with a nested anonymous complex type like this:
var model = new { value = 1, child = new { value = 2 } };
So my solution was to return a JObject to View model:
return View(JObject.FromObject(model));
and convert to dynamic in .cshtml:
#using Newtonsoft.Json.Linq;
#model JObject
#{
dynamic model = (dynamic)Model;
}
<span>Value of child is: #model.child.value</span>