I am going through the RavenDB tutorial on the RavenDb.net website.
It was going fine until I got to the code block for creating an index.
This code segment is direct from RavenDB.Net website.
store.DatabaseCommands.PutIndex("OrdersContainingProduct", new IndexDefinition<Order>
{
Map = orders => from order in orders
from line in order.OrderLines
select new { line.ProductId }
});
I get an error on compile: "The non-generic type 'Raven.Database.Indexing.IndexDefinition' cannot be used with type arguments."
If IndexDefinition is non-generic, why is it used as generic in the sample code? Where is the disconnect?
Thank you for your time
Jim
Depending on your using statements you may be referencing the wrong IndexDefinition class (from another Raven assembly). Try adding this to the beginning of your file:
using Raven.Client.Indexes;
You might need to remove other using statements as well. I guess this is one reason why Microsoft recommends using unique names for classes even in the presence of namespaces.
Related
I have a few tables previously created in my database that I want to map to a few model classes:
"SISTEMA.Voyages" => public class Voyage
"SISTEMA.Puerto" => public class Port
I understand that in ASP.MVC 4 with Entity framework this can be done either of two ways. However for both of them I am getting errors which I do not know how to resolve.
The first in Voyage.cs:
[Table("SISTEMA.Voyages")]
public class Voyage
Or the second in Context.cs:
public class ApplicationEntities : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Voyage>().ToTable("SISTEMA.Voyages");
}
}
For the first version I get this error when I previously assumed this was something automatic:
The type or namespace name 'Table' could not be found (are you using directive or an assembly reference?)
The type or namespace name 'TableAttribute' could not be found (are you using directive or an assembly reference?)
Fore the second I get this error which I didn't expect because I assumed this was a configuration issue and leaves me really confused:
The model backing the 'ApplicationEntities' context has changed since the database was created. Consider using Code First Migrations to update the Database.
Where is this history even recorded?
For the record, I am used to dealing with this sort of issue in Rails by typing in:
class Voyage
self.table_name = "SISTEMA.Voyages"
end
And I am not very familiar with C# / ASP.NET. Just publishing what I am looking up for the next hour unless somebody tells me where I am going wrong first.
For the first way, you are missing a using directive for the Table attribute, add this to your class:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
For the second way, I'm guessing that something has changed in your model and now it recommends using Code First to update the database. When you run your application, and it first hits the database, it verifies that your models match the schema - if not it can give you this error.
I recommend checking out some of these links for help getting started with EF / Code First / Migrations - they are really handy
EF + Code First
Handling Many to Many with Payload
How to work with Migrations
MSDN EF Site
Please Add:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
I want to add property to existing document (using clues form http://ravendb.net/docs/client-api/partial-document-updates). But before adding want to check if that property already exists in my database.
Is any "special,proper ravendB way" to achieve that?
Or just load document and check if this property is null or not?
You can do this using a set based database update. You carry it out using JavaScript, which fortunately is similar enough to C# to make it a pretty painless process for anybody. Here's an example of an update I just ran.
Note: You have to be very careful doing this because errors in your script may have undesired results. For example, in my code CustomId contains something like '1234-1'. In my first iteration of writing the script, I had:
product.Order = parseInt(product.CustomId.split('-'));
Notice I forgot the indexer after split. The result? An error, right? Nope. Order had the value of 12341! It is supposed to be 1. So be careful and be sure to test it thoroughly.
Example:
Job has a Products property (a collection) and I'm adding the new Order property to existing Products.
ravenSession.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.UpdateByIndex(
"Raven/DocumentsByEntityName",
new IndexQuery { Query = "Tag:Jobs" },
new ScriptedPatchRequest { Script =
#"
this.Products.Map(function(product) {
if(product.Order == undefined)
{
product.Order = parseInt(product.CustomId.split('-')[1]);
}
return product;
});"
}
);
I referenced these pages to build it:
set based ops
partial document updates (in particular the Map section)
In Orchard, how is a module developer able to learn how "joins" work, particularly when joining to core parts and records? One of the better helps I've seen was in Orchard documentation, but none of those examples show how to form relations with existing or core parts. As an example of something I'm looking for, here is a snippet of module service code taken from a working example:
_contentManager
.Query<TaxonomyPart>()
.Join<RoutePartRecord>()
.Where(r => r.Title == name)
.List()
In this case, a custom TaxonomyPart is joining with a core RoutePartRecord. I've investigated the code, and I can't see how that a TaxononmyPart is "joinable" to a RoutePartRecord. Likewise, from working code, here is another snippet driver code which relates a custom TagsPart with a core CommonPartRecord:
List<string> tags = new List<string> { "hello", "there" };
IContentQuery<TagsPart, TagsPartRecord> query = _cms.Query<TagsPart, TagsPartRecord>();
query.Where(tpr => tpr.Tags.Any(t => tags.Contains(t.TagRecord.TagName)));
IEnumerable<TagsPart> parts =
query.Join<CommonPartRecord>()
.Where(cpr => cpr.Id != currentItemId)
.OrderByDescending(cpr => cpr.PublishedUtc)
.Slice(part.MaxItems);
I thought I could learn from either of the prior examples of how to form my own query. I did this:
List<string> tags = new List<string> { "hello", "there" };
IContentQuery<TagsPart, TagsPartRecord> query = _cms.Query<TagsPart, TagsPartRecord>();
query.Where(tpr => tpr.Tags.Any(t => tags.Contains(t.TagRecord.TagName)));
var stuff =
query.Join<ContainerPartRecord>()
.Where(ctrPartRecord => ctrPartRecord.ContentItemRecord.ContentType.Name == "Primary")
.List();
The intent of my code is to limit the content items found to only those of a particular container (or blog). When the code ran, it threw an exception on my join query saying {"could not resolve property: ContentType of: Orchard.Core.Containers.Models.ContainerPartRecord"}. This leads to a variety of questions:
Why in the driver's Display() method of the second example is the CommonPartRecord populated, but not the ContainerPartRecord? In general how would I know what part records are populated, and when?
In the working code snippets, how exactly is the join working since no join key/condition is specified (and no implicit join keys are apparent)? For example, I checked the data migration file and models classes, and found no inherent relation between a TagsPart and a CommonPartRecord. Thus, besides looking at that sample code, how would anyone have known in the first place that such a join was legal or possible?
Is the join I tried with TagsPart and ContainerPartRecord legal in any context? Which?
Is the query syntax of these examples primarily a reflection of Orchard, of NHibernate, or LINQ to NHibernate? If it is primarily a reflection of NHibernate, then which NHibernate book or article is recommended reading so that I can dig deeper into Orchard?
It seems there is a hole in the documentation regarding these kinds of thoughts and questions, which makes it hard to write a module. Whatever answers can be found for this topic, I'd be glad to compile into an article or community Orchard documentation.
The join is only there to enable the where that follows it. It doesn't mean that the part being joined will be actually brought down from the DB. That will happen no matter what with the latest 1.x source, and will happen lazily with 1.3.
You don't need a condition as you can only join parts this way. The join condition is implicit: parts are joined by the item id.
Yes. What is not legal is that the condition in the where is using data that is not available from the joined part records.
Those examples are all Orchard Content Manager queries, so they are fairly constrained, but also fairly easy to build as long as you don't step outside of their boundaries because so much can be assumed and will happen implicitly. If you need more control, you could use the new HQL capabilities that were added in the latest 1.x drops.
As for holes in the documentation, well, but of course. The documentation that we have today is only covering a very small part of the platform. Your best reference today is the source code. Any contribution you could make to this is highly appreciated by us and by the rest of the community. Let me know if you need help with this.
This is a continuation of my previous question: Could not find an implementation of the query pattern
I'm trying to insert a new 'Inschrijving' into my database. I try this with the following code:
[OperationContract]
public void insertInschrijving(Inschrijvingen inschrijving)
{
var context = new DataClassesDataContext();
context.Inschrijvingens.InsertOnSubmit(inschrijving);
dc.SubmitChanges();
}
But the context.Inschrijvingens.InsertOnSubmit(inschrijving); gives me the following error:
cannot convert from 'OndernemersAward.Web.Service.Inschrijvingen' to 'OndernemersAward.Web.Inschrijvingen'
I call the method in my main page:
Inschrijvingen1Client client = new Inschrijvingen1Client();
Inschrijvingen i = new Inschrijvingen();
client.insertInschrijvingCompleted += new EventHandler<System.ComponentModel.AsyncCompletedEventArgs>(client_insertInschrijvingCompleted);
client.insertInschrijvingAsync(i);
But as you can see there appears to be something wrong with my Inschrijvingen class, which is auto generated by LINQ. (Auto generated class can be found here: http://pastebin.com/QKuAAKgV)
I'm not entirely sure what is causing this, but I assume it has something to do with the auto generated class not being correct?
Thank you for your time,
Thomas
The problem is that you've got two Inschrijvingen classes - one in the OndernemersAward.Web.Service namespace, and one in the OndernemersAward.Web namespace.
You either need to change the codebase so that you've only got one class, or you need to convert from one type to the other.
I've started switching over a project from hand-written JDBC ORM code to Ebeans. So far it's been great; Ebeans is light and easy to use.
However, I have run into a crippling issue: when retrieving a one-to-many list which should be empty there is actually one element in it. This element looks to be some kind of proxy object which has all null fields, so it breaks code which loops through the collection.
I've included abbreviated definitions here:
#Entity
class Store {
...
#OneToMany(mappedBy="store",cascade=CascadeType.ALL,fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
List<StoreAlbum> storeAlbums = new LinkedList<StoreAlbum>();
}
#Entity
class StoreAlbum {
...
#ManyToOne(optional=false,fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name="store_id",nullable=false)
Store store;
}
The ... are where all the standard getters and setters are. The retrieval code looks like this:
Store s = server.find(Store.class)
.where()
.eq("store_id",4)
.findUnique();
Assert.assertEquals("Sprint",s.getStoreName());
Assert.assertEquals(0, s.getStoreAlbums().size());
The database is known to contain a 'store' row for "Sprint", and the 'store_album' table does not contain any rows for that store.
The JUnit test fails on the second assertion. It finds a list with 1 element in it, which is some kind of broken StoreAlbum object. The debugger shows the object as being of the type "com.lwm.catalogfeed.domain.StoreAlbum$$EntityBean$test#1a5e68a" with null values for all the fields which are declared as nullable=false (and optional=false).
Am I missing something here?
Thought I'd post an update on this... I ended up giving up on EBeans and instead switched the implementation over to use MyBatis. MyBatis is fantastic; the manual is easy to read and thorough. MyBatis does what you expect it to do. I got it up and running in no time.
EBeans didn't appear to detect that the join for the associated collection resulted in a bunch of null ids, but MyBatis handled this scenario cleanly.
I ran into the same issue and was able to solve it by adding an identity column to the secondary table (StoreAlbum). I did not investigate the cause but I suppose Ebean needs a primary key on the table in these kind of situations.