Here's the table
Users
UserId
UserName
Password
EmailAddress
and the code..
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password){
//code to update the password..
}
Ladislav's answer updated to use DbContext (introduced in EF 4.1):
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
var user = new User() { Id = userId, Password = password };
using (var db = new MyEfContextName())
{
db.Users.Attach(user);
db.Entry(user).Property(x => x.Password).IsModified = true;
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
You can tell entity-framework which properties have to be updated in this way:
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
var user = new User { Id = userId, Password = password };
using (var context = new ObjectContext(ConnectionString))
{
var users = context.CreateObjectSet<User>();
users.Attach(user);
context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(user)
.SetModifiedProperty("Password");
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
In Entity Framework Core, Attach returns the entry, so all you need is:
var user = new User { Id = userId, Password = password };
db.Users.Attach(user).Property(x => x.Password).IsModified = true;
db.SaveChanges();
You have basically two options:
go the EF way all the way, in that case, you would
load the object based on the userId provided - the entire object gets loaded
update the password field
save the object back using the context's .SaveChanges() method
In this case, it's up to EF how to handle this in detail. I just tested this, and in the case I only change a single field of an object, what EF creates is pretty much what you'd create manually, too - something like:
`UPDATE dbo.Users SET Password = #Password WHERE UserId = #UserId`
So EF is smart enough to figure out what columns have indeed changed, and it will create a T-SQL statement to handle just those updates that are in fact necessary.
you define a stored procedure that does exactly what you need, in T-SQL code (just update the Password column for the given UserId and nothing else - basically executes UPDATE dbo.Users SET Password = #Password WHERE UserId = #UserId) and you create a function import for that stored procedure in your EF model and you call this function instead of doing the steps outlined above
i'm using this:
entity:
public class Thing
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
public string OtherStuff { get; set; }
}
dbcontext:
public class MyDataContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Thing > Things { get; set; }
}
accessor code:
MyDataContext ctx = new MyDataContext();
// FIRST create a blank object
Thing thing = ctx.Things.Create();
// SECOND set the ID
thing.Id = id;
// THIRD attach the thing (id is not marked as modified)
db.Things.Attach(thing);
// FOURTH set the fields you want updated.
thing.OtherStuff = "only want this field updated.";
// FIFTH save that thing
db.SaveChanges();
While searching for a solution to this problem, I found a variation on GONeale's answer through Patrick Desjardins' blog:
public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)
{
DatabaseContext.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
foreach (var property in properties)
{
var propertyName = ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
DatabaseContext.Entry(entity).Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
}
return DatabaseContext.SaveChangesWithoutValidation();
}
"As you can see, it takes as its second parameter an expression of a
function. This will let use this method by specifying in a Lambda
expression which property to update."
...Update(Model, d=>d.Name);
//or
...Update(Model, d=>d.Name, d=>d.SecondProperty, d=>d.AndSoOn);
( A somewhat similar solution is also given here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5749469/2115384 )
The method I am currently using in my own code, extended to handle also (Linq) Expressions of type ExpressionType.Convert. This was necessary in my case, for example with Guid and other object properties. Those were 'wrapped' in a Convert() and therefore not handled by System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText.
public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)
{
DbEntityEntry<T> entry = dataContext.Entry(entity);
entry.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
foreach (var property in properties)
{
string propertyName = "";
Expression bodyExpression = property.Body;
if (bodyExpression.NodeType == ExpressionType.Convert && bodyExpression is UnaryExpression)
{
Expression operand = ((UnaryExpression)property.Body).Operand;
propertyName = ((MemberExpression)operand).Member.Name;
}
else
{
propertyName = System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
}
entry.Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
}
dataContext.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
return dataContext.SaveChanges();
}
New EF Core 7 native feature — ExecuteUpdate:
Finally! After a long wait, EF Core 7.0 now has a natively supported way to run UPDATE (and also DELETE) statements while also allowing you to use arbitrary LINQ queries (.Where(u => ...)), without having to first retrieve the relevant entities from the database: The new built-in method called ExecuteUpdate — see "What's new in EF Core 7.0?".
ExecuteUpdate is precisely meant for these kinds of scenarios, it can operate on any IQueryable instance, and lets you update specific columns on any number of rows, while always issuing a single UPDATE statement behind the scenes, making it as efficient as possible.
Usage:
Let's take OP's example — i.e. updating the password column of a specific user:
dbContext.Users
.Where(u => u.Id == someId)
.ExecuteUpdate(b =>
b.SetProperty(u => u.Password, "NewPassword")
);
As you can see, calling ExecuteUpdate requires you to make calls to the SetProperty method, to specify which property to update, and also what new value to assign to it.
EF Core will translate this into the following UPDATE statement:
UPDATE [u]
SET [u].[Password] = "NewPassword"
FROM [Users] AS [u]
WHERE [u].[Id] = someId
Also, ExecuteDelete for deleting rows:
There's also a counterpart to ExecuteUpdate called ExecuteDelete, which, as the name implies, can be used to delete a single or multiple rows at once without having to first fetch them.
Usage:
// Delete users that haven't been active in 2022:
dbContext.Users
.Where(u => u.LastActiveAt.Year < 2022)
.ExecuteDelete();
Similar to ExecuteUpdate, ExecuteDelete will generate DELETE SQL statements behind the scenes — in this case, the following one:
DELETE FROM [u]
FROM [Users] AS [u]
WHERE DATEPART(year, [u].[LastActiveAt]) < 2022
Other notes:
Keep in mind that both ExecuteUpdate and ExecuteDelete are "terminating", meaning that the update/delete operation will take place as soon as you call the method. You're not supposed to call dbContext.SaveChanges() afterwards.
If you're curious about the SetProperty method, and you're confused as to why ExectueUpdate doesn't instead receive a member initialization expression (e.g. .ExecuteUpdate(new User { Email = "..." }), then refer to this comment (and the surrounding ones) on the GitHub issue for this feature.
Furthermore, if you're curious about the rationale behind the naming, and why the prefix Execute was picked (there were also other candidates), refer to this comment, and the preceding (rather long) conversation.
Both methods also have async equivalents, named ExecuteUpdateAsync, and ExecuteDeleteAsync respectively.
In EntityFramework Core 2.x there is no need for Attach:
// get a tracked entity
var entity = context.User.Find(userId);
entity.someProp = someValue;
// other property changes might come here
context.SaveChanges();
Tried this in SQL Server and profiling it:
exec sp_executesql N'SET NOCOUNT ON;
UPDATE [User] SET [someProp] = #p0
WHERE [UserId] = #p1;
SELECT ##ROWCOUNT;
',N'#p1 int,#p0 bit',#p1=1223424,#p0=1
Find ensures that already loaded entities do not trigger a SELECT and also automatically attaches the entity if needed (from the docs):
Finds an entity with the given primary key values. If an entity with the given primary key values is being tracked by the context, then it is returned immediately without making a request to the database. Otherwise, a query is made to the database for an entity with the given primary key values and this entity, if found, is attached to the context and returned. If no entity is found, then null is returned.
I'm late to the game here, but this is how I am doing it, I spent a while hunting for a solution I was satisified with; this produces an UPDATE statement ONLY for the fields that are changed, as you explicitly define what they are through a "white list" concept which is more secure to prevent web form injection anyway.
An excerpt from my ISession data repository:
public bool Update<T>(T item, params string[] changedPropertyNames) where T
: class, new()
{
_context.Set<T>().Attach(item);
foreach (var propertyName in changedPropertyNames)
{
// If we can't find the property, this line wil throw an exception,
//which is good as we want to know about it
_context.Entry(item).Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
}
return true;
}
This could be wrapped in a try..catch if you so wished, but I personally like my caller to know about the exceptions in this scenario.
It would be called in something like this fashion (for me, this was via an ASP.NET Web API):
if (!session.Update(franchiseViewModel.Franchise, new[]
{
"Name",
"StartDate"
}))
throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound));
Entity framework tracks your changes on objects that you queried from database via DbContext. For example if you DbContext instance name is dbContext
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password){
var user = dbContext.Users.FirstOrDefault(u=>u.UserId == userId);
user.password = password;
dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
I know this is an old thread but I was also looking for a similar solution and decided to go with the solution #Doku-so provided. I'm commenting to answer the question asked by #Imran Rizvi , I followed #Doku-so link that shows a similar implementation. #Imran Rizvi's question was that he was getting an error using the provided solution 'Cannot convert Lambda expression to Type 'Expression> [] ' because it is not a delegate type'. I wanted to offer a small modification I made to #Doku-so's solution that fixes this error in case anyone else comes across this post and decides to use #Doku-so's solution.
The issue is the second argument in the Update method,
public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties).
To call this method using the syntax provided...
Update(Model, d=>d.Name, d=>d.SecondProperty, d=>d.AndSoOn);
You must add the 'params' keyword in front of the second arugment as so.
public int Update(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)
or if you don't want to change the method signature then to call the Update method you need to add the 'new' keyword, specify the size of the array, then finally use the collection object initializer syntax for each property to update as seen below.
Update(Model, new Expression<Func<T, object>>[3] { d=>d.Name }, { d=>d.SecondProperty }, { d=>d.AndSoOn });
In #Doku-so's example he is specifying an array of Expressions so you must pass the properties to update in an array, because of the array you must also specify the size of the array. To avoid this you could also change the expression argument to use IEnumerable instead of an array.
Here is my implementation of #Doku-so's solution.
public int Update<TEntity>(LcmsEntities dataContext, DbEntityEntry<TEntity> entityEntry, params Expression<Func<TEntity, object>>[] properties)
where TEntity: class
{
entityEntry.State = System.Data.Entity.EntityState.Unchanged;
properties.ToList()
.ForEach((property) =>
{
var propertyName = string.Empty;
var bodyExpression = property.Body;
if (bodyExpression.NodeType == ExpressionType.Convert
&& bodyExpression is UnaryExpression)
{
Expression operand = ((UnaryExpression)property.Body).Operand;
propertyName = ((MemberExpression)operand).Member.Name;
}
else
{
propertyName = System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
}
entityEntry.Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
});
dataContext.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
return dataContext.SaveChanges();
}
Usage:
this.Update<Contact>(context, context.Entry(modifiedContact), c => c.Active, c => c.ContactTypeId);
#Doku-so provided a cool approach using generic's, I used the concept to solve my issue but you just can't use #Doku-so's solution as is and in both this post and the linked post no one answered the usage error questions.
Combining several suggestions I propose the following:
async Task<bool> UpdateDbEntryAsync<T>(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties) where T : class
{
try
{
var entry = db.Entry(entity);
db.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
foreach (var property in properties)
entry.Property(property).IsModified = true;
await db.SaveChangesAsync();
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("UpdateDbEntryAsync exception: " + ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
called by
UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1);//, d => d.Property2, d => d.Property3, etc. etc.);
Or by
await UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1);
Or by
bool b = UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1).Result;
I use ValueInjecter nuget to inject Binding Model into database Entity using following:
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Add(CustomBindingModel model)
{
var entity= await db.MyEntities.FindAsync(model.Id);
if (entity== null) return NotFound();
entity.InjectFrom<NoNullsInjection>(model);
await db.SaveChangesAsync();
return Ok();
}
Notice the usage of custom convention that doesn't update Properties if they're null from server.
ValueInjecter v3+
public class NoNullsInjection : LoopInjection
{
protected override void SetValue(object source, object target, PropertyInfo sp, PropertyInfo tp)
{
if (sp.GetValue(source) == null) return;
base.SetValue(source, target, sp, tp);
}
}
Usage:
target.InjectFrom<NoNullsInjection>(source);
Value Injecter V2
Lookup this answer
Caveat
You won't know whether the property is intentionally cleared to null OR it just didn't have any value it. In other words, the property value can only be replaced with another value but not cleared.
_context.Users.UpdateProperty(p => p.Id, request.UserId, new UpdateWrapper<User>()
{
Expression = p => p.FcmId,Value = request.FcmId
});
await _context.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken);
Update Property is an extension method
public static void UpdateProperty<T, T2>(this DbSet<T> set, Expression<Func<T, T2>> idExpression,
T2 idValue,
params UpdateWrapper<T>[] updateValues)
where T : class, new()
{
var entity = new T();
var attach = set.Attach(entity);
attach.Property(idExpression).IsModified = false;
attach.Property(idExpression).OriginalValue = idValue;
foreach (var update in updateValues)
{
attach.Property(update.Expression).IsModified = true;
attach.Property(update.Expression).CurrentValue = update.Value;
}
}
And Update Wrapper is a class
public class UpdateWrapper<T>
{
public Expression<Func<T, object>> Expression { get; set; }
public object Value { get; set; }
}
I was looking for same and finally I found the solution
using (CString conn = new CString())
{
USER user = conn.USERs.Find(CMN.CurrentUser.ID);
user.PASSWORD = txtPass.Text;
conn.SaveChanges();
}
believe me it work for me like a charm.
public async Task<bool> UpdateDbEntryAsync(TEntity entity, params Expression<Func<TEntity, object>>[] properties)
{
try
{
this.Context.Set<TEntity>().Attach(entity);
EntityEntry<TEntity> entry = this.Context.Entry(entity);
entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
foreach (var property in properties)
entry.Property(property).IsModified = true;
await this.Context.SaveChangesAsync();
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
var user = new User{ Id = userId, Password = password };
using (var db = new DbContextName())
{
db.Entry(user).State = EntityState.Added;
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
Related
I want to switch my code to an async implementation. When I want to do this then I notice that my related data gets not set automatically after I retrieve them like it used to do it.
This is the initial function that gets called from an API controller. I used the AddDbContext function to add the dbcontext class via dependency injection into my controller:
public async Task<Application> GetApplicationById(AntragDBNoInheritanceContext dbContext, int id)
{
List<Application> ApplicationList = await dbContext.Applications.FromSqlRaw("Exec dbo.GetApplication {0}", id).ToListAsync();
Application Application = ApplicationList.First();
if(Application != null)
{
await CategoryFunctions.GetCategoryByApplicationID(Application.Id);
}
}
The GetCategoryByApplicationId function loads the related category of an application which is a many to one relation between Category and Application:
public async Task<Category> GetCategoryByApplicationID(int applicationID)
{
var optionsBuilder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<AntragDBNoInheritanceContext>();
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(ApplicationDBConnection.APPLICATION_CONNECTION);
using (var dbContext = new AntragDBNoInheritanceContext(optionsBuilder.Options))
{
List<Category> category = await dbContext.Categories.FromSqlRaw("Exec GetApplicationCategory {0}", applicationID).ToListAsync();
if (category.Any())
{
return category.First();
}
}
return null;
}
When I want to retrieve an application then the field Category is not set. When I did not use async/await it would set the category automatically for me. Of course I could just return the Category Object from the GetCategoryByApplicationId and then say:
Application.Category = RetrievedFromDbCategory;
But this seems a bit unmaintainable compared to the previous behaviour. Why does this happen now and can I do something about it? Otherwise I don't see much benefits on using async/await .
How to handle unknown parameters in ASP.NET Core? When I use [FromQuery] it just ignores the unknown parameters, but ideally it should return 400 if the parameter is unknown so the caller knows it needs to fix the parameters?
Example: GetRecords tries to use any StartDate or EndDate from query string, use default value if they are not specified.
But if a query like ?StartTime=2021/2/15&EndTime=2021/2/16, the code actually will return all records from DB as it treats like no parameters passed. Ideally it should throw an error to let caller know the parameter names are invalid.
class RecordQuery
{
public RecordQuery()
{
StartDate = DateTime.MinValue;
EndDateTime = DateTime.Now;
}
//...
}
class Controller
{
public async Task<ActionResult<RecordsResult>> GetRecords([FromQuery] RecordQuery query)
{
// query db where date < query.EndDateTime && date > query.StartDateTime;
}
}
When I use [FromQuery] it just ignores the unknown parameters
Actually, this is the default behavior of the querystring parameters. But you could return an Invalid Request status, so that the client knows that what it's trying to do isn't valid.
To implement it, you can use the ActionFilter, get both the action parameters and request query string queryParameters and make a judgement. Codes like below:
public class QueryActionFilter<T> : IActionFilter
{
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
{
}
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
var model = context.ActionArguments.Values.OfType<T>().Single();
var modelProperties = model.GetType().GetProperties();
var queryParameters = context.HttpContext.Request.Query;
if (!queryParameters.Select(q => q.Key).All(queryParameter => modelProperties.Any(p => p.Name == queryParameter)))
{
context.Result = new BadRequestObjectResult("Querystring does not match");
}
}
}
Then in controller
[TypeFilter(typeof(QueryActionFilter<RecordQuery>))]
public async Task<ActionResult<RecordsResult>> GetRecords([FromQuery] RecordQuery query)
{
// query db where date < query.EndDateTime && date > query.StartDateTime;
}
You can see example https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/tutorials/first-web-api?view=aspnetcore-5.0&tabs=visual-studio#the-puttodoitem-method
if(StartDate == null){
return BadRequest();
}
Let's do the same thing with another input parameter(s) (query conditions)
If you want validate input parameter(s), use [Required] for model of [FromQuery], see https://stackoverflow.com/a/19279419/3728901 . In your case, it is model RecordQuery .
I want to prevent documents from being deleted in my project and I decided to use metadata to mark document as Archived. I used below code to do that:
public class DeleteDocumentListener : IDocumentDeleteListener
{
public void BeforeDelete(string key, object entityInstance, RavenJObject metadata)
{
metadata.Add("Archived", true);
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
After that I wanted to alter query to return only documents which have Archived metadata value set to false:
using (var session = _store.OpenSession())
{
var query = session.Advanced.DocumentQuery<Cutter>()
.WhereEquals("#metadata.Archived", false);
}
Unfortunately this query return empty result set. It occurs that if Document doesn't have this metadata property then above condition is treated as false. It wasn't what I expected.
How can I compose query to return Documents which don't have metadata property or this property has some value ?
You can solve it by creating an index for you Cutter documents and then query against that:
public class ArchivedIndex : AbstractIndexCreationTask<Cutter>
{
public class QueryModel
{
public bool Archived { get; set; }
}
public ArchivedIndex()
{
Map = documents => from doc in documents
select new QueryModel
{
Archived = MetadataFor(doc)["Archived"] != null && MetadataFor(doc).Value<bool>("Archived")
};
}
}
Then query it like this:
using (var session = documentStore.OpenSession())
{
var cutters = session.Query<ArchivedIndex.QueryModel, ArchivedIndex>()
.Where(x => x.Archived == false)
.OfType<Cutter>()
.ToList();
}
Hope this helps!
Quick side note. To create the index, the following code may need to be run:
new ArchivedIndex().Execute(session.Advanced.DocumentStore);
Just came across the latest build of Mono.CSharp and love the promise it offers.
Was able to get the following all worked out:
namespace XAct.Spikes.Duo
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CompilerSettings compilerSettings = new CompilerSettings();
compilerSettings.LoadDefaultReferences = true;
Report report = new Report(new Mono.CSharp.ConsoleReportPrinter());
Mono.CSharp.Evaluator e;
e= new Evaluator(compilerSettings, report);
//IMPORTANT:This has to be put before you include references to any assemblies
//our you;ll get a stream of errors:
e.Run("using System;");
//IMPORTANT:You have to reference the assemblies your code references...
//...including this one:
e.Run("using XAct.Spikes.Duo;");
//Go crazy -- although that takes time:
//foreach (Assembly assembly in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies())
//{
// e.ReferenceAssembly(assembly);
//}
//More appropriate in most cases:
e.ReferenceAssembly((typeof(A).Assembly));
//Exception due to no semicolon
//e.Run("var a = 1+3");
//Doesn't set anything:
//e.Run("a = 1+3;");
//Works:
//e.ReferenceAssembly(typeof(A).Assembly);
e.Run("var a = 1+3;");
e.Run("A x = new A{Name=\"Joe\"};");
var a = e.Evaluate("a;");
var x = e.Evaluate("x;");
//Not extremely useful:
string check = e.GetVars();
//Note that you have to type it:
Console.WriteLine(((A) x).Name);
e = new Evaluator(compilerSettings, report);
var b = e.Evaluate("a;");
}
}
public class A
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
}
And that was fun...can create a variable in the script's scope, and export the value.
There's just one last thing to figure out... how can I get a value in (eg, a domain entity that I want to apply a Rule script on), without using a static (am thinking of using this in a web app)?
I've seen the use compiled delegates -- but that was for the previous version of Mono.CSharp, and it doesn't seem to work any longer.
Anybody have a suggestion on how to do this with the current version?
Thanks very much.
References:
* Injecting a variable into the Mono.CSharp.Evaluator (runtime compiling a LINQ query from string)
* http://naveensrinivasan.com/tag/mono/
I know it's almost 9 years later, but I think I found a viable solution to inject local variables. It is using a static variable but can still be used by multiple evaluators without collision.
You can use a static Dictionary<string, object> which holds the reference to be injected. Let's say we are doing all this from within our class CsharpConsole:
public class CsharpConsole {
public static Dictionary<string, object> InjectionRepository {get; set; } = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
The idea is to temporarily place the value in there with a GUID as key so there won't be any conflict between multiple evaluator instances. To inject do this:
public void InjectLocal(string name, object value, string type=null) {
var id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
InjectionRepository[id] = value;
type = type ?? value.GetType().FullName;
// note for generic or nested types value.GetType().FullName won't return a compilable type string, so you have to set the type parameter manually
var success = _evaluator.Run($"var {name} = ({type})MyNamespace.CsharpConsole.InjectionRepository[\"{id}\"];");
// clean it up to avoid memory leak
InjectionRepository.Remove(id);
}
Also for accessing local variables there is a workaround using Reflection so you can have a nice [] accessor with get and set:
public object this[string variable]
{
get
{
FieldInfo fieldInfo = typeof(Evaluator).GetField("fields", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (fieldInfo != null)
{
var fields = fieldInfo.GetValue(_evaluator) as Dictionary<string, Tuple<FieldSpec, FieldInfo>>;
if (fields != null)
{
if (fields.TryGetValue(variable, out var tuple) && tuple != null)
{
var value = tuple.Item2.GetValue(_evaluator);
return value;
}
}
}
return null;
}
set
{
InjectLocal(variable, value);
}
}
Using this trick, you can even inject delegates and functions that your evaluated code can call from within the script. For instance, I inject a print function which my code can call to ouput something to the gui console window:
public delegate void PrintFunc(params object[] o);
public void puts(params object[] o)
{
// call the OnPrint event to redirect the output to gui console
if (OnPrint!=null)
OnPrint(string.Join("", o.Select(x => (x ?? "null").ToString() + "\n").ToArray()));
}
This puts function can now be easily injected like this:
InjectLocal("puts", (PrintFunc)puts, "CsInterpreter2.PrintFunc");
And just be called from within your scripts:
puts(new object[] { "hello", "world!" });
Note, there is also a native function print but it directly writes to STDOUT and redirecting individual output from multiple console windows is not possible.
In ASP.NET Web API, it allows you to write ODATA queries in the url string to specify which data you want to return from a method. However the part that I'm having a hard time grasping is that ODATA works to filter an IQueryable collection of C# objects, not the database table itself.
This is impractical because really you would want to filter at the database level, as it would be horrible to return all objects from the database, load them into a C# IQueryable list, and then have the ODATA filter that list.
Here is the code, which uses NHibernate and Castle Active Record for data access:
public IQueryable<Message> GetAll()
{
return from m in MessageData.FindAllQueryable()
select ConvertToView(m);
}
public static IQueryable<Message> FindAllQueryable()
{
var criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<Message>()
.CreateAlias("MessageRecipients", "mr")
.AddOrder(new Order("Id", false));
return ActiveRecordMediator<Message>.FindAll(criteria).AsQueryable();
}
The end result of this code would be it returning all messages from the database. How do I allow the ODATA to perform its filters upon the database itself? Otherwise this whole concept of ODATA is completely impractical for real world situations.
Keep in mind, you're dealing with an IQueryable, which is not a physical list of objects. It is a query which has the potential to be executed and result in a list of entities. These queries can also be chained together:
var query = customRepository.Where(x => x.CustomerName == "John"); //no results generated
var query2 = query.Where(x => x.Salary > 100000); // still no results generated
var results = query2.ToList(); // now results are generated
You should be able to just return an instance of Session.Query from NHibernate. The OData functionality will then chain the criteria additional based on the URL and then enumerate the results back out.
Here is how I ended up getting it working. Much thanks to Andreas for leading me to NHibernate.OData.
In my controller action I get the odata from the url and pass it into my data access function:
public IQueryable<Message> GetAll(int authUserId, int userId, DateTime? startDate, DateTime? endDate)
{
LogWriter.Write(String.Format("Getting all messages for user {0}", userId));
//get messages and convert to view.
return from m in MessageData.FindAll(userId, startDate, endDate, GetOData())
select new Message(m);
}
protected string GetOData()
{
var odata = this.Request.RequestUri.Query;
odata = odata.Substring(odata.IndexOf("$"), odata.Length - odata.IndexOf("$"));
odata = odata.Replace("%20", " ");
return odata;
}
Inside the data access method, we get the NHibernate session and call session.ODataQuery:
public static IQueryable<Message> FindAll(int userId, DateTime? startDate, DateTime? endDate, string odata)
{
ICriteria query = GetSession().ODataQuery<Message>(odata);
var detachedCriteria = new ConvertedDetachedCriteria(query)
.CreateAlias("MessageRecipients", "mr")
.Add(Restrictions.Or(
Restrictions.Eq("SenderUserId", userId),
Restrictions.Eq("mr.Key.RecipientId", userId)
));
return FindAllQueryable(detachedCriteria);
}
public static ISession GetSession()
{
var factory = ActiveRecordMediator.GetSessionFactoryHolder().GetSessionFactories()[0];
return factory.OpenSession();
}
public static IQueryable<T> FindAllQueryable(DetachedCriteria criteria)
{
return ActiveRecordMediator<T>.FindAll(criteria).AsQueryable();
}
Also, a simple ConvertedDetachedCriteria class is needed to convert from ICriteria to DetachedCriteria.
public class ConvertedDetachedCriteria : DetachedCriteria
{
public ConvertedDetachedCriteria(ICriteria criteria)
: base((CriteriaImpl)criteria, criteria)
{
var impl = (CriteriaImpl)criteria;
impl.Session = null;
}
}
Hopefully this will help someone else. I now can write odata queries against my asp.net web api methods and have them filter at the db level, which is much more useful than filtering iqueryable c# objects!!
Adding to #Justin answer, without ActiveRecord one could just return something like
public IQueryable<Message> Get()
{
ICriteria query = _unitOfWork.CurrentSession.ODataQuery<Message>(GetOData());
return query.Future<Location>().AsQueryable<Location>();
}
// Taken from #Justin's answer
protected string GetOData()
{
var odata = this.Request.RequestUri.Query;
odata = odata.Substring(odata.IndexOf("$"), odata.Length - odata.IndexOf("$"));
odata = odata.Replace("%20", " ");
return odata;
}
This should put you up for testing!