I am having a minor problem with WCF service proxies where the message contains List<string> as a parameter.
I am using the 'Add Service reference' in Visual Studio to generate a reference to my service.
// portion of my web service message
public List<SubscribeInfo> Subscribe { get; set; }
public List<string> Unsubscribe { get; set; }
These are the generated properties on my MsgIn for one of my web methods.
You can see it used ArrayOfString when I am using List<string>, and the other takes List<SubscribeInfo> - which matches my original C# object above.
[System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(EmitDefaultValue=false)]
public System.Collections.Generic.List<DataAccess.MailingListWSReference.SubscribeInfo> Subscribe {
get {
return this.SubscribeField;
}
set {
if ((object.ReferenceEquals(this.SubscribeField, value) != true)) {
this.SubscribeField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("Subscribe");
}
}
}
[System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(EmitDefaultValue=false)]
publicDataAccess.MailingListWSReference.ArrayOfString Unsubscribe {
get {
return this.UnsubscribeField;
}
set {
if ((object.ReferenceEquals(this.UnsubscribeField, value) != true)) {
this.UnsubscribeField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("Unsubscribe");
}
}
}
The ArrayOfString class generated looks like this. This is a class generated in my code - its not a .NET class. It actually generated me a class that inherits from List, but didn't have the 'decency' to create me any constructors.
[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.Runtime.Serialization", "3.0.0.0")]
[System.Runtime.Serialization.CollectionDataContractAttribute(Name="ArrayOfString", Namespace="http://www.example.com/", ItemName="string")]
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public class ArrayOfString : System.Collections.Generic.List<string> {
}
The problem is that I often create my message like this :
client.UpdateMailingList(new UpdateMailingListMsgIn()
{
Email = model.Email,
Name = model.Name,
Source = Request.Url.ToString(),
Subscribe = subscribeTo.ToList(),
Unsubscribe = unsubscribeFrom.ToList()
});
I really like the clean look this gives me.
Now for the actual problem :
I cant assign a List<string> to the Unsubscribe property which is an ArrayOfString - even though it inherits from List. In fact I cant seem to find ANY way to assign it without extra statements.
I've tried the following :
new ArrayOfString(unsubscribeFrom.ToList()) - this constructor doesn't exist :-(
changing the type of the array used by the code generator - doesn't work - it always gives me ArrayOfString (!?)
try to cast List<string> to ArrayOfString - fails with 'unable to cast', even though it compiles just fine
create new ArrayOfString() and then AddRange(unsubscribeFrom.ToList()) - works, but I cant do it all in one statement
create a conversion function ToArrayOfString(List<string>), which works but isn't as clean as I want.
Its only doing this for string, which is annoying.
Am i missing something? Is there a way to tell it not to generate ArrayOfString - or some other trick to assign it ?
Any .NET object that implements a method named "Add" can be initialized just like arrays or dictionaries.
As ArrayOfString does implement an "Add" method, you can initialize it like this:
var a = new ArrayOfString { "string one", "string two" };
But, if you really want to initialize it based on another collection, you can write a extension method for that:
public static class U
{
public static T To<T>(this IEnumerable<string> strings)
where T : IList<string>, new()
{
var newList = new T();
foreach (var s in strings)
newList.Add(s);
return newList;
}
}
Usage:
client.UpdateMailingList(new UpdateMailingListMsgIn()
{
Email = model.Email,
Name = model.Name,
Source = Request.Url.ToString(),
Subscribe = subscribeTo.ToList(),
Unsubscribe = unsubscribeFrom.To<ArrayOfString>()
});
I prefer not to return generic types across a service boundary in the first place. Instead return Unsubscribe as a string[], and SubscriptionInfo as SubscriptionInfo[]. If necessary, an array can easily be converted to a generic list on the client, as follows:
Unsubscribe = new List<string>(unsubscribeFrom);
Subscribe = new List<SubscriptionInfo>(subscribeTo);
Too late but can help people in the future...
Use the svcutil and explicitly inform the command line util that you want the proxy class to be serialized by the XmlSerializer and not the DataContractSerializer (default). Here's the sample:
svcutil /out:c:\Path\Proxy.cs /config:c:\Path\Proxy.config /async /serializer:XmlSerializer /namespace:*,YourNamespace http://www.domain.com/service/serviceURL.asmx
Note that the web service is an ASP.NET web service ok?!
If you are using VS 2008 to consume service then there is an easy solution.
Click on the "Advanced..." button on the proxy dialog that is displayed when you add a Service Reference. In the Collection Type drop down you can select System.Generic.List. The methods returning List should now work properly.
(Hope this is what you were asking for, I'm a little tired and the question was a tad difficult for me to read.)
Related
I have an MVC 4 application that sends out multiple emails. For example, I have an email template for submitting an order, a template for cancelling an order, etc...
I have an Email Service with multiple methods. My controller calls the Send method which looks like this:
public virtual void Send(List<string> recipients, string subject, string template, object data)
{
...
string html = GetContent(template, data);
...
}
The Send method calls GetContent, which is the method causing the problem:
private string GetContent(string template, object data)
{
string path = Path.Combine(BaseTemplatePath, string.Format("{0}{1}", template, ".html.cshtml"));
string content = File.ReadAllText(path);
return Engine.Razor.RunCompile(content, "htmlTemplate", null, data);
}
I am receiving the error:
The same key was already used for another template!
In my GetContent method should I add a new parameter for the TemplateKey and use that variable instead of always using htmlTemplate? Then the new order email template could have newOrderKey and CancelOrderKey for the email template being used to cancel an order?
Explanation
This happens because you use the same template key ("htmlTemplate") for multiple different templates.
Note that the way you currently have implemented GetContent you will run into multiple problems:
Even if you use a unique key, for example the template variable, you will trigger the exception when the templates are edited on disk.
Performance: You are reading the template file every time even when the template is already cached.
Solution:
Implement the ITemplateManager interface to manage your templates:
public class MyTemplateManager : ITemplateManager
{
private readonly string baseTemplatePath;
public MyTemplateManager(string basePath) {
baseTemplatePath = basePath;
}
public ITemplateSource Resolve(ITemplateKey key)
{
string template = key.Name;
string path = Path.Combine(baseTemplatePath, string.Format("{0}{1}", template, ".html.cshtml"));
string content = File.ReadAllText(path);
return new LoadedTemplateSource(content, path);
}
public ITemplateKey GetKey(string name, ResolveType resolveType, ITemplateKey context)
{
return new NameOnlyTemplateKey(name, resolveType, context);
}
public void AddDynamic(ITemplateKey key, ITemplateSource source)
{
throw new NotImplementedException("dynamic templates are not supported!");
}
}
Setup on startup:
var config = new TemplateServiceConfiguration();
config.Debug = true;
config.TemplateManager = new MyTemplateManager(BaseTemplatePath);
Engine.Razor = RazorEngineService.Create(config);
And use it:
// You don't really need this method anymore.
private string GetContent(string template, object data)
{
return Engine.Razor.RunCompile(template, null, data);
}
RazorEngine will now fix all the problems mentioned above internally. Notice how it is perfectly fine to use the name of the template as key, if in your scenario the name is all you need to identify a template (otherwise you cannot use NameOnlyTemplateKey and need to provide your own implementation).
Hope this helps.
(Disclaimer: Contributor of RazorEngine)
I'm trying to make a call to a database using RequestFactory with Hibernate/JPA, and I want to retrieve a list of entities with embedded entities returned as well. I know that the .with() method works for methods like .find(), but it doesn't seem to work with custom queries.
The current way I'm doing it is as follows:
I used a named query in the entity class for the query. (Primary Entity is Name, embedded entity is a Suffix entity called nameSuffix)
#NamedQueries({ #NamedQuery(name = "Query.name", query = "select * from NameTable") })
Then in the service class, the .list() method, which is what I'd like to call with RequestFactory, is as follows.
public List<Name> list() {
return emp.get().createNamedQuery("Query.name").getResultList();
}
Finally, this is how I make the call in my client side code:
NameRequest context = requestFactory.createNameRequest();
context.list().with("nameSuffix").fire(new Receiver<List<NameProxy>>(){
public void onSuccess(List<NameProxy> response) {
String suff = response.get(0).getNameSuffix().getText();
}
});
In the above code, it says that getNameSuffix() returns null, which would imply that .with("nameSuffix") does not work with the .list() call like it does with the standard .find() method.
Is there a way to build a call that would return a list of entities and their embedded entities using .with(), or do I need to do it another way? If I need to do it another way, has anyone figured out a good way of doing it?
I think you misunderstood what the method with() is thought for, unless you had a method getNameSuffix which returns the NameSuffixentity. This is what the documentation says about it:
When querying the server, RequestFactory does not automatically populate relations in the object graph. To do this, use the with() method on a request and specify the related property name as a String
So, what you have to pass to the method is a list of the name of the child entities you want to retrieve. I hope this example could be helpful:
class A {
String getS(){return "s-a"}
B getB(){return new B();}
}
class B {
String getS(){return "s-b";}
C getC(){return new C();}
}
class C {
String getS(){return "s-c";}
}
context.getA().fire(new Receiver<A>(){
public void onSuccess(A response) {
// return 's-a'
response.getS();
// trhows a NPE
response.getB().getS();
}
});
context.getA().with("b").fire(new Receiver<A>(){
public void onSuccess(A response) {
// return 's-a'
response.getS();
// return 's-b'
response.getB().getS();
// trhows a NPE
response.getB().getC().getS();
}
});
context.getA().with("b.c").fire(new Receiver<A>(){
public void onSuccess(A response) {
// return 's-a'
response.getS();
// return 's-b'
response.getB().getS();
// return 's-c'
response.getB().getC().getS();
}
});
Following line of code gives me an error saying "The underlying connection was closed".
return this.repository.GetQuery<Countries>().Include(g => g.Cities).AsEnumerable().ToList();
But if I remove .Include(g => g.cities) it works fine.
this code is written in one of the operation in my WCF service, and I try to test it using WCF test client. I tried by calling this operation from MVC application also, and the same issue was occurring there too.
Also, i am using generic repository with entity framework
Repository code (only few important extract)
Constructor:
public GenericRepository(DbContext objectContext)
{
if (objectContext == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("objectContext");
this._dbContext = objectContext;
this._dbContext.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
this._dbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
}
GetQuery method:
public IQueryable<TEntity> GetQuery<TEntity>() where TEntity : class
{
var entityName = GetEntityName<TEntity>();
return ((IObjectContextAdapter)DbContext).ObjectContext.CreateQuery<TEntity>(entityName);
}
Attempt#1
Created following overloads in repository code:
public IQueryable<TEntity> GetQuery<TEntity>(params string[] includes) where TEntity : class
{
var entityName = GetEntityName<TEntity>();
IQueryable<TEntity> query = ((IObjectContextAdapter)DbContext).ObjectContext.CreateQuery<TEntity>(entityName);
foreach(string include in includes)
{
query = query.Include(include);
}
return query;
}
public IQueryable<TEntity> GetQuery<TEntity>(Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> predicate, params string[] includes) where TEntity : class
{
return GetQuery<TEntity>(includes).Where(predicate);
}
WCF is now trying to execute following line of code:
return this.repository.GetQuery<Countries>("Cities").AsEnumerable().ToList()
But it still gives the same error of "The underlying connection was closed". I tested it in WCF test client. However, when I debug the repository code it shows the navigation object getting included in result, but the issue seems occurring while trying to pass the output to client (WCF test client, or any other client)
After looking at the code you've now posted, I can conclude that, indeed, your DbContext is being closed at the end of the GetQuery method, and is thus failing when you try to use include. What you might want to do to solve it is to have an optional params variable for the GetQuery method that will take in some properties to be included, and just do the include right in the GetQuery method itself.
I've been using NH Validator for some time, mostly through ValidationDefs, but I'm still not sure about two things:
Is there any special benefit of using ValidationDef for simple/standard validations (like NotNull, MaxLength etc)?
I'm worried about the fact that those two methods throw different kinds of exceptions on validation, for example:
ValidationDef's Define.NotNullable() throws PropertyValueException
When using [NotNull] attribute, an InvalidStateException is thrown.
This makes me think mixing these two approaches isn't a good idea - it will be very difficult to handle validation exceptions consistently. Any suggestions/recommendations?
ValidationDef is probably more suitable for business-rules validation even if, having said that, I used it even for simple validation. There's more here.
What I like about ValidationDef is the fact that it has got a fluent interface.
I've been playing around with this engine for quite a while and I've put together something that works quite well for me.
I've defined an interface:
public interface IValidationEngine
{
bool IsValid(Entity entity);
IList<Validation.IBrokenRule> Validate(Entity entity);
}
Which is implemented in my validation engine:
public class ValidationEngine : Validation.IValidationEngine
{
private NHibernate.Validator.Engine.ValidatorEngine _Validator;
public ValidationEngine()
{
var vtor = new NHibernate.Validator.Engine.ValidatorEngine();
var configuration = new FluentConfiguration();
configuration
.SetDefaultValidatorMode(ValidatorMode.UseExternal)
.Register<Data.NH.Validation.User, Domain.User>()
.Register<Data.NH.Validation.Company, Domain.Company>()
.Register<Data.NH.Validation.PlanType, Domain.PlanType>();
vtor.Configure(configuration);
this._Validator = vtor;
}
public bool IsValid(DomainModel.Entity entity)
{
return (this._Validator.IsValid(entity));
}
public IList<Validation.IBrokenRule> Validate(DomainModel.Entity entity)
{
var Values = new List<Validation.IBrokenRule>();
NHibernate.Validator.Engine.InvalidValue[] values = this._Validator.Validate(entity);
if (values.Length > 0)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
Values.Add(
new Validation.BrokenRule()
{
// Entity = value.Entity as BpReminders.Data.DomainModel.Entity,
// EntityType = value.EntityType,
EntityTypeName = value.EntityType.Name,
Message = value.Message,
PropertyName = value.PropertyName,
PropertyPath = value.PropertyPath,
// RootEntity = value.RootEntity as DomainModel.Entity,
Value = value.Value
});
}
}
return (Values);
}
}
I plug all my domain rules in there.
I bootstrap the engine at the app startup:
For<Validation.IValidationEngine>()
.Singleton()
.Use<Validation.ValidationEngine>();
Now, when I need to validate my entities before save, I just use the engine:
if (!this._ValidationEngine.IsValid(User))
{
BrokenRules = this._ValidationEngine.Validate(User);
}
and return, eventually, the collection of broken rules.
I've got a Silverlight 4 RIA Services (SP1) app using Entity Frameworks 4 CTP5. I can databind a grid or listbox to the IEnumerable loaded by the domain context and it shows data from the server. Great.
Now I want to create a new instance of MyEntity and add it to the client-side data so that the user can see the newly added entity. MyEntity is a true entity descendant, not a POCO.
The only Add method I can find is domainContext.EntityContainer.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>().Add(newobj)
This does add the new entity to the domain context, and the domainContext.HasChanges does become true, but the new entity doesn't show up in the databound controls.
How do I get the new entity to show up in the databound controls prior to SubmitChanges?
(Probably related to this SO question from years ago that never got an answer)
Here's the server side declarations of the domain service, per requests:
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class MyDomainService : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<MyObjectContext>
{
protected override MyObjectContext CreateObjectContext()
{
return new MyObjectContext();
}
public IQueryable<MyEntity> GetMyEntities()
{
return this.ObjectContext.MyEntities;
}
public void InsertMyEntity(MyEntity MyEntity)
{
// ...
}
public void UpdateMyEntity(MyEntity currentMyEntity)
{
// ...
}
public void DeleteMyEntity(MyEntity MyEntity)
{
// ...
}
}
I've figured this out with a combination of my own trial and error and hints provided by some of the other responses to this question.
The key point I was missing was that it's not enough for the ViewModel to keep track of the DomainContext and hand out query results to the View for databinding. The ViewModel also has to capture and retain the query results if you want entity adds and deletes performed by the ViewModel to appear in the UI before DomainContext.SubmitChanges(). The ViewModel has to apply those adds to the collection view of the query results.
The ViewModel collection property for View databinding. In this case I'm using the Telerik QueryableDomainServiceCollectionView, but other collection views can be used:
public IEnumerable<MyEntity> MyEntities
{
get
{
if (this.view == null)
{
DomainContextNeeded();
}
return this.view;
}
}
private void DomainContextNeeded()
{
this.context = new MyDomainContext();
var q = context.GetMyEntitiesQuery();
this.view = new Telerik.Windows.Data.QueryableDomainServiceCollectionView<MyEntity>(context, q);
this.view.Load();
}
The ViewModel function that adds a new entity for the UI to display:
public void AddNewMyEntity(object selectedNode)
{
var ent = new MyEntity() { DisplayName = "New Entity" };
if (selectedNode == null)
{
this.view.AddNew(ent);
}
else if (selectedNode is MyEntity)
{
((MyEntity)selectedNode).Children.Add(ent);
}
}
Other responses mentioned ObservableCollection. The query results and the collection view may not return instances of ObservableCollection. They could be just IEnumerables. What is critical is that they implement INotifyCollectionChanged and IEditableCollectionView.
Thanks to those who contributed responses. I've +1'd each response that was helpful, but since none directly solved my problem I couldn't justify marking any as the definitive answer.
Your domainContext will have a property domainContext.MyEntities. Does it not show up in there when you add it?
Bind to that collection or watch that collection for changes.
domainContext.MyEntities.PropertyChanged += MyEventHandler;
I assume you bind your control to the IEnumerable which is provided by LoadOperation<TEntity>.Entities. In that case your binding source is not the DomainContext.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>().
DomainContext.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>() holds all your currently tracked instances of MyEntity, including the one you add with .Add().
LoadOperation<TEntity>.Entities only contains the instances of MyEntity that were actually loaded by your last LoadOperation/Query.
You have two options: Either add the new entity to the ItemsSource-collection for your control (I recommend that) or rebuild the collection with the contents of DomainContext.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>(). That may contain other elements that you have not cleared out before, though.