hey, there, is there any way to ass a NON DB property to a Linq-to-SQL class? (etc calculated fields), I'm getting an error when trying
Linq2Sql generates your entities as partial classes. This makes it easy to extend these classes yourself without modifying the code generated by L2S (which is a bad idea since it will be overwritten if you update your model and regenerate.)
Just find the partial class definition and create a new source file where you declare the same partial class. Inside that new class, add the property or methods that you want to use in your code but Linq2Sql will not have any knowledge of.
Related
I am converting from LinqToSQL to Entity Framework Core 2. While converting some methods I realized I am not sure if the PrepareDataContext are required any more. I am more generally asking if there's an equivalent in EFC2. I cannot find a massive amount of information on this.
For some tangible reference here is a snippet of the code I am looking at.
Protected Overrides Sub PrepareDataContext(ByVal pobjContext As DbDataContext)
MyBase.PrepareDataContext(pobjContext)
Dim loadOptions = New System.Data.Linq.DataLoadOptions
pobjContext.LoadOptions = loadOptions
End Sub
PrepareDataContext must be a method of your own, it's not part of LINQ-to-SQL's DataContext. What matters is that the method is used to set context.LoadOptions. That's not possible/necessary in Entity Framework.
For one of its functions, LoadWith, DataLoadOptions is replaced by Include. Include is on a per-query basis, not per context, as DataLoadOptions.
For the other DataLoadOptions functions there's no direct alternative.
Side note: I assume that the code in your question is not your actual code. It wouldn't make much sense to add New System.Data.Linq.DataLoadOptions to a context without doing anything with it.
I Have Create a DB in that I am Having Multiple tables having Relationship between them.
When a try to get data from my WEb app i get this error
"'Self referencing loop detected with type 'System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.PrescriptionMaster_2C4C63F6E22DFF8E29DCAC8D06EBAE038831B58747056064834E80E41B5C4E4A'. Path '[0].Patient.PrescriptionMasters"
I coudn't get why i am getting this error, and when i remove the relationships between tables i get proper data From it.
I have Tried other solutions like adding
"config.Formatters.JsonFormatter.SerializerSettings.ReferenceLoopHandling
= Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore; "
in Webconfig.cs but nothing has worked for me.
Please help me, what should I do ?
The only proper way to prevent this from happening is by not sending Entity Framework objects (which may contain such loops) into the JSON Serializer (which is not too good at knowing when to stop serializing).
Instead, create ViewModels that mimic the parts of the EF Objects that your Front End actually needs, then fill those ViewModels using the EF Objects.
A quick-and-dirty way is to just use anonymous objects, for example:
return new
{
Product = new
{
Id = EF_Product.Id,
Name = EF_Product.Name
}
};
A good rule-of-thumb is to only assign simple properties (number, bool, string, datetime) from the EF Objects to the ViewModel items. As soon as you encounter an EF Object property that is yet another EF Object (or a collection of EF Objects), then you need to translate those as well to 'simple' objects that are not linked to EF.
On the other end of the spectrum there are libraries such as AutoMapper. If you decide that you need actual ViewModel classes, then AutoMapper will help mapping the EF Objects to those ViewModels in a very structured way.
Just add this to the Application_Start in Global.asax:
HttpConfiguration config = GlobalConfiguration.Configuration;
config.Formatters.JsonFormatter
.SerializerSettings
.ReferenceLoopHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore;
It will ignore the reference pointing back to the object.
In the excellent mvvmcross-library I can use RIO binding to prevent unreadable code:
public INC<String>Title = new NC<String>();
Then I can read and write values using Title.Value. Makes the models much more readable.
Normally, this property would be written as:
private string _title;
public string Title
{
get { return _title; }
set
{
_title = value;
RaisePropertyChanged("Title");
}
}
But when I want to use sqlite-net, these fields cannot be streamed to the database because they are not basic types with a getter and setter.
I can think of a few options how to get around that:
Make a new simple object that is similar to the model, but only with
the direct db-fields. And create a simple import-export static
method on the model. This also could prevent struggling with complex
model-code that never needs to relate to the actual database.
Make sqlite-net understand reading NC-fields. I read into the code of the mapper, but it looks like this is going to be a lot of work because it relies on the getter-setter. I did not find a way to insert custom mapping to a type, that could be generic.
Remove RIO and just put in all the code myself instead of relying on RIO.
Maybe someone has some advice?
Thanks Stuart. It was exactly my thought, so I did implement it that way: my (DB) Models do not contain RIO. Only my viewmodels do, and they reference a Model that is DB-compatible.
So, for posterity the following tips:
- Do not use RIO in your models that need to be database-backed.
- Reference models in your viewmodels. In the binding you can use the . (dot) to reference this model.
This keeps them nicely separated. This gives you also another advantage: if you need to reuse a model (because the same object might be displayed twice on the screen), but under different circumstances, it is much easier to handle this situaties to find this already instantiated model.
Hi and thanks in advance,
I have a custom class being constructed from my main class. In the custom class it has another custom class that is passed in as a parameter. I would like to strictly type the parameter variable but when I do, 'the type is not a compile type constant etc'.
This, I understand, is because the custom class used as a parameter has not yet been constructed.
It all works when I use the variable type ( * ) to type the parameter.
I suspect this is a design flaw, in that I am using an incorrect design pattern. It is actually hand-me-down code, having received a large project from someone else who is not entirely familiar with oop concepts and design patterns.
I have considered using a dummy constructor for the parametered class in my main class but the passed in class also takes a custom class (itself with a parametered constructor). I am considering using ... (rest) so that the custom classes' parameters are optional.
Is there any other way to control the order of construction of classes? Would the rest variables work?
Thanks
(edit)
in main.as within the constructor or another function
var parameter1:customclass2;
customclass1(parameter1);
in customclass1 constructor:
public function customclass1(parameter1:customclass2)
{
....
Flash complains that the compiled type cannot be found when I use the data type customclass 2 in the paramater. It does not complain when I use the variable data type * or leave out the data type (which then defaults to * anyway). I reason that this is because customclass2 has not yet been constructed and is therefore not available to the compiler.
Alternatively, I have not added the path of customclass2 to the compiler but I am fairly certain I have ruled this out.
There are over 10,000 lines of code and the whole thing works very well. I am rewriting simply to optimise for the compiler - strict data typing, error handling, etc. If I find a situation where inheritance etc is available as an option then I'll use it but it is already divided into classes (at least in the main part). It is simply for my own peace of mind and to maintain a policy of strict data typing so that compiler optimization works more efficiently.
thnx
I have not added the path of customclass2 to the compiler but I am fairly certain I have ruled this out.
So if you don't have the class written anywhere what can the compiler do ? It is going to choke of course. You either have to write the CustomClass class file or just use "thing:Object" or "thing:Asteriks". It's not going to complain when you use the "*" class type because it could be anything an array, string, a previously declared class. But when you specify something that doesn't exists it will just choke, regardless of the order the parameters are declared in.
I am having trouble with inheritance mapping in Linq to Sql. I am using MSDN as a reference and as a basis it sounds good. However the example it gives is a single table inheritance mapping. However, I am trying to do multiple table inheritance to save on table space. Is this possible? So far I have:
[Table(Name="writing_objs")]
[InheritanceMapping(Code="T",Type=typeof(ObjectTypeA), IsDefault=true)] // Only default because a default is required
[InheritanceMapping(Code="N",Type=typeof(ObjectTypeb))]
public abstract class WritingObject
{
/* ... */
[Column(Name="obj_tp", IsDiscriminator=true)]
[StringLength(1)]
public string ObjectType { get; set; }
}
I then have the different object types defined like so:
[Table(Name="obj_type_a")]
public class ObjectTypeA: WritingObject
{
/* Object Type A fields */
}
The issue seems to be that I am defining a table attribute in the 2nd type, as I get the following exception:
The inheritance subtype 'ObjectTypeA' is also declared as a root type.
Is it possible to keep these fields in separate tables with Linq to Sql or am I going to have to consolidate them all into a single table? Is it necessarily bad to have some extra fields in one table as long as there aren't too many (some object types might even be able to share some fields)?
Linq to SQL does not support multiple-table inheritance using a discriminator, even though that is the best design in many cases (it's the most normalized).
You'll have to implement it using associations instead. If you use a mapping layer that converts it to an inheritance-based domain model, it will be easier to manage at higher layers.
Well I know this problem has already been resolved, but as I just encountered the same issue, I'd like to share what I did :
Just remove the [Table] attribute from your inherited classes. And it's quite logical, because we define in the generic classes a way to store all subtypes (with the discriminatory attrbute).
Maybe this will help someone in the future.