I am trying to access a different context with one variable. Please have a look at the code before:
...
private readonly ClientOneType _contextClientOne;
private readonly ClientTwoType _contextClientTwo;
public ExampleService()
{
_contextClientOne = new ClientOneType();
_contextClientTwo = new ClientTwoType();
}
public Stores[] GetStores(Store storeModel)
{
try
{
var _dynamicContext = null; //this throws an error because c# needs a type for runtime.
if (client == "OutBack")
_dynamicContext = _contextClientOne;
else if(client == "DollarGeneral")
_dynamicContext = _contextClientTwo;
var stores = (from s in _dynamicContext.Store //this is where the magic should take place
where s.StoreName == storeModel.StoreName
select p).ToArray();
return stores;
}
...
}
I get an error when running this because _dynamicContext can not be null so how can i create a variable that can be changed into different contexts?
The lazy solution would be to create different methods for each client, but that wouldn't be very effective as it will become unmaintainable.
I will really appreciate the help. Thank you in advance.
public interface IClientType
{
public Store Store { get; }
}
public class ClientOneType : IClientType
{
...
}
public class ClientTwoType : IClientType
{
...
}
public Stores[] GetStores(Store storeModel)
{
try
{
IClientType _dynamicContext = null;
...
Do ClientOneType and ClientTwoType both derrive from a base class that exposes the property named "Store" ?
I'm guessing they do not, and since they do not, there is no way to use the same variable to write the LINQ query you are writing because the compiler has to be able to determine what properties are available.
however, you could use IQueryable to dynamically build the query
IQueryable<Stores> storeQry=null;
if (client == "Walmart")
storeQry= _contextClientOne.Store.AsQueryable();
else if(client == "CHS")
storeQry= _contextClientTwo.Store.AsQueryable();
var stores = (from s in storeQry
where s.StoreName == storeModel.StoreName
select p).ToArray();
Related
I'm putting together a web API that needs to match an external sources XML format and was looking to rename the Data Type objects in the swagger output.
It's working fine on the members of the class but I was wondering if it was possible to override the class name as well.
Example:
[DataContract(Name="OVERRIDECLASSNAME")]
public class TestItem
{
[DataMember(Name="OVERRIDETHIS")]
public string toOverride {get; set;}
}
In the generated output I end up seeing
Model:
TestItem {
OVERRIDETHIS (string, optional)
}
I'd hope to see
OVERRIDECLASSNAME {
OVERRIDETHIS (string, optional)
}
Is this possible?
Thanks,
I had the same problem and I think I solved it now.
First of all add SchemaId in Swagger Configuration (from version 5.2.2 see https://github.com/domaindrivendev/Swashbuckle/issues/457):
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration
.EnableSwagger(c =>
{
c.SchemaId(schemaIdStrategy);
[...]
}
Then add this method:
private static string schemaIdStrategy(Type currentClass)
{
string returnedValue = currentClass.Name;
foreach (var customAttributeData in currentClass.CustomAttributes)
{
if (customAttributeData.AttributeType.Name.ToLower() == "datacontractattribute")
{
foreach (var argument in customAttributeData.NamedArguments)
{
if (argument.MemberName.ToLower() == "name")
{
returnedValue = argument.TypedValue.Value.ToString();
}
}
}
}
return returnedValue;
}
Hope it helps.
Pretty old question, but as I was looking for a similar solution, I bumped into this.
I think the code in Vincent's answer might not work.
Here is my take on it:
private static string schemaIdStrategy(Type currentClass)
{
var dataContractAttribute = currentClass.GetCustomAttribute<DataContractAttribute>();
return dataContractAttribute != null && dataContractAttribute.Name != null ? dataContractAttribute.Name : currentClass.Name;
}
Adding to the thread as I am not able to use the answer with Swashbukle for AspNetCore.
I am doing this. However I am not totally happy as if the object is contain in another object it is showing its original name. For example if you have a result set that is Paged That result is shown incorrectly.So this is not a final answer but might work on simple use cases.
I am using a Schema Filter. And the object just have [JsonObject(Title="CustomName")] as I get the Title property for the data type.
First Define a class like this:
public class CustomNameSchema : ISchemaFilter
{
public void Apply(Schema schema, SchemaFilterContext context)
{
if (schema?.Properties == null)
{
return;
}
var objAttribute = context.SystemType.GetCustomAttribute<JsonObjectAttribute>();
if( objAttribute!= default && objAttribute?.Title?.Length > 0)
{
schema.Title = objAttribute.Title;
}
}
}
On the startup you must configure a SchemaFilter
c.SchemaFilter<CustomNameSchema>();
I am new to ASP.NET MVC and I am stuck on a point. I am working on a classified site. My situation is, I have a lot of categories in which a user can post their ads and each ad category have different View. I have created a Controller Action like
public ActionResult PostAd(string CategoryName, string SubCategoryName)
{
if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Cars")
{
var model = new CarAdViewModel();
// set CarAdViewModel properties...
return View("CarAdCreateView", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Bikes")
{
var model = new BikeAdViewModel();
// set BikeAdViewModel properties...
return View("BikeAdViewModel", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Property" && SubCategoryName == "RentHouse")
{
var model = new RentHouseAdViewModel();
// set RentHouseAdViewModel properties...
return View("RentHouseAdViewModel", model);
}
else................... so on and so on
}
My problem is I have huge number of Categories and Sub Categories almost 60+. And if I keep on coding like above for 60+ categories and subcategories, my PostAd method is going to blast and become unmanageable.
Please tell me some best practice or pattern which can bring me out of this problem.
Unfortunately, some of what you are doing cannot be avoided. There needs to be some form of model and view selection based on category.
Use a factory pattern. Create a base class:
public abstract class BaseCategory
{
public abstract string GetViewName();
public abstract Object CreateModelFromFormData();
}
For each category, create a sub-class derived from BaseCategory and implement the abstract functions.
In your action, do the following:
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
BaseFactory factory;
if (categoryName == "Vehicle")
{
if (subCategoryName == "Cars")
{
factory = new CarsFactory();
}
else ...
}
else ...
return View(factory.GetViewName(), factory.CreateModelFromFormData());
}
I have a couple reasons for this schema:
I am purposefully using if/else for the factory selection. Your controller is going to be created and re-created for every action call. So pre-populating a list will constantly and needlessly create objects for categories that will not be selected. A simple if/else will be more efficient. If you want to prevent the if/else, you can put your factories in a Dictionary and select based on the categories, but that would be a lot of needless constructor actions.
I made the CreateModelFromFormData a function because I assume you'll need to copy data from the posted form data. This may require passing in data, but I left the function parameterless.
I used base/derived classes because the copying of the form data will probably need to be custom from the model being created and the form data being posted. Also, saving to persistent storage (file or database) may be category-specific as well.
It would be one of some possible solutions
public class PostAdData
{
public string CategoryName;
public string SubCategoryName;
public string ViewName;
public Type Model;
}
public class PostController : Controller
{
private readonly List<PostAdData> _theData;
public HomeController()
{
_theData = InitializeData();
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
var data = _theData.FirstOrDefault(c => c.CategoryName == categoryName && c.SubCategoryName == subCategoryName);
if (data != null)
{
var model = Activator.CreateInstance(data.Model);
return View(data.ViewName, model);
}
return View("Error");
}
[NonAction]
public List<PostAdData> InitializeData()
{
var result = new List<PostAdData>
{
new PostAdData
{
CategoryName = "Vehicle",
SubCategoryName = "Cars",
ViewName = "CarAdCreateView",
Model = typeof (CarAdViewModel)
}
};
return result;
}
}
You should make this data driven. You create a lookup table that has a compound primary key of category and subcategory. Then it has a table with View in it. Then you simply ad rows for each category/subcategory/view combination.
If you absolutely don't want a database, then you can use a simple hashset or dictionary.
var views = new Dictionary<Tuple<string,string>,string>();
views.Add(new Tuple<string,string>("Vehicle", "Cars"), "CarAdCreateView");
Then in your PostAd you just lookup the correct view.
What a beautiful solution on www.asp.net to my question, here is the link : http://forums.asp.net/t/1923868.aspx/1?ASP+NET+MVC+Conditional+ViewModel+Abstraction
Edit:
My code is :
public class AdsController : Controller
{
private readonly IAdService _adService;
public AdsController(IAdService adService)
{
_adService = adService;
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string Category, string SubCategory)
{
//Here I will call
var strategy = GetStrategy(CategoryName, SubCategoryName);
strategy.FillModel(_adService );
return View(strategy.ViewName, strategy.Model);
}
}
I have code like this:
//Fields
Product _prod, _existingProd;
void Test()
{
_prod = MakeAndPopulateSomeRandomProduct();
_existingProd = GetProdFromDb(1);
Mapper.CreateMap()
.AfterMap((s, d) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(d==_existingProd); //Why does this print false?
//Customize other properties on destination object
});
Mapper.Map(_prod, _existingProd);
}
When I call Test(), false is printed but I expected true. In my scenario, it is important to be able to access the original destination object via the AfterMap argument. I only included the fields to demonstrate the problem but in my real code, I don't have direct access to them. How can I access the object instances passed in to Map() when customizing the mapping?
The following example works. Probably you are using some type converter which creates new instance... Also please provide all mapping configurations to better understand the problem.
[TestFixture]
public class AfterMap_Test
{
//Fields
private Product _prod, _existingProd;
[Test]
public void Test()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Product, Product>()
.AfterMap((s, d) =>
{
Trace.WriteLine(d == _existingProd); //Why does this print false?
//Customize other properties on destination object
});
_existingProd = new Product {P1 = "Destination"};
_prod = new Product {P1 = "Source"};
Mapper.Map(_prod, _existingProd);
}
}
internal class Product
{
public string P1 { get; set; }
}
I am data binding to many FormView controls using EF entity instances, but I have to resort to this ridiculous kludge in order to achieve what I want without using EntityDataSource controls:
propertyHeaderSection.DataSource = new List<PropertyDetailsModel> { _propertyDetails };
I suspect I will have to derive my own control from FormView and enable it to accept an almost POCO as a data source. Where do I start?
This is my implementation, sort of the same idea as patmortech, but i also found out that the ValidateDataSource method on the BaseDataBoundControl is what throws the exception at run-time if your datasource isn't enumerable.
public class CustomFormView : System.Web.UI.WebControls.FormView
{
public override object DataSource
{
get
{
if (!(base.DataSource is IEnumerable))
return new[] {base.DataSource};
return base.DataSource;
}
set
{
base.DataSource = value;
}
}
// This method complains at run time, if the datasource is not
// IListSource, IDataSource or IEnumerbale
protected override void ValidateDataSource(object dataSource)
{
//base.ValidateDataSource(dataSource);
}
}
EDIT:
Considering the suggestion, i've made some changes to the way i check if the assigned DataSource is enumerable or not. I have also managed to create a sample app (VS 2010 Solution) to demo the changes. The app can be downloaded from http://raghurana.com/blog/wp-content/attachments/FormViewDataProblem.zip
In short this is what i am checking to ensure that the existing datasource can be enumerated already or not:
public static bool CanEnumerate( this object obj )
{
if (obj == null) return false;
Type t = obj.GetType();
return t.IsArray ||
t.Implements(typeof (IEnumerable).FullName) ||
t.Implements(typeof (IListSource).FullName) ||
t.Implements(typeof (IDataSource).FullName);
}
Please feel free to suggest more changes, if this isnt quite the desired functionality. Cheers.
Not sure it's the best idea in the world, but this is how you could derive from FormView to allow single object data source values. It basically does the same check that the ValidateDataSource does internally, and then creates a list wrapper for the item if it's not already a valid type.
public class SingleObjectFormView : System.Web.UI.WebControls.FormView
{
public override object DataSource
{
get
{
return base.DataSource;
}
set
{
//will check if it's an expected list type, and if not,
//will put it into a list
if (! (value == null || value is System.Collections.IEnumerable || value is System.ComponentModel.IListSource || value is System.Web.UI.IDataSource) )
{
value = new List<object> { value };
}
base.DataSource = value;
}
}
}
If I have a read-only property on an object that fills itself via the DB, is this what I should be doing, or is there a better way to make sure it's already been evaluated?
private List<Variable> _selectedVariables;
public new List<Variable> SelectedVariables
{
get
{
if (_selectedVariables == null)
{
_selectedVariables = SomeFunctionThatCallsDB();
}
return _selectedVariables;
}
}
That's fine for a single thread; but you will have problems if that is going to be in a situation where you have multithreaded gets.
EDIT: Threadsafing:
Simple Threadsafe pattern:
private readonly object _objectLock = new object();
private List<T> _someList = null;
public List<T> MyStuff
{
get
{
if(_someList == null)
{
lock(_objectLock)
{
if(_someList == null)
_someList = LoadFromDB();
}
}
return _someList;
}
}
You check to see if set, then lock, then check again to make sure you covered the race condition.