How can I store an array of doubles to database using Entity Framework Code-First with no impact on the existing code and architecture design?
I've looked at Data Annotation and Fluent API, I've also considered converting the double array to a string of bytes and store that byte to the database in it own column.
I cannot access the public double[] Data { get; set; } property with Fluent API, the error message I then get is:
The type double[] must be a non-nullable value type in order to use
it as parameter 'T'.
The class where Data is stored is successfully stored in the database, and the relationships to this class. I'm only missing the Data column.
You can do a thing like this :
[NotMapped]
public double[] Data
{
get
{
string[] tab = this.InternalData.Split(',');
return new double[] { double.Parse(tab[0]), double.Parse(tab[1]) };
}
set
{
this.InternalData = string.Format("{0},{1}", value[0], value[1]);
}
}
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public string InternalData { get; set; }
Thank you all for your inputs, due to your help I was able to track down the best way to solve this. Which is:
public string InternalData { get; set; }
public double[] Data
{
get
{
return Array.ConvertAll(InternalData.Split(';'), Double.Parse);
}
set
{
_data = value;
InternalData = String.Join(";", _data.Select(p => p.ToString()).ToArray());
}
}
Thanks to these stackoverflow posts:
String to Doubles array and
Array of Doubles to a String
I know it is a bit expensive, but you could do this
class Primitive
{
public int PrimitiveId { get; set; }
public double Data { get; set; }
[Required]
public Reference ReferenceClass { get; set; }
}
// This is the class that requires an array of doubles
class Reference
{
// Other EF stuff
// EF-acceptable reference to an 'array' of doubles
public virtual List<Primitive> Data { get; set; }
}
This will now map a single entity (here 'Reference') to a 'list' of your Primitive class. This is basically to allow the SQL database to be happy, and allow you to use your list of data appropriately.
This may not suit your needs, but will be a way to make EF happy.
It would be far easier if you use List<double> rather then double[]. You already have a table that stores your Data values. You probably have foreign key from some table to the table where your double values are stored. Create another model that reflects the table where doubles are stored and add foreign key mappings in the mappings class. That way you will not need to add some complex background logic which retrieves or stores values in a class property.
In my opinion almost all other answers work on the opposite of how it should be.
Entity EF should manage the string and the array must be generated from it. So the array must be whole read and written only when the string is accessed by EF.
A solution involving logic on Data[] is wrong because, as I wrote in a comment, you would run into paradoxical conditions. In all other conditions the variable must remain a pure array.
By putting the "get" and "set" logic in Data[], as I've seen so far, this happens:
1 - Every time an index access is made to the array, the array is automatically recreated from the string. This is a useless work, think of an iteration in a loop...
2 - when you go to set a single element it is not stored because it passes through "get" and not "set".
If you try to declare Data=new []{0,0,0} then set Data[1]=2 , going to re-read Data[1] the result is 0.
My solution is to completely turn the logic around.
public string Data_string
{
get => string.Join(';', Data??Array.Empty());
set => Data= value == null ? Array.Empty<double>() : Array.ConvertAll(value.Split(';',StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries), double.Parse);
}
[NotMapped]
public double[] Data {get;set;}
Obviously this only applies to storing and retrieving data on databases, access to Data_string is exclusive to EF.
Once the string is read from the DB it is associated to Data_string which, through set, creates the Data array.
At this point you can work on Data without affecting the string in any way, like a normal array.
When you will ask EF to save in the DB, through the get in the Data_string property, the string will be completely reconstructed based on the Data elements and then stored as a string.
Practically the string is modified only twice, at the moment of reading from the DB and at the moment of saving.
In my opinion this solution is much more efficient than operating continuously on the string.
Nathan White has the best answer (got my vote).
Here is a small improvement over Joffrey Kern's answer to allow lists of any length (untested):
[NotMapped]
public IEnumerable<double> Data
{
get
{
var tab = InternalData.Split(',');
return tab.Select(double.Parse).AsEnumerable();
}
set { InternalData = string.Join(",", value); }
}
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public string InternalData { get; set; }
Don't use double[] use List insted.
Like this.
public class MyModel{
...
public List<MyClass> Data { get; set; }
...
}
public class MyClass{
public int Id { get; set; }
public double Value { get; set; }
}
All that solution that I see there are bad, because:
If you create table, you don't want to store data like this: "99.5,89.65,78.5,15.5" that's not valid! Firstly its a string that means if you can type letter into it and at the moment when your ASP.NET server call double.Parse it will result in FormatException and that you really don't want!
It's slower, because your server must parse the string. Why parse the string instead getting almost ready data from SQL Server to use?
i know this post is Ancient, but in case someone still needs to do something like this, PLEASE DO NOT USE THE ABOVE SOLUTIONS,
as the above solutions are EXTREMELY inefficient (Performance and Disk Space wise).., the best way is to store the array as a Byte array
public byte[] ArrayData;
[NotMapped]
public double[] Array {
get {
var OutputArray = new double[ArrayData.Length / 8];
for (int i = 0;i < ArrayData.Length / 8;i++)
OutputArray[i] = BitConverter.ToDouble(ArrayData, i * 8);
return OutputArray;
}
set {
var OutputData = new byte[value.Length * 8];
for (int i = 0;i < value.Length;i++) {
var BinaryValue = BitConverter.GetBytes(value[i]);
OutputData[(i*8)] = BinaryValue[0];
OutputData[(i*8)+1] = BinaryValue[1];
OutputData[(i*8)+2] = BinaryValue[2];
OutputData[(i*8)+3] = BinaryValue[3];
OutputData[(i*8)+4] = BinaryValue[4];
OutputData[(i*8)+5] = BinaryValue[5];
OutputData[(i*8)+6] = BinaryValue[6];
OutputData[(i*8)+7] = BinaryValue[7];
}
ArrayData = OutputData;
}
}
`
And if you need more performance, you can go for Unsafe code and use pointers .. instead of BitConverter ..
This is way better than saving double values (that can get huge) as string, then spliting the string array !! and then parsing the strings to double !!!
These getter/setters work on the whole array, but if you need to get just one item from the array, you can make a function that gets a single item from the array with a complexity of O(1) :
for Get :
public double Array_GetValue(int Index) {
return BitConverter.ToDouble(ArrayData, Index * 8);
}
for Set :
public void Array_SetValue(int Index, double Value) {
var BinaryValue = BitConverter.GetBytes(Value);
ArrayData[(Index*8)] = BinaryValue[0];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+1] = BinaryValue[1];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+2] = BinaryValue[2];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+3] = BinaryValue[3];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+4] = BinaryValue[4];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+5] = BinaryValue[5];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+6] = BinaryValue[6];
ArrayData[(Index*8)+7] = BinaryValue[7];
}
If your collection can be null or empty, and you want this to be preserved, do this:
[NotMapped]
public double[] Data
{
get => InternalData != null ? Array.ConvertAll(Data.Split(new[] { ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries), double.Parse) : null;
set => InternalData = value != null ? string.Join(";", value) : null;
}
Also, specify [Column(TypeName = "varchar")] on the string property for a more efficient storage data type.
A perfect enhancement to #Jonas's answer will be to add the necessary annotations. So, a cleaner version would be
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
[JsonIgnore]
public string InternalData { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public double[] Data
{
get => Array.ConvertAll(InternalData.Split(';'), double.Parse);
set
{
InternalData = string.Join(";", value.Select(p => p.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)).ToArray());
}
}
The [JsonIgnore] Annotation will ignore the InternalData field from JSON serialization and Swagger UI.
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] will hide the public method from the IDE IntelliSense
This has baffled me for a while now and I cannot seem to get the grasp of it. I'm using Cell Value Factory to populate a simple one column table and it does not populate in the table.
It does and I click the rows that are populated but I do not see any values in them- in this case String values. [I just edited this to make it clearer]
I have a different project under which it works under the same kind of data model. What am I doing wrong?
Here's the code. The commented code at the end seems to work though. I've checked to see if the usual mistakes- creating a new column instance or a new tableview instance, are there. Nothing. Please help!
//Simple Data Model
Stock.java
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getstockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setstockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
}
//Controller class
MainGuiController.java
private ObservableList<Stock> data;
#FXML
private TableView<Stock> stockTableView;// = new TableView<>(data);
#FXML
private TableColumn<Stock, String> tickerCol;
private void setTickersToCol() {
try {
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();//conn is defined and works
ResultSet rsltset = stmt.executeQuery("SELECT ticker FROM tickerlist order by ticker");
data = FXCollections.observableArrayList();
Stock stockInstance;
while (rsltset.next()) {
stockInstance = new Stock(rsltset.getString(1).toUpperCase());
data.add(stockInstance);
}
} catch (SQLException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(WriteToFile.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
System.out.println("Connection Failed! Check output console");
}
tickerCol.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker"));
stockTableView.setItems(data);
}
/*THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKS*/
/*Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>> cellDataFeat =
new Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>>() {
#Override
public ObservableValue<String> call(CellDataFeatures<Stock, String> p) {
return new SimpleStringProperty(p.getValue().getstockTicker());
}
};*/
Suggested solution (use a Lambda, not a PropertyValueFactory)
Instead of:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Appointment,LocalDate>("date"));
Write:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(cellData -> cellData.getValue().dateProperty());
For more information, see this answer:
Java: setCellValuefactory; Lambda vs. PropertyValueFactory; advantages/disadvantages
Solution using PropertyValueFactory
The lambda solution outlined above is preferred, but if you wish to use PropertyValueFactory, this alternate solution provides information on that.
How to Fix It
The case of your getter and setter methods are wrong.
getstockTicker should be getStockTicker
setstockTicker should be setStockTicker
Some Background Information
Your PropertyValueFactory remains the same with:
new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker")
The naming convention will seem more obvious when you also add a property accessor to your Stock class:
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getStockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setStockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
public StringProperty stockTickerProperty() {
return stockTicker;
}
}
The PropertyValueFactory uses reflection to find the relevant accessors (these should be public). First, it will try to use the stockTickerProperty accessor and, if that is not present fall back to getters and setters. Providing a property accessor is recommended as then you will automatically enable your table to observe the property in the underlying model, dynamically updating its data as the underlying model changes.
put the Getter and Setter method in you data class for all the elements.
I'm new to java 8 programming and would like to know what is the best way to rewrite the below using streams()/lambda's.
class Person {
String name;
int age;
...
}
public boolean checkPersonAboveAge(List<Person> persons, int age) {
for (Person person : persons) {
if (person.age > age) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
So far i tried:
public boolean checkPersonAboveAge(List<Person> persons, int age) {
Person p = persons.stream().filter(p -> p.age > age).findAny().orElse(null);
if (p != null) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
I read that with lamdba's the readability of code would improve, but looking at this example either i'm not using this feature right or missing something.
Your current stream attempt does indeed work, but it's an uncommon and not the best way to go about it.
You create an Optional object that you immediately throw away.
The code is not as compact as it can be.
Instead, utilise the anyMatch method which does exactly what you're trying to achieve.
return persons.stream().anyMatch(p -> p.age > age);
I want get text string shown in a textview in LinearLayout. can espresso do that? If not, is there other way to do that or can I use android api in espresso test case? I am using API 17 18 or newer, espresso 1.1(It should be the latest one.). I have no clue about this. Thanks.
The basic idea is to use a method with an internal ViewAction that retrieves the text in its perform method. Anonymous classes can only access final fields, so we cannot just let it set a local variable of getText(), but instead an array of String is used to get the string out of the ViewAction.
String getText(final Matcher<View> matcher) {
final String[] stringHolder = { null };
onView(matcher).perform(new ViewAction() {
#Override
public Matcher<View> getConstraints() {
return isAssignableFrom(TextView.class);
}
#Override
public String getDescription() {
return "getting text from a TextView";
}
#Override
public void perform(UiController uiController, View view) {
TextView tv = (TextView)view; //Save, because of check in getConstraints()
stringHolder[0] = tv.getText().toString();
}
});
return stringHolder[0];
}
Note: This kind of view data retrievers should be used with care. If you are constantly finding yourself writing this kind of methods, there is a good chance, you're doing something wrong from the get go. Also don't ever access the View outside of a ViewAssertion or ViewAction, because only there it is made sure, that interaction is safe, as it is run from UI thread, and before execution it is checked, that no other interactions meddle.
If you want to check text value with another text, you can create Matcher. You can see my code to create your own method:
public static Matcher<View> checkConversion(final float value){
return new TypeSafeMatcher<View>() {
#Override
protected boolean matchesSafely(View item) {
if(!(item instanceof TextView)) return false;
float convertedValue = Float.valueOf(((TextView) item).getText().toString());
float delta = Math.abs(convertedValue - value);
return delta < 0.005f;
}
#Override
public void describeTo(Description description) {
description.appendText("Value expected is wrong");
}
};
}
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.