When I try to index a doc of my defined type, having a list which is supposed to be mapped as a nested-object ("type":"nested"), it's getting mapped as a regular object type.
Take a look at the code:
I've got a simple class like this one:
[ElasticType()]
public class MyJob
{
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int jobCode { get; set; }
[ValueFieldAttribute(Type = FieldType.nested)]
public IList<JobProfessionalFieldInfo> JobProfessionalFields { get; set; }
}
The code for the JobProfessionalFieldInfo class is:
[ElasticType()]
public class JobProfessionalFieldInfo
{
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int JobId { get; set; }
[ValueFieldAttribute]
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
}
The code for the ValueFieldAttribute class is:
public class ValueFieldAttribute : ElasticPropertyAttribute
{
public ValueFieldAttribute()
: base()
{
this.Store = false;
this.Index = FieldIndexOption.not_analyzed;
}
}
My program:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ConnectionSettings node = new ConnectionSettings(new Uri("http://localhost:9200"));
node.SetDefaultIndex("jobs");
ElasticClient client = new ElasticClient(node);
List<JobProfessionalFieldInfo> list = new List<JobProfessionalFieldInfo>();
list.Add(new JobProfessionalFieldInfo { CategoryId = 1, JobId = 1 });
list.Add(new JobProfessionalFieldInfo { CategoryId = 2, JobId = 2 });
var res = client.Index<MyJob>(new MyJob
{
jobCode = 1,
JobProfessionalFields = list
},"jobs", "MyJob",1);
}
Now, when I run it, it indexes the object successfully... BUT(!!) when I get the mapping of the index with GET jobs/MyJob/_mapping, I see that jobProfessionalFields has no "type":"nested" in its mapping.
That results in a query like the following one, returning the indexed doc while it's not supposed to get it back (that's what nested-type is for right?..):
GET jobs/_search
{
"query":
{
"bool":
{
"must":
[
{"match": {"jobId":1}},
{"match": {"categoryId":2}}
]
}
}
}
It's not the end:
I'd a look at here,
there the guy that answered tells that when we use annotations we need to manually call the createIndex and Map methods, but the problem is that I don't have any generic Map method...!
Take a look at here: (just to make you get into the link - here's its start..)
namespace Nest
{
public partial class ElasticClient...
And I don't know how to use the non-generic Map method to put the mapping of my MyJob class.
How can I cause this stuff to map the jobProfessionalFields as nested-type dudes?
Thanks for any help of you guys!
OK, got it LOL!
The MapFromAttributes<> is the right generic method for putting the mapping (at least in the current Nest version I'm using - 0.12.0).
But it demands a manual call for the index creationg, o.w it gives an IndexMissing exception (like the guy in the above mentioned link said).
client.CreateIndex("jobs", new IndexSettings { });
var res = client.MapFromAttributes<MyJob>("jobs","MyJob");
But that's really interesting why isn't it enough to just define the
[ElasticProperty(Type = FieldType.nested)],
in order to get the nested mapping though..
I would be glad to get an answer for that one.
Related
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
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'm very new to ASP.NET, but I know a little programming in Java. I want to use a ZIP code to query a database which will return a string, then use that string to query another database. I wanted to do this on the same control model. I thought it would be easy, and it sounds pretty easy.
When I created the controller, I put the model class of the first database, and, so far, I've gotten as far as querying the first database, but now that I have the string I want to query a second database through the DBEntities.
This displays an error saying:
> The model item passed into the dictionary is of type
> 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[FinalBallot.Models.AgainCandidate]',
> but this dictionary requires a model item of type
> 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[FinalBallot.Models.ZipTable]'.
Is there a way to solve this in an easy way?
public class Default1Controller : Controller
{
private CandidatesDBEntities db = new CandidatesDBEntities();
public string districString = "";
//
// GET: /Default1/
public ViewResult Index(string searchString)
{
var queryZip = from s in db.ZipTables select s;
var queryCandidates = from s1 in db.AgainCandidates select s1;
double sT = 0;
//method so it doesnt display the whole db
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchString))
{
queryZip = queryZip.Where(s => s.ZipL.Equals(0));
}
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchString))
{
sT = double.Parse(searchString);
queryZip = queryZip.Where(s => s.ZipL.Equals(sT));
try
{
districString = queryZip.ToList().ElementAt(0).District;
}
catch
{
}
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(districString))
{
queryCandidates = queryCandidates.Where(s1 => s1.District.Equals(districString));
}
}
return View(queryCandidates.ToList());
}
In your view, did you specify the model to be IEnumerable<ZipTable>? The model that you're passing to your view is IEnumerable<AgainCandidate>, so you would get an error if you specified your model as something else. You'd need to change the model in your view to be IEnumerable<AgainCandidate>.
UPDATE:
Based on your revised explanation, you can do a couple things:
1) create a "ViewModel" that has two properties for each of your collections you want to display on the page like so:
public class MyViewModel
{
IEnumerable<ZipTable> Zips { get; set; }
IEnumerable<AgainCandidate> Candidates { get; set; }
}
Instantiate that in your action method and return that as your model. This would be my preferred approach.
2) Stash your two collections in the ViewData bag in your action method:
ViewData["Zips"] = queryZip.ToList();
ViewData["Candidates"] = queryCandidates.ToList();
return View(ViewData);
You can pull this data in your view like this:
#foreach (var zip in ViewData["Zips"] as IEnumerable<ZipTable>)
{
...
}
I am using JSON.Net to serialize my objects. For eg, if this is my object
Class MainData
{
[JsonProperty("keyValues")]
string val;
}
the data for 'val' is a key value pair string like this key1:value1.
I have a scenario where I should not get the above 'keyValues' name in my final serialized string and instead get a serialized string which looks like this
{
"key1":"value1"
}
Currently with my serializer I am getting this, which is not what I need
{
"keyValues":"key:value1"
}
Can somebody guide me to any documentation/solution to dynamically assign the name of the field instead of using the default variable name/JSONProperty Name defined inside the object?
Thanks a lot in advance.
I've been struggling with this all day, what I've done is used a dictionary object and serialised this
however I had an error message that was "cannot serialise dictionary", should have read the whole message, "cannot serialise dictionary when the key is not a string or object"
this now works for me and gives me a key/value pair
i have the following objects
public class Meal {
public int mealId;
public int value;
public Meal(int MealId, int Value) {
mealId = MealId;
value = Value;
} }
public class Crew
{
public Meal[] AllocatedMeals {
get {
return new Meal[]{
new Meal(1085, 2),
new Meal(1086, 1) }; } }
public int AllocatedMealTotal {
get {
return this.AllocatedMeals.Sum(x => x.value); } }
}
then the following code
Dictionary<string,string> MealsAllocated = crew.AllocatedMeals.ToDictionary(x => x.mealId.ToString(), x => x.value.ToString());
return new JavaScriptSerializer().Serialize(
new {
Allocated = new {
Total = crew.AllocatedMealTotal,
Values = MealsAllocated } )
to get
"Allocated":{"Total":3,"Values":{"1085":"2","1086":"1"}}