Lets say we have these classes:
class Teacher {
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
public List<Course> Courses { get; set; }
}
class Course {
public int Id { get; set; }
public string CourseName { get; set; }
}
Now lets say I have selected one Teacher instance from the list of teachers and I've been redirected to a page where I can edit what courses this teacher can teach. So there's a list of all the courses she can teach at the momemt (taken from the database) with a "remove" option and a dropdownlist of all available courses that a user can select; when a user selects a course from the dropdownlist, it gets added to a "she can teach" list. At the end is a "save" button.
But, when a users removes a course from the list or adds a course, I don't want to save it to the database until pressed "save" button. My question is: where to hold Teacher object and its child Course objects while being edited and before saved to database?
So far I've been using Session to hold the edited object; adding a new course just adds a child object to its collection, and removing a courses removes a child object from Session. Is that the best way to go on or is there something better (or at least, cleaner)?
Session should be fine, as long as you're ok with keeping all this in memory, and potentially losing it if the session is lost prematurely.
But if you're looking for persistence, I'd probably suggest a "pending" database table, where you can keep the pending transactions (adds and deletes) until they're ready to be saved. When you're on this screen, you combine the real data with the pending data, and when you save, you apply the pending changes to the real data and kill the pending changes.
If they cancel, all you have to do is delete the pending records.
Related
Does any one have a working example of how to added audit models to an existing project, for Audit.Net.
It is one fantastic component to use, and up until now, my team and I have gotten by with the standard JSON files, however, we'd like to migrate our current solution to our Xamarin application, and would like to store the auditing in the local SQLite database on the device.
However, the documentation for this project is somewhat lacking and there is no concise examples of how to get custom auditing working with Entity Framework.
We have worked through the MD files on the github repo, but we still cannot get auditing to work.
Another question, similar to this has been asked HERE, but there is no definitive example of what the Audit_{entity} table should look like, what fields it MUST contain, and how to set up relationships for it.
We tried to reverse engineer the JSON files into a relational structure, but at the time of asking this question, we have not gotten any auditing to write to the SQLite database.
Sorry about the documentation not helping too much, hope I (or anybody) can provide better documentation in the future.
I am assuming you are using EntityFramework to map your entities
to a SQLite database, and you want to use the EF data
provider
to store the audits events in the same database, in Audit_{entity} tables.
There is no constraint on the schema you want to use for your Audit_{entity} tables, as long as you have a one-to-one relation between your {entity} table and its Audit_{entity} table. Then the mapping can be configured on several ways.
The recommendation for the Audit_{entity} tables is to have the same columns as the audited {entity} table, with any common additional column needed, like a User and a Date defined on an Interface.
So, if all your Audit_{entity} tables has the same columns/properties as its {entity}, and you added some common columns (defined on an interface), the configuration can be set like this:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Audit_User : IAudit
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
// IAudit members:
public string AuditUser { get; set; }
public datetime AuditDate { get; set; }
public string Action { get; set } // "Insert", "Update" or "Delete"
}
Audit.Core.Configuration.Setup()
.UseEntityFramework(x => x
.AuditTypeNameMapper(typeName => "Audit_" + typeName)
.AuditEntityAction<IAudit>((ev, ent, auditEntity) =>
{
auditEntity.AuditDate = DateTime.UtcNow;
auditEntity.AuditUser = evt.Environment.UserName;
auditEntity.AuditAction = ent.Action;
});
Note the interface is not mandatory, but using it makes the configuration cleaner. Also note you can make your Audit_{entity} inherit from your {entity} if you wanted to.
Update
Maybe my assumption at the beginning is incorrect and you are not auditing EF entities, but any other type of audit. If that's the case, what you are looking for is a Data Provider that stores the audit events into your SQLite database.
At the time being, there is no built-in data provider that stores to SQLite, and if there was one, it would store just the JSON representation of the event in one column (like the SQL/MySql providers). But it looks like you want to have a custom schema, so you will need to implement your own data provider.
Check the documentation here.
Here is a sample skeleton of a data provider:
public class SQLiteDataProvider : AuditDataProvider
{
public override object InsertEvent(AuditEvent auditEvent)
{
// Insert the event into SQLite and return its ID
}
public override void ReplaceEvent(object eventId, AuditEvent auditEvent)
{
// Replace the event given its ID (only used for CreationPolicies InsertOnStartReplaceOnEnd and Manual)
}
// async implementation:
public override async Task<object> InsertEventAsync(AuditEvent auditEvent)
{
// Asynchronously insert the event into SQLite and return its ID
}
public override async Task ReplaceEventAsync(object eventId, AuditEvent auditEvent)
{
// Asynchronously replace the event given its ID
}
}
Then you just set it up with:
Audit.Core.Configuration.Setup()
.UseCustomProvider(new SQLiteDataProvider());
My current problem is (probably) not necessarily directly related to MVC 6, but how working with database actually works, and therefore any help/suggestions in this matter would be more than appreciated.
For the sake of this question, let's say that we have a very simple database with the following tables (C# classes) [we are using Entity Framework to work with the database]:
public class ShoppingUser
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public ICollection<ShoppingItem> Items { get; set; }
}
public class ShoppingItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Quantity { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public bool ToRemove { get; set; }//if item has been bought, it can be removed from the shopping list
}
This demo will be for a super duper simple shopping list app, where user (ShoppingUser who is registered in the system can have a List of ShoppingItem where user can decide on what is the text of the item (e.g. Bread, Butter, Tomatoes, ...) and also a quantity (3 pieces, 5kg, ... simple string)
Afterwards in my ASP.NET Core app, I have defined a repository which is communicating with the database and has access to the ShoppingItem class (as we are only interested in shopping items of currently logged in user).
Example of some method we could use here:
public IEnumerable<ShoppingItem> ReturnUserItems(string sUsername)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(sUsername))
return null;
var result = _context.ShoppingUsers.Include(n => n.Items).Where(n => n.UserName == sUsername).FirstOrDefault();
if (result != null)
return result.Items;
else
return null;
}
Finally we have an API controller with JsonResult for either GET, POST, DELETE, ..., which is used for communication between client side AngularJs App and our server side logic.
Example of GET Method:
// GET: /<controller>/
[HttpGet("")]
public JsonResult Get(string sUserName)
{
try
{
var results = _repository.ReturnUserItems(User.Identity.Name);
if (results != null)
{
var result = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<ShoppingItemViewModel>>(results);
return Json(result);
}
Response.StatusCode = (int)HttpStatusCode.OK;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Response.StatusCode = (int)HttpStatusCode.BadRequest;
return Json(new { Message = ex.Message });
}
return null;
}
Here comes the tricky part (at least for me). From video tutorials I have learned, that I should never (or almost never) expose my real database model to the website (I guess it's for security reasons). Due to that (as visible from my GET method above) I have declared my ShoppingItemViewModel which contains only properties I want to expose to the user (e.g. meaning that Id of my item is not visible).
This is how it looks like:
public class ShoppingItemViewModel
{
public string Quantity { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Text { get; set; }
[Required]
public bool ToRemove { get; set; }//if item has been bought, it can be removed from the shopping list
}
And for the communication from my AngularJS App I am using simple $http.get and $http.post calls for retrieving / posting updated data.
Finally the question:
My problem is, that if a user decides to either delete an item from his shopping list, or decides to change the content of either text / quantity (meaning that originally in the database it was tomatoes - 5 kg but he manages to buy only 2 kg and therefore changes the quantity to tomatoes - 3kg), how can the app understand which elements have actually been changed and how? The problem I have in this case is, that we are no longer exposing the database Id of the items.
If I was writing a desktop app, where I wouldn't have to create this sub view (ShoppingItemViewModel), my EntityFramework is intelligent enough to check & update all the changes in my database. Unfortunately in this case, I do not understand how this is achievable.
When I was thinking about it I came with the following: Add a new property into the ShoppingItem and ShoppingItemViewModel: public string sCustomKey {get; set; }, which would serve as a unique key for every item. This way, we no longer need to expose our database Id, but we are exposing the 'fake' one.
Second question:
I case my solution would be accurate, what is the best way to update items in the database? The only way I can think of is iterating through all the items in the database and manually check for changes?
Example of what I have in mind:
//IEnumerable<ShoppingItem> would be re-mapped result of ShoppingItemViewModel we have received back from the website
public void UpdateValues(IEnumerable<ShoppingItem> items, string sUserName)
{
//retrieves list of shopping items for specified customer
var allItems = _context.ShoppingUsers
.Include(n => n.Items)
.FirstOrDefault(n => n.UserName == sUserName);
//updates the values
foreach (var sItem in items)
{
var updatedItem = allItems.Items.FirstOrDefault(n => n.Text == sItem.sCustomKey);
if (updatedItem == null)
{
//create new item
var newItem = new ShoppingItem();
newItem.Text = sItem.Text;
newItem.ToRemove = sItem.ToRemove;
allItems.Items.Add(newItem);
}
else
updatedItem.ToRemove = sItem.ToRemove;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
But this approach does not seem right to me.
Any help regarding these matters would be more than appreciated as I am still learning how to work with ASP.NET Core and web projects.
In your first question, exposing the item ID in the ViewModels is fine. In your domain layer, you can add validation logic that those ID exists/valid item.
Alternatively, you can use a Guid for your item/product because the ID (int) can easily be predicted.
As far as updating the items, you should not use the "username" as Identifier (of the cart) because that can be predicted/altered by the calling client. You can use Guid either persisted(to Db) or
in-memory. You can add validation as well if this Guid belongs to this username/emailAddress. So updating the items in the cart, consider adding/removing one at a time if that is doable
instead of sending list of items.
I think you have misunderstood something.
Here comes the tricky part (at least for me). From video tutorials I have learned, that I should never (or almost never) expose my real database model to the website (I guess it's for security reasons). Due to that (as visible from my GET method above) I have declared my ShoppingItemViewModel which contains only properties I want to expose to the user (e.g. meaning that Id of my item is not visible).
ViewModel <=> Domain Model <=> ReadModel (Database Model)
The point is that you shouldn't use your ReadModel(Database model) as your ViewModel in Presentation Layer (MVC). All three models will have identity.
I have a fairly complex class of Policies, of which I display a checkbox list of them, the user checks which one they want, and returns back to the server via ajax. The class is fairly complex:
public class Policy {
public int PolicyId { get; set; }
public string PolicyName { get; set; }
... another 15 properties ...
}
To display the list of checkboxes I really only need the Id and Name, so I've created a lightweight class PolicyViewModel that is simply:
public class PolicyViewModel {
public int PolicyId { get; set; }
public string PolicyName { get; set; }
}
So I then pass a List to the View and get a List back containing the selected Policies.
Another developer on my team said that he doesn't necessarily want to translate from the ViewModel to the Policy class on the Ajax call to save the selected policies, but I'm resistant to send a List of policies due to how heavy they are to send to the view, retrieving all the properties, etc.
EDIT: For clarification, on the Ajax save method, to persist to the DB, the call needs a list of the full Policy class.
What is the best way to display this list and get back the values? Is there a better way than I am proposing?
Usually, you wouldn't need a separate model when serializing to json. Simply pluck out what you need from the domain object into an anonymous object.
return policies.Select(x => new { PolicyId = x.PolicyId, Name = x.PolicyName});
on the return trip, you shouldn't have to send anything more than the Ids of the policies that the user selected. Those can be easily mapped back to your policy objects.
public Whatever PostPolicyChoices(IEnumerable<int> ids)
{
var checked = _context.Policies.Where(x => returnIds.Contains(x.PolicyId));
// snip
boom. done.
I will recommend you not to work with Domain objects in your mvc application . You must work just with ViewModels, I think this is best practice for mvc projects. Take a look at Automapper and use it in your project, this will simplify your work, so this should look something like this :
in your [HttpGet] method you will have :
var model =Mapper.Map<IList<Policy>,IList<VmSysPolicy>>(yourlist)
And in your [HttpPost] method you will have :
var domainList=Mapper.Map<IList<VmSysPolicy>,IList<Policy>>(modelList);
And in your mapping configuration you will do :
Mapper.CreateMap<Policy,PolicyVmSysPolicy,>()
.ForMemeber()//Your mapping here
and
Mapper.CreateMap<VmSysPolicy,Policy>()
.ForMemeber//mapping here
I'm creating an ASP.Net MVC 5 website. In my website, there is a voting system which is very similar to the one StackOverflow uses. I have successfully created the system in which users submit the votes. However one neat feature of SO is that it prevents users from rapidly clicking vote buttons (i.e. voting too fast). Currently my Vote class is something like this:
public class RestaurantReviewVote
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public virtual NormalUser User { get; set; }
public virtual ItemReview Reivew { get; set; }
[Range(-1, 1)]
public int Value { get; set; }
public DateTime Created { get; set; }
}
What I have in mind is to do something like this:
rapidActivity = db.Votes.Where(v => v.User.Id == userId && (DateTime.UtcNow - v.Created < THRESHOLD)).Any();
However, I think running this everytime a user submits a vote would be too much pressure on the database. (maybe I'm wrong) How can I do it with performance in mind?
PS:
If you think there's a better way to do the voting system, please tell me. I appreciate any kind of help. Thanks.
I think your solution is reasonable for throttling the votes. You can always cache the last vote time for the user if you don't want to query the database each time.
This could also be an edge case for performance. If the check only occurs when someone is voting, then you're not going to have to incur this penalty on every page load. Chances are you're going to have to do other queries to register a vote anyway, so you could wrap this up in your Vote() method:
(note that you can combine the Where() and the Any() methods)
public bool Vote(int restaurantId)
{
if (db.Votes.Any(v => v.User.Id == userId && (DateTime.UtcNow - v.Created < THRESHOLD))
{
throw new VoteException("You are voting too quickly");
}
...
}
I have two entities (Customer and CustomerRole) and would like to declare many-to-many relationship between them. I can do using the following code:
modelBuilder.Entity<CustomerRole>()
.HasMany(cr => cr.Customers)
.WithMany(c => c.CustomerRoles)
.Map(m => m.ToTable("Customer_CustomerRole_Mapping"));
But it creates the relationship (and the third mapping table) with cascade delete switched off by default. How can I tell EF to create the relationship with cascade delete switched on when using many-to-many?
As of CTP5, there seems to be no way to directly turn on cascade deletes on Many to Many associations by Fluent API.
That said, if your intention is to make sure that you can delete the principal (e.g. a Customer record) without having to worry about the dependent record in the join table (i.e. Customer_CustomerRole_Mapping) then you don't need to turn on cascades on the database since EF Code First will take care of the cascade deletes on the client side when it comes to Many to Many associations.
For example, when you delete a Customer object, EF is smart enough to first send a delete statement to get rid of the dependent record in the join table and after that it will send another delete statement to delete the Customer record.
Update:
Due to a bug in CTP5, you need to explicitly eager/Lazy load the navigation property and have it loaded on the context when you remove the dependent. For example, consider this model:
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection Addresses { get; set; }
}
public class Address
{
public int AddressID { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection Users { get; set; }
}
Assuming that we have a User with an address in the database, this code will throw:
using (EntityMappingContext context = new EntityMappingContext())
{
User user = context.Users.Find(1);
context.Users.Remove(user);
context.SaveChanges();
}
However, this one will perfectly work with removing the link table's record first:
using (EntityMappingContext context = new EntityMappingContext())
{
User user = context.Users.Find(1);
((IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext
.LoadProperty(user, u => u.Addresses);
context.Users.Remove(user);
context.SaveChanges();
}
Please note that this is just a workaround and we will be able to (hopefully) remove a principal without loading its navigation property.