Anybody know if it's possible to;
Dynamically create LINQ classes for tables/columns that change regularly?
If that creation can be used in DynamicData.
A web app we are developing creates tables and columns in SQL. We want to edit these tables in DynamicData.
Thoughts?
Depending on what type of Database you are running, but you could always have a linq statement that queries the systems schema table and have it return the tables and columns. Then could use what you return and then use another linq query to break out the information from each table.
I used sqlmetal.exe from the SDK, it's a winner.
Related
I have is-deleted column on all tables in sql db. I wanted to know if there is better way to handle is-deleted filter at global level instead of putting filter for is-deleted on each join in linq to sql while querying db using efcore.
I have joins with 5 to 8 entities and putting on each join doesn't look like good practice.
Is there a better pattern?
we were able to solve this problem using this nuget and some customizations
Z.EntityFramework.Plus.EFCore
https://github.com/zzzprojects/EntityFramework-Plus
In AX programming best practice, which is the best way:
using a Query created from the AOT,
using a select statement with X++ code,
using a query created with X++ code the Query classe ...
And when to use each one of them?
First off, AX always uses queries internally, X++ selects are translated to query constructions calls, which are executed at run time. The query is translated to SQL at runtime on the the first queryRun.next() or datasource.executeQuery(). There is thus no performance difference using one or the other.
Forms also use queries, most often it is automatically constructed for you, because property AutoQuery has a Yes default value. You can use a X++ select in the executeQuery method, but I would consider that bad practice, as the user will have no filter or sorting options available. Always use queries in forms, prefer to use the auto queries. Add ranges or sorting in the init method using this.queryBuildDatasource() if needed. The exception being listpages which always use an AOT query.
In RunBase classes prefer to use queries, as the user will have the option to change the query. You may of cause use simple X++ select in the inner loop, but consider to include it in the prebuilt query, if possible.
Otherwise, your primary goal as a programmer (besides solving the problem) is to minimize the number of code lines.
Queries defined in the AOT start out with zero code lines, which count in their favor. Thus, if there are serveral statically defined ranges, links, or complex joins, use AOT queries. You cannot beat:
QueryRun qr = new QueryRun(queryStr(MyQuery))
qr.query().dataSourceTable(tableNum(MyTable)).findRange(fieldNum(MyTable,MyField)).value('myValue');
With:
Query q = new Query();
QueryRun qr = new QueryRun(q);
QueryBuildDataSource ds = q.addDataSource(tableNum(MyTable));
QueryBuildRange qbr = ds.addRange(fieldNum(MyTable,MyField));
qbr.value('myValue');
qbr.locked(true);
Thus in the static case prefer to use AOT queries, then change the query at runtime if needed. On the flip side, if your table is only known at runtime, you cannot use AOT queries, nor X++ selects, and you will need to build your query at runtime. The table browser is a good example of that.
What is left for X++?
Simple selects with small where clauses and with simple or no joins.
Cases where you cannot use queries (yet), delete_from, update_recordset and insert_recordset comes to mind.
Avoiding external dependencies (like AOT queries) may sometimes be more important.
Code readability of X++ queries is better than query construction.
The main techniques for selecting records in the database are as follows:
The select statement
A query
The techniques are essentially the same. They both deliver a set of records from the database in a table variable that can be accessed.
Use the select statement when:
The selection criteria are complex.
You are selecting a set of records from X++. The user is not going to change the selection criteria.
Use a query when:
The user can choose which records are selected.
The user can change the range of records to be selected.
The selection criteria are not more complex than the query can accommodate.
When you use queries, develop them in the Application Object Tree (AOT) or build them from scratch in your code. In both situations, the query can be modified in the code. A query built from scratch in code can be saved so that it occurs in the AOT. However, this should usually be avoided.
Build a query in the AOT when:
A specific query definition is being used in many places. (The query in the AOT can be reused.)
The query must contain code.
The query definition is more complex. The AOT provides a visual representation of the query.
My situation
I have a c# object which contains some lists. One of these lists are for example a list of tags, which is a list of c# "SystemTag"-objects. I want to instantiate this object the most efficient way.
In my database structure, I have the following tables:
dbObject - the table which contains some basic information about my c# object
dbTags - a list of all available tabs
dbTagConnections - a list which has 2 fields: TagID and ObjectID (to make sure an object can have several tags)
(I have several other similar types of data)
This is how I do it now...
Retrieve my object from the DB using an ID
Send the DB object to a "Object factory" pattern, which then realise we have to get the tags (and other lists). Then it sends a call to the DAL layer using the ID of our C# object
The DAL layer retrieves the data from the DB
These data are send to a "TagFactory" pattern which converts to tags
We are back to the Object Factory
This is really inefficient and we have many calls to the database. This especially gives problems as I have 4+ types of lists.
What have I tried?
I am not really good at SQL, but I've tried the following query:
SELECT * FROM dbObject p
LEFT JOIN dbTagConnection c on p.Id= c.PointId
LEFT JOIN dbTags t on c.TagId = t.dbTagId
WHERE ....
However, this retreives as many objects as there are tagconnections - so I don't see joins as a good way to do this.
Other info...
Using .NET Framework 4.0
Using LINQ to SQL (BLL and DAL layer with Factory patterns in the BLL to convert from DAL objects)
...
So - how do I solve this as efficient as possible? :-) Thanks!
At first sight I don't see your current way of work as "inefficient" (with the information provided). I would replace the code:
SELECT * FROM dbObject p
LEFT JOIN dbTagConnection c on p.Id= c.PointId
LEFT JOIN dbTags t on c.TagId = t.dbTagId
WHERE ...
by two calls to the DALs methods, first to retrieve the object main data (1) and one after that to get, only, the data of the tags related (2) so that your factory can fill-up the object's tags list:
(1)
SELECT * FROM dbObject WHERE Id=#objectId
(2)
SELECT t.* FROM dbTags t
INNER JOIN dbTag Connection c ON c.TagId = t.dbTagId
INNER JOIN dbObject p ON p.Id = c.PointId
WHERE p.Id=#objectId
If you have many objects and the amount of data is just a few (meaning that your are not going to manage big volumes) then I would look for a ORM based solution as the Entity Framework.
I (still) feel comfortable writing SQL queries in the DAOs to have under control all queries being sent to the DB server, but finally it is because in our situation is a need. I don't see any inconvenience on having to query the database to recover, first, the object data (SELECT * FROM dbObject WHERE ID=#myId) and fill the object instance, and then query again the DB to recover all satellite data that you may need (the Tags in your case).
You have be more concise about your scenario so that we can provide valuable recommendations for your particular scenario. Hope this is useful you you anyway.
We used stored procedures that returned multiple resultsets, in a similar situation in a previous project using Java/MSSQL server/Plain JDBC.
The stored procedure takes the ID corresponding to the object to be retrieved, return the row to build the primary object, followed by multiple records of each one-to-many relationship with the primary object. This allowed us to build the object in its entirety in a single database interaction.
Have you thought about using the entity framework? You would then interact with your database in the same way as you would interact with any other type of class in your application.
It's really simple to set up and you would create the relationships between your database tables in the entity designer - this will give you all the foreign keys you need to call related objects. If you have all your keys set up in the database then the entity designer will use these instead - creating all the objects is as simple as selecting 'Create model from database' and when you make changes to your database you simply right-click in your designer and choose 'update model from database'
The framework takes care of all the SQL for you - so you don't need to worry about that; in most cases..
A great starting place to get up and running with this would be here, and here
Once you have it all set up you can use LINQ to easily query the database.
You will find this a lot more efficient than going down the table adapter route (assuming that's what you're doing at the moment?)
Sorry if i missed something and you're already using this.. :)
As far I guess, your database exists already and you are familiar enough with SQL.
You might want to use a Micro ORM, like petapoco.
To use it, you have to write classes that matches the tables you have in the database (there are T4 generator to do this automatically with Visual Studio 2010), then you can write wrappers to create richer business objects (you can use the ValueInjecter to do it, it is the simpler I ever used), or you can use them as they are.
Petapoco handles insert / update operations, and it retrieves generated IDs automatically.
Because Petapoco handles multiple relationships too, it seems to fit your requirements.
Can someone help me answer these questions on EntityFramework?
Does it do anything special to the database? (like extra tables)
Can I add data directly with SQL without breaking EF?
Can I add tables and fields without breaking EF?
Yes you can access database with plain SQL when using EF.
No. EF just uses database. There is one exception in code first approach where EF can create one additional table for its own purpose called EdmMetadata.
Yes you can add data directly with SQL. If both your entity model and database are defined correctly it will not break EF.
Yes you can add new tables directly but EF will not know about them. You should not change existing tables because it can break EF.
You can do it with:
var context = new YourObjectContext();
var s = context.ExecuteStoreCommand("some query");
if your query create a table, this only create a table on db and not effected on EF
I will explain problem with an example:
There is two table in my database, named entry, tags
There is a column named ID_ENTRY in both table. When I add a record to table, entry, I have to take the ID_ENTRY of last added record and add it to table, tags. How can I do it?
The only way to do this is with multiple statements. Using dynamic sql you can do this by separating each statement in your query string with a semi-colon:
"DECLARE #ID int;INSERT INTO [Entry] (...) VALUES ...; SELECT #ID = scope_identity();INSERT INTO [TAGS] (ID_ENTRY) VALUES (#ID);"
Make sure you put this in a transaction to protect against concurrency problems and keep it all atomic. You could also break that up into two separate queries to return the new ID value in the middle if you want; just make sure both queries are in the same transaction.
Also: you are using parameterized queries with your dynamic sql, right? If you're not, I'll personally come over there and smack you 10,000 times with a wet noodle until you repent of your insecure ways.
Immediatly after executing the insert statement on first table, you should query ##IDENTITY doing "SELECT ##identity". That will retrieve the last autogenerated ID... and then just insert it on the second table.
If you are using triggers or something that inserts rows... this may be not work. Use Scope_Identity() instead of ##IDENTITY
I would probably do this with an INSERT trigger on the named entry table, if you have all of the data you need to push to the tags table available. If not, then you might want to consider using a stored procedure that creates both inside a transaction.
If you want to do it in code, you'll need to be more specific about how you are managing your data. Are you using DataAdapter, DataTables, LINQ, NHibernate, ...? Essentially, you need to wrap both inserts inside a transaction of some sort so that either inserts get executed or neither do, but the means to doing that depend on what technology you are using to interact with the database.
If you use dynamic sql, why not use Linq to Entity Framework, now EF is the recommend data access technology from Microsoft (see this post Clarifying the message on L2S Futures from ADO.NET team blog), and if you do an insert with EF the last identity id will available for you automatically, I use it all the time it's easy.
Hope this helps!
Ray.