We are using the standard aspnet security features, we have need to set the order of the roles, purely for display purposes.
We could just have a sequence number onto the end of the aspnet_roles table, but that feels kinds of hacky to me. Also if in future versions of asp the security get changed we will be in trouble.
Is there a better way to do this that won't make me loose sleep each time a new version is pushed out?
If you don't want to change the existing schema, store the sequence data in another table and use a custom stored procedure to join the two together and return the values. Use the result of this stored procedure to populate the drop-down.
Don't forget to add a "special case" in the stored procedure to place roles that aren't contained in the second table at a "default" position in the returned set, rather than ignoring them, unless that's desired =)
Related
I have a use case where DynamoDB is running in production and I need to add a new column IDUpdatedAt which will also be serving as a sort key for one of the GSIs.
I tried a thing in test where my application adds the new rows with IDUpdatedAt, it's working fine but what about the existing rows? How to add the values for those?
Also the new rows will not be added without IDUpdatedAt, but how will the search be impacted for older rows?
PS: IDUpdatedAt is being used as a filter in the application, i.e., user can search for specific ID and can get results sorted by date. That's why IDUpdatedAt is also a part of GSI (sort key).
Please help.
You've got the right idea by adding the field to new items. After all, DynamoDB does not enforce a particular schema outside of the primary key.
This also happens to be a very useful feature, especially when defining a GSI on that attribute; if the atttibute exists on the item, it ends up in the index! For example, imagine modeling an email inbox in DDB where each item represents an email. You could include an attribute 'is_read' and define a GSI using that atttibute.
If the 'is_read' attribute exists on the item, it's in the index. Otherwise, it's not. A cool way to use GSIs to implement filtering.
Pretty neat stuff!
However, there is no way to retroactively update all items with a new attribute other than manually updating each item (or in batches). The equivalent in SQL databases is defining a new column. Unfortunately, an analogous operation in DDB does not exist.
We created special form to creating purchase prices for vendors.
New form has almost the same fields as original (so we used PriceDiscTable), but the record/datasoruce was set as temporary table. After user filled mandatory fields will click button, (extra logic behind) and record will inster to database (real priceDiscTable).
The idea was to grand access to trade prices for users that not necessarily has access to purchase prices. In theory everything was ok, but when user with no access to PriceDiscTable open new form, error was shown "Not enougt right to use table 'Price agreements'".
We try set the AllowCheck to false in formDatasource but this only allow us to open the form, but user still cannot add or modify records.
Is there any way to force system to allow user to write data in the temporary table?
Disabling security key or grand access to real table is not an option.
Duplicate table and create with same fields is nuisance (if we use same table we can use data() method to assign fields)
I think that creating a new temporary table with [almost] the same fields would be the best solution.
If the only reason you oppose to this approach is that you wouldn't be able to use data() to copy data from one table to another you can use buf2BufByName() as described here: http://mybhat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/dynamics-ax-buf2buf-and-buf2bufbyname.html
You can use RunAs to impersonate another user...perhaps a system user. I don't entirely follow what you are trying to do, but it sounds like this solution would work for you if you know exactly what your custom code is doing and is capable of.
See Classes\AifOutboundProcessingService\runAsWrapper to see an example.
You will not be able to display the PriceDiscTable without giving the user at least "view" access or editing Classes\FormRun to somehow bypass the security key, which is kernel level so it's also not possible.
I agree with 10p where you should create a temp table and then create a custom method handler combined with buf2bufbyname() or buf2buf().
Another option you can screw around with, if you REALLY want to use .data() is using a Common as the datasource. You could add the fields you want on the grid with the common, then you can pass a common back/forth. This has a good amount of form setup to get this working, but it could produce what you want eventually I think.
static void Job8(Args _args)
{
Common common;
salesTable salesTable;
;
common = new DictTable(366).makeRecord();
select firstonly common where common.RecId == 5637145357;
salesTable.data(common);
info(strfmt("%1 - %2", salesTable.SalesId, salesTable.SalesName));
}
I have a very large (millions of rows) SQL table which represents name-value pairs (one columns for a name of a property, the other for it's value). On my ASP.NET web application I have to populate a control with the distinct values available in the name column. This set of values is usually not bigger than 100. Most likely around 20. Running the query
SELECT DISTINCT name FROM nameValueTable
can take a significant time on this large table (even with the proper indexing etc.). I especially don't want to pay this penalty every time I load this web control.
So caching this set of names should be the right answer. My question is, how to promptly update the set when there is a new name in the table. I looked into SQL 2005 Query Notification feature. But the table gets updated frequently, very seldom with an actual new distinct name field. The notifications will flow in all the time, and the web server will probably waste more time than it saved by setting this.
I would like to find a way to balance the time used to query the data, with the delay until the name set is updated.
Any ides on how to efficiently manage this cache?
A little normalization might help. Break out the property names into a new table, and FK back to the original table, using a int ID. you can display the new table to get the complete list, which will be really fast.
Figuring out your pattern of usage will help you come up with the right balance.
How often are new values added? are new values added always unique? is the table mostly updates? do deletes occur?
One approach may be to have a SQL Server insert trigger that will check the table cache to see if its key is there & if it's not add itself
Add a unique increasing sequence MySeq to your table. You may want to try and cluster on MySeq instead of your current primary key so that the DB can build a small set then sort it.
SELECT DISTINCT name FROM nameValueTable Where MySeq >= ?;
Set ? to the last time your cache has seen an update.
You will always have a lag between your cache and the DB so, if this is a problem you need to rethink the flow of the application. You could try making all requests flow through your cache/application if you manage the data:
requests --> cache --> db
If you're not allowed to change the actual structure of this huge table (for example, due to huge numbers of reports relying on it), you could create a holding table of these 20 values and query against that. Then, on the huge table, have a trigger that fires on an INSERT or UPDATE, checks to see if the new NAME value is in the holding table, and if not, adds it.
I don't know the specifics of .NET, but I would pass all the update requests through the cache. Are all the update requests done by your ASP.NET web application? Then you could make a Proxy object for your database and have all the requests directed to it. Taking into consideration that your database only has key-value pairs, it is easy to use a Map as a cache in the Proxy.
Specifically, in pseudocode, all the requests would be as following:
// the client invokes cache.get(key)
if(cacheMap.has(key)) {
return cacheMap.get(key);
} else {
cacheMap.put(key, dababase.retrieve(key));
}
// the client invokes cache.put(key, value)
cacheMap.put(key, value);
if(writeThrough) {
database.put(key, value);
}
Also, in the background you could have an Evictor thread which ensures that the cache does not grow to big in size. In your scenario, where you have a set of values frequently accessed, I would set an eviction strategy based on Time To Idle - if an item is idle for more than a set amount of time, it is evicted. This ensures that frequently accessed values remain in the cache. Also, if your cache is not write through, you need to have the evictor write to the database on eviction.
Hope it helps :)
-- Flaviu Cipcigan
Often I need to combine data from multiple tables and display the result in a GridView control.
I can write a Linq query inline in the Page_load event, return an anonymous type that combines all the fields that I need, and databind the result to the GridView control.
Problem: I use 'helper methods' as described by Scott Guthrie on his blog. Such a helper method cannot return an anonymous type. The query would have to be inline for this approach.
I can write a database view that returns the data that I need, and write a helper method with a query against this (new and known) type that it returns.
Problem: I will need a lot of views in my database schema, and I will introduce a lot of redundant aspects of my data. I also lose some of the advantage of using Linq - removing all business logic from the database.
I would like to take an approach that lets me keep the Linq queries in helper methods, yet allows me to access all the attributes that I need on the grid in their respective databinding expressions. Can this be done?
I asked the wrong question, as I frequently do. What prompted me to look into anonymous types was an apparent limitation of the GridView - my inability to use a databinding expression in an <asp:BoundField> (the DataField parameter only accepts column names of the table that the Linq query pulls in).
Turns out that in a TemplateField it is possible to use Eval and access members of the Linq data item, and Linq takes care of the query for me.
In other words, I can keep the query in my helper method, have it return a primary database table type (e.g. Account), and I bind the Accounts to the GridView.
In the databinding expressions I can access data members of the Account objects that reside in other tables, without having to explicitly pull them in in the query. Perfect.
I don't know if there is a viable way to achieve this using anonymous types. But I have a suggestion that will work in WinForms, but I am not sure about ASP.NET.
What you need is a type with properties where neither the number of properties, nor the types and names of the properties are known at compile time. One way to create such a thing is ICustomTypeDescriptor.
You have to create a type implementing this interface with an private backing store of objects backing the properties returned by the query for one row from the query. Then you implement GetProperties() to return one PropertyDescriptor per column and PropertyDescriptor.GetValue() and PropertyDescriptor.SetValue() to access the backing array.
By implementing PropertyDescriptor.Name you will get the correct column name; this will probably require another backing store storing the property names. And there is a lot more to implement, but in the end your new type will behave almost like a normal type - and now the if - if the control you are binding to knows about and uses ICustomTypeDescriptor.
UPDATE
I just found an bit of text stating that ASP.NET data binding knows and uses ICustomTypeDescriptor.
Scott's earlier post in the series talks about shaping the result set before inserting into a grid:
Part 3 - Querying our Database
Scroll down to "Shaping our Query Results".
Just dipping my toes into Linq2sql project after years of rolling my own SQL Server DB access routines.
Before I spend too much time figuring out how to make linq2sql behave like my custom code used to, I want to check to make sure that it isn't already "built" in behavior that I can just use by setting up the relationships right in the designer...
Very simple example:
I have two tables: Person and Notes, with a 1 to many relationship (1 Person, many notes), linked by Person.ID->Note.PersonID.
I have a stored procedure (all data access is done via SP's and I plan on continuing that) which makes the Link2SQL a bit more work for me.
sp_PersonGet(#ID int) which returns the person record and sp_PersonNotesGet(#PersonID) which returns a set of related notes for this person.
So far so good, I have an object:
Dim myPerson As Person = db.PersonGet(pnID).Single
and I can access my fields: myPerson.Name, myPerson.Phone etc.
and I can also do a
Dim myNotes As Notes = db.PersonNotesGet(pnID)
to get a set of notes and I can iterate thru this list like:
For Each N As Note In myNotes
( do something)
Next
This all works fine...BUT....What I would prefer is that if I call:
myPerson = db.PersonGet(pnID)
that I also end up with a myPerson.Notes collection that I can iterate thru.
For Each N As Note In myPerson.Notes
( do something)
Next
Basically, Linq2SQl would need to call 2 stored procedures each time a Person record is created...
Is this doable "out of the box", or is this something I need to code around for myself?
This is normally what we would call child collections and they can be eager loaded or lazy loaded. Read these:
http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2009/01/08/QuickExamplesLINQToSQLPerformanceTuningPerformanceProfilingORMapper.aspx
http://www.thinqlinq.com/default/Fetching-child-records-using-Stored-Procedures-with-LINQ-to-SQL.aspx
It uses partial classes. You can add your own "Notes" property to your Person class and initialize it in it's GETter function. This would be better than populating the notes every time you load a person record.
I believe that you can do this more or less out of the box, although I haven't tried it -- I don't use stored procedures with LINQ. What you would need to do is change the Insert/Delete/Update methods from using the runtime to use your stored procedures. Then you'd create an Association between your two entity tables which would create an EntitySet of Notes on the Person class and a EntityRef of Person on the Notes class. You can set this up to load automatically or using lazy loading.
The only tricky bit, as far as I can see, is the change from using the runtime generated methods to using your stored procedures. I believe that you have to add them into the data context as methods (by dropping it on your table from the server explorer in the designer) before it is available to use instead.