Dapper with Mapping by code: Multi-Mapping with repeating column names - c#

I'm trying to perform a simple query and the result data is almost all null.
I have this table structure
Table Registros
ID | Autonumeric
TareaM_Id | Numeric
Fecha | Date/Time
and Macro_tareas table
ID | Autonumeric
Nombre | Short Text
I have mapped the classes in C# like this:
[Table("Registros")]
public class Registro
{
[Column("ID")]
public virtual int ID { get; set; }
[Column("Fecha")]
public virtual DateTime Fecha { get; set; }
[Column("TareaM_Id")]
public virtual int TareaM_Id { get; set; }
public virtual MacroTarea MacroT { get; set; }
}
[Table("Macro_tarea")]
public class MacroTarea
{
[Column("ID")]
public virtual int ID { get; set; }
[Column("Nombre")]
public virtual string Nombre{ get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Registro> Registros { get; set; }
}
This is the query i'm trying to use
string sql = #"SELECT reg.ID, mac.ID
FROM Registros as reg INNER JOIN Macro_tarea as mac on reg.TareaM_Id = mac.ID
WHERE Fecha = #Fecha";
using (IDbConnection db = new OleDbConnection(ConnectionString))
{
var result = db.Query<Registro,MacroTarea, Registro>(sql,
(reg,mac) =>
{
reg.MacroTarea = mac;
return reg;
}
,new { #Fecha = new DateTime(2019, 1, 4).Date }
, splitOn: "mac.ID")
.AsList();
}
I'm trying to only retrieve ids, but both id become null why is this happening?
The thing is, if I add Registros.Fecha and Macro_tarea.Nombre to the query, it got the value correctly. But id keep coming null.
Apparently the issue is happening only with ids. I suspect this issue is due to duplicate column names.
I'm working with Microsoft Access just in cast that matters.
My question is not similar to the possible duplicate because I have the classes defined as they should be mapped.

Renaming your database columns because your code cannot cope with the data is not a good idea. In the world of separation of concerns, why should your database care? There are good database reasons to name ID columns "Id", and you may not even have the option to change them.
There's another issue with Dapper mapping that renaming columns does not get around; repeated types. If you are trying to map to more than one instance of a class Dapper gets confused, and renaming columns won't work because you will rename both instances.
Here is the solution I have come up with. It's similar to a lot of examples that use a dictionary, except:
it can nest to as many levels as you like
can cope with Dappers 7 item limit
can cope with duplicates of the same class
can be reused e.g., for Get, GetCurrent and GetAll
In this example there is an Auction that has many Lots. Each Lot may have 1 or many Items. Items might be packs of Items. The Items are from a limited catalogue and we like relational data, so a Things table contains the details on each Item, like colour, size, etc. Here we are only getting a single Lot, but getting an Auction is the same with another level on top for Auction.
Parameter 1 - The SQL to get everything in one go
Parameter 2 - A Type array of each object we'll get back. For this reason it's best to order your SELECT to group the fields into the classes
Parameter 3 - Call the method we're about to write with the SQL result
Parameter 4 - Standard parameter array for the SQL. SQL Injection is bad, m'kay?
public async Task<List<Lot>> GetAll(int auctionId)
{
using (var connection = new SqlConnection(_appSettings.ConnectionString))
{
await connection.OpenAsync();
var result = new List<Lot>();
await connection.QueryAsync($#"
SELECT [Lot].*,
[Item].[Id],
[Item].[LotId],
[Item].[Notes],
itemDetails.[Id],
itemDetails.[ThingId],
itemDetails.[Colour],
itemDetails.[Size],
[SubItem].[Id],
[SubItem].[ItemId],
[SubItem].[Notes],
subItemDetails.[Id],
subItemDetails.[ThinId],
subItemDetails.[Colour],
subItemDetails.[Size]
FROM [Lot]
INNER JOIN [Item] ON [Item].[LotId] = [Lot].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Thing] AS itemDetails ON itemDetails.[Id] = [Item].[ThingId]
LEFT JOIN [SubItem] ON [SubItem].[ItemId] = [Item].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Thing] AS subItemDetails ON subItemDetails.[Id] = [SubItem].[ThingId]
WHERE [AuctionId] = #{nameof(auctionId)}
ORDER BY [Lot].[Id], [Item].[Id], [Expansion].[Id];",
new Type[] {
typeof(Lot),
typeof(Item),
typeof(Thing),
typeof(Expansion),
typeof(Thing)
},
MapResult(result),
new
{
AuctionId = auctionId
}
);
return result.ToList();
}
}
private Func<object[], Lot> MapResult(List<Lot> result)
{
return (obj) =>
{
Lot lot = (Lot)obj[0];
Item item = (Item)obj[1];
Thing itemDetails = (Thing)obj[2];
SubItem subItem = (SubItem)obj[3];
Thing subItemDetails = (Thing)obj[4];
if (lot != null)
{
if (result.Any(a => a.Id == lot.Id))
{
lot = result.First(a => a.Id == lot.Id);
}
else
{
result.Add(lot);
}
}
if (item != null)
{
if (lot.Items.Any(i => i.Id == item.Id))
{
item = lot.Items.First(i => i.Id == item.Id);
}
else
{
lot.Items.Add(item.FromThing(itemDetails));
}
}
if (expansion != null)
{
if (item.SubItems.Any(e => e.Id == subItem.Id) == false)
{
item.SubItems.Add(subItem.FromThing(subItemDetails));
}
}
return null;
};
}
MapResult is the meat of the code. It returns a Func with two types, the Type array we defined above and the return Type, and takes a List of the top level object.
I then map each item from the object array to another of it's actual type. This keeps the code easier to read, and enables properties and methods of the object to be accessed without issue.
Then it's a case of stepping down the hierarchy, checking at each step if one already exists with a matching id, and swapping the iterator to a reference to it if it does. This means that following code will add to the existing item.
In the particular case I've also added a FromThing function to allow easier combining of object properties.

As we discussed in comments, this is an issue due to duplicate column names in two tables. This is where the similar issue and solution could be found. But, it does not include "mapping by code" as you said. So it is not exact duplicate.
I suggest you change the names of ID fields in your tables to avoid colliding them. Of-course, you should also change the name of your POCO properties and mappings accordingly.
If you cannot change the column names in table, change the POCO property name, and use the column alias in SQL query to match those new property names.
I hope this helps you.

The problem was effectively the name of the properties.
I solved it using Custom Column Mapping to do it i got two possible solutions:
Without extensions
First, we define a Dictionary with the name of the column as key, and the name of the property as value
IDictionary<string, string> columnMaps = new Dictionary<string, string>()
{
{ "Macro_tarea.ID", "ID" },
{ "Registros.ID", "ID" }
};
Then, we define a delegate to obtain the PropertyInfo object of the property to which we intend to assign the alias of the previous dictionary
var mapper = new Func<Type, string, PropertyInfo>((type, columnName) =>
{
if (columnMaps.ContainsKey(columnName))
return type.GetProperty(columnMaps[columnName]);
else
return type.GetProperty(columnName);
});
Now, we define an object that implements the ITypeMap interface using CustomPropertyTypeMap implementation
ITypeMap MacroTareaMapper = new CustomPropertyTypeMap(typeof(Macro_tarea),
(type, columnName) => mapper(type, columnName));
ITypeMap RegistrosMapper = new CustomPropertyTypeMap(typeof(Registros),
(type, columnName) => mapper(type, columnName));
Then we register them
SqlMapper.SetTypeMap(typeof(Macro_tarea), MacroTareaMapper);
SqlMapper.SetTypeMap(typeof(Registros), RegistrosMapper);
Simpler solution with Dapper.FluentMap
It is implemented as follows:
We create a class that inherits from EntityMap<T> and using the Map method we define which column corresponds to each property. For example,
internal class Macro_tareaMap : EntityMap<Macro_tarea>
{
internal Macro_tareaMap()
{
//Mi propiedad ID esta asociada a la columna Macro_tarea.ID
Map(x => x.ID).ToColumn("Macro_tarea.ID");
}
}
Then just register it
FluentMapper.Initialize((config) =>
{
config.AddMap(new Macro_tareaMap());
});
Hope it helps another people!
Source: https://medium.com/dapper-net/custom-columns-mapping-1cd45dfd51d6

Related

c# linq lambda The best way to fill the static List

I have a class inheriting from another class
I am doing a query from the database
How do I fill in the static List without loop using linq lambda
If he finds a lot of data. this will not be fast
I want to escape from loop
public class Currencys
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public long Curr_Id { get; set; }
[StringLength(50)]
public string Curr_Name { get; set; }
[StringLength(50)]
public string CentName { get; set; }
[StringLength(50)]
public string curr_abbrivation { get; set; }
[StringLength(50)]
public string en_curr_name { get; set; }
[StringLength(50)]
public string en_centname { get; set; }
}
public class test1 : Currencys
{
static List<test1> _currenciesList;
public static void Fill()
{
if (_currenciesList != null)
{
_currenciesList.Clear();
}
_currenciesList = new List<test1>();
using (var context = new ContextFormeDb())
{
var list = context.Currencies.ToList();
list.ForEach(o=>
{
test1 _test1 = new test1();
_test1.Curr_Id = o.Curr_Id;
_test1.Curr_Name = o.Curr_Name;
_test1.CentName = o.CentName;
_test1.curr_abbrivation = o.curr_abbrivation;
_test1.en_curr_name = o.en_curr_name;
_test1.en_centname = o.en_centname;
_currenciesList.Add(_test1);
});
}
}
}
Is there anything better than this? without loop
list.ForEach(o=>
{
test1 _test1 = new test1();
_test1.Curr_Id = o.Curr_Id;
_test1.Curr_Name = o.Curr_Name;
_test1.CentName = o.CentName;
_test1.curr_abbrivation = o.curr_abbrivation;
_test1.en_curr_name = o.en_curr_name;
_test1.en_centname = o.en_centname;
_currenciesList.Add(_test1);
});
Is there anything better than this? without loop?
It depends on what you would call better. Faster? Probably not. Not much anyway. Easier to read and understand, easier to test, to debug, to change, to reuse? Probably.
Without Loop? there must be a loop somewhere, but it can be hidden inside a LINQ statement.
Whenever you want to fetch items from a database using entity framework, and you don't want to update the fetched items, always use Select, and select only the properties that you plan to use. Don't fetch the complete items, nor use Include. This will cost you overhead that you will only use if you update the fetched data.
So instead of:
var result = dbContext.Schools
.Where(school => school.Name == "Hogwarts")
.Include(school => school.Students)
.ToList();
consider to use:
var result = dbContext.Schools
.Where(school => school.Name == "Hogwarts")
.Select(school => new
{
// Select only the properties that you plan to use
Id = school.Id,
Name = school.Name,
...
students = dbContext.Students
.Where(student => student.SchoolId == school.Id)
.Select(student => new
{
Id = student.Id,
Name = student.Name,
...
// not needed, you know the value
// SchoolId = student.SchoolId,
})
.ToList(),
})
.ToList();
It will prevent the transfer of properties that you won't use
It will prevent that the fetched data will be copied to DbContext.ChangeTracker.
If you don't put data that won't be changed in the ChangeTracker, then SaveChanges will be faster.
So in your case, your code would be easier to understand, easier to reuse, easier to test and debug, and without "for each" if you use Select:
var fetchedData = dbContext.Currencies
.Where(currency => ...) // if you don't want all currencies
.Select(currency => new
{
// Select only the properties that you plan to use:
Id = currency.Id,
Name = currency.Name,
...
})
.ToList();
I used an anonymous type (new without specifying a class). This way you won't have to create a "dummy" class. The advantage is that you just write the properties and you'll have the object, you even have an "equality by value". If in future you need to add or remove a property, just do it, without any problem, no need to change your dummy class.
Disadvantage: you can't use it outside the current block, and certainly not as a return value of a procedure.
So if you need it outside your procedure:
.Select(currency => new Test1
{
// Select only the properties that you plan to use:
Id = currency.Id,
Name = currency.Name,
...
})
.ToList(),
If two lists are of the same type , you can use AddRange.
if not and for any reason you need to map properties or its diffrent object type, i would suggest configure AutoMapper in your app and like this you can easily convert you List from Type A to Type B and after that use AddRange

Loop through strongly type fields Entity Framework c#

I am trying to come up with a neat solution for this problem to make it scalable. I've got a DataTable dt, which has its structure read from a database. I want to be able to correctly map this data into the correct fields using Entity Framework and allow the code to function even if columns are added or deleted.
using (Entities db = new Entities())
{
foreach (DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
var result = db.myTable.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Email == dr["Email"].ToString());
foreach (SourceToDestinationMapping s in mapping)
{
// want to do something like this
result[s.DestinationColumn] = dt[s.DestinationColumn];
// instead of this
result.Name = dt["Name"].ToString();
result.Address = dt["Address"].ToString();
// all field mappings
}
}
}
Is this something that is possible to do? Or do I need to make code changes every time a new column gets added/removed? If this isn't something that works then I can switch to doing something like this without Entity Framework.
Edit:
Example would be:
1, EmailAddress, Email, 1
public partial class SourceToDestinationMapping
{
public int MappingId { get; set; }
public string SourceColumn { get; set; }
public string DestinationColumn { get; set; }
public bool Active { get; set; }
}
Since Entity Framework works with objects you'd need to use reflection to get and set properties without knowing which properties you need to operate on, and it can get pretty complicated if you have many types that you need to handle. So basically examine the type of the object you're looking at, get its list of properties, and search for columns with the same name as the property (or some other convention you have) in the data table row. But again, you'll need to handle the type conversions, if the property is an int you need to get the cell value as an int etc.

How to create a reusable where clause for EF6

I have recently moved from coding in Java to c# and I am still learning the various elements of c#.
To access an existing database, which I cannot redesign, I am using Entity Frameworks 6 and 'Code First from database' to generate contexts and types representing the database tables. I am using Ling-To-SQL to retrieve the data from the database which is heavily denormalized.
My current task is create a report where each section is read from various tables, which all have a relationship to one base table.
This is my working example:
using(var db = new PaymentContext())
{
var out = from pay in db.Payment
join typ in db.Type on new { pay.ID, pay.TypeID } equals
new { typ.ID, typ.TypeID }
join base in db.BaseTable on
new { pay.Key1, pay.Key2, pay.Key3, pay.Key4, pay.Key5 } equals
new { base.Key1, base.Key2, base.Key3, base.Key4, base.Key5 }
where
base.Cancelled.Equals("0") &&
base.TimeStamp.CompareTo(startTime) > 0 &&
base.TimeStamp.CompareTo(endTime) < 1 &&
.
(other conditions)
.
group new { pay, typ } by new { typ.PaymentType } into grp
select new
{
name = grp.Key,
count = grp.Count(),
total = grp.Sum(x => x.pay.Amount)
};
}
There will be a large number of sections in the report and each section will generate a where clause which will contain the conditions shown. In some sections, the required data will be extracted from tables up to five levels below the BaseTable.
What I want to do is create a resuable where clause for each report section, to avoid a lot of duplicated code.
After a lot of searching, I tried to use the solution suggested here , but this has been superseded in Entity Framework 6.
How do I avoid duplicating code unnecessarily?
I did try to use the extension clauses you suggested, but my generated classes do not extend the BaseTable, so I had to explicitly define the link through the navigation property. As only a small number of tables will be common in the queries, I decided to apply the filters directly to each table as required. I will define these as required.
krillgar suggested moving to straight LINQ syntax, which seems like good advice. We intend to redesign our database in the near future and this will remove some of the SQL dependency. I merged the suggested filters and full LINQ syntax to access my data.
// A class to hold all the possible conditions applied for the report
// Can be applied at various levels within the select
public class WhereConditions
{
public string CancelledFlag { get; set; } = "0"; // <= default setting
public DateTime StartTime { get; set; }
public DateTime EndTime { get; set; }
}
// Class to define all the filters to be applied to any level of table
public static class QueryExtensions
{
public static IQueryable<BaseTable> ApplyCancellationFilter(this IQueryable<BaseTable> base, WhereConditions clause)
{
return base.Where(bse => bse.CancelFlag.Equals(clause.CancelledFlag));
}
public static IQueryable<BaseTable> ApplyTimeFilter(this IQueryable<BaseTable> base, WhereConditions clause)
{
return base.Where(bse => bse.TimeStamp.CompareTo(clause.StartTime) > 0 &&
bse.TimeStamp.CompareTo(clause.EndTime) < 1);
}
}
And the query is composed as follows:
using (var db = new PaymentContext())
{
IEnumerable<BaseTable> filter = db.BaseTable.ApplyCancellationFilter(clause).ApplyTimeFilter(clause);
var result = db.Payment.
Join(
filter,
pay => new { pay.Key1, pay.Key2, pay.Key3, pay.Key4, pay.Key5 },
bse => new { bse.Key1, bse.Key2, bse.Key3, bse.Key4, bse.Key5 },
(pay, bse) => new { Payment = pay, BaseTable = bse }).
Join(
db.Type,
pay => new { pay.Payment.TypeKey1, pay.Payment.TypeKey2 },
typ => new { typ.TypeKey1, typ.TypeKey2 },
(pay, typ) => new { name = typ.Description, amount = pay.Amount }).
GroupBy(x => x.name).
Select(y => new { name = y.Key,
count = y.Count(),
amount = y.Sum(z => z.amount)});
}
And then to finally execute composed query.
var reportDetail = result.ToArray(); // <= Access database here
As this query is the simplest I will have to apply, future queries will become much more complicated.
The nice thing about LINQ is that methods like Where() return an IEnumerable<T> that you can feed into the next method.
You could refactor the where clauses into extension methods akin to:
public static class PaymentQueryExtensions {
public static IQueryable<T> ApplyNotCancelledFilter(
this IQueryable<T> payments)
where T : BaseTable {
// no explicit 'join' needed to access properties of base class in EF Model
return payments.Where(p => p.Cancelled.Equals("0"));
}
public static IQueryable<T> ApplyTimeFilter(
this IQueryable<T> payments, DateTime startTime, DateTime endTime)
where T: BaseTable {
return payments.Where(p => p.TimeStamp.CompareTo(startTime) > 0
&& p.TimeStamp.CompareTo(endTime) < 1);
}
public static IGrouping<Typ, T> GroupByType(
this IQueryable<T> payments)
where T: BaseTable {
// assuming the relationship Payment -> Typ has been set up with a backlink property Payment.Typ
// e.g. for EF fluent API:
// ModelBuilder.Entity<Typ>().HasMany(t => t.Payment).WithRequired(p => p.Typ);
return payments.GroupBy(p => p.Typ);
}
}
And then compose your queries using these building blocks:
IEnumerable<Payment> payments = db.Payment
.ApplyNotCancelledFilter()
.ApplyTimeFilter(startTime, endTime);
if (renderSectionOne) {
payments = payments.ApplySectionOneFilter();
}
var paymentsByType = payments.GroupByType();
var result = paymentsByType.Select(new
{
name = grp.Key,
count = grp.Count(),
total = grp.Sum(x => x.pay.Amount)
}
);
Now that you have composed the query, execute it by enumerating. No DB access has happened until now.
var output = result.ToArray(); // <- DB access happens here
Edit After the suggestion of Ivan, I looked at our codebase. As he mentioned, the Extension methods should work on IQueryable instead of IEnumerable. Just take care that you only use expressions that can be translated to SQL, i.e. do not call any custom code like an overriden ToString() method.
Edit 2 If Payment and other model classes inherit BaseTable, the filter methods can be written as generic methods that accept any child type of BaseTable. Also added example for grouping method.

C# aggregate data from mulitple columns taken from a resultset of an RAW SQL query with Entity Framework6 and add those data to Lists in a ViewModel

I want to process the data from my database-query using raw SQL in Entity Framework 6 as follows and need a best practice by the use of native functions of C# and LINQ:
PICTURE 1: Resultset taken from database
I have created a class for the resultset above, it looks like that:
public class ProjectQueryModel {
public int Project { get; set; }
public string Projectname { get; set; }
public int RoomId { get; set; }
public string RoomName { get; set; }
public int? EmployeeId { get; set; }
public string EmployeeName { get; set; }
public int? QualificationId { get; set; }
public string QualificationName { get; set; }
public int? QualificationLevel { get; set; }
}
To this point the query works and I got all my data from it stored in a List of type ProjectQueryModel. Now I want to add this data to my ViewModel and don't know how to use the functions C# offers me to process the data of resultsets. How can I achieve the following by saving every entity of type ProjectViewModel in a List, whose objects have the following structure:
PICTURE 2: data organisation in ViewModel
An example dataset for project 1 in the target list should look like this:
ProjectId = 1
Projectname = T1
RoomId = 1
RoomName = Delta Room
======================
Employees *(Attribute of type List <ProjectEmployeesVM> )*
[0].EmployeeId = 2
[0].EmployeeName = Mee
[0].EmployeeQualifications *(Attribute of type List<EmployeeQualificationsVM)*
[0].EmployeeQualifications[0].QualificationId = 1
[0].EmployeeQualifications[0].QualificationName = Programmer
[0].EmployeeQualifications[0].QualificationLevel = 3
...any other qualification of the employee
[1].EmployeeId = 2
[1].EmployeeName = Mee
[1].EmployeeQualifications
[1].EmployeeQualifications[0]
...Any other employee in this project and all of his qualifications
What I also want to achieve is to save a empty list in case the project has no employees, because the resultset is achieved by the use of LEFT OUTER JOINS. For the qualifications it is not necessary, because every employee has at least one qualification.
VERY BIG THANKS in advance
I'm supposing you have a constructor in every class involved that takes all the properties as arguments.
Here's how i would do it:
List<ProjectQueryModel> queryResult = ...;
List<ProyectViewModel> views = queryResult
// Take all the rows that belong to one proyect
.GroupBy(m => m.Proyect)
// Convert every group into a ProyectViewModel
// First use Select to Map every Group into a new Proyect using a function that takes a group of rows and return a Proyect
// Then we use Aggregate inside that mapping function to collapse the entire group of rows into a single ProyectViewModel
// We'll need a contructor in ProyectViewModel that gives us a completly empty instance
// Aggregate takes a starting point, and a function that takes that starting point, and passes it every element of the IEnumerable we're using. The return value of that function is the "new starting point".
// Using this we'll build the Proyect from every row.
.Select(g => g.Aggregate(new ProyectViewModel(), (pvm, nxtRow) => {
// Check if we haven't initialized the instance, and do so.
if (pvm.ProyectId == null) pvm.ProyectId = nxtRow.Proyect;
if (pvm.ProyectName == null) pvm.ProyectName = nxtRow.ProyectName;
if (pvm.RoomId == null) pvm.RoomId = nxtRow.RoomId;
if (pvm.RoomName == null) pvm.RoomName = nxtRow.RoomName;
if (pvm.Employees == null) pvm.Employees = new List<ProyectEmployeeViewModel>();
// If the row has an employee
if (nxtRow.EmployeeId.HasValue) {
// If the Employee is not yet on the Proyect add it
if (!pvm.Employees.Any(e => e.EmployeeId == nxtRow.EmployeeId))
{
// This constructor should create the empty List of Qualifications
pvm.Employees.Add(new ProyectEmployeeViewModel(nxtRow.EmployeeId.Value, nxtRow.EmployeeName);
}
// If the row has a qualification
if (nxtRow.QualificationId.HasValue)
{
// Find it's employee
pvm.Employees.First(e => e.EmployeeId == nxtRow.EmployeeId)
// Add the current row's qualification to the employee
.Qualifications.Add(new EmployeeQualificationsViewModel(nxtRow.QualificationId.Value, nxtRow.QualificationName, nxtRow.QualificationLevel.Value));
}
}
// Return the Proyect with the changes we've made so we keep building it
return pvm;
})).ToList();
LINQ is quite a beauty isn't it?
There might be errors, but use this as a starting point.
Start by making sure that your database has the right foreign key constraints between your tables, then update your model. This will automatically create the correct navigation properties. I've assumed they will be called Employees and Qualifications, but change as appropriate.
Then your query just becomes:
var result=db.Projects
.Include(p=>p.Employees)
.Include(p=>p.Employees.Select(e=>e.Qualifications))
.Where(p=>p.id==1)
.AsEnumerable(); // or .ToList() if you prefer
Then just pass IEnumerable<Project> to your view (or just Project if your view will always only get 1 Project -- in that case, just end the query with .First() instead of .AsEnumerable()) . Unless of course you like creating ViewModels, but I'm guessing you don't and this isn't a project that needs the added complexity or abstractions.
The above code assumes you have the following tables:
Project (int Id, varchar(50) Name, int RoomId)
Room (int Id, int Name)
Employee (int Id, varchar(50) Name)
Qualification (int Id,varchar(50) Name, int Level)
Cross Reference tables:
ProjectEmployees (int ProjectId, int EmployeeId)
EmployeeQualifications (int EmployeeId, int QualificationId)
Foreign Keys:
Project.RoomId -> Room.Id
ProjectEmployees.ProjectId -> Project.Id
ProjectEmployees.EmployeeId -> Employee.Id
EmployeeQualifications.EmployeeId -> Employee.Id
EmployeeQualifications.QualificationId -> Qualification.Id

Pass Linq Expression to a function

I want to pass a property list of a class to a function. with in the function based on property list I'm going to generate a query. As exactly same functionality in Linq Select method.
Here I'm gonna implement this for Ingress Database.
As an example,
in front end I wanna run a select as this,
My Entity Class is like this
public class Customer
{
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Name="Id",IsPrimaryKey=true)]
public string Id { get; set; }
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Name = "Name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Name = "Address")]
public string Address { get; set; }
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Name = "Email")]
public string Email { get; set; }
[System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Name = "Mobile")]
public string Mobile { get; set; }
}
I wanna call a Select function like this,
var result = dataAccessService.Select<Customer>(C=>C.Name,C.Address);
then,using result I can get the Name and Address properties' values.
I think my Select function should looks like this,
( *I think this should done using Linq Expression. But im not sure what are the input parameter and return type. * )
Class DataAccessService
{
// I'm not sure about this return type and input types, generic types.
public TResult Select<TSource,TResult>(Expression<Func<TSource,TResult>> selector)
{
// Here I wanna Iterate through the property list, which is passed from the caller.
// Here using the property list,
// I can get the ColumnAttribute name value and I can generate a select query.
}
}
This is a attempt to create a functionality like in Linq. But im not an expert in Linq Expressions.
There is a project call DbLinq from MIT, but its a big project and still i couldn't grab anything helpful from that.
Can someone please help me to start this, or can someone link me some useful resources to read about this.
What you're trying to do is creating a new anonymous type that consists of Name and Address. This is easily achievable via long form linq (I made that term up, for lack of a better explanation.) Here's a sample from Microsoft, link provided below:
public void Linq11()
{
List<Product> products = GetProductList();
var productInfos =
from p in products
select new { p.ProductName, p.Category, Price = p.UnitPrice };
Console.WriteLine("Product Info:");
foreach (var productInfo in productInfos)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} is in the category {1} and costs {2} per unit.", productInfo.ProductName, productInfo.Category, productInfo.Price);
}
}
Details: Linq Select Samples
Update:
So are you trying to do something like this then?
var result = dataAccessService.Select<Customer>(c => c.Name, c => c.Address);
public object[] Select<TSource>(params Expression<Func<TSource, object>>[] selectors)
{
var toReturn = new object[selectors.Count()];
foreach (var s in selectors)
{
var func = s.Compile();
//TODO: If you implement Select a proper extension method, you can easily get the source
toReturn[i] = func(TSource);
}
return toReturn;
}
I don't understand why you're trying to implement Select as a function of DataAccessService? Are trying to create this as an extension method rather?
If this is not what you mean though, you need to rephrase you're question big time and as one commenter suggested, tell us what you need not how you want us to design it.

Categories

Resources