Currently our new database design is changing rapidly and I don't always have time to keep up to date with the latest changes being made. Therefore I would like to create some basic integration tests that are basically sanity checks on my mappings against the database.
Here are a few of the things I'd like to accomplish in these tests:
Detect columns I have not defined in my mapping but exist in the database
Detect columns I have mapped but do NOT exist in the database
Detect columns that I have mapped where the data types between the database and my business objects no longer jive with each other
Detect column name changes between database and my mapping
I found the following article by Ayende but I just want to see what other people out there are doing to handle these sort of things. Basically I'm looking for simplified tests that cover a lot of my mappings but do not require me to write seperate queries for every business object in my mappings.
I'm happy with this test, that comes from the Ayende proposed one:
[Test]
public void PerformSanityCheck()
{
foreach (var s in NHHelper.Instance.GetConfig().ClassMappings)
{
Console.WriteLine(" *************** " + s.MappedClass.Name);
NHHelper.Instance.CurrentSession.CreateQuery(string.Format("from {0} e", s.MappedClass.Name))
.SetFirstResult(0).SetMaxResults(50).List();
}
}
I'm using plain old query since this version comes from a very old project and I'm to lazy to update with QueryOver or Linq2NH or something else...
It basically ping all mapped entities configured and grasp some data too in order to see that all is ok. It does not care if some field exists in the table but not on the mapping, that can generate problem in persistence if not nullable.
I'm aware that Fabio Maulo has something eventually more accurate.
As a personal consideration, if you are thinking on improvement, I would try to implement such a strategy: since mapping are browsable by API, look for any explicit / implicit table declaration in the map, and ping it with the database using the standard schema helperclasses you have inside NH ( they eventually uses the ADO.NET schema classes, but they insulate all the configuration stuff we already did in NH itself) By playng a little with naming strategy we can achieve a one by one table field check list. Another improvement can be done by, in case of unmatching field, looking for a candidate by applying Levensthein Distance to all the available names and choosing one if some threshold requisites are satisfied. This of course is useless in class first scenarios when the DB schema are generated by NH itself.
I use this one too:
Verifying NHibernate Entities Contain Only Virtual Members
Related
I want to make a universal method for working with tables. Studied links
Dynamically Instantiate Model object in Entity Framework DB first by passing type as parameter
Dynamically access table in EF Core 2.0
As an example, the ASP.NET CORE controller for one of the SQL tables is shown below. There are many tables. You have to implement such (DEL,ADD,CHANGE) methods for each table :
[Authorize(Roles = "Administrator")]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult DeleteToDB(string id)
{
webtm_mng_16Context db = new webtm_mng_16Context();
var Obj_item1 = (from o1 in db.IT_bar
where o1.id == int.Parse(id)
select o1).SingleOrDefault();
if ((Obj_item1 != null))
{
db.IT_bar.Remove(Obj_item1);
db.SaveChanges();
}
var Result = "ok";
return Json(Result);
}
I want to get a universal method for all such operations with the ability to change the name of the table dynamically. Ideally, set the table name as a string. I know that this can be done using SQL inserts, but is there really no simple method to implement this in EF CORE
Sorry, but you need to rework your model.
It is possible to do something generic as long as you have one table per type - you can go into the configuration and change the database table. OpenIddict allows that. You can overwrite the constructors of the DbContext and play whatever you want with the object model, and that includes changing table names.
What you can also do is a generic base class taking the classes you deal with as parameters. I have those - taking (a) the db entity type and (b) the api side dto type and then using some generic functions and Automapper to map between them.
But the moment you need to grab the table name dynamically you are in a world of pain. EF standard architecture assumes that an object type is mapped to a database entity. As such, an ID is unique within a table - the whole relational model depends on that. Id 44 has to be unique, for a specific object, not for an object and the table it was at this moment loaded from.
You also miss up significantly on acutally logic, i.e. for delete. I hate to tell you, but while you can implement security on other layers for reading, every single one of my write/update methods are handwritten. Now, it may seem that "Authorize" works - but no, it does not. Or - it does if your application is "Hello world" complex. I run sometimes pages of testing code whether an operation is allowed in a specific business context and this IS specific, whether the user has set an override switch (which may or may not be valid depending on who he is) do bypass certain business rules. All that is anyway specific.
Oh, what you can also do... because you seem to have a lot of tables: do NOT use one class, generate them. Scaffolding is not that complex. I hardly remember when I did generate the last EF core database classes - they nowadays all come out of Entity Developer (tool from Devart), while the db is handled with change scripts (I work db first - i actually want to USE The database and that means filtered indices, triggers, some sp's and views with specific SQL), so migrations do not really work at all.
But now, overwriting the table name dynamically - while keeping the same object in the background - will bite you quite fast. It likely only works for extremely simplistic things - you know, "hello world" example - and breaks apart the moment you actually have logic.
I have a frustrating situation owing to this little quirk of EF. Here's a simple demo of the behavior. First the DB schema:
As you see, RestrictedProduct is a special case of product, which I'm intending to make a subclass of Product with some special code.
Now I import to an EF data model:
Oops! EF saw that RestrictedProduct had only 2 fields, both FKs, so it mapped it as a one-to-many relationship between Product and Restriction. So I go back to the database and add a Dummy field to RestrictedProduct, and now my EF model looks much better:
But that Dummy field is silly and pointless. Maybe I could delete it? I blow away the field from the DB table and the entity model, then refresh the model from the DB...
Oh, no! The Product-Restriction association is back, under a new name (RestrictedProduct1)! Plus, it won't compile:
Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines (x, y) :Two entities with possibly different keys are mapped to the same row. Ensure these two mapping fragments map both ends of the AssociationSet to the corresponding columns.
Is there any way to prevent this behavior, short of keeping the Dummy field on the RestrictedProduct table?
I just came across the same issue, and as an alternative to putting the dummy field in your RestrictedProduct table to force the creation of an entity you can also make your RestrictedProduct.RestrictionId field nullable and EF will then generate an entity for it. You can then modify it to use inheritance and any subsequent "Update model from database" will not cause undesired nav properties. Not really a nice solution but a work around.
Let's walk slowly into your problem.
1st thing you need to decide is if the restricted product is
really a special case of product or is it a possible extension
to each product.
From your original DB Scheme it seems that any product may have
a relation to a single restriction however a single restriction
can be shared among many products.. so this is a simple 1 to many
situation which means that restricted product is NOT a special case
of product! Restriction is an independent entity which has nothing
to do with product in a specific way.
Therefore EF is correct in the 1st importation of your scheme:
1. a product can have 0 or 1 restrictions.
2. a restriction is another entity which can be related to many products.
I do not see your problem.
I'm currently facing a performance problem with creating POCO objects from my database. I'm using Entity Framework 4 as OR-Mapper.
The whole application is a prototype for now.
Let's assume I want to have some business objects like classes 'Printer' or 'Scanner'. Both classes inherit from a BaseClass called Product.
The business classes exist.
I try to use a more generic database approach. I don't want to create tables for "Printer" nor "Scanner". I want to have 3 tables: One called Product, and the other Property and PropertyValue (which stores all assigned values to a specific Product).
In my business layer I do create a specific object like this:
public Printer GetPrinter(int IDProduct)
{
Printer item = new Printer();
// get the product object with EF
// get all PropertyValues
// (with Reflection) foreach property in item.GetType().GetProperties
// {
// property.SetValue("specific value")
// }
return item;
}
This is how the EF model looks like:
Works fine so far. For now I'm doing performance tests for retrieving multiple sets.
I've created a prototype and improved it several times to increase the performance. It is still far away from being usable.
I takes 919ms to create 300 objects who only contain 3 properties.
The reason for choosing such DB design is to have a generic database design. Adding new properties should only be done in the business model.
Am I just being too stupid to create a performant way of retrieving xx objects or is my approach totally wrong? As far as I understand OR-Mapper, they are basically doing the same?
I think you missed whole point of ORM. The reason why people are using ORM is to be able to persist buisness objects and easily retrieve business objects. You are using ORM to get just data for your business objects' factories. Factories are using reflection to build business object from materialized classes retrieved by ORM. This will always be very slow because:
Query compilation is slow (you can precompile it)
Object materialization is slow (you can't avoid it)
Reflection is slow (you can't avoid it)
IMO if you want to follwo this DB design to have generic tables absolutely independent on your business objects you don't need ORM or at least you don't need EF.
The reason for your performance problems is that generic approach is not follwed in your business model. So you must somewhere convert generic data to specific data = slow operation.
If you want to improve performance define set of shared properties and place them into Product. Then either use your current PropertyValue and Property for additional non shared properties or use simply ExtendedProperties table storing key value pairs. Your entities will be of type Product with inner type property, shared properties and collection of extended properties. That is generic approach.
Firstly, it's not clear to me what you have in the way of POCOs. Did you hand code these and your context or T4 generate them? There are some great articles here that benchmark performance with no POCO, T4 Generated POCOs/Context and hand coded POCOs/Context. As expected there is HUGE performance savings going with POCOs (more than a 15-fold boost in performance in his benchmark) going the POCO route over those generated by the Entity Framework. You don't say what DBMS...if MSSQL have you turned on the profiler and see what's being generated?
I have a table that, some of its columns are unknown at compile time. Such columns could either be of an integer value, or some Enum value. There is a table that holds all the names of such dynamic columns and also holds the column's type. This "metatable" has the following columns:
DynamicColumnId (Pk)
Name
TypeId (Integer / Enum, as Fk from a separate table)
Integer columns have the Name from this table, whereas Enum columns are Fk columns from a table that has that Name, with some modification (e.g. a "DynamicTable" prefix).
The only solution I could think of for this situation is using Reflection.Emit to dynamically create an Entity class and a corresponding Mapping class. Admittedly, I'm new to NHybernate / Fluent NHybernate and it seems like a relatively simple hierarchy between the tables, and so I wanted to verify my solution isn't as ugly as it initially appears...
I would also welcome solutions that completely disregard my table hierarchy, in order to effectively acheive the same results (that is, to enumerate the rows on the dynamic table, going over all the columns, with knowledge of whether they are Enums and, if they are, their possible values as well).
(Edit: Additional information re problem domain)
I initially included minimal details, as to avoid Too-Much-Info related confusion.
This description is much more complex, but it unravels the motives behind this design.
The application involved is designed to automate log/dump analysis. Analysis-scenarios are frequently provided by the log/dump experts and so, in order to streamline the typical process of requirements=>implementation=>verification cycle, such analysis-scenarios are implemented by the experts directly as an Iron Python code snippet, with some domain-specific constructs injected into the snippets' scope. Each snippet has a "context" for which it is relevant. An example of "context" could be "product," "version," etc... So, the snippet itself is only invoked in certain contexts - this helps simplifying the Python code by eliminating branching (you could view it as Aspect Oriented Programming, to some extent). A non-expert could use the application, with a given code-context database, to analyze a log/dump, after choosing values for the various contexts.
When an expert decides that a new context is required for cataloging a certain code snippet, he could add a context, indicating the possible values it could have. Once a new context is added to the database, a non-expert that runs an analysis will be given the option to choose a value for the newly-added context.
The "dynamic table" is the table that associates a code snippet with values of the various contexts (columns) that existed when the snippet was issued, plus default values for the columns that did not exist at that time.
I won't claim to fully understand your scenario, but it seems to me that you'd be better off using a key-value store such as Redis or a schema-less database like CouchDB instead of SQL. This doesn't seem to be a problem for a relational database, but if you really need to use a RDBMS I'd map NHibernate as closely as possible to the real schema (DynamicColumnId, Name, TypeId) then build whatever data structure you need on top of that.
We're developing an application using Nhibernate as the data access layer.
One of the things I'm struggling with is finding a way to map 2 objects to the same table.
We have an object which is suited to data entry, and another which is used in more of a batch process.
The table contains all the columns for the data entry and some additional info for the batch processes.
When it's in a batch process I don't want to load all the data just a subset, but I want to be able to update the values in the table.
Does nhibernate support multiple objects pointed at the same table? and what is the thing that allows this?
I tried it a while ago and I remember that if you do a query for one of the objects it loads double the amount but i'm not so sure I didn't miss something.
e.g.
10 data entry objects
+
10 batch objects
So 20 object instead of 10.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
I should clarify that these objects are 2 different objects which in my mind should not be polymorphic in behaviour. However they do point at the same database record, it's more that the record has a dual purpose within the application and for sake of logical partitioning they should be kept separate. (A change to one domain object should not blow up numerous screens in other modules etc).
Thanks
Pete
An easy way to map multiple objects to the same table is by using a discriminator column. Add an extra column to the table and have it contain a value declaring it as type "Data Entry" or "Batch Process".
You'd create two objects - one for Data Entry and Batch Process. I'm not entirely sure how you enact that in regular NHibernate XML mapping - I use Castle ActiveRecord for annotating, so you'd mark up your objects like so:
[ActiveRecord("[Big Honking Table]",
DiscriminatorColumn = "Type",
DiscriminatorType = "String",
DiscriminatorValue = "Data Entry")]
public class Data Entry : ActiveRecordBase
{
//Your stuff here!
}
[ActiveRecord("[Big Honking Table]",
DiscriminatorColumn = "Type",
DiscriminatorType = "String",
DiscriminatorValue = "Batch Process")]
public class Batch Process : ActiveRecordBase
{
//Also your stuff!
}
Here's the way to do it with NHibernate + Castle ActiveRecord: http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/documentation/trunk/usersguide/typehierarchy.html
Note that they use a parent object - I don't think that's necessary but I haven't implemented a discriminator column exactly the way you're describing, so it might be.
And here's the mapping in XML: https://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/nhibernate/html/inheritance.html
You can also, through the mapping, let NHibernate know which columns to load / update - if you end up just making one big object.
I suppose you just might be overengineering it just a little bit:
If you worry about performance, that's premature optimization (besides, retrieving less columns is not much faster, as for saving you can enable dynamic updates to only update columns that changed).
If you trying to protect the programmer from himself by locking down his choices, you complicating your design for not so noble a cause.
In short, based on my 10 yrs+ of experience and my somewhat limited understanding of your problem I recommend you think again about doing what you wanna do.