I have a ton of domain entity to dto maps, that are basically one to one maps like this:
CreateMap<Package, PackageForm>();
I have to call CreateMap for each map, this seems like it could be handled by a convention or something. Is it possible to have AutoMapper (try to) create a mapping on the fly when Map() is called for a non-existing map?
Well I just discovered Mapper.DynamicMap(), seems to be what I was after.
Related
A specification pattern can be used to compose objects as shown in the example below:
IUser user =
UserSpecification
.ForPerson()
.WithName("myname")
.WithSurname("mysurname")
.WithPrimaryContact(ContactSpecification.ForEmailAddress("abc#email.com"))
.AndNoMoreContacts()
.Build();
This leads to manually map the data from DTO to the specification object.
Is there a way, we can use automapper to fill object while using specification pattern? Does Automapper support this in any way?
Thanks
I don't think so, typically the specification pattern is used for piecemeal setting of individual properties. The implementation of the pattern involves for each method actually setting a property, by hand.
AutoMapper always maps from an object, in the above, I don't see a source object, just a specification. If the specification filled an object, then that object was mapped to the destination, then it would work. The result above from "Build()" could be mapped to "IUser".
Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. The code inside a specification pattern is setting up an object, and trying to map this to AutoMapper configuration I think would be far more trouble/confusing than it would be worth.
I have a 'document' table (very original) that I need to dynamically subset at runtime so that my API consumers can't see data that isn't legal to view given some temporal constraints between the application/database. JOOQ created me a nice auto-gen Document class that represents this table.
Ideally, I'd like to create an anonymous subclass of Document that actually translates to
SELECT document.* FROM document, other_table
WHERE document.id = other_table.doc_id AND other_table.foo = 'bar'
Note that bar is dynamic at runtime hence the desire to extend it anonymously. I can extend the Document class anonymously and everything looks great to my API consumers, but I can't figure out how to actually restrict the data. accept() is final and toSQL doesn't seem to have any effect.
If this isn't possible and I need to extend CustomTable, what method do I override to provide my custom SQL? The JOOQ docs say to override accept(), but that method is marked final in TableImpl, which CustomTable extends from. This is on JOOQ 3.5.3.
Thanks,
Kyle
UPDATE
I built 3.5.4 from source after removing the "final" modifier on TableImpl.accept() and was able to do exactly what I wanted. Given that the docs imply I should be able to override accept perhaps it's just a simple matter of an erroneous final declaration.
Maybe you can implement one of the interfaces
TableLike (and delegate all methods to a JOOQ implementation instance) such as TableImpl (dynamic field using a HashMap to store the Fields?)
Implement the Field interface (and make it dynamic)
Anyway you will need to remind that there are different phases while JOOQ builds the query, binds values, executes it etc. You should probably avoid changing the "foo" Field when starting to build a query.
It's been a while since I worked with JOOQ. My team ended up building a customized JOOQ. Another (dirty) trick to hook into the JOOQ library was to use the same packages, as the protected identifier makes everything visible within the same package as well as to sub classes...
I am trying to map an IDictionary<string,object> to another IDictionary<string,object>. The source dictionary contains int, int[], string[] and strongly-typed lists of domain objects. I wanted to map that dictionary to a dictionary where my domain objects get mapped to DTOs.
I created mappings for the domain objects which maps them to the equivalent DTOs. However, when trying to map the dictionary, it results in an empty IDictionary<string,object>.
Any help on this will be very much appreciated.
Never mind, I was doing something dumb. The dictionary was being initialized in the constructor of the parent object, tough overwriting Automapper generated dictionary.
Sigh.
What is the difference between the System.ComponentModel.BindingList methods Add(object) and AddNew()? The MSDN documentation says this:
Add: Adds an object to the end of the Collection<T>.
AddNew: Adds a new item to the collection.
It seems like both methods add an item to the collection, but Add(object) does it in one shot whereas AddNew() is slightly more complicated. My tests with Add(object) seem to be working, but I want to know if I am using the correct method.
So what is the difference between these methods?
AddNew() creates the object for you (that's why it doesn't have a parameter).
It's designed to be used by grids, which don't know how to create a new object to pass to Add().
AddNew() is very handy (it’s the well-known Factory design pattern) when you implement a class derived of BindingList().
It allows your code to initialize new items with values that depend on the list itself - e.g. a foreign key to the parent object if the binding list contains a list of children.
we're using Automapper (http://automapper.codeplex.com/) to map between entities and dto's. We have a situation where one property on an entity corresponds to three different properties on the dto, and we need to write some custom logic to do the mapping. Anyone know how we can do that? (We need to map both ways, from entity and from dto).
I notice that AutoMapper supports custom resolvers to do custom mapping logic, but as far as I can tell from the documentation, they only allow you to map a single property to another single property.
Thx
You can create a custom type converter. It allows you to define a converter for an entire type, not just a single property.