I have two Odata action methods defined. The one with parameter gets invoked while the other without parameter doesnt get invoked and throws error No routing convention was found to select an action for the OData path with template '~/entityset'.
Here is the code of my action methods
[EnableQuery]
public IQueryable<User> GetUser()
{
return db.Users;
}
// GET: odata/User(5)
[EnableQuery]
public SingleResult<User> GetUser([FromODataUri] int key)
{
return SingleResult.Create(db.Users.Where(user => user.Id == key));
}
The query that I am using are as follows
http://bureauservice/api/odata/UserOdata - Doesnt work
http://bureauservice/api/odata/UserOdata(1) - works
Could someone tell me why the first link doesnt work.
Please change the name of the method which returns entityset to "Get[EntitySetName]" or "Get".
Change from
public IQueryable<User> GetUser()
To
public IQueryable<User> GetUserOdata()
Or
public IQueryable<User> Get()
Set the name of the first action as GetUsers (plural) because you are getting the whole collection of users while in the second you are asking for a single user.
You may want to add the parenthesis to the first URL:
http://bureauservice/api/odata/UserOdata()
If you are just starting to proactise odata, then Odata v4 is good start point, as it is an OASIS standard, but v3 is not.
Here is the v4 version Function sample:
https://github.com/OData/ODataSamples/tree/master/WebApiCore/ODataFunctionSample.
Related
I am following the advanced developer tutorial (https://docs.shopware.com/en/shopware-platform-dev-en/how-to/indepth-guide-bundle).
Currently I'm at step 7, and according to the tutorial what I've made so far should work.
But it doesn't.
In the database it shows the association, but I can't retrieve them from the repository.
You have to add the association to the Criteria.
$criteria->addAssociation("name_of_association")
Without it, the associations come as null.
Okay, turns out I switched up two parameters by accident. When I set them correctly it worked as it should.
<?php declare(strict_types=1);
namespace Swag\BundleExample\Core\Content\Product;
use Shopware\Core\Content\Product\ProductDefinition;
use Shopware\Core\Framework\DataAbstractionLayer\EntityExtension;
use Shopware\Core\Framework\DataAbstractionLayer\Field\Flag\Inherited;
use Shopware\Core\Framework\DataAbstractionLayer\Field\ManyToManyAssociationField;
use Shopware\Core\Framework\DataAbstractionLayer\FieldCollection;
use Swag\BundleExample\Core\Content\Bundle\Aggregate\BundleProduct\BundleProductDefinition;
use Swag\BundleExample\Core\Content\Bundle\BundleDefinition;
class ProductExtension extends EntityExtension
{
public function extendFields(FieldCollection $collection): void
{
$collection->add(
(new ManyToManyAssociationField(
'bundles',
BundleDefinition::class,
BundleProductDefinition::class,
'product_id',
'bundle_id'
))->addFlags(new Inherited())
);
}
public function getDefinitionClass(): string
{
return ProductDefinition::class;
}
}
I'm talking about the 'product_id' and 'bundle_id'. In my case I had the 'product_id' as the last parameter.
I'm working on a blazor server-side project and I have a component that gets passed a model (pickedWeek) as a parameter. I can use the model fine in-line with the html, but OnInitializedAsync always thinks that the model is null.
I have passed native types in as parameters, from the Page into a component, this way without an issue. I use a NullWeek as a default parameter, so the number getting used in OnInitializedAsync only ever appears to be from the NullWeek. In case this is related, there is a sibling component that is returning the Week model to the Page through an .InvokeAsync call, where StateHasChanged() is being called after the update. It appears that the new Week is getting updated on the problem component, but that OnInitializeAsync() either doesn't see it, or just never fires again- which maybe is my problem, but I didn't think it worked that way.
For instance, the below code will always show "FAILURE" but it will show the correct Week.Number. Code below:
<div>#pickedWeek.Number</div>
#if(dataFromService != null)
{
<div>SUCCESS</div>
}
else
{
<div>FAILURE</div>
}
#code{
[Parameter]
public Week pickedWeek { get; set; }
protected IEnumerable<AnotherModel> dataFromService { get; set; }
protected override async Task OnInitializedAsync()
{
if (pickedWeek.Number > 0)
{
dataFromService = await _injectedService.MakeACall(pickedWeek.Id);
}
}
}
#robsta has this correct in the comments, you can use OnParametersSet for this. Then, you will run into another issue, in that each rerender will set your parameters again and generate another call to your service. I've gotten around this by using a flag field along with the the OnParametersSet method. Give this a shot and report back.
private bool firstRender = true;
protected override async Task OnParametersSetAsync()
{
if (pickedWeek.Number > 0 && firstRender)
{
dataFromService = await _injectedService.MakeACall(pickedWeek.Id);
firstRender = false;
// MAYBE call this if it doesn't work without
StateHasChanged();
}
}
Another alternative is to use the OnAfterRender override, which supplies a firstRender bool in the the method signature, and you can do similar logic. I tend to prefer the first way though, as this second way allows it to render, THEN sets the value of your list, THEN causes another rerender, which seems like more chatter than is needed to me. However if your task is long running, use this second version and build up a loading message to display while the list is null, and another to display if the service call fails. "FAILURE" is a bit misleading as you have it as it's being displayed before the call completes.
I've also found that a call to await Task.Delay(1); placed before your service call can be useful in that it breaks the UI thread loose from the service call awaiter and allows your app to render in a loading state until the data comes back.
I've trying to retrieve the rendermodel model into my custom hijacked method, but i always get null. The two optional parameters are correct.
This is my custom route :
RouteTable.Routes.MapRoute(
"umbracoRoute",
"token-verification/{action}/{userId}/{code}",
new
{
controller = "ExternalLinkOperations",
action = "",
userId = UrlParameter.Optional,
code = UrlParameter.Optional
},
new ConfirmEmailRouteHandler(3290)
);
this is the ConfirmEmailRouteHandler class:
public class ConfirmEmailRouteHandler: UmbracoVirtualNodeByIdRouteHandler
{
public ConfirmEmailRouteHandler(int realNodeId) : base(realNodeId)
{
}
protected override IPublishedContent FindContent(RequestContext requestContext, UmbracoContext umbracoContext, IPublishedContent baseContent)
{
return base.FindContent(requestContext, umbracoContext, baseContent);
}
}
and this is the the method in the ExternalLinkOperationsController which inherit from rendermodel:
[AllowAnonymous]
public async Task<ActionResult> ConfirmEmail(RenderModel model, string userId, string code)
{}
so Im not getting the model parameter only the two optional parameter, what i could be doing wrong, I also tried to make this
new UmbracoVirtualNodeByIdRouteHandler(3290)
instead of
new ConfirmEmailRouteHandler(3290),
but without success, I'm using umbraco v 7.5.3. Debugging the code in any moment the overrided method FindContent gets fired, only when the constructor.
Thanks in advance for any help
I didn't realized the route property is incorrect, i have RouteTable.Routes.MapRoute, and i am supposed to be using RouteTable.Routes.MapUmbracoRoute
answer by Shannon Deminick here!
...guess I'm the first to ask about this one?
Say you have the following routes, each declared on a different controller:
[HttpGet, Route("sign-up/register", Order = 1)]
[HttpGet, Route("sign-up/{ticket}", Order = 2)]
... you could do this in MVC 5.0 with the same code except for the Order parameter. But after upgrading to MVC 5.1, you get the exception message in the question title:
Multiple controller types were found that match the URL. This can
happen if attribute routes on multiple controllers match the requested
URL.
So the new RouteAttribute.Order property is only controller-level? I know in AttributeRouting.NET you can do SitePrecedence too. Is the only way to have routes like the above when all actions are in the same controller?
Update
Sorry, I should have mentioned these routes are on MVC controllers, not WebAPI. I am not sure how this affects ApiControllers.
If you know that ticket will be an int you can specify that type in the route to help resolve the route:
[HttpGet, Route("sign-up/register")]
[HttpGet, Route("sign-up/{ticket:int}")]
This approach worked for me, per user1145404's comment that includes a link to Multiple Controller Types with same Route prefix ASP.NET Web Api
In case of Attribute routing, Web API tries to find all the controllers which match a request. If it sees that multiple controllers are able to handle this, then it throws an exception as it considers this to be possibly an user error. This route probing is different from regular routing where the first match wins.
As a workaround, if you have these two actions within the same controller, then Web API honors the route precedence and you should see your scenario working.
There are two ways to fix this:
A regex constraint, like here: MVC Route Attribute error on two different routes
Or a custom route constraint, like here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2013/10/17/attribute-routing-in-asp-net-mvc-5/
You can create custom route constraints by implementing the IRouteConstraint interface. For example, the following constraint restricts a parameter to set of valid values:
public class ValuesConstraint : IRouteConstraint
{
private readonly string[] validOptions;
public ValuesConstraint(string options)
{
validOptions = options.Split('|');
}
public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route, string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values, RouteDirection routeDirection)
{
object value;
if (values.TryGetValue(parameterName, out value) && value != null)
{
return validOptions.Contains(value.ToString(), StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
}
return false;
}
}
The following code shows how to register the constraint:
public class RouteConfig
{
public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}");
var constraintsResolver = new DefaultInlineConstraintResolver();
constraintsResolver.ConstraintMap.Add("values", typeof(ValuesConstraint));
routes.MapMvcAttributeRoutes(constraintsResolver);
}
}
Now you can apply the constraint in your routes:
public class TemperatureController : Controller
{
// eg: temp/celsius and /temp/fahrenheit but not /temp/kelvin
[Route("temp/{scale:values(celsius|fahrenheit)}")]
public ActionResult Show(string scale)
{
return Content("scale is " + scale);
}
}
In my opinion, this isn't great design. There are no judgments about what URL you intended and no specificity rules when matching unless you explicitly set them yourself. But at least you can get your URLs looking the way you want. Hopefully your constraint list isn't too long. If it is, or you don't want to hard-code the route string parameter and its constraints, you could build it programmatically outside the action method and feed it to the Route attribute as a variable.
I am using Breeze with much success in my SPA, but seem to be stuck when trying to return parent->child data in a single query by using expand().
When doing a single table query, the $type in the JSON return is correct:
$type: MySPA.Models.Challenge, MySPA
However if I use expand() in my query I get the relational data, but the $type is this:
System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary 2[[System.String, mscorlib],[System.Object, mscorlib]]
Because of the $type is not the proper table + namespace, the client side code can't tell that this is an entity and exposes it as JSON and not a Breeze object (with observables, entityAspect, etc.).
At first I was using my own ContextProvider so that I could override the Before/After saving methods. When I had these problems, I reverted back to the stock EFContextProvider<>.
I am using EF5 in a database first mode.
Here's my controller code:
[BreezeController]
public class DataController : ApiController
{
// readonly ModelProvider _contextProvider = new ModelProvider();
readonly EFContextProvider<TestEntities> _contextProvider = new EFContextProvider<TestEntities>();
[HttpGet]
public string Metadata()
{
return _contextProvider.Metadata();
}
[Queryable(AllowedQueryOptions = AllowedQueryOptions.All)]
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<Challenge> Challenges()
{
return _contextProvider.Context.Challenges;
}
[HttpPost]
public SaveResult SaveChanges(JObject saveBundle)
{
return _contextProvider.SaveChanges(saveBundle);
}
public IQueryable<ChallengeNote> ChallengeNotes()
{
return _contextProvider.Context.ChallengeNotes;
}
}
Here's my BreezeWebApiConfig.cs
public static void RegisterBreezePreStart()
{
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.Remove(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.XmlFormatter);
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "BreezeApi",
routeTemplate: "breeze/{controller}/{action}"
);
}
Is there a configuration setting that I am missing?
Did you try "expanding" on server side? Is it needed to do expand on client side? I tried to do expand before but failed for me as well, did some research and decided I'd rather place it on server:
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<Challenge> ChallengesWithNotes()
{
return _contextProvider.Context.Challenges.Include("ChallengeNotes");
}
This should be parsed as expected. On client side you would query for "ChallengeNotes" instead of "Challenges" and you wouldn't need to write expand part.
I strongly suspect that the problem is due to your use of the [Queryable] attribute.
You must use the [BreezeQueryable] attribute instead!
See the documentation on limiting queries.
We are aware that Web API's QueryableAttribute has been deprecated in favor of EnableQueryAttribute in Web API v.1.5. Please stick with BreezeQueryable until we've had a chance to write a corresponding derived attribute for EnableQuery. Check with the documentation for the status of this development.