Orchard data insert/delete for non content item - orchardcms

I am intending to insert/delete some information in a module's Action (using Orchard Rules-Action API) in a one-column table in the database. What is the best way of doing such tasks i.e. Data manipulation of non-content items. I do not want to go by the "Create a content type" route. I simply want to persist some non-content data in the database and query/delete them.
namespace xyz.Models
{
public class Task
{
public virtual int ContentId { get; set; }
public virtual int Retries { get; set; }
}
}
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("Task",
table => table
.Column<int>("ContentId")
.Column<int>("Retries")
);
return 1;
namespace Xyz.Services
{
public class TaskService : ITaskService
{
private readonly IRepository<Task> _taskRepository;
public TaskService(IRepository<Task> taskRepository)
{
_taskRepository = taskRepository;
}
public Task CreateTask(int contentId)
{
var task = new Task { ContentId = contentId };
_taskRepository.Create(task);
return task;
}
}
}

If you mean "creating a table without ContentPart" by non-content, then just create your desired model in the models folder :
public class MyRecord{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string FOO{ get; set; }
public virtual string BAR{ get; set; }
}
and obviously you must create a table in migration as following :
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("MyRecord",
table => table
.Column<int>("Id", c => c.PrimaryKey().Identity())
.Column<string>("FOO")
.Column<string>("BAR")
);
and finally where you want to have a transaction over table ,simply inject an instance of your model's repository :
private readonly IRepository<MyRecord> _repository;
public SomeClass(IRepository<MyRecord> repository){
_repository = repository;
}
public SomeMethod(){
var record = new MyRecord();
//initialize your class here
_repository.Create(record);
}
Important to note is that your record class must be in the Models folder and must contain an Id property.

Related

Azure Table Storage: Ignoring a property of a TableEntity when using the Azure.Data.Tables package

I am using the new Azure.Data.Tables library from Microsoft to deal with Azure Table Storage. With the old library when you had an entity that implemented ITableEntity and you had a property that you did not want to save to the storage table you would use the [IgnoreProperty] annotation. However, this does not seem to be available on the new library.
What would be the equivalent on the Azure.Data.Tables package or how do you now avoid saving a property to table storage now?
This is the class I want to persist:
public class MySpatialEntity : ITableEntity
{
public int ObjectId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MonitoringArea { get; set; }
//This is the property I want to ignore because table storage cannot store it
public Point Geometry { get; set; }
//ITableEntity Members
public virtual string PartitionKey { get => MonitoringArea.ToString(); set => MonitoringArea = int.Parse(value); }
public virtual string RowKey { get => ObjectId.ToString(); set => ObjectId = int.Parse(value); }
public DateTimeOffset? Timestamp { get; set; }
public ETag ETag { get; set; }
}
As of version 12.2.0.beta.1, Azure.Data.Tables table entity models now support ignoring properties during serialization via the [IgnoreDataMember] attribute and renaming properties via the [DataMember(Name="<yourNameHere>")] attribute.
See the changelog here.
I don't think there's anything like [IgnoreProperty] available as of now (at least with version 12.1.0).
I found two Github issues which talk about this:
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/issues/19782
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/issues/15383
What you can do is create a custom dictionary of the properties you want to persist in the entity and use that dictionary for add/update operations.
Please see sample code below:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Drawing;
using Azure;
using Azure.Data.Tables;
namespace SO68633776
{
class Program
{
private static string connectionString = "connection-string";
private static string tableName = "table-name";
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MySpatialEntity mySpatialEntity = new MySpatialEntity()
{
ObjectId = 1,
Name = "Some Value",
MonitoringArea = 2
};
TableEntity entity = new TableEntity(mySpatialEntity.ToDictionary());
TableClient tableClient = new TableClient(connectionString, tableName);
var result = tableClient.AddEntity(entity);
}
}
public class MySpatialEntity: ITableEntity
{
public int ObjectId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MonitoringArea { get; set; }
//This is the property I want to ignore because table storage cannot store it
public Point Geometry { get; set; }
//ITableEntity Members
public virtual string PartitionKey { get => MonitoringArea.ToString(); set => MonitoringArea = int.Parse(value); }
public virtual string RowKey { get => ObjectId.ToString(); set => ObjectId = int.Parse(value); }
public DateTimeOffset? Timestamp { get; set; }
public ETag ETag { get; set; }
public IDictionary<string, object> ToDictionary()
{
return new Dictionary<string, object>()
{
{"PartitionKey", PartitionKey},
{"RowKey", RowKey},
{"ObjectId", ObjectId},
{"Name", Name},
{"MonitoringArea", MonitoringArea}
};
}
}
}

EF Core Collections using Automapper.Collection.EntityFrameworkCore

Given I have 2 classes, Foo and Bar:
public class Foo
{
private readonly List<Bar> _bars = new List<Bar>();
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<Bar> Bars => _bars;
public void AddBar(Bar bar)
{
_bars.Add(bar);
}
public static Foo Create(string name)
{
return new Foo { Name = name };
}
private Foo() { }
}
public class Bar
{
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Description { get; private set; }
public static Bar Create(string description)
{
return new Bar { Description = description };
}
}
With 2 corresponding DTOs,
public class BarDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
public class FooDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<BarDto> Bars { get; set; }
public FooDto()
{
Bars = new List<BarDto>();
}
}
And an AutoMapper/AutoMapper.Collection.EntityFrameworkCore setup of
var config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddCollectionMappers();
cfg.UseEntityFrameworkCoreModel<DemoContext>();
cfg.CreateMap<BarDto, Bar>().EqualityComparison((src, dest) => src.Id == dest.Id);
cfg.CreateMap<FooDto, Foo>().ForMember(dest => dest.Bars, opt =>
{
opt.MapFrom(s => s.Bars);
opt.UseDestinationValue();
}).EqualityComparison((src, dest) => src.Id == dest.Id);
});
I have a use case whereby the incoming FooDto may contain inserted, appended, updated and deleted items in the Bars collection which I am attempting to handle by:
Looking up the existing entity from the database
Mapping changes from the DTO to the entity
Saving the changes to the database
However the following code produces an InvalidOperationException exception stating that "The instance of entity type 'Bar' cannot be tracked because another instance with the key value '{Id: 1}' is already being tracked. When attaching existing entities, ensure that only one entity instance with a given key value is attached"
var fooToUpdate = db.Foos.Include(_ => _.Bars).FirstOrDefault(_ => _.Id == fooDto.Id);
mapper.Map(fooDto, fooToUpdate);
db.SaveChanges();
My understanding was that becuase I am setting EqualityComparison for the BarDto -> Bar mapping it should update the tracked entity and the save operation should succeed becuase it was referencing the same object?
I am not sure if I'm going about this the wrong way or simply missing somthing in the configuration.
Update
It seems the problem I am facing may be related to this issue on github.

Saving a collection of records in Orchard

Currently I have a part that has 3 fields (Name, Value1, Value2). I have everything working where I can do a Create/Edit/Delete on the part.
What I want to do now is have a grid with 3 columns (Name, Value1, Value2) and can have multiple rows (up to the user how many there will be). The save won't happen until the user done (save all rows in a single post back).
I haven't figured what is needed so a collection of items will get saved on post back.
Any suggestions on how to do this?
Thanks!
What you could have is to have, in the part, a collection of the records corresponding to (Name, Value1, Value2) by having your dbms create and manage a 1-to-n relationship.
For example, you would have
public class ThisIsYourPart : ContentPart<ThisIsYourPartRecord> {
// You can access the list of your records as
// yourPart.Record.YourRecords
}
public class ThisIsYourPartRecord : ContentPartRecord {
public ThisIsYourPartRecord () {
YourRecords= new List<YourRecordWithValues>();
}
public virtual IList<YourRecordWithValues> YourRecords{ get; set; }
}
public class YourRecordWithValues {
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Value1 { get; set; } // use your actual type
public virtual ThisIsYourPartRecord ThisIsYourPartRecord { get; set; }
}
public class YourMigration : DataMigrationImpl {
public int Create() {
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("YourRecordWithValues ", table => table
.Column<int>("Id", col => col.Identity().PrimaryKey())
.Column<string>("Name", col => col.NotNull().Unlimited())
.Column<string>("Value1", col => col.NotNull().Unlimited())
.Column<int>("ThisIsYourPartRecord_Id"));
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("ThisIsYourPartRecord", table => table
.ContentPartRecord());
}
}
Code like that should do it.
We used this kind of relations a lot in https://github.com/bleroy/Nwazet.Commerce
*edit:
of course, have all the code in the proper files and folders.

ServiceStack ORMLite how to not serialize list

I don't know how to store collection (Comments) in separate table.
By default comments are serialized and stored in SomeClass table as column Comments.
[{Id:0,CreateDate:2013-09-12T14:28:37.0456202+02:00,,SomeClassID:1,CommentText:"coment text",}]
Is there any way to save it in separate tables?
public class SomeClass {
[AutoIncrement]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
List<Comment> comments = new List<Comment>();
public List<Comment> Comments {
get { return comments; }
set { comments = value; }
}
}
public class Comment {
[AutoIncrement]
public int Id { get; set; }
[References(typeof(SomeClass))]
public int SomeClassID { get; set; }
[StringLength(4000)]
public string CommentText { get; set; }
}
I don't think ORMLite supports serializing to multiple tables. 1 table = 1 class so the comments will be stored as a Blob field in the SomeClass table.
If you need to store them in separate tables you will have to save the comments separately and have a foreign key reference back to the id of the SomeClass table.

How do I create a navigation property that can navigate to more than one entity type?

I have the following in my domain classes ( simplified )
public enum JobType
{
SalesOrder = 1,
StockOrder = 2
}
public class SalesOrder : LoggedEntity
{
public string Name { get; set; } // and other fields
}
public class StockOrder : LoggedEntity
{
public string Name { get; set; } // and other fields
}
public class Job : LoggedEntity
{
public int JobType { get; set; } // jobtype enum
public virtual LoggedEntity LinkedEntity { get; set; }
}
My context is as follows;
public class Context : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Job> Jobs { get; set; }
public DbSet<StockOrder> StockOrders { get; set; }
public DbSet<SalesOrder> SalesOrders { get; set; }
}
When I run the migration i get the error described [here][1] So using an abstract entity appears not to work.
My question was, how do I create a navigation property that can navigate to more than one entity type?
If JobType = SalesOrder then I want to navigate to sales order, if JobType = StockOrder then I want to navigate to stock order.
I wanted to use a Table Per Heirarchy Strategy [see TPH here][2]
The trick is to keep EF oblivious of the LoggedEntity class. Remodel your entities according to this example:
public enum JobType
{
SalesOrder = 1,
StockOrder = 2
}
public abstract class LoggedEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; } // and other fields
}
public abstract class BaseOrder : LoggedEntity // New base class for orders!!
{ }
public class SalesOrder : BaseOrder
{ }
public class StockOrder : BaseOrder
{ }
public class Job : LoggedEntity
{
public JobType JobType { get; set; } // jobtype enum
public virtual BaseOrder Order { get; set; }
}
public class Tph2Context : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Job> Jobs { get; set; }
public DbSet<BaseOrder> Orders { get; set; }
}
You will see that the migration creates two tables, Jobs and BaseOrders (name to be improved). Job now has a property Order that can either be a SalesOrder or a StockOrder.
You can query specific Order types by
contex.Orders.OfType<StockOrder>()
And you will notice that EF doesn't know LoggedEntity, because
context.Set<LoggedEntity>()
will throw an exception
The entity type LoggedEntity is not part of the model for the current context.
how do I create a navigation property that can navigate
to more than one entity type?
You cannot do so. atleast not now. navigational properties are way of describing relationship between entities. at most, they represent, some sort of sql relationship. so you cannot alter or define such a relationship on the fly. you have to define it before hand.
Now in order to do that, you have to define separate navigational property for your separate conditions i.e.
public class Job : LoggedEntity
{
public int JobTypeSales { get; set; }
public int JobTypeStock { get; set; }
public virtual SalesOrder SalesOrder { get; set; }
public virtual StockOrder StockOrder { get; set; }
}
and then link them in configuration in modelbuilder through fluent API.
HasRequired(s => s.SalesOrder)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(s => s.JobTypeSales).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
HasRequired(s => s.StockOrder)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(s => s.JobTypeStock).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
and
as for your error "Sequence Contains No Elements"
this error comes, when the Linq query that you specified, is using either .First() or .Single(), or .ToList() and query returned no data.
so to avoid it use, .FirstOrDefault() or SingleOrDefault().
obviously with proper null check.

Resources