How can I access the details element of a collection entity which is inside one section of another entity with openxava? For example, in the view of entity A, we have section {S1,S2,S3} and inside section S3 view, we have {collection of entity B}. Now I want to access the detail element of entity B, so that i can fill the element in an action controller. How do I do that?
Get the collection directly from the view, in this way:
Collection myCollection = getView().getSubview("myCollection").getCollectionObjects();
It must work even with oldest OpenXava versions
Obtain the entity associated to the view and get the collection from it. Since OpenXava 4.3 you can do it in this way:
MyEntity myEntity = (MyEntity) getView().getEntity();
Collection myCollection = myEntity.getMyCollection();
If you're using an OX previous to 4.3 do it in this way:
Map keyValues = getView().getKeyValuesWithValue();
if (!keyValues.isEmpty()) {
MyEntity myEntity = (MyEntity)
MapFacade.findEntity(getView().getModelName(), keyValues);
Collection myCollection = myEntity.getMyCollection();
}
You can do it in several ways. Here you have one, I have used it with some references that I want to modify from inside of an action called by the base module (which should work with your collection):
Query q = XPersistence.getManager().createQuery("JPQL QUERY TO RETRIVE THE COLLECTION WITH :parameterIfNeeded");
q.setParameter("parameterIfNeeded", "value");
List entityBList = q.getResultList();
if (getView().getModelName().equalsIgnoreCase("yourBaseModelViewName")) {
getView().getSubview("yourSubViewName").setModel(entityBList);
getView().getSubview("yourSubViewName").refresh();
}
You must to be using OX 4.6 to be able to use setModel(). And remember that the "yourSubViewName" is the name of the property for your collection into the base model.
I have not tested that code with a collection, so make the adjustments according to your needs, maybe you will need to CAST the query result list or something.
Related
Consider the following mapping for a document in ES.
class MyDoc(elasticseach_dsl.Document):
id_info = Object(IdInfo)
class IdInfo(elasticseach_dsl.InnerDoc):
id = Keyword()
type = Keyword()
Using elasticsearch-dsl, there are 2 ways of retrieving a document (that I am interested in):
Using MyDoc.search().query().execute(), that yields Hit objects
Using MyDoc.get(), that yields a MyDoc object
Here is the issue I am experiencing:
When I retrieve the same document from ES, and that document is missing, for example, the type field, I get different behaviours:
When using search(): doc being a Hit object, accessing doc.type raises a KeyError
When using get(): doc being a MyDoc object, accessing doc.type simply returns None
To workaround this discrepancy, I would like to convert a Hit instance to a MyDoc instance, so that I can always use the doc.type syntax without any errors being raised.
How can I do that?
Alternatively, is there a way that I could access Hit instances with the same behaviour as MyDoc instances?
dict_hit = hit.to_dict()
doc = YourDocument(**dict_hit)
doc.property1 # you can access the property here
I know it is a bit awkward and annoying, it used to work with versions below 6.
I found a workaround, if you take the dictionary coming out from elasticsearch response you can then ask the document class to interpret it like the following.
query = MyDoc.search()
response = query.execute()
my_doc = MyDoc.from_es(response.hits.hits[0])
We were facing this situation. In our case, is was due to the index name in the Index subclass to configure Document indices. Our model looked more or les like this:
class MyDoc(Document):
my_field = Keyword()
class Index:
name = "my-doc-v1-*"
This way, when querying for documents in indexes that match that name (for example "my-doc-v1-2022-07"), hits are automatically instantianted as MyDoc objects.
Now we have started to generate 'v2' indices, named like "my-doc-v2--000001", and then hits were not being populated as MyDoc objects.
For that to happen, we had to change Index.name to my-doc-*. That way, documents from both 'v1' and 'v2' indices are always populated automatically by the library, since they match the Index.name expression.
i am using the Graph library in order to save my data correctly.
I was wondering, if there's a way to update an existing Entity, without duplicate the entity 2 times: user will be allowed to update just two values of the entity.
Also, i would like to know if there's a proper save method
I give you an example
let person = Entity(type: "Person")
person["name"] = //not editable
person["work"] = //editable
person["age"] = //editable
graph.sync() //or something like graph.update
Writing this, i am just creating a new entity, which is not what i want. Maybe, i have to search for the entity, delete that every time, and insert the new one?Hope not.
Thank you for any help you could give!
yes, you can update Entities.
You need to search for the one you want to update first. For example:
let graph = Graph()
let search = Search<Entity>(graph: graph).for(types: "Person")
for entity in search.sync() {
// do something
}
Once you have the entity you want to update, you can set any property, group, or tag as per usual.
entity["name"] = "Daniel"
From there you need to call graph.sync() or graph.async() so that all is saved.
Thats it :)
Do you know is there any like a global reference book of MS CRM entities in the system?
I need to resolve entity id to the entity type without checking every single entity for presence of given GUID.
Is it possible?
I don't know of any supported way, but I believe you could to a SQL query on the PrincipalObjectAccess table in the database and retrieve the value of ObjectTypeCode where ObjectId is the GUID.
For annotation you need to look at the field objecttypecode to determine the entity type of objectid.
You can either generate a list of entity logical names and object type codes in your code as a Dictionary object (this will give you the fastest performance but requires you know all the entity types that will be in the system at the time you compile) or (if you are on CRM 2011 UR12+ or CRM 2013) you can do a MetadataQuery.
You can read more about doing a metadata query here: http://bingsoft.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/crm-2011-metadata-query-enhancements/
Sample code for your requirement:
var objTypeCode = [INTEGER] //Make this this the annotation.objecttypecode
MetadataFilterExpression entityFilter = new MetadataFilterExpression(LogicalOperator.And);
EntityFilter.Conditions.Add(new MetadataConditionExpression("ObjectTypeCode", MetadataConditionOperator.Equals, objTypeCode);
EntityQueryExpression entityQueryExpression = new EntityQueryExpression()
{
Criteria = entityFilter
};
RetrieveMetadataChangesRequest retrieveMetadataChangesRequest = new RetrieveMetadataChangesRequest()
{
Query = entityQueryExpression,
ClientVersionStamp = null
};
RetrieveMetadataChangesResponse response = (RetrieveMetadataChangesResponse)orgService.Execute(retrieveMetadataChangesRequest);
You can reduce the metadata retrieved, for better performance, as shown here: How to get the CRM Entity Name from the Object Type Code of a RegardingID?
Background: Project is a Data Import utility for importing data from tsv files into a EF5 DB through DbContext.
Problem: I need to do a lookup for ForeignKeys while doing the import. I have a way to do that but the retrieval if the ID is not functioning.
So I have a TSV file example will be
Code Name MyFKTableId
codevalue namevalue select * from MyFKTable where Code = 'SE'
So when I process the file and Find a '...Id' column I know I need to do a lookup to find the FK The '...' is always the entity type so this is super simple. The problem I have is that I don't have access to the properties of the results of foundEntity
string childEntity = column.Substring(0, column.Length - 2);
DbEntityEntry recordType = myContext.Entry(childEntity.GetEntityOfReflectedType());
DbSqlQuery foundEntity = myContext.Set(recordType.Entity.GetType()).SqlQuery(dr[column])
Any suggestion would be appreciated. I need to keep this generic so we can't use known type casting. The Id Property accessible from IBaseEntity so I can cast that, but all other entity types must be not be fixed
Note: The SQL in the MyFKTableId value is not a requirement. If there is a better option allowing to get away from SqlQuery() I would be open to suggestions.
SOLVED:
Ok What I did was create a Class called IdClass that only has a Guid Property for Id. Modified my sql to only return the Id. Then implemented the SqlQuery(sql) call on the Database rather than the Set([Type]).SqlQuery(sql) like so.
IdClass x = ImportFactory.AuthoringContext.Database.SqlQuery<IdClass>(sql).FirstOrDefault();
SOLVED:
Ok What I did was create a Class called IdClass that only has a Guid Property for Id. Modified my sql to only return the Id. Then implemented the SqlQuery(sql) call on the Database rather than the Set([Type]).SqlQuery(sql) like so.
IdClass x = ImportFactory.AuthoringContext.Database.SqlQuery<IdClass>(sql).FirstOrDefault();
Hi I have an existing database with a table with 30 fields, I want to split the table into many models so I could retrieve/save fields that I need and not every time retrieve/save the whole object from the db. using c#.
I think I should be using Code-First. Could someone provide an example or a tutorial link?
thanks,
You don't need to split table to be able to load a subset of field or persist subset of fields. Both operations are available with the whole table mapped to single entity as well.
For selection you simply have to use projection:
var data = from x in context.HugeEntities
select new { x.Id, x.Name };
You can use either anonymous type in projection or any non-mapped class.
For updates you can simply use:
var data = new HugeEntity { Id = existingId, Name = newName };
context.HugeEntities.Attach(data);
var dataEntry = context.Entry(data);
dataEntry.Property(d => d.Name).IsModified = true; // Only this property will be updated
context.SaveChanges();
Or:
var data = new HugeEntity { Id = existingId };
context.HugeEntities.Attach(data);
data.Name = newName;
context.SaveChanges(); // Now EF detected change of Name property and updated it
Mapping multiple entities to single table must follows very strict rules and it is possible only with table splitting were all entities must be related with one-to-one relation (and there are some problems with more than two entities per split table in code first) or with table-per-hierarchy inheritance. I don't think that you want to use any of them for this case.