I have a process that creates an object that is responsible for inserting into header /detail records. If I run the code to insert into the table on its own, every thing runs fine. However, when I call that code as a separate class within a loop I
get an exception:
System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DbUpdateException was unhandled
Message=The INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK_CAS_ClaimsAdjustment_Header835". The conflict occurred in database "ERA835DB", table "dbo.Header835", column 'TRANSACTIONID'.
The TRANSACTIONID Column in the Header table is set as Identity=True. The child table, CAS_ClaimsAdjustment has a column TransactionID that is FK to Header.TransactionID.
Why does DBContext.SaveChanges() seem to behave differently depending on how the same code is called?
foreach (var file in Files)
{
Parser parser = new Parser();
parser.HandleFile(file);
}
public class Parser
{
public void HandleFile(string file)
{
using (Model.DbContext dbcontext)
{
foreach (var itemn in file)
{
Claims claim = new Claims();
// ...
dbcontext.Claims.Add(claim);
}
dbcontext.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
I solved my problem. In my console application I was declaring my entities as "static". Of course this did not work. Once I removed the static keyword everything was fine.
Related
I have the following value object code which validates CustCode by some expensive database operations.
public class CustCode : ValueObject<CustCode>
{
private CustCode(string code) { Value = code; }
public static Result<CustCode> Create(string code)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(code))
return Result.Failure<CustCode>("Code should not be empty");
// validate if the value is still valid against the database. Expensive and slow
if (!ValidateDB(code)) // Or web api calls
return Result.Failure<CustCode>("Database validation failed.");
return Result.Success<CustCode>(new CustCode(code));
}
public string Value { get; }
// other methods omitted ...
}
public class MyEntity
{
CustCode CustCode { get; }
....
It works fine when there is only one or a few entity instances with the type. However, it becomes very slow for method like GetAll() which returns a lot of entities with the type.
public async IAsyncEnumerable<MyEntity> GetAll()
{
string line;
using var sr = File.OpenText(_config.FileName);
while ((line = await sr.ReadLineAsync()) != null)
{
yield return new MyEntity(CustCode.Create(line).Value); // CustCode.Create called many times
}
}
Since data in the file was already validated before saving so it's actually not necessary to be validated again. Should another Create function which doesn't validate the value to be created? What's the DDD idiomatically way to do this?
I generally attempt not to have the domain call out to retrieve any additional data. Everything the domain needs to do its job should be passed in.
Since value objects represent immutable state it stands to reason that once it has managed to be created the values are fine. To this end perhaps the initial database validation can be performed in the integration/application "layer" and then the CustCode is created using only the value(s) provided.
Just wanted to add an additional point to #Eben Roux answer:
In many cases the validation result from a database query is dependent on when you run the query.
For example when you want to check if a phone number exists or if some product is in stock. The answers to those querys can change any second, and though are not suited to allow or prevent the creation of a value object.
You may create a "valid" object, that is (unknowingly) becoming invalid in the very next second (or the other way around). So why bother running an expensive validation, if the validation result is not reliable.
I build my extbased TYPO3 extension in TYPO3 8.7 . It is a Backend-Module. In the controller, i write my own action to clone the object.
In this example, i want to clone/duplicate the object 'Campaign' and safe it with a modified title, like add the 'copy' text to the title.
But the new object should have also its own new child elements that must be exact copies.
When the action is called, i get only a copy of the Object, but no childs. Is there an example or best case how to handle this task? I did not find, even i found some questions and answers that are on the same topic, but older version. i hope that upd to date, there is a more straight forward solution. Thank you for every hint that points me to the right ideas and maybe an up to date and version example. Here is what i have i my controller. How do i implement recursiv copying of all child elements (and some childs have childs, too)?
/**
* action clone
* #param \ABC\Copytest\Domain\Model\Campaign $campaign
* #return void
* #var \ABC\Copytest\Domain\Model\Campaign $newCampaign
*/
public function cloneAction(\ABC\Copytest\Domain\Model\Campaign $campaign) {
$newCampaign = $this->objectManager->get("ABC\Copytest\Domain\Model\Campaign");
$properties = $campaign->_getProperties();
unset($properties['uid']);
foreach ($properties as $key => $value) {
$newCampaign->_setProperty($key, $value);
}
$newCampaign->_setProperty('title', $properties['title']. ' COPY');
$this->campaignRepository->add($newCampaign);
$this->addFlashMessage('Clone was created', '', \TYPO3\CMS\Core\Messaging\AbstractMessage::OK);
$this->redirect('list');
}
I am aware that this question has been answered a long time ago. But I want to provide my solution to create a deep copy for further reference. Tested on TYPO3 9.5.8.
private function deepcopy($object)
{
$clone = $this->objectManager->get(get_class($object));
$properties = \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Reflection\ObjectAccess::getGettableProperties($object);
foreach ($properties as $propertyName => $propertyValue) {
if ($propertyValue instanceof \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage) {
$v = $this->objectManager->get(\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage::class);
foreach($propertyValue as $subObject) {
$subClone = $this->deepcopy($subObject);
$v->attach($subClone);
}
} else {
$v = $propertyValue;
}
if ($v !== null) {
\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Reflection\ObjectAccess::setProperty($clone, $propertyName, $v);
}
}
return $clone;
}
There is one approach which tackles this usecase from a different POV, namely that request argument values without an identity are automatically put into fresh objects which can then be persisted. This basically clones the original objects. This is what you need to do:
Add a view which has fields for all properties of your object, hidden fields are fine too. This can for example be an edit view with a separate submit button to call your clone action.
Add a initializeCloneAction() and get the raw request arguments via $this->request->getArguments().
Now do unset($arguments[<argumentName>]['__identity']);, do the same for every relation your object has if you want copies instead of shared references.
Store the raw request arguments again via $this->request->setArguments($arguments).
Finally allow the creation of new objects in the property mapping configuration of your argument and possibly all relation properties.
This is how a full initializeCloneAction() could look like:
public function initializeCloneAction()
{
$arguments = $this->request->getArguments();
unset(
$arguments['campaign']['__identity'],
$arguments['campaign']['singleRelation']['__identity'],
);
foreach (array_keys($arguments['campaign']['multiRelation']) as $i) {
unset($arguments['campaign']['multiRelation'][$i]['__identity']);
}
$this->request->setArguments($arguments);
// Allow object creation now that we have new objects
$this->arguments->getArgument('campaign')->getPropertyMappingConfiguration()
->setTypeConverterOption(PersistentObjectConverter::class, PersistentObjectConverter::CONFIGURATION_CREATION_ALLOWED, true)
->allowCreationForSubProperty('singleRelation')
->getConfigurationFor('multiRelation')
->allowCreationForSubProperty('*');
}
Now if you submit your form using the clone action, your clone action will get a fully populated but new object which you can store in your repository as usual. Your cloneAction() will then be very simple:
public function cloneAction(Campaign $campaign)
{
$this->campaignRepository->add($campaign);
$this->addFlashMessage('Campaign was copied successfully!');
$this->redirect('list');
}
If you have "LazyLoadingProxy" instance in your object you need add one more conditions.
if ($propertyValue instanceof \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Generic\LazyLoadingProxy) {
$objectStorage = $propertyValue->_loadRealInstance();
}
This is my solution for "deepcopy" function:
private function deepcopy($object)
{
$clone = $this->objectManager->get(get_class($object));
$properties = \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Reflection\ObjectAccess::getGettableProperties($object);
foreach ($properties as $propertyName => $propertyValue) {
if ($propertyValue instanceof \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage) {
$objectStorage = $this->objectManager->get(\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\ObjectStorage::class);
foreach ($propertyValue as $subObject) {
$subClone = $this->deepcopy($subObject);
$objectStorage->attach($subClone);
}
} elseif ($propertyValue instanceof \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Generic\LazyLoadingProxy) {
$objectStorage = $propertyValue->_loadRealInstance();
} else {
$objectStorage = $propertyValue;
}
if ($objectStorage !== null) {
\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Reflection\ObjectAccess::setProperty($clone, $propertyName, $objectStorage);
}
}
return $clone;
}
I think a good solution is, to emulate the backend-function.
See the code-example (german text)
http://blog.marcdesign.ch/2015/05/27/typo3-extbase-objekte-kopieren/
The general idea is to extend the TYPO3\CMS\Core\DataHandling\DataHandler and use the parent-method copyRecord. You declare your predefined backend-user to $this->BE_USER in your extend class. The obejct of your predefined backenduser can you get by using the class TYPO3\\CMS\\Backend\\FrontendBackendUserAuthentication and the known name of you predefined backenduser. Your user should have admin-rights and you should define the $BE_USER->uc_default['copyLevels']= '9999'; and declare $BE_USER->uc = $BE_USER->uc_default.
I have not checked, if the declaration $GLOBALS['PAGES_TYPES'][254]['allowedTables'] = '*'; is really needed.
The method copyRecorditself needs mainly the table-name, the uid-value, the pid-value and a language-object as parameters.The languages-object can you get $GLOBALS['lang'], which can although be generated by instanciating \TYPO3\CMS\Lang\LanguageService to $GLOBALS['lang'] and \TYPO3\CMS\Core\Charset\CharsetConverter to $GLOBALS['LANG']->csConvObj.
Sorry about my poor english.
After passing FlxTypedGroup into new FlxState im getting this error message from new state :
Invalid field access : length
my code :
in GameState class after certain action:
FlxG.switchState(new EvaluationState(ingredients));
please note that ingredients is FlxTypedGroup<Ingredient> and its not empty.
in EvaluationState :
var ingredients:FlxTypedGroup<Ingredient>;
public function new(i:FlxTypedGroup<Ingredient>)
{
super();
ingredients = i;
}
override public function create():Void
{
super.create();
for (ing in ingredients)
{
trace(ing.active);
}
}
Also im getting null in create() function after calling ingredients.members.
Does anyone know how to pass FlxTypedGroup into new FlxState without destroying it ?
It seems that your group is being destroyed in another state when the switch occurs.
How is the previous state in which "ingredients" is created? If the group is added to this last state the most likely cause is that when switching it calls "destroy()" on ingredients.
Try to remove it from the state before passing is as parameter to EvaluationState to see if this solves your problem.
currentState.remove(ingredients); //This should prevent a null members
FlxG.switchState(new EvaluationState(ingredients));
I have a big doubt. The problem is Out of Memory Exception in my class. But it seems something strange here. I have class in a dll.
public class MyClass : IDisposible
{
List<ClassA> a_classLists = new .....// new instance.
List<ClassB> b_classLists = new .....// new instance.
public string Method1(int IDValue)
{
// do here some web service call and get some XML data from it.
// parse the xml.
// Iterate through a for loop and add each node value to a_classLists
// Usually contains 10 or 15 items
Method2(); // from here calling another method
FinalSaveToDB(); // finally save the data to DB
return "";
}
private void Method2()
{
// do here some web service call and get some XML data from it.
// Iterate through a forloop.
// parse the xml. [large xml data. ie, image in binary format]
// For each loop add image binary data and other xml to b_classLists
// Usually it contains 50 or 60 such large lists.
}
private void FinalSaveToDB()
{
// using sqlbulkcopy, i am saving the data in the 2 lists to 2 different
// tables in the DB.
// Tab lock is mentioned in sqlbulk class.
// Actually 2 sqlbulkcopy class for 2 lists.
// Only 1 sql connection opens, then do the sqlbulkcopy. [there is no dataset or datareader]
// sqlconnection closes. I am using "using" clause for sqlconnection, bulkcopy etc
// these all are working fine.
}
private void Dispose()
{
// here nulling everything
// proxy null
// all the lists null....
}
}
This is the class I am instantiating 1000 times using reactive framework's Observable.Start
method as shown below...
private IObservable<string> SendEmpDetails(Employee emp)
{
using (MyClass p = new MyClass())
{
return Observable.Start(() => p.Method1(emp.ID), Scheduler.ThreadPool);
}
// here I hope it will call the Dispose and release all objects in the class.
}
// This EmployeeLists contains 1000 employee objects
EmployeeLists.ToObservable().Select(x => SendEmpDetails(x).Select(y => new { emp = x, retval = y }))
.Merge(10)
.ObserveOn(Scheduler.CurrentThread)
.Subscribe(x =>
{
SendStatus(x.retval.Item1, x.retval);
});
Even though, why i am getting out of memory exception ??? After starting the app, when it
process the 200th (or above) MyClass object, it throws error.
I forgot to mention 1 more thing, I am using VS 2010 and C# 4.0 (win7, 64 bit OS).
I need to log each activity. [ie, i need to understand the each and every process the app has gone through]. SO i declared a class [MyClass] level private string variable and assign each process details like "called this method", "got 5 records from this web service" etc.
logdata = Environment.Newline() + "This method has completed";
So the error is thrown here saying out of memory with some evalution failed.
So I turned off the string evaluation check box from Options in VS.
Again, there is no use.
So I changed the string to StringBuilder and tried to append the activity string each time.
Still no use. I dont understand what is the problem in it.
Is this because all the threads are working parallel, do they exchange the MyClass resources ??? Why the objects are not released ???
Please help me in this matter.
I grabbed System.Linq.Dynamic.DynamicQueryable from here:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
The issue that I am running into is in code that looks like this:
var results = dataContext.GetTable<MyClass>.Select("new (MyClassID, Name, Description)").Take(5);
It appears that if that line of code is executed by multiple threads near simultaneously, Microsoft's dynamic Linq code crashes in their ClassFactory.GetDynamicClass() method, which looks like this:
public Type GetDynamicClass(IEnumerable<DynamicProperty> properties)
{
rwLock.AcquireReaderLock(Timeout.Infinite);
try
{
Signature signature = new Signature(properties);
Type type;
if (!classes.TryGetValue(signature, out type))
{
type = CreateDynamicClass(signature.properties);
classes.Add(signature, type); // <-- crashes over here!
}
return type;
}
finally
{
rwLock.ReleaseReaderLock();
}
}
The crash is a simple dictionary error: "An item with the same key has already been added."
In Ms code, The rwLock variable is a ReadWriterLock class, but it does nothing to block multiple threads from getting inside classes.TryGetValue() if statement, so clearly, the Add will fail.
I can replicate this error pretty easily in any code that creates a two or more threads that try to execute the Select("new") statement.
Anyways, I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this issue, and if there are fixes or workarounds I can implement.
Thanks.
I did the following (requires .NET 4 or later to use System.Collections.Concurrent):
changed the classes field to a ConcurrentDictionary<Signature, Type> ,
removed all the ReaderWriterLock rwLock field and all the code referring to it,
updated GetDynamicClass to:
public Type GetDynamicClass(IEnumerable<DynamicProperty> properties) {
var signature = new Signature(properties);
return classes.GetOrAdd(signature, sig => CreateDynamicClass(sig.properties));
}
removed the classCount field and updated CreateDynamicClass to use classes.Count instead:
Type CreateDynamicClass(DynamicProperty[] properties) {
string typeName = "DynamicClass" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N");
...