In jcouchdb I used to extend BaseDocument and then, in a transparent manner, mix Annotations and not declared fields.
Example:
import org.jcouchdb.document.BaseDocument;
public class SiteDocument extends BaseDocument {
private String site;
#org.svenson.JSONProperty(value = "site", ignoreIfNull = true)
public String getSite() {
return site;
}
public void setSite(String name) {
site = name;
}
}
and then use it:
// Create a SiteDocument
SiteDocument site2 = new SiteDocument();
site2.setProperty("site", "http://www.starckoverflow.com/index.html");
// Set value using setSite
site2.setSite("www.stackoverflow.com");
// and using setProperty
site2.setProperty("description", "Questions & Answers");
db.createOrUpdateDocument(site2);
Where I use both a document field (site) that is defined via annotation and a property field (description) not defined, both get serialized when I save document.
This is convenient for me since I can work with semi-structured documents.
When I try to do the same with Ektorp I have documents using annotations and Documents using HashMap BUT I couldn't find an easy way of getting the mix of both (I've tried using my own serializers but this seems to much work for something that I get for free in jcouchdb). Also tried to annotate a HashMap field but then is serialized as an object and I get the fields automatically saved BUT inside an object with the name of the HashMap field.
Is it possible to do (easily/for free) using Ektorp?
It is definitely possible. You have two options:
Base your class on org.ektorp.support.OpenCouchDbDocument
Annotate the you class with #JsonAnySetter and #JsonAnyGetter. Red more here: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonFeatureAnyGetter
Related
I'm building an API with Nest.js and I've been using a mapper to convert the TypeORM entity to a DTO (and vice-versa).
Until now, I've been doing this manually:
public static async entityToDto(entity: UserEntity): Promise<UserDto> {
const dto = new UserDto();
dto.id = entity.id;
dto.emailAddress = entity.emailAddress;
dto.firstName = entity.firstName;
dto.lastName = entity.lastName;
dto.addressLine1 = entity.addressLine1;
dto.addressLine2 = entity.addressLine2;
dto.townCity = entity.townCity;
[...]
return dto;
}
In my opinion, this is a nice (albeit inflexible) approach. It explicitly controls which fields are returned to the user, minimizing the chance of leaking sensitive fields (like password hash). However, I was under the impression that the purpose of a DTO is to have a single place to modify data about something. If I needed to add a field, I'd have to modify both the DTO and the mapper.
It seems to be the convention to have one mapper per entity. However, if I don't want to return, for example, the accountStatus field, I would have to write a new mapper. So I have now multiple mappers which would need to be modified.
I had the idea to write a "universal" mapper which looks at the fields in the DTO, and maps them to the fields in the entity.
I'm relatively new to TypeScript and Nest.js, so I was wondering how others manage this.
I suggest you should try object property map built-in by typescript. Basically, your entity can be map to dto based on the similar property name like below
public static async entityToDto(entity: UserEntity): Promise<UserDto> {
const dto : UserDTO = ({
...entity,
additionalProperty: entity.someProperty
});
return dto;
}
Any property that sharing the same name between DTO and Entity will be mapped. It is far more clean and more flexible.
So, I'm working with ServiceStack, and know my way around a bit with it. I've used AutoQuery and find it indispensable when calling for straight 'GET' messages. I'm having an issue though, and I have been looking at this for a couple of hours. I hope it's just something I'm overlooking.
I have a simple class set up for my AutoQuery message:
public class QueryCamera : QueryDb<db_camera>
{
}
I have an OrmLite connection that is used to retrieve db_camera entires from the database. this all works just fine. I don't want to return a model from the database though as a result, I'd like to return a DTO, which I have defined as another class. So, using the version of QueryDb, my request message is now this:
public class QueryCamera : QueryDb<db_camera, Camera>
{
}
Where the Camera class is my DTO. The call still executes, but I get no results. I have a mapper extension method ToDto() set up on the db_camera class to return a Camera instance.
Maybe I'm just used to ServiceStack making things so easy... but how do I get the AutoQuery request above to perform the mapping for my request? Is the data retrieval now a manual operation for me since I'm specifying the conversion I want? Where's the value in this type being offered then? Is it now my responsibility to query the database, then call .ToDto() on my data model records to return DTO objects?
EDIT: something else I just observed... I'm still getting the row count from the returned dataset in AutoQueryViewer, but the field names are of the data model class db_camera and not Camera.
The QueryDb<From, Into> isn't able to use your Custom DTO extension method, it's used to select a curated set of columns from the executed AutoQuery which can also be used to reference columns on joined tables.
If you want to have different names on the DTO than on your Data Model, you can use an [Alias] attribute to map back to your DB column name which will let you name your DTO Property anything you like. On the other side you can change what property the DTO property is serialized as, e.g:
[DataContract]
public class Camera
{
[DataMember(Name = "Id")] // serialized as `Id`
public camera_id { get; set; } // populated with db_camera.camera_id
[DataMember]
[Alias("model")] // populated with db_camera.model
public CameraModel { get; set; } // serialized as `CameraModel`
}
To start: This is also for REST deserialiaztion, so a custom XmlSerializer is out of the question.
I have a hjierarchy of classes that need to be serializable and deserializable from an "Envelope". It has an arrayelement named "Items" that can contain subclasses of the abstract "Item".
[XmlArray("Items")]
public Item [] Items { get; set; }
Now I need to add XmlArrayItem, but the number is not "fixed". We use so far reflection to find all subclasses with a KnownTypeProvider so it is easy to extend the assembly with new subtypes. I dont really want to hardcode all items here.
The class is defined accordingly:
[XmlRoot]
[KnownType("GetKnownTypes")]
public class Envelope {
but it does not help.
Changing Items to:
[XmlArray("Items")]
[XmlArrayItem(typeof(Item))]
public Item [] Items { get; set; }
results in:
{"The type
xxx.Adjustment
was not expected. Use the XmlInclude
or SoapInclude attribute to specify
types that are not known statically."}
when tyrying to serialize.
Anyone an idea how I can use XmlInclude to point to a known type provider?
The KnownTypesAttribute does not work for XmlSerializer. It's only used by a DataContractSerializer. I'm quite sure that you can exchange the serializer in WCF, because I have done that for the DataContractSerializer. But if that's not an option, you have to implement IXmlSerializable yourself and handle type lookup there.
Before disqualifying this solution: You just have to implement IXmlSerializable just for a special class which replaces Item[]. Everything else can be handled by the default serializer.
According to: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/asmxandxml/thread/83181d16-a048-44e5-b675-a0e8ef82f5b7/
you can use different XmlSerializer constructor:
new XmlSerializer(typeof(Base), new Type[] { typeof(Derived1), ..});
Instead of enumerating all derived classes in the base definition like this:
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Derived1))]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(Derived2))]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlInclude(typeof(DerivedN))]
I think you should be able to use your KnownTypeProvider to fill the array in the XmlSerializer's constructor.
I am using a sping ws endpoint with jaxb marshalling/unmarshalling to proudce a list of Organisation objects (our local type). The endpoint is SOAP 1.1, no parameters supplied on the request message.
I understand JAXB doesn't handle lists very well, so I use a wrapper class.
#XmlRootElement(name="orgResponse", namespace=....)
public class OrganisationListWrapper {
private ArrayList<Organisation> organisationList;
public getOrganisationList() {
return organisationList;
}
public setOrganisationList(ArrayList<Organisation> organisationList) {
this.organisationList = organisationList;
}
}
The endpoint....
#PayloadRoot(localPart=.... namespace=....)
#ResponsePayload
public OrganisationListWrapper getOrganisations() {
OrganisationListWrapper wrapper = new OrganisationListWrapper();
wrapper.setOrganisationList(.... call service layer get list ....);
return wrapper;
}
This works fine and I get a SOAP payload with
<orgResponse>
<organisationList>
... contents of organisation 1
</organisationList>
<organisationList>
... comtents of organisation 2
</organisationList>
.... etc ....
</orgResponse>
The Organisation class is not JAXB annotated. It is part of a large list of pre-existing classes that are being exposed through web services for the first time. Trying to get by without going in and annotating them all by hand.
I was able to override the name OrganisationWrapper with orgResponse in the XmlRootElement annotation. I would like to override the organisationList name in the child element with organisation but haven't been able to find an annotation that does this.
I can replace the array list name with organisation and it will work fine, but our coding standard here required us to put List on the end of our list names. I would like to try and stick to that. I have tried XmlElement, but that produced a jaxb exception.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Because JAXB default the access type to PUBLIC_MEMBER, make sure you annotate the property (getter) and not the field:
#XmlElement(name="organisation")
public getOrganisationList() {
return organisationList;
}
If you want to annotate the field then add the following annotation to your class:
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
I am currently using CSS to change everything I write to upperCase when I create an entry, but that is not enough. When I save things, the text shown in the text fields is upper case, but the real value that Grails stores stays in lower case.
I am assuming I'd need to change something in the controller or anything.
Maybe transforming the $fieldValue CSS could work??
Any ideas would help!
Thnks!
You could just write setters for your domain object?
class Domain {
String aField
void setAField( String s ){
aField = s?.toUpperCase()
}
}
I think you are asking how to change values on your domain objects to uppercase. If this is not the case please clarify the question.
You have a bunch of options. I would recommend
1) In a service method, before you save, using String.toUpperCase() to modify the appropriate values on the domain object.
or
2) You can use the underlying Hibernate interceptors by defining a beforeInsert method on your domain object, and doing the toUpperCase there. (see 5.5.1 of the grails documentation)
or
3) You could do this client side. However, if it is a "business requirement" that the values are stored as upper, then I recommend doing the translation server side. It is easier to wrap tests around that code....
Using annotations is cleanest approach
import org.grails.databinding.BindingFormat
class Person {
#BindingFormat('UPPERCASE')
String someUpperCaseString
#BindingFormat('LOWERCASE')
String someLowerCaseString
}
Here is link for it: Grails doc for data binding
You can use Groovy metaprogramming to change the setter for all domain class String-typed properties without actually writing a custom setter for each property.
To do this, add something like the following to the init closure of Bootstrap.groovy
def init = { servletContext ->
for (dc in grailsApplication.domainClasses) {
dc.class.metaClass.setProperty = { String name, value ->
def metaProperty = delegate.class.metaClass.getMetaProperty(name)
if (metaProperty) {
// change the property value to uppercase if it's a String property
if (value && metaProperty.type == String) {
value = value.toUpperCase()
}
metaProperty.setProperty(delegate, value)
} else {
throw new MissingPropertyException(name, delegate.class)
}
}
}
}