Nhibernate LINQ casts long to integer - linq-to-nhibernate

I'm using Fluent NHibernate (1.2.0.712) and Nhibernate.Linq (version 1) with SQLite (1.0.79)
Here is my model:
public class QueueItem
{
public virtual long ID { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime AddedToQueue { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime DontProcessUntil { get; set; }
public virtual DataQueueItemState State { get; set; }
}
Note that the ID is a long.
I also have this bit of LINQ:
var nextID =
from i in _repository
where i.State == DataQueueItemState.GetDataQueue && i.DontProcessUntil < DateTime.UtcNow
group i by i.State into g
select new { ID = g.Min(i => i.ID) };
_repository is a data layer repository implementing IQueryable.
This query works fine. However, when I looked at the generated SQL, I saw this:
NHibernate: select cast(min(queueitem0_.ID) as INTEGER) as col_0_0_ from "QueueItem"
queueitem0_ where queueitem0_.State=#p0 and queueitem0_.DontProcessUntil<#p1 group by
queueitem0_.State;#p0 = 'GetDataQueue' [Type: String (0)], #p1 = 28/03/2012 08:21:10
[Type: DateTime (0)]
The question is; why is the ID getting cast to an INTEGER?
In fact, why is it casting at all?
On the code side, the g.Min(i => i.ID) knows that it is returning a long.
A new anonymous type is being generated to hold the result and if I do a .elementAt(0).ID on it then it gives me a long as well so that all seems fine.

You are seeing the conversion because long is not a sql data type. I understand that your SQLite columns can be typeless with exception to the ID but NHibernate converts .NET data types to their sql equivalent. I would suggest using Int64 instead of long just to be safe but this is expected behavior.

Related

ServiceStack OrmLite wrong SQL?

I have the following class:
public class ProcessInstance
{
[AutoIncrement]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Reference]
public ProcessDefinition ProcessDefinition { get; set; }
public int ProcessDefinitionId { get; set; }
// and more...
}
Then running the following, which looks fine to me:
var q = db.From<ProcessInstance>().Where(inst => inst.ProcessDefinition.Id == id
&& Sql.In(inst.Status, enProcessStatus.READY, enProcessStatus.ACTIVE));
return db.Exists(q);
When I inspect the last command text SQL from the "db" object, it's wrong:
SELECT 'exists'
FROM "ProcessInstance"
WHERE (("Id" = #0) AND "Status" IN (#1,#2))
LIMIT 1
Note that it's filtering on Id instead of ProcessDefinition.Id, which of course is wrong. Don't know why it's doing that -- at least I'd appreciate getting an error instead of just a wrong result.
However, I've found how to fix it: Use ProcessDefinitionId: Where(inst => inst.ProcessDefinitionId == id gives the correct SLQ:
SELECT 'exists'
FROM "ProcessInstance"
WHERE (("ProcessDefinitionId" = #0) AND "Status" IN (#1,#2))
LIMIT 1
Why didn't the first one work? Why is there no error?
OrmLite is designed for providing a typed api around an SQL Expression so that it should be intuitive to determine the SQL generated from a typed Expression. It doesn’t support magic behavior such as querying any nested objects as attempted with the reference complex type property, I.e. you can only query direct column properties as done in your 2nd query.

ORMLite SQL Server Update

I have a table called PODetail with a primary Key of POno and ItemCode and I have the following:
[Route("/podetail/{POno}/{ItemCode}")]
public class UpdatePODetail : IReturn<PODetail> {
public string POno { get; set; }
public string ItemCode { get; set; }
public int ? QtyPend { get; set; }
public decimal ? NewPrice { get; set; }
public bool ? BackOrder { get; set; }
public string ActionCode { get; set; }
public bool ? OpenOrder { get; set; }
}
public class PODetailService : Service {
public object Any(UpdatePODetail request) {
var podetail = Db.SingleFmt<PODetail>("ItemCode = {0} AND POno = {1}", request.ItemCode, request.POno);
// var cap = new CaptureSqlFilter();
try {
Db.Update(podetail);
} catch {
// var sql = string.Join(";\n\n", cap.SqlStatements.ToArray());
}
:
:
try {
Db.Update(podetail);
} catch (Exception ex) {
string error = ex.Message;
}
return podetail;
}
}
I added the Db.Update call at the top just to check to see if there was some issue changing a column, but I get
Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'aaaaaPoDetail_PK'. Cannot insert
duplicate key in object 'dbo.PODetail'.
So then I added the cap = line to see the SQL code which returns
UPDATE "PODetail" SET "NewItemCode"=#NewItemCode, "POno"=#POno, "Vendor"=#Vendor, "ActionCode"=#ActionCode, "Price"=#Price, "NewPrice"=#NewPrice, "CostPrice"=#CostPrice, "QtyOrd"=#QtyOrd, "QtyRcv"=#QtyRcv, "QtySPO"=#QtySPO, "QtyPend"=#QtyPend, "BackOrder"=#BackOrder, "OpenOrder"=#OpenOrder, "OrderDate"=#OrderDate, "InvoiceNo"=#InvoiceNo, "InvoiceVendor"=#InvoiceVendor, "InvoiceDate"=#InvoiceDate, "InvoiceDiscount"=#InvoiceDiscount, "QtyCancel"=#QtyCancel, "Qtylabels"=#Qtylabels, "REOVendor"=#REOVendor, "CurrentRcvQty"=#CurrentRcvQty, "SOPickQty"=#SOPickQty, "SOItem"=#SOItem, "QtyOther"=#QtyOther, "BackOrderCode"=#BackOrderCode WHERE "ItemCode"=#ItemCode
And then it runs fine uncommented -- no exceptions .. if I remove it it gets the Primary Key error
What is the deal -- why do I need that CaptureSqlFilter call -- or what I do I need to change so that it knows both PoNo and ItemCode are primary Keys or the update needs to say WHERE "ItemCode"=#ItemCode AND "POno"=#PONo? It almost seems as if it is trying to do an INSERT vs an UPDATE without the CaptureSqlFilter
Update 1
The documentation said :
Limitations For simplicity, and to be able to have the same POCO class
persisted in db4o, memcached, redis or on the filesystem (i.e.
providers included in ServiceStack), each model must have a single
primary key, by convention OrmLite expects it to be Id although you
use [Alias("DbFieldName")] attribute it map it to a column with a
different name or use the [PrimaryKey] attribute to tell OrmLite to
use a different property for the primary key.
You can still SELECT from these tables, you will just be unable to
make use of APIs that rely on it, e.g. Update or Delete where the
filter is implied (i.e. not specified), all the APIs that end with
ById, etc.
Workaround single Primary Key limitation
A potential workaround to support tables with multiple primary keys is
to create an auto generated Id property that returns a unique value
based on all the primary key fields,
So I tried to add this
public class PODetail {
public string Id { get { return this.ItemCode + "/" + this.POno; } }
public string ItemCode { get; set; }
public string NewItemCode { get; set; }
public string POno { get; set; }
:
}
But when it went to execute :
Db.SingleFmt<PODetail>
It error out with ID not a valid column or column not found or something like that
So I then tried
public class PODetail {
//public string Id { get { return this.ItemCode + "/" + this.POno; } }
[PrimaryKey]
public string ItemCode { get; set; }
public string NewItemCode { get; set; }
[PrimaryKey]
public string POno { get; set; }
:
}
and it worked on the Db.SingleFmt ... and the Db.Update
So then I added back in the CaptureSqlFilter to see what the query looked like and I got
UPDATE "PODetail" SET "NewItemCode"=#NewItemCode, "Vendor"=#Vendor, "ActionCode"=#ActionCode, "Price"=#Price, "NewPrice"=#NewPrice, "CostPrice"=#CostPrice, "QtyOrd"=#QtyOrd, "QtyRcv"=#QtyRcv, "QtySPO"=#QtySPO, "QtyPend"=#QtyPend, "BackOrder"=#BackOrder, "OpenOrder"=#OpenOrder, "OrderDate"=#OrderDate, "InvoiceNo"=#InvoiceNo, "InvoiceVendor"=#InvoiceVendor, "InvoiceDate"=#InvoiceDate, "InvoiceDiscount"=#InvoiceDiscount, "QtyCancel"=#QtyCancel, "Qtylabels"=#Qtylabels, "REOVendor"=#REOVendor, "CurrentRcvQty"=#CurrentRcvQty, "SOPickQty"=#SOPickQty, "SOItem"=#SOItem, "QtyOther"=#QtyOther, "BackOrderCode"=#BackOrderCode WHERE "ItemCode"=#ItemCode AND "POno"=#POno
Which is what I wanted in the first place.
It works but what is the deal can you have the [PrimaryKey] attribute multiple times (it appears so) and also then why didn't the autogenerated Id work? Just wondering if I am missing something or not understanding the documentation correctly.
Oh and sorry for posting in the comments!
what I do I need to change so that it knows both PoNo and ItemCode are
primary Keys
OrmLite's primary limitation is that each Table has a single primary Key.
Also you can use the built-in Profiling or debug logging to view the generated SQL without needing to change code to use CaptureSqlFilter.
I'd also recommend that you don't use the Request DTO for anything other than defining your Service with. You can use the built-in AutoMapping to easily use it to populate your data model.

ArangoDB update action in .Net

I am a .Net developer and is currently exploring on ArangoDB. I have played around with the arangod web user interface and arangod and like this NoSql very much until I delve into the detail of coding. I could not find the .Net driver working properly. Even for simple CRUD operation. Here's the problem.
ArangoClient.AddConnection("127.0.0.1", 8529, false, "Sample", "Sample");
var db = new ArangoDatabase("Sample");
string collectionName = "MyTestCollection";
var collection = new ArangoCollection();
collection.Name = collectionName;
collection.Type = ArangoCollectionType.Document;
if (db.Collection.Get(collectionName) == null)
{
db.Collection.Create(collection);
}
var employee = new Employee();
employee.Id = "1234";
employee.Name = "My Name";
employee.Salary = 33333;
employee.DateOfBirth = new DateTime(1979, 7, 22);
db.Document.Create<Employee>("MyTestCollection", employee);
employee.Name = "Tan";
db.Document.Update(employee);
It thrown the error for db.Document.Update(employee). Here's the error message: Field '_id' does not exist.
Then I tried to add the field _id though I think it is weird, it prompted me another error message.
Arango.Client.ArangoException : ArangoDB responded with error code BadRequest:
expecting PATCH /_api/document/<document-handle> [error number 400]
at Arango.Client.Protocol.DocumentOperation.Patch(Document document, Boolean waitForSync, String revision)
at Arango.Client.ArangoDocumentOperation.Update[T](T genericObject, Boolean waitForSync, String revision) ...
I have no clues at all and do not know how to to proceed further. Any help will be much appreciated. Thanks.
This is likely due to the definition of the Employee class, which is not contained in the above snippet.
To identify a document in a collection, documents have special system attributes, such as _id, _key and _rev. These attributes should be mapped to properties in .NET classes, even if not used explicitly. So one property in the class should be tagged with "Identity", one with "Key", and one with "Revision". Here is an example class definition that should work:
public class Employee
{
/* this will map the _id attribute from the database to ThisIsId property */
[ArangoProperty(Identity = true)]
public string ThisIsId { get; set; }
/* this will map the _key attribute from the database to the Id property */
[ArangoProperty(Key = true)]
public string Id { get; set; }
/* here is _rev */
[ArangoProperty(Revision = true)]
public string ThisIsRevision { get; set; }
public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Salary { get; set; }
public Employee()
{
}
}
The ThisIsId property will contain the automatically assigned _id value, and can also be used to retrieve the document easily later:
var employeeFromDatabase = db.Document.Get<Employee>(employee.ThisIsId);
You can of course rename the properties to your like.

ServiceStack AutoQuery, Multiple IJoin

In my example I have the following database structure. Order has many OrderLine, which has one Product.
I am trying to return the following DTO:
public class OrderLineDto {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Quantity { get; set; }
public string OrderType { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
}
This should be possible by use of the following Query Route:
[Route("/orderlines")]
public class FindOrderLines : QueryBase<OrderLine, OrderLineDto>,
IJoin<OrderLine, Order>,
IJoin<OrderLine, Product>
{ }
What I am trying to do here is join OrderLine in both directions to bring in Type from Order, and Name from Product and return it in an OrderLineDto.
I am able to do these things individually by only using one IJoin, however AutoQuery appears only to use the first IJoin interface declaration, and does not perform the second join.
If I attempt to do a join like this: IJoin<OrderLine, Order, Product>
I get the following exception: Could not infer relationship between Order and Product
Is it possible to achieve what I am trying to do here with auto query or should I go back to writing standard REST services, abandoning AutoQuery?
I have submitted a pull request to ServiceStack which will now allow this behavior.
https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/pull/955

Including a base member doesn't seem to work in Entity Framework 5

here are my entities:
public abstract class ResourceBase
{
[Key]
int Id { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Resource")]
public Guid ResourceId { get; set; }
public virtual Resource Resource { get; set; }
}
public class Resource
{
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
}
public class Message : ResourceBase
{
[MaxLength(300)]
public string Text { get; set; }
}
And then my query is something like this:
var msgs = messages.Where(x=>x.Id == someRangeOfIds).Include(m=>m.Resource).Select(x => new
{
message = x,
replyCount = msgs.Count(msg => msg.Id = magicNumber)
});
I am running this with proxy creation disabled, and the result is all the messages BUT with all the Resource properties as NULL. I checked the database and the Resources with matching Guids are there.
I drastically simplified my real life scenario for illustration purposes, but I think you'll find you can reproduce the issue with just this.
Entity Framework 5 handles inherited properties well (by flattening the inheritence tree and including all the properties as columns for the entity table).
The reason this query didn't work was due to the projection after the include. Unfortunately, the include statement only really works when you are returning entities. Although, I did see mention of a solution which is tricky and involves invoking the "include" after the shape of the return data is specified... If anyone has more information on this please reply.
The solution I came up with was to just rephrase the query so I get all messages in one query, and then in another trip to the database another query that gets all the reply counts.
2 round trips when it really should only be 1.

Resources