I'm trying to have AutoMapper take care of localizing all DateTime properties on our view models for us. We use UTC everywhere in our system and store everything in UTC in the database, but we'd like to automatically convert that to a user's time zone for display.
After looking at all the options, I settled on using a ValueResolver. Here's the gist of the resolver:
public class LocalizedDateTimeFormatter : ValueResolver<DateTime, DateTime>
{
protected override DateTime ResolveCore(DateTime source)
{
// get company
return company.TimeZone.ConvertFromUtc(source);
}
}
I'm setting up the mapping like so:
Mapper.CreateMap<Entity, Model>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Foo, opt => opt.ResolveUsing<LocalizedDateTimeFormatter>()
.FromMember(src => src.Foo));
This all works fine, and I'm happy with it. However, ideally we'd like a convention of all DateTime properties on a view model to use this resolver by default. I started down the path of reflecting over the view model properties, picking out DateTime ones, and using the overloads of ForMember and FromMember that take in property string names, but that seemed... ugly. Plus duplicating AutoMapper's nested property name building logic would break down pretty quick.
Question: Is there any easy way to tell AutoMapper to globally use a ValueResolver like this? To say "any time you're mapping a DateTime property on a source to a DateTime property on a destination, use this resolver"?
I looked through AutoMapper's tests and didn't see anything that'd work.
Thanks!
Yes - but with a slight change in ordering of the MapperRegistry. First, create a type converter from DateTime to DateTime:
Mapper.CreateMap<DateTime, DateTime>().ConvertUsing<CompanyTimeConverter>();
Your CompanyTimeConverter code looks pretty much like the value resolver you had, except it inherits from TypeConverter.
Next, you have to change the order of the MapperRegistry (I'm going to change this going forward, it makes more sense):
MapperRegistry.AllMappers = () => new IObjectMapper[] {
new DataReaderMapper(),
new TypeMapMapper(TypeMapObjectMapperRegistry.AllMappers()),
new StringMapper(),
new FlagsEnumMapper(),
new EnumMapper(),
new ArrayMapper(),
new EnumerableToDictionaryMapper(),
new DictionaryMapper(),
new ListSourceMapper(),
new CollectionMapper(),
new EnumerableMapper(),
new TypeConverterMapper(),
new AssignableMapper(),
new NullableMapper()
};
Originally, the "Assignable" mapper came before the "TypeConverter" mapper, so that if two types were assignable to each other, it would just do that.
Related
There seems be some things missing in the Spring-LDAP ODM annotations. This is a question by way of a feature request, if there is a better way to contribute such requests, please say so.
I'd like to mark an #Attribute as read-only, so it will populate the bean from LDAP for reference, but not persist it back to ldap. I'd suggest adding an attribute read-only to #Attribute, defaulting to false, for the usual case. The default attributes of * misses all the operational attributes, some of which are very useful, and transfers more data than is required, slowing down the ldap query with attributes which will never be used.
An example of this; it would be very useful, for literally read only, such as entryUUID, etag, etc., which you cannot use if you wish to persist only some fields back to ldap, as the bean fails to persist to ldap with an exception when you save the bean. But also would be usefule for general fields which you want to structurally prevent the user from ever updating.
You can get around this by not annotating read-only fields, and then manually populating the read only fields with a separate call. Very messy and kills the query speed.
Also on a related topic, query() coudl have a default list of attributes, which you have already annotated in your classes, something like :
public static String[] getBeanAttributes(Class<?> beanClass) {
ArrayList<String> attrsObj = new ArrayList<>();
for (Field field : beanClass.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(Attribute.class)) {
Attribute attr = field.getAnnotation(Attribute.class);
attrsObj.add(attr.name());
}
}
String[] attrs = attrsObj.toArray(new String[attrsObj.size()]);
return attrs;
}
Above just returns a simple String[] of your declared attributes, to pass to query.attributes() - now i realize that as a static member, query() is built before the bean class is known, but at least there could be a helper function like the above, or a method signature for query attributes() that took a bean Class signature as an argument.
I created LDAP-312 on Jira. Thanks.
Is there a way we can use ObjectContext with DbContext's ModelBuilder? We don't want to use POCO because we have customized property code that does not modify entire object in update, but only update modified properties. Also we have lots of serialisation and auditing code that uses EntityObject.
Since poco does create a proxy with EntityObject, we want our classes to be derived from EntityObject. We don't want proxy. We also heavily use CreateSourceQuery. The only problem is EDMX file and its big connection string syntax web.config.
Is there any way I can get rid of EDMX file? It will be useful as we can dynamically compile new class based on reverse engineering database.
I would also like to use DbContext with EntityObject instead of poco.
Internal Logic
Access Modified Properties in Save Changes which is available in ObjectStateEntry and Save them onto Audit with Old and New Values
Most of times we need to only check for Any condition on Navigation Property for example
User.EmailAddresses.CreateSourceQuery()
.Any( x=> x.EmailAddress == givenAddress);
Access Property Attributes, such as XmlIgnore etc, we rely heavily on attributes defined on the properties.
A proxy for a POCO is a dynamically created class which derives from (inherits) a POCO. It adds functionality previously found in EntityObject, namely lazy loading and change tracking, as long as a POCO meets requirements. A POCO or its proxy does not contain an EntityObject as the question suggests, but rather a proxy contains functionality of EntityObject. You cannot (AFAIK) use ModelBuilder with EntityObject derivatives and you cannot get to an underlying EntityObject from a POCO or a proxy, since there isn't one as such.
I don't know what features of ObjectContext does your existing serialisation and auditing code use, but you can get to ObjectContext from a DbContext by casting a DbContext to a IObjectContextAdapter and accessing IObjectContextAdapter.ObjectContext property.
EDIT:
1. Access Modified Properties in Save Changes which is available in ObjectStateEntry and Save them onto Audit with Old and New Values
You can achieve this with POCOs by using DbContext.ChangeTracker. First you call DbContext.ChangeTracker.DetectChanges to detect the changes (if you use proxies this is not needed, but can't hurt) and then you use DbCotnext.Entries.Where(e => e.State != EntityState.Unchanged && e.State != EntityState.Detached) to get DbEntityEntry list of changed entities for auditing. Each DbEntityEntry has OriginalValues and CurrentValues and the actual Entity is in property Entity.
You also have access to ObjectStateEntry, see below.
2. Most of times we need to only check for Any condition on Navigation Property for example:
User.EmailAddresses.CreateSourceQuery().Any( x=> x.EmailAddress == givenAddress);
You can use CreateSourceQuery() with DbContext by utilizing IObjectContextAdapter as described previously. When you have ObjectContext you can get to the source query for a related end like this:
public static class DbContextUtils
{
public static ObjectQuery<TMember> CreateSourceQuery<TEntity, TMember>(this IObjectContextAdapter adapter, TEntity entity, Expression<Func<TEntity, ICollection<TMember>>> memberSelector) where TMember : class
{
var objectStateManager = adapter.ObjectContext.ObjectStateManager;
var objectStateEntry = objectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(entity);
var relationshipManager = objectStateManager.GetRelationshipManager(entity);
var entityType = (EntityType)objectStateEntry.EntitySet.ElementType;
var navigationProperty = entityType.NavigationProperties[(memberSelector.Body as MemberExpression).Member.Name];
var relatedEnd = relationshipManager.GetRelatedEnd(navigationProperty.RelationshipType.FullName, navigationProperty.ToEndMember.Name);
return ((EntityCollection<TMember>)relatedEnd).CreateSourceQuery();
}
}
This method uses no dynamic code and is strongly typed since it uses expressions. You use it like this:
myDbContext.CreateSourceQuery(invoice, i => i.details);
In my plugin code, I use early bound entities (generated via the crmsvcutil). Within my code, I am using MemberExpression to retrieve the name of the property. For instance, if I want the full name of the user who initiated the plugin I do the following
SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = new SystemUser();
pluginExecutedBy = Common.RetrieveEntity(service
, SystemUser.EntityLogicalName
, new ColumnSet(new string[] {Common.GetPropertyName(() => pluginExecutedBy.FullName)})
, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId).ToEntity<SystemUser>();
The code for GetPropertyName is as follows
public static string GetPropertyName<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
MemberExpression body = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
return body.Member.Name.ToLower();
}
The code for RetrieveEntity is as follows
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
My solution architect's comments:
Instead of writing the code like above, why not write it like this (hardcoding the name of the field - or use a struct).
SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = null;
pluginExecutedBy = Common.RetrieveEntity(service
, SystemUser.EntityLogicalName
, new ColumnSet(new string[] {"fullname"})
, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId).ToEntity<SystemUser>();
Reason:
Your code unnecessarily creates an object before it requires it (as you instantiate the object with the new keyword before the RetrieveEntity in order to use it with my GetProperty method) which is bad programming practice. In my code, I have never used the new keyword, but merely casting it and casting does not create a new object. Now, I am no expert in C# or .NET, but I like to read and try out different things. So, I looked up the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk.dll and found that ToEntity within Sdk, actually did create a new Entity using the keyword new.
If the Common.Retrieve returns null, your code has unnecessarily allocated memory which will cause performance issues whereas mine would not?
A managed language like C# "manages the memory" for me, does it not?
Question
Is my code badly written? If so, why? If it is better - why is it? (I believe it is a lot more cleaner and even if a field name changes as long as as the early bound class file is regenerated, I do not have to re-write any code)
I agree that cast does not create a new object, but does my code unnecessarily create objects?
Is there a better way (a completely different third way) to write the code?
Note: I suggested using the GetPropertyName because, he was hard-coding attribute names all over his code and so in a different project which did not use early bound entities I used structs for attribute names - something like below. I did this 3 weeks into my new job with CRM 2011 but later on discovered the magic of MemberExpression. He was writing a massive cs file for each of the entity that he was using in his plugin and I told him he did not have to do any of this as he could just use my GetPropertyName method in his plugin and get all the fields required and that prompted this code review comments. Normally he does not do a code review.
public class ClientName
{
public struct EntityNameA
{
public const string LogicalName = "new_EntityNameA";
public struct Attributes
{
public const string Name = "new_name";
public const string Status = "new_status";
}
}
}
PS: Or is the question / time spent analyzing just not worth it?
Early Bound, Late Bound, MemberExpression, bla bla bla :)
I can understand the "philosophy", but looking at your code a giant alarm popup in my head:
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
the Retrieve throws an exception if the record is not found.
About the other things, the GetPropertyName is ok, but are always choices, for example I try to use always late bound in plugins, maybe in a project I prefer to use early bound, often there is more than one way to resolve a problem.
Happy crm coding!
Although GetPropertyName is a quite a clever solution I don't like it, and that's entirely to do with readability. To me its far easier to understand what is going on with: new ColumnSet(new string[] {"fullname"}).
But that's pretty much personal preference, but its important to remember that your not just writing code for yourself you are writing it for your team, they should be able to easily understand the work you have produced.
As a side a hardcoded string probably performs better at runtime. I usually hardcode all my values, if the entity model in CRM changes I will have to revisit to make changes in any case. There's no difference between early and late bound in that situation.
I don't understand the point of this function,
public static Entity RetrieveEntity(IOrganizationService xrmService, string entityName, ColumnSet columns, Guid entityId)
{
return (Entity)xrmService.Retrieve(entityName, entityId, columns);
}
It doesn't do anything (apart from cast something that is already of that type).
1.Your code unnecessarily creates an object before it requires it (as you instantiate the object with the new keyword before the
RetrieveEntity in order to use it with my GetProperty method) which is
bad programming practice. In my code, I have never used the new
keyword, but merely casting it and casting does not create a new
object.
I believe this refers to; SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = new SystemUser(); I can see his/her point here, in this case new SystemUser() doesn't do much, but if the object you were instantiating did something resource intensive (load files, open DB connections) you might be doing something 'wasteful'. In this case I would be surprised if changing SystemUser pluginExecutedBy = null; actually yielded any significant performance gain.
2.If the Common.Retrieve returns null, your code has unnecessarily allocated memory which will cause performance issues
I would be surprised if that caused a performance issue, and anyway as Guido points out that function wont return null in any case.
Overall there is little about this code I strongly feel needs changing - but things can be always be better and its worth discussing (e.g. the point of code review), although it can be hard not to you shouldn't be precious about your code.
Personally I would go with hardcoded attribute names and dump the Common.RetrieveEntity function as it doesn't do anything.
pluginExecutedBy = service.Retrieve(SystemUser.EntityLogicalName, localContext.PluginExecutionContext.InitiatingUserId, new ColumnSet(new String[] {"fullname"} ));
After spending a year working with the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk namespace, I just discovered yesterday the Entity.FormattedValues property contains the text value for Entity specific (ie Local) Option Set texts.
The reason I didn't discover it before, is there is no early bound method of getting the value. i.e. entity.new_myOptionSet is of type OptionSetValue which only contains the int value. You have to call entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"] to get the string text value of the OptionSetValue.
Therefore, I'd like to get the crmsrvcutil to auto-generate a text property for local option sets. i.e. Along with Entity.new_myOptionSet being generated as it currently does, Entity.new_myOptionSetText would be generated as well.
I've looked into the Microsoft.Crm.Services.Utility.ICodeGenerationService, but that looks like it is mostly for specifying what CodeGenerationType something should be...
Is there a way supported way using CrmServiceUtil to add these properties, or am I better off writing a custom app that I can run that can generate these properties as a partial class to the auto-generated ones?
Edit - Example of the code that I would like to be generated
Currently, whenever I need to access the text value of a OptionSetValue, I use this code:
var textValue = OptionSetCache.GetText(service, entity, e => e.New_MyOptionSet);
The option set cache will use the entity.LogicalName, and the property expression to determine the name of the option set that I'm asking for. It will then query the SDK using the RetrieveAttriubteRequest, to get a list of the option set int and text values, which it then caches so it doesn't have to hit CRM again. It then looks up the int value of the New_MyOptionSet of the entity and cross references it with the cached list, to get the text value of the OptionSet.
Instead of doing all of that, I can just do this (assuming that the entity has been retrieved from the server, and not just populated client side):
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
but the "new_myoptionset" is no longer early bound. I would like the early bound entity classes that gets generated to also generate an extra "Text" property for OptionSetValue properties that calls the above line, so my entity would have this added to it:
public string New_MyOptionSetText {
return this.GetFormattedAttributeValue("new_myoptionset"); // this is a protected method on the Entity class itself...
}
Could you utilize the CrmServiceUtil extension that will generate enums for your OptionSets and then add your new_myOptionSetText property to a partial class that compares the int value to the enums and returns the enum string
Again, I think specifically for this case, getting CrmSvcUtil.exe to generate the code you want is a great idea, but more generally, you can access the property name via reflection using an approach similar to the accepted answer # workarounds for nameof() operator in C#: typesafe databinding.
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
// becomes
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues
[
// renamed the class from Nameof to NameOf
NameOf(Xrm.MyEntity).Property(x => x.new_MyOptionSet).ToLower()
];
The latest version of the CRM Early Bound Generator includes a Fields struct that that contains the field names. This allows accessing the FormattedValues to be as simple as this:
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues[MyEntity.Fields.new_MyOptionSet];
You could create a new property via an interface for the CrmSvcUtil, but that's a lot of work for a fairly simple call, and I don't think it justifies creating additional properties.
I have a custom type converter that converts UTC DateTime properties to a company's local time (talked about here: Globally apply value resolver with AutoMapper).
I'd now like to only have this converter do its thing if the property on the view model is tagged with a custom DisplayInLocalTime attribute.
Inside the type converter, if I implement the raw ITypeConvert<TSource, TDestination> interface, I can check if the destination view model property being converted has the attribute:
public class LocalizedDateTimeConverter : ITypeConverter<DateTime, DateTime>
{
public DateTime Convert(ResolutionContext context)
{
var shouldConvert = context.Parent.DestinationType
.GetProperty(context.MemberName)
.GetCustomAttributes(false)[0].GetType() == typeof(DisplayInLocalTimeAttribute);
if (shouldConvert) {
// rest of the conversion logic...
}
}
}
So this code works just fine (obviously there's more error checking and variables in there for readability).
My questions:
Is this the correct way to go about this? I haven't found anything Googling around or spelunking through the AutoMapper code base.
How would I unit test this? I can set the parent destination type on the ResolutionContext being passed in with a bit of funkiness, but can't set the member name as all implementors of IMemberAccessor are internal to AutoMapper. This, and the fact that it's super ugly to setup, makes me this isn't really supported or I'm going about it all wrong.
I'm using the latest TeamCity build of AutoMapper, BTW.
Don't unit test this, use an integration test. Just write a mapping test that actually calls AutoMapper, verifying that whatever use case this type converter is there to support works from the outside.
As a general rule, unit tests on extension points of someone else's API don't have as much value to me. Instead, I try to go through the front door and make sure that I've configured the extension point correctly as well.