Is it possible to load objects by a list of ids using subsonic ActiveRecord?
My code looks like:
IList<Video> videos = Video.Find(v => videoIds.Contains(v.ID));
I get an exception: The method 'Contains' is not supported
Do I do something wrong ... or I hit one of subsonic's limitations?
Thanks, Radu
After more research I found a way to achieve this:
List<int> videoIds = new List<int>(){1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
SqlQuery query = new Select().From<Video>().Where("ID").In(videoIds);
List<Video> videos = query.ExecuteTypedList<Video>();
FYI: SubSonic's linq parser does not like generic Lists and Contains
// does not work
List<int> videoIds = new List<int>() {1,2,3,4,5};
var videos = Video.Find(v => videoIds.Contains(v.ID));
// should work
IEnumerable<int> videoIds = new List<int>() {1,2,3,4,5};
var videos = Video.Find(v => videoIds.Contains(v.ID));
Noticed the difference?
Sounds strange, but whenever you want to use Contains() with Subsonic, you first have to cast your List to an IEnumerable to prevent the NotSupportedException.
This is the one-liner I believe you where looking for.
var colMatchingVideos = Video.Find( objVideo => colVideoIds.Any( iVideoId => objVideo.ID == iVideoId).ToList();
Also I would strongly advise you avoid using string literals for columns, instead you could use Video.Columns.Id or expressions Where( o => o.Id). This would ensure that if you change your column names in the Database a compile time exception will occur. Help's a lot with maintainability.
Related
I'm trying to add new names to the address book programmatically but I'm getting the following error:
[TypeError] Exception occurred calling method NotesDocument.replaceItemValue(string, Array)
Unknown or unsupported object type in Vector
Code snippet below:
var addressBook = session.getDatabase("","names.nsf");
var gView:NotesView = addressBook.getView("($VIMGroups)");
var gDoc:NotesDocument = gView.getDocumentByKey("groupName", true);
var newg:java.util.Vector = [];
var mems:java.util.Vector = new Array(gDoc.getItemValue('Members'));
newg.push(mems);
var newNames:java.util.Vector = new Array(getComponent("NewMems").getValue());
newg.push(newNames);
gDoc.replaceItemValue("Members", newg);
gDoc.save();
Adding a single user works fine, but then it does not save users in the required canonical format below:
CN=John Doe/O=Org
Instead it is saved in the original format below:
John Doe/Org
I look forward to your suggestions. Thanks.
You can't store an Array in a field. Make newg a java.util.Vector instead and integrate with that.
For OpenNTF Domino API the team wrote a lot of code to auto-convert to Vectors, which may cover Arrays.
Don't use an Array (which is a JS thing). Initialize it as a Vector.
var newg:java.util.Vector = new java.util.Vectory();
Then look up the Vector methods to see how to add to that vector. Not sure if you will have to convert the names using the Name method but I would store them as "CN=Joe Smith/O=Test Org" to be sure you got the right format.
I was able to solve the issue using a forloop to loop through the list and push it into a newly created array. Using the forloop seems to make the difference.
var newg = [];
var group = new Array(getComponent("NewMems").getValue()), lenGA = group.length;
for(i = 0; i < lenGA; i++){
newg.push(group[i]);
}
gDoc.replaceItemValue("Members", newg);
gDoc.save();
An explanation about this behaviour will be appreciated.
Is it possible to use the aql string handler in ArangoDB to perform a dynamic query? I've tried a number of different ways but it always errors out. For example, I'd like to do something like this:
let sortExpression = sortByDate ? 'SORT ${date}' : `SORT ${name}`
const result = db._query(aql`
FOR doc IN tickets
${sortExpression}
RETURN doc
`)
This example is very simplified, but I have a more complex situation where something like this would be really handy. Is there a way to make something like this work?
If the query was more complex, and I had real variables to embed, I'd write this like the following:
let sortProp = sortByDate ? 'date' : 'name';
var query = aql`
FOR doc IN tickets
SORT #SORT_PROP#
RETURN doc`;
query.query = query.query.replace('#SORT_PROP#', sortProp);
var result = db._query(query);
Maybe this works for your use case, too.
After looking more closely at how the aql string handler works, it turns out what I'm trying to do is just not feasible with it. So I decided to use the regular bind var syntax:
let sortExpression = 'SORT #sortField'
const result = db._query(`
FOR doc IN ##coll
${sortExpression}
RETURN doc
`, {
'#coll': module.context.collectionName('tickets'),
'sortField': sortByDate ? 'date' : 'name'
})
Again this is overkill for the simple example above, but my real world query is much more complex.
I am using new Sitecore search, and the issue I ran into is having results come for words that have nothing to do with my search term.
For example, searching for "lies" will find "applies". And this is not what I am looking for.
This is an example of search I am doing (simplified). It is a direct LINQ check for "Contains" on the "Content" property of the SearchResultItem, and most likely not what I supposed to do. It is just happen to be that samples I find online are practically doing so.
Example of my code (simplified). In here I break down the search sentence to separate keywords. By the way, I am looking for a way to show full sentence match first.
using (var context = ContentSearchManager.GetIndex("sitecore_web_index").CreateSearchContext())
{
var results = context.GetQueryable<SearchResultItem>()
.Filter(i => i.Path.StartsWith(Home.Paths.FullPath))
.Filter(GetTermPredicate(Term));
// use results here
}
protected Expression<Func<SearchResultItem, bool>> GetTermPredicate(string term)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<SearchResultItem>();
foreach (var tempTerm in term.Split(' '))
{
predicate = predicate.And(p => p.Content.Contains(tempTerm));
}
return predicate;
}
Thank you in advance!!
All right. I got help from Sitecore Support.
In my version of Sitecore I can use the following to acheive search for a whole word instead of partial:
instead of:
predicate = predicate.And(p => p.Content.Contains(tempTerm));
use
predicate = predicate.And(p => p.Content.Equals(tempTerm));
Issue solved.
Replace Filter in your code by Where, it should be fine,
here is an example :
var currentIndex = ContentSearchManager.GetIndex("sitecore_web_index");
using (var context = currentIndex.CreateSearchContext())
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True();
foreach (var currentWord in term.Split(‘ ‘))
{
predicate = predicate.Or(x => x.Content.Contains(currentWord ));
}
var results = context.GetQueryable().Where(predicate).GetResults();
}
As Ahmed notes, you should use Where instead of Filter, since Filter has no effect on search rank. The classic use case for filters is to apply a facet chosen by the user without distorting the ordering of results, as would happen if you used a Where clause.
Filtering is similar to using Where to restrict the result list. Both methods will affect the result in the same
result list, but when you use a Filter the scoring/ranking of the search hits is not affected by the filters.
Developer's Guide to Item Buckets and Search
There's a good dicussion of when to use Filter on the Sitecore 7 team blog:
Making Good Part 4: Filters, Paging and I'm feeling lucky.
If you only want to search for whole words, you could prefix and postfix the searchterm with a space. Allthough this doesn't catch all situations.
I have a list AllIDs:
List<IAddress> AllIDs = new List<IAddress>();
I want to do substring operation on a member field AddressId based on a character "_".
I am using below LINQ query but getting compilation error:
AllIDs= AllIDs.Where(s => s.AddressId.Length >= s.AddressId.IndexOf("_"))
.Select(s => s.AddressId.Substring(s.AddressId.IndexOf("_")))
.ToList();
Error:
Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.List<string>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.List<MyCompany.Common.Users.IAddress>'
AllIDs is a list of IAddress but you are selecting a string. The compiler is complaining it cannot convert a List<string> to a List<IAddress>. Did you mean the following instead?
var substrings = AllIDs.Where(...).Select(...).ToList();
If you want to put them back into Address objects (assuming you have an Address class in addition to your IAddress interface), you can do something like this (assuming the constructor for Address is in place):
AllIDs = AllIDs.Where(...).Select(new Address(s.AddressID.Substring(s.AddressID.IndexOf("_")))).ToList();
You should also look at using query syntax for LINQ instead of method syntax, it can clean up and improve the readability of a lot of queries like this. Your original (unmodified) query is roughly equivalent to this:
var substrings = from a in AllIDs
let id = a.AddressId
let idx = id.IndexOf("_")
where id.Length >= idx
select id.Substring(idx);
Though this is really just a style thing, and this compiles to the same thing as the original. One slight difference is that you only have to call String.IndexOf() one per entry, instead of twice per entry. let is your friend.
Maybe this?
var boundable =
from s id in AllIDs
where s.AddressId.Length >= s.AddressId.IndexOf("_")
select new { AddressId = s.AddressId.Substring(s.AddressId.IndexOf("_")) };
boundable = boundable.ToList();
Yet another newbie SubSonic/ActiveRecord question. Suppose I want to insert a couple of records, currently I'm doing this:
using (var scope = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope())
{
// Insert company
company c = new company();
c.name = "ACME";
c.Save();
// Insert some options
company_option o = new company_option();
o.name = "ColorScheme";
o.value = "Red";
o.company_id = c.company_id;
o.Save();
o = new company_option();
o.name = "PreferredMode";
o.value = "Fast";
o.company_id = c.company_id;
o.Save();
scope.Complete();
}
Stepping through this code however, each of the company/company_option constructors go off and create a new myappDB object which just seems wasteful.
Is this the recommended approach or should I be trying to re-use a single DB object - and if so, what's the easiest way to do this?
I believe you can use the same object if you want to by setting its IsNew property to true, then change its data properties, save it again, repeat. Easy enough.
I 'm not so sure that you should bother, though. It depends on how bad those constructors are hurting you.
In my eyes assigning multiple objects to a single var is never a good idea but thats arguable. I would do this:
// Insert some options
company_option o1 = new company_option();
o1.name = "ColorScheme";
o1.value = "Red";
o1.company_id = c.company_id;
o1.Save();
company_option o2 = new company_option();
o2.name = "PreferredMode";
o2.value = "Fast";
o2.company_id = c.company_id;
o2.Save();
I you are worried about performance, that shouldn't be a issue unless you want to insert or update many objects at once. And again, in this case the time used for inserting the data takes longer than for the object creation.
If you are worried about performance you can skip the object creation and saving part completly by using a Insert query:
http://www.subsonicproject.com/docs/Linq_Inserts
db.Insert.Into<company_option>(
x => x.name,
x => x.value,
x => x.company_id)
.Values(
"ColorScheme",
"Red",
c.company_id
).Execute();