Re-use of database object in sub-sonic - subsonic

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();

Related

NODE.JS: iterating over an array of objects, creating a new key if it does not exist

I am iterating over a collection of data, in my case, an array of objects. Here is a sample of 2 data points from it:
{
violation_id: '211315',
inspection_id: '268804',
violation_category: 'Garbage and Refuse',
violation_date: '2012-03-22 0:00',
violation_date_closed: '',
violation_type: 'Refuse Accumulation' },
{
violation_id: '214351',
inspection_id: '273183',
violation_category: 'Building Conditions',
violation_date: '2012-05-01 0:00',
violation_date_closed: '2012-04-17 0:00',
violation_type: 'Mold or Mildew' }
I need to create a new array of objects from this, one for each "violation_category" property. If Violation category already exists in the new array I am creating, i simply add the information to that existing category object (instead of having two "building conditions" objects for example, I would just add to an existing one).
However, I am having trouble assigning to the existing object if the current one exists (it's easy to check if it does not, but not the other way around). This is what am attempting to do currently:
if (violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName) {
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.violations = results[i].violation_id;
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.date = results[i].violation_date;
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.closed =
results[i].violation_date_closed;
} else {
category.violations = results[i].violation_id;
category.date = results[i].violation_date;
category.closed = results[i].violation_date_closed;
violationCategory.push(category);
}
In first condition, if this category (key) exists, I simply add to it, and in the second condition, this is where I am struggling. Any help appreciated. Thanks guys.
Just add an empty object to the key if there no object there :
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName = violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName || {};
And only then, add the data you want to the object.
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.violations = results[i].violation_id;
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.date = results[i].violation_date;
violationCategory.uniqueCategoryName.closed =
results[i].violation_date_closed;
No condition needed.
Good luck!
Assuming that you have an input variable which is an array of objects, where the objects are looking like the objects of the question, you can generate your output like this:
var output = {};
for (var item of input) {
if (!output[item.violation_category]) output[item.violation_category] = [];
output[item.violation_category].push(item);
}
Of course you might customize it like you want.

ServiceStack OrmLite - Is it possible to do a group by and have a reference to a list of the non-grouped fields?

It may be I'm still thinking in the Linq2Sql mode, but I'm having a hard time translating this to OrmLite.
I have a customers table and a loyalty card table.
I want to get a list of customers and for each customer, have a list of express cards.
My strategy is to select customers, join to loyalty cards, group by whole customer table, and then map the cards to a single property on customer as a list.
Things are not named by convention, so I don't think I can take advantage of the implicit joins.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Here is the code I have now that doesn't work:
query = query.Join<Customer, LoyaltyCard>((c, lc) => c.CustomerId == lc.CustomerId)
.GroupBy(x => x).Select((c) => new { c, Cards = ?? What goes here? });
Edit: I thought maybe this method:
var q = db.From<Customer>().Take(1);
q = q.Join<Customer, LoyaltyCard>().Select();
var customer = db.SelectMulti<Customer,LoyaltyCard>(q);
But this is giving me an ArgumentNullException on parameter "key."
It's not clear from the description or your example code what you're after, but you can fix your SelectMulti Query with:
var q = db.From<Customer>()
.Join<Customer, LoyaltyCard>();
var results = db.SelectMulti<Customer,LoyaltyCard>(q);
foreach (var tuple in results)
{
Customer customer = tuple.Item1;
LoyaltyCard custCard = tuple.Item2;
}

Fabric js select object in group

Is it possible to select a single object from a group created like this?
var r = new fabric.Rect(...);
var l = new fabric.Line(...);
var roadGroup = new fabric.Group([r,l],{ ... });
So I want to have a group, but select objects l or r separately.
The simple answer is yes, but you should make sure you take into account the purpose of a group.
To get a handle on an object that is wrapped in a group you can do something like this:
var r = roadGroup._objects[0];
var l = roadGroup._objects[1];
To select a child of a group try something like this:
fabricCanvas.setActiveObject(roadGroup._objects[0]);
soapbox:
The purpose of creating a group is to treat several objects as if they were a single one. The purpose of selecting an object is to allow user interactions with an object. If you want your user to interact with a portion of a group, you might want to consider not grouping them in the first place, or else un-grouping them prior to selecting the child object.
/soapbox
I believe _objects is to be used internally only and may thus change in the future.
To me it group.item(indexOfItem) seems to be the way
So I had this scenario where I have multiple images in a box. Those all images move along with the box (as a group) but user should also be able to select an individual image and move it.
Basically I wanted to select individual objects (in my case images) of group, I did it like this:
groupImages.forEach(image => image.on('mousedown', function (e) {
var group = e.target;
if (group && group._objects) {
var thisImage = group._objects.indexOf(image);
var item = group._objects[thisImage];//.find(image);
canvas.setActiveObject(item);
}
}));
groupImages could be list of objects which you want to select individually.

Creating a group of test objects with AutoMapper

I'm trying to create a repository of data that I can use for testing purposes for an emerging car production and design company.
Beginning Automapper Question:
In this project, I have 2 classes that share the same properties for the most part. I don't need the Id, so I am ignoring that.
My existing code looks like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<RaceCar, ProductionCar>()
.Ignore(d => d.fId) //ignore the ID
.ForMember(d=> d.ShowRoomName,
o=> o.MapFrom(s => s.FactoryName) //different property names but same thing really
//combine into my new test car
var testCarObject = Mapper.Map<RaceCar, ProductionCar>()
My main requirements are:
1) I need to create 100 of these test car objects
2) and that for every ProductionCar I use, it needs to have a corresponding RaceCar which are matched up by the name(ShowRoomName & FactoryName)
So is there a way of sticking this in some type of loop or array so that I can create the needed 100?
Also, is there a way to ensure that each new test car has the combined FactoryCar and RaceCar?
Thanks!
Use AutoMapper with AutoFixture:
var fixture = new Fixture();
var items = Enumerable.Range(1, 100)
.Select(i => fixture.Create<RaceCar>())
.Select(car => new { RaceCar = car, ProductionCar = Mapper.Map<RaceCar, ProductionCar>(car))
.ToList();
items.Profit()

create a filter not a group filter

I am creating a custom module in Orchard , I would like to create a query programmatically.
string queryName= "Product";
var item = _orchardServices.ContentManager.New("Query");
item.As<TitlePart>().Title =queryName;
_orchardServices.ContentManager.Create(item, VersionOptions.Draft);
if (!item.Has<IPublishingControlAspect>() && !item.TypeDefinition.Settings.GetModel<ContentTypeSettings>().Draftable)
_orchardServices.ContentManager.Publish(item);
var queryPart = item.As<QueryPart>();
queryPart.ContentItem.ContentType = queryName;
string desc =" filter for the query";
string contentType = "CommonPart.ChannelID.";
var filterGroupRecord = new FilterGroupRecord();
var filterRecord = new FilterRecord()
{
Category = "CommonPartContentFields",
Type = contentType,
Position = 0,
};
filterRecord.State = "<Form><Description>" + desc + "</Description><Operator>Equals</Operator><Value>ChannelId</Value></Form>";
filterGroupRecord.Filters.Add(filterRecord);
queryPart.FilterGroups.Insert(0, filterGroupRecord);
the problem is that:I want set a filters of the query,not a filters group.
could you tell me how to improve my code?
Database structure and class declarations make it impossible. Why do you need it?
Update:
I means that you must use FilterGroupRecord at least one.
But when Query published that Filter Group will be created automatically if query have not yet Filter Group (see at QueryPartHandler). You should add your filters to this group. And not needed to create new group.
var existingFilterGroup = queryPart.FilterGroups[0];
existingFilterGroup.Filters.Add(filterRecord);
Update 2:
To avoid problems with draftable query (and several other potential problems Orchard CMS: Adding default data to fields and then querying them) it is better to move the calling Publish method to the end of your code and other part of your code should be left unchanged. And in your case would be better if you will always publish your query without checking IPublishingControlAspect and Draftable.

Resources