Assume the following:
class Thing {
String name
List<String> tags
static constraints = {
name(nullable: false)
tags(nullable: false)
}
}
I want to know if its possible, using GORM, to run a query for domain instances based on values in their respective lists
For instance: Are there dynamic GORM finders to query things like 'Find all Things that have the tag "Video" ', or 'Find all things with name = "Product1" that have the tag "Image" '
Just want to know if there's a nice concise way of doing this with Grails&Gorm, as opposed to retrieving a list of Things and iterating through it, finding the ones that have the appropriate tags and adding them to a results list.
Thanks!
One way (although not necessarily the most efficient!) would be to return the whole list of Things eg Thing.list() and then filter the resulting list using findAll.
List results = Thing.list().findAll{it.tags.contains("Image")}
How big is your list of Things and associated Tags likely to be?
Related
With the given class structure
class MyObject {
Status status;
}
class Status {
Integer id;
}
I want to use dynamic finders to query based on a list of Status ID values. What I want to be able to do is something like this
MyObject.findAllByStatusInList([1,2,3]);
This does not work though because my list needs to be Status objects. I know I can build a criteria to do this, but I just want to know if there is a way to accomplish this with Dynamic Finders?
You can still accomplish this using the dynamic finder.
def statuses = [1, 2, 3].collect { Status.load(it) }
MyObject.findAllByStatusInList(statuses)
load() will create a proxy for you that won't require retrieving the instance from the database as long as you don't access any properties other than id.
You can use the where clause:
MyObject.where {status.id in [1,2,3]}.find()
UPD
Dynamic finders don't support aliasing so Criteria (or DetachedCriteria) is the solution to be used.
In case if Status class is a domain entity you could retrieve a list of them (or load their proxies) from the database and then query MyObjects by the status list.
So I see no other appropriate solution but using Criteria in your case.
You can use this.
List<Integer > statuses = [1, 2, 3]
MyObject.findAllByStatusInList(statuses)
I just wasted half a day trying to figure this out, reading about some workarounds, and thinking "it can't be that bad - there must be a straightforward to do edit a collection in Grails, whethere using scaffolded views or my own."
Let's say I have this domain object:
class TreeGroup {
String name
List<Tree> trees
static hasMany = ['trees': MyTree]
}
Just to explain the choice of data structure - I need my records to be unique, but in the order I set. That's why I chose List, AFAIK one cannot rely on order in a Set. So there are 2 pieces to this question - 1) how to remove from any Collection, for example a Set, 2) is List the best replacement for Set in this context (preserving order).
I want to be able to create a group record with no trees in it and make 4 updates:
edit/save
edit the group record to reference 2 trees A and B
add another tree C
remove A
remove B and C
And obviously, I want the desired state after every step. Currently though, I can only add records, and if I even edit/save to list, the list elements are added to it again.
I am using the multiple select tag for this. It looks like this:
<g:select name="trees" from="${allTrees}" optionKey="id"
multiple="true" class="many-to-many"
value="${trees ? trees*.id : treeGroupInstance?.trees*.id}" />
and that's fine, in the sense that it generates an HTTP header with these variables on update:
_method:PUT
version:19
name:d5
trees:1
_action_update:Update
But the data binder only adds new elements, it never lets you edit a list.
What is the cleanest way to do it ? Is it me, not reading something obvious, or is this a design flaw of grails data binding (and of so, when/how will it be fixed) ?
Is there a way perhaps via a hidden HTTP parameter to clear the list before (re)adding elements ?
Thanks
I ended up doing this:
private repopulate(def domainObject, String propertyName, Class domainKlaz) {
if (params[propertyName] != null) {
domainObject[propertyName].clear()
domainObject[propertyName].addAll(
params[propertyName].collect { domainKlaz.get(it) }
)
}
}
and I am calling it in update controller method before save(), for every collection. OMG how ugly.
I have been using parameters to query node indexes as such (using the rest api in java)-
final QueryResult<Map<String,Object>> result = engine.query("start nd=node:name_index(name={src}) return nd.age as age", MapUtil.map("src", "Susan");
However I haven't been able to get this to work for a collection of nodes/names. I have been trying something along the lines of-
final QueryResult<Map<String,Object>> result = engine.query("start nd=node:name_index(name={src}) return nd.age as age", MapUtil.map("src", Arrays.asList("Susan","Brian", "Ian"));
But it refuses to compile. I as wondering if there is something wrong in my syntax or that parameters are not designed to work in this context.
The name= syntax in the start is meant to do an index lookup on a property. It won't do an IN lookup. The way you can do this sort of lookup is like this (note it depends on Apache's StringUtils):
List<String> names = Arrays.asList("Susan","Brian", "Ian");
String luceneQuery = "name:("+StringUtils.join(names, ",")+")";
engine.query("start nd=node:name_index({luceneQuery}) return nd.age as age", MapUtil.map("luceneQuery", luceneQuery));
Just a note, this is the "legacy" index way of doing things. In 2.0 they've introduced label-based indexes, which work entirely differently.
Thanks a lot; though it would still only return a non empty answer when I added a space after the comma in line 2. I used-
String luceneQuery = "name:("+StringUtils.join(names, ", ")+")";
and it returned the age of one person. When I tried this:
String luceneQuery = "fs:(fs:"+ StringUtils.join(names, " OR fs:")+")";
it gave me all three ages. However, I am still unsure about whether this query will be able to leverage the usual advantages of parameters , i.e. will the engine be able to reuse the query and execution path the next time around (this time we may want to query for 4 names instead of 3)
I'm working on an application at the moment in ASP.NET MVC which has a number of look-up tables, all of the form
LookUp {
Id
Text
}
As you can see, this just maps the Id to a textual value. These are used for things such as Colours. I now have a number of these, currently 6 and probably soon to be more.
I'm trying to put together an API that can be used via AJAX to allow the user to add/list/remove values from these lookup tables, so for example I could have something like:
http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/[List/Add/Delete]
My current problem is that clearly, regardless of which lookup table I'm using, everything else happens exactly the same. So really there should be no repetition of code whatsoever.
I currently have a custom route which points to an 'AttributeController', which figures out the attribute/look-up table in question based upon the URL (ie http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/List would want the 'Colours' table). I pass the attribute (Colours - a string) and the operation (List/Add/Delete), as well as any other parameters required (say "Red" if I want to add red to the list) back to my repository where the actual work is performed.
Things start getting messy here, as at the moment I've resorted to doing a switch/case on the attribute string, which can then grab the Linq-to-Sql entity corresponding to the particular lookup table. I find this pretty dirty though as I find myself having to write the same operations on each of the look-up entities, ugh!
What I'd really like to do is have some sort of mapping, which I could simply pass in the attribute name and get out some form of generic lookup object, which I could perform the desired operations on without having to care about type.
Is there some way to do this to my Linq-To-Sql entities? I've tried making them implement a basic interface (IAttribute), which simply specifies the Id/Text properties, however doing things like this fails:
System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute> table = GetAttribute("Colours");
As I cannot convert System.Data.Linq.Table<Colour> to System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute>.
Is there a way to make these look-up tables 'generic'?
Apologies that this is a bit of a brain-dump. There's surely imformation missing here, so just let me know if you'd like any further details. Cheers!
You have 2 options.
Use Expression Trees to dynamically create your lambda expression
Use Dynamic LINQ as detailed on Scott Gu's blog
I've looked at both options and have successfully implemented Expression Trees as my preferred approach.
Here's an example function that i created: (NOT TESTED)
private static bool ValueExists<T>(String Value) where T : class
{
ParameterExpression pe = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "p");
Expression value = Expression.Equal(Expression.Property(pe, "ColumnName"), Expression.Constant(Value));
Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(value, pe);
return MyDataContext.GetTable<T>().Where(predicate).Count() > 0;
}
Instead of using a switch statement, you can use a lookup dictionary. This is psuedocode-ish, but this is one way to get your table in question. You'll have to manually maintain the dictionary, but it should be much easier than a switch.
It looks like the DataContext.GetTable() method could be the answer to your problem. You can get a table if you know the type of the linq entity that you want to operate upon.
Dictionary<string, Type> lookupDict = new Dictionary<string, Type>
{
"Colour", typeof(MatchingLinqEntity)
...
}
Type entityType = lookupDict[AttributeFromRouteValue];
YourDataContext db = new YourDataContext();
var entityTable = db.GetTable(entityType);
var entity = entityTable.Single(x => x.Id == IdFromRouteValue);
// or whatever operations you need
db.SubmitChanges()
The Suteki Shop project has some very slick work in it. You could look into their implementation of IRepository<T> and IRepositoryResolver for a generic repository pattern. This really works well with an IoC container, but you could create them manually with reflection if the performance is acceptable. I'd use this route if you have or can add an IoC container to the project. You need to make sure your IoC container supports open generics if you go this route, but I'm pretty sure all the major players do.
I've got a repository using LINQ for modelling the data that has a whole bunch of functions for getting data out. A very common way of getting data out is for things such as drop down lists. These drop down lists can vary. If we're creating something we usually have a drop down list with all entries of a certain type, which means I need a function available which filters by the type of entity. We also have pages to filter data, the drop down lists only contain entries that currently are used, so I need a filter that requires used entries. This means there are six different queries to get the same type of data out.
The problem with defining a function for each of these is that there'd be six functions at least for every type of output, all in one repository. It gets very large, very quick. Here's something like I was planning to do:
public IEnumerable<Supplier> ListSuppliers(bool areInUse, bool includeAllOption, int contractTypeID)
{
if (areInUse && includeAllOption)
{
}
else if (areInUse)
{
}
else if (includeAllOption)
{
}
}
Although "areInUse" doesn't seem very English friendly, I'm not brilliant with naming. As you can see, logic resides in my data access layer (repository) which isn't friendly. I could define separate functions but as I say, it grows quite quick.
Could anyone recommend a good solution?
NOTE: I use LINQ for entities only, I don't use it to query. Please don't ask, it's a constraint on the system not specified by me. If I had the choice, I'd use LINQ, but I don't unfortunately.
Have your method take a Func<Supplier,bool> which can be used in Where clause so that you can pass it in any type of filter than you would like to construct. You can use a PredicateBuilder to construct arbitrarily complex functions based on boolean operations.
public IEnumerable<Supplier> ListSuppliers( Func<Supplier,bool> filter )
{
return this.DataContext.Suppliers.Where( filter );
}
var filter = PredicateBuilder.False<Supplier>();
filter = filter.Or( s => s.IsInUse ).Or( s => s.ContractTypeID == 3 );
var suppliers = repository.ListSuppliers( filter );
You can implement
IEnumerable<Supplier> GetAllSuppliers() { ... }
end then use LINQ on the returned collection. This will retrieve all suppliers from the database that are then filtered using LINQ.
Assuming you are using LINQ to SQL you can also implement
IQueryable<Supplier> GetAllSuppliers() { ... }
end then use LINQ on the returned collection. This will only retrieve the necessary suppliers from the database when the collection is enumerated. This is very powerful and there are also some limits to the LINQ you can use. However, the biggest problem is that you are able to drill right through your data-access layer and into the database using LINQ.
A query like
var query = from supplier in repository.GetAllSuppliers()
where suppliers.Name.StartsWith("Foo") select supplier;
will map into SQL similar to this when it is enumerated
SELECT ... WHERE Name LIKE 'Foo%'