In my database User table I have DataTime field called DateDeleted - which is null while user exists and is set to the proper value when user "is deleted".
I wonder if there is a way to introduce IsDeleted property for User entity so that
http://odata/service.svc/Users(1)/IsDeleted
will return true or false depending on whether DateDeleted is set or not
My research in google hasn't got any results and I am almost sure it is not possible to implement through odata. Am I right?
With the built in providers this is not possible on the WCF DS side of things. You might be able to somehow do this on the EF side (expose it as a property of the EF entity), but I'm not sure if that's possible.
On the WCF DS side, you would have to implement a custom provider in order to do this. Which may be quite a lot of work unfortunately. If you're interested see this for starters: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2010/01/07/data-service-providers-getting-started.aspx.
What Shawn refers to above is a method on the custom provider interface.
You can specify the value you want by implementing the method DataServiceQueryProvider.GetPropertyValue.
Please find the reference here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.services.providers.idataservicequeryprovider.getpropertyvalue.aspx
The method takes two parameters, the entity object (a User instance) and the resource property (in this case "IsDeleted"). You can try to get the property value of "DataDeleted" from the entity object, and return the value of "IsDeleted" as you want.
Related
I am trying to create a OData service that returns user parameters found in the databasde usr05. Those can be accessed by the ABAP statement:
GET PARAMETER ID 'XXX' FIELD YYY.
This means, that basically do not need a key value.
In SEGW it is impossible to create an entity type without one though.
The solution of course could be a dummy key field, that is simply ignored in the backend implementation.
Does anyone know a better solution?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
it is not a shame it is by design and follows the OData specification.
Every entity type must have a key.
What you can try to use instead is to use a property that is based on a so called complex type within an entity type that is used for your users.
The latter should have a key.
Like the complex type address that is used in the entity type Supplier
https://services.odata.org/OData/OData.svc/$metadata
I am using an OData model in my SAP UI5 application. I do the following:
var oView = this.getView();
this._oModel = oView.getModel();
which I thought loaded the model and allowed me to access whatever I needed to inside the model. However whenever I try to get a property using getProperty(path) it returns undefined. I know the path is correct because I used it elsewhere in my application and it worked okay. The model I am using is named "metadata.xml" if that helps.
If you read the documentation provided by SAP talking about OData services (I assume v2), you might find your answer there. Since you are using getProperty(), "you can only access single entities and properties with these methods. To access entity sets, you can get the binding contexts of all read entities via a list binding." Therefore you may want to a read() of the entity set first and then use the results of this read to access whatever property you want.
Link to doc: https://sapui5.hana.ondemand.com/#docs/guide/6c47b2b39db9404582994070ec3d57a2.html
Im trying to find out which attributes of an entity have been changed.
As far I have seen, there is a PersistenceSession with a method to check an object if an attribute isDirty. But its always true because it never registers the old object.
So if I take the demo from the QuickGuide and override the update method in the CoffeeBeanRepository:
/**
* #param \Acme\Demo\Domain\Model\CoffeeBean $coffeeBean
*/
public function update($coffeeBean) {
\TYPO3\Flow\var_dump($this->persistenceSession->isDirty($coffeeBean, 'name'), "name changed before");
parent::update($coffeeBean);
\TYPO3\Flow\var_dump($this->persistenceSession->isDirty($coffeeBean, 'name'), "name changed after");
}
... its always TRUE (both), despite I didn't change anything.
Anyone an idea/reference how this can be accomplished?
I am using it for a REST API where a user can't update several fields and on editing of some fields additional actions have to be executed.
The persistenceSession is part of the generic persistence backend of Flow and is neither maintained, nor really used unless you explicitly deactivate doctrine. Hence persistenceSession will not help you, because all entities are considered new for the persistenceSession as you noticed.
With doctrine you need to get the entity changeset from the "UnitOfWork", which you can get from an injected \Doctrine\Common\Persistence\ObjectManager. See also Is there a built-in way to get all of the changed/updated fields in a Doctrine 2 entity
However, this is a suboptimal solution and a hacky work-around at best. If you need to track changes to your entity, it should be an explicit part of your domain model. For example make your setters record a changed properties list, when the given value is different from the current.
When done, you could even optimize doctrines change tracking on the way with that: http://doctrine-orm.readthedocs.org/en/latest/reference/change-tracking-policies.html#notify
I have this problem of confusing when to include the entire object as a property of another object, or just its ID. It seems that if I include the entire object, the calls to load the containing object will unnecessarily also load the included object when I probably only need references. What is propert approach?
Generally always refer to another object.
Many ORM technologies have the idea of "proxies" and "lazy loading", meaning, unless you reference the object, it won't load it.
I prefer to include the object itself, since one object actually has a relationship with another actual object -- the object ID is just an implementation detail. To deal with the problem of unnecessary calls, look into "lazy loading".
Only include the other object if you need the details.
in MVC use a ViewModel ideally and not your entities. Your ViewModel contains only what it needs, so for example OrderEditViewModel would contain a customerid unless you want to display the custom name, in that case you would include the fields from customer. Some people recomend you flatten out your objects to a view model, so you dont have OrderEditViewModel.Customer.CustomerId but instead ORderEditViewModel.CustomerId. Automapper can help you do this (As well as valueinjecter - note the spelling)
If you must include an ID ensure when you save back to the database your update include a clause to say 'where id=#customerId and (logic here to ensure your user actually has access to that customerid and root object)
I have mvcsecurity.codeplex.com to help encrypt record ids on a web page to prevent against tampering as well (it helps but you should still have something in your query to prevent field tampering so an attacker cant add someone else's customer id for example_)
I go more into parameter tampering in MVC here if anyone is interested:
http://www.pluralsight-training.net/microsoft/Courses/TableOfContents?courseName=hack-proofing-dotnet-app
My suggestion would be to always think about the design and not about performance. Performance can be tweaked but design can't. So, if the two objects have that kind of a relationship where Aggregation/Composition is required, you should do that.
But, if your containing object only has to deal with the ID (for e.g. passing it to a different object which processes the ID to do something) then you can keep the ID field only. No need to expose the whole object (but make sure that your containing object does not need to know anything about the other object.).
This is a little out there but I have a customer object coming back to my controller. I want to just reconnect this object back to the database, is it even possible? I know there is a datacontext.customers.insertonsubmit(customer), but is there the equivalent datacontext.customers.updateonsubmit(customer)???
This is what I don't like about LINQ-to-SQL.
It generally works fine if you're querying and updating in the same scope, but if you get an object, cache it, and then try to update it later, you can't.
Here's what the documentation says:
Use the Attach methods with entities that have been created in one DataContext, and serialized to a client, and then deserialized back with the intention to perform an update or delete operation. Because the new DataContext has no way of tracking what the original values were for a disconnected entity, the client is responsible for supplying those values. In this version of Attach, the entity is assumed to be in its original value state. After calling this method, you can then update its fields, for example with additional data sent from the client.
Do not try to Attach an entity that has not been detached through serialization. Entities that have not been serialized still maintain associations with deferred loaders that can cause unexpected results if the entity becomes tracked by a second data context.
A little ambiguous IMHO, specifically about exactly what it means by "serialized" and "deserialized".
Also, interestingly enough, here's what it says about the DataContext object:
In general, a DataContext instance is
designed to last for one "unit of
work" however your application defines
that term. A DataContext is
lightweight and is not expensive to
create. A typical LINQ to SQL
application creates DataContext
instances at method scope or as a
member of short-lived classes that
represent a logical set of related
database operations.
So, DataContexts are intended to be tightly scoped - and yet to use Attach(), you have to use the same DataContext that queried the object. I'm assuming/hoping we're all completely misunderstanding what Attach() is really intended to be used for.
What I've had to do in situations like this is re-query the object I needed to update to get a fresh copy, and then do the update.
The customer that you post from the form will not have entity keys so may not attach well, also you may not have every field of the customer available on the form so all of it's fields may not be set.
I would recommend using the TryUpdateModel method, in your action you'll have to get the customer from the database again and update it with the form's post variables.
public ActionResult MySaveAction(int id, FormCollection form)
{
Customer updateCustomer = _Repository.GetCustomer(id);
TryUpdateModel(updateCustomer, "Customer", form);
_Repository.Save(updateCustomer);
}
You will have to add in all your own exception handling and validation of course, but that's the general idea.
You want to use the attach method on the customers table on the data context.
datacontext.customers.Attach(customer);
to reconnect it to the data context. Then you can use SubmitChanges() to update the values in the database.
EDIT: This only works with entities that have been detached from the original data context through serialization. If you don't mind the extra call to the database, you can use the idiomatic method in ASP.NET MVC of retrieving the object again and applying your changes via UpdateModel or TryUpdateModel as #Odd suggests.