I have a large object graph that I want to return to the client (an overview of the entire model) so I decided to send it back as one big object (I'm returning it as the object in question.)
In Breeze however I'm only getting the first object in each dependent object. So for example I have a 'policy' object with two 'vehicle' objects. I only see one vehicle (even when I put a breakpoint at var p = data.results[0]. The json coming back from the call shows two vehicles but breeze is catching only one.
What can I do to get the other ones? Here's the call I'm making:
var getPolicyByPolicyNumber = function (lob, policynumber, policyObservable) {
var params = {};
params['lOBCd'] = lob;
params['policyNumber'] = policynumber;
var query = EntityQuery.from('PolicyInquiry')
.withParameters(params);
return manager.executeQuery(query)
.then(querySucceeded)
.fail(queryFailed);
function querySucceeded(data) {
var p = data.results[0];
p.completeTree(true);
return policyObservable(p);
}
};
And in my breeze controller I have the following:
[System.Web.Http.HttpGet]
public Policy PolicyInquiry(string lOBCd, string policyNumber)
{
UserProfile userProfile = _contextProvider.Context.UserProfiles.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == WebSecurity.CurrentUserName);
var policy = Uow.PolicyServices.GetPolicy(userProfile.BrokerId, userProfile.AgencyId, "csio:" + lOBCd, policyNumber);
return policy;
}
And here's an abbreviated model showing policy and vehicle:
public class Policy
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string PolicyNumber { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Policy")]
public ICollection<Vehicle> Vehicles { get; set; }
// other fields removed
}
public class Vehicle
{
public int Id {get; set}
public string ItemId { get; set; }
// other fields removed
//Foreign Keys
public int PolicyId { get; set; }
[IgnoreDataMember]
[ForeignKey("PolicyId")]
[Required]
public virtual Policy Policy { get; set; }
}
Now that I see your model I think I see the issue.
Breeze does not automatically resolve the entity graph on a query. i.e. if you retrieve a Policy, Breeze only returns the Policy instance itself without any navigation properties resolved. This is by design, so that a single query doesn't bring down the entire entity graph.
If you want the values of any navigation properties you have three options, the third of which is probably your best bet. I've taken some liberties in simplifying your model for the purposes of explanation. These all assume that the "Policy" type is actually defined as a Breeze entity type, i.e. has a metadata definition in the Breeze metadataStore.
1) Use an client side EntityQuery.expand clause
var query = EntityQuery.from('Policy')
.expand("Vehicles")
.withParameters(params);
2) Use a server side Include clause
[System.Web.Http.HttpGet]
public IEnumberable<Policy>(string lOBCd, string policyNumber) {
return _contextProvider.Context.Policies.Where(....).Include("Vehicles");
}
3) Use a anonymous result, that contains two known entity types.
[System.Web.Http.HttpGet]
public Object PolicyInquiry(string lOBCd, string policyNumber) {
UserProfile userProfile = _contextProvider.Context.UserProfiles.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == WebSecurity.CurrentUserName);
var policy = Uow.PolicyServices.GetPolicy(userProfile.BrokerId, userProfile.AgencyId, "csio:" + lOBCd, policyNumber);
return new {
Policy = policy,
Vehicles = policy.GetVehicles() // insure that they are actually resolved on the server)
}
return policy;
}
More info here: Navigation Properties
I hope this is clear enough.
Sorry, but without seeing the underlying implementation of "policy" and its metadata, it's hard to tell what's going on. But I can make a general suggestion.
1) If you want to return an aggregate object and have Breeze recognize it's constituent parts, the recommended mechanism is to create a projection and return that. i.e. something like
public IQueryable<Object> CompanyInfoAndOrders() {
return ContextProvider.Context.Customers.Select(c => new { Customer = c, Orders = c.Orders });
}
In this example, providing that Breeze has metadata for the Customer and Order types,
Breeze will deconstruct the result and add the Customer and its orders to the EntityManager, and return a collection of json objects each with a "Customer" and Orders property. The Customer and individual Orders will each have been "adapted" to the current model library as well (i.e. knockout, backbone, or backingStore - for Angular).
Which approach to ViewModels is better:
1. Just have an ICollection<T> in the ViewModel and access it's properties in views, which is pretty much what I'd do in ASP.NET Forms, like this:
public ICollection<Order> Orders {get; set;}
so that in the View I would do something like this
#if(Model.Orders.Count > 0){
or
2. Create a property for the Count of an ICollection so the View can simply reference that value directly.
public ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
public int OrderCount { get { return Orders.Count ; } }
and then in the view
#if(Model.OrderCount > 0) {
or perhaps a boolean property HasOrders to further reduce the logic in the View?
Edit
I'm a bit surprised by the comments, I accept that this is subjective, but then so are questions about whether to use a string property for a date and everyone has to start learning somewhere.
Will I have numerous uses of the OrderCount property? The if and then a label to display the actual count. As such it will be used more frequently than say the customer email address yet I would be astonished if anyone suggested that
public string Email { get; set; }
was taking things too far.
To try to refocus the question a little; what I'm trying to determine is should the ViewModel provide simple properties for everything the view needs - so there is no need to reach down into the Model.Orders to access the Count. Should the View be kept pure and free from logic / 'programming'
3.) Don't use a Collection<T> on a viewmodel, it's probably overkill. Instead, use T[]. Why? Because you shouldn't need .Add, .Remove, and other overhead methods offered by ICollection for an IEnumerable property in a viewmodel. In the end, if you are just using it as a DTO to pass data from a controller to a view, an array is perfectly fine. Nothing will have to be added to or removed from the enumerable during transit to and from the controller. Arrays are generally faster and leaner than Lists and other IEnumerable implementations.
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
Then, don't use .Count, use .Length. Having a separate property is usually overkill too IMO. Why? Because it just means you end up writing more code where you don't have to. Why add an OrdersCount property when you can just use Orders.Length?
#if (Model.Orders.Length > 0) {
If you are looking for something a little shorter, you can use the .Any() LINQ extension method (note you will have to have using System.Linq; when using this in a viewmodel class, but nothing extra should be needed to use it in a razor view):
#if (Model.Orders.Any()) { // returns true if Model.Orders.Length > 0
One possible exception to this guideline could be if Orders is not set, meaning it is null. In that case, your razor code above would throw a NullReferenceException. For this you could create a HasOrders property on the viewmodel to test against null and .Length. However a simpler solution could be to just initialize the property in a constructor:
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel()
{
Orders = new Order[0];
}
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
}
Granted, with the above someone could still set the array to null, so it's your decision of whether to do this, or create a separate property to test against null, or just test against null in your razor code.
using System.Linq;
public class MyViewModel
{
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
public bool HasOrders { get { return Orders != null && Orders.Any(); } }
}
...or...
#if (Model.Orders != null && Model.Orders.Any()) {
Any way you go, you end up with a little more code in either the consuming class or the consumed class. Use these factors to decide which approach means less code to write:
a.) Is it possible for the property to be null?
b.) How many collection properties are in the viewmodel?
c.) How many times do you have to test against either null or .Length in a razor view?
I cannot for the life of me get this to work with my existing code, but I am trying to save my enum selections as strings in NHibernate. Basically, I have a UI check box and if the user selects multiple check boxes I want to store those selections. Now, I can get NHibernate to store ONE selection (e.g., from a drop down or radio button list, where the user is limited to one choice only).
This is the jist of what I have for an enum:
public enum IncomeType
{
[Display(Name = "Full-Time Employment")]
FullTime,
[Display(Name = "Part-Time Employment")]
PartTime,
[Display(Name = "Self-Employment")]
SelfEmployed,
[Display(Name = "Rental")]
Rental,
[Display(Name = "Social Security Payments")]
SocialSecurity,
[Display(Name = "Retirement / Pension Payments")]
Retirement,
[Display(Name = "Child Support Payments")]
ChildSupport,
[Display(Name = "Spousal Maintenance")]
Maintenance,
[Display(Name = "Other")]
Other
}
I use a method to "select" whether a checkbox list is shown (if my BulkItemThreshold equals the number of options, a checkbox list is displayed). Here is that method:
public static IEnumerable<SelectListItem> GetItemsFromEnumString<T>
(T selectedValue = default(T)) where T : struct
{
return from name in Enum.GetNames(typeof(T))
let enumValue = Convert.ToString((T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), name, true))
select new SelectListItem
{
Text = GetEnumDescription(name, typeof(T)),
Value = enumValue,
Selected = enumValue.Equals(selectedValue)
};
}
(Note: some items in there are helpers, but I don't believe they are relevant; also, the selected input is displayed using a template .cshtml file - again, not sure if that's relevant)
Now, I call this thusly:
public class IncomeTypeSelectorAttribute : SelectorAttribute
{
public override IEnumerable<SelectListItem> GetItems()
{
return Selector.GetItemsFromEnumString<IncomeType>();
}
}
And finally, we get to the virtual property (using a proxy) but this is where NHibernate throws a wrench (Note: this was working fine for me before NHibernate, and now I am trying to get many lines of code working with it WITHOUT having to re-do everything; if I re-do everything I will probably triple the code I already have to get it to work):
Property (record):
[IncomeTypeSelector(BulkSelectionThreshold = 9)]
public virtual List<string> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox { get; set; }
proxy (part):
public List<string> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox
{
get { return Record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox; }
set { Record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox = value; }
}
Again, this is how I was doing things and it was working great before NHibernate. But now I have to use NHibernate. No getting around it.
I am using a service class that it tying the two together in a Create method to save in the DB with NHibernate, and for the above it would ordinarily look like this:
part.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox = record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox;
This would work if it were just one selection.
Well, I've spent a good two (2) months trying to get this to work. It's tough because I have lots of code where the user can make only one selection (such as with a radiobutton list) and it works GREAT - even with NHibernate. Let me give you an example:
public virtual IncomeType? IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox { get; set; }
If I do the above, it will display a drop down list, and NHibernate will store the ONE allowable option selected by the user in the DB no problem. But more than one option with List<string> does not work.
Now, I have tried everything I could find here or elsewhere and nothing works. Yes, I know it should be IList<IncomeType> or some other variant. But if I use this then NHibernate requires that IncomeType be another table in the DB. This is too much code to write for such a simple thing I believe. We are not talking a many-to-many relation in the sense that this is not a User with Multiple addresses (wherein addresses would have street, city, state, zip, etc.).
I have tried different types of proxy get and set code, but nothing works. I have tried [Flags] and other things working with string only, but to no avail. Those last solutions would "work" but ONLY to save the first item selected out of multiple (i.e., in my scenario, if the user selected "FullTime" and "Rental" as Income Types, then only "FullTime" (string) would be saved or "1" ([Flags]/int), not both items selected.
I have a situation where I re-display the choices using a ReadOnly attribute like this:
[IncomeTypeSelector]
[ReadOnly(true)]
public List<string> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBoxPost
{
get { return IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox; }
}
This would display on the UI, but I tried doing something like this with NHibernate and it wouldn't work.
Could anyone please show me, using the above, how I can go about getting NHibernate to store more than one enum in this checkbox list scenario?
UPDATE:
More poking around here and on the web, and I came up with the following (which still does not work).
Property (record):
[IncomeTypeSelector(BulkSelectionThreshold = 9)]
public virtual IList<IncomeTypeRecord> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox
{
get { return incomeType; }
set { incomeType= value; }
}
private IList<IncomeTypeRecord> incomeType =
new List<IncomeTypeRecord>();
Proxy (part):
public IList<IncomeTypeRecord> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox
{
get { return Record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox; }
set { Record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox= value; }
}
And a change to the enum:
public enum IncomeType : int // removing int & value still gives validate error
{
[Display(Name = "Full-Time Employment")]
FullTime = 1,
[Display(Name = "Part-Time Employment")]
PartTime,
....
}
And I added this class to support IncomeTypeRecord
public class IncomeTypeRecord
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual IncomeType Value { get; set; }
}
HOWEVER, when I get to the UI screen and pick one or more options I get a validation error (value not valid). For example, say I pick FullTime alone, or pick FullTime and Retirement, then the UI will display the following error:
The value 'FullTime' is invalid.
The value 'FullTime,Retirement' is invalid.
(respectively)
Even if I remove the int declaration for the enum and get rid of the value I started with "1", I still get this validation error. I tried messing around with and adding different model binders (which now has me stumped as to whether my original problem still exists and now I have a different problem - but you still get bounty points :) ).
Pulling my hair out. If I could offer more bounty I would. I need a definitive solution. I appreciate any help.
UPDATE
This is what I have so far:
Record:
public virtual string IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox{ get; set; }
Part:
//If I do IEnumberable<string> my .Select throws a cast error
public IEnumerable<IncomeType> IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox
{
get
{
return Record
.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox
.Split(',')
.Select(r => (IncomeType)Enum.Parse(typeof(IncomeType), r));
}
set { Record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox= value
== null ? null : String.Join(",", value); }
}
Service Class:
public SimplePart CreateSimple(SimplePartRecord record)
{
SimplePart simple = Services.ContentManager.Create<SimplePart>("Simple");
...
//How I would save a FirstName property (example Part / PartRecord below)
//public virtual string FirstName { get; set; } - PartRecord
//public string FirstName - Part
//{
// get { return Record.FirstName ; }
// set { Record.FirstName= value; }
//}
simple.FirstName = record.FristName;
...
//I obviously cannot do the following with the above IncomeType
//Getting cannot convert string to IEnumerable error
//How would I write this:
simple.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox = record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox;
...
}
And this is how it's called in a controller (this persists to DB): (Updating Controller code)
public ActionResult Confirm(string backButton, string nextButton)
{
if (backButton != null)
return RedirectToAction("WrapUp");
else if ((nextButton != null) && ModelState.IsValid)
{
_myService.CreateSimple(myData.SimplePartRecord);
return RedirectToAction("Submitted");
}
else
return View(myData);
}
Updating with additional code (serialization and view model):
"myData" is defined in the controller (using Serialization) as:
private MyViewModel myData;
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var serialized = Request.Form["myData"];
if (serialized != null)
{
myData = (MyViewModel)new MvcSerializer().Deserialize
(serialized, SerializationMode.Signed);
TryUpdateModel(myData);
}
else
myData = (MyViewModel)TempData["myData"] ?? new MyViewModel();
TempData.Keep();
}
protected override void OnResultExecuted(ResultExecutedContext filterContext)
{
if (filterContext.Result is RedirectToRouteResult)
TempData["myData"] = myData;
}
I use Serialization because I set up a multi-step wizard (as seen in the controller action "backButton" "nextButton) on the front-end. I am not using a driver (which can only display Admin or on the front-end but then only on .cshtml files directly under the ~/Views folder (not in a structured folder list like I am using)). No driver = no update view model type code = no mechanism to "create" the data in the DB. If I do not use some "create" type method, the form will submit but all the data will be "NULL".
When you say that the data should be persisted automatically, I am sorry but I do not see how. All the stuff I read or code I review has SOME method of updating the DB with whatever is entered in a form. If I am missing something, my apologies.
"MyViewModel" is pretty straightforward:
[Serializabel]
public class MyViewModel
{
public SimplePartRecord SimplePartRecord { get; set; }
}
And, just in case, here is the relevant portion of the migration (return 1 is a completely separate and unrelated table):
public int UpdateFrom1()
{
SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("SimplePartRecord",
table => table
.ContentPartRecord()
...
.Column("IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox", DbType.String)
...
);
ContentDefinitionManager.AlterPartDefinition("SimplePart",
part => part
.Attachable(false));
return 2;
}
The error I am getting is
Cannot implicitly convert type 'string' to 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable'"
when I do the following in the "Create" method of my service class:
simple.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox = record.IndividualIncomeTypeCheckBox;
One additional thought: I tried using the n-n Relation sample to handle this scenario. Aside from it being a lot of extra code for what I thought should be straightforward and simple, because of the way I am using Serialization I had a lot of object reference errors and could not figure out how to properly code my controller to handle it.
There's a lot of info to wade through here so hopefully I haven't missed the point. It appears to me that the goals are:
The business class has a collection property of IList<IncomeType> without requiring an additional table
The values in that collection should be persisted as a delimited string of the enum names
The best approach is to use a custom user type (an implementation of NHibernate.UserTypes.IUserType) to map the property. Below is a generic IUserType that will map an enum of type T from an IList<T> property to a comma delimited string in the database and back again. There's no easy way to restrict T to an enum but the code will only work with enums.
Mapping a property using the custom type is simple with Fluent NHibernate:
public class Person
{
public Person()
{
IncomeTypes = new List<IncomeType>();
}
public virtual int PersonId { get; protected set; }
public virtual string FirstName { get; set; }
public virtual string LastName { get; set; }
public virtual IList<IncomeType> IncomeTypes { get; protected set; }
}
public class PersonMap : ClassMap<Person>
{
public PersonMap()
{
Table("Person");
Id(x => x.PersonId).GeneratedBy.Identity();
Map(x => x.FirstName);
Map(x => x.LastName);
Map(x => x.IncomeTypes).CustomType<EnumAsDelimitedStringType<IncomeType>>();
}
}
And here's the code for the user type:
public class EnumAsDelimitedStringType<T> : IUserType
{
public new bool Equals(object x, object y)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(x, y))
{
return true;
}
var xList = x as IList<T>;
var yList = y as IList<T>;
if (xList == null || yList == null)
{
return false;
}
// compare set contents
return xList.OrderBy(xValue => xValue).SequenceEqual(yList.OrderBy(yValue => yValue));
}
public int GetHashCode(object x)
{
return x.GetHashCode();
}
public object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, string[] names, object owner)
{
var outValue = NHibernateUtil.AnsiString.NullSafeGet(rs, names[0]) as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(outValue))
{
return new List<T>();
}
var getValueArray = outValue.Split(new[] {','}, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
return Array.ConvertAll(getValueArray, s => (T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), s)).ToList();
}
public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, object value, int index)
{
var inValue = value as IList<T>;
// set to string.Empty if you prefer to store that instead of null when the collection is null or empty
object setValue = null;
if (inValue != null && inValue.Any())
{
var setValueArray = Array.ConvertAll(inValue.ToArray(), v => Enum.GetName(typeof(T), v));
setValue = string.Join(",", setValueArray);
}
NHibernateUtil.AnsiString.NullSafeSet(cmd, setValue, index);
}
public object DeepCopy(object value)
{
return value;
}
public object Replace(object original, object target, object owner)
{
return original;
}
public object Assemble(object cached, object owner)
{
return cached;
}
public object Disassemble(object value)
{
return value;
}
public SqlType[] SqlTypes
{
get { return new[] {new SqlType(DbType.AnsiString)}; }
}
public Type ReturnedType
{
get { return typeof(IList<T>); }
}
public bool IsMutable
{
get { return false; }
}
}
I think you're on the right track pursuing a [Flags] enum. You may have done this, but just in case -- making an enum flags-worthy is more than adding the attribute. You also have to specify the value for the items in a binary-friendly manner. I've found the easiest way to do this is as follows:
[Flags]
public enum IncomeType : long // you'll need the room with several options
{
FullTime = 1,
PartTime = 1 << 1,
SelfEmployed = 1 << 2
// And so on
}
If you don't do this, then you'll get sequential integer values, which breaks the bitwise comparison that allows you to do multiple values in a single integer.
Your code to create the SelectList looks fine. Your options should construct form values that get posted back with the same name. If you want to use the default modelbinder, that means the associated property on your view model would need to be List<int>. If you're not using a view model (you probably should) you can pull it out of the forms collection.
Once you have this set up, then translating from your view model to your NHibernate entity is simple if a little annoying. You basically have to cycle through the values in the list and |= them onto your NHibernate entity's single enum property.
So let's assume you have a view model like this:
public class MyEditViewModel
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<int> IncomeSelections { get; set; }
// You'll probably have this to populate the initial view rendering
public SelectList AllIncomeOptions { get; set; }
}
You'll build your view using your helpers and all that, then build the checkboxes using the SelectList but making sure the input name is IncomeSelections, then when it's posted back you will push the view model data into your NHibernate entity something like this:
var myNHEntity = new NHEntity();
// If you're editing an existing entity, then be sure to reset the enum
// value to 0 before going into the following foreach loop...
foreach (var incomeSelection in viewModel.IncomeSelections)
{
myNHEntity.IncomeSelection |= incomeSelection;
}
There's probably a more clever way to do this, and you might have to cast the int to your enum type, but you'll figure that out (I'd do it for you, but it is Friday and I already have a beer open).
NHibernate should persist it without you having to do anything funky on the NH side.
In summary...
It seems like this is more a problem of how you handle the posted data than the NHibernate side. If you implement something like this, then be sure to use Fiddler or FireBug to inspect the posted values to make sure 1) they're integers and 2) the names are the same so they'll be added to the list.
Good luck!
The problem is simply that it won't be able to map a List without building a full relationship with an intermediate association table. It is way simpler to have the record store the values as a comma-separated string (so your record property is a string, not a list of string) and your part can map back and forth between string and List.
You can find an example of something very close here:
https://bitbucket.org/bleroy/nwazet.commerce/src/d722cbebea525203b22c445905c9f28d2af7db46/Models/ProductAttributesPartRecord.cs?at=default
https://bitbucket.org/bleroy/nwazet.commerce/src/d722cbebea525203b22c445905c9f28d2af7db46/Models/ProductAttributesPart.cs?at=default
It's not using enum values, instead it's a list of ids, but that should give you a good idea about how to make this work fairly simply: parsing enums you already know how to do.
Let me know if you need more details, but I think that's what you needed to get unblocked.
There is a field in our database which really ought to be a boolean, but for some reason the original developers made it a CHAR which will either be set to "1" or "0".
[Column("CHARGEABLE")]
[StringLength(1)]
private string Chargeable { get; set; }
I want my model to represent this field as a boolean so I figured I could add a property to my model to wrap it:
[NotMapped]
public bool ChargeableTrue
{
get
{
return Chargeable == "1" ? true : false;
}
set
{
Chargeable = value ? "1" : "0";
}
}
Now on my View I just display the EditorFor ( ChargeableTrue ), but when I click save it doesn't actually update it.
I think what is happening is that when the model is being updated, it's still attempting to get the value of 'Chargeable' from the View, even though I haven't displayed it there. And since there is no input field, it just gets null and ends up saving that to the database.
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(call).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
What is one expected to do in this situation?
Based on KMan's answer, here's the extended version just in case you're not familiar with creating view models.
The idea is that your domain object is not really what you want to be updating exactly from your views. Instead, you create a go-between that can also include view-specific items (like a list of objects to populate a drop-down).
public class MyViewModel {
public bool Chargeable { get; set; }
}
Now you can do this:
#* In view *#
Html.EditorFor(m => m.Chargeable)
// In controller
public ActionResult Save(MyViewModel model) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
var domainObject = new MyObject() {
Chargeable = model.Chargeable ? "1" : "0"
};
// the rest of your code using domainObject
}
}
I'd consider just creating an overload of your domain object's constructor that accepts your view model to keep the mapping in one place. I typically use a tool like AutoMapper to map objects or manual extension methods.
A view model typically contains a sub-set of your domain object's properties, but can contain all of them or more properties like lists, visbility states, etc. They come in incredibly useful and I've never done a MVC project where I haven't used them.
Use a view model and make your mapping on the controller.
Assume we have POCO class for Entity Framework 4:
public class Order
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public ISet<OrderItem> OrderItems { get; set; }
}
And this method to retrieve the order from database:
public Order GetOrder(long orderId)
{
using (var context = new MyModelEntities())
{
return context.Orders.Include("OrderItems").Where(order => order.Id == orderId).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
So suppose we do this:
Order myOrder = GetOrder(1);
Is myOrder.OrderItems a HashSet or SortedSet? Is there a way to control this?
Good question.
As far as i know (and there is no MSDN/blog/article i am aware of that dispells/proves this), a navigational property can be of any type as long as it implements ICollection<T>.
Both HashSet<T> and SortedSet<T> implement ICollection<T>, so either would be viable candidates.
Did you step through the code? You should be able to see which concrete class get's resolved.
Most people use ICollection<T> / IList<T>. Why are you wanting to declare the property as ISet<T>?
Why don't you just declare which type you want, instead of the interface.
Or you could try using dependency injection (For<ISet>().Use<HashSet>()).