edit #2: Question solved halfways. Look below
As a follow-up question, does anyone know of a non-intrusive way to solve what i'm trying to do below (namely, linking objects to each other without triggering infinite loops)?
I try to create a asp.net-mvc web application, and get a StackOverFlowException. A controller triggers the following command:
public ActionResult ShowCountry(int id)
{
Country country = _gameService.GetCountry(id);
return View(country);
}
The GameService handles it like this (WithCountryId is an extension):
public Country GetCountry(int id)
{
return _gameRepository.GetCountries().WithCountryId(id).SingleOrDefault();
}
The GameRepository handles it like this:
public IQueryable<Country> GetCountries()
{
var countries = from c in _db.Countries
select new Country
{
Id = c.Id,
Name = c.Name,
ShortDescription = c.ShortDescription,
FlagImage = c.FlagImage,
Game = GetGames().Where(g => g.Id == c.GameId).SingleOrDefault(),
SubRegion = GetSubRegions().Where(sr => sr.Id == c.SubRegionId).SingleOrDefault(),
};
return countries;
}
The GetGames() method causes the StackOverflowException:
public IQueryable<Game> GetGames()
{
var games = from g in _db.Games
select new Game
{
Id = g.Id,
Name = g.Name
};
return games;
}
My Business objects are different from the linq2sql classes, that's why I fill them with a select new.
An unhandled exception of type 'System.StackOverflowException' occurred in mscorlib.dll
edit #1: I have found the culprit, it's the following method, it triggers the GetCountries() method which in return triggers the GetSubRegions() again, ad nauseam:
public IQueryable<SubRegion> GetSubRegions()
{
return from sr in _db.SubRegions
select new SubRegion
{
Id = sr.Id,
Name = sr.Name,
ShortDescription = sr.ShortDescription,
Game = GetGames().Where(g => g.Id == sr.GameId).SingleOrDefault(),
Region = GetRegions().Where(r => r.Id == sr.RegionId).SingleOrDefault(),
Countries = new LazyList<Country>(GetCountries().Where(c => c.SubRegion.Id == sr.Id))
};
}
Might have to think of something else here :) That's what happens when you think in an OO mindset because of too much coffee
Hai! I think your models are recursively calling a method unintentionally, which results in the stack overflow. Like, for instance, your Subregion object is trying to get Country objects, which in turn have to get Subregions.
Anyhow, it always helps to check the stack in a StackOverflow exception. If you see a property being accessed over and over, its most likely because you're doing something like this:
public object MyProperty { set { MyProperty = value; }}
Its easier to spot situations like yours, where method A calls method B which calls method A, because you can see the same methods showing up two or more times in the call stack.
The problem might be this: countries have subregions and subregions have countries. I don't know how you implement the lazy list, but that might keep calling GetCountries and then GetSubRegions and so on. To find that out, I would launch the debugger en set breakpoints on the GetCountries and GetSubRegions method headers.
I tried similar patterns with LinqToSql, but it's hard to make bidirectional navigation work without affecting the performance to much. That's one of the reasons I'm using NHibernate right now.
To answer your edited question, namely: "linking objects to each other without triggering infinite loops":
Assuming you've got some sort of relation where both sides need to know about the other... get hold of all the relevant entities in both sides, then link them together, rather than trying to make the fetch of one side automatically fetch the other. Or just make one side fetch the other, and then fix up the remaining one. So in your case, the options would be:
Option 1:
Fetch all countries (leaving Subregions blank)
Fetch all Subregions (leaving Countries blank)
For each Subregion, look through the list of Countries and add the Subregion to the Country and the Country to the Subregion
Option 2:
Fetch all countries (leaving Subregions blank)
Fetch all Subregions, setting Subregion.Countries via the countries list fetched above
For each subregion, go through all its countries and add it to that country
(Or reverse country and subregion)
They're basically equialent answers, it just changes when you do some of the linking.
Related
I have a single Umbraco 7 instance that has 2 root nodes. One node points to stage.sctflash.com and the other node points to stage.bullydog.com. When I navigate to http://stage.bullydog.com/Products/accessories/podmount, the Request.Url.Host is stage.bullydog.com. Now, if I open up another tab and go to http://stage.sctflash.com/Products/accessories/podmount, the Request.Url.Host might be stage.sctflash.com, but sometimes, it just changes to stage.sctflash.com.
The one strange thing I noticed is that if I view the accessories node in Umbraco, I noticed the parent of it is stage.bullydog.com no matter if I am on stage.sctflash.com or stage.bullydog.com
I am using Request.Url.Host to determine as a query parameter to a database. I am basically getting the brand like this:
if(Request.Url.Host == "stage.sctflash.com")
return "sct";
else
return bullydog";
So essentially if Request.Url.Host is intermittently wrong, I get the wrong query parameter.
To see this in action, if you go to http://stage.sctflash.com/Products/accessories/podmount, you will see an SCT logo, then go to http://stage.bullydog.com/Products/accessories/podmount and you will see a Bully Dog logo. These logos are driven by Request.Url.Host. If you refresh http://stage.sctflash.com/Products/accessories/podmount, you most likely will see the Bully Dog logo now because Request.Url.Host is now stage.bullydog.com instead of stage.sctflash.com
This is the action method that is called when I go to this page: http://stage.sctflash.com/Products/accessories/podmount
public ActionResult GetAccessoriesByType(RenderModel model, string id)
{
string brand = Common.GetProductBrand(Request.Url.Host);
var productSearchResultsModel = new ProductSearchResultsModel
{
Accessories = _accessoryRepository.GetAccessoriesByType(id, brand)
};
return View("~/Views/accessories.cshtml", productSearchResultsModel);
}
The fist part of my question is
suppose I have a poco class
public class shop{
public virtual string fruitName {get;set;}
public virtual double numberOfFruitsLeftToConsume {get;set;}
public virtual double numberOfFruitsLeftForStorage {get;set;}
public virtual List<Locations> shopLocations {get;set;}
}
I add new fruits in the db by creating a new object of shop and then add it via my context then save it.
Now to retrieve the data
will it be more efficient for me to first filter by fruit name get a List then in that collection should I run my query to sort by the number of fruits to consume , or should I just put it all into one query. Supposing that the site has more than 1000 hits/sec and a massive DB, which method will be efficient.
List<shop> sh = context.shopDB.Where(p => p.fruitName == "mango" &&
p.fruitName == "apple").ToList();
List<shop> sh = sh.Where(f => f.numberOfFruitsLeftToConsume >= 100 &&
f.numberOfFruitsLeftForStorage <= 100).ToList();
The example has no meaning , I just wanted to show the type of query I am using.
The second part of my question is, when I initialize the class shop I do not initialize the List within it. Later on when I try to add it it does not get saved, the shop is connected to the user.
ApplicationUser user = await usemanager.FindByEmailAsync("email");
if(user.shops.shopLocations == null){
user.shops.shopLocation = new List<Location>();
uset.shops.shopLocation.Add(someLocation);
await context.shopDB.SaveChangesAsync();
}
////already tried
//List<Location> loc = new List<Location>();
//loc.Add(someLocation);
//user.shops.shopLocation = loc;
//await context.shopDB.SaveChangesAsync();
I tried both the methods in a try catch block and no exception is thrown.
If you need any more details or if something is not clear to you please ask.
Thank you.
If I add Location and LocationId properties to shop, and then save, I can only view the LocationId , but the Location property still remains null.
To clear any question , If I save a location Individually it saves. So I don't think I'm providing wrong data.
Now to retrieve the data will it be more efficient for me to first filter by fruit name get a List then in that collection should I run my query to sort by the number of fruits to consume , or should I just put it all into one query. Supposing that the site has more than 1000 hits/sec and a massive DB, which method will be efficient.
You are the only one who can answer that question by measuring the query performance. Only as a general rule I can say that putting all into one query and let the database do the most of the job (eventually tuning it by creating appropriate indexes) is usually preferable.
What about the second part of the question (which basically is a different question), this block
if (user.shops.shopLocations == null)
{
user.shops.shopLocation = new List<Location>();
user.shops.shopLocation.Add(someLocation);
await context.shopDB.SaveChangesAsync();
}
looks suspicious. Your shopLocations member is declared as virtual, which means it's intended to use lazy loading, hence most probably will never be null. And even if it is null, you need to keep only the new part inside the if and do the rest outside, like this
if (user.shops.shopLocations == null)
user.shops.shopLocation = new List<Location>();
user.shops.shopLocation.Add(someLocation);
await context.shopDB.SaveChangesAsync();
1st Question
Because you are calling .ToList() at the end of your queries it will have to fetch all the rows from the db each time, so it will be much faster to do all your filtering in one LINQ .Where() call like this:
List<shop> sh = context.shopDB.Where(p => p.fruitName == "mango" && p.fruitName == "apple" && f.numberOfFruitsLeftToConsume >= 100 && f.numberOfFruitsLeftForStorage <= 100).ToList();
but if you don't call .ToList() at the end of first Linq query, spliting your query into two calls will be tottally fine and will yield the same performance as the previous approach like this:
var sh = context.shopDB.Where(p => p.fruitName == "mango" &&
p.fruitName == "apple");
List<shop> shList = sh.Where(f => f.numberOfFruitsLeftToConsume >= 100 &&
f.numberOfFruitsLeftForStorage <= 100).ToList();
2nd Question
when you initialize the Location for the shop, you must set the shopId property and then it should work, if not the problem might be with your database relationships.
I'm attempting to write a search function for a database table that needs to access information from related tables using Entity Framework. However, I'm running into problems getting the data back out of my initial query after doing a join on the parent table and the related tables. My code currently looks like this. I initialize my queryable object
IQueryable<PurchaseOrder> po = _context.PurchaseOrders;
Where PurchaseOrder is an Entity type. Then there is a series of blocks like this.
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchViewModel.Comment)){
var helper = _context.PurchaseOrderComments.Where(x => x.CommentText.Contains(searchViewModel.Comment));
var mid = po.Join(helper, r => r.PurchaseOrderID, u => u.PurchaseOrderID, (r, u) =>
new
{
PurchaseOrderID = r.PurchaseOrderID,
PurchaseOrderNumber = r.PurchaseOrderNumber,
VendorID = r.VendorID,
ContractNumber = r.ContractNumber,
BuyerUserID = r.BuyerUserID
});
po = mid.Select(x => new PurchaseOrder
{
PurchaseOrderID = x.PurchaseOrderID,
PurchaseOrderNumber = x.PurchaseOrderNumber,
VendorID = x.VendorID,
ContractNumber = x.ContractNumber,
BuyerUserID = x.BuyerUserID
});
}
After each block, po is passed to the next search parameter. However, as you might guess, my program complains that I can't build a complex type in mid's Select statement. I've also tried building PurchaseOrder objects from the contents of mid, inserting them into a new List of PurchaseOrders, and converting that list into a queryable to assign to po to pass on to the next block. However, that changes po's data type from System.Data.Object.ObjectSet to System.Collections.Generic.List, which then throws an InvalidOperationException the next time I try and iterate through it using a foreach.
So my question is, are there any obvious mistakes in my approach or any suggestions for other ways to approach the problem? Thanks very much for any help.
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. If I understand what you're trying to do, you should be able to do something like this:
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchViewModel.Comment)){
po = po.Where(
o => o.PurchaseOrderComments.Any(
c => c.CommentText.Contains(searchViewModel.Comment)));
}
StriplingWarrior's solution is the best way. In case that your PurchaseOrder class really doesn't have a navigation collection of PurchaseOrderComments (which would force you to use a join) the following should work and is simpler as your double projection:
po=po.Join(helper, r => r.PurchaseOrderID, u => u.PurchaseOrderID, (r, u) => r);
Hi
How can i filter results exists in BindingSource filled with entities ( using EF 4)?
I tried this:
mybindingsource.Filter = "cityID = 1"
But it seems that binding source with entity framework doesn't support filtering .. am i right ?,is there another way to filter(search) data in binding source .
PS:
- I'm working on windows application not ASP.NET.
- I'm using list box to show the results.
Thanx
Maybe a better one than Leonid:
private BindingSource _bs;
private List<Entity> _list;
_list = context.Entities;
_bs.DataSource = _list;
Now when filtering is required:
_bs.DataSource = _list.Where<Entity>(e => e.cityID == 1).ToList<Entity>;
This way you keep the original list (which is retrieved once from the context) and then use this original list to query against in memory (without going back and forth to the database). This way you can perform all kinds of queries against your original list.
I think, you have made mistake in syntax. You should write Filter like this:
mybindingsource.Filter = "cityID = '1'"
Another way is to use LINQ expressions.
(About LINQ)
Why do you have to call Entety again?
Simple solution:
public List<object> bindingSource;
public IEnumerable FiltredSource
{
get{ return bindingSource.Where(c => c.cityID==1);
}
.where (Function (c) c.cityID = 1)
I'm trying to use the repository pattern to save an entity using the Entity Framework. I'm unclear on how to save the Navigation Properties (like Account below). Can anyone shed some light on this. Especially how one would set the AccountId from an MVC controller all the way through to the repository where it's saved.
Thanks!
--- Sample Code ---
public void SavePerson(Person person)
{
if (person != null)
{
using (xxxxxxEntities bbEntities = new xxxxxxEntities())
{
//see if it's in the db
Person cPerson;
ObjectQuery<Person> persons = bbEntities.Person;
cPerson = (from p in persons
where p.PersonId == person.PersonId
select p).FirstOrDefault() ?? new Person();
//synch it
cPerson.Account.AccountId = person.Account.AccountId; //<=== ????
cPerson.Active = person.Active;
cPerson.BirthDay = person.BirthDay;
cPerson.BirthMonth = person.BirthMonth;
cPerson.BirthYear = person.BirthYear;
cPerson.CellPhone = person.CellPhone;
cPerson.CreatedBy = person.CreatedBy;
cPerson.CScore = person.CScore;
Etc....
I think you may be going about this the hard way. There are lots of posts on the repository pattern, the way that works best with MVC is to get the item, then update it with the form, then save it. What you're doing is passing the item through to your repository, getting it again and then updating it with the object.
But that's not the problem you asked about;
cPerson.Account = (from a in Account
where a.AccountId.Equals(person.Account.AccountId)
select a).FirstOrDefault();
You need to set the Account object to an instance of the account you're trying to reference like this. You could, and probably should, extract this code into a seperate repository for the account, just make sure they share the same Entity context.