I am working on a large project at work that requires me to create OData's for a large variety of Remote Function Calls. I was able to work out how to model and create OData's for simple RFCs; however, I am struggling with more complex RFCs that use multiple tables as well as simple exporting and importing parameters.
I want to output these tables as well as the importing and exporting parameters via GetEntity and GetEntitySet with just one call. I have done extensive searching online to find solutions but the best solution seems to be redefining the RFC's or calling the OData multiple times which is not ideal.
Is there any way to combine multiple tables with several entries in the output? When I say output, I am referring to the resulting XML from GetEntity/GetEntitySet.
For example, take the below fake RFC definition that takes a PERNR, and outputs a list of direct reports and a structure of employee details.
IMPORTING
PERNR
EXPORTING
S_EMPLOYEE_DETAILS
TABLES
T_DIRECT_REPORTS
Is there a way to combine the table, structure, and importing parameters into one output?
The first thing to understand is that the OData protocol is not intended to solely work like classical function calls. It is based however on entity/relationship kind of model.
So in your case id sugest to create an entity type named 'Employee' with the appropiate properties of your structure S_EMPLOYEE_DETAILS. With this you can e.g. implement the method GET_EMPLOYEE_ENTITY to retrieve a single instance of an employee via PERNR.
The next thing to do would be to get the direct reports of this employee. Since this is a relation 1:N from Employee to Employee in your case you can create a navigation property called 'DirectReports' with appropiate cardinality. Then in your GET_EMPLOYEE_ENTITYSET you can return the instances of table T_DIRECT_REPORTS (note that navigation property is not empty and you have to read the keys of the parent!).
Once you got this working you can move on to the 'best-practise' and implement the method GET_EXPANDED_ENTITY with filling the expand clauses, which is in my opinion the preferred way as you dont need to implement two seperate methods and is consiered faster as well (if many expands happen).
Both methods of implementation can be called via
GET EmployeeSet('12345678')?$expand=DirectReports
Related
Ive a method that takes an object. The object is dynamic and it can be constructed in 5 differents ways depending on how many children it has and which type of object it is. I want it to be clear how to build this object and also show which children types thay can be used together.
Example A:new Michael(id,name, Type.A, new Sara(id, name, ChildrenType.B));
Example B: new Sandra(id,name,Type. C, new Pheno(id, name,ChildrenType.D), new Leo(id, name,ChildrenType.E));
As i said before, the object is dymanic and can be build in different ways depending on which type the object has and how many children it has.
I thought that the best way to show all of this would be to have 5 different example bodys in swagger. But idk if it is possible? Is it and is this the best solution for this?
And im using java, if it makes any diff which languages i use.
Thanks!
You can define only one example per mime type.
However your can use externalDocs to redirect to another page with all your examples.
If you have a common interface for the payload, you can use a discriminator to choose the different concrete types that can be instantiated.
As a complete novice programmer I am trying to populate my neo4j DB with data from heterogeneous sources. For this I am trying to use the Neo4jClient C# API. The heterogeneity of my data comes from a custom, continuously evolving DSL/DSML/metamodel that defines the possible types of elements, i.e. models, thus creating classes for each type would not be ideal.
As I understand, my options are the following:
Have a predefined class for each type of element: This way I can easily serialize my objects that is if all properties are primitive types or arrays/lists.
Have a base class (with a Dictionary to hold properties) that I use as an interface between the models that I'm trying to serialize and neo4j. I've seen an example for this at Can Neo4j store a dictionary in a node?, but I don't understand how to use the converter (defined in the answer) to add a node. Also, I don't see how an int-based dictionary would allow me to store Key-Value pairs where the keys (that are strings) would translate to Property names in neo4j.
Generate a custom query dynamically, as seen at https://github.com/Readify/Neo4jClient/wiki/cypher#manual-queries-highly-discouraged. This is not recommended and possibly is not performant.
Ultimately, what I would like to achieve is to avoid the need to define a separate class for every type of element that I have, but still be able to add properties that are defined by types in my metamodel.
I would also be interested to somehow influencing the serializer to ignore non-compatible properties (similarly to XmlIgnore), so that I would not need to create a separate class for each class that has more than just primitive types.
Thanks,
J
There are 2 problems you're trying to solve - the first is how to program the C# part of this, the second is how to store the solution to the first problem.
At some point you'll need to access this data in your C# code - unless you're going fully dynamic you'll need to have some sort of class structure.
Taking your 3 options:
Please have a look at this question: neo4jclient heterogenous data return which I think covers this scenario.
In that answer, the converter does the work for you, you would create, delete etc as before, the converter just handles the IDictionary instance in that case. The IDictionary<int, string> in the answer is an example, you can use whatever you want, you could use IDictionary<string, string> if you wanted, in fact - in that example, all you'd need to do would be changing the IntString property to be an IDictionary<string,string> and it should just work.
Even if you went down the route of using custom queries (which you really shouldn't need to) you will still need to bring back objects as classes. Nothing changes, it just makes your life a lot harder.
In terms of XmlIgnore - have you tried JsonIgnore?
Alternatively - look at the custom converter and get the non-compatible properties into your DB.
I'm trying to implement a more customisable version of using ViewModel attributes and a Model Enricher to populate viewmodels lists like in this this question and associated blog post.
I would like to be able to specify the method on my select list interface from the Attribute.
Each Select List service I have returns an IEnumerable that I use to make a select list and presently exposes an All interface as the sample does. I can easily use the All method because all interfaces provide that. However I often wish to able to use other methods like the AllTradingCompanies() AllManafacturingCompanies() methods of my select list class to get filtered lists.
It is presently looking like I may have to implement a Custom attribute to map to specific e.g. [AllCompanyList] attributes but that moves me away from the nice generic method that the existing version gives me. I guess I could use it to complement it but then its starting to lose some of the charm. I also am implementing IModelEnrichers which can do custom per view model logic.
Any thoughts on a nice way to implement this?
I implemented the solution using pairs of Attributes to define a requirement for data on a ViewModel and a provider of data a repository or a service within my domain. See my follow up question asking whether this is a good idea.
This is possibly a bit of a stupid question, but I am getting confused due to the ASP.NET MVC book I am currently reading...
Working with Linq-To-SQL it seems to say that it is not good practice to pass the Linq-to-SQL objects straight to the controller, but that each object should be modelled separately first and this should be passed between the controller and the repository.
Say, I have a database of products. Linq-to-SQl creates a product class for me with Name, Price and Whatnotelse properties. I could pass that straight from repository to controller and then view, but instead it seems to recommend that I use and third class, say Product_Entity, with also Name, Price etc. properties and pass that to the controller.
I fail to see the benefit of this approach, except possibly for adding attributes to the properties... But apart from that it seems to have more drawbacks than benefits. Say each product has manufacturer information as well, I don't see how I can model that easily in my third class.
Is this approach really best practice? Or did I misunderstand all that? If so, why is it bad to work straight off the linq-to-sql generated objects? And how do you deal with relationships between objects in y
The huge benefit to this other class you create is that, to use your example, it doesn't necessarily map to either a product or a manufacturer. Think about it like this:
Your Linq to SQL classes are meant for talking in the "data" domain.
Your "data" classes (the ones you're having trouble with) are meant for talking in the "application" domain.
Let's take an example. Suppose in your MVC application you wanted to show a grid of information about products. You want to see their Name, Price (from the Product table) and their Country of Manufacture and Manufacturer name (from the Manufacturer table). What would you name this class? Product_Manufacturer? What if later on you wanted to add properties from yet a third table such as product discounts? Instead of thinking about these objects in purely the data domain, think about them with regard to your application.
So instead of Product_Manufacturer, what about calling it ProductSummaryItem? Each property of the ProductSummaryItem class would map 1:1 with a field shown in your grid on the UI. Your controller would perform the mapping between the information in the data domain (Product, Manufacturer) with the custom class you'd created in the application domain (ProductSummaryItem).
By doing this, you get some awesome benefits:
1) Writing your views becomes really, really simple. All you have to do to display your data is loop through the ProductSummaryItems and wrap them in and tags, and you're done. It also allows for simple aggregation. Say for example you wanted to add a field called ProductsSoldLastYear to your ProductSummaryItem class. You could do that very simply in your views because all it is to them is another property.
2) Since the view is trivial and there's mapping logic in the controller, it becomes much easier to test the controller's output because it's customized to what the view is going to see.
3) Since the ProductSummaryItem class only has the data it needs, your queries can potentially become much faster because they only need to query for the fields that would populate your ProductSummaryItem object, and nothing else. This overhead can become overbearing the more data-domain objects make up your ProductSummaryItem object.
This pattern is called Model View ViewModel (MVVM) and is hugely popular with MVC as well as in frameworks like WPF.
The argument against MVVM is that you have to somewhat reimplement simple classes for CRUD operations. Fair enough, I guess, but you can use a tool like automapper to help out with things like that. I think you'll find fairly quickly, though, that using the MVVM pattern even for CRUD pays dividends, because before you know it, even with simple classes, you'll start wishing you had extra fields which can easily drive your views.
This is mostly of a design pattern question. I have one type of model that I'm going to get the data to create them from multiple sources. So for example one record my be created from an API where another is created via screen scraping with Nokogiri.
My issue lies in how best to abstract out these different data sources. Right now I'm building lib classes that return the same hash which I then use to set the attributes of the model. But I'm wondering if this isn't more of a case to use STI. Or if there is some other way of doing this I'm just not thinking about.
I think your design decision would depend largely on what attributes need to be stored. From your description, it sounds like you have a model with multiple data sources, but which would be storing the same attributes regardless of the source. In that case STI seems like overkill. When you retrieve a row from the table, does it matter whether the source is the API or the screen scraper? If not, then you could just define separate methods for each data source and use the appropriate method in the controller.
#instance = MyModel.new(:datasource=>"API")`
I'd say don't worry about inheritance (or mixing in code from modules) unless you really need to. There are some gotchas -- STI is not fully supported by some gems/plugins, for example.