i wonder if someone else has come accross this issue. I am trying to use FindPagesWithCriteria and i am creating my property criteria as like this:
PropertyCriteria dateCriteria = new PropertyCriteria();
dateCriteria.Condition = CompareCondition.GreaterThan;
dateCriteria.Name = "PageStopPublish";
dateCriteria.Type = PropertyDataType.Date;
dateCriteria.Value = DateTime.Now.ToString();
dateCriteria.Required = true;
so i am trying to find all the pages that are not expired. However, some pages may not have StopPublish property set in which case Datetime.MaxValue should be used. But in this particular case (no StopPublish value set) FindPagesWithCriteria will not return any results. Is there a reason for this or is it a bug? As a workaround, i am returning using PageTypeName criteria and then applying some additional filterin for returned PageDataCollection
FindPagesWithCriteria will only give you published pages (and pages that the current user have access to) so having StopPublish as a criteria is not necessary.
FindAllPagesWithCriteria will return all pages, including unpublished pages and pages the current user does not have access to.
EPiServer properties with an empty value are never stored in the database. If you access it from code, it will always be null.
To search for a null property using PropertyCriteria, set the IsNull property to true
Related
I am fetching an array of objects from an RX/JS call from an http backend. It returns an object which I am then trying to work with. I am making changes to this object using a for loop (in this example I am trying the .forEach because I have tried a number of different things and none of them seem to work.
When I run the code, I get a very weird problem. If I return the values of the properties, I get the new values (i.e. correctionQueued returns as true, etc.) but in the very next line, when I return the object, those same values are the same as the original (correctionQueued === false, etc.) HOWEVER, correctionStatus (which does not exist on the original object from http) sets just fine.
I don't understand how
array[index].correctionQueued can return true, but
array[index] returns an object with correctionQueued as false.
After the loop, the original array (checklistCopy) is identical to the object before the forEach loop, except the new property (correctionStatus) is now set, but all properties that I changed that were part of the original object remain as they were.
I have tried using a for of, for in, and .forEach. I have used the index to alter the original array, always the same result. Preexisting properties do not change, new properties are added. I have even tried working on a copy of the object in case there is something special about the object returned from rxjs, but to no avail.
checklistCopy.forEach((checklistItem, index, array) => {
if (checklistItem.crCode.isirName === correctionSetItem) {
array[index].correctionQueued = true;
array[index].correctionValue = mostRecentCorrection.correctionValue;
array[index].correctionStatus = mostRecentCorrection.status;
console.log(array[index].correctionQueued, array[index].correctionValue, array[index].correctionStatus);
console.log(array[index]);
}
}
);
I don't get an error, but I get..
Original object is:
correctionQueued: false;
correctionValue: JAAMES;
--
console.log(array[index].correctionQueued, array[index].correctionValue, array[index].correctionStatus);
true JAMES SENT
but when I print the whole object:
console.log(array[index]);
correctionQueued: false;
correctionValue: JAAMES;
correctionStatus: "SENT'; <-- This is set correctly but does not exist on original object.
console.log(array[index]) (at least in Chrome) just adds the object reference to the console. The values do not resolve until you expand it, so your console log statement is not actually capturing the values at that moment in time.
Change your console statement to: console.log(JSON.stringify(array[index])) and you should discover that the values are correct at the time the log statement runs.
The behavior you are seeing suggests that something is coming along later and changing the object properties back to the original value. Unless you show a more complete example, we can't help you find the culprit. But hopefully this answers the question about why your logs show what they show.
Your output doesn't make sense to me either but cleaning up your code may help you. Try this:
checklistCopy.forEach(checklistItem => {
checklistItem.correctionQueued = checklistItem.crCode.isirName === correctionSetItem;
if (checklistItem.correctionQueued) {
checklistItem.correctionValue = mostRecentCorrection.correctionValue;
checklistItem.correctionStatus = mostRecentCorrection.status;
console.log('checklistItem', checklistItem)
}
}
);
According to this article there is a serious bug in how the paging cookie is managed in Microsoft CRM. In short, the bug appears when trying to retrieve more than 5000 records in a one-to-many relationship. The author states that that since the parent entity does not contain a unique guid, the paging cookie will also not be unqiue, which might lead to that there are plenty of records that will go missing when retriving the next page of records.
Has anyone experienced this bug? How did you get around it?
One way is of course to turn the query around to use the child entity as the primary entity. In this way will every record will be unique. But this is not an optimal solution either since I have to manually change it back in code.
Another way that I have noticed is that when i´m specifying the order on the child entity like this: linkedEntity.Orders.Add(OrderType.Ascending), then the paging cookie will always be empty. This removes the problem that records go missing, but as I understand, this leads to a lot of overhead in SQL.
The best way would of course be if there is any way to make the paging cookie contain both the parent and child record. But I have not found any way yet to do that. Any idea?
I have experienced this.
I worked around it by simply not using the paging cookie, you can still page correctly without it.
For example:
int fetchCount = 3;
int pageNumber = 1;
int recordCount = 0;
QueryExpression pagequery = new QueryExpression("account");
while (true)
{
EntityCollection results = _serviceProxy.RetrieveMultiple(pagequery);
if (results.Entities != null)
{
foreach (Account acct in results.Entities)
{
Console.WriteLine(acct.Id);
}
}
if (results.MoreRecords)
{
pagequery.PageInfo.PageNumber++;
//pagequery.PageInfo.PagingCookie = results.PagingCookie; <-- Don't add the paging cookie here
}
else
{
break;
}
}
I have the following objects: L1User, L2User, L3User (all inherits from User) and Document.
Every user can create the document but depending on the user type, the document will have a different status. So in case it's L1User, the document will be created with L1 status and so on:
Solution 1
Please note that after document is created, it will be saved in the database, so it should be natural to have a method create_document(User user) in Document object. In the method body I could check which type is the user and set manually appropriate status. Such approach seems rather not OOP to me.
Solution 2
Ok, so the next approach would be to have all users implement a common method (say create_document(Document doc)) which will set a status associated with the user and save the document in the database. My doubt here is that the document should be saved in it's own class, not the user.
Solution 3
So the final approach would similar to the above, except that the user will return modified document object to it's create_document(User user) method and save will be performed there. The definition of the method would be like this:
create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document(this);
this->save();
}
It also doesn't seems right to me...
Can anyone suggest a better approach?
I think that both Solutions 2 and 3 are ok from the OO point of view, since you are properly delegating the status assignment to the user object (contrary to solution 1, whare you are basically doing a switch based on the user type). Whether to choose 2 or 3 is more a matter of personal tastes.
However, I have a doubt: why do you pass a document to a create_document() method? I would go for a message name that best describes what it does. For example, in solution 3 (the one I like the most) I would go for:
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document();
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>create_document()
{
return new Document('L1');
}
or
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = new Document()
this = user.set_document_type(this);
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>set_document_type(document)
{
document.setType('L1');
}
Edit: I kept thinking about this and there is actually a fourth solution. However the following approach works only if the status of a document doesn't change through its lifetime and you can map the DB field with a getter instead of a property. Since the document already knows the user and the status depends on the user, you can just delegate:
Document>>getStatus()
{
return this.user.getDocumentStatus();
}
HTH
There is persistable class Project, each instance of which has list of objects of Version type (owned one-to-many relation between Project and Version classes).
I'm getting several Version objects from datastore with query, change them and try to save:
PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager();
Transaction tx = pm.currentTransaction();
try {
tx.begin();
Query q = pm.newQuery(Version.class, "... filters here ...");
q.declareParameters(" ... parameters here ...");
List<Version> versions = (List<Version>)q.execute(... parameters here ...);
if (versions.size() > 0) {
for (Version version : versions) {
version.setOrder(... value here ...);
}
pm.makePersistentAll(versions);
}
tx.commit();
return newVersion.toVersionInfo();
} finally {
pm.close();
}
Everything is executed without errors, query actually returns several objects, properties are set correctly in runtime versions list, but objects properties are not updated in datastore.
Generally, as far as I understand, versions should be saved even without calling
pm.makePersistentAll(versions);
, since object properties are set before pm.close(), but nothing is saved, if this row is omitted, as well.
At the same time, if I retrieve instance of type Project (which owns many instances of type Version) with pm.getObjectById() method, and walk through all related Version objects in the loop, all changes are saved correctly (without calling pm.makePersistent() method).
The question is, what's wrong with such way of updating objects? Why Version object properties are not updated in datastore?
I could not find anything helpful neither in JDO nor in GAE documentation.
Thanks for advice about logs from DataNucleus and sympathy from Peter Recore :)
Frankly, I missed few important points in my question.
Actually,between
tx.begin();
and
Query q = pm.newQuery(Version.class, "... filters here ...");
I am retrieving Project instance, and after Version instances updating loop I am persisting some one more Version object.
So, I actually retrieved some of versions list twice, and according to committing order in logs, Project instance was saved twice, as well. The second save operation overwritten the first one.
I changed the order of operations, and got expected behavior.
I'm trying to retrieve a user object from a foreign key reference but each time I try to do so nothing gets returned...
My table is set up like this:
FBUserID long,
UserID uniqueidentifier
so I have my repository try to get the User when it's provided the FBUserID:
public User getUserByFBuid(long uid)
{
User fbUser = null;
IEnumerable<FBuid> fbUids = _myEntitiesDB.FBuidSet.Where(user => user.FBUserID == uid);
fbUser = fbUids.FirstOrDefault().aspnet_Users;
return fbUser;
}
I've checked that the uid (FBUserID) passed in is correct, I've check that the UserID is matched up to the FBUserID. And I've also checked to make sure that fbUids.Count() > 0...
I've returned fbUids.FirstOrDefault().FBUserID and gotten the correct FBUserID, but any time I try to return the aspnet_Users or aspnet_Users.UserName, etc... I don't get anything returned. (I'm guessing it's getting an error for some reason)
I don't have debugging set up properly so that's probably why i'm having so much troubles... but so far all the checking I've done I've been doing return this.Json(/* stuff returned form the repository */) so that I can do an alert when it gets back to the javascript.
Anyone know why I would have troubles retrieving the user object from a foreign key relationship like that?
Or do you have any suggestions as to finding out what's wrong?
For now, with Entity Framework 1, you don't get automatic delayed loading, e.g. if you want to traverse from one entity to the next, you need to either do an .Include("OtherEntity") on your select to include those entities in the query, or you need to explicitly call .Load("OtherEntity") on your EntityContext to load that entity.
This was a design decision by the EF team not to support automagic deferred loading, since they considered it to be too dangerous; they wanted to make it clear and obvious to the user that he is also including / loading a second set of entities.
Due to high popular demand, the upcoming EF v4 (to be released with .NET 4.0 sometime towards the end of 2009) will support the automatic delayed loading - if you wish to use it. You need to explicitly enable it since it's off by default:
context.ContextOptions.DeferredLoadingEnabled = true;
See some articles on that new feature:
A Look at Lazy Loading in EF4
POCO Lazy Loading
Don't know if this is what you are asking but i do a join like so;
var votes = from av in dc.ArticleVotes
join v in dc.Votes on av.voteId equals v.id
where av.articleId == articleId
select v;
Did this help or am I off base?