I am coming from more of a .NET background and need to make some changes to a very old VB6 application.
The .NET equivalent of what I'm trying to do now in VB6 is, define a (model) class with 3 properties
public class MyClass
{
public string Ref { get; set; }
public string OldNumber { get; set; }
public string NewNumber { get; set; }
}
In .NET I would then call a stored procedure to return a set of results (there could be a few thousand records) and assign them to, for example, an instance of List<MyClass>.
I could then, whenever I need to, attempt to find an item within this List, where the 'Ref' property is 'blah', and use this item/its other properties (OldNumber and NewNumber).
However, in VB6, I don't know how this same process is best achieved. Can anyone please help?
If you are using ADO you can cache results by querying into a static cursor client-side Recordset and then disconnecting it.
You can use Sort, Find, Filter, etc. and move through the rows as needed. You can even improve searches by building a local index within the Recordset after opening and disconnecting it by using the Field object's Optimize dynamic property. See:
Optimize Property-Dynamic (ADO)
Related
My class is like below:
[Table("tblUser")]
public class User
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
Using Dapper.Contrib, is there a way to get the User record by Title instead of Id?
If I query like below, it works. But, I want to filter on Title column which is not a key.
await connection.GetAsync<User>(Id);
Looking at the documentation, Dapper.Contrib does not support retrieval of records using criteria other than key. In other words, it does not support any kind of predicate system in its current implementation.
Using GetAll, you can further filter it with linq. But remember that this is not being executed on RDBMS. It will be executed on application side or in memory. That means, entire data will be loaded first and then it will be filtered.
Personally, I will choose to use Dapper (bypassing Contrib) for such specific scenario. Other part of the project will still use Contrib.
I see it is possible to use a query to find a length of a varbinary field in a query.
Entity framework and VARBINARY
But can you map a FileSize property to get the size of a varbinary in the Fluent API without having to write queries?
I want to be able to store some file information in SQL Server. This data is a filename, file contents. This has a definition in the data model as follows:
public class FileData
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Filename { get; set; }
public byte[] Contents { get; set; }
}
Typically, I want to know the size of the contents when I retrieve FileData. If I added an int property FileSize to FileData, can you map this property to compute the size?
I can configure this in SQL:
And when I insert into the table it gives me the correct size.
However, if I generate my data model/DbContext using VS2015 -> Add New Item... -> ADO.NET Entity Data Model, my FileData POCO only has an annotation with DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed) on the FileSize property. Nothing else reflects the len(Contents) formula I added.
Is it possible to configure this sort of computed column using EF6 Code First?
You can't create computed columns in entity framework code first. The way you're doing it is correct, you just put the DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed) attribute on the property, Entity Framework won't try to create the column then for you, and you create the column manually. A good idea is to make the property private set, since you won't ever need to manually modify it:
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)]
public int? FileSize {get; private set;}
I am beginning to use Dapper and love it so far. However as i venture further into complexity, i have ran into a big issue with it. The fact that you can pass an entire custom object as a parameter is great. However, when i add another custom object a a property, it no longer works as it tries to map the object as a SQL parameter. Is there any way to have it ignore custom objects that are properties of the main object being passed thru? Example below
public class CarMaker
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Car Mycar { get; set; }
}
propery Name maps fine but property MyCar fails because it is a custom object. I will have to restructure my entire project if Dapper can't handle this which...well blows haha
Dapper extensions has a way to create custom maps, which allows you to ignore properties:
public class MyModelMapper : ClassMapper<MyModel>
{
public MyModelMapper()
{
//use a custom schema
Schema("not_dbo_schema");
//have a custom primary key
Map(x => x.ThePrimaryKey).Key(KeyType.Assigned);
//Use a different name property from database column
Map(x=> x.Foo).Column("Bar");
//Ignore this property entirely
Map(x=> x.SecretDataMan).Ignore();
//optional, map all other columns
AutoMap();
}
}
Here is a link
There is a much simpler solution to this problem.
If the property MyCar is not in the database, and it is probably not, then simple remove the {get;set;} and the "property" becomes a field and is automatically ignored by DapperExtensions. If you are actually storing this information in a database and it is a multi-valued property that is not serialized into a JSON or similar format, I think you are probably asking for complexity that you don't want. There is no sql equivalent of the object "Car", and the properties in your model must map to something that sql recognizes.
UPDATE:
If "Car" is part of a table in your database, then you can read it into the CarMaker object using Dapper's QueryMultiple.
I use it in this fashion:
dynamic reader = dbConnection.QueryMultiple("Request_s", param: new { id = id }, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
if (reader != null)
{
result = reader.Read<Models.Request>()[0] as Models.Request;
result.reviews = reader.Read<Models.Review>() as IEnumerable<Models.Review>;
}
The Request Class has a field as such:
public IEnumerable<Models.Review> reviews;
The stored procedure looks like this:
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[Request_s]
(
#id int = null
)
AS
BEGIN
SELECT *
FROM [biospecimen].requests as bn
where bn.id=coalesce(#id, bn.id)
order by bn.id desc;
if #id is not null
begin
SELECT
*
FROM [biospecimen].reviews as bn
where bn.request_id = #id;
end
END
In the first read, Dapper ignores the field reviews, and in the second read, Dapper loads the information into the field. If a null set is returned, Dapper will load the field with a null set just like it will load the parent class with null contents.
The second select statement then reads the collection needed to complete the object, and Dapper stores the output as shown.
I have been implementing this in my Repository classes in situations where a target parent class has several child classes that are being displayed at the same time.
This prevents multiple trips to the database.
You can also use this approach when the target class is a child class and you need information about the parent class it is related to.
Id like to firstly apologise for what may appear to be a stupid question but im confused regarding the following.
Im writting a class library which will not be running on the UI thread. Inside the CL i need an array which im going populate with data received from a stored procedure call. I then need to pass this data back to the UI thread via an event.
Originally i was going to write the following.
public class ColumnInformation
{
public string[] columnHeaderNames;
public string[] columnDataTypes;
}
but im pretty sure that would be frowned upon and i instead should be using properties.
public class ColumnInformation
{
public string[] columnHeaderNames {get; set;}
public string[] columnDataTypes {get; set;}
}
but then i came across the following.
MSDN
so am i correct in assuming that i should actually declare this as follows:
public class ColumnInformation
{
private string[] _columnHeaderNames;
public Names(string[] headerNames)
{
_columnHeaderNames = headerNames;
}
public string[] GetNames()
{
// Need to return a clone of the array so that consumers
// of this library cannot change its contents
return (string[])_columnHeaderNames.Clone();
}
}
Thanks for your time.
If your concern is the guideline CA1819: Properties should not return arrays,
It will be same whether you are exposing Array as a Public Field, or Property (making readonly does not matter here). Once your original Array is exposed, its content can be modified.
To avoid this, as the link suggest, make Field private, and return Clone from the Getter.
However major concern is that there may be multiple copies of your array if retrieved many times. It is not good for performance and synchronization.
Better solution is ReadOnlyCollection.
Using ReadOnlyCollection, you can expose the collection as read only which cannot be modified. Also any changes to underlying collection will be reflected.
I know this must be an age-old, tired question, but I cant seem to find anything thru my trusty friend (aka Google).
I have a .net 3.5 c# winforms app, that presents a user with a login form on application startup. After a successful login, I want to run off to the DB, pull in some user-specific data and hold them (in properties) in a class called AppCurrentUser.cs, that can thereafer be accessed across all classes in the assembly - the purpose here being that I can fill some properties with a once-off data read, instead of making a call to the DB everytime I need to. In a web app, I would usually use Session variables, and I know that the concept of that does not exist in WinForms.
The class structure resembles the following:
public class AppCurrentUser {
public AppCurrentUser() { }
public Guid UserName { get; set; }
public List<string> Roles { get; set; }
public string Firstname { get; set; }
public string Lastname { get; set; }
}
Now, I have some options that I need some expert advice on:
Being a "dumb" class, I should make the properties non-static, instantiate the class and then set the properties...but then I will only be able to access that instance from within the class that it was created in, right?
Logically, I believe that these properties should be static as I will only be using the class once throughout the application (and not creating new instances of it), and it's property values will be "reset" on application close. (If I create an instance of it, I can dispose of it on application close)
How should I structure my class and how do I access its properties across all classes in my assembly? I really would appreciate your honest and valued advice on this!!
Thanks!
Use the singleton pattern here:
public class AppUser
{
private static _current = null;
public static AppUser Current
{
get { return = _current; }
}
public static void Init()
{
if (_current == null)
{
_current = new AppUser();
// Load everything from the DB.
// Name = Dd.GetName();
}
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
// App startup.
AppUser.Init();
// Now any form / class / whatever can simply do:
var name = AppUser.Current.Name;
Now the "static" things are thread-unsafe. I'll leave it as an exercise of the reader to figure out how to properly use the lock() syntax to make it thread-safe. You should also handle the case if the Current property is accessed before the call to Init.
It depends on how you setup your architecture. If you're doing all your business logic code inside the actual form (e.g. coupling it to the UI), then you probably want to pass user information in as a parameter when you make a form, then keep a reference to it from within that form. In other words, you'd be implementing a Singleton pattern.
You could also use Dependency Injection, so that every time you request the user object, the dependency injection framework (like StructureMap) will provide you with the right object. -- you could probably use it like a session variable since you'll be working in a stateful environment.
The correct place to store this type of information is in a custom implementation of IIdentity. Any information that you need to identify a user or his access rights can be stored in that object, which is then associated with the current thread and can be queried from the current thread whenever needed.
This principal is illustrated in Rocky Lhotka's CLSA books, or google winforms custom identity.
I'm not convinced this is the right way but you could do something like this (seems to be what you're asking for anyway):
public class Sessions
{
// Variables
private static string _Username;
// properties
public static string Username
{
get
{
return _Username;
}
set
{
_Username = value;
}
}
}
in case the c# is wrong...i'm a vb.net developer...
then you'd just use Sessions.USername etc etc