I am working on a fairly nested model which has some circular references. It also uses Entity Framework so all lists are ICollection<T>. To accommodate this I am configuring AutoFixture like so:
_fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new MultipleCustomization());
_fixture.Behaviors.Remove(new ThrowingRecursionBehavior());
_fixture.Behaviors.Add(new OmitOnRecursionBehavior());
When I try to create a type
_fixture.CreateAnonymous<Session>();
AutoFixture has a problem and throws the following error
System.InvalidCastException : Unable to cast object of type 'Ploeh.AutoFixture.Kernel.OmitSpecimen' to type 'The.Model.Language'
If I exclude the collection within Session of type Language, AutoFixture throws the same exception for another type in the graph.
Is there a way to extract more information from AutoFixture, e.g., the property that caused the error?
Why is AutoFixture trying to cast my type to OmitSpecimen and what in this process could have happened to prevent it from being cast?
I've created a gist for the stack trace here.
Update
I have managed to recreate the problem. Given this pair of objects
public class Session
{
public Language Language { get; set; }
}
public class Language
{
public ICollection<Session> Sessions { get; set; }
}
The call to _fixture.CreateAnonymous<Session>(); will throw the cast exception.
This works in a newer version of AutoFixture(for example 3.31.3).
This code does runs:
public class Session
{
public Language Language { get; set; }
}
public class Language
{
public ICollection<Session> Sessions { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var fixture = new Fixture();
fixture.Behaviors.Add(new OmitOnRecursionBehavior());
var session = fixture.Create<Session>();
Debug.Assert(session != null, "Session should not be null");
}
}
Related
I have two tables:
public AdminTest()
{
this.AdminTestQuestions = new List<AdminTestQuestion>();
}
public int AdminTestId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<AdminTestQuestion> AdminTestQuestions { get; set; }
}
public partial class AdminTestQuestion
{
public int AdminTestQuestionId { get; set; }
public int AdminTestId { get; set; }
public System.Guid QuestionUId { get; set; }
public virtual AdminTest AdminTest { get; set; }
}
I am using the following EF6 code to add a new adminTest (with its adminTestQuestions) to the
database:
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Post([FromBody]AdminTest adminTest)
{
db.AdminTests.Add(adminTest);
foreach (AdminTestQuestion adminTestQuestion in adminTest.AdminTestQuestions)
{
db.AdminTestQuestions.Add(adminTestQuestion);
}
await db.SaveChangesAsync(User, DateTime.UtcNow);
return Ok(adminTest);
}
I have similar but more complicated code to deal with the case where questions are added or removed from the adminTest. All my code works but it would be very good if EF was able to do what I needed rather than my having to add many lines of code.
Can anyone tell me if there have been any changes to EF6 or if any changes are planned to EF7 that will allow it
has noted on the ef7 github they seams to have added some neat code that add primary key entity.
but it is still not clear as to if it will be a common thing for children collection in an entity.
Git hub Entity Framework Design Meeting Notes
but for EF6 you could use a Generic Repository to make all the work for you. (since you can't extend DbContext directly)
assuming db is a DbContext
you could use this -> : Accessing a Collection Through Reflection
then find all Property from a class T that contains ICollection<> and do a foreach on the item of the ICollection Property then do db.Set.Add(proprietyChild) on it
that would eliminate the need for always repeating the same add child to entity code.
some people already did implement a solution thou : Automated updates of a graph of deached entities
I have something like this:
public class ModelEntity : Entity
{
public override int Id { get; set; }
public string FileName { get; set; }
}
public class DataTransferObject
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FileName { get; set; }
}
And I would like to do something like this:
var model = _fixture.Create<ModelEntity>();
var dto = _fixture.Create<DataTransferObject>().FillWith(model);
Right now I am doing the following but I am not sure if is the right way to do it
var model = _fixture.Create<ModelEntity>();
var dto = model.AsSource().OfLikeness<DataTransferObject>().CreateProxy();
AutoFixture doesn't have a feature like that, but I think there's something better to be learned from this:
AutoFixture was originally built as a tool for Test-Driven Development (TDD), and TDD is all about feedback. In the spirit of GOOS, you should listen to your tests. If the tests are hard to write, you should consider your API design. AutoFixture tends to amplify that sort of feedback, and it may also be the case here.
It sounds like you need to be able to populate a DataTransferObject with values from a ModelEntity instance. Could this suggest that some sort of mapping would be a valuable addition to your API?
Depending on how these types are already coupled, you could consider adding a projection method to your ModelEntity class:
public class ModelEntity : Entity
{
public override int Id { get; set; }
public string FileName { get; set; }
public DataTransferObject ToDataTransferObject()
{
return new DataTransferObject
{
Id = this.Id,
FileName = this.FileName
};
}
}
However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it couples those two types to each other.
If you find that undesirable, you could instead introduce a dedicated Mapper Service, which can map a ModelEntity instance to a DataTransferObject object - and perhaps vice versa.
If, for some unfathomable reason, you don't want to introduce such a Mapper into your System Under Test, you can still add it as a reusable Service in your test project.
If you don't wish to write such a Mapper yourself, you could consider using something like AutoMapper for that purpose.
Inside an AngularJS directive, I assign a new value to a scope variable:
$scope.myPerson = { TiersId: 105191, Name: "John Smith" };
Originaly the $scope.myPerson was created from a BreezeJS entity.
Assigning the new value triggers a $scope.apply() by AngularJS, which is then intercepted by BreezeJS. That's when it gets complicated.
[EDIT]
Ok, I've figured out that I need to use the EntityManager that I've registered with my dataContext:
$scope.myPerson = myDataContext.createPerson({ TiersId: 105191, Name: "John Smith" });
function createPerson(person) {
return manager.createEntity("AccountOwner", person);
}
Now, it fails in the following code:
proto.createEntity = function (typeName, initialValues, entityState) {
entityState = entityState || EntityState.Added;
var entity = this.metadataStore
._getEntityType(typeName)
.createEntity(initialValues);
if (entityState !== EntityState.Detached) {
this.attachEntity(entity, entityState);
}
return entity;
};
The entity type is known, but the createEntity(initialValues) function is undefined. How come ?
[EDIT]
To make things clearer, here's the relevant EF mapping as well as the model classes:
public class MandateMappings : EntityTypeConfiguration<Mandate>
{
public MandateMappings()
{
Property(m => m.IBAN).HasMaxLength(34).IsFixedLength().IsUnicode(false);
Property(m => m.AccountOwner.Name).HasMaxLength(70);
Property(m => m.AccountOwner.City).HasMaxLength(500);
Property(m => m.CreatedBy).HasMaxLength(30);
Property(m => m.UpdatedBy).HasMaxLength(30);
}
}
public class Mandate : Audit
{
public string IBAN { get; set; }
public AccountOwner AccountOwner { get; set; }
}
public class AccountOwner
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
}
public abstract class Audit
{
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set; }
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
}
Let me clarify what I meant when I said on User Voice that Breeze supports a form of inheritance but not "database inheritance".
I meant that, today, the classes on your server-side can be part of an inheritance chain if and only if that chain is invisible to the client.
Here are some conditions consistent with that caveat:
Only the "terminal" class in the chain (the most derived class) maps to a database table.
Properties on super classes are non-public (e.g., internal) or explicitly not mapped (e.g., adorned with [System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema.NotMapped].
Methods may appear on any class at any level as these are never transmitted to the client.
Here is an example of a TodoItem class that inherits from a baseClass:
public class baseClass
{
public void DoNothing() {}
internal string Foo { get; set; }
}
public class TodoItem :baseClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, StringLength(maximumLength: 30)]
public string Description { get; set; }
public System.DateTime CreatedAt { get; set; }
public bool IsDone { get; set; }
public bool IsArchived { get; set; }
}
This works fine on the server. Set a breakpoint in the controller: you'll have no trouble executing DoNothing() and getting/setting the Foo property.
This works because there is no client-side consequence of this structure. The metadata are no different after deriving from baseClass than they were before. The Foo property and DoNothing methods are invisible to the client … exactly as this service author intended.
This kind of arrangement is pretty common in the real world where the many classes of a business model share functionality through a base class.
This is NOT the end of the story and it is NOT what we think people are asking for when they ask for "inheritance".
We think people want what I have been calling "database inheritance" by which I mean that two or more classes in the inheritance chain are mapped to different tables.
Breeze does not handle that today ... in part because Breeze cannot yet comprehend metadata that describe an inheritance hierarchy.
Workaround
What if you had a class hierarchy in which data properties were defined on different class levels? You can workaround the current obstacles by providing a metadata description that flattens the hierarchy from the perspective of the client.
For example, suppose you have a Person type with FirstName and LastName. And Person derives from entityBase which defines createdBy.
If you define the Person *EntityType* to have [FirstName, LastName, and createdBy] properties - essentially flattening the hierarchy - all will be well.
Flatten the hierarchy automagically
Of course that's a PITA. One approach to inheritance we could take is to do this flattening for you when you ask Breeze to generate the metadata on the server.
I'm curious: would this suffice? Or do you really NEED to know on the JavaScript client that the createdBy property belongs to a base class. If you really need to know, please tell me why.
Edit: As of v 1.3.1 Breeze now DOES support inheritance.
Without more context I can't be sure, but I'm guessing that the issue is that Breeze does not YET have metadata about your entityType. Normally this is accomplished via your first query, but if you are creating entities before the first query then the alternative is to call the EntityManager.fetchMetadata() method instead BEFORE performing any createEntity calls. The fetchMetadata method is asynchonous, i.e. returns a promise, so you will need to perform your createEntity call inside of the 'then' portion of the promise. There are a couple of other recent 'Breeze' posts similar to this that have more details and examples.
I am struggling with returning a complex type from my services layer. It doesnt seem to be accessible from my object context.
This is the query in the service layer. All compiling fine.
public IQueryable<USP_GetPostsByThreadID_Result> uspGetPostsByThreadID(int ThreadID)
{
return this.ObjectContext.USP_GetPostsByThreadID(ThreadID).AsQueryable();
}
When I try and call it from my client, the ForumContext is not seeing it. I checked the client generated file and nothing similar is being generated. Help!!!
The name of your method may not meet the expected convention for queries. Try one or both of the following:
Add the [Query] attribute
Rename the method to GetUspPostsByThreadID
Result:
[System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Server.Query]
public IQueryable<USP_GetPostsByThreadID_Result> GetUspPostsByThreadID(int ThreadID)
{
return this.ObjectContext.USP_GetPostsByThreadID(ThreadID).AsQueryable();
}
Its very common to have a stored procedure returning data from multiple tables. The return type doesn't fit well under any of the Entity Types(Tables). Therefore if we define Complex Type as the return collection of objects from Stored Procedure invocation, it becomes quite a powerful tool for the developer.
Following these steps I have achieved successfully the configuration of complex type on a sample AdventureWorks database.
1. Refer the picture and ensure the Stored procedure and function import is done.
2. Add the Domain Service name it as AdventureDomainService.
3. Now its time to define the tell the RIA services framework to identify my Complex Type as Entity Type. To be able to do this, we need to identify a [Key] DataAnnotation. Entity types provide data structure to the application's data model and by design, each entity type is required to define a unique entity key. We can define key on one property or a set of properties in metadata class file AdventureDomainService.metadata.cs
First define the class then add MetadatatypeAttribute like :
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(CTEmployeeManagers.CTEmployeeManagersMetadata))]
public partial class CTEmployeeManagers
{
internal sealed class CTEmployeeManagersMetadata
{
private CTEmployeeManagersMetadata() { }
[Key]
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public int ManagerID { get; set; }
public string ManagerFirstName { get; set; }
public string ManagerLastName { get; set; }
}
}
Define the Domain service method to return the collection of objects/entities for populating the Silverlight Grid or any other data consuming controls.
public IQueryable<CTEmployeeManagers> GetEmployeeManagers(int empId)
{
return this.ObjectContext.GetEmployeeManagers(empId).AsQueryable();
}
We define IQueryable if we are to fetch the records from datasources like SQL, whereas we define IEnumerable if we are to fetch the records from in memory collections,dictionaty,arrays.lists, etc.
Compile the server side to generate the client proxy.
In the Silverlight side open the MainPage.xaml or wherever the datagrid is put, then add following namespaces :
using System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Client;
using SLBusinessApplication.Web;
using SLBusinessApplication.Web.Services;
..
Load the data and display:
public partial class MyPage : Page
{
AdventureDomainContext ctx = new AdventureDomainContext();
public MyPage()
{
InitializeComponent();
LoadOperation loadOp = this.ctx.Load(this.ctx.GetEmployeeManagersQuery(29));
myGrid.ItemsSource = loadOp.Entities;
}
// Executes when the user navigates to this page.
protected override void OnNavigatedTo(NavigationEventArgs e)
{
}
}
That is all that is needed to do.
It has to be part of an entity. Complex types cannot be returned by themselves
I created one table using Inheritance concept to sore data into google app engine datastore. It contained following coding but it shows error.How to user Inheritance concept.What error in my program
Program 1:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class calender {
#Id
private String EmailId;
#Basic
private String CalName;
#Basic
public void setEmailId(String emailId) {
EmailId = emailId;
}
public String getEmailId() {
return EmailId;
}
public void setCalName(String calName) {
CalName = calName;
}
public String getCalName() {
return CalName;
}
public calender(String EmailId, String CalName) {
this.EmailId = EmailId;
this.CalName = CalName;
}
}
Program 2:
#Entity
public class method extends calender {
#Id
private String method;
public void setMethod(String method) {
this.method = method;
}
public String getMethod() {
return method;
}
public method(String method) {
this.method = method;
}
}
My constraint is I want output like this
Calendartable contain
Emailid
calendarname
and method table contain
Emailid
method
How to achieve this?
It shows the following error in this line public method(String method)
java.lang.Error: Unresolved compilation problem:
Implicit super constructor calender() is undefined. Must explicitly invoke another constructor
According to Using JPA with App Engine, the JOINED inheritance strategy is not supported.
Your code doesn't compile, add a default constructor in Calendar.
I don't think you should annotate the method field with #Id.
The datastore of GAE/J is not an RDBMS so consequently the only "inheritance strategy" that makes any sense is TABLE_PER_CLASS. I would expect GAE/J to throw an exception if you specify that strategy, and if it doesn't then you ought to raise an issue against them
Your error "constructor calender() is undefined" is rather straightforward. You should create constructor without parameters in calendar class (you can make it private if you don't want to use it). That's because compiler can create default constructor by himself only if there aren't another constructors in the class.