I have the following rule condition
$entity: (Entity(field != null) or Entity(field == null))
If the drools session has these two facts
Entity(field = null)
Entity(field = "Some Value")
When I inspect $entity, which of the two is going to be there?
The behavior I'm looking for is for $entity to store Entity(field = "Some value") if both facts are in session, is there a way to accomplish this?
The behavior I'm looking for is for $entity to store Entity(field = "Some value") if both facts are in session, is there a way to accomplish this?
You'd do this by checking for both and then only keeping the one that you really want to be doing work on.
rule "Example"
when
exists( Entity(field == null ) )
$entity: Entity( field != null )
then
// ...
end
Here, the rule checks for the presence of an Entity that has no field value set using the exists operator. Exists, like it implies, only checks that a fact meets these criteria, but doesn't ever retain a reference to it.
Then the second condition checks that an Entity exists that does have a field value set, and assigns it to $entity so it can be referenced in the consequences/right hand side/then clause.
Only if both of these conditions are met will this rule trigger.
Note that if you happen to have three facts in working memory like this:
A: Entity(field = null)
B: Entity(field = "ABC" )
C: Entity(field = "XYZ")
... then this rule will fire twice. It will trigger once for A+B and once for A+C. In both cases, the presence of fact A will satisfy the exists condition, but both B and C satisfy the second condition so will both independently trigger the rule.
Related
I am using rule Book to create rules a chain of rule as follows:
RuleBookBuilder.create()
.withResultType(Boolean.class)
.addRule(
RuleBuilder.create()
.withFactType(Double.class)
.withResultType(Boolean.class)
.when(facts -> facts.get("amount_gt").getValue() > new Double(600))
.then((facts, result) -> {
result.setValue(true);
System.out.println(result.getValue()); //1st print statement
})
.addRule()
....
.build())
NameValueReferableMap facts = new FactMap();
facts.setValue("amount_gt", new Double(700));
rule.run(facts);
System.out.println(rule.getResult()); //2nd print statement
The fist print statement prints true (as excepted), but the 2nd statement gives Optional.empty
Can some one tell me what could be wrong ?
You seem to chain the rules and the return of the outer rule you are not showing.
If you are trying to access the return on an inner rule, then you need to similarly chain the get() calls.
I would try to "unchain" the rules and see what that yields.
My Linq Query keeps returning the null error on FirstOrDefault
The cast to value type 'System.Int32' failed because the materialized value is null
because it can't find any records to match on the ClinicalAssetID form the ClinicalReading Table, fair enough!
But I want the fields in my details page just to appear blank if the table does not have matching entry.
But how can I handle the null issue when using the order by function ?
Current Code:
var ClinicalASSPATINCVM = (from s in db.ClinicalAssets
join cp in db.ClinicalPATs on s.ClinicalAssetID equals cp.ClinicalAssetID into AP
from subASSPAT in AP.DefaultIfEmpty()
join ci in db.ClinicalINSs on s.ClinicalAssetID equals ci.ClinicalAssetID into AI
from subASSINC in AI.DefaultIfEmpty()
join co in db.ClinicalReadings on s.ClinicalAssetID equals co.ClinicalAssetID into AR
let subASSRED = AR.OrderByDescending(subASSRED => subASSRED.MeterReadingDone).FirstOrDefault()
select new ClinicalASSPATINCVM
{
ClinicalAssetID = s.ClinicalAssetID,
AssetTypeName = s.AssetTypeName,
ProductName = s.ProductName,
ModelName = s.ModelName,
SupplierName = s.SupplierName,
ManufacturerName = s.ManufacturerName,
SerialNo = s.SerialNo,
PurchaseDate = s.PurchaseDate,
PoNo = s.PoNo,
Costing = s.Costing,
TeamName = s.TeamName,
StaffName = s.StaffName,
WarrantyEndDate = subASSPAT.WarrantyEndDate,
InspectionDate = subASSPAT.InspectionDate,
InspectionOutcomeResult = subASSPAT.InspectionOutcomeResult,
InspectionDocumnets = subASSPAT.InspectionDocumnets,
LastTypeofInspection = subASSINC.LastTypeofInspection,
NextInspectionDate = subASSINC.NextInspectionDate,
NextInspectionType = subASSINC.NextInspectionType,
MeterReadingDone = subASSRED.MeterReadingDone,
MeterReadingDue = subASSRED.MeterReadingDue,
MeterReading = subASSRED.MeterReading,
MeterUnitsUsed = subASSRED.MeterUnitsUsed,
FilterReplaced = subASSRED.FilterReplaced
}).FirstOrDefault(x => x.ClinicalAssetID == id);
Tried this but doesn't work
.DefaultIfEmpty(new ClinicalASSPATINCVM())
.FirstOrDefault()
Error was:
CS1929 'IOrderedEnumerable<ClinicalReading>' does not contain a definition for 'DefaultIfEmpty' and the best extension method overload 'Queryable.DefaultIfEmpty<ClinicalASSPATINCVM>(IQueryable<ClinicalASSPATINCVM>, ClinicalASSPATINCVM)' requires a receiver of type 'IQueryable<ClinicalASSPATINCVM>'
Feel a little closer with this but still errors
let subASSRED = AR.OrderByDescending(subASSRED => (subASSRED.MeterReadingDone != null) ? subASSRED.MeterReadingDone : String.Empty).FirstOrDefault()
Error:
CS0173 Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'System.DateTime?' and 'string'
The original error means that some of the following properties of the ClinicalASSPATINCVM class - MeterReadingDone, MeterReadingDue, MeterReading, MeterUnitsUsed, or FilterReplaced is of type int.
Remember that subASSRED here
let subASSRED = AR.OrderByDescending(subASSRED => subASSRED.MeterReadingDone).FirstOrDefault()
might be null (no corresponding record).
Now look at this part of the projection:
MeterReadingDone = subASSRED.MeterReadingDone,
MeterReadingDue = subASSRED.MeterReadingDue,
MeterReading = subASSRED.MeterReading,
MeterUnitsUsed = subASSRED.MeterUnitsUsed,
FilterReplaced = subASSRED.FilterReplaced
If that was LINQ to Objects, all these would generate NRE (Null Reference Exception) at runtime. In LINQ to Entities this is converted and executed as SQL. SQL has no issues with expression like subASSRED.SomeProperty because SQL supports NULL naturally even if SomeProperty normally does not allow NULL. So the SQL query executes normally, but now EF must materialize the result into objects, and the C# object property is not nullable, hence the error in question.
To solve it, find the int property(es) and use the following pattern inside query:
SomeIntProperty = (int?)subASSRED.SomeIntProperty ?? 0 // or other meaningful default
or change receiving object property type to int? and leave the original query as is.
Do the same for any non nullable type property, e.g. DateTime, double, decimal, Guid etc.
You're problem is because your DefaultIfEmpty is executed AsQueryable. Perform it AsEnumerable and it will work:
// create the default element only once!
static readonly ClinicalAssPatInVcm defaultElement = new ClinicalAssPatInVcm ();
var result = <my big linq query>
.Where(x => x.ClinicalAssetID == id)
.AsEnumerable()
.DefaultIfEmpty(defaultElement)
.FirstOrDefault();
This won't lead to a performance penalty!
Database management systems are extremely optimized for selecting data. One of the slower parts of a database query is the transport of the selected data to your local process. Hence it is wise to let the DBMS do most of the selecting, and only after you know that you only have the data that you really plan to use, move the data to your local process.
In your case, you need at utmost one element from your DBMS, and if there is nothing, you want to use a default object instead.
AsQueryable will move the selected data to your local process in a smart way, probably per "page" of selected data.
The page size is a good compromise: not too small, so you don't have to ask for the next page too often; not too large, so that you don't transfer much more items than you actually use.
Besides, because of the Where statement you expect at utmost one element anyway. So that a full "page" is fetched is no problem, the page will contain only one element.
After the page is fetched, DefaultIfEmpty checks if the page is empty, and if so, returns a sequence containing the defaultElement. If not, it returns the complete page.
After the DefaultIfEmpty you only take the first element, which is what you want.
I have a number of PersonEntitys in my working memory. I need to write a rule to check if two PersonEntitys with the same someProperty are existed in the working memory. I have written as follows, but the problem is, when there are really two PersonEntitys with same someProperty, the sys.out is executing twice:
when
$person : PersonEntity(person.personType == PersonType.LegalPerson);
$personList : ArrayList( size > 1 ) from collect( PersonEntity(someProperty.id == $legalPerson.someProperty.id))
then
System.out.println("error occured");
I also tried this, but I think since my working memory has a number of PersonEntities, the rule is executing 4times (number of PersonEntitys) and my "error occurred " sentence appears 4times in console:
PersonEntity(some conditions, $relatedId :relatedPerson.id);
exists PersonEntity(some conditions, relatedPerson.id > $relatedId)
The standard solution to this problem is to add another constraint using a unique property which guarantees an ordering.
when
PersonEntity(personType == PersonType.LegalPerson, $pid: personId)
exists PersonEntity(personType == PersonType.LegalPerson, personId > $pid)
then
// two LegalPerson
If you expect three or more of the same, you may even have to add another pattern to block multiple activations:
when
PersonEntity(personType == PersonType.LegalPerson, $pid: personId)
not PersonEntity(personType == PersonType.LegalPerson, personId < $pid )
exists PersonEntity(personType == PersonType.LegalPerson, personId > $pid)
then
// two or more LegalPerson
(The suggestion to use collect isn't good unless you really need all of these.)
This will work even when you need to check for any personType:
when
PersonEntity( $pt: personType, $pid: personId)
not PersonEntity(personType == $pt, personId < $pid )
exists PersonEntity(personType == $pt, personId > $pid)
then
// two or more $pt
Here you may add a collect instead of the third pattern to get all such PersonEntity facts.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
is object empty?
update: (id, data) ->
toUpdate = #find(id)
if toUpdate isnt {}
console.log "hi mom"
console.log toUpdate
toUpdate.setProperty(key, value) for own key, value of data
return toUpdate
find:(id) ->
result = record for record in #storage when record.id is id
return result or {}
Given the following Mocha tests
describe '#update', ->
it 'should return an updated record from a given id and data when the record exists', ->
boogie = createData()
archive = new Archive("Dog")
dog = archive.create(boogie)
result = archive.update(1, {name:"Chompie", age:1})
result.name.should.eql "Chompie"
result.age.should.eql 1
result.emotion.should.eql dog.emotion
it 'should return an updated record from a given id and data when the record does not exist', ->
boogie = createData()
archive = new Archive("Dog")
dog = archive.create(boogie)
result = archive.update(50, {name:"Chompie", age:1})
result.should.not.exist
The result is
Archive #update should return an updated record from a given id and data when the record exists: hi mom
{ id: 1,
validationStrategies: {},
name: 'Boogie',
age: 2,
emotion: 'happy' }
✓ Archive #update should return an updated record from a given id and data when the record exists: 1ms
Archive #update should return empty when the record does not exist: hi mom
{}
✖ 1 of 13 tests failed:
1) Archive #update should return empty when the record does not exist:
TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'setProperty'
...surprising, isnt it?
CoffeeScript's is (AKA ==) is just JavaScript's === and isnt (AKA !=) is just JavaScript's !==. So your condition:
if toUpdate isnt {}
will always be true since toUpdate and the object literal {} will never be the same object.
However, if #find could return a known "empty" object that was available in a constant, then you could use isnt:
EMPTY = {}
find: ->
# ...
EMPTY
and later:
if toUpdate isnt EMPTY
#...
For example, consider this simple code:
a = { }
b = { }
console.log("a is b: #{a is b}")
console.log("a isnt b: #{a isnt b}")
That will give you this in your console:
a is b: false
a isnt b: true
But this:
class C
EMPTY = { }
find: -> EMPTY
check: -> console.log("#find() == EMPTY: #{#find() == EMPTY}")
(new C).check()
will say:
#find() == EMPTY: true
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/7JGdq/
So you need another way to check if toUpdate isn't empty. You could count the properties in toUpdate:
if (k for own k of toUpdate).length isnt 0
or you could use the special EMTPY constant approach outlined above. There are various other ways to check for an empty object, Ricardo Tomasi has suggested a few:
Underscore offers _.isEmpty which is basically the for loop approach with some special case handling and a short circuit.
Underscore also offers _.values so you could look at _(toUpdate).values().length. This calls map internally and that will be the native map function if available.
You could even go through JSON using JSON.stringify(toUpdate) is '{}', this seems a bit fragile to me and rather round about.
You could use Object.keys instead of the for loop: Object.keys(toUpdate).length isnt 0. keys isn't supported everywhere though but it will work with Node, up-to-date non-IE browsers, and IE9+.
Sugar also has Object.isEmpty and jQuery has $.isEmptyObject.
A short-circuiting for loop appears to be the quickest way to check emptiness:
(obj) ->
for k of toUpdate
return true
false
That assumes that you don't need own to avoid iterating over the wrong things. But given that this is just a test suite and that an emptiness test almost certainly won't be a bottle neck in your code, I'd go with whichever of Underscore, Sugar, or jQuery you have (if you need portability and have to deal with the usual browser nonsense), Object.keys(x).length if you know it will be available, and (k for own k of toUpdate).length if you don't have the libraries and have to deal with browser nonsense and aren't certain that toUpdate will be a simple object.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
What is the best way to check if an object exists in the database from a performance point of view? I'm using Entity Framework 1.0 (ASP.NET 3.5 SP1).
If you don't want to execute SQL directly, the best way is to use Any(). This is because Any() will return as soon as it finds a match. Another option is Count(), but this might need to check every row before returning.
Here's an example of how to use it:
if (context.MyEntity.Any(o => o.Id == idToMatch))
{
// Match!
}
And in vb.net
If context.MyEntity.Any(function(o) o.Id = idToMatch) Then
' Match!
End If
From a performance point of view, I guess that a direct SQL query using the EXISTS command would be appropriate. See here for how to execute SQL directly in Entity Framework: http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/gilf/archive/2009/11/25/execute-t-sql-statements-in-entity-framework-4.aspx
I had to manage a scenario where the percentage of duplicates being provided in the new data records was very high, and so many thousands of database calls were being made to check for duplicates (so the CPU sent a lot of time at 100%). In the end I decided to keep the last 100,000 records cached in memory. This way I could check for duplicates against the cached records which was extremely fast when compared to a LINQ query against the SQL database, and then write any genuinely new records to the database (as well as add them to the data cache, which I also sorted and trimmed to keep its length manageable).
Note that the raw data was a CSV file that contained many individual records that had to be parsed. The records in each consecutive file (which came at a rate of about 1 every 5 minutes) overlapped considerably, hence the high percentage of duplicates.
In short, if you have timestamped raw data coming in, pretty much in order, then using a memory cache might help with the record duplication check.
I know this is a very old thread but just incase someone like myself needs this solution but in VB.NET here's what I used base on the answers above.
Private Function ValidateUniquePayroll(PropertyToCheck As String) As Boolean
// Return true if Username is Unique
Dim rtnValue = False
Dim context = New CPMModel.CPMEntities
If (context.Employees.Any()) Then ' Check if there are "any" records in the Employee table
Dim employee = From c In context.Employees Select c.PayrollNumber ' Select just the PayrollNumber column to work with
For Each item As Object In employee ' Loop through each employee in the Employees entity
If (item = PropertyToCheck) Then ' Check if PayrollNumber in current row matches PropertyToCheck
// Found a match, throw exception and return False
rtnValue = False
Exit For
Else
// No matches, return True (Unique)
rtnValue = True
End If
Next
Else
// The is currently no employees in the person entity so return True (Unqiue)
rtnValue = True
End If
Return rtnValue
End Function
I had some trouble with this - my EntityKey consists of three properties (PK with 3 columns) and I didn't want to check each of the columns because that would be ugly.
I thought about a solution that works all time with all entities.
Another reason for this is I don't like to catch UpdateExceptions every time.
A little bit of Reflection is needed to get the values of the key properties.
The code is implemented as an extension to simplify the usage as:
context.EntityExists<MyEntityType>(item);
Have a look:
public static bool EntityExists<T>(this ObjectContext context, T entity)
where T : EntityObject
{
object value;
var entityKeyValues = new List<KeyValuePair<string, object>>();
var objectSet = context.CreateObjectSet<T>().EntitySet;
foreach (var member in objectSet.ElementType.KeyMembers)
{
var info = entity.GetType().GetProperty(member.Name);
var tempValue = info.GetValue(entity, null);
var pair = new KeyValuePair<string, object>(member.Name, tempValue);
entityKeyValues.Add(pair);
}
var key = new EntityKey(objectSet.EntityContainer.Name + "." + objectSet.Name, entityKeyValues);
if (context.TryGetObjectByKey(key, out value))
{
return value != null;
}
return false;
}
I just check if object is null , it works 100% for me
try
{
var ID = Convert.ToInt32(Request.Params["ID"]);
var Cert = (from cert in db.TblCompCertUploads where cert.CertID == ID select cert).FirstOrDefault();
if (Cert != null)
{
db.TblCompCertUploads.DeleteObject(Cert);
db.SaveChanges();
ViewBag.Msg = "Deleted Successfully";
}
else
{
ViewBag.Msg = "Not Found !!";
}
}
catch
{
ViewBag.Msg = "Something Went wrong";
}
Why not do it?
var result= ctx.table.Where(x => x.UserName == "Value").FirstOrDefault();
if(result?.field == value)
{
// Match!
}
Best way to do it
Regardless of what your object is and for what table in the database the only thing you need to have is the primary key in the object.
C# Code
var dbValue = EntityObject.Entry(obj).GetDatabaseValues();
if (dbValue == null)
{
Don't exist
}
VB.NET Code
Dim dbValue = EntityObject.Entry(obj).GetDatabaseValues()
If dbValue Is Nothing Then
Don't exist
End If