I'm in the process of converting from ModelMapper to MapStruct
All going well so far except for the situation when sorting and filtering on lists
If I have a mapping from a domain object to an entity for example:
#Mapping(source = "contact.address.line1", target = "contactAddressLine1")
and from an api I want to filter or sort on contactAddressLine1 then I would like to look up the source (or target when mapping reversed) so I can add it to a dynamic jpq or sql query.
Is there a way to do this with MapStruct?
With ModelMapper I had the ability to create a typeMap
modelMapper.createTypeMap(sourceClass, destinationClass);
and later
TypeMap<?, ?> typeMap = modelMapper.getTypeMap(sourceClass, destinationClass);
I could use this type map to lookup source and destination property mappings and hence determine the correct fields for dynamic sorting and filtering queries
There currently is no way to retrieve the field mapping information from mapstruct. There are several feature requests open on mapstruct's github concerning this issue:
https://github.com/mapstruct/mapstruct/issues/702 (more generic)
https://github.com/mapstruct/mapstruct/issues/918 (same issue)
Related
i would like to know if you have any idea how i can achieve this, considering a query stored as string in the configuration file.
I tried to use SqlQuery applied to the DBSet, but the problem is that SqlQuery requires me to select all properties of the required entities in my query. If i don't consider any column, it will complain because is not able to map the query to the entities.
I don't want to select all properties of the entities i want to query.
Thanks
If you are using EF then why not use Database.ExecuteSqlCommand()? It's in the System.Data.Entity namespace.
For example:
int result = db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("Non SELECT SQL etc...");
Well, I ended up implementing a mechanism using reflection that basically receives a group of fields to select, and constructs dynamic objects with those fields, so when applied the query with the joins between the entities, will only bring the fields I am looking for.
So, considering Entity1, Entity2, Entity3 with the following relationship
<b>Entity1</b>{
<br/> Entity1Name, <br/> List<*Entity2*> Entity2Items, <br/> etc..
<br/>}
and
<b>Entity2</b> { <br/> Entity2Name, <br/> List<*Entity3*> Entity3Items <br/>}
I can store e.g. the following query in the configuration file, and retrieve the information:
"Entity1.Entity1Name", <br/>
"Entity1.Entity2Items.Entity2Name", <br/>
"Entity1.Entity2Items.Entity3Items.Entity3Name"
Anyway, I was just trying to see if there would be any solution out-of-the-box that would require minimal code changes.
Thank you.
I know that it is possible using #SqlResultSetMapping but I want to select not whole entity from the database but some fields and then map i to my entity using one of the constructor which accept that fields. Is that possible to map result with #EntityResult for only a few #FieldResult? I was trying to do that and all the time I get error which said that there is not specify mapping for some fields which exist in that entity.
The disadvantage of #SqlResultSetMapping is that you have to select all the columns.
The alternate way of doing this manually iterate over the DB result and populate your objects.
Well, if you are using JPA 1.0 your only option (not considering the manual mapping, of course), is to use #SqlResultSetMapping and map the whole table columns. With JPA 2.1 you can add a javax.persistence.ConstructorResult (see docs here) to map only the needed columns.
I know there is an option in Hibernate to filter entites based on an #Filter annotation!
Is there an option for a JPA 2.0 version of this (i am interested in mainly non-programmatic way -> declarative e.g. persistance.xml option or annotation option)
The goal:
In our application we want to filter all entites whose attribute Active is False or 0.
And do not love to write 30 or more specific selects for this!
I hope it has a more clear way to achieve this!
The perfect functionality would be #Filter and #FilterJoinTable, referenced this answer:
Filter list contained in entity returned by jpa/hibernate query
After some investigation i may say there is no option in JPA to get a filter function with Annotation.
The closest ones to this is:
Criteria API (http://www.objectdb.com/java/jpa/query/criteria)
Manual written query (entityManager createQuery() or createNativeQuery()) for getting entites. (http://www.objectdb.com/java/jpa/query/execute)
However I think it is a missing and very needed functionality :(
I am making a ZF2 app. I am using entities, mappers and services (e.g. UserEntity, UserMapper, UserService) to manage the objects/models. Properties in the entities are CamalCased (e.g. FirstName, LastName) while in the database, fields are using underscore (first_name, last_name). I will plan to use a hydrator to map the properties and db-fields when retrieving or saving. The service object (UserService) will be used to communicate with the mapper to retrieve and save data models using the mapper. The hydrator will convert the result of mapper and convert them into proper entities.
The thing I am confused is that when the service (UserService) need to provide some cirteria - for example to find all users with a specific 'last name', will the service use the database field names (last_name) or entity properties name (LastName)?
If the db field name is used in the Service, so any change in the db structure will require me to update the service also, which completely fails the reason of using the whole approach.
If you take a look at the ClassMethods:hydrate method (https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/blob/master/library/Zend/Stdlib/Hydrator/ClassMethods.php) you will see that it just copies the properties from one object to another. You have the option of converting the property names to/from camelCase but that's it.
If you change a column name in your database then you will need to change corresponding property name in your object. And vice versa. Which I believe is the crux of your question?
If you want to make table column names be independent of your method names then you need something that lets you define an actual mapping table somewhere. Change a column or method name and you only need to update the configuration mapping table.
Not a ZF2 expert so I could be wrong but it doesn't look like any of the supplied hydrators support this.
I do know that Doctrine 2 supports it.
I want to use a Money value object in my application. I have found several examples of a Money datatype. But I can't figure out how to use them with EF4. I would like to store each amount as a Decimal/CurrencyCode pair (where currencycode is a string - "USD", "SEK", etc) in the database. I tried creating a complexType but I couldn't get that to work. Is this possible?
It should be definitely possible. Your complex type is just pair of decimal and string property. It is exactly what complex type are used for. Depending on your approach you must do:
Database first:
You will define your database first. Your table will contain money and varchar columns representing your new type. When you update your EDMX model from database it will include it as scalar properties to your entity. You must remove those properties. Then go to model browser and create new complex type. Return back to entity and add complex property of your new complex type. And at the end you must go to entity mapping and map your complex type to those database columns.
Here is basic tutorial from MSDN but from unknown reason they didn't include such elementary details like screenshots. Here is some video from channel9.
Model first:
This is similar to database first but you don't have to deal with database creation and mapping. It will be generated for you.
Code first (EF 4.1):
You must create separate class for your complex type and use it as property in your entity. You should not need to map it by default - mapping should be infered. If it doesn't work you can map complext type either by using ComplextTypeAttribute annotation or by defining mapping in DbModelBuilder.
I can further extend approach you need to use if you provide more details.