I'm trying to test pojo classess using openpojo but i have the same error like there. I don't understand that solution so I'll ask again. What should I do to proper using #BusinessKey.
My classes:
public class Person {
#BusinessKey
private Integer id;
...getters/setters
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return BusinessIdentity.areEqual(this, obj);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return BusinessIdentity.getHashCode(this);
}
}
public class Employee {
#BusinessKey
private Integer id;
private Person person;
...getters/setters
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return BusinessIdentity.areEqual(this, obj);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return BusinessIdentity.getHashCode(this);
}
}
The #BusinessKey annotation is designed to be thrown on your business keys, not your generated database ids.
So to annotate the fields, you have ask the business, what makes a person a person? how can two "Person" objects be determined to be the same? This should be done in the context of the business and how it identifies what makes a person a person.
In the example above, for Employee I am guessing you can't have a valid Employee object without it being linked to a person, so the #BusinessKey needs to be on person (plus other important fields).
Hope this helps.
Related
I am using entity frame work in my mvc core application. I am also using dependency injection technique. Now i want to get the value of new record identity column. I am using the code as..
public interface IGenericRepositoryStudent<T> where T : class
{
void Add(T item);
}
public class GenericRepositoryStudent<T> : IGenericRepositoryStudent<T> where T : class
{
private eerp_studentContext _context;
private DbSet<T> _dbSet;
public GenericRepositoryStudent(eerp_studentContext context)
{
_context = context;
_dbSet = _context.Set<T>();
}
public void Add(T item)
{
_dbSet.Add(item);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
}
Controller:
public class StudentController : Controller
{
private IStudentRepository _dbSet;
public StudentController(IStudentRepository dbSet)
{
_dbSet = dbSet;
}
public long Add([FromBody]Student _student)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
_dbSet.Add(acJournal);
long _id = _student.id; // value of _id is always 0.
return _id;
}
}
}
Apparently every T that you want to Add has a Primary Key. You want the value of this primary Key after the T has been added and changes are saved.
This means, that you can't add objects of every class, you can only add classes that have a Primary Key.
The easiest, and a very type safe way (checked by compiler) is to allow only adding of object that have a primary key.
// interface of objects that have Id (primary key)
public interface IID
{
public long Id {get; set;}
}
If your database uses another type for primary keys like int, or GUID, use this other type as return type
public interface IGenericRepositoryStudent<T> where T : IID
{
T Add(T item);
}
public class GenericRepositoryStudent<T> : IGenericRepositoryStudent<T> where T : IID
{
...
public T Add(T itemToAdd)
{
T addedItem = _dbSet.Add(item);
_context.SaveChanges();
return addedItem
}
}
Usage:
class Student : IID
{
public long Id {get; set;} // primary key
...
}
public class StudentController : Controller
{
...
public T Add([FromBody]Student _student)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
return _dbSet.Add(_student);
}
}
}
I chose to return the complete T instead of only the Id, because if you need some of the properties of the added item, you don't need to fetch the item you just added. Besides this is just the return value of DbSet.Add(T)
If you really want, just return the Student's Id.
I have a Students class as below. My aim is to create multiple student objects and assign a couple of marks for each student. The former is done, but the latter-to assign marks for each student object- is confusing for me. As you can see, I also define a Marks class, but I don't know how to create multiple mark objects for each student object. Thanks for your help.
public class Students {
private int ID;
public Marks mark;
public static int total Student=1;
public Students(int id)
{
this.ID=id;
total Student++;
}
public void enter_Score(double s){
mark =new Marks(s);
}
public void get_Score()
{
print(mark.get_Score());
}
}
public class Marks {
public static int total_marks;
private double Score;
public Marks(double score)
{
this.set_Score(score);
}
public double get_Score() {
return Score;
}
public void set_Score(double score) {
Score = score;
}
}
Depending on whether or not you know how many marks a student will have, all you should have to do is create an array of Mark objects.
public Marks[] marks;
If you don't know how many marks a student will have:
public ArrayList<Marks>() marks;
Then, depending on which one you use, your method may look like:
public void enter_Score(double s)
{
marks.Add(new Marks(s));
}
If you just use an array, you'll have to know which index you want to insert at and how big the array is. Also, remember to initialize the array or ArrayList of Marks in your constructor.
class Person{
private String name;
private int age;
private String gender;
//......
}
class Student extends Person{
private String id;
private String schoolBelongTo;
//......
}
public void showInfoOf(Person person){
System.out.println(person.getName());
//......
}
When using function "showInfoOf" ,if an object of Peron is used as the param,OK.However,if it is the type Student,I cannot get access to the field id and schoolBelongTo.
So I am confused ,how to ?
Actually, I want to know is this one of its(Interface oriented programming's or Supper class oriented programming's) disadvantages???
Two possible solutions:
You can programatically check the type in showInfoOf (Person), and use a cast to access & print the desired fields; or,
You can define a method on Person which will print/provide the desired info -- and either replace showPersonInfo() with that entirely, or call it into it. This is the more OO way.
Example:
abstract class Person {
private String name;
private int age;
private String gender;
public void printInfo() {
System.out.println( name);
}
}
class Student extends Person{
private String id;
private String schoolBelongTo;
#Override
public void printInfo() {
super.printInfo();
System.out.println( id);
System.out.println( schoolBelongTo);
}
}
public void showInfoOf (Person person){
person.printInfo();
}
In this example, all functionality has moved to Person.printInfo() and there is no real functionality remaining in showInfoOf (Person).
However in the real-world, you'd probably want move versatility in a Person.provideInfo() function -- perhaps returning a LinkedHashMap of fields & values (since unlabelled values on their own, are not great design).
The showInfoOf (Person) function could then handle formatting & printing the values to the specific requirement, leaving the Person.provideInfo() function general & multi-purpose.
in showInfoOf() you would have to check that person is of type Student, then cast it as a Student to get id or schoolBelongsTo
I created a generic repository class that all my other repository classes are inheriting from. This is great, because it means almost all the plumbing is done one time for all repositories. I put a full explanation of what I'm talking about here, but here is the code for my GenericRepository (some code is removed for brevity):
public abstract class GenericRepository<T> : IGenericRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
private IMyDbContext _myDbContext;
public GenericRepository(IMyDbContext myDbContext)
{
_myDbContext = myDbContext;
}
protected IMyDbContext Context
{
get
{
return _myDbContext;
}
}
public IQueryable<T> AsQueryable()
{
IQueryable<T> query = Context.Set<T>();
return query;
}
public virtual void Create(T entity)
{
Context.Set<T>().Add(entity);
}
public virtual void Update(T entity)
{
Context.Entry(entity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
}
}
As you see, I have a Create method and an Update method. It would be very convenient to have a "CreateOrUpdate" method, so I don't have to manually check for existing objects each time I have to save something to the database.
Each of my objects in Entity Framework have an "Id", but the challenge here is that the GenericRepository works with "T".
Now, with that rather long introduction, to my specific question.
How do I create a generic CreateOrUpdate method for my GenericRepository?
UPDATE
After Marcins response, I implemented the following generic methods in my GenericRepository. It will take some time before I can test that it works as expected, but it looks very promising.
public virtual bool Exists(Guid id)
{
return Context.Set<T>().Any(t => t.Id == id);
}
public virtual void CreateOrUpdate(T entity)
{
if (Exists(entity.Id))
{
var oldEntity = GetSingle(entity.Id);
Context.Entry(oldEntity).CurrentValues.SetValues(entity);
Update(oldEntity);
}
else
{
Create(entity);
}
}
The code above has no less than 3 roundtrips to the database when updating. I'm sure it can be optimized, but it wasn't really the exercise for this question.
This question handles that topic better:
An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager. The ObjectStateManager cannot track multiple objects with the same key
Create a interface with Id property, implement it on every of your entities and add another generic constraint to your class:
public interface IEntity
{
int Id { get; set;}
}
And
public abstract class GenericRepository<T> : IGenericRepository<T> where T : class, IEntity, new()
With that, you'll be able to use Id property within your generic repository class.
Of course - Id don't have to be an int, it can be Guid as well.
My domain classes that have one-to-many mappings generally take the following form (untested code):
public Customer Customer
{
// Public methods.
public Order AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.Add(order);
}
public Order GetOrder(long id)
{
return _orders.Where(x => x.Id).Single();
}
// etc.
// Private fields.
private ICollection<Order> _orders = new List<Order>();
}
The EF4 code-only samples I've seen expose a public ICollection when dealing with one-to-many relationships.
Is there a way to persist and restore my collections with exposing them? If not, it would appear that my domain objects will be designed to meet the requirements of the ORM, which seems to go against the spirit of the endeavour. Exposing an ICollection (with it's Add, etc. methods) doesn't seem particularly clean, and wouldn't be my default approach.
Update
Found this post that suggests it wasn't possible in May. Of course, the Microsoft poster did say that they were "strongly considering implementing" it (I'd hope so) and we're half a year on, so maybe there's been some progress?
I found that whatever was done, EF requires the ICollection<T> to be public. I think this is because when the objects are loaded from the database, the mapping looks for a collection property, gets the collection and then calls the Add method of the collection to add each of the child objects.
I wanted to ensure that the addition was done through a method on the parent object so created a solution of wrapping the collection, catching the add and directing it to my preferred method of addition.
Extending a List and other collection types was not possible because the Add method is not virtual. One option is to extend Collection class and override the InsertItem method.
I have only focussed on the Add, Remove, and Clear functions of the ICollection<T> interface as those are the ones that can modify the collection.
First, is my base collection wrapper which implements the ICollection<T> interface
The default behaviour is that of a normal collection. However, the caller can specify an alternative Add method to be called. In addition, the caller can enforce that the Add, Remove, Clear operations are not permitted by setting the alternatives to null. This results in NotSupportedException being thrown if anyone tries to use the method.
The throwing of an exception is not as good as preventing access in the first place. However, code should be tested (unit tested) and an exception will be found very quickly and a suitable code change made.
public abstract class WrappedCollectionBase<T> : ICollection<T>
{
private ICollection<T> InnerCollection { get { return GetWrappedCollection(); } }
private Action<T> addItemFunction;
private Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction;
private Action clearFunction;
/// <summary>
/// Default behaviour is to be like a normal collection
/// </summary>
public WrappedCollectionBase()
{
this.addItemFunction = this.AddToInnerCollection;
this.removeItemFunction = this.RemoveFromInnerCollection;
this.clearFunction = this.ClearInnerCollection;
}
public WrappedCollectionBase(Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction) : this()
{
this.addItemFunction = addItemFunction;
this.removeItemFunction = removeItemFunction;
this.clearFunction = clearFunction;
}
protected abstract ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection();
public void Add(T item)
{
if (this.addItemFunction != null)
{
this.addItemFunction(item);
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Direct addition to this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public void AddToInnerCollection(T item)
{
this.InnerCollection.Add(item);
}
public bool Remove(T item)
{
if (removeItemFunction != null)
{
return removeItemFunction(item);
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Direct removal from this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public bool RemoveFromInnerCollection(T item)
{
return this.InnerCollection.Remove(item);
}
public void Clear()
{
if (this.clearFunction != null)
{
this.clearFunction();
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Clearing of this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public void ClearInnerCollection()
{
this.InnerCollection.Clear();
}
public bool Contains(T item)
{
return InnerCollection.Contains(item);
}
public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
InnerCollection.CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
public int Count
{
get { return InnerCollection.Count; }
}
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return ((ICollection<T>)this.InnerCollection).IsReadOnly; }
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return InnerCollection.GetEnumerator();
}
System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return InnerCollection.GetEnumerator();
}
}
Given that base class we can use it in two ways. Examples are using the original post objects.
1) Create a specific type of wrapped collection (For example, List)
public class WrappedListCollection : WrappedCollectionBase, IList
{
private List innerList;
public WrappedListCollection(Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.innerList = new List<T>();
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.innerList;
}
<...snip....> // fill in implementation of IList if important or don't implement IList
}
This can then be used:
public Customer Customer
{
public ICollection<Order> Orders {get { return _orders; } }
// Public methods.
public void AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.AddToInnerCollection(order);
}
// Private fields.
private WrappedListCollection<Order> _orders = new WrappedListCollection<Order>(this.AddOrder, null, null);
}
2) Give a collection to be wrapped using
public class WrappedCollection<T> : WrappedCollectionBase<T>
{
private ICollection<T> wrappedCollection;
public WrappedCollection(ICollection<T> collectionToWrap, Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.wrappedCollection = collectionToWrap;
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.wrappedCollection;
}
}
which can be used as follows:
{
public ICollection Orders {get { return _wrappedOrders; } }
// Public methods.
public void AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.Add(order);
}
// Private fields.
private ICollection<Order> _orders = new List<Order>();
private WrappedCollection<Order> _wrappedOrders = new WrappedCollection<Order>(_orders, this.AddOrder, null, null);
}
There are some other ways to call the WrappedCollection constructors
For example, to override add but keep remove and clear as normal
private WrappedListCollection<Order> _orders = new WrappedListCollection(this.AddOrder, (Order o) => _orders.RemoveFromInnerCollection(o), () => _orders.ClearInnerCollection());
I agree that it would be best if EF would not require the collection to be public but this solution allows me to control the modification of my collection.
For the problem of preventing access to the collection for querying you can use approach 2) above and set the WrappedCollection GetEnumerator method to throw a NotSupportedException. Then your GetOrder method can stay as it is. A neater method however may be to expose the wrapped collection. For example:
public class WrappedCollection<T> : WrappedCollectionBase<T>
{
public ICollection<T> InnerCollection { get; private set; }
public WrappedCollection(ICollection<T> collectionToWrap, Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.InnerCollection = collectionToWrap;
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.InnerCollection;
}
}
Then the call in the GetOrder method would become
_orders.InnerCollection.Where(x => x.Id == id).Single();
Another way to accomplish this would be to create an associated interface for each of your POCOs to expose only what you want outside of the persistence/domain layers. You can also interface your DbContext class to also hide and control access to the DbSet collections. As it turns out, the DbSet properties can be protected, and the model builder will pick them up when it's creating tables, but when you try to access the collections they will be null. A factory method (in my example, CreateNewContext) can be used instead of the constructor to get the interfaced DbContext to conceal the DbSet collections.
There's quite a bit of extra effort in coding, but if hiding implementation details within the POCOs is important, this will work.
UPDATE: It turns out you CAN populate DBSets if they are protected, but not directly in the DBContext. They can't be aggregate roots (i.e. accessibility of the entity has to be through a collection in one of the public DBSet entities). If hiding the implementation of DBSet is important, the interface pattern I've described is still relevant.
public interface ICustomer
{
void AddOrder(IOrder order);
IOrder GetOrder(long id);
}
public Customer : ICustomer
{
// Exposed methods:
void ICustomer.AddOrder(IOrder order)
{
if (order is Order)
orders.Add((Order)order);
else
throw new Exception("Hey! Not a mapped type!");
}
IOrder ICustomer.GetOrder(long id)
{
return orders.Where(x => x.Id).Single();
}
// public collection for EF
// The Order class definition would follow the same interface pattern illustrated
// here for the Customer class.
public ICollection<Order> orders = new List<Order>();
}
public interface IMyContext
{
IEnumerable<ICustomer> GetCustomers();
void AddCustomer(ICustomer customerObject);
ICustomer CreateNewCustomer()
}
public class MyContext : DbContext, IMyContext
{
public static IMyContext CreateNewContext() { return new MyContext(); }
public DbSet<Customer> Customers {get;set;}
public DbSet<Order> Orders {get;set;}
public IEnumerable<ICustomer> GetCustomers()
{
return Customers;
}
public void AddCustomer(ICustomer customerObject)
{
if (customerObject is Customer)
Customers.Add((Customer)customerObject);
else
throw new Exception("Hey! Not a mapped type");
}
public ICustomer CreateNewCustomer()
{
return Customers.Create();
}
// wrap the Removes, Finds, etc as necessary. Remember to add these to the
// DbContext's interface
// Follow this pattern also for Order/IOrder
}
If you change the name of your _orders collection to the name of the orders table in your database, this should work. EF maps table/field names to collections/properties by convention. If you want to use a different name you could edit the mappings in the edmx file.
AFAIK you can just leave the private modifier as it is. Collections do not need to be public.