When trying to update with mongodb by using the below code my result is getting null: in C#
public bool UpdateContact(string id, Contact item)
{
IMongoQuery query = Query.EQ("_id", id);
item.LastModified = DateTime.UtcNow;
IMongoUpdate update = Update
.Set("Email", item.Email)
.Set("LastModified", DateTime.UtcNow)
.Set("Name", item.Name)
.Set("Phone", item.Phone);
WriteConcernResult result = _contacts.Update(query, update);
return result.UpdatedExisting;
}
If you're not using the new connection style for the C# driver (and likely other drivers), your connection may be configured to not have a WriteConcern by default.
If there's no WriteConcern configured, the C# API will return a null as the result for the code you provided (see Update for more info)
For example, if your connection is like this:
var connectionString = "mongodb://localhost";
var server = MongoServer.Create(connectionString); // deprecated
var database = server.GetDatabase("test"); // WriteConcern defaulted to Unacknowledged
That would be configured to for no write concern.
You should be using this style (as of the C# 1.7 driver):
var connectionString = "mongodb://localhost";
var client = new MongoClient(connectionString);
var server = client.GetServer();
var database = server.GetDatabase("test"); // WriteConcern defaulted to Acknowledged
The difference is that you need to use the MongoClient class (and get the MongoServer and the MongoDatabase from that object instance).
Related
The project is an ASP.Net core project using EF core en PostgreSql as database.
Basically the flow boils down to :
var transaction = Database.BeginTransaction();
var someEntityA = new EntityA()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
};
await DataBase.DbSet<EntityA>.AddAsync(someEntityA);
await DataBase.SaveChangesAsync();
var someEntityB = new EntityB()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
EntityAId = someEntityA.Id;
};
await DataBase.DbSet<EntityB>.AddAsync(someEntityB);
await DataBase.SaveChangesAsync();
transaction.Commit();
When the second SaveChangesAsync is hit, a FK violation is thrown.
Do we execute the same flow without
var transaction = Database.BeginTransaction();
transaction.Commit();
Then it is all fine.
This flow is spread over multiple classes (service and repository classes) so just removing the first SaveChangesAsync is not an option. Hence that is the reason why using the manually transaction handling.
This flow works fine in MS Sql but in PostgreSql apparantly not.
Any suggestions how to make it work in PostgreSql ?
According OrientDB official doc, I should create Connection Pool with Object API with following code.
// OPEN THE DATABASE
OObjectDatabaseTx db= OObjectDatabasePool.global().acquire("remote:localhost/petshop", "admin", "admin");
However, I found that OObjectDatabasePool class has been deprecated and suggested to use com.orientechnologies.orient.core.db.OPartitionedDatabasePool instead.
But in that way, how can I get OObjectDatabaseTx object? That is because OPartitionedDatabasePool.acquire() can only return ODatabaseDocumentTx object.
Hope there are someone knows how to resolve it.
Thanks
With this code you can get "object to connect to" and then make queries etc.
GET DOCUMENT DB
String remote = "remote:localhost/";
String nameDB = "domain";
String url = remote + nameDB;
OPartitionedDatabasePool pool = new OPartitionedDatabasePool(url, "admin", "admin");
ODatabaseDocumentTx db = pool.acquire();
//use example
List<ODocument> resultset = db.query(new OSQLSynchQuery<Object>("select from ORole"));
for(ODocument doc:resultset) {
System.out.println(doc);
}
db.close();
GET OBJECT DB
String remote = "remote:localhost/";
String nameDB = "TestPartitioned2";
String url = remote + nameDB;
OServerAdmin serverAdmin = new OServerAdmin(url).connect("root", "root");
serverAdmin.createDatabase(nameDB, "object", "plocal");
System.out.println(" Database '"+nameDB +"' created!..");
OPartitionedDatabasePool pool = new OPartitionedDatabasePool(url, "admin", "admin");
//object
OObjectDatabaseTx db = new OObjectDatabaseTx(pool.acquire());
db.getEntityManager().registerEntityClass(Person.class);
Person personA = db.newInstance(Person.class);
personA.setName("tennantA");
db.save(personA);
db.close();
In the MongoDocs they specify this is the correct way to create an open connection:
var MongoClient = require('mongodb').MongoClient
, Server = require('mongodb').Server;
var mongoClient = new MongoClient(new Server('localhost', 27017));
mongoClient.open(function(err, mongoClient) {
var db1 = mongoClient.db("mydb");
mongoClient.close();
});
But later they mention that you can also do it this way:
MongoClient.connect("mongodb://localhost:27017/integration_test", function(err, db) {
test.equal(null, err);
test.ok(db != null);
});
They never explicitly say the difference between the two though. It seems like the second version is just a shorthand for the first. Is this true or is there something else I am not getting here?
I'm very keen to utilize Meteor as the framework for my next project. However, there is a requirement to keep customer data separated into different MongoDB instances for users from different customers.
I have read on this thread that it could be as simple as using this:
var d = new MongoInternals.RemoteCollectionDriver("<mongo url>");
C = new Mongo.Collection("<collection name>", { _driver: d });
However, I was dished this error on my server/server.js. I'm using meteor 0.9.2.2
with meteor-platform 1.1.0.
Exception from sub Ep9DL57K7F2H2hTBz Error: A method named '/documents/insert' is already defined
at packages/ddp/livedata_server.js:1439
at Function._.each._.forEach (packages/underscore/underscore.js:113)
at _.extend.methods (packages/ddp/livedata_server.js:1437)
at Mongo.Collection._defineMutationMethods (packages/mongo/collection.js:888)
at new Mongo.Collection (packages/mongo/collection.js:208)
at Function.Documents.getCollectionByMongoUrl (app/server/models/documents.js:9:30)
at null._handler (app/server/server.js:12:20)
at maybeAuditArgumentChecks (packages/ddp/livedata_server.js:1594)
at _.extend._runHandler (packages/ddp/livedata_server.js:943)
at packages/ddp/livedata_server.js:737
Can anyone be so kind as to enlighten me whether or not I have made a mistake somewhere?
Thanks.
Br,
Ethan
Edit: This is my server.js
Meteor.publish('userDocuments', function () {
// Get company data store's mongo URL here. Simulate by matching domain of user's email.
var user = Meteor.users.findOne({ _id: this.userId });
if (!user || !user.emails) return;
var email = user.emails[0].address;
var mongoUrl = (email.indexOf('#gmail.com') >= 0) ?
'mongodb://localhost:3001/company-a-db' :
'mongodb://localhost:3001/company-b-db';
// Return documents
return Documents.getCollectionByMongoUrl(mongoUrl).find();
});
and this is the server side model.js
Documents = function () { };
var documentCollections = { };
Documents.getCollectionByMongoUrl = function (url) {
if (!(url in documentCollections)) {
var driver = new MongoInternals.RemoteCollectionDriver(url);
documentCollections[url] = new Meteor.Collection("documents", { _driver: driver });
}
return documentCollections[url];
};
Observation: The first attempt to new a Meteor.Collection works fine. I can continue to use that collection multiple times. But when I log out and login as another user from another company (in this example by using an email that is not from #gmail.com), the error above is thrown.
Downloaded meteor's source codes and peeked into mongo package. There is a way to hack around having to declare different collection names on the mongodb server based on Hubert's suggestion.
In the server side model.js, I've made these adaptation:
Documents.getCollectionByMongoUrl = function (userId, url) {
if (!(userId in documentCollections)) {
var driver = new MongoInternals.RemoteCollectionDriver(url);
documentCollections[userId] = new Meteor.Collection("documents" + userId, { _driver: driver });
documentCollections[userId]._connection = driver.open("documents", documentCollections[userId]._connection);
}
return documentCollections[userId];
};
Super hack job here. Be careful when using this!!!!
I believe Meteor distinguish its collections internally by the name you pass to them as the first argument, so when you create the "documents" collection the second time, it tries to override the structure. Hence the error when trying to create the /documents/insert method the second time.
To work around this, you could apply a suffix to your collection name. So instead of:
new Meteor.Collection('documents', { _driver: driver });
you should try:
new Meteor.Collection('documents_' + userId, { _driver: driver })
I want to be able to retrieve the default queue of a user in dynamics crm 2011 using SOAP calls. I tried searching but did not generate any leads. Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
Try to query queueid field from systemuser entity.
Example:
var userId = new Guid("BCF84567-DE3C-4470-9A61-4B9A32351CB6");
var query = new QueryExpression("systemuser") { ColumnSet = new ColumnSet(new string[] { "queueid" }) };
query.Criteria.AddCondition(new ConditionExpression("systemuserid", ConditionOperator.Equal, userId));
var req = new RetrieveMultipleRequest()
{
Query = query
};
var res = (RetrieveMultipleResponse)slos.Execute(req);
var result = res.EntityCollection[0].Attributes["queueid"];
This will return entity reference to default user query.