Navigation Property Filter - entity-framework

My question is this: How can you implement a default server-side "filter" for a navigation property?
In our application we seldom actually delete anything from the database. Instead, we implement "soft deletes" where each table has a Deleted bit column. If this column is true the record has been "deleted". If it is false, it has not.
This allows us to easily "undelete" records accidentally deleted by the client.
Our current ASP.NET Web API returns only "undeleted" records by default, unless a deleted argument is sent as true from the client. The idea is that the consumer of the service doesn't have to worry about specifying that they only want undeleted items.
Implementing this same functionality in Breeze is quite simple, at least for base entities. For example, here would be the implementation of the classic Todo's example, adding a "Deleted" bit field:
// Note: Will show only undeleted items by default unless you explicitly pass deleted = true.
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<BreezeSampleTodoItem> Todos(bool deleted = false) {
return _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
}
On the client, all we need to do is...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos");
...to get all undeleted Todos, or...
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from("Todos").withParameters({deleted: true})
...to get all deleted Todos.
But let's say that a BreezeSampleTodoItem has a child collection for the tools that are needed to complete that Todo. We'll call this "Tools". Tools also implements soft deletes. When we perform a query that uses expand to get a Todo with its Tools, it will return all Tools - "deleted" or not.
But how can I filter out these records by default when Todo.Tools is expanded?
It has occurred to me to have separate Web API methods for each item that may need expanded, for example:
[HttpGet]
public IQueryable<Todo> TodoAndTools(bool deletedTodos = false, bool deletedTools = false)
{
return // ...Code to get filtered Todos with filtered Tools
}
I found some example code of how to do this in another SO post, but it requires hand-coding each property of Todo. The code from the above-mentioned post also returns a List, not an IQueryable. Furthermore this requires methods to be added for every possible expansion which isn't cool.
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way to define a piece of code that gets called whenever Todos is queried, and another for whenever Tools is queried - preferably being able to pass an argument that defines if it should return Deleted items. This could be anywhere on the server-side stack - be it in the Web API method, itself, or maybe part of Entity Framework (note that filtering Include extensions is not supported in EF.)

Breeze cannot do exactly what you are asking for right now, although we have discussed the idea of allowing the filtering of "expands", but we really need more feedback as to whether the community would find this useful. Please add this to the breeze User Voice and vote for it. We take these suggestions very seriously.
Moreover, as you point out, EF does not support this.
But... what you can do is use a projection instead of an expand to do something very similar:
public IQueryable<Object> TodoAndTools(bool deleted = false
,bool deletedTools = false) {
var baseQuery = _contextProvider.Context.Todos.Where(td => td.Deleted == deleted);
return baseQuery.Select(t => new {
Todo: t,
Tools: t.Tools.Where( tool => tool.Deleted = deletedTools);
});
}
Several things to note here:
1) We are returning an IQueryable of Object instead of IQueryable of ToDo
2) Breeze will inspect the returned payload and automatically create breeze entities for any 'entityTypes' returned (even within a projection). So the result of this query will be an array of javascript objects each with two properties; 'ToDo' and 'Tools' where Tools is an array of 'Tool' entities. The nice thing is that both ToDo and Tool entities returned within the projection will be 'full' breeze entities.
3) You can still pass client side filters based on the projected property names. i.e.
var query = EntityQuery.from("TodoAndTools")
.where("Todo.Description", "startsWith", "A")
.using(em);
4) EF does support this.

Related

v2.ODataModel: which API is more preferred? "bindElement" or "read"?

I set the view.setModel(model), get the model for the view, and request for model.read("/entitySet('10000')").
The model is then filled up with /entitySet('10000')/properties.
But it is difficult to assign them to view fields, as now in the view, <Text text="{property}"> doesn't work. It has to be <Text text="{/entitySet('10000')/property}">.
On the other hand, if I set view's context binding to "/entitySet('10000')", then <Text text="{property}"> would start working.
Which one is the preferred method? When to use .read?
I almost never use .read if I want to use the results from an OData call directly in a binding context. The only time I use .read is if I want to manipulate the results before doing anything with them.
Look at this example from the sdk for instance: https://ui5.sap.com/#/entity/sap.ui.table.Table/sample/sap.ui.table.sample.OData
Syntax on this kind of binding is similar to read but with a few differences in events, and a few different types of methods depending on what you want to bind. Binding to a view for instance uses bindElement:
this.getView().bindElement("/entitySet('1000')");
After this, fields on that particular entity can be accessed as <Text text="{property}" />.
Here's an example from one of my current apps with events and some other call parameters:
this.getView().bindElement({
path: `/Orders('${currentOrderNumber}')`,
parameters: {
expand: 'Texts'
},
events: {
dataRequested: _ => this.getView().setBusy(true),
dataReceived: data => {
if (!this.getView().getBindingContext()) {
// navigate to `Not Found` view
}
},
change: _ => this.getView().setBusy(false)
}
});
For a table, it's slightly different, since it depends on the aggregation you wish to bind, such as
oTable.bindRows({
path: "properties"
});
Which is the same as:
<Table rows="{properties}" />
It's always important to be more expressive. Use the API that is specifically designed to do that one task.
Comparing the two variants:
myModel.read(sPath) with text="{/path/property}"
myControl.bindElement(sPath) with text="{property}"
I'd be perplexed about the 1st call whereas in the 2nd call, I'd know exactly what you want to achieve (You want to bind element. Alternatively, bindObject can be also used).
The same applies to the framework. Since you're telling exactly what you want to achieve, the framework can improve its behavior based on your intent. E.g.: in (route)PatternMatched handler when the user navigates to the same page, .bindElement with the same path won't trigger another request since the model already stored the entity from the previous call. It can show the result immediately.
With .read, however, the framework doesn't know what you want to achieve, so it sends the request right away regardless of the application state.
Additionally, the 1st variant is anything but future-proof. It relies on the cached results. It's almost a side-effect that it works at all. The problem is that there is no guarantee that this behavior will continue to work in later versions. Also there won't be read method in V4 ODataModel.
TL;DR
v2.ODataModel#read
Does not create context from the response. Repeating .read("<same path>") always sends a new request.
Less expressive. Encourages app developers to work with a client-side model (e.g. JSONModel).
Application loses context awareness, increasing TCO, less future-proof.
bindElement or bindObject
Creates context from the response and stores it internally so that the same request can return the data immediately.
Clearly expresses the intent; application as well as framework can work with the existing APIs.
More future-proof: v4.ODataModel does not support manual read. Imagine you've built your applications with the v2ODataModel.read-jsonModel.setData approach, and you need to migrate to v4. Have fun. :)
I honestly think that v2.ODataModel#read should have never become a public method. I wouldn't encourage anyone to use .read except of when reading the $count value manually.
If the entity values need to be formatted, there are formatters and binding types out of the box which are also easy to extend.
If the application needs to restructure the response body, usually it's a sign of a poor design of the data model or the service not conforming to the OData spec.
I almost agree with Jorg, but not entirely:
It really depends on what are you trying to achieve. If looking to display data from backend then the easiest way to go is with this.getView().bindElement()
but if you are in need to manipulate data before displaying (like formatting text, displaying images from base64 strings, etc) OR if you would like to create new entity using some of existing data, OR update the existing data - the this.getModel(sName).read() is the way to go - as you can set read entity with all its deep entities to JSONModel in successCallback and manipulate it from the localModel.
If using localModel the dataBinding is pretty much the same in the view - except you have to additionally give model name to take data from. So for example, if in successCallback of your Model.read() you set your data to Model named "localModel":
this.getModel().read(sObjectPath, {
urlParameters: {
$expand: ""
},
success: function (oData) {
// "localModel" is name you gave in onInit function to your new JSONMOdel, when setting it to View e.g. this.getView().setModel(oJSONMOdel, "localModel")
this.getModel("localModel").setData(oData);
}
})
then in XML view you would indicate that
<Text text="{localModel>/mainPropertyName}"/>
// for displaying deep entities as List items or in Table
<List items="{localModel>/deepEntityName}">
<StandardListItem title="{localModel>propertyNamefromDeepEntity}" />
</List>
From my experience working with more complex apps that Read-Only - I always use Model.read().

Entity Framework dbSet.Include(x=>x.Offer.Images.Where(y=>y.IsDeleted == false))

How should I transform this query into a valid Entity Framework query?
dbSet.Include(x=>x.Offer.Images.Where(y=>y.IsDeleted == false))
The Where clause throws an exception:
The Include path expression must refer to a navigation property defined on the type. Use dotted paths for reference navigation properties and the Select operator for collection navigation properties.
I already tried third party library IncludeFilter, which works. However it doesn't allow me to use another include:
dbSet.Include(x=>x.Offer.Images.Where(y=>y.IsDeleted == false)).Include(x=>x.Demand)
Many thanks :-)
Include is just a marker to tell EF to eager-load related entities. It doesn't support eager-loading a selected sub-set of relatives, such as active items.
When working with a soft-delete model (IsDeleted/IsActive) will populate the view models with the active children. The benefit of returning view models for read operations is that you avoid potential lazy-load scenarios and just retrieve the data you need to consume. For edit operations I will eager-load related data and typically want both active and inactive records.
var viewModels = dbset.Select(x => new MyVM
{
Objectid = x.ObjectId,
// ...
Offer = new OfferViewModel
{
OfferId = x.Offer.OfferId,
// ...
Images = x.Offer.Images
.Where(i => !i.IsDeleted) // Load only active images
.Select(i => new ImageViewModel
{
ImageId = i.ImageId,
//...
}).ToList()
}
}
Note that this doesn't need explicit .Include() statements, just load the data that you need.
When I go to save changes to the entity graph then I would load the root entity with .Include(x => x.Order).Include(x => x.Order.Images) to ensure that I have all relative data included. EF should be aware of the full collection before applying updates to avoid surprises such as duplicate record insertion attempts.
I already tried third party library IncludeFilter, which works. However it doesn't allow me to use another include:
When starting to use IncludeFilter, you need to continue using it all the way even if you don't filter.
dbSet.IncludeFilter(x=>x.Offer.Images.Where(y=>y.IsDeleted == false))
.IncludeFilter(x=>x.Demand)

when updating item with changed embedded docs in Mongoose, these embedded docs don't update

I'm doing the following using Mongoose:
that.model.update({_id: dao._id}, dao, { upsert: true }, cb);
Where dao is a mongoose representation containing (among other things) a couple of embedded documents. As a test I've deleted a couple of the embedded docs from the array before calling the update-method above.
The result is that the change to the array of embedded docs IS NOT persisted.
Anything I'm overlooking?
Hard to be certain w/o seeing more code, but if dao is a Mongoose model instance, you should be calling dao.save(cb); instead.
I solved the problem by doing something similar as proposed in the following issue: https://github.com/LearnBoost/mongoose/issues/571
For completeness some background which led to the problem.
I'm using DDD repositories which are populated on app-start. Under the hood this fetches Mongoose-objects (which are treate as DAOs in my situation) and are translated to domainobjects, which are cached in the repository. I need this separation between domainobjects and mongoose-objects, don't ask.
This means that getById, getAll and all other public interfaces of the repo work with domainobjects and not with mongoose-objects.
When doing things like add or update on the repo this internally only updates the in-mem cache (which, again, only uses domainobjects instead of mongoose-objects)
Only when doing commit on the repo does the possibly changed collection of domainobjects get persisted. This is done by creating NEW Mongoose-objects instead of fetching Existing mongoose-objects and updating those.
This is why I can't use dao.save() since, when I'm saving a different (just created) mongoose-object while a mongoose-object with the same id may possibly already exist in Mongo, it throws a duplicate id error.
Some relevant snippet from by code illustrating the solution:
var dao = that.createDAO(domainobject);
//https://github.com/LearnBoost/mongoose/issues/571
// Convert the Model instance to a simple object using Model's 'toObject' function
// to prevent weirdness like infinite looping...
var upsertData = dao.toObject();
// Delete the _id property, otherwise Mongo will return a "Mod on _id not allowed" error
delete upsertData._id;
that.model.update({_id: dao._id}, upsertData, { upsert: true }, cb);

GWT Editor Framework: Drop Down List

I'm looking for someone to point me in the right direction (link) or provide a code example for implementing a drop down list for a many-to-one relationship using RequestFactory and the Editor framework in GWT. One of the models for my project has a many to one relationship:
#Entity
public class Book {
#ManyToOne
private Author author;
}
When I build the view to add/edit a book, I want to show a drop down list that can be used to choose which author wrote the book. How can this be done with the Editor framework?
For the drop-down list, you need a ValueListBox<AuthorProxy>, and it happens to be an editor of AuthorProxy, so all is well. But you then need to populate the list (setAcceptableValues), so you'll likely have to make a request to your server to load the list of authors.
Beware the setAcceptableValues automatically adds the current value (returned by getValue, and defaults to null) to the list (and setValue automatically adds the value to the list of acceptable values too if needed), so make sure you pass null as an acceptable value, or you call setValue with a value from the list before calling setAcceptableValues.
I know it's an old question but here's my two cents anyway.
I had some trouble with a similar scenario. The problem is that the acceptable values (AuthorProxy instances) were retrieved in a RequestContext different than the one the BookEditor used to edit a BookProxy.
The result is that the current AuthorProxy was always repeated in the ValueListBoxwhen I tried to edit a BookProxy object. After some research I found this post in the GWT Google group, where Thomas explained that
"EntityProxy#equals() actually compares their request-context and stableId()."
So, as I could not change my editing workflow, I chose to change the way the ValueListBox handled its values by setting a custom ProvidesKey that used a different object field in its comparison process.
My final solution is similar to this:
#UiFactory
#Ignore
ValueListBox<AuthorProxy> createValueListBox ()
{
return new ValueListBox<AuthorProxy>(new Renderer<AuthorProxy>()
{
...
}, new ProvidesKey<AuthorProxy>()
{
#Override
public Object getKey (AuthorProxy author)
{
return (author != null && author.getId() != null) ? author.getId() : Long.MIN_VALUE;
}
});
}
This solution seems ok to me. I hope it helps someone else.

Using Reflection to Remove Entity from RIA Services EntityCollection?

To facilitate control reuse we created a solution with three separate projects: a control library, Silverlight client, and ASP.NET backend. The control library has no reference to the RIA Services-generated data model classes so when it needs to interact with it, we use reflection.
This has worked fine so far but I've hit a bump. I have a DataGrid control where the user can select a row, press the 'delete' button, and it should remove the entity from the collection. In the DataGrid class I have the following method:
private void RemoveEntity(Entity entity)
{
// Use reflection to remove the item from the collection
Type sourceType = typeof(System.Windows.Ria.EntityCollection<>);
Type genericType = sourceType.MakeGenericType(entity.GetType());
System.Reflection.MethodInfo removeMethod = genericType.GetMethod("Remove");
removeMethod.Invoke(this._dataGrid.ItemsSource, new object[] { entity });
// Equivalent to: ('Foo' derives from Entity)
// EntityCollection<Foo> ec;
// ec.Remove(entity);
}
This works on the client side but on the domain service the following error gets generated during the Submit() method:
"The UPDATE statement conflicted with
the FOREIGN KEY constraint
"********". The conflict occurred in
database "********", table "********",
column '********'. The statement has
been terminated."
One thing I noticed is the UpdateFoo() service method is being called instead of the DeleteFoo() method on the domain service. Further inspection shows the entity is going into the ModifiedEntities ChangeSet instead of the RemovedEntities ChangeSet. I don't know if that's the problem but it doesn't seem right.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks,
UPDATE
I've determined that the problem is definitely coming from the reflection call to the EntityCollection.Remove() method. For some reason calling it causes the entity's EntityState property to change to EntityState.Modified instead of EntityState.Deleted as it should.
Even if I try to remove from the collection by completely circumventing the DataGrid I get the exact same issue:
Entity selectedEntity = this.DataContext.GetType().GetProperty("SelectedEntity").GetValue(this.DataContext, null) as Entity;
object foo = selectedEntity.GetType().GetProperty("Foo").GetValue(selectedEntity, null);
foo.GetType().InvokeMember("Remove", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, foo, new object[] { entity });
As a test, I tried modifying the UpdateFoo() domain service method to implement a delete and it worked successfully to delete the entity. This indicates that the RIA service call is working correctly, it's just calling the wrong method (Update instead of Delete.)
public void UpdateFoo(Foo currentFoo)
{
// Original update implementation
//if ((currentFoo.EntityState == EntityState.Detached))
// this.ObjectContext.AttachAsModified(currentFoo, this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentFoo));
// Delete implementation substituted in
Foo foo = this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentFoo);
if ((foo.EntityState == EntityState.Detached))
this.ObjectContext.Attach(foo);
this.ObjectContext.DeleteObject(foo);
}
I've been researching a similar issue.
I believe the issue is you are calling remove with a reference for an EntityCollections within the DomainContext as the root reference rather than using the DomainContext itself as the root.
So...
ParentEntityCollection.EntityCollectionForTEntity.Remove(TEntity);
Produces the EntityState.Modified instead of EntityState.Deleted
Try instead...
DomainContext.EntityCollectionForTEntity.Remove(TEntity);
I think this will produce the result you are seeking.
Hope this helps.
What is the "column" in the "FOREIGN KEY constraint" error? Is this a field in the grid row and collection that coorosponds to that column? Is it possible that the entity you are trying to remove is a column in the row rather than the row itself which is causing an update to the row (to null the column) rather than to delete the row?
I read your update and looks like you've determined that the problem is the reflection.
Have you tried to take the reflection out of the picture?
As in:
private void RemoveEntity(Entity entity)
{
// Use reflection to remove the item from the collection
Type sourceType = typeof(System.Windows.Ria.EntityCollection<>);
Type genericType = sourceType.MakeGenericType(entity.GetType());
// Make sure we have the right type
// and let the framework take care of the proper invoke routine
if (genericType.IsAssignableFrom(this._dataGrid.ItemsSource.GetType()))
((Object) this._dataGrid.ItemsSource).Remove(entity);
}
Yes, I know it's ugly, but some times...
Edited to add
I've updated the code to remove the is keyword.
Now about using the object to make the call to the Remove method, I believe it might work due the late binding of it.