I write a generic possibility to convert from database object to business object.
My business object contains custom attributes and depending on them, I like to make specific operations on them.
On reading from db its quite easy because I can use aftermap (not perfect solution, cause I have to do it by reflection and set the value depending on it)
But on writing back to the database I have to do it beforeMap but this would change the source permanent, but I just like it in a transient way. So do the operation with Source on the fly but do not change source object.
It's a generic option so I can't work with properties.
protected static T MapFromDatabaseWithConversion<T, TSource>(TSource source) where T : MappingModel, new()
{
var config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg => cfg.CreateMap<TSource, T>().AfterMap((src, dest) => dest.ConvertFromDatabase()));
return config.CreateMapper().Map<T>(source);
}
Do you have any solution for the check on the fly the attribute of a property and change the value depending on it - or you have any idea to change source only on the fly, so not write the result of source operation to src obj?
Thank you very much.
I think you have to include value tracking in your objects. For each class member you would need a boolean to reflect if the value changed, and a method that checks them all at once such as isObjectChanged(). You can hard code this or wrap your object in a Proxy object at runtime, which is more complicated, but does not clutter you class with value tracking data/methods. On the other hand, Java Data Objects (https://db.apache.org/jdo/) can do this for you by re-compiling your class files to include value tracking within the class about changing values. It takes a bit to set up and may be overkill for your specific question, but I have used it many times when targeting multiple data sources in the same project such as a database or spreadsheet. JDO allows me to use the same code with a different data type manager that can be swapped at runtime. You can also target a No-SQL database and other data stores as well.
Related
I have a variety of methods that use a configuration object to fill in placeholders in a template. Different methods use different subsets of properties of the configuration object. I'd like an easy way to check that all the properties a given method uses are present in a given config object.
Right now I have a method like this:
private static void ValidateConfiguration(CustomerConfiguration config, params string[] properties)
This has the maintenance disadvantage that it relies on a separate set of strings for the properties used. What I'd love to do is have the validation method look at the calling method and see what properties of the config object are being accessed. Can this be done?
(I could also wrap String.Replace() in a method that checks for nulls, but that's less fun.)
A type safe way to handle your problem would be to implement several interfaces with different meaningful subsets of properties. My understanding is that the presence/absence of the properties in your case depends on the type of configuration object and is dynamic.
you could use a signature like that
ValidateConfiguration<T>(CustomerConfiguration config)
where T represent the interface and use reflection to list the required properties. While it would be practically impossible to parse the code of a method to infer its usages of a data structure, reflection on types (to extract properties) is fairly easy.
Different methods use different subsets of properties of the configuration object.
If you're only creating one instance of the configuration property, then the properties it needs to have are whichever ones are going to be used by any method. In other words, if at least one method needs that property, then the object needs that property.
In that case there's no need to validate it in relation to individual methods that need it. All of its properties need to be populated because they're all needed somewhere. If they're not needed anywhere, you can delete them.
Then, instead of validating that object based on the needs of a particular method, you validate it once, perhaps at startup. All of the properties are needed, so if they haven't been specified then the application just can't run. (Sometimes it's good to include defaults in your configuration object. You might have one property that you want to be able to configure, but in real life it's never going to change.)
If you're creating different instances of the same object for use in different methods and you only want to populate certain properties then it's better not to do that. Just create more granular objects for different scenarios containing all the properties you need.
What frequently happens is this: We have an object with lots of properties and we only use a few of them, so we populate those properties and pass the object to a method. The other properties are null.
Then, someone modifying that method decides that they need another property, so they try to use it, and they're surprised to find out that it's null. Then they have to go back and trace where that object was created and figure out what is populated or not. That's confusing and time-consuming.
Unless fields are entirely optional and it doesn't matter whether they are populated or not, we don't want to find ourselves looking at an object with lots of properties and guessing which ones have been populated because individual methods that create the object "know" which properties other classes do or don't need.
public abstract class Unit
{
public abstract List<Move> allowedMoves{get;}
}
public class Javelineer : Unit
{
public List<Move> allowedMoves =>
new List<Move> {Move.Impale, Move.JavelinThrow, Move.ShieldBlock};
}
public class Dragon : Unit
{
public List<Move> allowedMoves =>
new List<Move> {Move.BreatheFire, Move.Swipe, Move.Bite, Move.Devour, Move.TailBash};
}
The X:
Given the above code, if and how can I retrieve the allowed moves of a given unit without necessarily instantiating a new object?
I know I can retrieve the property with this code:
typeof(Javelineer).GetProperty("allowedMoves")
But if and how can I retrieve the definition of this property?
The Y:
The client (web browser) must send the game server the player's unit. This includes the unit's type and moves this unit is able to perform (4 out of all available; similarily to Pokemon).
While the validation (of course) is performed on the server, the browser still needs to get a list of available unit types and allowed moves.
In order not to duplicate code, I would like to avoid hard-coding this data in Javascript.
Having read some excellent SO questions & answers I think I can retrieve all available units with code similar to this:
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes().Where(
type => type.BaseType == typeof(Unit)
).Select(type => type.Name).ToList()
I'd call this code on server startup, cache the result and send the cached result to every connecting client, because I have feeling this code is likely expensive to call.
But how can I retrieve the list of allowed moves?
You have a couple of options, but TL;DR: Construct the object instance and read the property.
In any case, here are some options, creative minds might be able to find a couple more even.
Construct the instance, read the property.
This is your best option code-wise because it will be easy to understand, maintain, bugfix.
Rewrite the code to allow for easy detection of the values using reflection
One way to do this would be to use attributes, tagging the property or object with the legal moves. However, to avoid having the bug that the attributes does one thing, the code another, you might have to change the code to use the attributes as well, which would be a performance hit.
Additionally, reading those attributes would likely construct many more objects than your original object.
Use mono.cecil or some other IL-inspection library to decode the code of the property getter and finding the construction of that list, extracting the values being added to the list. You would essentially either have to dumb down the code of that property to be on par with what you have right now (and never allow it to become more complex) or basically simulate execution of code.
This is like constructing a flotilla of space warships with enough firepower to demolish a local starsystem, just to kill an ant.
Bottom line, construct the object instance, read the property.
I'm starting to work with MongoDB using official c# driver. The problem is that I can't find a way to make bsonseriazer use fields (not properties) for setting the deserialized data and at the same time being able to use LINQ Api.
When mapping my class, I use BsonClassMap.FieldMap(). But this doesn't allow to use LINQ, since public properties remain unmapped.
Is there a way in BsonSerializer to do mappings based on properties, but at the same time specify that these should be set directly via their backing fields?
The reason I want to use fields for deserialization, is to omit custom validation rules that might be checked in setter.
I think you should keep those validation rules even when the data comes from your own database. It's much cleaner, less bug-prone and is more secure.
You can create your own BsonSerializers (or extend an existing one) that act which ever way you want. I've made several of those and it's really simple.
You can have a bool _isInitialized = false; in your DTOs that you set to true right after you get items from the MongoDB driver and forgo the validation rules until it is set.
I don't see another way to "split" the mapping to both the properties (for Linq) and data members (for serialization) and I recommend the first option.
I have an application and I'm using MEF to compose it. I want to know if it is possible to update the Metadata information of the parts after they were imported.
The reason to do this is the following: I display the imported parts' name and an typeof(int) property in a ListBox, and they are not loaded until the corresponding ListBoxItem is selected (pretty standard). Now I want to update the Metadata info of one part when some event raises, so the displayed info in the ListBox is somethind like "[Part name] ([new number])".
I'm importing the metadata as an Interface that defines it's info, but when I set the int property to be editable (with a set accesor) I receive the following execption at composition time:
"The MetadataView 'myMetadataInterface' is invalid
because property 'myInt' has a property set method."
Is there ANY way to achieve this? Or is the metadata ALWAYS read only once the part is created?
I know this question looks weird, but it doesn't make it any less difficult and therefore interesting ;-)
EDIT (based on Lee's answer, in order to keep people to the core of the question)
I just want to know if it is possible to update a Metadata property after the part is composed, but before it is actually loaded (HasValue == false). Don't worry about filtering or finding the part.
I added a property to the export inteface, which is meant only to be represented in the UI and to be updated, this property has no other function and the parts are not filtered by it.
Thanks
Metadata filtering and DefaultValueAttribute
When you specifiy a metadata view, an implicit filtering will occur to
match only those exports which contain the metadata properties defined
in the view. You can specify on the metadata view that a property is
not required, by using the
System.ComponentModel.DefaultValueAttribute. Below you can see where
we have specified a default value of false on IsSecure. This means if
a part exports IMessageSender, but does not supply IsSecure metadata,
then it will still be matched.
citation
Short Version (EDITED in after question edit).
You shouldn't ever need to update metadata at runtime. If you have some data that should be updated and belongs to a mef part, you need to choose to either have it be updated by recompiling, or store that data in a flexible storage outside of the dll. There's no way to store the change you made in the dll without recompiling, so this is a flawed design.
Previous post.
Altering values on the view would by lying about the components loaded. Sure the metadata is just an interface to an object that returns initialized values; sure you can technically update those values, but that's not the purpose of metadata.
You wouldn't be changing the Name field of an instance of Type. Why not? Because it's metadata. Updating metadata at runtime would imply that the nature of the instance of real data is somehow modified.
This line of code, if possible, wouldn't introduce the Triple type.
typeof(Double).Name = "Triple";
var IGotATriple = new Triple();
If you want to alter values, you need to just make another object with that information and bind to that. Metadata is compiled in. If you change it after a part is loaded, it doesn't change anything in the part's source, so you'd be lying. (unless you're going to have access to the source-code and you change it there and recompile).
Let's look at an example:
[Export(typeof(IPart))]
[ExportMetadata("Part Name","Gearbox")]
[ExportMetadata("Part Number","123")]
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
public class GearBoxPart : Part { public double GearRatio ... }
Now, let's assume that you had a UI that showed available parts and their numbers. Now, the manufacturer changes the part number for whatever reason and you want to update it. If this is possible, you might want to consider storing part number in a manifest or database instead. Alternatively you'd have to recompile every time a part number changes.
Recompile is possible. You have a controller UI that does the above, but instead of updating the metadata, you submit a request to rebuild the part's codefile. The request would be handled by parsing the codefile, replacing the part number, then sending off for a batch recompile and redistribute the new dll. That's a lot of work for nothing IMO.
So, you setup a database. Then you change the object metadata to this.
[ExportMetadata("OurCompanyNamePartNumber","123")]
Then you have a database/manifest/xml that maps your unique permanent static part number that your company devises to the current part number. Modifications in your control UI update the database/manifest/xml.
<PartMap>
<PartMapEntry OurCompanyNamePartNumber="123" ManufacturerPartNumber="456"/>
...
</PartMap>
Then the end-user UI does lookups for the part by manufacturer part number, and the mef code looks in the PartMap to get the mef part number.
Currently, I've created a class with ~30 properties to be set. This is done to build up a URL request later on(ie, "http://www.domain.com/test.htm?var1=a&var2=b...&var30=dd").
The issue I'm facing is the property names don't necessarily match the query variable names(this is intended to be different). For example, I may have a variable titled "BillAddress", whereas the query variable will need to be "as_billaddress".
I have no control over the query variable naming scheme as these are set at an external source.
One possible solution I've used is creating a custom attribute and decorating the properties with their respective query counterparts:
[CustomQueryAttribute("as_billaddress")]
string BillAddress{get;set;}
To retrieve the attribute though, requires a little reflection and due to the larger number of properties, I was curious if there is a neater way to accomplish this functionality. Not so much as setting/retrieving custom attributes without reflection, but being able to tie an alternate string variable to any property.
I've also pondered about setting each variable up as a sort of KeyValuePair, with each key representing the query counterpart, but I didn't get too far in that thought.
To summarize/clarify my above backstory, what would you do to associate a string with a property(not the value of the property)?
As always, any comments are greatly appreciated.
I would probably stick with a custom attribute, but the other potential option would be to do something like hold a static Dictionary that had string and property info (or property name), so you could get/set the property directly via this.
Something like:
static Dictionary<string, PropertyInfo> propertyMap = new Dictionary<string, PropertyInfo>();
static MyClass()
{
Type myClass = typeof(MyClass);
// For each property you want to support:
propertyMap.Add("as_billaddress", MyClass.GetProperty("BillAddress"));
// ...
}
You could then just do a dictionary lookup instead of using reflection in each call... This could also be setup fairly easy using configuration, so you could reconfigure the mappings at runtime.
A custom attribute seems like the best option to me - the framework seems to do this a lot as well (specifically with serialization).
If you look at popular ORM mappers then nearly all either use custom attributes or some kind of XML mapping file. The advantage of the latter is that you can modify the mapping without recompiling your application - the downside is that it hurts performance. However, I'd say your choice seems perfectly reasonable.