I'm joining three tables in linq, there is a one to one relationship between the first 2 tables then a one to many between the second and third, how can I materialise all the rows from the third table into a list ?, here's what I have so far but its only returning the first match from the 3rd table
var query = await (from contracts in DbContext.CHPContracts
join organisation in DbContext.Organisations on contracts.END_USER_ORG equals organisation.End_User_Org into organisation_joined
where request.ContractRefRequests.Contains(contracts.CONTRACT_REF)
from oj in organisation_joined.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new UserDto
{
Email = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().Email,
FirstName = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().FirstName,
LastName = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().LastName,
ID = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().ID,
SMS = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().Mobile,
Status = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().Status,
UserID = "",
UserRole = "",
OrgID = oj.CHPContacts.FirstOrDefault().OrgId,
OrganisationName = oj.OrganisationName,
End_User_Org = oj.End_User_Org
}).ToListAsync();
obviously its the .FirstOrDefault() bit that's causing that behaviour, but I cant figure out how to get the 3rd table records into a list, anyone help me out ?
I managed to figure it out in the end
var query = await (from contracts in DbContext.CHPContracts
join organisation in DbContext.Organisations on contracts.END_USER_ORG equals organisation.End_User_Org into organisation_joined
where request.ContractRefRequests.Contains(contracts.CONTRACT_REF)
from oj in organisation_joined.DefaultIfEmpty()
from contacts in oj.CHPContacts.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new UserDto
{
Email = contacts.Email,
FirstName = contacts.FirstName,
LastName = contacts.LastName,
ID = contacts.ID,
SMS = contacts.Mobile,
Status = contacts.Status,
UserID = "",
UserRole = "",
OrgID = contacts.OrgId,
OrganisationName = oj.OrganisationName,
End_User_Org = oj.End_User_Org
}).ToListAsync();
I have the following simplified setup:
Public User
{
//Primary key
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
}
Public UserInfo
{
//Primary key
public int Id {get;set;}
//Foreign key to user table
public int userKey {get; set;}
}
The relationship between the tables is one user to Many userInfo
I am trying to select from the user table and include the userInfo table.
I cannot do this:
var users = Context.user.Include(u => u.userInfos);
as there is no reference to the UserInfo table from the user table.
I can do this:
context.userInfo.include(x => x.user)
but if there are no corresponding entries in the userInfo table, this will not return any results, which is not what I want. Also, this will return one row for each userInfo, whereas I want one row for user, with a list of userInfo as a parameter.
Similarly I could join the tables like this:
var users = from us in Context.user
join inf in Context.userInfo
on us.Id equals inf.userKey
select new //etc
But this will also return one row per userInfo entry, the same problem as above.
To summarise, is there a way of including this table to produce a result in the same way as the include function does.
I know I could adjust my setup to all me to include this, but that is not what I am asking here.
I suspect this cannot be done, but from all my googling so far I have not been able to find a definitive answer....
I want one row for user, with a list of userInfo as a parameter
I assume you mean a list of userInfo as a property. My understanding of what you ask it that you're just looking for:
var users = from us in Context.user
join inf in Context.userInfo
on us.Id equals inf.userKey into infg
select new
{
User = us,
UserInfos = infg
};
join ... into amounts to a GroupJoin, i.e. a user entity joined with a group of userinfos.
Better still is to use a navigation property user.userInfos (reluctantly following your naming convention):
var users = Context.user.Include(u => u.userInfos);
Let Users be a database containing typical users data (name, email...) with an ID as primary key.
Let Applications be a database storing a list of applications (name, developer...) with an ID as primary key.
Let UsersApps be the mapping table between the two, using the primary key. UsersApps thus stores rows of ..., {102, user1_Id, appA_Id}, {103, userN_ID, appB_Id}, {104, user1_Id, appC_Id}, ...
And so on.
I want to retrieve a list of users data {name, email, List<Application> boughtApps}
I am struggling to find a LINQ request to do that and I am trying to do it in two steps, get a big table and then build each user's list of applications.
var q1 = from user in _dbContext.Users
join appUti in _dbContext.AppUsers on user.Id equals appUti.UsersId
join app in _dbContext.Applications on appUti.ApplicationId equals app.Id
orderby user.Id
select new UserDataWithApp { Id = user.Id, Name = user.Name, firstName= user.FirstName, Email = user.Email, App = app };
Then parse q1.toList() to build my required results list.
var qRes = q1.ToList();
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
while (i<qRes.Count())
{
listUsersWithApps[j] = qRes[i];
while (qRes[i].Id == listUsersWithApps[j].Id) // llist is ordered !!
{
listUsersWithApps[j].Apps.Add(qRes[i].Apps[0]);
i++;
}
j++;
}
Isn't there a better way ?
You can use navigation properties to allow the following:
var userApps = context.Users.Select(u => new UserWithApp(u.Name, u.Email, u.Applications))
Just add to following to User:
public virtual ICollection<Application> Applications { get; set; }
and to Application:
public virtual ICollection<Users> Users { get; set; }
So you can "navigate" between your entities and write to following query (just adapt your ordering and what user data to be seleted):
var userApps = from user in context.Users
select new UserDataWithApp { ..., BoughtApps = user.Applications }
See here for an example: http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/code-first/configure-many-to-many-relationship-in-code-first.aspx
or another interesting blog: https://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2014/03/12/avoid-many-to-many-mappings-in-orms/
Been at this far too long; trying to populate a field in a record with a foreign key, it is dependent on which user is logged on.
Shown below is a view bag which displayed the Firstname of the customer in a dropdown, which the user had to select. It would then put the CustomerID into the record when it was created. This method was impractical
ViewBag.CustomerID = new SelectList(db.Customers, "CustomerID", "FName");
Below is an attempt to input the foreign key automatically by finding the CustomerID and then inputting the custoemrID into a hidden field on a form.
public ActionResult Create()
{
var CusID = from c in db.Customers
where c.UserName == "User.Identity.Name"
select c.CustomerID;
return View(new CarAdvert { UserName = #User.Identity.Name, CustomerID = CusID });
}
The error: Cannot implicitly convert type system.linq.Iqueryable <-int-> to int
The approach taken (is this correct! - Any advice on the subject welcome)
any more info need please ask.
Regarding the error:
var CusID = (from c in db.Customers
where c.UserName == User.Identity.Name
select c.CustomerID).Single();
Instead of .Single you can/should use .First, .FirstOrDefault, ... depending on your requirements.
I'm trying to use the multimapping feature of Dapper to return a list of ProductItems and associated Customers.
[Table("Product")]
public class ProductItem
{
public decimal ProductID { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
public string AccountOpened { get; set; }
public Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
public decimal CustomerId { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
}
My Dapper code:
var sql = #"select * from Product p
inner join Customer c on p.CustomerId = c.CustomerId
order by p.ProductName";
var data = con.Query<ProductItem, Customer, ProductItem>(
sql,
(productItem, customer) => {
productItem.Customer = customer;
return productItem;
},
splitOn: "CustomerId,CustomerName"
);
This works fine, but I seem to have to add the complete column list to the "splitOn" parameter to return all the customers' properties. If I don't add "CustomerName", it returns null. Am I misunderstanding the core functionality of the multimapping feature? I don't want to have to add a complete list of column names each time.
I just ran a test that works fine:
var sql = "select cast(1 as decimal) ProductId, 'a' ProductName, 'x' AccountOpened, cast(1 as decimal) CustomerId, 'name' CustomerName";
var item = connection.Query<ProductItem, Customer, ProductItem>(sql,
(p, c) => { p.Customer = c; return p; }, splitOn: "CustomerId").First();
item.Customer.CustomerId.IsEqualTo(1);
The splitOn param needs to be specified as the split point, it defaults to Id. If there are multiple split points, you will need to add them in a comma delimited list.
Say your recordset looks like this:
ProductID | ProductName | AccountOpened | CustomerId | CustomerName
--------------------------------------- -------------------------
Dapper needs to know how to split the columns in this order into 2 objects. A cursory look shows that the Customer starts at the column CustomerId, hence splitOn: CustomerId.
There is a big caveat here, if the column ordering in the underlying table is flipped for some reason:
ProductID | ProductName | AccountOpened | CustomerName | CustomerId
--------------------------------------- -------------------------
splitOn: CustomerId will result in a null customer name.
If you specify CustomerId,CustomerName as split points, dapper assumes you are trying to split up the result set into 3 objects. First starts at the beginning, second starts at CustomerId, third at CustomerName.
Our tables are named similarly to yours, where something like "CustomerID" might be returned twice using a 'select *' operation. Therefore, Dapper is doing its job but just splitting too early (possibly), because the columns would be:
(select * might return):
ProductID,
ProductName,
CustomerID, --first CustomerID
AccountOpened,
CustomerID, --second CustomerID,
CustomerName.
This makes the splitOn: parameter not so useful, especially when you're not sure what order the columns are returned in. Of course you could manually specify columns... but it's 2017 and we just rarely do that anymore for basic object gets.
What we do, and it's worked great for thousands of queries for many many years, is simply use an alias for Id, and never specify splitOn (using Dapper's default 'Id').
select
p.*,
c.CustomerID AS Id,
c.*
...voila! Dapper will only split on Id by default, and that Id occurs before all the Customer columns. Of course it will add an extra column to your return resultset, but that is extremely minimal overhead for the added utility of knowing exactly which columns belong to what object. And you can easily expand this. Need address and country information?
select
p.*,
c.CustomerID AS Id,
c.*,
address.AddressID AS Id,
address.*,
country.CountryID AS Id,
country.*
Best of all, you're clearly showing in a minimal amount of SQL which columns are associated with which object. Dapper does the rest.
Assuming the following structure where '|' is the point of splitting and Ts are the entities to which the mapping should be applied.
TFirst TSecond TThird TFourth
------------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
col_1 col_2 col_3 | col_n col_m | col_A col_B col_C | col_9 col_8
------------------+-------------+-------------------+------------
Following is the Dapper query that you will have to write.
Query<TFirst, TSecond, TThird, TFourth, TResut> (
sql : query,
map: Func<TFirst, TSecond, TThird, TFourth, TResut> func,
parma: optional,
splitOn: "col_3, col_n, col_A, col_9")
So we want for TFirst to map to col_1 col_2 col_3, for TSecond to col_n col_m ...
The splitOn expression translates to:
Start mapping of all columns into TFirst till you find a column named or aliased as 'col_3', and also include 'col_3' into the mapping result.
Then start mapping into TSecond all columns starting from 'col_n' and continue mapping till new separator is found, which in this case is 'col_A', and mark the start of TThird mapping and so on.
The columns of the SQL query and the props of the mapping object are in a 1:1 relation (meaning that they should be named the same). If the column names resulting from the SQL query are different, you can alias them using the 'AS [Some_Alias_Name]' expression.
If you need to map a large entity write each field must be a hard task.
I tried #BlackjacketMack answer, but one of my tables has an Id Column other ones not (I know it's a DB design problem, but ...) then this insert an extra split on dapper, that's why
select
p.*,
c.CustomerID AS Id,
c.*,
address.AddressID AS Id,
address.*,
country.CountryID AS Id,
country.*
Doesn't work for me. Then I ended with a little change to this, just insert an split point with a name that doesn't match with any field on tables, In may case changed as Id by as _SplitPoint_, the final sql script looks like this:
select
p.*,
c.CustomerID AS _SplitPoint_,
c.*,
address.AddressID AS _SplitPoint_,
address.*,
country.CountryID AS _SplitPoint_,
country.*
Then in dapper add just one splitOn as this
cmd =
"SELECT Materials.*, " +
" Product.ItemtId as _SplitPoint_," +
" Product.*, " +
" MeasureUnit.IntIdUM as _SplitPoint_, " +
" MeasureUnit.* " +
"FROM Materials INNER JOIN " +
" Product ON Materials.ItemtId = Product.ItemtId INNER JOIN " +
" MeasureUnit ON Materials.IntIdUM = MeasureUnit.IntIdUM " +
List < Materials> fTecnica3 = (await dpCx.QueryAsync<Materials>(
cmd,
new[] { typeof(Materials), typeof(Product), typeof(MeasureUnit) },
(objects) =>
{
Materials mat = (Materials)objects[0];
mat.Product = (Product)objects[1];
mat.MeasureUnit = (MeasureUnit)objects[2];
return mat;
},
splitOn: "_SplitPoint_"
)).ToList();
There is one more caveat. If CustomerId field is null (typically in queries with left join) Dapper creates ProductItem with Customer = null. In the example above:
var sql = "select cast(1 as decimal) ProductId, 'a' ProductName, 'x' AccountOpened, cast(null as decimal) CustomerId, 'n' CustomerName";
var item = connection.Query<ProductItem, Customer, ProductItem>(sql, (p, c) => { p.Customer = c; return p; }, splitOn: "CustomerId").First();
Debug.Assert(item.Customer == null);
And even one more caveat/trap. If you don't map the field specified in splitOn and that field contains null Dapper creates and fills the related object (Customer in this case). To demonstrate use this class with previous sql:
public class Customer
{
//public decimal CustomerId { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
}
...
Debug.Assert(item.Customer != null);
Debug.Assert(item.Customer.CustomerName == "n");
I do this generically in my repo, works good for my use case. I thought I'd share. Maybe someone will extend this further.
Some drawbacks are:
This assumes your foreign key properties are the name of your child object + "Id", e.g. UnitId.
I have it only mapping 1 child object to the parent.
The code:
public IEnumerable<TParent> GetParentChild<TParent, TChild>()
{
var sql = string.Format(#"select * from {0} p
inner join {1} c on p.{1}Id = c.Id",
typeof(TParent).Name, typeof(TChild).Name);
Debug.WriteLine(sql);
var data = _con.Query<TParent, TChild, TParent>(
sql,
(p, c) =>
{
p.GetType().GetProperty(typeof (TChild).Name).SetValue(p, c);
return p;
},
splitOn: typeof(TChild).Name + "Id");
return data;
}
I would like to note a very important aspect: the property name within the Entity must match the select statement. Another aspect of splitOn is how it looks for Id by default, so you don't have to specify it unless your naming is something like CustomerId, instead of Id. Let's look at these 2 approaches:
Approach 1
Entity Customer : Id Name
Your query should be something like:
SELECT c.Id as nameof{Customer.Id}, c.Foo As nameof{Customer.Name}.
Then your mapping understands the relationship between the Entity and the table.
Approach 2
Entity Customer: CustomerId, FancyName
Select c.Id as nameof{Customer.CustomerId}, c.WeirdAssName As nameof{Customer.FancyName}
and at the end of the mapping, you have to specify that the Id is the CustomerId by using the SplitOn.
I had an issue where I was not getting my values even though the mapping was correct technically because of a mismatch with the SQL statement.