We Keep Coding

Dynamically get a DbSet<T> by Entity class name

I'm trying to use System.Reflections to get a DbSet<T> dynamically from its name.
What I've got right now is:
The DbSet name
The DbSet's Type stored on a variable
The issue I'm facing comes out when trying to use the dbcontext.Set<T>() method, since (these are my tries so far):
When I try to assign to <T> my DbSet Type, it throws me the following compilation error:
"XXX is a variable but is used like a type"
If I try with using both the Extension methods that you will find below in my code (which I made in order to try to get an IQueryable<T>), it returns a IQueryable<object>, which unfortunately is not what I am looking for, since of course when I try to manipulate it with further Reflections, it lacks of all the properties that the original class has…
What am I doing wrong? How can I get a DbSet<T>?
My code is the following, but of course, let me know if you need more infos, clarifications or code snippets.
My Controller's Method:
public bool MyMethod (string t, int id, string jsonupdate)
{
string _tableName = t;
Type _type = TypeFinder.FindType(_tableName); //returns the correct type
//FIRST TRY
//throws error: "_type is a variable but is used like a type"
var tableSet = _context.Set<_type>();
//SECOND TRY
//returns me an IQueryable<object>, I need an IQueryable<MyType>
var tableSet2 = _context.Set(_type);
//THIRD TRY
//always returns me am IQueryable<object>, I need an IQueryable<MyType>
var calcInstance = Activator.CreateInstance(_type);
var _tableSet3 = _context.Set2(calcInstance);
//...
}
Class ContextSetExtension
public static class ContextSetExtension
{
public static IQueryable<object> Set(this DbContext _context, Type t)
{
var res= _context.GetType().GetMethod("Set").MakeGenericMethod(t).Invoke(_context, null);
return (IQueryable<object>)res;
}
public static IQueryable<T>Set2<T>(this DbContext _context, T t)
{
var typo = t.GetType();
return (IQueryable<T>)_context.GetType().GetMethod("Set").MakeGenericMethod(typo).Invoke(_context, null);
}
}
EDIT Added TypeFinder's inner code.
In brief, this method does the same of Type.GetType, but searches Type on ALL the generated assemblies
public class TypeFinder
{
public TypeFinder()
{
}
public static Type FindType(string name)
{
Assembly[] assemblies = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies();
var result = (from elem in (from app in assemblies
select (from tip in app.GetTypes()
where tip.Name == name.Trim()
select tip).FirstOrDefault())
where elem != null
select elem).FirstOrDefault();
return result;
}
}
UPDATE as requested in the comments, here's the specific case:
In my DB i've got some tables which are really similar each other, so the idea was to create a dynamic table-update method which would be good for every table, just passing to this method the table name, the ID of the row to update and the JSON containing data to update.
So, in brief, I would perform some updates on the table given in input as DbSet type, updating the row with ID==id in input with the data contained inside the JSON, which will be parsed inside an object of type X(the same of dbset)/into a dictionary.
In pseudo-code:
public bool MyMethod (string t, int id, string jsonupdate)
{
string _tableName = t;
Type _type = TypeFinder.FindType(_tableName); //returns the correct type
//THIS DOESN'T WORKS, of course, since as said above:
//<<throws error: "_type is a variable but is used like a type">>
var tableSet = _context.Set<_type>();
//parsing the JSON
var newObj = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.DeserializeObject(jsonupdate, _type);
//THIS OF COURSE DOESN'T WORKS TOO
//selecting the row to update:
var toUpdate = tableSet.Where(x => x.Id == id).FirstOrDefault();
if(toUpdate!=null)
{
var newProperties = newObj.GetType().GetProperties();
var toUpdateProperties = toUpdate.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach(var item in properties)
{
var temp = toUpdateProperties.Where(p => p.Name==item.Name)
{
//I write it really in briefand fast, without lots of checks.
//I think this is enough, I hope
temp.SetValue(toUpdate, item.GetValue());
}
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
return false;
}

returns me an IQueryable<object>, I need an IQueryable<MyType>
Well, that will never work. Your IQueryable cannot be of type IQueryable<MyType>because that would mean the compiler would need to know what MyType is and that is not possible, because the whole point of this exercise is to decide that on runtime.
Maybe it's enough to know that those objects are in fact instances of MyType?
If not, I think you have painted yourself into a corner here and you are trying to figure out what paint to use to get out of there. Take a step back, it's probably not a technical problem. Why do you need to do this? Why do you have the conflicting needs of knowing the type at runtime only and knowing it at compile time?
You need to think about your requirements, not about the technical details.

I needed to dynamically load a single record from the database for each type in a list of known types, to print a test email when an admin is editing the template, so I did this:
List<object> args = new List<object>();
//...
//other stuff happens that isn't relevant to the OP, including adding a couple fixed items to args
//...
foreach (Type type in EmailSender.GetParameterTypes())
{
//skip anything already in the list
if (args.Any(a => a.GetType().IsAssignableFrom(type))) continue;
//dynamically get an item from the database for this type, safely assume that 1st column is the PK
string sql = dbContext.Set(type).Sql.Replace("SELECT", "SELECT TOP 1") + " ORDER BY 1 DESC";
var biff = dbContext.Set(type).SqlQuery(sql).AsNoTracking().ToListAsync().Result.First();
args.Add(biff);
}
Caveat: I know at least one record will exist for all entities I'm doing this for, and only one instance of each type may be passed to the email generator (which has a number of Debug.Asserts to test validity of implementation).
If you know the record ID you're looking for, rather than the entire table, you can use dbContext.Set(type).Find(). If you want the entire table of whatever type you've sussed out, you can just do this:
string sql = dbContext.Set(type).Sql; //append a WHERE clause here if needed/feasible, use reflection?
var biff = dbContext.Set(type).SqlQuery(sql).ToListAsync().Result;
Feels a little clunky, but it works. There is strangely no ToList without Async, but I can run synchronously here. In my case, it was essential to turn off Proxy Creation, but you look like you want to maintain a contextful state so you can write back to db. I'm doing a bunch of reflection later, so I don't really care about strong typing such a resulting collection (hence a List<object>). But once you have the collection (even just as object), you should be able to use System.Reflection as you are doing in your UPDATE sample code, since you know the type and can use SetValue with known/given property names in such a manner.
And I'm using .NET Framework, but hopefully this may translate over to .NET Core.

EDIT: tested and working:
public async Task<bool> MyMethod(string _type)
{
Type type = Type.GetType(_type);
var tableSet = _context.Set(type);
var list = await db.ToListAsync();
// do something
}
// pass the full namespace of class
var result = await MyMethod("Namespace.Models.MyClass")
IMPORTANT NOTE: your DbContext need to have the DbSet declared to work!
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<MyClass> MyClasses { get; set; }
}

How can I compare two C# collections and issue Add, Delete commands to make them equal?

I have two ICollection collections:
public partial class ObjectiveDetail
{
public int ObjectiveDetailId { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
}
var _objDetail1: // contains a list of ObjectiveDetails from my database.
var _objDetail2: // contains a list of ObjectiveDetails from web front end.
How can I iterate through these and issue and Add, Delete or Update to synchronize the database with the latest from the web front end?
If there is a record present in the first list but not the second then I would like to:
_uow.ObjectiveDetails.Delete(_objectiveDetail);
If there is a record present in the second list but not the first then I would like to:
_uow.ObjectiveDetails.Add(_objectiveDetail);
If there is a record (same ObjectiveDetailId) in the first and second then I need to see if they are the same and if not issue an:
_uow.ObjectiveDetails.Update(_objectiveDetail);
I was thinking to do this with some kind of:
foreach (var _objectiveDetail in _objectiveDetails) {}
but then I think I might need to have two of these and I am also wondering if there is a better way. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could do this?

The following code is one of some possible solutions
var toBeUpdated =
objectiveDetail1.Where(
a => objectiveDetail2.Any(
b => (b.ObjectiveDetailId == a.ObjectiveDetailId) &&
(b.Number != a.Number || !b.Text.Equals(a.Text))));
var toBeAdded =
objectiveDetail1.Where(a => objectiveDetail2.All(
b => b.ObjectiveDetailId != a.ObjectiveDetailId));
var toBeDeleted =
objectiveDetail2.Where(a => objectiveDetail1.All(
b => b.ObjectiveDetailId != a.ObjectiveDetailId));
The rest is a simple code to Add, Delete, Update the three collections to the database.

It's look like you just want the two lists to be a copy of one another, you can just implement a Copy method and replace the outdated collection, if you implement ICollection you will need to implement CopyTo, also you can add a version field to the container so you can know if you need to update it.
If you don't want to do it this way and you want to go through the elements and update them check if you can save in each object the state (modified, deleted, updated) this will help in the comparison.

foreach (var _objectiveDetail in _objectiveDetails) {} but then I
think I might need to have two of these and I am also wondering if
there is a better way. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I
could do this?
instead of looping through whole collection use LINQ query:
var query = from _objectiveDetail in _objectiveDetails
where (condition)
select ... ;
update:
It's pointless to iterate through whole collection if you want to update/delete/add something from web end. Humans are a bit slower than computers, isn't it? Do it one by one. In fact I don't understand the idea of 2 collections. What is it for? If you still want it: use event to run query, select updated/deleted/added record, do appropriate operation on it.

LINQ to SQL where clause verifying string contains list element

I'm using a view returning Domains according to an id. The Domains column can be 'Geography' or can be stuffed domains 'Geography,History'. (In any way, the data returned is a VARCHAR)
In my C# code, I have a list containing main domains:
private static List<string> _mainDomains = new List<string>()
{
"Geography",
"Mathematics",
"English"
};
I want to filter my LINQ query in order to return only data related to one or many main Domain:
expression = i => _mainDomains.Any(s => i.Domains.Contains(s));
var results = (from v_lq in context.my_view
select v_lq).Where(expression)
The problem is I can't use the Any key word, nor the Exists keyword, since they aren't available in SQL. I've seen many solutions using the Contains keyword, but it doesn't fit to my problem.
What should I do?

You can use contains:
where i.Domains.Any(s => _mainDomains.Contains<string>(s.xxx))
Notice that the generic arguments are required (even if Resharper might tell you they are not). They are required to select Enumerable.Contains, not List.Contains. The latter one is not translatable (which I consider an error in the L2S product design).
(I might not have gotten the query exactly right for your data model. Please just adapt it to your needs).

I figured it out. Since I can't use the Any keyword, I used this function:
public static bool ContainsAny(this string databaseString, List<string> stringList)
{
if (databaseString == null)
{
return false;
}
foreach (string s in stringList)
{
if (databaseString.Contains(s))
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
So then I can use this expression in my Where clause:
expression = i => i.Domains.ContainsAny(_mainDomains);
Update:
According to usr, the query would return all the values and execute the where clause server side. A better solution would be to use a different approach (and not use stuffed/comma-separated values)

Calling custom (formatting) method on LINQ to Entities

I'm using EF 4.1 and I'm trying to enumerate a company list for a grid. I have two options in the current project: select all companies from the DbContext (Entities) and load them into an object from a non-anonymous type (let's say EmpresaGrid) or select all companies into anonymous type objects with the same structure like Empresa (which is the entity I'm selecting from).
The first option (creating a model class for that) would require a little more work, but can be, eventually, more readable. Still, I'm not sure about that. The second option is what I'm using right now.
So, first question: it's better to create a model class only for displaying data or use anonymous type? Doing a direct select is out of question: a SELECT * is too big and that might make everything damn slow (I guess). So selection into another type creates a custom query with only the needed fields.
Using the second option (anonymous type), I have this code (simplified version):
public static IEnumerable<object> Grid()
{
Entities db = new Entities();
var empresas = db.Empresas
.Select(e => new
{
Cgc = e.Cgc, // PK
(...)
Address = new
{
AddressLine = e.EnderecoSede.AddressLine,
(...)
}
},
Contato = e.Contato,
(...)
})
.ToList();
return empresas;
}
The anonymous type I'm creating has around 40 lines of code, so it's kinda big, but it recreates part of the Empresa class struct (since the grid is waiting for a Empresa object). Anyway, I have a problem with the data format. For example, I would like to format the Cgc property using a custom string format. I have a public method for this, FormataCgc. This method receives a string and returns it formatted using some internal conditions.
So, my problem is how to that. For example, I have tried this:
var empresas = db.Empresas
.Select(e => new
{
Cgc = FormataCgc(e.Cgc),
}
But that doesn't work because FormataCgc cannot be translated into SQL (and I don't want to convert it). I also tried this:
var empresas = db.Empresas
.Select(e => new
{
(...)
}
.ToList();
foreach (var e in empresas) {
e.Cgc = FormataCgc(e.Cgc);
}
But it cannot be done since anonymous types have only read-only properties.
So, my second question is: how exactly can I do that? I need to change the data after selecting it, but using anonymous types? I've done a little research, and the best thing I've found was this: Calling a custom method in LINQ query. In that solution, Ladislav suggested doing a second select from the IEnumerable, but since the grid is excepting Empresa I cannot do that (I need to change or add properties, not encapsulate them).
I'm not sure if I was clear enough, but feel free to ask any questions. Also, the grid I'm currently using is a Telerik ASP.NET MVC Grid, which receives a IEnumerable (where T is a class) as model data and them iterates each object, doing its magic.

Since you're already converting this into an IEnumerable<T>, you can do the custom formatting as you stream the results in the client. Do your db.Select, and then convert to the appropriate format afterwards, ie:
var empresas = db.Empresas
.Select(e => new
{
(...)
})
.ToList();
foreach (var e in empresas) {
yield return new {
Cgc = FormataCgc(e.Cgc),
// Copy other properties here, as needed...
};
}
That being said, I'd personally recommend making a custom class, and not return an anonymous type. Your conversion would then be:
foreach (var e in empresas) {
yield return new YourClass(FormataCgc(e.Cgc), ...); // Construct as needed
}
This will dramatically improve the usability of this method, as you will have proper, named access to your properties from the caller of the method.

I think the solution to both of your questions is to create a model class. Sure it is a little bit more work up front, but it will allow you greater flexibility in the long run. Your custom model class can then handle the formatting for you.
public class EmpresaGridModel
{
public string Cgc { get; set; }
public string CgcFormatted
{
return FormataCgc(this.Cgc);
}
//properties for the other fields will have to be created as well obviously
}
Your telerik grid can then bind directly to the CgcFormatted property

Db4o StartsWith and ignore case

The following query takes a while to return:
db.Query<Person>(x => x.StartsWith("Chr", StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase))
is there a way to get this working correctly? ie faster?

Maybe you ran into a limitation of db4o’s query-optimization. Normally Native Queries and LINQ-Queries are translated into a low level SODA-query. When this optimization fails, db4o instantiates the objects in the database in order to execute the query. As you can imagine this can be quite slow.
The best current solution is to use a SODA directly for this case. For example a class with one property:
public class SimpleObject
{
private string name;
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
}
The native query like this:
var result = db.Query<SimpleObject>(x => x.Name.StartsWith ("Chr",StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase));
Can be represented by this SODA-Query:
IQuery query = db.Query();
query.Constrain(typeof (SimpleObject)); // restrict to a certain class
query.Descend("name").Constrain("Chr").StartsWith(false); // the field 'name' starts with 'chr', case-insensitive
foreach (var s in query.Execute())
{
//
}
I hope future versions of the Query-Optimizer support this case directly.

adding and index on the column you're comparing would probably help.
http://developer.db4o.com/Documentation/Reference/db4o-7.4/net35/tutorial/docs/Indexes.html#outline219