We Keep Coding

Get field by name in Entity Framework

What would be the easiest and least labour intensive (from the software POV) for me to be able to get a property (to be read and modified) from an entity generated via the Entity Framework?
Example (and simplified code) below:
// <auto-generated> from Entity Framework
public partial class tblCustomer
{
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public string Status { get; set; }
}
For instance I would like:
tblCustomer customer = new tblCustomer();
int pCustomerID = customer.GetFieldByName("CustomerID");
pCustomerID = 100;
I've read a lot of answers about Reflection, but also comments that it's heavy processing (may be a bit excessive for my needs).
My example code may seem rather simplistic (so a solution would be rather pointless for that, the real code is based on large tables), but if there was some sort of GetFieldByName function I could reduce my code significantly as I have a lot of repetitious code doing the same stuff (just to different columns).

If I understand your problem correctly, I think you can use the changetracker for this (if the entity is in the context already).
dbContext.Entry(customer).CurrentValues["CustomerID"]
will give you the value of CustomerID for the customer object, provided it is attached to the dbContext instance.
If it is not part of the context, you can use Attach() to attach it first, or use Add(), if it's supposed to be a new record.

If you don't like to use Reflection the only way that i know is using a dictionary in your entities and also you can put all these stuff in a base class and your entities inherit it for example like that:
[Serializable]
public class BaseEntity
{
Dictionary<string, object> _dic;
public BaseEntity()
{
_dic = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
public object this[string propertyName]
{
get
{
return _dic[propertyName];
}
set
{
_dic[propertyName] = value;
}
}
}
public class tblCustomer : BaseEntity
{
public int CustomerID
{
get
{
return (int)this["CustomerID"];
}
set
{
this["CustomerID"] = value;
}
}
public string Status
{
get
{
return (string)this["Status"];
}
set
{
this["Status"] = value;
}
}
}
tblCustomer customer = new tblCustomer();
int pCustomerID = customer["CustomerID"];
and about performance cost of Reflection you can for first time store your memberInfos in a static field and use it for all instances.

FileHelpers error: The field: 'k__BackingField' has the type: XXX that is not a system type, so this field need a CustomConverter

I need to read a CSV file with FileHelpers based on type, automatically generated by my MVC model. The model looks like this:
public partial class Merchant
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> Category { get; set; }
public virtual MerchantCategory MerchantCategory { get; set; }
}
The last field is obviously generated by a foreign key in database, referring to table MerchantCategories.
Then I attempt to create an instance of FileHelperEngine with this type:
var engine = new FileHelperEngine<Merchant>();
And get the following exception:
The field: 'k__BackingField' has the type: MerchantCategory that is not a system type, so this field need a CustomConverter ( Please Check the docs for more Info).
Actually I don't need this field at all for my import, so I tried to ignore it in derived class:
[DelimitedRecord(",")]
public class MerchantForImport : Merchant {
[FieldHidden]
new public MerchantCategory MerchantCategory;
}
var engine = new FileHelperEngine<MerchantForImport>();
And still the same error. I don't need this field at all, I don't want to implement any FieldConverter for it, I never asked for this k__BackingField and it's nowhere to be found in my code!
I can't call FileHelperEngine.Options.RemoveField() because the exception is thrown by the constructor.
Where does that come from? How do I get rid of it?

From a design perspective, I think you are going about it the wrong way. You are trying to use the Merchant class for two incompatible uses. Instead you should have two separate classes.
FileHelpers is a library for describing csv files so that you can import them easily. You should have a MerchantFileSpec for describing your file. It's really not a proper C# class - it may have: dummy fields to represent unused columns; lots of attributes [FieldNullValue], [FieldQuoted], [FieldConverter]; etc. It works best with public fields (a FileHelpers limitation which is not C# best practice), etc. It is a convenience syntax for describing the import file. It should not include any business logic or special constructors, or backing fields. Keep it as simple as possible.
Then you can have your MVC-generated Merchant class which is separate. Its purpose is to describe the merchant as required by the MVC framework, with foreign keys, ids, whatever.
Then you use a FileHelperEngine<MerchantFileSpec> to read the records into an array and map it to an enumerable of Merchant (via Linq or a library like AutoMapper).
Something like:
/// Your MVC-generated class. Add methods, getters, setters, whatever.
/// FileHelpers doesn't use this class.
class Merchant
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> Category { get; set; }
public virtual MerchantCategory MerchantCategory { get; set; }
}
/// This is the class FileHelpers will use
/// This class describes the CSV file only. Stick to whatever
/// syntax conventions are required by FileHelpers.
[DelimitedRecord(";")]
class ProductMerchantFileSpec
{
[FieldQuoted(QuoteMode.OptionalForRead)]
public long Id;
[FieldQuoted(QuoteMode.OptionalForRead)]
public string Name;
[FieldQuoted(QuoteMode.OptionalForRead)]
// Handle non-US formats such as , decimal points
// convert from inches to centimetres?
// you get the idea...
[FieldConverter(MyCustomizedCategoryConverter)] // you get the idea
public int Category;
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var engine = new FileHelperEngine<ProductMerchantFileSpec>();
var productMerchantRecords = engine.ReadFile(filePath);
var productMerchants = productMerchantRecords
.Select(x => new Merchant() { Id = x.Id, Name = x.Name, Category = x.Category });
}
}

I received this error specifically because my object (i.e. Merchant) was missing a column that existed in the source file. I was able to work around the issue prior to realizing the missing column by adding a new property to my object class public string[] MyProperty { get; set; }. This work-around help me realize a column was missing.
i.e..
public partial class Merchant
{
public long id { get; set; }
..
..
..
public string[] MyProperty { get; set; }
}

How to solve "Expected element name to be '_t', not 'number'."

I have a mongo model like this:
class ObjectA {
[BsonId(IdGenerator = typeof(BsonObjectIdGenerator))]
public BsonObjectId Id;
[BsonElement("number")]
public int Number { get; set; }
[BsonElement("b")]
public List<ObjectB> objectB { get; set; }
}
class ObjectB {
[BsonElement("someProperty")]
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
My problem is when I aggregate the collection with {$unwind:objectB}. The result documencts have a unique object on the property objectB (not a list).
So the cast failes with the exception:
An error occurred while deserializing the ObjectB property of class
ObjectA: Expected element name to be '_t', not
'number'.
Do I have to create a new model for this or is there a easier way to solve it?

You could also choose to work with BsonDocument directly (but that is not strongly typed and more cumbersome to work with), e.g. (I'm using the simple Posts/Tags example here)
var aggregationResults = db.GetCollection("Posts").Aggregate().ResultDocuments;
foreach (var document in aggregationResults)
{
var tag = document.GetValue("Tags").AsString;
}
Unlike the normal query and projection operators, the aggregation framework may change the structure of your document. As you already pointed out, $unwind transforms a document that contains an array into a number of documents that each have a single value of the same name.
Another approach this is to indeed create a new type for this, so
class Post {
public List<string> Tags { get; set; }
...
would become
class PostAggregationResult {
public string Tags { get; set; }
...
That is very easy to work with, but if you have very various aggregation queries, you need a large number of classes which can be annoying.

EF code first iterates over all properties while creating object

I use EF Code First in my application and have the following class:
[Table("TBL_XYZ")]
public class XYZ
{
[Required]
public string PropA { get; set; }
[Required]
public int PropB { get; set; }
public int FormulaA
{
get
{
return PropB * Math.PI / 100;
}
}
}
This is how I get the data from the database:
var data = (from e in db.XYZ where e.PropB < 100 select e).ToList();
After I added some more fields which do calculations and don't have a set accessor (like FormulaA), I realized a drop in performance when executing the above line.
After some debugging I found out that EF iterates over all Properties. It calls all get-functions of the properties, while creating the object, even if I don't access them.
What is the purpose of this behaviour and is there a workaround. Does this maybe have something to do with keeping track of changes?
It is really convenient for me to have my formulas in the object itself, but right now it severely affects the performance.

You can try to add
[NotMapped]
public int FormulaA ....
And also in query select only properties what you really need.
select new {e.PropA, e.PropB}

Is it possible to have a List<string> as a property on an active record class

Is it possible to have a HasMany relationship of a basic type such as String, on an ActiveRecord class, without the need for creating another entity such as (TodoListItem) to hold the value.
[ActiveRecord]
public class TodoList
{
[PrimaryKey]
public int Id
{
get { return _id; }
set { _id = value; }
}
[HasMany(typeof(string)]
public IList<string> Items
{
get { return _items; }
set { _items= value; }
}
}
Can anyone help?

Yes, you can do this. You can map a one-to-many relation to a built-in or simple type (value type or string) rather than a persisted type.
You'll need to specify the ColumnKey, Table and Element params in the HasMany attribute declaration to get it to wire up properly. You have to have a surrogate key column so the AR can handle updates and cascades, and then Element tells AR which column in the table holds the simple value it will use to make the list.
[HasMany(typeof(string), Table="ToDoList_Items",
ColumnKey = "ListItemID", Element = "Item")]
public IList<string> Items { get; set; }
(or something similar - I haven't got a compiler handy on this box to check it; but per the API docs it ought to work.)
Speaking of which, if you haven't already had a look, http://api.castleproject.org is kinda indispensible for any work with the Castle stack.

In ActiveRecord, your types map to a record in a table (by default). It seems like you are confusing how this type should map to your table.
The MyClass type should have a definition something like this (excluding the PK settings):
[ActiveRecord(Table = "MyTable")]
public class MyClass : ActiveRecordBase<MyClass>
{
[Property]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Property]
public int MyClassId { get; set; }
[Property]
public string ListItem { get; set; }
}
Then, to load the list:
public void LoadMyClasses()
{
MyClass[] results = MyClass.FindAll();
}
I'd suggest you spend some time with the ActiveRecord documentation (or tutorial) as that should also help clear up any confusion.