I have a SQL lookup table like this:
CREATE TABLE Product(Id INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY, Name VARCHAR(255))
I've databound a ASP.NET DropDownList to a LLBLGen entity. User selects a product, and the Id get saved. Now I need to display some product specific details later on. Should I use the Product's ID, and hope the ID is always the same between installations ?
switch (selectedProduct.Id)
{
case 1: //product one
break;
case 2:
case 3: //product two or three
break;
}
or use the name, and hope that never changes?
switch (selectedProduct.Name)
{
case "product one":
break;
}
Or is there a better alternative?
If you know of all the items in this table (which I guess you do if you can do a switch on them) and want them the same for each installation then maybe it should not be an identity column and you should insert 1, 2, 3 with the products themselves.
For this situation, there are three common solutions I have seen:
Hard code the ID - this is quick and dirty, not self-documenting (you don't know what product is being referred to), and prone to breakage as you pointed out. I never use this method anymore.
Enums - I use this when the table is small and static. So, ProductType would be a possible candidate for this. This is self-documenting code, but still creates an awkward connection between code and data where if records are inserted with different IDs than you planned for, then things break. You can mitigate this by automating the Enum generation in various ways, but it still feels wrong. E.g., if your unit tests are inserting records into the Product table, it will be difficult for them to recreate the Enum at that point. Also, if you have 100,000 records, the Enum approach starts to look pretty dumb.
Add an additional column, that is a non-changing identifier. I often use AlphaCode as my column name. So in your case it would look like:
switch (selectedProduct.AlphaCode)
{
case "PRODUCT_ONE":
break;
}
This lets you use an AlphaCode that is self-documenting, allows you to reinsert data without caring about the autoincrement PK value, and lets you change the product name without affecting anything. If you use the AlphaCode approach, ensure that you put a unique index on this column.
The other solution, which is often the most preferable one, is to move this logic to the database. E.g., if product 1 is the product you always want to show by default when its category is selected, you could add a column to your table called IsHeroProduct. Then your query becomes:
if (selectedProduct.IsHeroProduct)
{
//do stuff
}
If you want your ProductID's to be fixed (which doesn't seem to be a good idea), then you can use IDENTITY INSERT (in SQL Server, at least) to ensure ProductID values are the same between installations. But, I would normally only do this for static reference data.
You can also use Visual Studio's T4 templates to generate enums directly off the database data
Some ORMs (LLBLGen at least) can handle this for you; but generating a strong type of enums. I've never used that though.
In these cases, I always just go with an enum that I write myself, but I make sure that all the fields are equal, and update if any change. It becomes more interesting when you work across databases (as I do), but if you take care, it is simple enough.
Related
I have built a CRUD app using C# which is used to input cases against employees.
Im trying to figure out a way to link cases together if necessary.
e.g - A big fight breaks out
Tom was involved and has a case raised against him (caseID: 1)
Mark was also involved and has a case raised against him (caseID: 2)
Steve was also involved and has a case raised against him (caseID: 3)
(All the above stored in a single table)
As this was the same fight we want to link all the cases together.
How would you suggest I store this in another table?
Yes! You apparently need an "incident id" of some sort. This would be a different table with one row per incident. If the only incidents are fights, then this would be a fights table.
The incident id would then be related to each of the "cases" that you have.
Information about the incident would be in the incident table. That would probably include information such as type, date/time, location, and so on. In fact, what you are calling "cases" might simply be incidentParticipants or something like that.
This is a bit of a puzzle I'm trying to figure out.
I am working on a system where we have a number of company records saved in the database. Some of these records are duplicates and are no longer wanted/required.
However, several external systems are still mapping to these invalid records. If we were to delete them entirely it would cause errors to the systems still wanting to get the detail of that company.
The ideal workflow I would like would be;
The external system looks up Company ID X.
The current system has a table which has a record of all the remapped records, so when the request comes in, the table specifies to redirect Company ID X to Company ID Y.
There are a number of endpoints that could be altered one-by-one to do this - but it would be time-consuming, resulting in lots of repetition too.
My question is, using Entity Framework and .Net - is there a smart way of achieving this workflow?
My initial thoughts were to do something with the constructor for the company object, which repopulates the object from EF if a 'redirect' exists, but I don't know if this will play nice with navigation properties.
Would anyone have an idea?
Thanks very much.
You can create a column with foreign key for the same table to express the single unique valid company.
For example, you can add DuplicateOf column:
ALTER TABLE [Company]
ADD COLUMN [DuplicateOf] bigint NULL,
FOREIGN KEY [DuplicateOf] REFERENCES [Company] ([Id]);
and express this relation in your code:
public class Company
{
// ...
public Company DuplicateOf { get; set; }
// May be useful, hides check for duplicate logic:
public bool IsDuplicate => DuplicateOf != null;
// May be useful as well,
// returns the non-duplicate uniue company, not a duplicate, either linked or current:
public Company EffectiveCompany => DuplicateOf ?? this;
}
You will have to address EffectiveCompany when you want to work with non-duplicate and maintain this column to always point to the correct record. It will also result into additional query, if eager-loaded.
Another idea is to have a stored procedure GetCompany(bigint id) which will return the effective record - if DuplicateOf exists, or record itself otherwise. It will be good for your external systems and will let you hide all this stuff behind abstraction layer of stored procedure. If you decide to change it in future, then you can easily update it without breaking external systems.
However, for you it isn't always convenient to work with stored procedures with EF.
These are just ideas and not the best solutions, anyway.
In my opinion, the best solution would be to get rid of duplicates, update data everywhere and forget forever about this mess of duplicated data.
I have a table and it has one of the attribute set as identity. I want to get the value of the identity attribute that would be generated after I enter a value to the database.
I have EmpTable made of EmpID and EmpName. EmpID is set as Identity. I want to fetch the EmpID value before inserting a new row to the database.
I would advise against trying to do this with a table that is set up to use an integer column as the primary key. You will run into concurrency problems if you simply fetch the previous ID and increment it. Instead you should use a GUID (uniqueidentifier in SQL) as your primary key.
This will allow you to generate a new GUID in your code that can safely be saved to the database at a later stage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.guid.newguid.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187942.aspx
Sure the server knows where the auto-increment count is in its sequence, but there is almost nothing useful you can do with that information. Imagine you go to the Post Office and they hand out numbered tickets so they can serve customers in order. Of course you could ask them what the next number they'll give out is, but since anyone can walk in at any time you don't know you'll get that number. If you don't know that you'll get it, you can't do anything with it - e.g. writing it as a reference number on a form would be a mistake.
Depending on what you're trying to do, your two main options are:
Use a client-generated guid as your identifier. This kind of messes up the order so the analogy isn't great, but imagine if each customer who walked in could generate a random number that they are sure would never have been used before. They could use that to fill out forms before taking a number.
Take a number, but do it in a transaction with the other operations. A customer can take a number and use it to fill out some paperwork. If they realize they left their money at home, they just throw everything away and you never call their number.
Why do you think you need this information? Can you use either of these strategies instead?
Let's say we have a code list of all the countries including their country codes. The country code is primary key of the Countries table and it is used as a foreign key in many places in the database. In my application the countries are usually displayed as dropdowns on multiple forms.
Some of the countries, that used to exists in the past, don't exist any more, for example Serbia and Montenegro, which had the country code of SCG.
I have two objectives:
don't allow the user to use these old values (so these values should not be visible in dropdowns when inserting data)
the user should still be able to (readonly) open old stuff and in this case the deprecated values should be visible in dropdowns.
I see two options:
Rename deprecated values, for instance from 'CountryName' to '!!!!!CountryName'. This approach is the easiest to implement, but with obvious drawbacks.
Add IsActive column to Countries table and set it to false for all deprecated values and true for all other. On all the forms where the user can insert data, display only values which are active. On the readonly forms we can display all values (including deprecated ones) so the user will be able to display old data. But on some of my forms the user should be able to also edit data, which means that the deprecated values should be hidden from him. That means, that each dropbox should have some initialization logic like this: if the data displayed is readonly, then include deprecated values in dropbox and if the data is for edit also, then exclude them. But this is a lot of work and error prone too.
And other ideas?
I deal with this scenario a lot, and use the 'Active' flag to solve the problem, much as you described. When I populate a drop-down list with values, I only load 'active' data and include upto 1 deprecated value, but only if it is being used. (i.e. if I am looking at a person record, and that person has a deprecated country, then that country would be included in the Drop-downlist along with the active countries. I do this in read-only AND in edit modes, because in my cases, if a person record (for example) has a deprecated country listed, they can continue to use it, but once they change it to a non-deprecated country, and then save it, they can never switch back (your use case may vary).
So the key differences is, even in read-only mode I don't add all the deprecated countries to the DDL, just the deprecated country that applies to the record I am looking at, and even then, it is only if that record was already in use.
Here is an example of the logic I use when loading the drop down list:
protected void LoadSourceDropdownList(bool AddingNewRecord, int ExistingCode)
{
using (Entities db = new Entities())
{
if (AddingNewRecord) // when we are adding a new record, only show 'active' items in the drop-downlist.
ddlSource.DataSource = (from q in db.zLeadSources where (q.Active == true) select q);
else // for existing records, show all active items AND the current value.
ddlSource.DataSource = (from q in db.zLeadSources where ((q.Active == true) || (q.Code == ExistingCode)) select q);
ddlSource.DataValueField = "Code";
ddlSource.DataTextField = "Description";
ddlSource.DataBind();
ddlSource.Items.Insert(0, "--Select--");
ddlSource.Items[0].Value = "0";
}
}
If you are displaying the record as read-only, why bother loading the standing data at all?
Here's what I would do:
the record will contain the country code in any case, I would also propose returning the country description (which admittedly makes things less efficient), but when the user loads "old stuff", the business service recognises that this record will be read only, and you don't bother loading the country list (which would make things more efficient).
in my presentation service I will then generally do a check to see whether the list of countries is null. If not (r/w) load the data into the list box, if so (r/o) populate the list box from the data in the record - a single entry in the list equals read-only.
You can filter with CollectionViewSource or you could just create a Public Enumerable that filters the full list using LINQ.
CollectionViewSource Class
LINQ The FieldDef.DispSearch is the active condition. IEnumerable is a little better performance than List.
public IEnumerable<FieldDefApplied> FieldDefsAppliedSearch
{
get
{
return fieldDefsApplied.Where(df => df.FieldDef.DispSearch).OrderBy(df => df.FieldDef.DispName);
}
}
Why would you still want to display (for instance) customer-addresses with their OLD country-code?
If I understand correctly, you currently still have 'address'-records that still point to 'Serbia and Montenegro'. I think if you solve that problem, your current question would be none-existent.
The term "country" is perhaps a little misleading: not all the "countries" in ISO 3166 are actually independent. Rather, many of them are geographically separate territories that are legally portions or dependencies of other countries.
Also note that 'withdrawn country-codes' are reserved for 5 years, meaning that after 5 years they may be reused. So moving away from using the country-code itself as primary key would make sense to me, especially if for historical reasons you would need to back-track previous country-codes.
So why not make the 'withdrawn' field/table that points to the new country-id's. You can still check (in sql for instance, since you were already using a table) if this field is empty or not to get a true/false check if you need it.
The way I see it: "Country" codes may change, country's may merge and country's may divide.
If country's change or merge, you can update your address-records with a simple query.
If country's divide, you need a way to determine what address is part of what country.
You could use some automated system do do this (and write lengthly books about it).
OR
(when it is a forum like site), you could ask the users that still have a withdrawn country that points to multiple alternatives in their account to update their country-entry at login, where they can only choose from the list of new country's that are specified in the withdrawn field.
Think of this simplified country-table setup:
id cc cn withdrawn
1 DE Germany
2 CS Serbia and Montenegro 6,7
3 RH Southern Rhodesia 5
4 NL The Netherlands
5 ZW Zimbabwe
6 RS Serbia
7 ME Montenegro
In this example, address-records with country-id 3, get updated with a query to country-id 5, no user interaction (or other solution) needed.
But address-records that specify country-id 2 will be asked to select country-id 6 or 7 (of course in the text presented to the user you use the country-name) or are selected to perform your custom automated update routine on.
Also note: 'withdrawn' is a repeating group and as such you could/should make it into a separate table.
Implementing this idea (without downtime) in your scenario:
sql statement to build a new country-table with numerical id's as primary key.
sql statement to update address-records with new field 'country-id' and fill this field with the country-id from the new country-table that corresponds with country-code specified in that record's address-field.
(sql statement to) create the withdrawn table and populate the correct data with in it.
then rewrite your the sql statements that supply your forms with data
add the check and 'ask user to update country'-routine
let new forms go live
wait/see for unintended bugs
delete old country-table and (now unused) country-code column from the "address"-table
I am very curious what other experts think about this idea!!
I have an application which has rows of data in a relation database the table needs a status which will always be either
Not Submitted, Awaiting Approval, Approved, Rejected
Now since these will never change I was trying to decide the best way to implement them I can either think of a Status enum with the values and an int assigned where the int is placed into the status column on the table row.
Or a status table that linked to the table and the user select one of these as the current status.
I can't decide which is the better option as I currently have a enum in place with these values for the approval pages to populate the dropdown etc and setup the sql (as it currently using to bool Approved and submitted for approval but this is dirty for various reasons and needs changed).
Wondering what your thought on this were and whether I should go for one or the other.
If it makes any difference I am using Entity framework.
I would go with the Enum if it never changes since this will be more performant (no join to get the status). Also, it's the simpler solution :).
Now since these will never change...
You can count on this assumption being false, and sooner than you think.
I would use a lookup table. It's far easier to add or change values in a lookup table than to change the definition of an enum.
You can use a natural primary key in the lookup table so you don't need to do a join to get the value. Yes a string takes a bit more space than an integer id, but if your goal is to avoid the join this will accomplish that goal.
I use Enums and use the [Description("asdf")] attribute to bind meaningful sentences or other things that aren't allowed in Enums. Then use the Enum text itself as a value in drop downs and the Description as the visible text.