Skip to content

Conversation

jersiovic
Copy link

@jersiovic jersiovic commented May 17, 2021

This PR tries to fix problem extending YesSql functionality at custom Orchard Core module described at this comment #38 (comment)

After the change in this PR a third party can provide ISession, IQuery and ISchemaBuilder implementations which automatically choose the collection based on the type of the object to store/load instead of force the consumer to decide the collection.
In Orchard use an alternate ISession, IQuery and ISchemaBuilder like that allows to change the collection to store/load any type defined in own modules or in modules of the orchard framework

@jersiovic
Copy link
Author

Hi @sebastienros any feedback related to this PR ?

@jersiovic jersiovic force-pushed the SetCollectionAtForAndForIndex branch 2 times, most recently from 311bfab to 02ab692 Compare June 7, 2021 15:27
public string _bindingName = "a1";
public Dictionary<string, List<Type>> _bindings = new Dictionary<string, List<Type>>();
public readonly string _documentTable;
public string _documentTable;
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remove it from there and only compute it when the query is executed?


Assert.Equal(2, await session.Query("Col1").For<Person>().With<PersonByNameCol>().Where(x => x.Name.IsInAny<PersonByBothNamesCol>(y => y.Firstname)).CountAsync());
Assert.Equal(2, await session.Query().For<Person>(collection:"Col1").With<PersonByNameCol>().Where(x => x.Name.IsInAny<PersonByBothNamesCol>(y => y.Firstname)).CountAsync());
Assert.Equal(2, await session.Query("Col2").For<Person>(collection: "Col1").With<PersonByNameCol>().Where(x => x.Name.IsInAny<PersonByBothNamesCol>(y => y.Firstname)).CountAsync());
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually I am confused now. Query already has a constructor with a collection, so the For call should use this one. So I read the issue again and I see that you are trying to hack the state of the query. I'd prefer a solution where you can plug a custom "CollectionResolver" that could be configured instead. So the Query() constructor would either take a collection name, or a CollectionResolver, or nothing to use default Collectionresolver from the configuration. That might be even better for your design.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants