MissingMethodException on getting ResourceInstance from ODataResourceSerializer

[komdil]

Issues

This pull request fixes issue #2557.

Description

Adding constructor param on generic SelectExpandWrapper class for setting instance of resource

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

• [ ] Test cases added
• [ ] Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

[komdil]

I couldn't solve the tests. I think someone needs to take a look. I think BuildResourceInstance is working wrong because it is trying to create an instance of the resource. The instance was already created. It may cause a lot of problems (performance). One of the big problems: It is creating instances of resources and setting property. What if the property setter will not allow it or have autocorrect. For example, Return only one instance from controller Put this logic:

static bool alreadySet;
        string firstName;
        public string FirstName
        {
            get
            {
                return firstName;
            }
            set
            {
                if (alreadySet)
                {
                    throw new InvalidOperationException("Do not set it again!");
                }
                firstName = value;
                alreadySet = true;
            }
        }

Send query https://localhost:5001/oData/Student?$select=Id,FirstName

It will throw exception from DeserializationHelpers.SetProperty(resource, propertyName, value); 261 line ResourceContext.cs

@xuzhg I think these changes were made by you.

[komdil]

It seems this PR is addressing a specific use case for you. In the next release of WebApi Aspnetcore v8.x, we will have the ability to inject a custom implementation of the SelectExpandBinder (PR). That should work for you.

Maybe, but I am using v7.x. Is it possible to merge that branch in version 7.x also?

[KenitoInc]

It seems this PR is addressing a specific use case for you. In the next release of WebApi Aspnetcore v8.x, we will have the ability to inject a custom implementation of the SelectExpandBinder (PR). That should work for you.

Maybe, but I am using v7.x. Is it possible to merge that branch in version 7.x also?

@xuzhg @gathogojr What do you think?

[komdil]

It seems this PR is addressing a specific use case for you. In the next release of WebApi Aspnetcore v8.x, we will have the ability to inject a custom implementation of the SelectExpandBinder (PR). That should work for you.

Maybe, but I am using v7.x. Is it possible to merge that branch in version 7.x also?

@xuzhg @gathogojr What do you think?

I am seeing Activator.CreateInstanse on BuildResource method on v.8x also. I think the problem exists on v.8x also

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated[bot]]

This PR has 34 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +21 -13
Percentile : 13.6%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +21 -13

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification) of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? :thumbsup:  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email) Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[Sreejithpin]

@komdil Can you please look at the review comments., thanks

[komdil]

@komdil Can you please look at the review comments., thanks

@Sreejithpin The tests are failing. It looks this solution will not work for solving this problem. I don't have next steps

[corranrogue9]

@komdil, I'd like to help out and take a look, but it seems that I can't kick off a new build. Do you mind re-running the checks?

[KenitoInc]

@komdil These is how expressions are generated using a few examples

GET http://localhost:6143/odata/Books?$select=Title

$it => new SelectSome`1() 
    {
        ModelID = value(Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Query.Expressions.LinqParameterContainer+TypedLinqParameterContainer`1[System.String]).TypedProperty,
        Container = new NamedPropertyWithNext0`1() 
        {
            Name = "Title",
            Value = $it.Title,
            Next0 = new AutoSelectedNamedProperty`1() 
            {
                Name = "Id",
                Value = Convert($it.Id, Nullable`1)
            }
        }
    }

---

GET http://localhost:6143/odata/Books?$select=*

$it => new SelectAll`1() {
    ModelID = value(Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Query.Expressions.LinqParameterContainer+TypedLinqParameterContainer`1[System.String]).TypedProperty,
    Instance = $it,
    UseInstanceForProperties = True
    }
}

---

GET http://localhost:6143/odata/Books?$expand=Authors

$it => new SelectAllAndExpand`1() 
    {
        ModelID = value(Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Query.Expressions.LinqParameterContainer+TypedLinqParameterContainer`1[System.String]).TypedProperty,
        Instance = $it,
        UseInstanceForProperties = True,
        Container = new NamedProperty`1() 
            {
                Name = "Authors",
                Value = $it.Authors.Select($it => new SelectAll`1() 
                    {
                        ModelID = value(Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Query.Expressions.LinqParameterContainer+TypedLinqParameterContainer`1[System.String]).TypedProperty,
                        Instance = $it,
                        UseInstanceForProperties = True
                    }
                )
            }
    }

We don't set the Instance in all scenarios. For example in $Select=Title, we don't need the Books instance since we have the Title in the Container.

Your PR introduces an Instance property in all scenarios.