PR For Bulk Operation and ODataBind Review for Beta Release #2567

Sreejithpin · 2021-09-09T05:09:01Z

Issues

Used instead of PR #2524
PR For Bulk Operation and ODataBind Review for Beta Release

Description

PR For Bulk Operation and ODataBind Review for Beta Release

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.

mikepizzo · 2021-09-10T17:26:53Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/EdmPatchMethodHandler.cs

+    /// Handler Class to handle users methods for create, delete and update.
+    /// This is the handler for data modification where there is no CLR type.
+    /// </summary>
+    public abstract class EdmODataAPIHandler


EdmODataAPIHandler

please rename file to match class name #Resolved

mikepizzo · 2021-09-10T17:27:31Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/DefaultEdmPatchMethodHandler.cs

+    /// This is the default Patch Handler for non CLR type. This calss has default Get, Create and Update
+    /// and will do these actions. This will be used when the original collection to be Patched is provided.
+    /// </summary>
+    internal class DefaultEdmODataAPIHandler : EdmODataAPIHandler


DefaultEdmODataAPIHandler

Do we really have both a DefaultEdmPatchMethodHandler and a DefaultODataAPIHandler? #Resolved

No we dont have any DefaultEdmPatchMethodHandler
we have 2 defaults, 1 for typed another for typeles

I think I was confused because the name of the file was still "DefaultEdmPatchMethodHandler"

mikepizzo · 2021-09-10T17:29:00Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+    /// <summary>
+    /// Navigation Path of an OData ID
+    /// </summary>
+    public class NavigationPath


NavigationPath

Maybe call it "ODataNavigationPath" for consistency? #Pending

ODL has ODataExpandPath and ODataSelectPath, does it can meet your requirement?

mikepizzo · 2021-09-10T17:30:03Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+        private ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]> _pathItemCache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]>();
+
+        /// <summary>
+        /// Constructor which takes and odataId and creates PathItems


which takes and odataId and creates PathItems

please update description #Resolved

Check other class:

mainly use the sentence like: "Initializes a new instance of the class."

mikepizzo · 2021-09-10T17:30:46Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/PathItem.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// If the item is a cast segment, Name of the Path Item (eg: derived entity name, entity set name)
+        /// </summary>
+        public string CastTypeName { internal set; get; }


CastTypeName

why do we have a different property for CastTypeName? Why can't we use "Name" if it's a cast segment?

It would have different values, one generic and another the cast type name think it could be used by developer for generic case and then specific cast case, eg: Name = NewFriends, CastTypeName = Microsoft.Test.E2E.AspNet.OData.BulkInsert.MyNewFriend

mikepizzo · 2021-09-13T17:38:39Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/PathItem.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Whether the PathItem is a cast segment
+        /// </summary>
+        public bool IsCastType { internal set; get; }


IsCastType

Maybe have a PathItemType that is "castSegmet", "pathSegment", "instanceSegment"

mikepizzo · 2021-09-13T17:40:34Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/PathItem.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// List of Key properties of that entity
+        /// </summary>
+        public Dictionary<string, object> KeyProperties { internal set; get; }


KeyProperties

Should we define a derived type with keyProperties or just have null when not relevant?

mikepizzo · 2021-09-13T20:28:30Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+        {
+            navigationPathName = navigationPath;
+            _pathSegments = pathSegments;           
+        }


why do we have a public constructor that takes both string and parsed form? when would a developer use this? When would we?

The pathitems is already parsed in the deserializer by calling pathhandler.parse (for odata bind its already written by elizabeth) so wanteed to reuse it and not call it again , thats why used both in constructor

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:25:28Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+// Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
+// Licensed under the MIT License.  See License.txt in the project root for license information.
+


Update the head since we moved to .NET Foundation #Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:26:10Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+        public NavigationPath(string navigationPath, ReadOnlyCollection<ODataPathSegment> pathSegments)
+        {
+            navigationPathName = navigationPath;
+            _pathSegments = pathSegments;           


Need the paramater null check #Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:27:28Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+    /// </summary>
+    public class NavigationPath
+    {
+        private string navigationPathName;


navigationPathName

code style.

Other fields using '', why "navigationPathName" without ''. #Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:28:39Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+        {
+
+        }
+


Why do we have the default constructor?
And if we do have this, if customers use it, _pathSegments is not initializated? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:30:59Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+            }
+
+            return pathItems;
+        }


This method looks werid.

It looks to retrieve a PathItem[] using a path name, but, the path name is private field? It's not from "outside". Straigh?

In this case, why do we need a ConcurrencyDictionary?
#Resolved

This was introduced to handle multiple set of path items in the same path like customers(1)/Orders(1)/shipment(1) and customers(1)/Orders(1)/Address(1). so cache customes(1)/orders(1) not to call again . But since we are making seperate navigation paths for each object it wouldnt be ideal to keep a cache. Might be in later versions we can consider a centralizzed caching if we see such scenarios, even then we should think of heavy cache allocations . So removing it for now

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:32:01Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+
+
+        /// <summary>
+        /// NavigationPath/ODataId in string


NavigationPath/ODataId in string

Code style.

Following other class comments. It's better:

///

/// Gets the navigation path name.
///
#Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:33:50Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+            {
+                if (segment is EntitySetSegment || segment is NavigationPropertySegment)
+                {
+                    pathItems.Add(new PathItem());


pathItems.Add(new PathItem());

why donot we consider "ComplexProperty" and "TypeCase"? #Resolved

+1 for complex property. type cast is handled in first else if

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:37:44Z

samples/AspNetODataSample.Web/Web.config

+				<bindingRedirect oldVersion="0.0.0.0-4.0.3.0" newVersion="4.0.3.0" />
+			</dependentAssembly>
+			<dependentAssembly>
+				<assemblyIdentity name="Microsoft.Spatial" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35" culture="neutral" />


it seems we don't need this redirect?

If no, why don't add OData.Edm, and OData.Core redirect?

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:38:16Z

samples/AspNetODataSample.Web/packages.config

@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
  <package id="Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces" version="1.0.0" targetFramework="net461" />
  <package id="Microsoft.CodeDom.Providers.DotNetCompilerPlatform" version="1.0.0" targetFramework="net461" />
  <package id="Microsoft.Net.Compilers" version="1.0.0" targetFramework="net461" developmentDependency="true" />
-  <package id="Microsoft.OData.Core" version="7.9.0" targetFramework="net461" />


any reason to update the dependency version #ByDesign

There was a bug which is fixed in 7.9.1 with out which async would throw error in some scenarios

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:39:12Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/DataModificationExceptionType.cs

+        }
+
+        /// <summary>
+        /// Represents king of <see cref="DataModificationOperationKind"/> type of operation 


king

kind #Resolved

xuzhg · 2021-09-16T18:39:32Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/DataModificationExceptionType.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Represents response code
+        /// </summary>        
+        public Int16 ResponseCode { get; set; }


Int16

any reason to use Int16? #ByDesign

It was taken crom vocabs and its like that so used same.

mikepizzo · 2021-09-16T21:14:37Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+            List<PathItem> pathItems = new List<PathItem>();
+            PathItem currentPathItem = null;
+
+            foreach (ODataPathSegment segment in _pathSegments)


_pathSegments

what if _pathSegments is null? #Resolved

Added check in constructor and in calling method

mikepizzo · 2021-09-16T21:18:10Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Constructor which takes and odataId and creates PathItems
+        /// </summary>
+        public NavigationPath()


NavigationPath

I would have expected a single constructor that took the navigationPathName and parsed it into pathSegments in order construct the PathItem[]. If the navigationPathName could not be parsed it would return null for GetNavigationPathItems, and the consuming logic would have to fall back to the navigationPathName. #Resolved

The pathitems is already parsed in the deserializer by calling pathhandler.parse (for odata bind its already written by elizabeth) so wanteed to reuse it and not call it again , thats why used both in constructor

Removed default constructor

mikepizzo · 2021-09-16T21:54:53Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+    {
+        private string navigationPathName;
+        private ReadOnlyCollection<ODataPathSegment> _pathSegments;
+        private ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]> _pathItemCache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]>();


_pathItemCache

maybe something to take as a future work item, but if we do keep a cache of parsed paths, then we would have a much higher cache hit ratio if we cached the path without the key. #Resolved

This was introduced to handle multiple set of path items in the same path like customers(1)/Orders(1)/shipment(1) and customers(1)/Orders(1)/Address(1). so cache customes(1)/orders(1) not to call again . But since we are making seperate navigation paths for each object it wouldnt be ideal to keep a cache. Might be in later versions we can consider a centralizzed caching if we see such scenarios, even then we should think of heavy cache allocations . So removing it for now

mikepizzo · 2021-09-16T21:56:27Z

src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/NavigationPath.cs

+    {
+        private string navigationPathName;
+        private ReadOnlyCollection<ODataPathSegment> _pathSegments;
+        private ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]> _pathItemCache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, PathItem[]>();


_pathItemCache

The _pathItemCache is per instance of NavigationPath, which should only ever have one path, so we're not really saving anything by having a concurrent dictionary, are we? #Resolved

This was introduced to handle multiple set of path items in the same path like customers(1)/Orders(1)/shipment(1) and customers(1)/Orders(1)/Address(1). so cache customes(1)/orders(1) not to call again . But since we are making seperate navigation paths for each object it wouldnt be ideal to keep a cache. Might be in later versions we can consider a centralizzed caching if we see such scenarios, even then we should think of heavy cache allocations . So removing it for now

* Bulk operations6 (#2) * BulkInsert1 draft * Bulk insert changes * deleted old test * updates * Update ODataResourceSetWrapper.cs * updates * Updated addressing comments * updates * updates updates * Updates * Updates * Minor updates * comments * updates * update publicapi for core * Address comments * Cleanup and additional tests Cleanup and additional tests * Updated code * BulkInsert1 draft * Bulk insert changes * deleted old test * updates * updates * Updated addressing comments * updates * updates updates * Updates * Updates * Minor updates * updates * Address comments * Cleanup and additional tests Cleanup and additional tests * DataAnnotationException updates * comments * small updates * updates * small update * updates * Updates * Update DeltaSetOfT.cs * Updates with Patch * updates * updates * Update WebHostTestFixture.cs * updates * Update DeltaOfTStructuralType.cs * Updates * Updates for serializer etc * Update WebHostTestFixture.cs * updates * updates * updates * Bulk Operations Updates * Review comments addressed * Updates * updated for deltaentity * Update Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Test.csproj * Update Microsoft.AspNet.OData.PublicApi.bsl * update public api * test fix * Update EdmStructuredObject.cs * Update EdmStructuredObject.cs * Update BulkInsertTest.cs * update * public api * review comments * Review comments updates * smalll update * updates * updates * updates

* support for odata.bind * support for odata.bind

* Bulk operations6 (#2) * BulkInsert1 draft * Bulk insert changes * deleted old test * updates * Update ODataResourceSetWrapper.cs * updates * Updated addressing comments * updates * updates updates * Updates * Updates * Minor updates * comments * updates * update publicapi for core * Address comments * Cleanup and additional tests Cleanup and additional tests * Updated code * BulkInsert1 draft * Bulk insert changes * deleted old test * updates * updates * Updated addressing comments * updates * updates updates * Updates * Updates * Minor updates * updates * Address comments * Cleanup and additional tests Cleanup and additional tests * DataAnnotationException updates * comments * small updates * updates * small update * updates * Updates * Update DeltaSetOfT.cs * Updates with Patch * updates * updates * Update WebHostTestFixture.cs * updates * Update DeltaOfTStructuralType.cs * Updates * Updates for serializer etc * Update WebHostTestFixture.cs * updates * updates * updates * Bulk Operations Updates * Review comments addressed * Updates * updated for deltaentity * Update Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Test.csproj * Update Microsoft.AspNet.OData.PublicApi.bsl * update public api * test fix * Update EdmStructuredObject.cs * Update EdmStructuredObject.cs * Update BulkInsertTest.cs * update * public api * review comments * Review comments updates * smalll update * updates * updates * updates

* support for odata.bind * support for odata.bind

Squashing Commits Update DeltaOfTStructuralType.cs test change Update Microsoft.AspNetCore.OData.Test.csproj Update Microsoft.Test.E2E.AspNetCore3x.OData.csproj updates Update WebStack.versions.settings.targets Update WebStack.versions.settings.targets Update GetNugetPackageMetadata.proj Update WebStack.versions.settings.targets For testing update Update BulkInsertController.cs Updates updates updates Update NuGet.Config Update BulkOperationPatchHandlersEF.cs updates

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated · 2022-01-22T05:49:52Z

This PR has 5621 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +5161 -460
Percentile : 100%

Total files changed: 109

Change summary by file extension:
.csproj : +114 -43
.config : +115 -100
.cs : +4508 -290
.resx : +18 -0
.projitems : +25 -0
.bsl : +375 -24
.proj : +3 -0
.targets : +3 -3

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? 👍 :ok_hand: :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot added the Extra Large label Sep 9, 2021

Sreejithpin requested a review from mikepizzo September 9, 2021 05:11

mikepizzo reviewed Sep 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

mikepizzo reviewed Sep 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

xuzhg reviewed Sep 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

mikepizzo reviewed Sep 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

Sreejithpin force-pushed the BulkOps1_Bind_Id branch from 50cdd4c to 3414464 Compare October 28, 2021 21:29

Sreejithpin and others added 4 commits October 28, 2021 14:49

Feature/new add support for odata bind (#2506)

7c3f404

* support for odata.bind * support for odata.bind

updates

cebba7f

small update

f9acd98

Sreejithpin and others added 14 commits October 28, 2021 14:49

Code review comments

627276d

update for odataid _temp

6789fb9

updates

9286d98

updates to use only factory

0f85f26

updates

82823d0

Feature/new add support for odata bind (#2506)

f18e40f

* support for odata.bind * support for odata.bind

updates

5d2926a

Code review comments

8fe74af

update for odataid _temp

7670ab7

updates

cf028e4

updates to use only factory

76aec31

updates

5d20b2d

Sreejithpin force-pushed the BulkOps1_Bind_Id branch from 3414464 to c42f50f Compare October 29, 2021 02:08

Sreejithpin added 10 commits October 28, 2021 19:15

Merged updates

0a202ce

Update Microsoft.AspNetCore.OData.PublicApi.bsl

763e474

Update DeltaTests.cs

8b92a31

test update

847c235

test update

80d27dd

test update

4778fd0

test update

524b2c6

Update DeltaTests.cs

f0dbf65

Update DeltaOfTStructuralType.cs

2b34eff

Update WebStack.versions.settings.targets

e4fbb7e

		@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
		// Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
		// Licensed under the MIT License. See License.txt in the project root for license information.

PR For Bulk Operation and ODataBind Review for Beta Release #2567

Are you sure you want to change the base?

PR For Bulk Operation and ODataBind Review for Beta Release #2567

Conversation

Sreejithpin commented Sep 9, 2021

Issues

Description

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

Additional work necessary

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 • edited by xuzhg

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 13, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Sreejithpin Sep 17, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 • edited by Sreejithpin

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Jan 22, 2022

What can I do to optimize my changes

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 •

edited by xuzhg

mikepizzo Sep 10, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 13, 2021 •

edited

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 •

edited

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

xuzhg Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

Sreejithpin Sep 17, 2021 •

edited

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin

mikepizzo Sep 16, 2021 •

edited by Sreejithpin