Resource value build test #1346

xuzhg · 2018-11-29T22:29:02Z

Issues

This pull request fixes issue #xxx.

Description

Briefly describe the changes of this pull request.

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 · 2018-12-13T00:49:07Z

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/ODataResource.cs

+                    }
+                    else if ((collection = property.Value as ODataCollectionValue) != null)
+                    {
+                        if (collection.Items != null && collection.Items != null && collection.Items.Any(t => t is ODataResourceValue))


collection.Items != null [](start = 56, length = 24)

collection.Items != null [](start = 56, length = 24)

You check this twice -- you really don't want collection.Items to be null! :-) #Resolved

copied and pasted in the wrong place. Thanks for catching #Resolved

mikepizzo · 2018-12-13T01:07:18Z

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/JsonLight/ODataJsonLightPropertyAndValueDeserializer.cs

+        ///                 JsonNodeType.EndObject - the end object of the resource value object.
+        /// Post-Condition: almost anything - the node after the resource value (after the EndObject)
+        /// </remarks>
+        private ODataResourceValue ReadResourceValue(


private ODataResourceValue ReadResourceValue [](start = 8, length = 44)

This is the duplicated code that concerns me. What changes to regular resource would need to be made here as well? #Resolved

I had your concerns, but I think they are two different using scenarios.
Basically, reading a value is very low level process, if we delegate the value reading to high level, in return, the high level will also call the low level process again. So, I am worry about the feasibility.

Of course, I did experiment using the top-level ODataReader. For example as below:

private ODataResourceValue ReadResourceValue(...) { ODataReader reader = this.JsonLightInputContext.CreateUriParameterResourceReader(null, structuredTypeReference == null ? null : structuredTypeReference.StructuredDefinition()); return ReadResourceValue(reader); } private static ODataResourceValue ReadResourceValue(ODataReader reader) { while (reader.Read()) { switch (reader.State) { case ODataReaderState.ResourceStart: .... } } }

but, So far, i can't make the above to work.

I think we are on the same page that we should have a method named "ReadResourceValue", the concern is about how to implement this private method.

Maybe we can postpone this detail implementation and focus on the step1 (adding class) and step2 (writing), hope we are on the same page about step1 and step2.
#Resolved

mikepizzo · 2018-12-13T01:08:46Z

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/JsonLight/ODataJsonLightPropertySerializer.cs

+            ODataResourceValue resourceValue,
+            bool isOpenPropertyType)
+        {
+            if (!this.currentPropertyInfo.IsTopLevel)


would an ODataResourceValue ever be toplevel? #Resolved

We don't limit end user to create a property with value as ODataResourceValue.
In my opinion, We should not limit end user to write a top level property with value as "ODataResourceValue". #Resolved

Now that we prohibit writing a resource value at the top level, can we get rid of this code that checks to see if it's top level?

In reply to: 241587425 [](ancestors = 241587425)

@mikepizzo removed. #Resolved. #Resolved

mikepizzo · 2018-12-13T01:10:58Z

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/JsonLight/ODataJsonLightValueSerializer.cs

+        public virtual void WriteResourceValue(
+            ODataResourceValue resourceValue,
+            IEdmTypeReference metadataTypeReference,
+            bool isTopLevel,


is an ODataResource ever top level? #Resolved

Same. We don't limit end user to create a property with value as ODataResourceValue.
In my opinion, We should not limit end user to write a top level property with value as "ODataResourceValue". #Resolved

Now that we've prohibited writing resource values at the top level, can we get rid of this code that handles writing a resource value at the top level?

In reply to: 241587501 [](ancestors = 241587501)

@mikepizzo removed. #Resolved. #Resolved

In my opinion, We should not limit end user to write a top level property with value as "ODataResourceValue".

Hi @xuzhg, we are heavily depending on creating "ODataResourceValue" at top level, but after upgrading to 7.6.4 we are unable to perform this operation.

Our example URL format will look like below.

URL: root-url/Mailbox('4f89d8bc-4aaa-4aec-a459-5b5a7335b955')/Exchange.GetMailboxStatistics()

Here, the idea is Exchange.GetMailboxStatistics() operational segment should return MailboxStatistics (which is an ODataResourceValue) at top level.

Our main goal is not to change the URL format as lot of customers are rely on mentioned format.

Any suggested work around for this? Please suggest me if I need to create an issue for this.

Thanks,
Venu.

@ve9u Why don't use binding (deserializer) to accept the top level complex? @mikepizzo

Hi @xuzhg, Thanks for your help on this. writing the complex entity same as the writing entity set solves my issue. Later I found this blog post which explains the same thing.

mikepizzo · 2018-12-13T01:13:54Z

src/Microsoft.OData.Core/Uri/ODataUriConversionUtils.cs

@@ -61,6 +61,22 @@ internal static string ConvertToUriEnumLiteral(ODataEnumValue value, ODataVersio
            return string.Format(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, "{0}'{1}'", value.TypeName, value.Value);
        }

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Converts the given string <paramref name="value"/> to an ODataResourceValue and returns it.
+        /// Tries in both JSON light and Verbose JSON.


We should remove support for Verbose JSON (and certainly not advertise it in documentation) #Resolved

#removed. #Resolved

xuzhg · 2018-12-18T00:46:43Z

@mikepizzo I added the validation for the top level property. #Resolved

mikepizzo · 2018-12-18T01:50:05Z

Code to handle validation looks good, but the methods that we call still seem to have code to handle writing a resource value at the top level; can we now safely remove that code?

In reply to: 448054198 [](ancestors = 448054198)

1. Move all ODataValue related classes into Value subfolder 2. Add ODataResourceValue class derived from ODataValue into Value subfolder 3. Update the PublicApi 4. Verify the property value in ODataResource 5. Add the unit tests related to ODataResourceValue

…ataResourceValue or Collection of ODataResourceValue

1. Write property value as ODataResourceValue 2. Write Instance annotaiton value as ODataResourceValue 3. Write Collection value item as ODataResourceValue 4. Convert ODataResource to Uri literal 5. Add the Unit test cases Be noted, for Parameter value writing, so far for the resource, resourceset and collection, ODL recommends to use corresponding writer to write. so, in the changeset, we don't include the support for the parameter value as ODataResourceValue writing.

1. Read the value as ODataResourceValue 2. Read the instance annotation value as ODataResourceValue 3. Read the collection value item as ODataResourceValue 4. Add reading Unit tests Be noted: 1) for the parameter value reading, ODL recommends to use the corresonding resource, resourceset, collection reader to read the parameter value if the value is not primitive or enum. So, this change doesn't change the parameter reader. 2) for the collection reader, for the collection of resource, ODL recommends to use the ODataResourceSet reader.So, not change for collection reader.

…llection of resource value

mikepizzo

xuzhg force-pushed the ResourceValue branch 2 times, most recently from ceeac06 to 4ed9079 Compare December 6, 2018 20:18

mikepizzo reviewed Dec 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

madansr7 added this to the 7.6 milestone Dec 17, 2018

madansr7 assigned xuzhg Dec 17, 2018

madansr7 requested a review from KanishManuja-MS December 17, 2018 21:39

xuzhg force-pushed the ResourceValue branch from 4ed9079 to f636300 Compare December 18, 2018 00:46

xuzhg added the Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Dec 18, 2018

xuzhg added 6 commits December 18, 2018 09:53

Filter the Properties in ODataResource for property whose value is OD…

a1ae12e

…ataResourceValue or Collection of ODataResourceValue

Add a validation for the top level property with resource value or co…

09f1527

…llection of resource value

Remove the Toplevel related codes for writing resource value

774b562

xuzhg force-pushed the ResourceValue branch from f636300 to 774b562 Compare December 18, 2018 18:17

mikepizzo approved these changes Dec 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

xuzhg merged commit eb0fc9a into OData:master Dec 18, 2018

This was referenced Dec 18, 2018

[Step1] Add ODataResourceValue (complex and entity) class #1331

Closed

[Step2] Support to write ODataResourceValue #1338

Closed

[Step3] Support to read ODataResourceValue #1325

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Resource value build test #1346

Resource value build test #1346

xuzhg commented Nov 29, 2018

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 14, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 18, 2018

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 18, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

vgangireddyin Jul 27, 2020 •

edited

xuzhg Jul 27, 2020 •

edited

vgangireddyin Aug 1, 2020

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

xuzhg commented Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo commented Dec 18, 2018

mikepizzo left a comment

Resource value build test #1346

Resource value build test #1346

Conversation

xuzhg commented Nov 29, 2018

Issues

Description

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

Additional work necessary

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 14, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 18, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 18, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vgangireddyin Jul 27, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Jul 27, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vgangireddyin Aug 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg commented Dec 18, 2018 • edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo commented Dec 18, 2018

mikepizzo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 14, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

mikepizzo Dec 18, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

vgangireddyin Jul 27, 2020 •

edited

xuzhg Jul 27, 2020 •

edited

mikepizzo Dec 13, 2018 •

edited

xuzhg Dec 13, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo

xuzhg commented Dec 18, 2018 •

edited by mikepizzo