Search Results

Search found 554 results on 23 pages for 'nullable'.

Page 2/23 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to use a getter with a nullable?

    - by Desmond Lost
    I am reading a bunch of queries from a database. I had an issue with the queries not closing, so I added a CommandTimeout. Now, the individual queries read from the config file each time they are run. How would I make the code cache the int from the config file only once using a static nullable and getter. I was thinking of doing something along the lines of: static int? var; get{ var = null; if (var.HasValue) ...(i dont know how to complete the rest) My actual code: private object ExecuteQuery(string dbConnStr, bool fixIt) { object result = false; using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(dbConnStr)) { connection.Open(); using (SqlCommand sqlCmd = new SqlCommand()) { AddSQLParms(sqlCmd); sqlCmd.CommandTimeout = 30; sqlCmd.CommandText = _cmdText; sqlCmd.Connection = connection; sqlCmd.CommandType = System.Data.CommandType.Text; sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); } connection.Close(); } return result; }}

    Read the article

  • NHibernate IUserType convert nullable DateTime to DB not-null value

    - by barakbbn
    I have legacy DB that store dates that means no-date as 9999-21-31, The column Till_Date is of type DateTime not-null="true". in the application i want to build persisted class that represent no-date as null, So i used nullable DateTime in C# //public DateTime? TillDate {get; set; } I created IUserType that knows to convert the entity null value to DB 9999-12-31 but it seems that NHibernate doesn't call SafeNullGet, SafeNullSet on my IUserType when the entity value is null, and report a null is used for not-null column. I tried to by-pass it by mapping the column as not-null="false" (changed only the mapping file, not the DB) but it still didn't help, only now it tries to insert the null value to the DB and get ADOException. Any knowledge if NHibernate doesn't support IUseType that convert null to not-null values? Thanks //Implementation public class NullableDateTimeToNotNullUserType : IUserType { private static readonly DateTime MaxDate = new DateTime(9999, 12, 31); public new bool Equals(object x, object y) { //This didn't work as well if (ReferenceEquals(x, y)) return true; //if(x == null && y == null) return false; if (x == null || y == null) return false; return x.Equals(y); } public int GetHashCode(object x) { return x == null ? 0 : x.GetHashCode(); } public object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, string[] names, object owner) { var value = rs.GetDateTime(rs.GetOrdinal(names[0])); return (value == MaxDate)? null : value; } public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, object value, int index) { var dateValue = (DateTime?)value; var dbValue = (dateValue.HasValue) ? dateValue.Value : MaxDate; ((IDataParameter)cmd.Parameters[index]).Value = dbValue; } public object DeepCopy(object value) { return value; } public object Replace(object original, object target, object owner) { return original; } public object Assemble(object cached, object owner) { return cached; } public object Disassemble(object value) { return value; } public SqlType[] SqlTypes { get { return new[] { NHibernateUtil.DateTime.SqlType }; } } public Type ReturnedType { get { return typeof(DateTime?); } } public bool IsMutable { get { return false; } } } } //Final Implementation with fixes. make the column mapping in hbm.xml not-null="false" public class NullableDateTimeToNotNullUserType : IUserType { private static readonly DateTime MaxDate = new DateTime(9999, 12, 31); public new bool Equals(object x, object y) { //This didn't work as well if (ReferenceEquals(x, y)) return true; //if(x == null && y == null) return false; if (x == null || y == null) return false; return x.Equals(y); } public int GetHashCode(object x) { return x == null ? 0 : x.GetHashCode(); } public object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, string[] names, object owner) { var value = NHibernateUtil.Date.NullSafeGet(rs, names[0]); return (value == MaxDate)? default(DateTime?) : value; } public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, object value, int index) { var dateValue = (DateTime?)value; var dbValue = (dateValue.HasValue) ? dateValue.Value : MaxDate; NHibernateUtil.Date.NullSafeSet(cmd, valueToSet, index); } public object DeepCopy(object value) { return value; } public object Replace(object original, object target, object owner) { return original; } public object Assemble(object cached, object owner) { return cached; } public object Disassemble(object value) { return value; } public SqlType[] SqlTypes { get { return new[] { NHibernateUtil.DateTime.SqlType }; } } public Type ReturnedType { get { return typeof(DateTime?); } } public bool IsMutable { get { return false; } } } }

    Read the article

  • MVC map to nullable bool in model

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    With a view model containing the field: public bool? IsDefault { get; set; } I get an error when trying to map in the view: <%= Html.CheckBoxFor(model => model.IsDefault) %> Cannot implicitly convert type 'bool?' to 'bool'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) I've tried casting, and using .Value and neither worked. Note the behaviour I would like is that submitting the form should set IsDefault in the model to true or false. A value of null simply means that the model has not been populated.

    Read the article

  • Smart way to find the corresponding nullable type?

    - by Marc Wittke
    How could I avoid this dictionary (or create it dynamically)? Dictionary<Type,Type> CorrespondingNullableType = new Dictionary<Type, Type> { {typeof(bool), typeof(bool?)}, {typeof(byte), typeof(byte?)}, {typeof(sbyte), typeof(sbyte?)}, {typeof(char), typeof(char?)}, {typeof(decimal), typeof(decimal?)}, {typeof(double), typeof(double?)}, {typeof(float), typeof(float?)}, {typeof(int), typeof(int?)}, {typeof(uint), typeof(uint?)}, {typeof(long), typeof(long?)}, {typeof(ulong), typeof(ulong?)}, {typeof(short), typeof(short?)}, {typeof(ushort), typeof(ushort?)}, {typeof(Guid), typeof(Guid?)}, };

    Read the article

  • Nullable ToString()

    - by StupidDeveloper
    I see everywhere constructions like: int? myVar = null; string test = myVar.HasValue ? myVar.Value.ToString() : string.Empty; Why not use simply: string test = myVar.ToString(); Isn't that exactly the same ? At least Reflector says that: public override string ToString() { if (!this.HasValue) { return ""; } return this.value.ToString(); } So, is that correct (the shorter version) or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't the conditional operator correctly allow the use of "null" for assignment to nullable ty

    - by Daniel Coffman
    This will not compile, stating "Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'System.DateTime' and ''" task.ActualEndDate = TextBoxActualEndDate.Text != "" ? DateTime.Parse(TextBoxActualEndDate.Text) : null; This works just fine if (TextBoxActualEndDate.Text != "") task.ActualEndDate = DateTime.Parse(TextBoxActualEndDate.Text); else task.ActualEndDate = null;

    Read the article

  • Varchar columns: Nullable or not.

    - by NYSystemsAnalyst
    The database development standards in our organization state the varchar fields should not allow null values. They should have a default value of an empty string (""). I know this makes querying and concatenation easier, but today, one of my coworkers questioned me about why that standard only existed for varchar types an not other datatypes (int, datetime, etc). I would like to know if others consider this to be a valid, defensible standard, or if varchar should be treated the same as fields of other data types? I believe this standard is valid for the following reason: I believe that an empty string and null values, though technically different, are conceptually the same. An empty, zero length string is a string that does not exist. It has no value. However, a numeric value of 0 is not the same as NULL. For example, if a field called OutstandingBalance has a value of 0, it means there are $0.00 remaining. However, if the same field is NULL, that means the value is unknown. On the other hand, a field called CustomerName with a value of "" is basically the same as a value of NULL because both represent the non-existence of the name. I read somewhere that an analogy for an empty string vs. NULL is that of a blank CD vs. no CD. However, I believe this to be a false analogy because a blank CD still phyically exists and still has physical data space that does not have any meaningful data written to it. Basically, I believe a blank CD is the equivalent of a string of blank spaces (" "), not an empty string. Therefore, I believe a string of blank spaces to be an actual value separate from NULL, but an empty string to be the absense of value conceptually equivalent to NULL. Please let me know if my beliefs regarding variable length strings are valid, or please enlighten me if they are not. I have read several blogs / arguments regarding this subject, but still do not see a true conceptual difference between NULLs and empty strings.

    Read the article

  • nullable type and a ReSharper warning

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I have the following code: private static LogLevel? _logLevel = null; public static LogLevel LogLevel { get { if (!_logLevel.HasValue) { _logLevel = readLogLevelFromFile(); } return _logLevel.Value; } } private static LogLevel readLogLevelFromFile() { ... } I get a ReSharper warning on the return statement about a possible System.InvalidOperationException and it suggests I check _logLevel to see if it is null first. However, readLogLevelFromFile returns LogLevel, not LogLevel?, so there is no way the return statement could be reached when _logLevel is null. Is this just an oversight by ReSharper, or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Nullable values in C++

    - by DanDan
    I'm creating a database access layer in native C++, and I'm looking at ways to support NULL values. Here is what I have so far: class CNullValue { public: static CNullValue Null() { static CNullValue nv; return nv; } }; template<class T> class CNullableT { public: CNullableT(CNullValue &v) : m_Value(T()), m_IsNull(true) { } CNullableT(T value) : m_Value(value), m_IsNull(false) { } bool IsNull() { return m_IsNull; } T GetValue() { return m_Value; } private: T m_Value; bool m_IsNull; }; This is how I'll have to define functions: void StoredProc(int i, CNullableT<int> j) { ...connect to database ...if j.IsNull pass null to database etc } And I call it like this: sp.StoredProc(1, 2); or sp.StoredProc(3, CNullValue::Null()); I was just wondering if there was a better way than this. In particular I don't like the singleton-like object of CNullValue with the statics. I'd prefer to just do sp.StoredProc(3, CNullValue); or something similar. How do others solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Is there some way to assume @Nullable as default? (using FindBugs or any other free tool).

    - by alex2k8
    Consider such code public void m1(String text) { if(text == null) text = "<empty>"; System.out.println(text.toLowerCase()); } And this is a buggy version: public void m1(String text) { System.out.println(text.toLowerCase()); } If null value passed, the NullPointerException may be thrown. I would like the static-analysis tool (e.g. FindBugs) to report this issue. Unsuccessfully the FindBugs (at least by default) requires me to specify @Nullable annotation explicitly. public void m1(@Nullable String text) { System.out.println(text.toLowerCase()); // FindBugs: text must be nonnull but is marked as nullable } The problem is that if I forget to annotate it, the bug will be missed!!! How can I make the FindBugs (or any other free tool) to assume @Nullable by default?

    Read the article

  • IsNullOrDefault generic helper function for nullable types

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    I've wrote  IsNullOrDefault generic helper function       public  static bool IsNullOrDefault<T>(this Nullable<T> param) where T : struct     {         T deflt = default(T);         if (!param.HasValue)             return true;         else if (param.Value.Equals(deflt))             return true;         return false;     }   , but then realized that there is more short implementation on stackoverflow submitted by Josh

    Read the article

  • MVC: model of type Nullable<T>

    - by Fyodor Soikin
    I have a partial view that inherits from ViewUserControl<Guid?> - i.e. it's model is of type Nullable<Guid>. Very simple view, nothing special, but that's not the point. Somewhere else, I do Html.RenderPartial( "MyView", someGuid ), where someGuid is of type Nullable<Guid>. Everything's perfectly legal, should work OK, right? But here's the gotcha: the second argument of Html.RenderPartial is of type object, and therefore, Nullable<Guid> being a value type, it must be boxed. But nullable types are somehow special in the CLR, so that when you box one of those, you actually get either a boxed value of type T (Nullable's argument), or a null if the nullable didn't have a value to begin with. And that last case is actually interesting. Turns out, sometimes, I do have a situation when someGuid.HasValue == false. And in those cases, I effectively get a call Html.RenderPartial( "MyView", null ). And what does the HtmlHelper do when the model is null? Believe it or not, it just goes ahead and takes the parent view's model. Regardless of it's type. So, naturally, in those cases, I get an exception saying: "The model item passed into the dictionary is of type 'Parent.View.Model.Type', but this dictionary requires a model item of type 'System.Guid?'" So the question is: how do I make MVC correctly pass new Nullable<Guid> { HasValue = false } instead of trying to grab the parent's model? Note: I did consider wrapping my Guid? in an object of another type, specifically created for this occasion, but this seems completely ridiculous. Don't want to do that as long as there's another way. Note 2: now that I've wrote all this, I've realized that the question may be reduced to how to pass a null for model without ending up with parent's model?

    Read the article

  • Best way to databind a Winforms control to a nullable type?

    - by Steve Hiner
    I'm currently using winforms databinding to wire up a data editing form. I'm using the netTiers framework through CodeSmith to generate my data objects. For database fields that allow nulls it creates nullable types. I've found that using winforms databinding the controls won't bind properly to nullable types. I've seen solutions online suggesting that people create new textbox classes that can handle the nullable types but that could be a pain having to swap out the textboxes on the forms I've already created. Initially I thought it would be great to use an extension method to do it. Basically creating an extension property for the textbox class and bind to that. From my limited extension method experience and doing a bit of checking online it looks like you can't do an extension property. As far as I can tell, binding has to be through a property since it needs to be able to get or set the value so an extension method wouldn't work. I'd love to find a clean way to retrofit these forms using something like extension methods but if I have to create new textbox and combo box controls that's what I'll do. My project is currently limited to .Net 2.0 due to the requirement to run on Windows 2000. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why is django admin not accepting Nullable foreign keys?

    - by p.g.l.hall
    Here is a simplified version of one of my models: class ImportRule(models.Model): feed = models.ForeignKey(Feed) name = models.CharField(max_length=255) feed_provider_category = models.ForeignKey(FeedProviderCategory, null=True) target_subcategories = models.ManyToManyField(Subcategory) This class manages a rule for importing a list of items from a feed into the database. The admin system won't let me add an ImportRule without selecting a feed_provider_category despite it being declared in the model as nullable. The database (SQLite at the moment) even checks out ok: >>> .schema ... CREATE TABLE "someapp_importrule" ( "id" integer NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, "feed_id" integer NOT NULL REFERENCES "someapp_feed" ("id"), "name" varchar(255) NOT NULL, "feed_provider_category_id" integer REFERENCES "someapp_feedprovidercategory" ("id"), ); ... I can create the object in the python shell easily enough: f = Feed.objects.get(pk=1) i = ImportRule(name='test', feed=f) i.save() ...but the admin system won't let me edit it, of course. How can I get the admin to let me edit/create objects without specifying that foreign key?

    Read the article

  • Best way to check for nullable bool in a condition expression (if ...)

    - by FireSnake
    I was wondering what was the most clean and understandable syntax for doing condition checks on nullable bools. Is the following good or bad coding style? Is there a way to express the condition better/more cleanly? bool? nullableBool = true; if (nullableBool ?? false) { ... } else { ... } especially the if (nullableBool ?? false) part. I don't like the if (x.HasValue && x.Value) style ... (not sure whether the question has been asked before ... couldn't find something similar with the search)

    Read the article

  • Nullable One To One Relationships with Integer Keys in LINQ-to-SQL

    - by Craig Walker
    I have two objects (Foo and Bar) that have a one-to-zero-or-one relationship between them. So, Foo has a nullable foreign key reference to Bar.ID and a (nullbusted) unique index to enforce the "1" side. Bar.ID is an int, and so Foo.BarID is a nullable int. The problem occurs in the LINQ-to-SQL DBML mapping of .NET types to SQL datatypes. Since int is not a nullable type in .NET, it gets wrapped in a Nullable<int>. However, this is not the same type as int, and so Visual Studio gives me this error message when I try to create the OneToOne Association between them: Cannot create an association "Bar_Foo". Properties do not have matching types: "ID", "BarID". Is there a way around this?

    Read the article

  • Linq DateTime expressions wont compare if only one is nullable

    - by tigermain
    I have been getting the following exception: The binary operator GreaterThanOrEqual is not defined for the types 'System.Nullable`1[System.DateTime]' and 'System.DateTime'. I am getting the left hand expression from a class property which is a nullable datetime variable and my right hand side is using Expression.Constant(new Nullable<DateTime>(DateTime.Now)) However I still get the above exception despite explicitly setting the right hand expression to a nullable type

    Read the article

  • What C# data types can be nullable types?

    - by Randy Minder
    Can someone give me a list, or point me to where I can find a list of C# data types that can be a nullable type? For example: I know that Nullable<int> is ok I know that Nullable<byte[]> is not. I'd like to know which types are nullable and which are not. BTW, I know I can test for this at runtime. However, this is for a code generator we're writing, so I don't have an actual type. I just know that a column is "string" or "int32" etc. Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >