Search Results

Search found 2 results on 1 pages for 'rjygraham'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • MVC ActionLink omits action when action equals default route value

    - by rjygraham
    I have the following routes defined for my application: routes.MapRoute( "Referral", // Route name "{referralCode}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index" } // Parameter defaults ); routes.MapRoute( "Default", // Route name "{controller}/{action}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index" } // Parameter defaults ); And I'm trying to create an ActionLink to go on the Index action on my AdminController: @Html.ActionLink("admin", "Index", "Admin") However, when the view is executed the ActionLink renders as (Index action value is omitted): <a href="/Admin">admin</a> Normally this would be ok, but it's causing a collision with the "Referral" route. NOTE: If I instead use ActionLink to render a different action like "Default," the ActionLink renders correctly: <a href="/Admin/Default">admin</a> The fact that the "Default" action renders correctly leads me to believe the problem has to do with the default value specified for the route. Is there anyway to force ActionLink to render the "Index" action as well?

    Read the article

  • Many-To-Many Query with Linq-To-NHibernate

    - by rjygraham
    Ok guys (and gals), this one has been driving me nuts all night and I'm turning to your collective wisdom for help. I'm using Fluent Nhibernate and Linq-To-NHibernate as my data access story and I have the following simplified DB structure: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Classes]( [Id] [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [Name] [nvarchar](100) NOT NULL, [StartDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL, [EndDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Classes] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Id] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Sections]( [Id] [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [ClassId] [bigint] NOT NULL, [InternalCode] [varchar](10) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Sections] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Id] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SectionStudents]( [SectionId] [bigint] NOT NULL, [UserId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_SectionStudents] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [SectionId] ASC, [UserId] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[aspnet_Users]( [ApplicationId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [UserId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [UserName] [nvarchar](256) NOT NULL, [LoweredUserName] [nvarchar](256) NOT NULL, [MobileAlias] [nvarchar](16) NULL, [IsAnonymous] [bit] NOT NULL, [LastActivityDate] [datetime] NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED ( [UserId] ASC ) I omitted the foreign keys for brevity, but essentially this boils down to: A Class can have many Sections. A Section can belong to only 1 Class but can have many Students. A Student (aspnet_Users) can belong to many Sections. I've setup the corresponding Model classes and Fluent NHibernate Mapping classes, all that is working fine. Here's where I'm getting stuck. I need to write a query which will return the sections a student is enrolled in based on the student's UserId and the dates of the class. Here's what I've tried so far: 1. var sections = (from s in this.Session.Linq<Sections>() where s.Class.StartDate <= DateTime.UtcNow && s.Class.EndDate > DateTime.UtcNow && s.Students.First(f => f.UserId == userId) != null select s); 2. var sections = (from s in this.Session.Linq<Sections>() where s.Class.StartDate <= DateTime.UtcNow && s.Class.EndDate > DateTime.UtcNow && s.Students.Where(w => w.UserId == userId).FirstOrDefault().Id == userId select s); Obviously, 2 above will fail miserably if there are no students matching userId for classes the current date between it's start and end dates...but I just wanted to try. The filters for the Class StartDate and EndDate work fine, but the many-to-many relation with Students is proving to be difficult. Everytime I try running the query I get an ArgumentNullException with the message: Value cannot be null. Parameter name: session I've considered going down the path of making the SectionStudents relation a Model class with a reference to Section and a reference to Student instead of a many-to-many. I'd like to avoid that if I can, and I'm not even sure it would work that way. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Ryan

    Read the article

1