我有两个模型供应商和用户。每个用户可能只有一个供应商,也可能没有。供应商可能有多个用户。
楷模:
public class AppUser
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string? FullName { get; set; }
public string? Position { get; set; }
public int StatusId { get; set; }
public int VendorId { get; set; }
}
public class Vendor
{
public int VendorId { get; set; }
public string? VendorCode { get; set; }
public string? VendorName { get; set; }
public int StatusId { get; set; }
public List<AppUser> CompanyUsers { get; set; …Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud) 我的sql是:
select (select count(*) from TblRMember where sex=1) male,
(select count(*) from TblRMember where sex=2) female,
(select count(*) from TblRMember where sex=0) unkown
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
我希望Dapper.Net像这样返回一个Dictinary:
Keys:male,female,nukown
Value:10,30,50
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
我看到如何使用Dapper Dot Net从数据库结果映射到Dictionary对象?,但那不行!
如何使用ToDictionary或其他方式实现我想要的
var myDictionary = sqlConnection.Query(strSql).ToDictionary(??);
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
谢谢!
我正在尝试将a绑定List<dynamic>到DataGridView DataSource属性.虽然编译时没有错误,但也没有显示任何列.
如果我预先创建列,我会显示要显示的行,但它们中没有数据.
简单地说,如何List<dynamic>在DataGridView中正确使用对象?
在这种方法的情况下:
public void Delete(int id)
{
using (var connection = GetOpenConnection())
{
connection.Execute($"DELETE FROM MyTable WHERE Id = {id}");
}
}
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
要不就:
GetOpenConnection().Execute($"DELETE FROM MyTable WHERE Id = {id}");
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
我想知道第二个是否是减轻维护和简化的最佳选择.
If I have a custom type (in my case, a Date class), is it possible to have Dapper automatically handle the type conversions when setting up stored procedure parameters? At the moment, I have to do this:
public void Execute(Date value)
{
var parameters = new DynamicParameters();
parameters.Add("MyDate", Date.ToDateTime(), DbType.Date);
Execute("dbo.InsertDate", parameters, CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
Do I really have to convert it to a more recognised system type? I was hoping that Dapper's TypeHandler code would work, but it seems to …