Hi @ismcagdas, My colleague should sent you sample to [email protected] on 26th February 2020. He used Id of this ticket.
Thanks.
Hi @ismcagdas, No I gave you link to sharing website and you answered me this month ago (just 4 comments above):
Hi @mhrabak
Thank you for sharing the project. I removed the download link since the urls in this website is public and everyone can download the source code. I downloaded the source code. I will check the problem and inform you if you haven't solved the project
Hi guys, How could you close problem which lies on you? I gave you sample project with simulated problem and expect an answer different from closing the issue. Maybe link to another similar related issue where this would be solver or someting like that maybe.
Thanks for answer.
Hi @demirmusa, Sorry for delayed answer. We had lot of work before holidays. I have created a sample for you NgrxSample It was uploaded to our czech sharing website - you can downlaod it using slow download without creating an account. When you will have problem to download the file just tell me I will upload it elsewhere. Steps to simulate:
Just to mention when we register Effect into lazy loaded module and register it as feature it works OK without any problem but we need to dispatch ngrx store in RootModule too.
Thansk for help.
Thanks for reply. Still it doesn't make sense to me unfortunately. I understandt that when record inherits from ISoftDelete its IsDeleted property is set to true which is independent from filters but in my opinion this functionality should be coupled.
The reason behind this is that what I mentioned earlier - when I delete record using repository I don't expect this record to be loaded from database no matter what. Deleted record should be deleted period.
This condition is not fulfilled when ISoftDelete filter is disabled for example for ApplicationLanguage (yours entity type). User use case:
ApplicationLanguageAppService is generated by aspnetzero automatically - DeleteLanguage method recall IApplicationLanguageManager.RemoveAsync method so deletion of ApplicationLanguage record from database is out of our reach - only thing we can do is implement our own implementation of IApplicationLanguageManager where we will use HardDelete or rewrite DeleteLanguage method itself with multitenancy in our minds and call HardDelete.
Sorry but it sounds more like bug to me when I have to rewrite your generated code or create our custom implementation of the manager to be able to delete a record - yes in this particular case it is only one entity type -ApplicationLanguage - which cause us problem but maybe there could be more we just didn't find yet.
Hi guys. Any advices here? I think ngRx is used a lot in Angular so it would be desirable to make this work properly. Thanks in advance.
Ok just sum it up. Your advice is to rework your original tests and your original app services for entities which inherits from ISoftDelete to use HardDelete instead of Delete method to make it work when ISoftDelete filter is disabled? Really? It doesn't make sense to me. Why should I update your codes and tests to make your supported scenario (disable filters) works (logically) right?
For me logical behavior: When I disable ISoftDelete - which is supported scenario based on your documentation - I expect deleted entity will not load from DB - such entity should be hard deleted because ISoftDelete is disabled.
Maybe I missing something but from what I know it shouldn't be such problem. We already implemented our own deleting strategy for our entities and we expect yours will be deleted permanently but without any updates to your codes nor tests.
Thanks for reply.
Thanks for answer. I read articles you post and I found out myself what you wrote, but we have our custom filter and interface for deleting records so it is necessary to disable yours (reason is legacy database which has it's own SofDelete mechanics). Problem is that when we disable SoftDelete filter your test starts to fail. For me expected behavior is that when default SoftDelete filter is disabled Abp starts to Hard Delete records because we can not apply our custom SoftDelete interface to entities builded into your assemblies. Expected behavior: We delete ApplicationLanguage record -> It is hard deleted -> test pass successfully Current behavior(for me false) : We delete ApplicationLanguage record -> it is only marked as IsDeleted -> test fails As user I expect when I delet record this record dissapear from list but without SoftDelete filter it is still part of result from repository becasue Abp does not delete the record. Reason behind this is that now when we disable your SoftDelete filter no record - where we are unable to apply our own SoftDelete mechanism - is really deleted.
Thanks for answer. But when we convert users from already existing database from another system than Abp this synchronizer is unable to done it's job right? Of course if synchronizer is not registered as some continuous repeated service/task right? So question is - for already existing records in User table(we renamed it from AbpUsers to User using Table attribute) should we insert records to UserAccount table manually or it is not necessary?
Well we tried to disable Multitenancy but it caused problems so we decided to rather enable multitenancy. - Reason is probably hidden in already existing User table from another application and some missing configuration need by Abp system to make it run - that's the reason why I am asking for all of this.
I tried today enable OData - I am able successfully communicate using OData but odata url is not visible in swagger. Used https://aspnetboilerplate.com/Pages/Documents/OData-AspNetCore-Integration Is it possible to use nswag with OData in zero?