|
A stored procedure is a bit moot, your primary issue is the number of database calls that you're making. Drop it to one call and you should see a dramatic increase in performance.
Some of the more reasonable solutions I've seen revolve around using SqlBulkCopy[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Either you bulk load or you make sure to not recreate the connection each time in the loop.
I often user StringBuilder concatenation and send 1000 insert queries in one go...
so you would have something like:
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder("");
for(int i = 0; i < someLength;i++){
builder.append(the insert query + ";");
if(i%1000 == 0){
ExecuteQuery(builder.ToString());
builder = new StringBuilder("");
}
}
Hope this gives you an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using the following code
Uri collectionUri = new Uri(@"http://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:8080/tfs/projectcollection");
TfsTeamProjectCollection teamProjectCollection =
new TfsTeamProjectCollection(collectionUri, new NetworkCredential(@"user","userpassword"));
teamProjectCollection.EnsureAuthenticated();
WorkItemStore workItemStore = teamProjectCollection.GetService<WorkItemStore>();
string wiql = "SELECT [System.Id], [System.WorkItemType], [System.Title], [System.AssignedTo], [System.State] FROM WorkItems " +
"WHERE [System.TeamProject] = 'Pathway' " + "AND [System.State] = 'System Test Complete' " +
"AND [Sagitec.Common.TestPhase] = '4.B – System Testing' ORDER BY [System.Id]";
WorkItemCollection workItemCollection = workItemStore.Query( wiql);
foreach (WorkItem wi in workItemCollection)
{
wi.Fields["Assigned To"].Value = "Srikanth";
wi.Fields["State"].Value = "Ready for Client Review";
wi.Fields["Reason"].Value = "Ready for Client Review";
MessageBox.Show(wi.Fields["Assigned To"].Value + " + " + wi.Fields["State"].Value + " + " + wi.Fields["Reason"].Value);
}
Now, when i see the values of respective Fields in workitem object, they are not holding the values that I have set. Instead they have value which is already there in the workitem. I checked about ByPassRules. But I dont see the enum WorkItemStoreFlags in my namespace. Can you please help me in setting the values for fields values in my workitem?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to initiate a connection from the server to a specific client? The only examples I have been able to find use the TCPListener to accept all clients that try to connect.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, by opening a client-socket on the server and connecting to a listener on the client. Effectively, that turns the server into the client, and the client into the server.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Makes sense. I'll give it a try.
|
|
|
|
|
kruegs35 wrote: Is there a way to initiate a connection from the server to a specific client?
Sort of. The client needs to be listening. You can't initiate a connection to any device on your own for security reasons. The "client" needs to be listening.
I wrote an app years ago for IM and had the client and server both open 2 ports. The server sent on the same port the client listened to and the client sent on the same port the server listened to.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Although answered else it should be noted that normally this is a pointless exercise.
The point of a server is to act on behalf of the client. A client can initiate requests and respond to requests from the server on the same socket. And server are more likely to be accessible than clients. For a server to connect to a client the client must be visible on the network. And as is often the case since the network is actually the internet most clients will not be accessible. And even in intranets network security will often limit incoming connection requests to client machines.
There might be a message based reason for this (like the way FTP can work) but if so it is still going to be better to some degree to have the client initiate another socket to the server rather than the reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have a strange problem. I am trying to write a function that looks at a TextBox that, if it is equal to a certain value, changes the value of a string to something else.
Here is my code:
I define the string in Main:
string strDoorsOption1 = "test";
The Method is defined as:
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, string str)
{
if (txt.Text == "0")
{
str = "+++";
}
else
{
str = "---";
}
}
I call the Method like this:
private void chkDoorsSafetyLaminated_CheckedChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
checkBoxClick3(chkDoorsSafetyLaminated, txtDoorsSafety1);
optionCheck(txtDoorsSafety1, strDoorsOption1);
}
checkBoxClick3 is another Method that works as intended to change the value of a TextBox.
For reference, it is defined as follows:
public void checkBoxClick3(CheckBox check, TextBox txt)
{
if (check.CheckState == CheckState.Checked)
{
txt.Text = "1";
}
else
{
txt.Text = "0";
}
}
This works...:
if (txtDoorsSafety1.Text == "0")
{
strDoorsOption1 = "+++";
}
else
{
strDoorsOption1 = "---";
}
But when I call optionCheck(txtDoorsSafety1, strDoorsOption1); it acts as if the method is empty. It completely compiles with no errors or warnings, it simply does nothing.
Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Aight, let's call it, using your constant and the textbox.
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, string str)
{
if (txt.Text == "0")
{
str = "+++";
}
else
{
str = "---";
}
}
optionCheck(textBox1, "test");
if (textBox1.Text == "0")
{
}
else
{
str = "...";
}Means that "str" gets set to "---", and then goes out of scope. Did you mean to set anything else, like a textbox or a checkbox?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I was able to finally figure this out, I was missing a `ref` in the Method Definition:
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, ref string str)
Then when I call it:
optionCheck(txtDoorsSafety1, ref strDoorsOption1)
That works...
Though I have to say... the concept of having to write `ref` twice seems counterintuitive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Zachery Hysong wrote: the concept of having to write `ref` twice seems counterintuitive to me.
The first time (in the method declaration) you use it to explain to the compiler that you're passing the string by reference, not as a value.
The second could be omitted if the language would allow it; it doesn't because it helps to determine what is being passed. If you read the call to the method, then without the additional "ref" keyword it'd be impossible to say whether it is passed as a value or a reference without looking up the method-signature.
It also prevents mistakes; you can never pass in a value by "mistake" 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Look at the code:
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, string str)
That means that both txt and str are Value parameters - the default - which means that the value of the variable is copied and the copy passed to the method when it is called - so any changes to the value of the variable affect the copy, and not the original. When the method ends, the modified value is thrown away.
This is exactly the normal behaviour - and it is exactly what you want to happen!
Take an example, and think about what would happen if what you expected to happen did:
public void Change(int i)
{
i = i + 2;
}Now, that's fine when you call it like this:
int iOriginal = 6;
Change(iOriginal);
Console.WriteLine(iOriginal); You will be expecting to get "8" printed.
But...what happens if you do this:
Change(6);
Console.WriteLine(6); The last thing you want is to get "8" printed! 
But that is exactly what "should" happen - you passed in a value, the method changed it and tit affected the outside world. The method doesn't know - and can't check - that you are passing in a value that can be variable!
You can do what you want, but you have to tell teh system that that is exactly what you want to happen:
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, ref string str)
{
if (txt.Text == "0")
{
str = "+++";
}
else
{
str = "---";
}
}And call it like this:
optionCheck(txtDoorsSafety1, ref strDoorsOption1); But then you can't call it with a string constant because will get a compilation error, and the system now knows you want to change a constant, and you can't do that!
Make sense?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and this is one of the best explanations ever. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
You're passing the parameter by value, which means that any changes you make to the parameter within the method will be discarded when the method returns. I suspect you meant to pass it by reference, so that the changes would be copied back.
Passing Parameters (C# Programming Guide)[^]
In this case, since you're not using the value of the parameter within the method, and you're always assigning a value to it before the method returns, you should declare it as an out parameter.
public void optionCheck(TextBox txt, out string str)
{
if (txt.Text == "0")
{
str = "+++";
}
else
{
str = "---";
}
}
optionCheck(txtDoorsSafety1, out strDoorsOption1);
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
The groups of the local machine, or of the domain? Execute below command on a console, see if it returns what you want;
C:\> NET GROUP /DOMAIN
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
All the groups in the domain via code in c-sharp
foreach ( var group in user.Groups )
If I can get a list of groups from a single-user, why is getting a list of all groups so difficult.
I want to create a form and have a property user-groups.
If the user is in one of the groups, he can view the form.
To fill the list of groups that can be assigned to the form, I need a list of all groups.
|
|
|
|
|
sneezesnoeze wrote: via code in c-sharp
Exeucte the command I showed using the Process-class, and read it's result. Or redirect the output to a file.
sneezesnoeze wrote: If I can get a list of groups from a single-user, why is getting a list of all groups so difficult.
..because the current user doesn't need to know all the groups that exist, just the ones he can access?
sneezesnoeze wrote: If the user is in one of the groups, he can view the form.
Simple solution; don't show the ones he's not in.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm
I try to understand windows security but I can't really get my mind arround it.
I hoped to be able to get the list of groups via c#-code, not to start a separate process.
If it is neccesary, i wil do it but rather not.
As a programmer I am interrested in the full list. I am not the user, but I need to know which groups there are.
Before I can prevent showing the user a form that he is not allowed to see, I need to define which groups are allowed to see the form.
What should be the property type of form ?
|
|
|
|
|
sneezesnoeze wrote: I hoped to be able to get the list of groups via c#-code, not to start a separate process.
Let me write a wrapper; why does it have to be C#-code?
sneezesnoeze wrote: but I need to know which groups there are.
The user doesn't. One sees what one is allowed to see, not more.
sneezesnoeze wrote: Before I can prevent showing the user a form that he is not allowed to see, I need to define which groups are allowed to see the form.
No; you only show the user what he is allowed to see. That's how banks work; they show your bank-accounts, as opposed to listing ALL accounts and disabling the ones that aren't yours. Moreover, what would an end-user do with things he can't access? Why is it so important to show bank-accounts that I cannot access? Would I, as a user, not rather not see them at all?
There's an example that does what you want (with C# code) here[^].
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the obvious way to do this would seem to be to use the AD services functionality to search the domain. Off the top of my head, it would look a little bit like this:
PrincipalContext context = new PrincipalContext(ContextType.Domain);
GroupPrincipal principal = new GroupPrincipal(context, "*");
PrincipalSearcher searcher = new PrincipalSearcher(principal);
foreach (var group in searcher.FindAll())
{
Console.WriteLine(group.DistinguishedName);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
try this function :
static public void directoryInfo()
{
var di = new DirectoryInfo(@"\\server\shared\Alignment_Meeting");
foreach (DirectoryInfo dir in di.GetDirectories())
{
Console.Write(dir.FullName + "\n");
DirectorySecurity ds = dir.GetAccessControl(AccessControlSections.Access);
foreach (FileSystemAccessRule fsar in ds.GetAccessRules(true, true, typeof(System.Security.Principal.NTAccount)))
{
string userName = fsar.IdentityReference.Value;
string userRights = fsar.FileSystemRights.ToString();
string userAccessType = fsar.AccessControlType.ToString();
string ruleSource = fsar.IsInherited ? "Inherited" : "Explicit";
string rulePropagation = fsar.PropagationFlags.ToString();
string ruleInheritance = fsar.InheritanceFlags.ToString();
Console.Write(userName + " : " + userAccessType + " : " + userRights + " : " + ruleSource + " : " + rulePropagation + " : " + ruleInheritance + "<br/>");
}
}
}
Yonatan Arbel -
|
|
|
|
|
Use one of the System.DirectoryServices[^] namespaces. The syntax and functionality will be dependent on the one that you choose. I prefer S.DS.P as it doesn't go through ADSI and is faster, but vanilla S.DS and S.DS.AM are more commonly used, and have a wealth of information on usage available.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
