search

stephenstroud / dapper-dot-net

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/dapper-dot-net
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Enable Dapper to work with columns that use "_" to seperate words. #183

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create column or procedure in databases using "_" to separate words in 
columns
2. Use Dapper

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

"_" separated words will not map to objects.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Dapper v. 1.27 on Windows 7 using a DB2 database.

Please provide any additional information below.

DB2 for iSeries requires all column names be in upper case. Most DB2 users use 
"_" to separate words in tables and procedures because they cannot use camel 
case. I would like Dapper to be able to handle this.

I posted a code change in my clone that should fix this without impact the 
efficiency of Dapper.

Rev:  53205038f42b
https://code.google.com/r/lyonspride3-bug-fixes/source/detail?r=53205038f42bcd5e
2beb92dda52e081526a6dcc9

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lyonspri...@gmail.com on 19 Jul 2014 at 12:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Do you perhaps have a GitHub pull request?

Original comment by marc.gravell on 19 Jul 2014 at 5:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I did not realize this project was also on GitHub. I created pull request #132.

Original comment by lyonspri...@gmail.com on 19 Jul 2014 at 8:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Due to comments on my GitHub pull request, I changed the request to enable 
custom type mappers. That will allow me to build a default type mapper that can 
handle SNAKE_CASE.

Original comment by lyonspri...@gmail.com on 24 Jul 2014 at 9:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Pull request merged

Original comment by marc.gravell on 6 Aug 2014 at 3:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
My pull request is still active though. Did you intend this for another issue?

Original comment by lyonspri...@gmail.com on 6 Aug 2014 at 10:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hmmm; that's odd; there must have been two pull requests for the same feature - 
my bad; I'll figure out which is which! But: *a* pull request for this was 
merged.

Original comment by marc.gravell on 7 Aug 2014 at 7:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Ah yes, pull request #90. This is still a relevant "issue", though, because the 
issue cited here only relates to _, which pull request #90 addresses and fixes; 
so: fixed. I will need to have a look at pull #132 to see what is going on 
there; because of the conflict I doubt it will be a clean merge, but: I'll take 
a look

Original comment by marc.gravell on 7 Aug 2014 at 7:31