Order functionality improvements. about specification HOT 6 CLOSED

Ok, let's do that way. If there is more than one chain, the evaluator will throw an exception. I'll make the changes the following days.

from specification.

This is addressed with PR #30. The usage will be as following, we can chain several levels.

    public class StoresByCompanyOrderedDescByNameThenByIdSpec : Specification<Store>
    {
        public StoresByCompanyOrderedDescByNameThenByIdSpec(int companyId)
        {
            Query.Where(x => x.CompanyId == companyId)
                 .OrderByDescending(x => x.Name)
                      .ThenBy(x => x.Id)
                      .ThenByDescending(x => x.Title)
        }
    }

Notice:
If we create several Order chains, they all will be saved in the internal state of the specification, but the evaluator will parse only the last chain. I don't know if it makes sense to create several chains! Anyhow based on the decision, would be easy to change the behaviour in SpecificationEvaluator, and parse all of them.

from specification.

If no one has comments here we can close the issue.
@ardalis are you OK with it, should we keep it this way? Only one Order chain will be evaluated.

from specification.

Let's close it. We should only allow one chain. Adding another should probably throw a helpful exception.

from specification.

Sure, we can throw an exception in the evaluator. But, are we sure we want to introduce termination behavior in this package?
We may just leave it with usage notice, or we may write analyzer to catch the ambiguous usages. Or, let's just evaluate all the chains and rely on the default behavior of the ORM (EF Core in this case).

Not sure what's the smartest thing to do.

from specification.

Let's if nothing else demonstrate the current behavior in some integration tests so that we can look at it and figure out from concrete code examples how we would expect it to behave. What I don't want is for someone to think they have configured it to work a certain way, but transparently we are ignoring a bunch of what they did and only taking the most recent chain. I'd rather the design that only one chain is supported be enforced than documented, since it's much more likely to be missed in docs (and the bug introduced might be a subtle one).

from specification.