Mapping from Entity to Tuple<dto1, dto2> after updating to .Net7 & 12.0.1

[AllanMichaelsen]

    private static void Main()
    {
        var config = new MapperConfiguration(c =>
        {
            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, OrderHeaderDto>();

            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>();

            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, Tuple<OrderHeaderDto, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>>();
        });

        config.AssertConfigurationIsValid();

        var mapper = config.CreateMapper();

        var source = new OrderHeaderEntity
        {
            Id = 1,
            IsArchived = false,
        };

        try
        {
            var dest1 = mapper.Map<OrderHeaderDto>(source);//.Dump();
            var dest2 = mapper.Map<OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>(source);//.Dump();
            var dest3 = mapper.Map<Tuple<OrderHeaderDto, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>>(source);//.Dump();
        }
        catch (Exception ex)
        {
            ex.ToString();//.Dump();
        }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderEntity
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; set; }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderDto
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; set; }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; init; }
    }

[lbargaoanu]

I get No available constructor. That's certainly true :) You need to fix that mapping. You should drop Tuple and use a proper dto.

[AllanMichaelsen]

That is the same I get. But has there been a change to the mapping since it no longer supports Tupple?

Like I said, it used to work with .Net6.0 & AM 10.1.1

Of course I can add yest another DTO, but I'm not transferring the result as a Tuple, but rather returning it from my repo to my service and the sending the Dtos where they need to go. Adding another dto seems like a waste

[lbargaoanu]

I've just tested with 10.1.1 and I get the same error. But maybe that's a waste of time, as that mapping is obviously wrong.

[AllanMichaelsen]

Maybe it was before 10.1.1 (my memory fails me)
Guess I have no choice but to redo the return.

[AllanMichaelsen]

I did make a change and this works:

    private static void Main()
    {
        var config = new MapperConfiguration(c =>
        {
            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, OrderHeaderDto>();

            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>();

            c.CreateMap<OrderHeaderEntity, (OrderHeaderDto orderHeaderDto, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto orderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto)>()
                .ForMember(dest => dest.orderHeaderDto, act => act.MapFrom(src => src))
                .ForMember(dest => dest.orderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto, act => act.MapFrom(src => src));
        });

        config.AssertConfigurationIsValid();

        var mapper = config.CreateMapper();

        var source = new OrderHeaderEntity
        {
            Id = 1,
            IsArchived = false,
        };

        try
        {
            var dest1 = mapper.Map<OrderHeaderDto>(source);//.Dump();
            var dest2 = mapper.Map<OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto>(source);//.Dump();
            var dest3 = mapper.Map<(OrderHeaderDto orderHeaderDto, OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto orderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto)>(source);//.Dump();
        }
        catch (Exception ex)
        {
            ex.ToString();//.Dump();
        }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderEntity
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; set; }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderDto
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; set; }
    }

    public class OrderHeaderOrderManagerOverviewDto
    {
        public long Id { get; init; }

        public bool IsArchived { get; init; }
    }

So I guess an Explicit .ForMember is needed and also using a ValueTuple instead of a Tuple.

[github-actions[bot]]

This discussion has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed.