I have the following entities:
Chat, User with a ManyToMany relationship between them.
Now I want to introduce Scopes (as a permission system), which means that Users have Scopes but they are only valid in a Chat, not globally.
I‘d image a linking table like:
user_chat_scopes (chat_id, user_id, scope_id)
How would I set this up?
Essentially when I have a Chat, I want to get the Users and their Scopes.
Or if I have a User, I want to be able to get their Scope for a Chat.
Thanks in advance. I‘m on mobile so I can‘t paste my typeorm Models here efficiently but I‘m also interested in a solution the way databases are designed. I can get it done in typeorm myself then :)
Related
I'm building an api using asp.net web api for an application that needs to track all the activities performed by users. So in every table I need to have createdUser and updatedUser field with their dates. But I faced some challenges on how to go about.
Here are my concerns:
How can I have that in the User table itself? Which type of relationship do I need for that?
I have a privilege table than can be created by required users. What type of relationship can I have between the Privilege and the User table?
I'm new to Entity Framework so I need some guides. Please can anyone be very kind to provide some help. Thank you
I don't think u wil need to have that logic in the user table itself.
U can add extra colomn's to each table with CreUser,CreDate, LModUser, LModDate.
Or U can create an extra table like
Entity_ID, Record_ID, User_ID, ModDate, IsCreated.
(or with other logic)
search for many to many relations on google. or:
How to create a many-to-many mapping in Entity Framework?
this is a nice tutorial for all kind of relationships in EF for core
http://www.learnentityframeworkcore.com/configuration/one-to-many-relationship-configuration
First to say is I did research, this question has already been asked on SCN, but has no answer there. I also tried to google, but after an hour I surrenderd.
I have two entities, Userand Project. There are two association between them: One is 1:n saying who the owner of the Project is. But there is a second one, the one saying who(which User) candidates for which Project.
What I also can do is creating the entity in between, called Candidation. I allready definded the associations CandidationToUser and CandidationToProject.
Now can I define such a many to many relation directly without the Candidation in between? And after that, how can I implement it? I want to have a UserSet on the Project and a ProjectSet on the User. With the Candidation in between I only have a CandidationSet on both User and Project
We are building a webapplication which uses a database. Also we use an object relational mapper to access the database. One aspect of authorization in the webapplication is that the user may access an object referred to by an URL. The URL contains a unique id (for example the Primary Key) to a specific record in the database. Consider the following example.
a user may belong to many groups and a group may have many users (many-to-many).
a survey belongs to a group (many-to-one).
a survey may have multiple questions. (many-to-one).
Say we have the following URL: http://app.local/question/edit/10. This means we want to edit question with PK 10. Now, we want to verify if the logged in user may access question with PK 10. This can be done by retrieving this question, then it's survey then it's group and then all its users. If any of the users is the same as the logged in user the logged in user may access the question.
To generalize this a bit; we want to check if a record is reachable from another record by the known many-to-one or many-to-many relations. So if there is a many-to-one relation (like with a survey and a question then we should check if a user is reachable from the question through the survey and then through the group. The group has a many-to-many relation with the user so we should check if any (not all) of the users is the same as the logged in user.
If a table has multiple many-to-one relations, say; we can attach a CSS template to a survey and this template also belongs to a group then we have to check if a user is reachable from all many-to-one relations (thus the group and the template). The same holds of course for multiple many-to-many relations.
Are there Object Relation Mappers which support this behaviour? And what is this behaviour called, maybe reachability? Does Propel (for PHP) support this behaviour? I think this reachability can be done in any of the following two ways:
Execute a query to get each "parent", uses many queries)
Join all necessary tables to see if a record exists (the reachable users matches the logged in user) in one query.
Furthermore this behaviour of the ORM should support nested sets, thus if a group contains nested set behaviour it should also try to reach a user through the group's parent.
I don't think this kind of behaviour should be restricted to authorization; objects should simply be able to see if they can reach another object.
Note that I do not mean persistence by reachability: http://jpaobjects.sourceforge.net/m2-site/main/documentation/docbkx/html/user-guide/ch08s03.html.
Or... am I simply looking at this authorization wrong and is there a far better and different approach with an ORM?
I've handled this in the past using nested resources in Ruby on Rails (which uses the Active Record ORM). Rather than http://app.local/question/10/edit, the URI would be http://app.local/survey/5/questions/10/edit
In the controller you load both the question and survey. You check authorization by comparing the survey to the authenticated user's group memberships. One way to engineer this would be to embed this logic into the User class. For example, in the controller you have question and survey (and the relationship between the two is well understood by the ORM, i.e. question.survey). You could then check access as user.hasAccess?(question), which would be a relatively easy method to write. Pseudocode:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def hasAccess?(question)
return question.group.users.include?(self)
Yes, this will result in several queries behind the scenes, but ORMs do the work. I do it this way because you're left with solid schema and easy to read code. Don't optimize until you actually have a performance problem.
I have found lots of answers on StackOverflow but i'm kinda stuck on this one
I'll try first to describe with words what I have to do:
I have multiple applications, each application can have one or multiple profiles (one to many).
I also have users, who have access to each applications through the different profiles. Each profile can have multiple users (many to many).
up to here no problem, i can get all profiles a user has been granted.
However, the difficulty here is that for each profile coming from an application, the user has a username, specific to each applications. When i see the details of a user, i want to see a list of all the profiles he's in together with the username he has been assigned for each application...
I'm sure there an easy way to do this with rails, as usual, but i can't seem to find it. How would you do this ?
So to make sure I've got this: an Application can have many Profiles, and Users can have many Profiles. So this isn't a simple many-to-many relationship between Application and User because the Profile is a first-class object.
Rails handles simple many-to-many relationships with the has_and_belongs_to_many (HABTM) association, declared on the models on both ends. What's in the middle is unimportant and merely serves to join (relate) the two models.
Your case is more fun. Your many-to-many is described in Rails as "has_many :through", and I think your case is a very good example of such a case. In this case, Application and User each have many of the other through the Profile model. Profile isn't there just to link the two, it holds username, and probably many other details of the User's relationship with his/her Applications.
Start with this excellent guide which should show you how (and why) to choose has_many :through and how to get it all modeled and set up. This is (as you suggest) one of the absolutely brilliant capabilities of Rails.
I hope this is helpful.
I'm modeling a very basic ASP.NET MVC app using NHibernate and I seem to be stuck on my design. Here's a sketch of my model:
As you can see this is VERY basic but I have some concerns about it. The User root entity and the Organization root entity are accessing the same Organization_Users entity child via two one-to-many relationships. This doesn't seem right and I think I am breaking the aggregate boundaries. This model smells to me but I like the idea because I would like to have code like this:
var user = userRepository.Load(1);
var list = user.Organizations; // All the organizations the user is a part of.
and
var org = orgRepository.Load(1);
var list = org.Users; // All the users in an organization.
Also the extra data in the table like flagged and role would be used by the Organization entity. Is this a bad design? If you have any thoughts that would be great. I'm still trying to get my mind around the thinking of DDD. Thanks
This is a typical Many-To-Many relationship. And the Organization_Users tables is the bridge table. Infact NHibernate and all the other ORM tools have built-in feature to support bridge table.
This thing should be resolved at data modelling level rather than at application level. You should analyze your data model and it is recommended to avoid many-to-many relationships (in the sense if it is not the necesity of domain model, you should try to avoid many-to-many relationship).
First thing first you need to be sure that many-to-many relationship in data model is necessary for mapping domain entities. Once you have done this then the model represented in your diagram is ok for mapping those relationships at application level
I have used an approach similar to your first model on several occasion. The one catch with this approach is that you need to create an OganizationUser class in your domain to handle the Role and Flagged fields from you Domain. This would leave you with something like this in your code.
var user = userRepository.Load(1);
var list = user.OrganizationUsers; // All the organizations the user is a part of including their role and flagged values.
var organization = list[0].Organization;
*If you're going to be iterating through all a users organizations quite often you'd likely want to eager load the Organization entity along with OrganzitionUser
With the second design you submitted it looks like you would be able to add a user to the OrgUserDetails without adding the user to OrganizationUser. That doesn't seem like something I would want to support from my Domain.
The first things to consider in DDD are :
forget your database schema (there's
no database !)
what actions will you perform on thoses entities from a domain perspective ?
I think your model is fine. I usually think of domain aggregate roots, when I think of them at all, in terms of what is publicly exposed, not internal implementation. With relationships I think of which entity "wears the pants" in the relationship. That is, is it more natural to add a User to an Organization or add an Organization to a User? In this case both may make sense, a User joins an Organization; an Organization accepts a User for membership.
If your domain sees the relationship from the User's perspective, you can put the methods to maintain (add, remove, etc.) the relationship on the User and expose a read-only collection on the Organization.
In response to your second design (it would have been better if you had edited the original question): I don't like it at all. Your original design is fine. I wouldn't necessarily ignore the database while designing your classes, a good design should accurately model the domain and be straightforward to implement in a relational database. Sometimes you have to compromise in both directions to hit the sweet spot. There's no jail term for breaking aggregate boundaries. :-)
My understanding is:
A User can belong to 0-to-many Organizations.
AND
An Organization consists of 0-to-many Users.
Are both of those correct? If so, that does sound like a many-to-many to me.
In a many-to-many, you pretty much need a relationship-like object of some sort to bridge that gap. The problem is, there is no user_organization in the domain.
This makes me think you shouldn't have user_organization as a part of your domain, per se. It feels like an implementation detail.
On the other hand, maybe it makes sense in your domain to have a Roster which holds the Users in an Organization and stores their role and other information specific to that relationship.
Thanks everyone for your answers. They have been very helpful.
While I was thinking about my model a little bit more, I sketched something new that I think would be better.
My thinking was this:
When a user logs into the site the system finds their account and then returns a list of organizations they are apart of and it gets this info from the user_organizations object.
When a user clicks on one of the organizations they are apart of it directs them to the organization's control panel.
The selected organization then looks up that user's role in its org_user_details to know what access the user should have to that organizations control panel.
Does that make sense? :)
I feel like that would be good in a model but I'm having some doubts about the DB implementation. I know I shouldn't even worry about it but I can't break my bad habit yet! You can see that there is kind of duplicate data in the user_organizations object and the org_user_details object. I'm not a DB pro but is that a bad DB design? Should I instead combine the data from user_organizations and org_user_details into a table like the one in my first post and just tell NHibernate that User looks at it as a Many-to-Many relationship and Organization looks at it as a One-to-Many relationship? That sounds like I'm tricking the system. Sorry if I seemed really confused about this.
What are your thoughts on this? Am I over thinking this? :P