I have this problem right now that I don't know how to fix honestly. I spent hours on this already and cannot find the solution. I am using MS-SQL on Azure.
The way I have set up my entities is the following:
Customer and Visits: OneToMany (Primary)
Visits and Customers: ManyToOne (Inverse)
I am soft-deleting my customers, so that the information for the visits can be retrieved regardless of whether or not the user wants to see the customer data specifically. The data is still getting resolved correctly using the relationship. That's also why I don't want to use "Cascade DELETE" here.
However, since I want to delete visits completely (not soft-deleting like the customers) I am facing issues probably regarding foreign key constraints (not sure, because I don't get any error output from TypeORM). The DeleteResult.affected property however returns 0, which is what I see in my DataGrip queries as well, where I check the actual table data.
Whats important as well is that I am able to manually delete the row using a simple SQL statement like the following:
DELETE FROM visits
WHERE uuid = 'f0ea300d-...-656a'
My entities are set up like this (left unimportant information out):
#Entity({ name: 'customers' })
export class Customer {
#PrimaryColumn()
uuid: string
#OneToMany(() => Visit, (visit) => visit.customer)
visits?: Visit[]
}
#Entity({ name: 'visits' })
export class Visit {
#PrimaryColumn()
uuid: string
#ManyToOne(() => Customer, (customer) => customer.visits)
customer: Customer
}
My GraphQL resolver:
#Mutation(() => Boolean)
async deleteVisitsByUuid(
#Arg('uuid') uuid: string,
#Ctx() { conn }: AppContext,
): Promise<boolean> {
const repo = conn.getRepository(Customer)
const result = await repo.delete(uuid)
const affected = result.affected
if (affected === undefined || affected == null) {
return false
} else {
return affected > 0
}
}
The problem was conn.getRepository(Customer). I have replaced it with conn.getRepository(Visit).
Related
I am trying to make a filter with which I could get subscription records
Entity 'Subscription'
export class Subscription {
#PrimaryColumn()
id: string;
#Column('uuid')
userId: string;
#Column('uuid')
targetUserId: string;
#CreateDateColumn()
createdAt: Date;
}
Filter
applyFilter(query: QueryArticle, qb: SelectQueryBuilder<Article>, userId?: string) {
if (query.filter) {
switch (query.filter) {
....
case 'subscriptions':
qb.select(
`article.authorId WHERE targetUserId IN (SELECT targetUserId FROM Subscription WHERE userId=${userId})`,
);
break;
}
}
return qb;
}
SQL code
Select * FROM article WHERE authorId=targetUserId IN (SELECT targetUserId FROM Subscription WHERE userId=userId)
Error
syntax error at or near "f5779e5" +3974ms
QueryFailedError: syntax error at or near "f5779e5"
How can I get all the posts of people followed by a person use TypeORM?
Thanks in advance for your answer!
DO NOT DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING. You are risking a SQL Injection. If you really want to do a manual query, you can do manager.query:
const output = manager.query('article."authorId" WHERE "targetUserId" IN (SELECT "targetUserId" FROM Subscription WHERE "userId" = :userId)',
{ userId: userId }
);
Notice the second parameter that contains parameters which is referenced by key with :userId. If you're using template strings for queries, you're probably doing something wrong.
If you want to use the QueryBuilder, then it's going to look a little different (more info on QueryBuilder here)
const output = articleRepo.createQueryBuilder('article')
.select('article.authorId')
.where('article."authorId" IN (SELECT "targetUserId" FROM subscription WHERE "userId" = :userId)',
{ userId: userId }
)
.getRawMany(); // If you remove the .select('article.authorId'), you can use .getMany()
I am having multiple nested where conditions and want to generate them without too much code duplication with typeORM.
The SQL where condition should be something like this:
WHERE "Table"."id" = $1
AND
"Table"."notAvailable" IS NULL
AND
(
"Table"."date" > $2
OR
(
"Table"."date" = $2
AND
"Table"."myId" > $3
)
)
AND
(
"Table"."created" = $2
OR
"Table"."updated" = $4
)
AND
(
"Table"."text" ilike '%search%'
OR
"Table"."name" ilike '%search%'
)
But with the FindConditions it seems not to be possible to make them nested and so I have to use all possible combinations of AND in an FindConditions array. And it isn't possible to split it to .where() and .andWhere() cause andWhere can't use an Object Literal.
Is there another possibility to achieve this query with typeORM without using Raw SQL?
When using the queryBuilder I would recommend using Brackets
as stated in the Typeorm doc: https://typeorm.io/#/select-query-builder/adding-where-expression
You could do something like:
createQueryBuilder("user")
.where("user.registered = :registered", { registered: true })
.andWhere(new Brackets(qb => {
qb.where("user.firstName = :firstName", { firstName: "Timber" })
.orWhere("user.lastName = :lastName", { lastName: "Saw" })
}))
that will result with:
SELECT ...
FROM users user
WHERE user.registered = true
AND (user.firstName = 'Timber' OR user.lastName = 'Saw')
I think you are mixing 2 ways of retrieving entities from TypeORM, find from the repository and the query builder. The FindConditions are used in the find function. The andWhere function is use by the query builder. When building more complex queries it is generally better/easier to use the query builder.
Query builder
When using the query build you got much more freedom to make sure the query is what you need it to be. With the where you are free to add any SQL as you please:
const desiredEntity = await connection
.getRepository(User)
.createQueryBuilder("user")
.where("user.id = :id", { id: 1 })
.andWhere("user.date > :date OR (user.date = :date AND user.myId = :myId)",
{
date: specificCreatedAtDate,
myId: mysteryId,
})
.getOne();
Note that depending on your used database the actual SQL that you use here needs to be compatible. With that could also come a possible draw back of using this method. You will tie your project to a specific database. Make sure to read up about the aliases for tables you can set if you are using relations this would be handy.
Repository
You already saw that this is much less comfortable. This is because the find function or more specific the findOptions are using objects to build the where clause. This makes is harder to implement a proper interface to implement nested AND and OR clauses side by side. There for (I assume) they have chosen to split AND and OR clauses. This makes the interface much more declarative and means the you have to pull your OR clauses to the top:
const desiredEntity = await repository.find({
where: [{
id: id,
notAvailable: Not(IsNull()),
date: MoreThan(date)
},{
id: id,
notAvailable: Not(IsNull()),
date: date
myId: myId
}]
})
I cannot imagin looking a the size of the desired query that this code would be very performant.
Alternatively you could use the Raw find helper. This would require you to rewrite your clause per field, since you will only get access to the one alias at a time. You could guess the column names or aliases but this would be very poor practice and very unstable since you cannot directly control this easily.
if you want to nest andWhere statements if a condition is meet here is an example:
async getTasks(filterDto: GetTasksFilterDto, user: User): Promise<Task[]> {
const { status, search } = filterDto;
/* create a query using the query builder */
// task is what refer to the Task entity
const query = this.createQueryBuilder('task');
// only get the tasks that belong to the user
query.where('task.userId = :userId', { userId: user.id });
/* if status is defined then add a where clause to the query */
if (status) {
// :<variable-name> is a placeholder for the second object key value pair
query.andWhere('task.status = :status', { status });
}
/* if search is defined then add a where clause to the query */
if (search) {
query.andWhere(
/*
LIKE: find a similar match (doesn't have to be exact)
- https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_like.asp
Lower is a sql method
- https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_sqlserver_lower.asp
* bug: search by pass where userId; fix: () whole addWhere statement
because andWhere stiches the where class together, add () to make andWhere with or and like into a single where statement
*/
'(LOWER(task.title) LIKE LOWER(:search) OR LOWER(task.description) LIKE LOWER(:search))',
// :search is like a param variable, and the search object is the key value pair. Both have to match
{ search: `%${search}%` },
);
}
/* execute the query
- getMany means that you are expecting an array of results
*/
let tasks;
try {
tasks = await query.getMany();
} catch (error) {
this.logger.error(
`Failed to get tasks for user "${
user.username
}", Filters: ${JSON.stringify(filterDto)}`,
error.stack,
);
throw new InternalServerErrorException();
}
return tasks;
}
I have a list of
{
date: specificCreatedAtDate,
userId: mysteryId
}
My solution is
.andWhere(
new Brackets((qb) => {
qb.where(
'userTable.date = :date0 AND userTable.type = :userId0',
{
date0: dates[0].date,
userId0: dates[0].type,
}
);
for (let i = 1; i < dates.length; i++) {
qb.orWhere(
`userTable.date = :date${i} AND userTable.userId = :userId${i}`,
{
[`date${i}`]: dates[i].date,
[`userId${i}`]: dates[i].userId,
}
);
}
})
)
That will produce something similar
const userEntity = await repository.find({
where: [{
userId: id0,
date: date0
},{
id: id1,
userId: date1
}
....
]
})
FaunaDB's documentation covers how to update a document, but their example assumes that I'll have the id to pass into Ref:
Ref(schema_ref, id)
client.query(
q.Update(
q.Ref(q.Collection('posts'), '192903209792046592'),
{ data: { text: "Example" },
)
)
However, I'm wondering if it's possible to update a document without knowing its id. For instance, if I have a collection of users, can I find a user by their email, and then update their record? I've tried this, but Fauna returns a 400 (Database Ref expected, String provided):
client
.query(
q.Update(
q.Match(
q.Index("users_by_email", "me#example.com")
),
{ name: "Em" }
)
)
Although Bens comments are correct, (that's the way you do it), I wanted to note that the error you are receiving is because you are missing a bracket here: "users_by_email"), "me#example.com"
The error is logical if you know that Index takes an optional database reference as second argument.
To clarify what Ben said:
If you do this you'll get another error:
Update(
Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
),
{ data: { email: "test2#test.com"} }
)
Since Match could potentially return more then one element. It returns a set of references called a SetRef. Think of setrefs as lists that are not materialized yet. If you are certain there is only one match for that e-mail (e.g. if you set a uniqueness constraint) you can materialize it using Paginate or Get:
Get:
Update(
Select(['ref'], Get(Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
))),
{ data: { email: 'test2#test.com'} }
)
The Get returns the complete document, we need to specify that we require the ref with Select(['ref']..
Paginate:
Update(
Select(['data', 0],
Paginate(Match(
Index("accounts_by_email"), "test#test.com"
))
),
{ data: { email: "testchanged#test.com"} }
)
You are very close! Update does require a ref. You can get one via your index though. Assuming your index has a default values setting (i.e. paging a match returns a page of refs) and you are confident that the there is a single match or the first match is the one you want then you can do Select(["ref"], Get(Match(Index("users_by_email"), "me#example.com"))) to transform your set ref to a document ref. This can then be passed into update (or to any other function that wants a document ref, like Delete).
I've been trying to structure the relations in my database for more efficient querying and joins but after following the guides for '.belongsToMany', '.through' and '.belongsTo' I'm now getting empty results.
I've got a Sound model and a Keyword model which I want to model with a many-to-many relationship (each Sound can have multiple Keywords, and each Keyword can be related to multiple sounds). Based on the documentation '.belongsToMany' would be the relation to use here.
I've set up my models as follows, using a 'sound_keyword' relational table/SoundKeyword relational model (where each entry has it's own unique 'id', a 'soundID', and a 'keywordID'):
var Sound = bookshelf.Model.extend({
tableName: 'sounds',
keywords: function () {
return this.belongsToMany(Keyword, 'sound_keyword', 'id', 'id').through(SoundKeyword, 'id', 'soundID');
},
});
var Keyword = bookshelf.Model.extend({
tableName: 'keywords',
sounds: function () {
return this.belongsToMany(Sound, 'sound_keyword', 'id', 'id').through(SoundKeyword, 'id', 'keywordID');
}
});
where:
var SoundKeyword = bookshelf.Model.extend({
tableName: 'sound_keyword',
sound: function () {
return this.belongsTo(Sound, 'soundID');
},
keyword: function () {
return this.belongsTo(Keyword, 'keywordID');
}
});
From what I've read in the docs and the BookshelfJS GitHub page the above seems to be correct. Despite this when I run the following query I'm getting an empty result set (the Sound in question is related to 3 Keywords in the DB):
var results = await Sound
.where('id', soundID)
.fetch({
withRelated: ['keywords']
})
.then((result) => {
console.log(JSON.stringify(result.related('keywords')));
})
Where am I going wrong with this? Are the relationships not set up correctly (Possibly wrong foreign keys?)? Am I fetching related models incorrectly?
Happy to provide the Knex setup as needed.
UPDATED EDIT:
I had been using the Model-Registry Plugin from the start and had forgotten about it. As it turns out, while the below syntax is correct, it prefers syntax similar to the following (i.e. lowercase 'model', dropping the '.extends' and putting model names in quotes):
var Sound = bookshelf.model('Sound',{
tableName: 'sounds',
keywords: function () {
return this.belongsToMany('Keyword', 'sound_keyword', 'soundID', 'keywordID');
},
});
var Keyword = bookshelf.model('Keyword',{
tableName: 'keywords',
sounds: function () {
return this.belongsToMany('Sound', 'sound_keyword', 'keywordID', 'soundID');
}
});
Hope this can be of help to others.
Seems like removing the '.through' relation and changing the IDs in the '.belongsToMany' call did the trick (as below), though I'm not entirely sure why (the docs seem to imply belongsToMany and .through work well together - possibly redundant?)
var Sound = bookshelf.Model.extend({
tableName: 'sounds',
keywords: function () {
return this.belongsToMany(Keyword, 'sound_keyword', 'soundID', 'keywordID');
},
});
var Keyword = bookshelf.Model.extend({
tableName: 'keywords',
sounds: function () {
return this.belongsToMany(Sound, 'sound_keyword', 'keywordID', 'soundID');
}
});
I did try my original code with soundID and keywordId instead of 'id' (as below), but without the .through relation and that gave the same empty results.
with CouchDB is possible do queries "like" SQL. http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/cookbook.html says that
How you would do this in SQL:
SELECT field FROM table WHERE value="searchterm"
How you can do this in CouchDB:
Use case: get a result (which can be a record or set of records) associated with a key ("searchterm").
To look something up quickly, regardless of the storage mechanism, an index is needed. An index is a data structure optimized for quick search and retrieval. CouchDB’s map result is stored in such an index, which happens to be a B+ tree.
To look up a value by "searchterm", we need to put all values into the key of a view. All we need is a simple map function:
function(doc) {
if(doc.value) {
emit(doc.value, null);
}
}
This creates a list of documents that have a value field sorted by the data in the value field. To find all the records that match "searchterm", we query the view and specify the search term as a query parameter:
/database/_design/application/_view/viewname?key="searchterm"
how can I do this with PouchDB? the API provide methods to create temp view, but how I can personalize the get request with key="searchterm"?
You just add your attribute settings to the options object:
var searchterm = "boop";
db.query({map: function(doc) {
if(doc.value) {
emit(doc.value, null);
}
}, { key: searchterm }, function(err, res) { ... });
see http://pouchdb.com/api.html#query_database for more info
using regex
import PouchDB from 'pouchdb';
import PouchDBFind from 'pouchdb-find';
...
PouchDB.plugin(PouchDBFind)
const db = new PouchDB(dbName);
db.createIndex({index: {fields: ['description']}})
....
const {docs, warning} = await db.find({selector: { description: { $regex: /OVO/}}})