I have the following model:
Car (
id INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
name TEXT
)
..
public class Car extends Model {
static{
validatePresenceOf("name");
validateWith(new UniquenessValidator("name"));
}
public Car() {}
}
In this model, I am specifying the name of all cars to be unique.
Running the following code doesn't throw a validation error on 2nd instance:
Car acura_1 = new Car();
acura_1.set("name","Acura");
acura_1.saveIt();
Car acura_2 = new Car();
acura_2.set("name","Acura");
acura_2.saveIt(); // << surprisingly, this works!
//acura_2.isValid();
I was expecting a validation exception to rise on the acura_2.saveIt() since the name "Acura" is already taken/present in the table cars (ie. when acura_1 was persisted).
Looking at the code of UniquenessValidator, it looks like the validation of the uniqueness takes into account the id of the model, if I am not mistaken.
If the last commented-line is executed (acura_2.isValid()), then the error message is present on acura_2: name -> should be unique.
I was wondering how come the UniquenessValidator works only on persisted objects?
You are correct, this validator is not the best. This issue was fixed: https://github.com/javalite/activejdbc/issues/572 and JavaDoc added for UniquenessValidator
Generally speaking, I would not advise using this validator in a production system because it does not actually guarantee uniqueness. Please, see the JavaDoc for arguments.
Related
I'm following Sulu example here: https://github.com/sulu/sulu-workshop/
trying to set translations for custom entity type.
My entity file has getter for field "home_team" defined like:
/**
* #Serializer\VirtualProperty(name="home_team")
*/
public function getHomeTeam(): ?string
{
$translation = $this->getTranslation($this->locale);
if (!$translation) {
return null;
}
return $translation->getHomeTeam();
}
So field is not actually part of that entity, but of it's translation entity since it suppose to be translatable.
When I try to create new object of that entity type it works well. I can see in database that field values are stored well and I don't get any error.
But on overview page instead of list of all objects I get error:
[Semantical Error] line 0, col 73 near 'home_team AS': Error: Class App\Entity\MatchEvent has no field or association named home_team
Any idea what could be wrong here?
If you wanna see the translation in the listView you have to create a real translationEntity, like in the workshop project. In this post it is already explained, how to translate a custom entity correctly.
If you have already created your translationEntity you have to configure the relation of the translation to your main entity via a join. Here is an example in the workshop for this configuration.
Sulu uses optimised queries to create the list-object directly from the database. So the entity itself does not get hydrated or serialised for performance reasons. Thus your virtualProperty is never executed.
[Table("tblClients")]
public class ClientsTbl
{
[DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int ClientID { get; set; }
[Key]
public int userid { get; set; }
}
If i have old data (from unknown source) to import which has userid that related with other tables for example invoice etc without using Foreign Key, how can i design my DB model? If i would design like that insert must be like that :
Random a = new Random();
ClientsTbl c = new ClientsTbl()
{
userid = a.Next(-1000, -1),
}
dataContext.Clients.Add(c);
dataContext.SaveChanges();
var client = dataContext.Clients.FirstOrDefault(x => x.userid == c.userid);
if(client!=null)
{
client.userid = c.ClientID;
}
dataContext.SaveChanges();
after inserting a record I need to update "userid" : `` And it gives an error
The property 'userid' is part of the object's key information and cannot be modified.
If i would change all operations to Stored Procedure's (insert and update) everything is ok.
Why Entity Framework doesn't allow to update Key ? (Sql server does)
This is due to the fact that you're referencing the same object. This has been asked before and answered here:
The property 'Id' is part of the object's key information and cannot be modified
I hope this helps you.
OO paradigm has this thing about "object identity". RM does not have this (not in the sense that every identifier of a thing MUST MANDATORILY remain unchanged during the whole lifetime of the thing it identifies).
Tools that attempt to bridge the gap between the two are therefore inevitably faced with a kind of mismatch, and must do one of two things to address it : (a) break the OO paradigm of cast-in-concrete-immutable identity, or (b) enforce the OO paradigm and rule out perfectly legitimate RM operations.
Most if not all of them opt for (b) because that is the easiest way out, at least for the developers.
I started using NHibernate today, but I cannot figure out how I setup a simple relation between two tables. I don't really know what it's called, it could be one-to-many or foreign key relation (I'm not that into database design and the terms used), but here's a very simple example.
I have a table Product with attributes Id (PK), ProductName and CategoryId. Then I have a table Categories with attributes Id (PK) and CategoryName.
I created these classes:
public class Product
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string ProductName { get; set; }
public virtual int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryName
{
get { return this.Category == null ? String.Empty : this.Category.CategoryName; }
}
}
public class Category
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string CategoryName { get; set; }
}
In other words, I simply want the Product to store to which category it belongs (via the CategoryId attribute which points to an Id in the Categories table). I don't need the Category class to hold a list of related Products, if that makes it any simpler.
To make it even more clear what I'm after, this is the SQL that I'm expecting:
SELECT Products.*, Categories.*
FROM Products INNER JOIN Categories ON Products.CategoryId = Categories.Id
at least that's what I think it should be (again, I'm not that good at database design or queries).
I can't figure out which kind of mapping I need for this. I suppose I need to map it in the Product.hbm.xml file. But do I map the CategoryId as well? And how do I map the Category property?
It seems like I would need a 'one-to-many' relation since I have ONE category per product (or is this reasoning backward?) but it seems like there is no one-to-many mapping...
Thanks for any help!
Addition:
I tried to add the many-to-one relation in the Person mapping, but I keep getting an exception saying "Creating proxy failed", and in the inner exception "Ambiguous match found".
I should maybe mention I am using an old version of NHibernate (1.2 I think) because that is the only one I got running with MS Access due to it not finding the JetDriver in newer versions.
I've put the mapping files, classes, and code where the error occurs in screenshots because I can't figure out how to post XML code here... It keeps reading it as html tags and skipping half of it. Anyway.
The mappings:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmp7B5A.png
The classes:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmpF809.png
The loading code where the error occurs:
http://www.nickthissen.nl/Images/tmp46B6.png
(As I said, the inner exception says "Ambiguous match found".
(Product in my example has been replaced by Person)
The Person and Category classes inherit Entity which is an abstract base class and defines the Id, Deleted, CreatedTime and UpdatedTime properties.
The code where the error occurs is in a generic 'manager' class (type parameter TEntity which must inherit Entity). It is simply supposed to load all entities with the Deleted attribute false. In this case, TEntity is 'Person'.
It works fine if I leave out the many-to-one Category mapping in the Person mapping, but then obviously the Category property is always null.
Oh yeah, sorry about the mix between C# and VB, the C# code is in a generic framework I use for multiple projects while the VB part is the actual implementation of that framework on my website and I just happened to use VB for that.
Help? Thanks!
In your Product class only needs to contain a Category object, you don't need a CategoryId property. Then in your Product mapping you need to have this entry
<many-to-one name="Category" column="CategoryId" />
UPDATE:
Your mappings appear to be missing the fully qualified name of the mapped class in the tag. See http://nhibernate.info/doc/nh/en/index.html#mapping-declaration-class
UPDATE 2:
See if this helps you NHibernate 1.2 in a .NET 4.0 solution
The 'Ambiguous match found' exception was caused by the project targeting .NET Framework 4, which does not seem to be compatible with NHibernate 1.2.1. I switched to 3.5 and that seems to solve that particular issue.
Now on to the next. As you can see, the Person class has a CategoryName property that should return the name of the current Category object, or an empty string if the category happens to be null. This is so I can databind a collection of Person objects to a grid, specifying 'CategoryName' as a property to bind a column to.
Apparently this does not work with NHibernate. Whenever I try to databind my collection of persons, I get this exception:
"Property accessor 'CategoryName' on object 'NHibernateWebTest.Database.Person' threw the following exception:'Could not initialize proxy - the owning Session was closed.'"
This occurs on the 'DataBind' method call in this code:
public virtual void LoadGrid()
{
if (this.Grid == null) return;
this.Grid.DataSource = this.Manager.Load();
this.Grid.DataBind();
}
(This is an ASP.NET project and 'Grid' is a GridView)
'this.Manager' returns an existing instance of NHibernateEntityManager, and I've already shown its Load method before, it contains this:
public virtual EntityCollection Load()
{
using (ISession session = this.GetSession())
{
var entities = session
.CreateCriteria(typeof (TEntity))
.Add(Expression.Eq("Deleted", false))
.List();
return new EntityCollection(entities);
}
}
(THere's some generic type parameters in there but this website seems to hide them (due to the html like tags I guess)... Sorry about that).
This may have something to do with NHibernate itself, as I said I'm completely new to this. When I call my Load method I would expect it to return an EntityCollection(Of Person) with all its properties already set. It seems I have to keep the ISession open while I am databinding for some reason..? That seems a little strange...
Can I get around this? Can I make my Load method simply return a collection of persons already fully loaded, so that I can access CategoryName whenever I want?
Wait... Is this lazy loading perhaps?
I use as a front-end sproutcore, and as back-end an nhibernate driven openrasta REST solution.
In sproutcore, references are actualy ID's / guid's. So an Address entity in the Sproutcore model could be:
// sproutcore code
App.Address = App.Base.extend(
street: SC.Record.attr(String, { defaultValue: "" }),
houseNumber: SC.Record.attr(String),
city: SC.Record.toOne('Funda.City')
);
with test data:
Funda.Address.FIXTURES = [
{ guid: "1",
street: "MyHomeStreet",
houseNumber: "34",
city: "6"
}
]
Here you see that the reference city has a value of 6. When, at some point in your program, you want to use that reference, it is done by:
myAddress.Get("city").MyCityName
So, Sproutcore automatically uses the supplied ID in a REST Get, and retrieves the needed record. If the record is available in de local memory of the client (previously loaded), then no round trip is made to the server, otherwise a http get is done for that ID : "http://servername/city/6". Very nice.
Nhibernate (mapped using fluent-nhibernate):
public AddressMap()
{
Schema(Config.ConfigElement("nh_default_schema", "Funda"));
Not.LazyLoad();
//Cache.ReadWrite();
Id(x => x.guid).Unique().GeneratedBy.Identity();
Table("Address");
Map(x => x.street);
Map(x => x.houseNumber);
References(x => x.city,
"cityID").LazyLoad().ForeignKey("fk_Address_cityID_City_guid");
}
Here i specified the foreign key, and to map "cityID" on the database table. It works ok.
BUT (and these are my questions for the guru's):
You can specify to lazy load / eager load a reference (city). Off course you do not want to eager load all your references. SO generally your tied to lazy loading.
But when Openrast (or WCF or ...) serializes such an object, it iterates the properties, which causes all the get's of the properties to be fired, which causes all of the references to be lazy loaded.
SO if your entity has 5 references, 1 query for the base object, and 5 for the references will be done. You might better be off with eager loading then ....
This sucks... Or am i wrong?
As i showed how the model inside sproutcore works, i only want the ID's of the references. So i Don't want eagerloading, and also not lazy loading.
just a "Get * from Address where ID = %" and get that mapped to my Address entity.
THen i also have the ID's of the references which pleases Sproutcore and me (no loading of unneeded references). But.... can NHibernate map the ID's of the references only?
And can i later indicate nHibernate to fully load the reference?
One approach could be (but is not a nice one) to load all reference EAGER (with join) (what a waste of resources.. i know) and in my Sever-side Address entity:
// Note: NOT mapped as Datamember, is NOT serialized!
public virtual City city { get; set; }
Int32 _cityID;
[Datamember]
public virtual Int32 cityID
{
get
{
if (city != null)
return city .guid;
else
return _cityID;
}
set
{
if (city!= null && city.guid != value)
{
city= null;
_cityID = value;
}
else if (city == null)
{
_cityID = value;
}
}
}
So i get my ID property for Sproutcore, but on the downside all references are loaded.
A better idea for me???
nHibernate-to-linq
3a. I want to get my address without their references (but preferably with their id's)
Dao myDao = new Dao();
from p in myDao.All()
select p;
If cities are lazy loading in my mapping, how can i specify in the linq query that i want it also to include my city id only?
3b.
I want to get addresses with my cities loaded in 1 query: (which are mapped as lazyloaded)
Dao myDao = new Dao();
from p in myDao.All()
join p.city ???????
select p;
My Main Question:
As argued earlier, with lazy loading, all references are lazy loaded when serializing entities. How can I prevent this, and only get ID's of references in a more efficient way?
Thank you very much for reading, and hopefully you can help me and others with the same questions. Kind regards.
as a note you wrote you do this
myAddress.Get("city").MyCityName
when it should be
myAddress.get("city").get("MyCityName")
or
myAddress.getPath("city.MyCityName")
With that out of the way, I think your question is "How do I not load the city object until I want to?".
Assuming you are using datasources, you need to manage in your datasource when you request the city object. So in retrieveRecord in your datasource simply don't fire the request, and call dataSourceDidComplete with the appropriate arguments (look in the datasource.js file) so the city record is not in the BUSY state. You are basically telling the store the record was loaded, but you pass an empty hash, so the record has no data.
Of course the problem with this is at some point you will need to retrieve the record. You could define a global like App.WANTS_CITY and in retrieveRecords only do the retrieve when you want the city. You need to manage the value of that trigger; statecharts are a good place to do this.
Another part of your question was "How do I load a bunch of records at once, instead of one request for each record?"
Note on the datasource there is a method retrieveRecords. You can define your own implementation to this method, which would allow you to fetch any records you want -- that avoids N requests for N child records -- you can do them all in one request.
Finally, personally, I tend to write an API layer with methods like
getAddress
and
getCity
and invoke my API appropriately, when I actually want the objects. Part of this approach is I have a very light datasource -- I basically bail out of all the create/update/fetch methods depending on what my API layer handles. I use the pushRetrieve and related methods to update the store.
I do this because the store uses in datasources in a very rigid way. I like more flexibility; not all server APIs work in the same way.
I need to write a row to the database regardless of whether it already exists or not. Before using NHibernate this was done with a stored procedure. The procedure would attempt an update and if no rows were modified it would fallback to an insert. This worked well because the application doesn't care if the record exists.
With NHibernate, the solutions I have found require loading the entity and modifying it, or deleting the entity so the new one can be inserted. The application does have to care if the record already exists. Is there a way around that?
Does the Id Matter?
Assigned Id
The object has a keyword as an assigned id and is the primary key in the table.
I understand that SaveOrUpdate() will call the Save() or Update() method as appropriate based on the Id. Using an assigned id, this won't work because the id isn't an unsaved-value. However a Version or Timestamp field could be used as an indicator instead. In reality, this isn't relevant because this only reflects on whether the object in memory has been associated with a record in the database; it does not indicate if the record exists or not in the database.
Generated Id
If the assigned id were truly the cause of the problem, I could use a generated id instead of the keyword as the primary key. This would avoid the NHibernate Insert/Update issue as it would effectively always insert. However, I still need to prevent duplicate keywords. With a unique index on the keyword column it will still throw an exception for a duplicate keyword even if the primary key is different.
Another Approach?
Perhaps the problem isn't really with NHibernate, but the way this is modeled. Unlike other areas of the application, this is more data-centric rather object-centric. It is nice that NHibernate makes it easy to read/write and eliminates the stored procedures. But the desire to simply write without regard to existing values doesn't fit well with the model of an object's identity model. Is there a better way to approach this?
I`m using
public IList<T> GetByExample<T>(T exampleInstance)
{
return _session.CreateCriteria(typeof(T))
.Add(Example.Create(exampleInstance))
.List<T>();
}
public void InsertOrUpdate<T>(T target)
{
ITransaction transaction = _session.BeginTransaction();
try
{
var res=GetByExample<T>(target);
if( res!=null && res.Count>0 )
_session.SaveOrUpdate(target);
else
_session.Save(target);
transaction.Commit();
}
catch (Exception)
{
transaction.Rollback();
throw;
}
finally
{
transaction.Dispose();
}
}
but FindByExample method returns all objects alike not objects with the exact ID what do you suggest ? since I have only object as parameter I don't have access to its specific ID field so I cannot use session.get(Object.class(), id);
Typically, NHibernate can rely on the unsaved-value to determine whether it should insert or create the entity. However, since you are assigning the ID, to NHibernate it looks like your entity has already been persisted. Therefore, you need to rely on versioning your object to let NHibernate know that it is a new object. See the following link for how to version your entity:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090831032934/http://devlicio.us/blogs/mike_nichols/archive/2008/07/29/when-flushing-goes-bad-assigned-ids-in-nhibernate.aspx
Use the session.SaveOrUpdate(object) method.
You can do
Obj j = session.get(Object.class(), id);
if (j != null)
session.merge(myObj);
else
session.saveOrUpdate(myObj);
Query objects where keyword = x, take FirstOrDefault. If it's null, Add new object, if it exists, update object that you got and call saveOrUpdate on it.
This worked for me:
Implementation
public void InsertOrUpdate<TEntity, TId>(TEntity entity) where TEntity : IIdentificableNh<TId>
{
var anyy = session.Get<TEntity>(entity.Id);
if (anyy != null)
{
session.Evict(anyy); //dispatch all data loaded, to allow updating 'entity' object.
session.Update(entity);
}
else
{
session.Save(entity);
}
session.Flush();
}
Entity
public class Caracteristica : IIdentificableNh<int>
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Descripcion { get; set; }
}
I had to create an interface (IIdentificableNh) that allows me to access the Id property value.
Usage example:
session.InsertOrUpdate<Caracteristica, int>(new Caracteristica { Id = 2, Descripcion = "Caracteristica2" });
call hibernate.saveOrUpdate() which will check if the object is in the database, update it if it is, and save (i.e. insert) it if it is not.