I have a MySQL database which has GUID's stored as binary(16) for the primary keys. I'm using a MySQL user defined routine when inserting and selecting to convert the id's to and from GUID's (GUIDToBinary() and BinaryToGUID()).
In order to use my routines in Phalcon, I am setting the 'columns' parameter for the find() and findFirst() model functions which now means i'm working with incomplete objects as the functions return an instance of Phalcon\Mvc\Model\Row.
The docs state when using the columns parameter the following occurs;
Return specific columns instead of the full columns in the model. When
using this option an incomplete object is returned
UserController.php
// Returns Phalcon\Mvc\Model\Row
$incompleteUser = User::find(['columns' => 'BinaryToGUID(id) as id, status, username, password, .....']);
// Create a new user object to update
$user = new User();
// Populate with existing data
$user->assign($incompleteUser->toArray());
// Assign new changes requested by the user
$user->assign($this->request->getPost());
// Update
$user->updateUser();
User.php
public function updateUser()
{
$manager = $this->getModelsManager();
return $manager->executeQuery("UPDATE User SET ..... WHERE id = GUIDToBinary(".$this->getDI()->get('db')->escapeString($this->id).")");
}
Irrespective of the fact that I've explicitly defined an update, an insert is performed due to the Model being in a transient state.
One solution I thought of was to move the binary to GUID conversion into Phalcon by using Model events however I can't find a suitable method for performing the conversion when selecting. Updating/Inserting is possible by using the beforeSave() and beforeUpdate() events. Perhaps I could just have different properties getId() and getIdGuid() within the model but I would prefer to avoid this if possible.
Is there a way to use MySQL user defined routines in Phalcon and hydrate my model so that it remains in a persistent state? Or do i need to go down the raw SQL route for my updates and avoid PHQL?
Thanks in advance for your time.
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.
I am using TYPO3 8. In my extension I have a database table "company" in which I store for each company the total number of places (number_places) and the number of occupied places (occupied_places).
Now I want to limit the search to companies which have available places left.
In MySQL it would be like this:
SELECT * FROM company WHERE number_places > occupied_places;
How can I create this query in the extbase repository?
I tried to introduce the virtual property placesLeft in my model but it did not work.
I don't want to use a raw SQL statement as mentioned below, because I already have implemented a filter which uses plenty of different constraints.
Extbase query to compare two fields in same table
You can do it like this in your repository class, please note the comments inside the code:
class CompanyRepository extends \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Repository
{
public function findWithAvailablePlaces(bool $returnRawQueryResult = false)
{
// Create a QueryBuilder instance
$queryBuilder = $this->objectManager->get(\TYPO3\CMS\Core\Database\ConnectionPool::class)
->getConnectionForTable('company')->createQueryBuilder();
// Create the query
$queryBuilder
->select('*')
->from('company')
->where(
// Note: this string concatenation is needed, because TYPO3's
// QueryBuilder always escapes the value in the ExpressionBuilder's
// methods (eq(), lt(), gt(), ...) and thus render it impossible to
// compare against an identifier.
$queryBuilder->quoteIdentifier('number_places')
. \TYPO3\CMS\Core\Database\Query\Expression\ExpressionBuilder::GT
. $queryBuilder->quoteIdentifier('occupied_places')
);
// Execute the query
$result = $queryBuilder->execute()->fetchAll();
// Note: this switch is not needed in fact. I just put it here, if you
// like to get the Company model objects instead of an array.
if ($returnRawQueryResult) {
$dataMapper = $this->objectManager->get(\TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Generic\Mapper\DataMapper::class);
return $dataMapper->map($this->objectType, $result);
}
return $result;
}
}
Notes:
If you have lots of records to deal with, I would - for performance reasons - not use the data mapping feature and work with arrays.
If you want to use the fluid pagination widget, be sure you don't and build your own pagination. Because of the way this works (extbase-internally), you'd get a huge system load overhead when the table grows. Better add the support for limited db queries to the repository method, for example:
class CompanyRepository extends \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Repository
{
public function findWithAvailablePlaces(
int $limit = 10,
int $offset = 0,
bool $returnRawQueryResult = false
) {
// ...
$queryBuilder
->setMaxResults($limit)
->setFirstResult($offset);
$result = $queryBuilder->execute()->fetchAll();
// ...
}
}
I think you cant do this using the default Extbase Query methods like equals() and so on. You may use the function $query->statement() for your specific queries like this.
You also can use the QueryBuilder since TYPO3 8 which has functions to compare fields to each other:
https://docs.typo3.org/typo3cms/CoreApiReference/latest/ApiOverview/Database/QueryBuilder/Index.html#quoteidentifier-and-quoteidentifiers
It's fine to use this QueryBuilder inside Extbase repositories. After this you can use the DataMapper to map the query results to Extbase models.
In case of using "statement()" be aware of escaping every value which may cause any kind of SQL injections.
Based on the current architecture of TYPO3, the data structure is such that comparing of two tables or, mixing results from two tables ought to be done from within the controller, by injecting the two repositories. Optionally, you can construct a Domain Service that can work on the data from the two repositories from within the action itself, in the case of a routine. The service will also have to be injected.
Note:
If you have a foreign relation defined in your table configuration, the results of that foreign relation will show in your defined table repository. So, there's that too.
I am trying to update an object after retrieving it from a database.
This fires 2 queries , one for the select and the other for the update, is there any way of update an object using Fluent NHiberNate firing only one query ?
My code is as below:
var userProfile = userProfileRepository
.Find(x => x.ClientId == clientId)
.FirstOrDefault();
/* update UserProfile object here */
userProfileRepository.SaveOrUpdate(userProfile);
the SaveOrUpdate Method looks as such :
public bool SaveOrUpdate(T instance)
{
using (var session = SessionManager.OpenSession())
{
using (var transaction = session.BeginTransaction())
{
session.SaveOrUpdate(instance);
transaction.Commit();
}
return true;
}
}
In case that your issue is:
regardless of what I do, SaveOrUpdate() always sends SELECT then UPDATE
You should check the doc:
5.1.4.7. Assigned Identifiers
If you want the application to assign identifiers (as opposed to having NHibernate generate them), you may use the assigned generator. This special generator will use the identifier value already assigned to the object's identifier property. Be very careful when using this feature to assign keys with business meaning (almost always a terrible design decision).
Due to its inherent nature, entities that use this generator cannot be saved via the ISession's SaveOrUpdate() method. Instead you have to explicitly specify to NHibernate if the object should be saved or updated by calling either the Save() or Update() method of the ISession.
So, if your Fluent configuration sets the ID to be assigned - NHibernate has no other way then check if it
exists
or is new
because used method was SaveOrUpdate()
Solution(s)
1) Change the ID to be generated by DB or NHiberante 2) use explicit Update()
Are you trying to create an
UPDATE ... WHERE ...
statement?
AFAIK the NHibernate way to do this, is to select the appropriate objects (using the WHERE clause), update the fields, and persist them again.
var tempObjects = _session.Query<myObject>.Where(o => o.Id > 500);
// update proxy objects
foreach (var o in tempObjects)
{
o.MyValue = updatedValue;
}
// commit updated objects
_session.Update(tempObjects);
To be honest, we've used ISession.CreateSQLQuery ourselves. I hate using SQL in code because it breaks in refactoring, but if you must - here's how:
_session.CreateSQLQuery(
#"UPDATE [MyTable] SET [MyValue]=:updatedvalue WHERE Id > 500")
.SetParameter("updatedvalue", updatedValue)
.ExecuteUpdate();
I am wondering if it is possible to map a named native query on the fly instead of getting back a list of Object[] and then looping through and setting up the object that way. I have a call which I know ill return a massive data set and I want to be able to map it right to my entity. Can I do that or will I have to continue looping through the result set.
Here is what I am doing now...
List<Provider> ObjList = (List<Provider>) emf.createNativeQuery(assembleQuery(organizationIDs, 5)).getResultList();
That is my entity, the List (my entity is the provider). Normally I would just return a List<Object[]>
and then I would loop through that to get back all the objects and set them up as new providers and add them to a list....
//List<Provider> provList = new ArrayList<Provider>();
/*for(Object[] obj: ObjList)
{
provList.add(this.GetProviderFromObj(obj));
}*/
As you can see I commented that section of the code out to try this out. I know you can map named native queries if you put your native query in the entity itself and then call it via createNamedQuery. I would do it that way, but I need to use the IN oracle keyword because I have a list of ID's that I want to check against. It is not just one that is needed. And as we all know, native queruies don't handle the in keyword to well. Any advice?
Sigh, If only the IN keyword was supported well for NamedNativeQueries.
Assuming that Provider is configured as a JPA entity, you should be able to specify the class as the second parameter to your createNativeQuery call. For example:
List<Provider> ObjList = (List<Provider>) emf.createNativeQuery(assembleQuery(organizationIDs, 5), Provider.class).getResultList();
According to the documentation, "At a minimum, your SQL must select the class' primary key columns, discriminator column (if mapped), and version column (also if mapped)."
See the OpenJPA documentation for more details.
Is it possible to do an overload of the actions in the controller? I haven't found any info about it and when I tried, I got this error:
The current request for action 'Create' on controller type 'InterviewController' is >ambiguous between the following action methods:
System.Web.Mvc.ViewResult Create() on type >MvcApplication4.MvcApplication4.InterviewController
System.Web.Mvc.ViewResult Create(Int32) on type >MvcApplication4.MvcApplication4.InterviewController
I've tried to do this on another way and I also get a new error that I can't fix. In fact, I created a new action (called create_client instead of create)
I need 2 ways of creating an "opportunite".
I just call the action, and I receive an empty formular in which I just have to insert data.
From a client's page, I must create an "opportunite" with the client that's already completed when the form is displayed to the user. (there is a need of productivity, the user must perform actions as fast as possible).
In the table "opportunite", I've got a column called "FK_opp_client", which is equal to the column "idClient" from the client's table.
I don't get how I can do the second way.
I've created a new action in the controller.
'
' GET: /Opportunite/Create_client
Function Create_client(idclient) As ViewResult
'Dim FK_Client = (From e In db.client
'Where(e.idClient = idclient)
' Select e.nomCompteClient).ToString()
'ViewBag.FK_client = New SelectList(db.client, "idClient", "nomCompteClient", idclient)
Dim opportunite As opportunite = db.opportunite.Single(Function(o) o.idOpportunite = 5)
opportunite.FK_Client = idclient
ViewBag.FK_Client = New SelectList(db.client, "idClient", "nomCompteClient", opportunite.FK_Client)
Return View(opportunite)
End Function
I've tried a few things to get what I wanted, the last one was to copy what was done in the "Edit" action, but for an empty rank. (so I created an empty rank in my DB). I don't think it was a good idea (imagine someone wants to update the DB where idOpportunite = 5...)
Any better ideas?
If you want to keep those two methods under the same name, you will have to implement an ActionSelectionAttribute to decorate them, or use them with different verbs (for example POST and PUT). Please read more details on action method selection process here (old but still true).
Different approach might be making your parameter optional and make action to check if it has been passed or not (through nullable type).