I have a User entity:
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping as ORM;
/**
* ExampleBundle\Entity\User
*
* #ORM\Entity()
*/
class User
{
// ...
/**
* #ORM\Column(type="service_expires_at", type="date", nullable=true)
*/
private $service_expires_at;
public function getServiceExpiresAt()
{
return $this->service_expires_at;
}
public function setServiceExpiresAt(\DateTime $service_expires_at)
{
$this->service_expires_at = $service_expires_at;
}
}
When i update the User's service_expires_at as following, the updated service_expires_at value is NOT saved back into the database:
$date = $user->getServiceExpiresAt();
var_dump($date->format('Y-m-d')); // 2013-03-08
$date->modify('+10 days');
var_dump($date->format('Y-m-d')); // 2013-03-18
$user->setServiceExpiresAt($date);
$em->persist($user);
$em->flush();
However if i pass a new DateTime object to service_expires_at, the updated value is saved correctly:
$date = $user->getServiceExpiresAt();
$date->modify('+10 days');
$user->setServiceExpiresAt(new \DateTime($date->format('Y-m-d'));
$em->persist($user);
$em->flush();
Why is this happening?
The DateTime instances returned by ExampleBundle\Entity\User#getServiceExpiresAt() are the same objects stored in the entity itself, which breaks encapsulation.
The UnitOfWork in Doctrine ORM applies strict comparison for changesets, which basically means that in the case of properties of entities containing objects, if the object instance hasn't changed, the ORM does not detect a change.
In strict comparison, following is true:
$dateTime1 = new \DateTime('#0');
$dateTime2 = new \DateTime('#0');
$dateTime3 = $dateTime1;
var_dump($dateTime1 !== $dateTime2); // true
var_dump($dateTime1 === $dateTime3); // true
$dateTime1->modify('+1 day');
var_dump($dateTime1 === $dateTime3); // true
This is a very common mistake among newcomers in OOP programming, and it can be solved quickly by fixing your getters and setters so that the original instance is never shared outside of your object, like in following example:
public function getServiceExpiresAt()
{
return clone $this->service_expires_at;
}
public function setServiceExpiresAt(\DateTime $service_expires_at)
{
$this->service_expires_at = clone $service_expires_at;
}
This will also fix your problem with Doctrine ORM.
Also, please note that this fixes possible leaks in your logic. For example, following code is buggy and hard to debug (when applying your currently broken getters/setters):
$bankTransaction1 = $someService->getTransaction(1);
$bankTransaction2 = $someService->getTransaction(2);
// leak! Now both objects reference the same DateTime instance!
$bankTransaction2->setDateTime($bankTransaction1->getDateTime());
// bug! now both your objects were modified!
$bankTransaction1->getDateTime()->modify('+1 day');
So, regardless of the ORM part in the question, please don't break encapsulation.
Consider using DateTimeImmutable class for your date/time properties. Thereby, note that DateTimeImmutable is not an instance of DateTime.
I have exactly the same problem when i am trying to insert an entity with a past date (i'm trying to migrate an old database to new schema with it's data too).
I tried to clone the object in both setter and getter and it's useless. Doctrine 2 saves the current date. Checked the schema, the field is date time not time stamp and default is null.
How can this be?
EDIT:
please excuse my lack of attention, my colleague dev added a prePersist event:
/**
* #ORM\PrePersist
*/
function onPrePersist() {
$this->created_at = new \DateTime('now');
}
Related
I'm using UUID's as PK in my tables. They're stored in a BINARY(16) MySQL column. I find that they're being mapped to string type in YII. The CRUD code I generate breaks down though, because these binary column types are being HTML encoded in the views. Example:
<?php echo
CHtml::link(CHtml::encode($data->usr_uuid), /* This is my binary uuid field */
array('view', 'id'=>$data->usr_uuid)); ?>
To work around this problem, I overrode afterFind() and beforeSave() in my model where I convert the values to/from hex using bin2hex and hex2bin respectively. See this for more details.
This takes care of the view problems.
However, now the search on PK when accessing a url of the form:
http://myhost.com/mysite/user/ec12ef8ebf90460487abd77b3f534404
results in User::loadModel($id) being called which in turn calls:
User::model()->findByPk($id);
This doesn't work since the SQL is being generated (on account of it being mapped to php string type) is
select ... where usr_uuid='EC12EF8EBF90460487ABD77B3F534404'
What would have worked is if I could, for these uuid fields change the condition to:
select ... where usr_uuid=unhex('EC12EF8EBF90460487ABD77B3F534404')
I was wondering how I take care of this problem cleanly. I see one possiblity - extend CMysqlColumnSchema and override the necessary methods to special case and handle binary(16) columns as uuid type.
This doesn't seem neat as there's no support for uuid natively either in php (where it is treated as string) or in mysql (where I have it as binary(16) column).
Does anyone have any recommendation?
If you plan using it within your own code then I'd create my own base AR class:
class ActiveRecord extends CActiveRecord
{
// ...
public function findByUUID($uuid)
{
return $this->find('usr_uuid=unhex(:uuid)', array('uuid' => $uuid));
}
}
If it's about using generated code etc. then customizing schema a bit may be a good idea.
I used the following method to make working with uuid (binary(16)) columns using Yii/MySQL possible and efficient. I mention efficient, because I could have just made the column a CHAR(32) or (36) with dashes, but that would really chuck efficient out of the window.
I extended CActiveRecord and added a virtual attribute uuid to it. Also overloaded two of the base class methods getPrimaryKey and setPrimaryKey. With these changes most of Yii is happy.
class UUIDActiveRecord extends CActiveRecord
{
public function getUuid()
{
$pkColumn = $this->primaryKeyColumn;
return UUIDUtils::bin2hex($this->$pkColumn);
}
public function setUuid($value)
{
$pkColumn = $this->primaryKeyColumn;
$this->$pkColumn = UUIDUtils::hex2bin($value);
}
public function getPrimaryKey()
{
return $this->uuid;
}
public function setPrimaryKey($value)
{
$this->uuid = $value;
}
abstract public function getPrimaryKeyColumn();
}
Now I get/set UUID using this virtual attribute:
$model->uuid = generateUUID(); // return UUID as 32 char string without the dashes (-)
The last bit, is about how I search. That is accomplished using:
$criteria = new CDbCriteria();
$criteria->addCondition('bkt_user = unhex(:value)');
$criteria->params = array(':value'=>Yii::app()->user->getId()); //Yii::app()->user->getId() returns id as hex string
$buckets = Bucket::model()->findAll($criteria);
A final note though, parameter logging i.e. the following line in main.php:
'db'=>array(
...
'enableParamLogging' => true,
);
Still doesn't work, as once again, Yii will try to html encode binary data (not a good idea). I haven't found a workaround for it so I have disabled it in my config file.
i have a behavior for my models, the behavior has beforeFind, beforeSave, in methods i override user_id, something like:
...
public functio beforeSave() {
$this->owner->user_id = Yii::app()->user->id
}
I have model User, how can i disable behavior for registration new user?
Saving code:
$user = new User();
$user->id = 1332;
$user->field1 = 'data';
$user->save();
but on save i have null in $user->id (because work behavior).
i tried
$user->disableBehaviors();
$user->detachBehavior();
Without result.
Maybe its not right way? I create behaviors for identify users in system (find only user something, save only with user id...), but that if i have new user with full previegies, i should again detach behaviors?
If condition can be changed in future I just pass it as callback parameter into behavior from model.
This give you a bit more control over the condition. Hence, behavior becomes more reusable - if it is used by several models this condition can be unique for each.
Example below is a bit simplified, but you should get the idea.
Behavior:
class SomeBehavior extends CActiveRecordBehavior
{
public $trigger;
public function beforeSave($event)
{
if(!call_user_func($this->trigger))
return;
// do what you need
$this->owner->user_id = Yii::app()->user->id;
}
}
Model:
class SomeModel extends CActiveRecord
{
public function behaviors()
{
$me=$this;
return array(
'some'=>array(
'class'=>'SomeBehavior',
'trigger'=>function() use($me){
return $me->scenario=='some-scenario';
}
)
);
}
}
Also I use PHP 5.3. So, I use closure for trigger callback.
If your PHP version is less than 5.3 - anything callable can be used instead. Check here http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.is-callable.php
Because of behavior is a method, you can declare your own logic inside.
The model knows about its scenario, so there is no problem to return different arrays for different conditions:)
Hope it be helpful for somebody.
You can check Yii::app()-user->isGuest to determine if the user is logged in or not. or you can just try looking for the null. Like this:
if (!Yii::app()->user->isGuest)
$this->owner->user_id = Yii::app()->user->id;
or
if (null !== Yii::app()->user->id)
$this->owner->user_id = Yii::app()->user->id;
I have a yii application. Data is validated properly. the $model->validate() returns true but data is not being saved. Is there any way that I know about the error. It does nothing. neither prints error nor any warning.
if (isset($_POST['Invoice'])) {
$model->validate();
$model->attributes = $_POST['Invoice'];
if (!$model->validate()) {
die(CVarDumper::dump($model->errors,10,true));
}
if ($model->save()) {
die("Data saved");
$this->redirect(array('view', 'id' => $model->id));
} else {
CVarDumper::dump($model->attributes,10,true);
CVarDumper::dump($model->errors,10,true);
}
}
if you override beforeSave or afterFind method in your model,
public function beforeSave() {
return true; //don't forget this
}
public function afterFind() {
return true; //don't forget this
}
make sure you return true for those function
If save() is returning true and there are no errors as such in your database and queries. Only thing, thats possible is you haven't marked some of the column safe for mass assignment via "$model->attributes".
Make sure the column you are trying to save are marked safe in the "rules" function in your model. You can mark columns safe via adding the following rule in "rules" function in the model.
array ( "column_name1, column_name2 ....." , "safe" )
I've just ran into something similar to this. Everything was validating correctly, and $model->save() was returning true, but no data was saved in the database.
The problem and solution was that I was creating the $model object like so:
$model = ClassName::model();
but you need to create the object like so:
$model = new ClassName;
If you have this problem, you replace this:
$model->save(false)
This solves your problem.
If you use $model->save(); the filters is running that is not good for you.
Fire up some logging and see what going on...
I got the same error when I was using reCaptcha. I just did this and it worked:
$model->scenario = NULL;
Make sure you do this AFTER validation.
I had the same issue, my mistake was with the post name in the controller, where I used $model->save. I had given wrong - if(isset($_POST['postname']))
If I am not wrong, you are doing an AR save() in the $model->save() method. You do not get any error, but the data is not saved as well.
If this is the case you would like to do a:
die(CVarDumper::dump($arObj->errors,10,true));
after the $arObj->save(); call. Most of the time this happens because of the Database rejecting the values provided for insert or update.
Also do not override your model constructor:
function __construct() { } // don't do this
The issue for me was that I had a property for the column name in the ActiveRecord class, so it wasn't saving.
You should not declare properties for column names as I guess the magic methods __get() and __set() are used to save data, I guess by checking if there are column changes when you click the save() method to avoid useless SQL queries. In my case, because the column was a user-declared property, it wasn't in the columns list and therefore changes to it were not detected.
Hope this helps other people
I'm new to NHibernate and was assigned to a task where I have to change a value of an entity property and then compare if this new value (cached) is different from the actual value stored on the DB. However, every attempt to retrieve this value from the DB resulted in the cached value. As I said, I'm new to NHibernate, maybe this is something easy to do and obviously could be done with plain ADO.NET, but the client demands that we use NHibernate for every access to the DB. In order to make things clearer, those were my "successful" attempts (ie, no errors):
1
DetachedCriteria criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<User>()
.SetProjection(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(UserField.JobLoad)))
.Add(Expression.Eq(UserField.Id, userid));
return GetByDetachedCriteria(criteria)[0].Id; //this is the value I want
2
var JobLoadId = DetachedCriteria.For<User>()
.SetProjection(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(UserField.JobLoad)))
.Add(Expression.Eq(UserField.Id, userid));
ICriteria criteria = JobLoadId.GetExecutableCriteria(NHibernateSession);
var ids = criteria.List();
return ((JobLoad)ids[0]).Id;
Hope I made myself clear, sometimes is hard to explain a problem when even you don't quite understand the underlying framework.
Edit: Of course, this is a method body.
Edit 2: I found out that it doesn't work properly for the method call is inside a transaction context. If I remove the transaction, it works fine, but I need it to be in this context.
I do that opening a new stateless session for geting the actual object in the database:
User databaseuser;
using (IStatelessSession session = SessionFactory.OpenStatelessSession())
{
databaseuser = db.get<User>("id");
}
//do your checks
Within a session, NHibernate will return the same object from its Level-1 Cache (aka Identity Map). If you need to see the current value in the database, you can open a new session and load the object in that session.
I would do it like this:
public class MyObject : Entity
{
private readonly string myField;
public string MyProperty
{
get { return myField; }
set
{
if (value != myField)
{
myField = value;
DoWhateverYouNeedToDoWhenItIsChanged();
}
}
}
}
googles nhforge
http://nhibernate.info/doc/howto/various/finding-dirty-properties-in-nhibernate.html
This may be able to help you.
Updated: 09/02/2009 - Revised question, provided better examples, added bounty.
Hi,
I'm building a PHP application using the data mapper pattern between the database and the entities (domain objects). My question is:
What is the best way to encapsulate a commonly performed task?
For example, one common task is retrieving one or more site entities from the site mapper, and their associated (home) page entities from the page mapper. At present, I would do that like this:
$siteMapper = new Site_Mapper();
$site = $siteMapper->findByid(1);
$pageMapper = new Page_Mapper();
$site->addPage($pageMapper->findHome($site->getId()));
Now that's a fairly trivial example, but it gets more complicated in reality, as each site also has an associated locale, and the page actually has multiple revisions (although for the purposes of this task I'd only be interested in the most recent one).
I'm going to need to do this (get the site and associated home page, locale etc.) in multiple places within my application, and I cant think of the best way/place to encapsulate this task, so that I don't have to repeat it all over the place. Ideally I'd like to end up with something like this:
$someObject = new SomeClass();
$site = $someObject->someMethod(1); // or
$sites = $someObject->someOtherMethod();
Where the resulting site entities already have their associated entities created and ready for use.
The same problem occurs when saving these objects back. Say I have a site entity and associated home page entity, and they've both been modified, I have to do something like this:
$siteMapper->save($site);
$pageMapper->save($site->getHomePage());
Again, trivial, but this example is simplified. Duplication of code still applies.
In my mind it makes sense to have some sort of central object that could take care of:
Retrieving a site (or sites) and all nessessary associated entities
Creating new site entities with new associated entities
Taking a site (or sites) and saving it and all associated entities (if they've changed)
So back to my question, what should this object be?
The existing mapper object?
Something based on the repository pattern?*
Something based on the unit of work patten?*
Something else?
* I don't fully understand either of these, as you can probably guess.
Is there a standard way to approach this problem, and could someone provide a short description of how they'd implement it? I'm not looking for anyone to provide a fully working implementation, just the theory.
Thanks,
Jack
Using the repository/service pattern, your Repository classes would provide a simple CRUD interface for each of your entities, then the Service classes would be an additional layer that performs additional logic like attaching entity dependencies. The rest of your app then only utilizes the Services. Your example might look like this:
$site = $siteService->getSiteById(1); // or
$sites = $siteService->getAllSites();
Then inside the SiteService class you would have something like this:
function getSiteById($id) {
$site = $siteRepository->getSiteById($id);
foreach ($pageRepository->getPagesBySiteId($site->id) as $page)
{
$site->pages[] = $page;
}
return $site;
}
I don't know PHP that well so please excuse if there is something wrong syntactically.
[Edit: this entry attempts to address the fact that it is oftentimes easier to write custom code to directly deal with a situation than it is to try to fit the problem into a pattern.]
Patterns are nice in concept, but they don't always "map". After years of high end PHP development, we have settled on a very direct way of handling such matters. Consider this:
File: Site.php
class Site
{
public static function Select($ID)
{
//Ensure current user has access to ID
//Lookup and return data
}
public static function Insert($aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Do whatever it is you are doing
//Return new ID
}
public static function Update($ID, $aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Update necessary fields
}
Then, in order to call it (from anywhere), just run:
$aData = Site::Select(123);
Site::Update(123, array('FirstName' => 'New First Name'));
$ID = Site::Insert(array(...))
One thing to keep in mind about OO programming and PHP... PHP does not keep "state" between requests, so creating an object instance just to have it immediately destroyed does not often make sense.
I'd probably start by extracting the common task to a helper method somewhere, then waiting to see what the design calls for. It feels like it's too early to tell.
What would you name this method ? The name usually hints at where the method belongs.
class Page {
public $id, $title, $url;
public function __construct($id=false) {
$this->id = $id;
}
public function save() {
// ...
}
}
class Site {
public $id = '';
public $pages = array();
function __construct($id) {
$this->id = $id;
foreach ($this->getPages() as $page_id) {
$this->pages[] = new Page($page_id);
}
}
private function getPages() {
// ...
}
public function addPage($url) {
$page = ($this->pages[] = new Page());
$page->url = $url;
return $page;
}
public function save() {
foreach ($this->pages as $page) {
$page->save();
}
// ..
}
}
$site = new Site($id);
$page = $site->addPage('/');
$page->title = 'Home';
$site->save();
Make your Site object an Aggregate Root to encapsulate the complex association and ensure consistency.
Then create a SiteRepository that has the responsibility of retrieving the Site aggregate and populating its children (including all Pages).
You will not need a separate PageRepository (assuming that you don't make Page a separate Aggregate Root), and your SiteRepository should have the responsibility of retrieving the Page objects as well (in your case by using your existing Mappers).
So:
$siteRepository = new SiteRepository($myDbConfig);
$site = $siteRepository->findById(1); // will have Page children attached
And then the findById method would be responsible for also finding all Page children of the Site. This will have a similar structure to the answer CodeMonkey1 gave, however I believe you will benefit more by using the Aggregate and Repository patterns, rather than creating a specific Service for this task. Any other retrieval/querying/updating of the Site aggregate, including any of its child objects, would be done through the same SiteRepository.
Edit: Here's a short DDD Guide to help you with the terminology, although I'd really recommend reading Evans if you want the whole picture.