Cart
{
CompositeId().KeyProperty(x => x.CART_ID, "CART_ID").KeyProperty(x => x.COMM_CD, "COMM_CD");
References(x => x.Product, "COMM_CD");
}
When I tried to save cart object into database I received out of range exception. I think it's because I have two COMM_CD properties. Is there a way to solve this problem ?
Thanks
You need to use KeyReference instead of KeyProperty
CompositeId()
.KeyProperty(x => x.CART_ID, "CART_ID")
.KeyReference(x => x.Product, "COMM_CD");
Related
I've following mapping for two tables having a Many-to-Many relationship between them. How do I delete an entry from the mapping table, which is 'TB_EMAIL_GRUPO_ARQUIVO' in my case? I just need to delete the data from this "joining" table and I don´t need to delete it from the "parent tables".
GrupoModulo
public GrupoModuloMap()
{
Schema(Const.SCHEMA);
Table(Const.TB_EMAIL_GRUPO_MODULO);
CompositeId()
.KeyReference(x => x.Grupo, Const.ID_GRUPO)
.KeyReference(x => x.Modulo, Const.ID_MODULO);
Map(x => x.GrupoId).Column(Const.ID_GRUPO).ReadOnly();
Map(x => x.ModuloId).Column(Const.ID_MODULO).ReadOnly();
HasManyToMany(x => x.Arquivos)
.Table(Const.TB_EMAIL_GRUPO_ARQUIVO)
.ParentKeyColumns.Add(Const.ID_GRUPO, Const.ID_MODULO)
.ChildKeyColumn(Const.ID_ARQUIVO)
.Cascade.SaveUpdate()
.Not.LazyLoad();
}
ArquivoRetorno
public ArquivoRetornoMap()
{
Schema(Const.SCHEMA);
Table(Const.TB_EMAIL_ARQUIVO_RETORNO);
Id(x => x.Id)
.Column(Const.ID_ARQUIVO)
.GeneratedBy.Sequence("SEQ_TB_EMAIL_ARQUIVO_RETORNO")
.Length(7).CustomSqlType("number(7)")
.Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.Nome)
.Column("NM_ARQUIVO_RETORNO")
.Length(50)
.Not.Nullable();
References(x => x.Modulo)
.Column(Const.ID_MODULO)
.Not.Nullable();
HasManyToMany(x => x.GrupoModulos)
.Table(Const.TB_EMAIL_GRUPO_ARQUIVO)
.ChildKeyColumns.Add(Const.ID_GRUPO, Const.ID_MODULO)
.ParentKeyColumn(Const.ID_ARQUIVO)
.Cascade.SaveUpdate()
.Not.LazyLoad();
}
Whenever I try to delete I'm getting the following error:
deleted object would be re-saved by cascade (remove deleted object from associations)[Domain.Entity.GrupoModulo#Domain.Entity.GrupoModulo]
Someone has any idea?
The answer is (I am really sure) here: NHibernate Deleted object would be re-saved by cascade
Let me re-phrase that for your case, what could happen:
we remove an GrupoArquivo from ArquivoRetorno.GrupoModulos collection.
During that transaction, unit of work, we also tuch and therefore load the GrupoModulo
GrupoModulo gets initiated - and NOW - collection of Arquivos is loaded. So the reference to removed GrupoArquivo is kept there
NHibernate MUST inform: Deleted object would be re-saved by cascade
Solution(s):
be sure that the GrupoModulo is never loaded (stays as proxy)
or (the way I use) Remove() the GrupoArquivo also from GrupoModulo.Arquivos
or do NOT use CASCADE mapping on GrupoArquivo side:
(do not use the cascade)
HasManyToMany(x => x.Arquivos)
.Table(Const.TB_EMAIL_GRUPO_ARQUIVO)
.ParentKeyColumns.Add(Const.ID_GRUPO, Const.ID_MODULO)
.ChildKeyColumn(Const.ID_ARQUIVO)
//.Cascade.SaveUpdate()
// here
.Cascade.None()
.Not.LazyLoad();
I have a very simple unidirectional mappings. see below:
public ContactMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id).GeneratedBy.Assigned();
Map(x => x.Name);
References(x => x.Device);
HasMany(x => x.Numbers)
.Not.Inverse()
.Not.KeyNullable()
.Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan()
.Not.LazyLoad()
.Fetch.Subselect();
Table("Contacts");
}
public PhoneNumberMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id).GeneratedBy.Native();
Map(x => x.Number);
Table("ContactNumbers");
}
According to this post after nhibernate 3 and above, setting key as non-nullable should fix the insert-update issue (The issue when NHibernate issues an insert with foreign key set to null and then an update to update the foreign key to correct value), but this is not the case for me. When I set the key as not nullable, NHibernate issues a correct insert statement
INSERT INTO ContactNumbers
(Number,
ContactId)
VALUES ('(212) 121-212' /* #p0 */,
10 /* #p1 */);
As you can see, it inserts ContactId field, but after that, it still issues update statement
UPDATE ContactNumbers
SET ContactId = 10 /* #p0 */
WHERE Id = 34 /* #p1 */
So to clarify the problem. NHibernate inserts Contact row with foreign key assigned correctly and after that, it issues an update statement to update the foreign key (ContactId) which is redundant.
How can I get rid of this redundant update statement?
Thanks.
BTW, I'm using latest version of NHibernate and Fluent NHibernate. The database is SQLite
You have to set "updatable"=false to your key to prevent update.
public ContactMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id).GeneratedBy.Assigned();
Map(x => x.Name);
References(x => x.Device);
HasMany(x => x.Numbers)
.Not.Inverse()
.Not.KeyNullable()
.Not.KeyUpdate() // HERE IT IS
.Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan()
.Not.LazyLoad()
.Fetch.Subselect();
Table("Contacts");
}
You can't as of 3.2.0 BETA.
In v3.2.0 BETA an improvment to one-to-many introduced this anomaly to uni-directional one-to-many relationships (actually I am not sure if anormaly is what you would call this).
Before 3.2 you would need to set the foreign key to allow nulls for this type of relationship to work. So I would ignore the fact that this happens and just go with it. Otherwise you will need to change it to a fully bi-directional relationship.
[NH-941] - One-Many Requiring Nullable Foreign Keys
Release notes or JIRA issue
edit Also the answer to the post you point to is to fix save null-save-update rather than fixing the addtional update
Try setting inverse to true on the mapping and assigning the relationship in code.
Inverse means that the child is responsible for holding the ID of the parent.
e.g.
var contact = new Contact();
var phoneNumber = new PhoneNumber();
phoneNumber.Contact = contact;
That way, when you do the insert for the PhoneNumber record, NH can insert the ContactId without having to do a separate update.
That's what I used to do in NH 2, I would assume the behaviour still works the same in 3.
I don't know if you really can get rid of it.
Try using another id generator as native. It forces NH to insert the record only to get the id. The id is used for every entity in the session, so it can't do the insert later. It may case subsequent updates. Use hi-lo or something similar.
Edit
Why aren't you using a component in this case? You don't need to map the phone number separately, if they consist only of a number. Something like this (I'm not a FNH user, so it may be wrong):
public ContactMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id).GeneratedBy.Assigned();
Map(x => x.Name);
References(x => x.Device);
HasMany(x => x.Numbers)
.Not.Inverse()
.Not.KeyNullable()
.Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan()
.Not.LazyLoad()
.Fetch.Subselect()
.Component(c =>
{
Map(x => x.Number);
})
.Table("ContactNumbers");
Table("Contacts");
}
It is what Trevor Pilley said. Use inverse="true". If you choose not to have inverse="true", this is the consequence of that choice. You can't have it both ways.
//Map for Url class
this.Table("Urls");
this.Id(x => x.ID).GeneratedBy.GuidComb().Access.BackingField();
this.Map(x => x.Address).Access.BackingField();
this.HasMany(x => x.Parameters)
.Inverse()
.AsList(col => col.Column("ParameterIndex"))
.Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan()
.Access.BackingField();
//Map for UrlParameter class
this.Table("UrlParameters");
this.Id(x => x.ID).GeneratedBy.GuidComb().Access.BackingField();
this.References(x => x.Url).Column("Url").Access.BackingField();
this.Map(x => x.Name).Access.BackingField();
//Code to execute the query
Session.Query<Url>().FetchMany(x => x.Parameters);
//The SQL generated
select url0_.ID as ID1_0_, parameters1_.ID as ID2_1_, url0_.Address as Address1_0_, url0_.Prohibited as Prohibited1_0_, url0_.CreatedOn as CreatedOn1_0_, url0_.LastUpdatedOn as LastUpda5_1_0_, url0_.TotalComments as TotalCom6_1_0_, url0_.TotalNegative as TotalNeg7_1_0_, url0_.TotalNeutral as TotalNeu8_1_0_, url0_.TotalPositive as TotalPos9_1_0_, url0_.CreatedBy as CreatedBy1_0_, parameters1_.Name as Name2_1_, parameters1_.Url as Url2_1_, parameters1_.Url_id as Url4_0__, parameters1_.ID as ID0__, parameters1_.ParameterIndex as Paramete5_0__ from Urls url0_ left outer join UrlParameters parameters1_ on url0_.ID=parameters1_.Url_id where url0_.Address=#p0
//Exception message
Message=Invalid column name 'Url_id'.
Why is NHibernate generating a column name "Url_id" when I have explicitly told it to use "Url" in my UrlParameter mapping?
You need to define the KeyColumn() column in the HasMany mapping.
It should match what you wrote on the References() side ("Url").
I currently have the following relationship: ProductUom -> ProductImage
They both have the same primary keys: PROD_ID and UOM_TYPE
I have them mapped like this:
public ProductUomMap()
{
Table("PROD_UOM");
CompositeId()
.KeyReference(x => x.Product, "PROD_ID")
.KeyProperty(x => x.UomType, "UOM_TYPE");
References(x => x.Image)
.Columns(new string[] { "PROD_ID", "UOM_TYPE" })
.Not.Update()
.Not.Insert()
.NotFound.Ignore()
.Cascade.All();
}
public ProductImageMap()
{
Table("PROD_UOM_IMAGE");
CompositeId()
.KeyReference(x => x.ProductUom, new string[] {"PROD_ID", "UOM_TYPE"});
Map(x => x.Image, "PROD_IMAGE").Length(2147483647);
}
Whenever I create a ProductUom object that has a ProductImage it tries to insert the ProductImage first which results in a foreign key violation. I swear this was working at one time with the mapping that I have but it doesn't now.
I need the ProductImage to be a Reference (many-to-one) because the relationship here is optional and I want to be able to lazy load product images. The inserts do work correctly if I use a HasOne (one-to-one) mapping but the I cannot lazy load when I do this and querying a ProductUom seems to cause issues.
Is there something that I'm missing here? How can this mapping be modified to get what I want?
can you use LazyLoaded Properties? Then you could use something like this
Join("PROD_UOM_IMAGE", join =>
{
join.KeyColumn("PROD_ID", "UOM_TYPE");
join.Optional();
join.Map(x => x.Image, "PROD_IMAGE").Length(2147483647).LazyLoad();
}
another option is:
Id().GeneratedBy.Foreign(x => x.ProductUom);
can't test it here though, i'm writing on Mobile
Can one do this on a fluent nhibernate ?
When I try to save, I am profiding the profile and the scenario objects and the id's are not null.
Nhibernate complains that it can't insurt NULL for ProfileID column. Fluent Nhibernate doesn't know how to get to the Profile.ID ?
CompositeId().KeyProperty(x => x.Profile.ID, "ProfileID").KeyProperty(x => x.Scenario.ID, "ScenarioID");
You should probably use this instead:
CompositeId()
.KeyReference(x => x.Profile, "ProfileID")
.KeyReference(x => x.Scenario, "ScenarioID");