I am using Model-Glue/Coldspring for a new application and I thought I would throw CF9 ORM into the mix.
The only issue I am having right now is with populating an entity with an object. More or less the code below verifies that only one username can exist. There is some other logic that is not displayed.
My first thought was to using something like this:
var entity = entityload('UserAccount' ,{UserName=arguments.UserAccount.getUserName()},"true")
entity = arguments.UserAccount;
How ever this does not work the way that I expected. Is it even possible to populate an entity with an object or do I need to use the setters?
Not sure if this is what you're looking for. If you have...
component persistent="true" entityName="Foo"
{
property a;
property b;
}
You can pass a struct in the 2nd param to init the entity (added in CF9.0.1 I believe)
EntityNew("Foo", {a="1",b="2"});
To populate Foo with another object, you can use the Memento pattern, and implement a GetMemento() function to your object that returns a struct of all its properties.
EntityNew("Foo", bar.getMemento());
However, CF does NOT call your custom setters! If you want to set them using setters, you may add calls to the setters in your init() constructor, or use your MVC framework of choice to populate the bean. In Model-Glue, it is makeEventBean().
Update: Or... Here's hack...
EntityNew("Foo", DeserializeJSON(SerializeJSON(valueObject)));
Use this at your own risk. JSON might do weird things to your numbers and the 'yes','no','true','false' strings. :)
Is it even possible to populate an entity with an object or do I need to use the setters?
If you mean "Is it possible to create load an ORM Entity from an instance of that persistent CFC that already exists and has properties set?", then yes you can using EntityLoadByExample( object,[unique] )
entity = EntityLoadByExample( arguments.userAccount,true );
This assumes the userAccount CFC has been defined as persistent, and its username value has been set before being passed in (which seems to be the case in your situation).
Bear in mind that if any other properties have been set in the object you are passing, including empty strings, they will be used as filters to load the entity, so if they do not exactly match a record in your database, nothing will be loaded.
Related
I used the CRUD generator from a legacy database. When searching for a column value I get the following error:
htmlspecialchars() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given (/usr/local/share/yii/framework/web/helpers/CHtml.php:103)
The problem is that the model has an existing column named "attributes" which is creating a conflict. I removed the entry from the _search.php and commented out all instances in the model hoping to at least get it working but no luck. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Every CActiveRecord instance (or CModel instance for that matter) has a getter/setter named attributes with which all the attributes can be set. This leads to a conflict because the generated crud code uses the attributes attribute expecting it works as described before.
The controller does something like:
$model->attributes=$_POST['ModelClassName'];
// or
$model->attributes=$_GET['ModelClassName'];
This is meant to set al the (safe) attributes of the model at once. Instead this overwrites the database attribute attributes of your legacy DB model.
This in turn leads to the error you describe, because $_GET['ModelClassName'] and $_POST['ModelClassName'] typically contain arrays of data.
I guess the easiest fix would be to directly call the setter function for the "normal" attributes behavior which would lead to replacing the lines mentioned above with something like the following:
// in the controller
$model->setAttributes($_POST['ModelClassName']);
// and
$model->setAttributes($_GET['ModelClassName']);
I think rest of the generated CRUD code (the views) could and should be left untouched to make it work.
If you want to know how and why this works, it's best to do some research into the __get and __set magic functions and how they're used in the yii framework.
Currently I am working partly with cfwheels and its Active Record ORM (which is great), and partly raw cfml with its Hibernate ORM (which is also great).
Both work well for applicable situations, but the thing I do miss most when using CF ORM is the model.update() method that is available in cfwheels, where you can just pass a form struct to the method, and it will map up the struct elements with the model properties and update the records.. really good for updating and maintaining large tables. In CF ORM, it seems the only way to to update a record is to set each column individually, then do a save. Is this the case?
Does cf9 ORM have an Active Record type update() (or equivalent) method which can just receive a struct with values to update and update the object without having to specify each one?
For example, instead of current:
member = entityLoadByPK('member',arguments.id);
member.setName(arguments.name);
member.setEmail(arguments.email);
is there a way to do something like this in CF ORM?
member = entityLoadByPK('member',arguments.id);
member.update(arguments);
Many thanks in advance
In my apps I usually create two helper functions for models which handle the task:
/*
* Get properties as key-value structure
* #limit Limit output to listed properties
*/
public struct function getMemento(string limit = "") {
local.props = {};
for (local.key in variables) {
if (isSimpleValue(variables[local.key]) AND (arguments.limit EQ "" OR ListFind(arguments.limit, local.key))) {
local.props[local.key] = variables[local.key];
}
}
return local.props;
}
/*
* Populate the model with given properties collection
* #props Properties collection
*/
public void function setMemento(required struct props) {
for (local.key in arguments.props) {
variables[local.key] = arguments.props[local.key];
}
}
For better security of setMemento it is possible to check existence of local.key in variables scope, but this will skip nullable properties.
So you can make myObject.setMemento(dataAsStruct); and then save it.
There's not a method exactly like the one you want, but EntityNew() does take an optional struct as a second argument, which will set the object's properties, although depending on how your code currently works, it may be clunky to use this method and I don;t know whether it'll have any bearing on whether a create/update is executed when you flush the ORM session.
If your ORM entities inherit form a master CFC, then you could add a method there. Alternatively, you could write one as a function and mix it into your objects.
I'm sure you're aware, but that update() feature can be a source of security problems (known as the mass assignment problem) if used with unsanitized user input (such as the raw FORM scope).
I've got a class that closely resembles one of my entities (I use the class for JSON de/serialization because the entity fails conversion to JSON, one of the known gotchyas of JSON + MVC).
Once I deserilize a JSON string into my object, is there a way to automatically update the associated Entity model instance. The property names are the same.
e.g.
'myDeserialized is the deserialized JSON object coming over the wire
Dim entityInstance As DLL.Person = db.getPersonById(myDeserialized.id)
myDeserialized.update(entityInstance)
Where this just goes through and takes all the properties in myDeserialized and updates the same named property in entityInstance?
Or is it possible to just iterate over a key-value pair of all the properties in an object/entity?
I'm looking for something like TryUpdateModel(), but that only works with forms, right? I don't want to tie my data to a form, that's all.
Thanks!
I don't know what type and version of EF you use, but there are very powerful functions for iterating on the entities properties. Which mean you can easily make your update function on the entity or its baseclass' partial (entityInstance.Update(myDesrialized)).
If you use EntityObject, then you can get an ObjectStateEntry for your entities and via this class you can very easily achieve this.
Please let us know what version and type of EF you use (POCO?)
I use LinqToEntitiesDomainService class to update database with Silverlight 4 client.
There's AttachAsModified extended method for entity framework ObjectContext which allows you supply original entity property values:
Order original = this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentOrder);
this.ObjectContext.Orders.AttachAsModified(currentOrder, original);
By default, WCF RIA Services doesn't send original values to the server, so one needs to
apply [RoundtripOriginal()] attribute to his/her entity.
However, even if I supply original values, SQL generated by Entity framework updates all columns, not only changed ones. Since AttachAsModified() method isn't native ObjectContext class method (it's extended method defined in ObjectContextExtensions class), I tried to use
ApplyOriginalValues method which is defined in ObjectSet class. No change.
It seems entity framework 4.1, which was released recently may have solution (not sure). How about entity framework 4? Is it possible EF to generate sql to update only changed columns?
AttachAsModified will mark the entity as modified. Subsequently (quote from MSDN):
When you change the EntityState of an
entity object entry to Modified, all
of the properties of the object are
marked as modified, regardless of the
current or original values.
Caveat; I haven't done this but, it should work.
Instead of using AttachAsModified, mark the entity as UnChanged using the ChangeState method.
Then use the SetModifiedProperty method on the properties that have changed to have them included in an update.
EDIT: If you want a way to find which properties have changed, there are a couple of articles out there explaining how to do so using the ObjectStateManager such as this one
I did ask similar question on MSDN forums, and it is confirmed that WCF RIA Services will change all columns. Alternative is,
You can fetch a copy from database, compare and mark SetModifiedProperty manually by using reflection.
// change state of entity as Unmodified/Unchanged...
original.EntityState = Unchanged;
// this is copy form database...
// Use different context
MyOrderContext context = new MyOrderContext();
Order dbOriginal = context.Orders.First( x=>x.OrderID == original.OrderID);
foreach(PropertyInfo p in copy.GetTypes().GetProperties()){
Object originalValue = p.GetValue(dbOriginal);
Object newValue = p.GetValue(original);
if(originalValue!=null && newValue!=null
&& originalValue.Equals(newValue)){
continue;
}
// resetting this will
// make entity's only current
// property as changed
p.SetValue(original,originalValue);
p.SetValue(original,newValue);
}
You may have to change code as per situation, check if property is readonly or not and this is just a sample but it will help you to build upon it.
I managed to do this by first attaching the object and then calling ApplyOriginalValues on the EntitySet. You'll need an object with the original values to do this. This method can also be used to prevent a column from being updated, e.g. for row level security.
NOTE: This unfortunately does not work without retrieving the original entity from the database first. Otherwise only properties that are set to its default value are excluded from the update...
Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X?
For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it.
So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties.
Is there another naming convention for this kind of method?
Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.
I would recommend something like generateTable() instead of setTable(). This provides a situation where the name of the method clearly denotes what it does.
I would probably still use a setTable() method to actually set the property, though. Ideally, you could open the possibility of setting a previously defined table for further flexibility.
Yes, setX() is primarily used for setting a field X, though setX() may have some additional code that needs to run in addition to a direct assignment to a field. Using it for something else may be misleading to other developers.
I would definitely recommend against having a public setTable() and would say that setTable() could be omitted or just an unused private method depending upon your requirements.
It sounds like the activity to generate the table is more of a view of other properties on the object, so you might consider moving that to a private method on the object like generateHtmlTable(). This could be done during construction (and upon updates to the object) so that any subsequent calls to getTable() will return the the appropriate HTML.