I have a database that accepts no null values and has a default for every field. Using fluent nHibernate, I am getting an error on an Insert if I have a component that has some, but not all properties filled out. I am just wondering how to get the DynamicInsert flag down to the component level. Perhaps it is late, but I'll just drop this off here and see where it goes.
mapping:
public ClientMap()
{
Table("Clients");
DynamicInsert();
DynamicUpdate();
CompositeId()
.KeyProperty(x => x.Accountnumber, "acct_no")
.KeyProperty(x => x.Transferaccount, "tr_acct_no");
Component(c => c.Address,
m =>{
m.Map(x => x.Streetaddress, "coaddress").Not.Nullable().Default("");
m.Map(x => x.City, "cocity").Not.Nullable().Default("");
m.Map(x => x.Postalcode, "costate").Not.Nullable().Default("");
m.Map(x => x.State, "cozip").Not.Nullable().Default(""); });
}
test:
Client nw = new Client{ Address = new Address{Streetaddress = "my address"},Accountnumber = "6543219",Transferaccount = "1"};
IRepository repo2 = new Repository(session);
repo2.Save(nw);
error:
could not insert: [BusinessObjects.Client#BusinessObjects.Client][SQL: INSERT INTO Clients (coaddress, cocity, cozip, costate, acct_no, tr_acct_no) VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?)]
I'm not sure, but I think that the 'NotNullable' and 'Default' mapping properties that you have specified, only have influence / are only used when you create a DB schema using your NHibernate mapping, and that they have no real effect on what NHibernate will insert into your DB.
If you want a default value for some property, I think that you should give that property the default value yourself in the constructor of the class that has this property.
Just ran into a similar problem.
The Database has a default constraint:
CREATE TABLE MyTable
(
...
InsertDate datetime not null default getdate()
...
)
Object Property:
public DateTime? InsertDate{get;set;}
In the mapping I was doing:
Map(x => x.InsertDate).Column("InsertDate").Not.Nullable().Default("getdate()");
But I changed it to:
Map(x => x.InsertDate).Column("InsertDate").Generated.Insert();
Which doesn't insert the property if it is null
NHibernate itself doesn't support dynamic insert on a component mapping - it's not something missing in Fluent.
Suggest you put a default constructor on Address that sets these default property values to empty strings rather than nulls?
NHibernate considers a component to be a single well... component :-)
That means that it will not do a dynamic insert for components.
Related
I have class Place which may or may not have one User.
// I have nothing on User related to Place
public PlaceMap()
{
Id( x=> x.Id, "id").GeneratedBy.Identity();
References(x => x.UserManager, "user_manager_id").Nullable().Cascade.All();
}
When querying over Place, I want always to left join since it is Nullable.
The problem is that the generated sql has inner join.
The query:
var queryList = _dalSession.CreateCriteria<T>();
queryList.CreateAlias("UserManager", "UserManager");
You can explicitly set the join type when calling CreateAlias:
using NHibernate.SqlCommand;
// ...
var queryList = _dalSession.CreateCriteria<T>();
queryList.CreateAlias("UserManager", "UserManager", JoinType.LeftOuterJoin);
If you want to make this behavior the default, you can do so via the mapping.
In mapping by configuration file, specify `fetch="join"
With FluentNH, specify .Fetch.Join()
Using NHibernate mapping-by-code:
classMapper.ManyToOne(
x => x.UserManager,
manyToOneMapper =>
{
manyToOneMapper.Column("user_manager_id");
manyToOneMapper.NotNullable(false);
manyToOneMapper.Lazy(LazyRelation.NoLazy);
manyToOneMapper.Fetch(FetchKind.Join);
}
)
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.
I am trying to filter a collection based on a foreign key. I have two classes which are mapped with
public class GroupPriceOverrideMap:ClassMap<GroupPriceOverride>
{
public GroupPriceOverrideMap()
{
CompositeId()
.KeyReference(x => x.Service,"ServiceCode")
.KeyReference(x => x.CustomerAssetGroup, "GroupID");
Map(x => x.Price);
Table("accGroupPriceOverride");
}
}
public class CustomerAssetGroupMap:ClassMap<CustomerAssetGroup>
{
public CustomerAssetGroupMap()
{
Id(x => x.GroupID).Unique();
Map(x => x.Description);
References(x => x.Customer).Column("CustomerID");
HasMany<GroupPriceOverride>(x => x.PriceOverrides).KeyColumn("GroupID");
Table("accCustAssetGroup");
}
}
I query it using
_session.Linq<GroupPriceOverride>.Where(x => x.CustomerAssetGroup.GroupID == groupID)
However this is generating
SELECT this_.ServiceCode as ServiceC1_9_0_, this_.GroupID as GroupID9_0_, this_.Price as Price9_0_ FROM accGroupPriceOverride this_ WHERE customeras1_.GroupID = #p0
there where clause is referencing a table alias which doesn't exist(customeras1). This is probably an alias for crossing with customerassetgroup but there is no need to perform that cross. I'm sure that it is just something in my mapping with is wrong but I can't find it. I've tried various column renaming in case the presence of GroupID in both tables was causing problems but that didn't fix it. Any ideas?
Edit
I found that if I queried doing
_session.Linq<CustomerAssetGroup>().Where(x => x.GroupID == groupID).FirstOrDefault().PriceOverrides;
then I got the correct result. I also found that if I saved a GroupPriceOverride and then queried for it using HQL then it wouldn't be found but I could still find the entity by loading the parent and looking at its collection of overrides.
_session.CreateQuery("FROM GroupPriceOverride i").List().Count;//returns 0
_session.CreateQuery("FROM CustomerAssetGroupi").List().FirstOrDefault().PriceOverrides.Count;//returns 1
Looks like a bug in the old LINQ provider. Could you file a bug here:
https://nhibernate.jira.com/secure/Dashboard.jspa
You might be able to get around it via:
_session.Linq<GroupPriceOverride>.Where(x => x.CustomerAssetGroup == group)
and let NHibernate figure out the ID. If you don't have the group already, you could do this:
var group = _session.Load<CustomerAssetGroup>(groupID);
_session.Linq<GroupPriceOverride>.Where(x => x.CustomerAssetGroup == group)
The ISession.Load(id) will only generate a proxy, but won't actually hit the database until you access a property (which you wouldn't be since you're just using it to specify the ID).
So, I'm having a problem mapping in fluent nhibernate. I want to use a join mapping to flatten an intermediate table: Here's my structure:
[Vehicle]
VehicleId
...
[DTVehicleValueRange]
VehicleId
DTVehicleValueRangeId
AverageValue
...
[DTValueRange]
DTVehicleValueRangeId
RangeMin
RangeMax
RangeValue
Note that DTValueRange does not have a VehicleID. I want to flatten DTVehicleValueRange into my Vehicle class. Tgis works fine for AverageValue, since it's just a plain value, but I can't seem to get a ValueRange collection to map correctly.
public VehicleMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id, "VehicleId");
Join("DTVehicleValueRange", x =>
{
x.Optional();
x.KeyColumn("VehicleId");
x.Map(y => y.AverageValue).ReadOnly();
x.HasMany(y => y.ValueRanges).KeyColumn("DTVehicleValueRangeId"); // This Guy
});
}
The HasMany mapping doesn't seem to do anything if it's inside the Join. If it's outside the Join and I specify the table, it maps, but nhibernate tries to use the VehicleID, not the DTVehicleValueRangeId.
What am I doing wrong?
Can you explain the average value column in the DTVehicleValueRange table? Isn't this a calculated value (i.e. no need to persist it)?
It looks like you have a many-to-many relationship between Vehicle and DTValueRange, which of course would not be mapped with a join, rather with a HasManyToMany call.
Ran into a similar issue today using a Map to create a view. The SQL generated showed it trying to do the HasMany<> inside the join based on the Id of the ParentThing and not WorkThing (same problem you were having)
After much mapping of head-to-desk it turns out adding the propertyref onto the hasmany solved it.
public class ThingMap : ClassMap<WorkThingView> {
public ThingMap() {
ReadOnly();
Table("ParentThing");
Id(x => x.ParentThingId);
Map(x => x.ParentName);
Join("WorkThing", join => {
join.KeyColumn("ParentThingId");
join.Map(m => m.FooCode);
join.Map(m => m.BarCode);
join.Map(x => x.WorkThingId);
join.HasMany(x => x.WorkThingCodes)
.Table("WorkThingCode").KeyColumn("WorkThingId").PropertyRef("WorkThingId")
.Element("WorkThingCode");
});
}
}
I have this fluent mapping:
sealed class WorkPostClassMap : ClassMap<WorkPost>
{
public WorkPostClassMap()
{
Not.LazyLoad();
Id(post => post.Id).GeneratedBy.Identity().UnsavedValue(0);
Map(post => post.WorkDone);
References(post => post.Item).Column("workItemId").Not.Nullable();
References(Reveal.Property<WorkPost, WorkPostSheet>("Owner"), "sheetId").Not.Nullable();
}
parent class:
sealed class WorkPostSheetClassMap : ClassMap<WorkPostSheet>
{
public WorkPostSheetClassMap()
{
Id(sheet => sheet.Id).GeneratedBy.Identity().UnsavedValue(0);
Component(sheet => sheet.Period, period =>
{
period.Map(p => p.From, "PeriodFrom");
period.Map(p => p.To, "PeriodTo");
});
References(sheet => sheet.Owner, "userId").Not.Nullable();
HasMany(sheet => sheet.WorkPosts).KeyColumn("sheetId").AsList();
}
WorkItem class:
sealed class WorkItemClassMap : ClassMap<WorkItem>
{
public WorkItemClassMap()
{
Not.LazyLoad();
Id(wi => wi.Id).GeneratedBy.Assigned();
Map(wi => wi.Description).Length(500);
Version(wi => wi.LastChanged).UnsavedValue(new DateTime().ToString());
}
}
And when a collection of WorkPosts are lazy loaded from the owning work post sheet I get the following select statement:
SELECT workposts0_.sheetId as sheetId2_,
workposts0_.Id as Id2_,
workposts0_.idx as idx2_,
workposts0_.Id as Id2_1_,
workposts0_.WorkDone as WorkDone2_1_,
workposts0_.workItemId as workItemId2_1_,
workposts0_.sheetId as sheetId2_1_,
workitem1_.Id as Id1_0_,
workitem1_.LastChanged as LastChan2_1_0_,
workitem1_.Description as Descript3_1_0_
FROM "WorkPost" workposts0_
inner join "WorkItem" workitem1_ on workposts0_.workItemId=workitem1_.Id
WHERE workposts0_.sheetId=#p0;#p0 = 1
No, there are a couple of things here which doesn't make sence to me:
The workpost "Id" property occurs twice in the select statement
There is a select refering to a column named "idx" but that column is not a part of any fluent mapping.
Anyone who can help shed some light on this?
The idx column is in the select list because you have mapped Sheet.WorkPosts as an ordered list. The idx column is required to set the item order in the list. I'm not sure why the id property is in the select statement twice.
By the way, an unsaved value of 0 is the default for identity fields, so you can remove .UnsavedValue(0) if you want.