I have a legacy DB which uses a guid to map children to the parent entity.
In my domain layer, I'd prefer to obscure this quirk, so I'd like to have my parent entity look like this:
public class Parent
{
virtual public int Id {get; protected set; }
virtual public string ParentContent { get; set; }
virtual public Guid ReferenceId { get; set; }
virtual public IDictionary<int,Child> Children { get; set; }
}
public class Child
{
virtual public int Id { get; protected set; }
virtual public Parent { get; set; }
virtual public string ChildContent { get; set; }
}
The parent would then map each Child.Id to Child in the Children dictionary. The Child mapping works fine, but I can't seem to find a reasonable mapping for the parent.
A field named ParentReferenceID exists in both Parent and Child tables, so I've attempted to map this with something like this:
mapping.HasMany<Broker>(x => x.Children)
.Table("Child")
.KeyColumn("ParentReferenceID")
.Inverse()
.AsMap<long>(index=>index.Id,val=>val.Type<Broker>());
Unfortunately, this produces an error:
The type or method has 2 generic parameter(s), but 1 generic argument(s) were provided. A generic argument must be provided for each generic parameter.
To simplify my problem, I started by trying Bag semantics, replacing the Parent's IDictionary with an IList. This was mapped using something like:
mapping.HasMany<Broker>(x => x.Brokers)
.Table("Child")
.KeyColumn("ParentReferenceId")
.Inverse()
.AsBag();
That produces the more obvious exception,
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Operand type clash: uniqueidentifier is incompatible with int
Unfortunately, I can't seem to figure out the right way to tell it to join on the ReferenceID field. What's the right way to do that? I'd prefer the dictionary, but I'd be reasonably happy if I could even get the bag to work.
For clarity, I'm using a build of Fluent that is bundled with a recent SharpArchitecture pulled from git. The Fluent dll is marked version 1.0.0.594, but if a more recent build would help, I'm flexible.
Further digging has led me to a solution for the Bag case, though the dictionary is still giving me a bit of trouble.
The solution requires a patch to Fluent NHibernate's OneToManyPart mapping class. (Hat tip to This bug report: Could not map a one-to-many relationship where the key is not the primary key.
mapping.HasMany(x => x.Children)
.Table("Child").KeyColumn("ParentReferenceId")
.PropertyRef("ReferenceId")
.Inverse()
.AsBag();
Theoretically, AsMap should work almost the same way, but for some reason that I'm not entirely clear on, it doesn't work for me. I'll explore that later, but I'm open to suggestions.
Related
I have a many-to-many relationship between Assignment and User
When trying to delete an user from an assignment, I see all users are loaded in the collection.
How to I avoid that?
public class User
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual IList<Assignment> Assignments { get; set; }
}
public class Assignment
{
public virtual int Id { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
Mappings:
HasManyToMany(user => user.Assignments).Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("UserId").ChildKeyColumn("AssignmentId").Inverse().ExtraLazyLoad();
HasManyToMany(productAssignment => productAssignment.Users).AsSet().Table("UserToAssignment").ParentKeyColumn("AssignmentId").ChildKeyColumn("UserId").LazyLoad();
Calling code:
assignment.Users.Remove(user)
Initially I used Bag instead of Set for Assignment mapping, but when updating it, it was deleting and then reinserting alot of rows in the AssignmentsToUsers table. So I changed to using Set.
But now I see a problem with using Set: it brings all data in memory.
What is the recommended way of doing this?
You can't avoid this and I would ignore it if performance is acceptable. If performance is a problem, there are three ways I can think of to tackle it:
If the other side of the collection (User.Assignments) is lighter weight then remove the assignment from the user instead.
Model the many-to-many table and delete the object directly. You would have to be certain that the Users collection is not going to be loaded prior to this because the in-memory representation will still contain the deleted record.
Direct delete using SQL -- this has the same caveat as #2.
You should use extra lazy mode also for Assignment.Users.
I defined my entities with bunch of columns and created mapping.
public class PurchaseRecord {
public virtual int? Id {
get;
set;
}
public virtual DateTime? PurchasedDate {
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Comment {
get;
set;
}
public virtual IList<PurchaseRecordExtendedProperty> ExtendedPropertyValues {
get;
set;
}
public class PurchaseRecordMap : ClassMap<PurchaseRecord> {
public PurchaseRecordMap() {
Table("PurchaseRecords");
Id(x => x.Id, "RecordID").GeneratedBy.Identity();
Map(x => x.PurchasedDate, "PurchaseDate").Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.Comment, "Comment");
HasMany(x => x.ExtendedPropertyValues).KeyColumn("ExtendedPropertyID").Cascade.All();
}
It works well in most of the cases, howerver in some certain situation I want to skip updating certain column (such as child collection ExtendedPropertyValues). When I create the PurchaseRecord object I don't even bother to load the data of ExtendedPropertyValues. But if the property is null NHibernate tries to delete the child records from database.
I know there are some scenario that the ExtendedPropertyValues will never be changed. For performance consideration I don't want to load the data I don't need, is there a way I can force NH to skip designated properties if I don't need to update?
Thanks for any suggestion.
If you enable lazy loading, NHibernate will not try to load any child collections, they will be initialized to a proxy which will only load them if you access them. If you set the child collection to null, that is effectively telling NHibernate to delete all entries in that relationship (unless you mark the relationship as inverse).
NHibernate will not try to update the child collections unless they change (which setting it to null would do).
In summary, enable lazy-loading, and mark ExtendedPropertyValues as inverse, and it should not update it unless you change ExtendedPropertyValues, it also will not load ExtendedPropertyValues unless you access it.
So i have a situation where i have common base type but i need to map to a different view based on the child type.
It looks like i can use a generic mapping class to handle the inheritance
http://geekswithblogs.net/nharrison/archive/2010/07/09/inheriting-a-class-map-in-fluent-nhibernate.aspx
But how can i conditionally map to a different view based on the child type? I see an EntityType property but it says its obsolete and will be made private in the next version.
As an example i have a base class of ContactInfo is standard between contact types but the values come from different places depending on the contact type, this I'll handle through the sql view.
using any mapping the referenced entity comes from a different table
class ContactInfo
{
public virtual long Id { get; set; }
public virtual ContactDetails Details { get; set; }
}
public ContactInfoMap
{
...
ReferencesAny(x => x.Details)
.EntityIdentifierColumn("details_id")
.EntityTypeColumn("contactType")
.IdentityType<long>()
.AddMetaValue<FooContactDetails>("1")
.AddMetaValue<BarContactDetails>("4");
}
I'm getting this nasty error in Castle Active Record (wrapped around NHibernate) when I try to save a class:
Invalid index n for this SqlParameterCollection with Count=m
I know that this error is caused by a property being mapped multiple times in a class however I'm not sure how to get around it. I have two child classes that both map back to the class in question using the same column (IpAddressNumber). Also IpAddressNumber is the primary key of the class, which results in NHibernate trying to map the IpAddressNumber property three times (just a guess.)
Here is the class:
[ActiveRecord(Lazy=true)]
public class DeviceConfiguration : UsersDatabase<DeviceConfiguration>
{
[PrimaryKey]
public virtual long IPAddressNumber { get; set; }
[BelongsTo("IPAddressNumber", Lazy = FetchWhen.OnInvoke)]
public virtual Vehicle Vehicle { get; set; }
[BelongsTo("IPAddressNumber", Lazy = FetchWhen.OnInvoke)]
public virtual JBusConfiguration JBusConfiguration { get; set; }
}
Any help would be greatly appreciated...
I ended up having to just remove the second association altogether to get around this issue. Not a great solution but the only one I could find.
For a (very) long time I've been looking for an example on how to correctly implement a one-to-one mapping with Fluent NHibernate.
Most resources I find say:
I think you mean a many-to-one
However no one actually gives an example on how to correctly implement the one-to-one relation.
So, could you give an one-to-one mapping example with Fluent NHibernate?
Note: I'm not interested in people saying "what's your model, you might actually need HasMany". No, thanks, I simply need a one-to-one example.
To be more precise, I know the syntax. That's the only thing I could find by searching by myself. What I'm looking for is a more complete example, including a ((very) simple) database setup, and the whole mapping, of all entities that participate in the relationship, which I think would have reasonable size for Stack Overflow.
I've solved my problem.
I've also written a somewhat detailed article on this problem, that you can find at: http://brunoreis.com/tech/fluent-nhibernate-hasone-how-implement-one-to-one-relationship/index.html
You will find a scenario in which we want a one-to-one relationship, the database schema as we would like it, the code of the model as it needs to be to meet NHibernate requirements, and the Fluent mapping that corresponds to the situation.
these are the two classes.
public class A
{
public virtual int Id {get;set;}
public virtual string P1 {get;set;}
public virtual string P2 {get;set;}
public virtual string P3 {get;set;}
public virtual B child { get; set; }
}
public class B
{
public virtual int Id {get;set;}
public virtual string P4 {get;set;}
public virtual string P5 {get;set;}
public virtual string P6 {get;set;}
public virtual A parent;
}
this should be added in the fluent configuration.
public AMap()
{
/* mapping for id and properties here */
HasOne(x => x.child)
.Cascade.All();
}
public BMap()
{
/* mapping for id and properties here */
References(x => x.parent)
.Unique();
}
This is the best example I've seen. Hopefully it meets your needs.
HasOne(x => x.Prop)