I have legacy database and some tables have composite ids
class Client {
String id
static hasMany = [
settings: Setting
]
static mapping = {
id column: 'client_id', generator: 'assigned'
}
}
class Setting {
Client client
String nodeId
String ccyPairPattern
Character qualifier
static mapping = {
id composite: ['client', 'nodeId', 'pattern', 'qualifier']
}
}
I want to delete entry from GORM association:
client.get('1').removeFromSettings(settingToRemove)
// settingToRemove.delete(flush: true)
// delete-orphans does not help
This always raises exception after flush
org.hibernate.StaleObjectStateException: Row was updated or deleted by another transaction (or unsaved-value mapping was incorrect) :
This happens because method removeFrom* sets client property to null and generates query to delete with clientId = null as client is part of composite key
What is the best solution in this case. Looks like GORM has poor support for composite keys or my mapping is incorrect.
When you use hasMany without a belongsTo on the many side, in other words a unidirectional association, you get a join table. For example...
class PurchaseOrder {
static hasMany = [items: Item]
}
class Item { }
Would yield three database tables: purchase_order, item, and purchase_order_items. The purchase_order_items table would contain two columns: purchase_order_id and item_id. You can read more about join tables here.
Since you're dealing with a legacy database, I think the best solution is not to use addTo*() and removeFrom*().
Ensure you don't have a join table. If you have a join table, remove the hasMany association.
You'll need to add/remove Setting instances manually.
Example:
def client = Client.get(1)
// Adding a setting
def setting = new Setting(client: client, nodeId: blah...)
setting.save()
// Removing a setting
/*
The prototype is used to search for a domain instance with a composite primary key.
So simply set the composite key properties accordingly.
*/
def prototype = new Setting(client: client, nodeId: blah...)
def setting = Setting.get(prototype)
setting.delete()
Lacking a hasMany association, you won't be able to access a client's settings via the client.settings property. Instead you'd have to query for them like this:
def settings = Setting.findByClient(client)
A consequence of using a legacy database is that if the database doesn't align with that GORM/Hibernate expects it will be limited in what it can do for you.
Related
I have 2 domain classes like this :
class A {
B b
static mapping = {
table "table_a"
b column: "primary_id", index: "b_id_idx"
}
}
class B {
Long primaryId
}
When I retrieve an instance of A the ID of the corresponding instance of B is retrieved from the database. However, when I attempt to access that ID via something like:
A a = A.get(11)
Long bid = a.b.primaryId
the whole object is loaded from the database.
I tried the solution explained here with this code:
A a = A.get(11)
Long bid = a.bPrimaryId
but the a.bPrimaryId returns null.
It seems that grails can't link the one-to-many primary key object with the foreign key attribute bPrimaryId if its name is different to "id".
I don't want rename "primary_id" by "id" to avoid impacts to other parts of the code.
Any idea?
I'm trying to build a hierarchy of a class I've called group. The domain is fairly simple:
class SubGroup implements Serializable {
Group child
Group parent
static mapping = {
id composite: ['child', 'parent']
}
}
class Group implements Serializable {
int groupId
String key
String title
static mapping = {
id name: 'groupId'
}
}
Basically I'd like to build up a map of group parents and their associated children. So I'm looping through each record (if there's a cleaner way to query for a Map I'm happy to hear it) and creating the map entry for it.
Map hierarchy = [:]
SubGroup.list().each { relation ->
if (!hierarchy[relation.parent]) {
hierarchy[relation.parent] = new HashSet()
}
hierarchy[relation.parent] << relation.child
}
I would think hibernate would use some simple query that does this something like this:
select * from sub_group s, group c, group p
where s.child_id = c.group_id and s.parent_id = p.group_id
But it is not doing the join. It is doing a query of the subgroup followed by n queries of the group table (N+1 select problem). Ugh. I heard in 2.0 there's a problem with the hibernate query cache so I disabled it. I've tried adding lazy: false, and fetch: join to my SubGroup domain class for both the parent and the child columns with no luck. I've tried adding (fetch: [child: 'eager']) as a parameter to the list method. It will not do the join. Am I missing something? To be honest, it shouldn't really even need to do a join as I am only accessing the groupId foreign key property although later on I will need both the key and title properties.
I could, of course, make the child and parent properties ints and just do my own querying when I need the rest of the data or I could use HQL and some other method for limiting this to a single query, but it seems like GORM should be doing this for me. Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Jim
It seems the only way I could get this to work without hibernate making a select call for each child and parent was to instead do a HQL query rather than using the list method as shown below:
Map hierarchy = [:]
def subGroups = SubGroup.executeQuery("SELECT s.parent, s.child FROM SubGroup s")
subGroups.each { relation ->
if (!hierarchy[relation[0]]) {
hierarchy[relation[0]] = new HashSet()
}
hierarchy[relation[0]] << relation[1]
}
Thus I'm really only using the SubGroup domain class to define the relationships. I would think I should be able to do this via some kind of mapping but I couldn't figure out how.
I have a domain class called FoapRequest. I want one of the properties called "approver" to be a list of integers. Order matters, so I've defined the class as described by http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#sets,ListsAndMaps as a list:
class FoapRequest {
Integer requester
Integer subject
List approver
static hasMany = [foap:FOAP, newFoap:NewFoap, approver:Integer]
...
Just for clarification, FOAP and NewFoap are two other domain objects.
I need to map this class to a particular table in the Oracle database, so I also specify a static mapping with a join table:
static mapping = {
table 'OUR_SCHEMA.FOAP_REQUEST_TABLE
id column : 'ID', generator:'sequence', params: [sequence:'OUR_SCHEMA.FOAP_REQUEST_SEQ']
requester column : 'REQUESTER'
subject column : 'SUBJECT'
approver indexColumn: [name: "APPROVER_IDX"], generator:'sequence', params: [sequence:'OUR_SCHEMA.APPROVER_SEQ'],
joinTable: [name:'OUR_SCHEMA.APPROVER_TABLE',
key: 'ASSOCIATED_REQUEST',
column: 'APPROVER_PIDM',
type: "integer"
]
However, when I try to create a new instance of the FoapRequest object, I get the following error:
Invalid column type
The console displays the following:
Error 2012-08-01 12:29:31,619 [http-bio-8080-exec-9] ERROR errors.GrailsExceptionResolver - SQLException occurred when processing request: [POST] /FOAPauth/foapRequest/saveFoapRequests - parameters:
I am certain that the issue lies with the jointable. The domain model didn't include the joinTable originally- approver was just an Integer type (I realized too late that I was going to need to track multiple approvers).
Here's the SQL for creating the APPROVERS table:
CREATE TABLE "OUR_SCHEMA"."APPROVER_TABLE"
(
"APPROVER_IDX" NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,
"ASSOCIATED_REQUEST" NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,
"APPROVER_PIDM" NUMBER(8),
);
I'd prefer to avoid creating an Approver domain class if at all possible, since all I really need to keep track of are the integer identifiers.
So, after much janking with join tables, I determined that the best way to deal with my needs was to simply create an Approver object in my domain model.
class Approver {
Integer pidm
String approvalDecision
Date lastUpdated
Date dateCreated
static belongsTo = [foap: FOAP]
}
To be honest, I'm not really sure why I was trying so hard to avoid this. Possibly because my DBAs use a version control system for table definitions that I find a hair annoying. :)
Regardless, a simple one-to-many relationship between domain classes met all my needs, no join table required.
For those who are still burning to know, I did manage to get a statically mapped join table working using a Map, which was more appropriate for my needs (though not as appropriate for them as a new domain class, and not nearly as simple).
I ended up doing it in a different domain object- FOAP instead of FoapRequest:
import java.util.Map
class FOAP {
...
Map approvalData
...
static mapping = {
table 'OURSCHEMA.FOAP_TABLE'
id column : 'ID', generator:'jpl.hibernate.util.TriggerAssignedIdentityGenerator'
fund column : 'FUND'
org column : 'ORG'
chartOfAccounts column : 'CHART_OF_ACCOUNTS'
permissionType column: 'PERMISSION_TYPE'
foapRequest column: 'REQUEST_ID'
version column : 'VERSION'
approvalData joinTable: [name:'OURSCHEMA.FOAP_APPROVERS',
key: 'FOAP'
]
}
For the table definition, I used the column names similar to those in my original question.
CREATE TABLE "OUR_SCHEMA"."APPROVER_TABLE"
(
"FOAP" NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,
"APPROVER_IDX" VARCHAR2(255),
"APPROVER_DLT" NUMBER(8),
);
The IDX column was the map object's key, the DLT column its value. I'd recommend against this approach, for anyone who can avoid it. Creating a new domain object is much simpler.
All
My problem is I'm creating a 1-to-many relationship in GORM and expect 2 database tables to be created as backing objects. 3 are created which makes SQL queries overly complex.
I've created a close variant on the 1-to-many in the GORM documentation:
class Status {
List errorMessage
static hasMany = [errorMessage:ErrorMessage]
}
and the error message class:
class ErrorMessage {
String message
static belongsTo = Status
}
I expected this to create two database tables:
CREATE TABLE status {
ID NUMBER(19,0),
VERSION NUMBER(19,0),
//other fields
}
CREATE TABLE error_message {
ID NUMBER(19,0),
VERSION NUMBER(19,0),
STATUS_ID NUMBER(19,0),
MESSAGE VARCHAR(255)
//other fields
}
but actually it wants a third table,
CREATE TABLE status_text {
status_text_id NUMBER(19,0),
text_idx NUMBER(19,0),
text_id NUMBER(19,0)
}
Adding Status to the ErrorMessage (a hack as I don't want ErrorMessage to have a reference to Status) class removes the third table but keeps the second foreign key resulting in the Text child object having two foreign key fields.
What I want is simple - just a set of objects attached to the parent will be deleted when it is - any thoughts what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks
I don't think you can satisfy both requirements, i.e. that you have cascading deletes and no join table. You need the belongsTo to get cascading deletes and that makes the relationship bidirectional. To remove the join table, name the belongsTo with the Map syntax:
class ErrorMessage {
String message
static belongsTo = [status: Status]
}
I have the following domains classes:
class Posts{
String Name
String Country
static hasMany = [tags:Tags]
static constraints = {
}
}
class Tags{
String Name
static belongsTo = Posts
static hasMany = [posts:Posts]
static constraints = {
}
String toString()
{
"${TypeName}"
}
}
Grails creates an another table in the database i.e. Posts_Tags.
My requirement is:
E.g. 1 post has 3 tags.
So, in the Posts_Tags table there are 3 rows.
How can I access the table Posts_Tags directly in my code so that I can manipulate the data or add some more fields to it.
If you want to access the join table (Posts_Tags) directly, or add properties to it, then you must define it as a separate PostTag domain class. You then split your many-many relationship between Post and Tag into 2 one-to-many relationships (one from Post to PostTag and one from Tag to PostTag).
Here's a comprehensive example of how to perform the mapping and add properties to the join table - in this example Membership is the join table.
Use the normal groovy sql API. For an example of how to get a groovy SQL object and execute sql queries see this