I just wasted half a day trying to figure this out, reading about some workarounds, and thinking "it can't be that bad - there must be a straightforward to do edit a collection in Grails, whethere using scaffolded views or my own."
Let's say I have this domain object:
class TreeGroup {
String name
List<Tree> trees
static hasMany = ['trees': MyTree]
}
Just to explain the choice of data structure - I need my records to be unique, but in the order I set. That's why I chose List, AFAIK one cannot rely on order in a Set. So there are 2 pieces to this question - 1) how to remove from any Collection, for example a Set, 2) is List the best replacement for Set in this context (preserving order).
I want to be able to create a group record with no trees in it and make 4 updates:
edit/save
edit the group record to reference 2 trees A and B
add another tree C
remove A
remove B and C
And obviously, I want the desired state after every step. Currently though, I can only add records, and if I even edit/save to list, the list elements are added to it again.
I am using the multiple select tag for this. It looks like this:
<g:select name="trees" from="${allTrees}" optionKey="id"
multiple="true" class="many-to-many"
value="${trees ? trees*.id : treeGroupInstance?.trees*.id}" />
and that's fine, in the sense that it generates an HTTP header with these variables on update:
_method:PUT
version:19
name:d5
trees:1
_action_update:Update
But the data binder only adds new elements, it never lets you edit a list.
What is the cleanest way to do it ? Is it me, not reading something obvious, or is this a design flaw of grails data binding (and of so, when/how will it be fixed) ?
Is there a way perhaps via a hidden HTTP parameter to clear the list before (re)adding elements ?
Thanks
I ended up doing this:
private repopulate(def domainObject, String propertyName, Class domainKlaz) {
if (params[propertyName] != null) {
domainObject[propertyName].clear()
domainObject[propertyName].addAll(
params[propertyName].collect { domainKlaz.get(it) }
)
}
}
and I am calling it in update controller method before save(), for every collection. OMG how ugly.
Related
How to save multiple selected dropdown values into a single column in Grails?
Input will look like
<g:select name="item1Price" from="${1..10}"/>
<g:select name="item2Price" from="${1..10}"/>
<g:select name="item3Price" from="${1..10}"/>
And Output Should be stored in one field
ItemPrice: 2,8,6
Your question is a bit vague, so hopefully a somewhat vague answer will be helpful too!
If you have a domain object Foo:
class Foo {
String itemPrice
}
Then in your controller action, you can just do something like:
def save() {
Foo f = new Foo()
f.itemPrice = [params.item1Price, params.item2Price, params.item3Price].join(",")
f.save()
}
Really all you're trying to do is join your parameters from your page into one string, right?
Now this actually seems like bad design to me. What happens if the order changes, or if nothing is selected for item 2? Or what happens if somebody wants to edit your object and you need to parse the values back out? Obviously you could split on commas...until one of the values contains a comma!
You're better off storing one value for each field that means something different, or storing a single field as a structured value. You might want to look at encoding a Map into JSON and storing that, for example, if you really just want to have one field in your domain object.
Assume the following:
class Thing {
String name
List<String> tags
static constraints = {
name(nullable: false)
tags(nullable: false)
}
}
I want to know if its possible, using GORM, to run a query for domain instances based on values in their respective lists
For instance: Are there dynamic GORM finders to query things like 'Find all Things that have the tag "Video" ', or 'Find all things with name = "Product1" that have the tag "Image" '
Just want to know if there's a nice concise way of doing this with Grails&Gorm, as opposed to retrieving a list of Things and iterating through it, finding the ones that have the appropriate tags and adding them to a results list.
Thanks!
One way (although not necessarily the most efficient!) would be to return the whole list of Things eg Thing.list() and then filter the resulting list using findAll.
List results = Thing.list().findAll{it.tags.contains("Image")}
How big is your list of Things and associated Tags likely to be?
I've got a domain class, Widget, that I need to delete all instances out of -- clear it out. After that, I will load in fresh data. What do you suggest as a mechanism to do this?
P.S. Note this is not at bootstrap time, but at "run-time".
The easiest way is to use HQL directly:
DomainClass.executeUpdate('delete from DomainClass')
DomainClass.findAll().each { it.delete() }
If you want to avoid any GORM gotchas, such as needing to delete the object immediately and checking to make sure it actually gets deleted, add some arguments.
DomainClass.findAll().each { it.delete(flush:true, failOnError:true) }
Fairly old post, but still actual.
If your table is very large (millions of entries), iterating using findall()*.delete() might not be the best option, as you can run into transaction timeouts (e.g. MySQL innodb_lock_wait_timeout setting) besides potential memory problems stated by GreenGiant.
So at least for MySQL Innodb, much faster is to use TRUNCATE TABLE:
sessionFactory.currentSession
.createSQLQuery("truncate table ${sessionFactory.getClassMetadata(MyDomainClass).tableName}")
.executeUpdate()
This is only useful if your table is not referenced by other objects as a foreign key.
From what I learnt, I agree with #ataylor the below code is fastest IF there are no associations in your domain object (Highly unlikely in any real application):
DomainClass.executeUpdate('delete from DomainClass')
But if you have assiciations with other domains, then the safest way to delete (and also a bit slower than the one mentioned above) would be the following:
def domainObjects = DomainClass.findAll()
domainObjects.each {
it.delete(flush:it==domainObjects.last, failOnError:true)
}
If you have a list of objects and want to delete all elements, you can use * operator.
'*' will split the list and pass its elements as separate arguments.
Example.
List<Book> books = Book.findAllByTitle('grails')
books*.delete()
I'm working on an application at the moment in ASP.NET MVC which has a number of look-up tables, all of the form
LookUp {
Id
Text
}
As you can see, this just maps the Id to a textual value. These are used for things such as Colours. I now have a number of these, currently 6 and probably soon to be more.
I'm trying to put together an API that can be used via AJAX to allow the user to add/list/remove values from these lookup tables, so for example I could have something like:
http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/[List/Add/Delete]
My current problem is that clearly, regardless of which lookup table I'm using, everything else happens exactly the same. So really there should be no repetition of code whatsoever.
I currently have a custom route which points to an 'AttributeController', which figures out the attribute/look-up table in question based upon the URL (ie http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/List would want the 'Colours' table). I pass the attribute (Colours - a string) and the operation (List/Add/Delete), as well as any other parameters required (say "Red" if I want to add red to the list) back to my repository where the actual work is performed.
Things start getting messy here, as at the moment I've resorted to doing a switch/case on the attribute string, which can then grab the Linq-to-Sql entity corresponding to the particular lookup table. I find this pretty dirty though as I find myself having to write the same operations on each of the look-up entities, ugh!
What I'd really like to do is have some sort of mapping, which I could simply pass in the attribute name and get out some form of generic lookup object, which I could perform the desired operations on without having to care about type.
Is there some way to do this to my Linq-To-Sql entities? I've tried making them implement a basic interface (IAttribute), which simply specifies the Id/Text properties, however doing things like this fails:
System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute> table = GetAttribute("Colours");
As I cannot convert System.Data.Linq.Table<Colour> to System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute>.
Is there a way to make these look-up tables 'generic'?
Apologies that this is a bit of a brain-dump. There's surely imformation missing here, so just let me know if you'd like any further details. Cheers!
You have 2 options.
Use Expression Trees to dynamically create your lambda expression
Use Dynamic LINQ as detailed on Scott Gu's blog
I've looked at both options and have successfully implemented Expression Trees as my preferred approach.
Here's an example function that i created: (NOT TESTED)
private static bool ValueExists<T>(String Value) where T : class
{
ParameterExpression pe = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "p");
Expression value = Expression.Equal(Expression.Property(pe, "ColumnName"), Expression.Constant(Value));
Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(value, pe);
return MyDataContext.GetTable<T>().Where(predicate).Count() > 0;
}
Instead of using a switch statement, you can use a lookup dictionary. This is psuedocode-ish, but this is one way to get your table in question. You'll have to manually maintain the dictionary, but it should be much easier than a switch.
It looks like the DataContext.GetTable() method could be the answer to your problem. You can get a table if you know the type of the linq entity that you want to operate upon.
Dictionary<string, Type> lookupDict = new Dictionary<string, Type>
{
"Colour", typeof(MatchingLinqEntity)
...
}
Type entityType = lookupDict[AttributeFromRouteValue];
YourDataContext db = new YourDataContext();
var entityTable = db.GetTable(entityType);
var entity = entityTable.Single(x => x.Id == IdFromRouteValue);
// or whatever operations you need
db.SubmitChanges()
The Suteki Shop project has some very slick work in it. You could look into their implementation of IRepository<T> and IRepositoryResolver for a generic repository pattern. This really works well with an IoC container, but you could create them manually with reflection if the performance is acceptable. I'd use this route if you have or can add an IoC container to the project. You need to make sure your IoC container supports open generics if you go this route, but I'm pretty sure all the major players do.
I am using ASP.NET-MVC and nHibernate for the first time. Great tools, but big learning curve!
I have a list view of objects that are quite large (each has about 60 properties). In the list view I am only using about 10 of these properties. Performance is not too bad, but it seems a waste to fully hydrate these objects. What is the recommended practice?
I tried using HQL to select fewer properties, but it seems like it won't partially hydrate an object. I also tried making property on the main object that was a header class with the list view properties, but I couldn't seem to get it mapped properly. I think this should be easy but I've really been struggling with it.
EDIT:
I kept coming back to this because I knew Anton had given me the answer and I just couldn't see it.
There are three things you need to do:
Make an object with the properties you want.
Make a mapping file to import this object.
<hibernate-mapping
xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2"
namespace="Core.Entities"
assembly="Core"
default-access="property">
<import class="RequestHeader" />
</hibernate-mapping>
If you are using HQL, your object must contain a constructor with all the properties, in the same order, as your select new statement. If you use the Criteria API, you don't need to do this.
public IList<RequestHeader> ListAll()
{
using (ISession session = GetSession())
{
using (ITransaction tx = session.BeginTransaction())
{
IList<RequestHeader> results = session.CreateCriteria(typeof (Request), "r")
.CreateCriteria("Requestor", "req", JoinType.InnerJoin)
.CreateCriteria("r.Grant", "g", JoinType.InnerJoin)
.SetProjection(Projections.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.Property("r.Id"), "Id")
.Add(Projections.Property("r.Status"), "Status")
.Add(Projections.Property("r.SubmissionDate"), "SubmissionDate")
.Add(Projections.Property("req.Name"), "Requestor")
.Add(Projections.Property("g.Number"), "Number"))
.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToBean(typeof (RequestHeader)))
.SetMaxResults(10000)
.List<RequestHeader>();
tx.Commit();
return results;
}
}
}
60 properties is too much. See Component mapping.
As for selecting a subset of properties, see this: you need a select new HQL construct. Be aware, though, that you need an appropriate constructor and that an object you'll get cannot be saved back to the DB.