I know that one of the benefits of the one to many relationships is cascading behavior such as the deletion of a parent(owning) object resulting in
the deletion of the children(objects the parent owned) but what if the objects owned by it are also owned by another parent do they still get deleted if only one parent gets deleted?
GORM/Grails is smart enough to figure out in this case that the child instances should not be deleted when they are in use by another instance. (As indicated in my comments to the original question)
Related
When you mark an entity as deleted by setting the entityAspect it marks its children as deleted as well. Is there a way to only mark the parent deleted? Or a way to go through and mark the children as unchanged after the fact?
You don't want to mess with the navigation properties - I will tell you that straight away. My suggestion is to model your question as if you had to ask it using T-SQL.
In T-SQL, can you delete a parent record, but leave the children? No. I mean you could, but why? You just created orphaned child records in the database. Are you going to delete the foreign key but leave the data? What a mess.
The only reason you are able to map a parent child relationship in Breeze is because of the navigation properties that were created based on the parent / child relationships defined in the database. If you can't do it in the database, you can't do it in Breeze.
If the model refuses to budge and you decide to go forward with this anyway, you need to return data that is not linked via relationships. You can create a view for the parent and children... but you will need to manually manage the load. If your entities are based on a view, they probably are not going to be updatable.
Sorry, no code to post. I gave up on this a long time ago.
Breeze does not mark child entities as deleted if you delete the parent. We haven't implemented cascading deletes in Breeze. You must have code in your application that is doing this. Breeze disconnects the child entities from the deleted parent by clearing the foreign key properties, so the child entities will be in modified state. However, you won't be able to successfully save w/o violating FK constraints in your DB. You either have to implement cascading deletes on the server or manually delete the child entities.
I have a simple Core Data app that has a many to many relationship from entity A to B. I have kept the delete rule as nullify.
I simply want that when all entities of type A that relate to an entity of type B are deleted. In other words, when all relationships from a given B to A are nil, that particularly object of entity B should be deleted.
Now I noticed that, at least for me, this isn't happening automatically. Do I have to manually check to see if a given B object has all relationship to A as nil and then delete them manually or is there an automatic way to achieve it?
In your NSManagedObject subclass
- (void)willSave
{
// Check for relationship and delete self if empty
}
...or is there an automatic way to have this happen?
Yes if you let Core Data to manage this.
If you have two entites, say Parent and Child where the former has a one-to-many relationships with the latter
you can set the children relationship with a Delete Rule Cascade.
On the contrary, the parent relationship would be
The check on the optional flag depends on if a Child could exist with or without a Parent associated with it.
Here the delete rules mean the following.
If I delete a parent, all the children will be deleted. If I delete a child, nothing would happen on the parent (in other words the parent won't be deleted).
The inverse relatioship between the Child and the Parent is very important since lets Core Data to maintain the graph consistency. So, you should (a must for me) use it in every model you have.
Is this what you want to achieve? Let me know if you need something else.
Update 1
Only children can be deleted and not the parent. And I want that when
all children of a given parent are deleted, the parent object should
be removed from the store as well. the parent cannot be directly
deleted.
Deleting a parent it's up to you. In your code you will just not delete a parent if you want. I would use the configuration I provided since, if you delete a child, the parent will remove the reference to it.
To delete all the children that belong to a specific parent I would use a simple fetch request against Child where the predicate would be
NSPredicate *predicate = [NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"parent == %#", parentOfTheChildrenYouWantToDelete];
Once run, the request will return a NSArray of managed objects. for in to delete them.
In my understanding of your question, I recommend you look into running a specific fetch at a certain point in your code to check for nil against the relationship, and then delete manually.
So to answer your question, my understanding is that there is no "automatic" mechanism.
I have 2 entities. ObjectA stores all ObjectB's objects through a many-to-many relationship. ObjectA also stores one specific object as a default object using a one-to-one relationship. The idea is to be able to assign many different child objects for EntityA while also keeping a specific reference to one specific child object. This idea works perfectly fine all throughout my project exempt in one circumstance(identical code and identical entity relationship setups.
The problem I am having is when I reassign the existing defaultObject to a new different object by simply ObjectA.defaultObject = someObject23; this assigns the new object correctly but in the process my original To-Many relationship reference to that existing defaultObject goes null.
The to-many relationship 'AllObjects' from EntityA has a Cascade delete rule for EntityB.
The One-To-One relationship 'DefaultObject' has a NULL delete rule for EntityB.
Both have inverses set.
Here is a real quick overview.
ObjectA.allObjects = 10 objects; // 1 of these is someObject1
ObjectA.defaultSomeObject = someObject1; // This works fine.
ObjectA.defaultSomeObject = someObject2; // This assigns the new defaultSomeObject=someObject2,
// but in the process it removes the someObject1 from my ObjectA.allObjects array (Goes NULL)
I'm stumped because like I say I have used this technique multiple times and the only workaround to this I have succeeded with is to "rig" it and actually save a reference to the previous object, delete it from the ObjectA array, set the new defaultObject, then write that object back to the array. There must be a simple explanation I am overlooking. More coffee? lol. Any help is greatly appreciated. I have tried all the different delete rules for each relationship as well just for kicks.
Problem solved. Definitely needed more coffee. What was happening was the one-to-one relationship was using the to-many relationship inverse causing it to do exactly what it was supposed to do, go null...
When I retrieve an entity from the one side of a one-to many relationship, I create a mutable array from the set that is the collection of entities from the relationship. I manipulate, edit or otherwise change those entities, possibly delete existing or add new.
When through with the changes I simply use the array to create a new set then replace the original set with that which I created like so:
self.myOneSideEntity.theManySideEntitiesRelationship = [NSSet setWithArray:myNewArrayOfEntities];
It occurred to me that replacing the set may not be deleting the old members. What happened to them? Is this the proper way to edit the collection of related objects? Am I leaving any kind of orphans or going against best practices with this technique?
My relationship is set up with an inverse, cascade delete on the one side, nullify on the many side and the inverse relationship is not optional.
I've spent some days to understand similar behavior in my application.
Relation's "Delete Rule" works only when the object that contains relation is deleted itself. If you simply replace one set of objects with another (as you do) - nothing happens. Child objects that were in old set will simply have inverse relations set to nil. So if that relation (from child side) is not optional, you will get CoreData error when saving context.
For now I didn't find any way to manage this, except manual deletion of old objects.
For me the issue was with getting objects which were wired with current object. (groupObject.docs)
It was solved when I add context by which I get this data.
I'm using MagicalRecord:
[GroupObject MR_findAllInContext:[NSManagedObjectContext MR_defaultContext]]
instead of
[GroupObject MR_findAll]
Entity Framework 4, POCO objects and ASP.Net MVC2. I have a many to many relationship, lets say between BlogPost and Tag entities. This means that in my T4 generated POCO BlogPost class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {
// getter and setter with the magic FixupCollection
}
private ICollection<Tag> _tags;
I ask for a BlogPost and the related Tags from an instance of the ObjectContext and send it to another layer (View in the MVC application). Later I get back the updated BlogPost with changed properties and changed relationships. For example it had tags "A" "B" and "C", and the new tags are "C" and "D". In my particular example there are no new Tags and the properties of the Tags never change, so the only thing which should be saved is the changed relationships. Now I need to save this in another ObjectContext. (Update: Now I tried to do in the same context instance and also failed.)
The problem: I can't make it save the relationships properly. I tried everything I found:
Controller.UpdateModel and Controller.TryUpdateModel don't work.
Getting the old BlogPost from the context then modifying the collection doesn't work. (with different methods from the next point)
This probably would work, but I hope this is just a workaround, not the solution :(.
Tried Attach/Add/ChangeObjectState functions for BlogPost and/or Tags in every possible combinations. Failed.
This looks like what I need, but it doesn't work (I tried to fix it, but can't for my problem).
Tried ChangeState/Add/Attach/... the relationship objects of the context. Failed.
"Doesn't work" means in most cases that I worked on the given "solution" until it produces no errors and saves at least the properties of BlogPost. What happens with the relationships varies: usually Tags are added again to the Tag table with new PKs and the saved BlogPost references those and not the original ones. Of course the returned Tags have PKs, and before the save/update methods I check the PKs and they are equal to the ones in the database so probably EF thinks that they are new objects and those PKs are the temp ones.
A problem I know about and might make it impossible to find an automated simple solution: When a POCO object's collection is changed, that should happen by the above mentioned virtual collection property, because then the FixupCollection trick will update the reverse references on the other end of the many-to-many relationship. However when a View "returns" an updated BlogPost object, that didn't happen. This means that maybe there is no simple solution to my problem, but that would make me very sad and I would hate the EF4-POCO-MVC triumph :(. Also that would mean that EF can't do this in the MVC environment whichever EF4 object types are used :(. I think the snapshot based change tracking should find out that the changed BlogPost has relationships to Tags with existing PKs.
Btw: I think the same problem happens with one-to-many relations (google and my colleague say so). I will give it a try at home, but even if that works that doesn't help me in my six many-to-many relationships in my app :(.
Let's try it this way:
Attach BlogPost to context. After attaching object to context the state of the object, all related objects and all relations is set to Unchanged.
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState to set your BlogPost to Modified
Iterate through Tag collection
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeRelationshipState to set state for relation between current Tag and BlogPost.
SaveChanges
Edit:
I guess one of my comments gave you false hope that EF will do the merge for you. I played a lot with this problem and my conclusion says EF will not do this for you. I think you have also found my question on MSDN. In reality there is plenty of such questions on the Internet. The problem is that it is not clearly stated how to deal with this scenario. So lets have a look on the problem:
Problem background
EF needs to track changes on entities so that persistance knows which records have to be updated, inserted or deleted. The problem is that it is ObjectContext responsibility to track changes. ObjectContext is able to track changes only for attached entities. Entities which are created outside the ObjectContext are not tracked at all.
Problem description
Based on above description we can clearly state that EF is more suitable for connected scenarios where entity is always attached to context - typical for WinForm application. Web applications requires disconnected scenario where context is closed after request processing and entity content is passed as HTTP response to the client. Next HTTP request provides modified content of the entity which has to be recreated, attached to new context and persisted. Recreation usually happends outside of the context scope (layered architecture with persistance ignorace).
Solution
So how to deal with such disconnected scenario? When using POCO classes we have 3 ways to deal with change tracking:
Snapshot - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Dynamic tracking proxies - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Manual synchronization.
Manual synchronization on single entity is easy task. You just need to attach entity and call AddObject for inserting, DeleteObject for deleting or set state in ObjectStateManager to Modified for updating. The real pain comes when you have to deal with object graph instead of single entity. This pain is even worse when you have to deal with independent associations (those that don't use Foreign Key property) and many to many relations. In that case you have to manually synchronize each entity in object graph but also each relation in object graph.
Manual synchronization is proposed as solution by MSDN documentation: Attaching and Detaching objects says:
Objects are attached to the object
context in an Unchanged state. If you
need to change the state of an object
or the relationship because you know
that your object was modified in
detached state, use one of the
following methods.
Mentioned methods are ChangeObjectState and ChangeRelationshipState of ObjectStateManager = manual change tracking. Similar proposal is in other MSDN documentation article: Defining and Managing Relationships says:
If you are working with disconnected
objects you must manually manage the
synchronization.
Moreover there is blog post related to EF v1 which criticise exactly this behavior of EF.
Reason for solution
EF has many "helpful" operations and settings like Refresh, Load, ApplyCurrentValues, ApplyOriginalValues, MergeOption etc. But by my investigation all these features work only for single entity and affects only scalar preperties (= not navigation properties and relations). I rather not test this methods with complex types nested in entity.
Other proposed solution
Instead of real Merge functionality EF team provides something called Self Tracking Entities (STE) which don't solve the problem. First of all STE works only if same instance is used for whole processing. In web application it is not the case unless you store instance in view state or session. Due to that I'm very unhappy from using EF and I'm going to check features of NHibernate. First observation says that NHibernate perhaps has such functionality.
Conclusion
I will end up this assumptions with single link to another related question on MSDN forum. Check Zeeshan Hirani's answer. He is author of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes. If he says that automatic merge of object graphs is not supported, I believe him.
But still there is possibility that I'm completely wrong and some automatic merge functionality exists in EF.
Edit 2:
As you can see this was already added to MS Connect as suggestion in 2007. MS has closed it as something to be done in next version but actually nothing had been done to improve this gap except STE.
I have a solution to the problem that was described above by Ladislav. I have created an extension method for the DbContext which will automatically perform the add/update/delete's based on a diff of the provided graph and persisted graph.
At present using the Entity Framework you will need to perform the updates of the contacts manually, check if each contact is new and add, check if updated and edit, check if removed then delete it from the database. Once you have to do this for a few different aggregates in a large system you start to realize there must be a better, more generic way.
Please take a look and see if it can help http://refactorthis.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/introducing-graphdiff-for-entity-framework-code-first-allowing-automated-updates-of-a-graph-of-detached-entities/
You can go straight to the code here https://github.com/refactorthis/GraphDiff
I know it's late for the OP but since this is a very common issue I posted this in case it serves someone else.
I've been toying around with this issue and I think I got a fairly simple solution,
what I do is:
Save main object (Blogs for example) by setting its state to Modified.
Query the database for the updated object including the collections I need to update.
Query and convert .ToList() the entities I want my collection to include.
Update the main object's collection(s) to the List I got from step 3.
SaveChanges();
In the following example "dataobj" and "_categories" are the parameters received by my controller "dataobj" is my main object, and "_categories" is an IEnumerable containing the IDs of the categories the user selected in the view.
db.Entry(dataobj).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
dataobj = db.ServiceTypes.Include(x => x.Categories).Single(x => x.Id == dataobj.Id);
var it = _categories != null ? db.Categories.Where(x => _categories.Contains(x.Id)).ToList() : null;
dataobj.Categories = it;
db.SaveChanges();
It even works for multiple relations
The Entity Framework team is aware that this is a usability issue and plans to address it post-EF6.
From the Entity Framework team:
This is a usability issue that we are aware of and is something we have been thinking about and plan to do more work on post-EF6. I have created this work item to track the issue: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864 The work item also contains a link to the user voice item for this--I encourage you to vote for it if you have not done so already.
If this impacts you, vote for the feature at
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864
All of the answers were great to explain the problem, but none of them really solved the problem for me.
I found that if I didn't use the relationship in the parent entity but just added and removed the child entities everything worked just fine.
Sorry for the VB but that is what the project I am working in is written in.
The parent entity "Report" has a one to many relationship to "ReportRole" and has the property "ReportRoles". The new roles are passed in by a comma separated string from an Ajax call.
The first line will remove all the child entities, and if I used "report.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" instead of the "db.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" I would get the error.
report.ReportRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Remove(f))
Dim newRoles = If(String.IsNullOrEmpty(model.RolesString), New String() {}, model.RolesString.Split(","))
newRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Add(New ReportRole With {.ReportId = report.Id, .AspNetRoleId = f}))