I am new to learning and understanding how Hydration works, just wanted to point that out first. I'm currently able to Hydrate Select and Insert queries without any problems.
I am currently stuck on trying to Hydrate Update queries now. In my entity I have setup the get/set options for each type of column in my database. I've found that the ObjectProperty() Hydrator works best for my situation too.
However whenever I try to update only a set number of columns and extract via the hydrator I am getting errors because all the other options are not set and are returning null values. I do not need to update everything for a particular row, just a few columns.
For example in my DB Table I may have:
name
phone_number
email_address
But I only need to update the phone_number.
$entity_passport = $this->getEntityPassport();
$entity_passport->setPrimaryPhone('5551239876');
$this->getTablePassport()->update($this->getHydrator()->extract($entity_passport), array(
'employeeid' => '1'
));
This returns an error because setName() and setEmailAddress() are not included in this update and the query returns that the values cannot be null. But clearly when you look at the DB Table, there is data already there. The data that is there does not need to be changed either, only in this example does the PrimaryPhone() number.
I've been looking and reading documentation all over the place but I cannot find anything that would explain what I am doing wrong. I should note that I am only using Zend\Db (Not Doctrine).
I'm assuming I've missed something someplace due to my lack of knowledge with this new feature I'm trying to understand.
Perhaps you don't Hydrate Update queries... I'm sort of lost / confused. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
I think you're having a fundamental misconception of hydration. A hydrator simply populates an entity object from data (hydrate) and extracts data from an entity object (extract). So there are no separate hydrators for different types of queries.
In your update example you should first retrieve the complete entity object ($entity_passport) and then pass it to the TableGateway's update method. You would retrieve the entity by employeeid, since that's the condition you're using to update. So something like this:
$entity_passport = $passportMapper->findByEmployeeId(1);
$entity_passport->setPrimaryPhone('5551239876');
$this->getTablePassport()->update($this->getHydrator()->extract($entity_passport), array(
'employeeid' => $entity_passport->getId()
));
This is assuming you have some sort of mapper layer. Otherwise you could use your passport TableGateway (I assume that's what getTablePassport() returns, no?).
Otherwise, if you think retrieving the object is too much overhead and you just want to run the query you could use just a \Zend\Db\Sql\Sql object, ie:
$sql = new \Zend\Db\Sql\Sql($dbAdapter);
$update = $sql->update('passport')
->set(array('primary_phone' => $entity_passport->getPrimaryPhone()))
->where(array('employeeid' => $employeeId));
Edit:
Maybe it was a mistake to bring up the mapper, because it may cause more confusion. You could simply use your TableGateway to retrieve the entity object and then hydrate the returned row:
$rows = $this->getTablePassport()->select(array('employeeid' => 1));
$entity_passport = $this->getHydrator($rows->current());
[...]
Edit 2:
I checked your gist and I noticed a few things, so here we go:
I see that your getTablePassport indeed does return an object which is a subclass of TableGateway. You have already set up this class for it to use a HydratingResultset. This means you don't need to do any manual hydrating when retrieving objects using the gateway.
You also already implemented a Search method in that same class, so why not just use that? However I would change that method, because right now you're using LIKE for every single column. Not only is it very inefficient, but it will also give you wrong results, for example on the id column.
If you were to fix that method then you can simply call it in the Service object:
$this->getTablePassport->Search(array('employeeid' => 1));
Otherwise you could just implement a separate method in that tablegateway class, such as
public function findByEmployeeId($employeeId)
{
return $tableGateway->select(array('employeeid' => $employeeId));
}
This should already return an array of entities (or one in this specific case). P.S. make sure to debug and check what is actually being returned when you retrieve the entity. So print_r the entity you get back from the PassportTable before trying the update. You first have to make sure the retrieval code works well.
Related
I'm developing an application in Quasar/Electron and using Dexie/IndexedDB for my database. I want to find all distinct records in the database that contain both my Event ID and a Dog ID (both key indexed fields). I am able to do this with the following code:
await myDB.runTable
.orderBy('[fk_event+fk_dog]')
.eachUniqueKey((theDuo) => {
this.runsArray.push({eventID: theDuo[0], dogID: theDuo[1]})
})
I'm using a combined key which is working well. However, I need to have more of the records than just the keys. I need a few more fields, is this possible?
I was trying to get records with the unique key function while also using the where function, but that doesn't seem to work.
I need to get all the unique (distinct?) dogs in the table that are in a particular event. And also get their corresponding information. I'm not sure if there is a better, more efficient way to do this? I can always pull out all the records and loop through them to build a custom array, I was just hoping to do this at the table read level. (yeah I'm still in tables/records even though these are collections etc. :p ).
Even the above code gives me all the events, and I can pull out what I need with a filter. I just was thinking it would be faster and more efficient to do it at the read level.
this.enteredRuns = this.runsArray.filter((theEvent) => {
return ( (theEvent.eventID == this.currentEventID) )
})
Try
await myDB.runTable
.orderBy('[fk_event+fk_dog]')
.clone({unique: "unique"})
.toArray()
I know this isn't documented but it should do the work to use unique cursor while still extracting the whole objects and not just the keys. You cannot combine with where but you could use .filter. Just be aware that not all records with be scanned as it will jump over records with same keys - selecting the first visited records only.
Good afternoon fellow developers,
I have come across a scenario where I found myself needing to retrieve the list of pending changes from my model and editing a specific property of those entries before sending them to my back-end.
These are new entities I created using the createEntry() method of the OData model v2. But, at the time of creation of said entities, I do not possess the value I need to add to them yet. This is the list of entities I retrieve by using the getPendingChanges() method on my model:
What I need to do is to loop through each of these newly created entities and set a specific property into them before actually sending them to my back-end with the submitChanges() method. Bare in mind that these are entry objects created by the createEntry() method and exist only in my front-end until I am able to submit them with success.
Any ideas that might point me in the right direction? I look forward to reading from you!
I was able to solve this issue in the following way:
var oPendingChanges = this.model.getPendingChanges();
var aPathsPendingChanges = $.map(oPendingChanges, function(value, index) { return [index];});
aPathsPendingChanges.forEach(sPath => oModel.setProperty("/" + sPath + "/PropertyX","valueFGO"));
The first two instructions retrieve the entire list of pendingChanges objects and then builds an array of paths to each individual entry. I then use that array of paths to loop through my list of pending changes and edit into the property I want in each iteration of the loop. Special thanks to the folks at answers.sap for the guidance!
I found a very strange behavior in our grails application today that i want to share with you.
We are using grails 2.3.11 on mysql 5.1.48.
We had a DomainObject.findById( id ) in one of your Controller actions.
We failed to check the id for a null value so DomainObject.findById( null )
would be called when no id is passed as an argument.
Normally DomainObject.findById( null )
will return null but there is a special condition that will yield other results!
If the controller action called before that inserted a new record in the database (lets call it Object B), regardless of the domain object stored, the DomainObject.findById( null ) will find the DomainObject with the same Id the Object B got on insert.
So when the controller action called before saved anything the findById(null) will return a row. And that row will have the same id the last inserted element got.
I am totally aware that using findById(null) is not the desired way to do it but I was quite shocked about the results it yielded. But returning any seemingly "random" result seems very strange to me.
I also want to note that DomainObject.get(null) will not suffer from this problem.
Anybody else witnessed this?
There is an active Jira pointing in this direction: https://jira.grails.org/browse/GRAILS-9628 but its not really describing this issue.
We don't really support passing null as an argument to a dynamic finder like that. Dynamic finders have explicit support for querying by null. Instead of DomainClass.findByName(null) you would call DomainClass.findByNameIsNull(). If you have a reference that may or may not be null, instead of passing that as an argument to a dynamic finder, the code can almost always be made cleaner by writing a criteria query or a "where" query that has a conditional in it.
I hope that helps.
Thx for your information scot.
I have further details. This behaviour is also altered by the underlying database.
While mysql suffers from this, maria-db (a mysql clone) does not!
So what happens is bound to the underlying database system.
That should not happen to an abstraction layer ....
Following many tutorials from official and non-official docs, there is no such a clear vision for common approach for creating editing the entity and updating just specific fields.
The main questions are:
1 - Create the entity - fill the form, validate, create entity object and populate it with exchangeArray and then save, in save method via docs we must configure an array from passed object like:
$data = array(
'artist' => $album->artist,
'title' => $album->title,
);
Can we avoid this array re-configuring in save method?
2 - Update the entity - same logic
3 - What if we want to update only one specific field?
I pass the array to updateEntity method, but is it normal way to pass object(and configure array inside method) to save method and pass array to update method?
4 - Almost same thing with 3 but issue now when we have an array with another keys among our entity fields keys, we can strip 'bad' array keys using hydrator and make something like array_intersect style, but what you suggest?
You can use a smart combination of your entity, form, input filter and hydrator to have almost no logic to get CRUD things done. For an admin interface I usually generate my controller, form and other classes. I use Sublime Text 2 and the snippets to generate these classes can be found in my repository.
This results in:
A controller with index (listing), view (single item), create, update and delete
A form to contain all entity fields
A repository (Doctrine) to query entities
A service to persist to the database (either create one, save one or delete one)
This will solve #1 and #2. Due to the way ZF2 filtering and hydration works, this will also solve #4 for you. Then, it is possible to set only a select no. of fields to be filtered, but I have not implemented that (yet). I can only refer to the manual to know how to do that.
If you want to know the implementation of above snippets, take a look at Soflomo\Portfolio which uses a similar strategy.
PHP, contrary to other languages, is array centric than object centric. Most task could be done via Array. In this case, instead of use
<?php
class SomeClass {
public $artist;
public $title;
}
$album=new SomeClass();
$data = array(
'artist' => $album->artist,
'title' => $album->title,
);
?>
We should use
<?
$SomeObject=array("artist"=>xxx,"title"=>xxxx);
$data = $someObject;
?>
i.e. we should avoid to use classes when we are referencing a POCO class and instead we should use the (less elegant) array. Otherwise, sometimes we will be forced to do such conversion between array and object.
Anyways i we will need to keep it as a object then, we can do the conversion between object to array using:
<?php
class SomeClass {
public $artist;
public $title;
}
$album=new SomeClass();
$data = (array)$album;
?>
However, this conversion sometimes is tricky.
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.