I'm thinking at the following scenario: on the client-side you update two entities and you submit the POST with the json bundle. On the server side you do an interception and apply some business logic. The save works for one of the entities, however for the other one it fails. In your opinion what will be the correct solution and why: 1. should I do a rollback and return an exception on the client, or 2. commit the update for the 1st entity and return a message that the save worked only for one of the entities? I know that the guys from IdeaBlade consider the saveChanges as a single transaction(so all CRUD functionality goes in a single POST), so judging by this I think 1. should be correct approach. However I appreciate all reasoned opinions.Thanks!
Well it depends on what your doing. I bet you would save a lot of time developing if you just roll back. If you really want to though, you can return a list of failed and successful entities saved. Then the user (assuming the errors are user errors) can make the changes on the errored entities and commit only them again. This may become difficult though. Breeze attaches a state to each entity, which you will need now need to manage. So on the response, you'll need to figure out which entities failed and which succeeded, then update their state on the client, otherwise you'll resubmit commits that you don't need to. I think it would be a better investment on time to put this business logic on the client, then roll back on the server (and log the event so you can fix it) for the rare occasions errors occur. Does that help?
Related
I want to ask for a safe way to clear subEntities in coredata.
I have my a many-to-many relationship like this: Product *<->* Product. Therefore, I've got to create a subEntity to hold some special values between (sortPosition, groupName.....).
So it's like this: Product *<->1 ProductSubEntity 1<->*Product.
When I download products from server's API, the easiest way to update correctly correspond to the server's result is:
Remove all child relationship ([self removeProductSubEntities:self.subEntities]).
Add sub from server's result.
Result: There'd be a lot of subEntity in coredata (which won't hold relationship to any product), and this might take storage/memory/cpu when CRUD (I think?). But I can't actual delete the subEntity (in case it's being hold reference to as an viewController's Object somewhere, and it might cause crash: access to a deleted object).
QUESTION:
How can I clear those sub entities (might occur sometimes) if:
No relationship to any product.
No actual reference from anywhere (any viewControllers or objects)???
P/S: I'm thinking of implement a batch delete when terminate app. Could that be consider a safe solution?
I don't consider this to be a datastore issue, rather a UI update issue. You should delete the objects from the datastore when you don't need them any more and you should update the UI accordingly.
1 thing you didn't mention is re-use. It's possible that your download may be an update to an existing item, which you could find and update, then life is easy all round. Arguably everything below still applies in this case though as your UI might not update to reflect changes and you may need to refresh the managed object.
For the UI update it's generally wise to observe the datastore for changes, usually with an NSFetchedResultsController. If you're doing this then your UI would automatically update itself with the changes.
If you're explicitly passing entity instances around then you should have some way to trigger an update explicitly, and exactly how that works depends on your UI. Generally speaking you'd be doing something like posting a UINotification to tell the system that the datastore changed and they need to re-validate their data objects. For the UI you shouldn't be showing now-dead objects to the user, and in your question where you talk about not deleting to avoid crashes, it's probably worse to allow the user to update invalid objects and just quietly not telling them that their updates won't be saved. When the notification is received you may want to pop a (some) controller(s) off the stack, or re-query the datastore for the new data to be displayed.
If for some reason you don't want to do the above, then yes, you can query for all of the entities with a nil relationship and then batch delete them. This should be done on a background thread just like data loading and I'd recommend doing it on app load instead of close (because you won't have so many view controllers loaded and the ones that are should all have only valid references now...).
Currently we are using Breeze.js and Angular to develop our applications. Due to some persistent legacy issues, we have two databases ('Kenya' and 'Rwanda') that cannot be merged at this time, but have the same schema and metadata. Most of the time, the client knows which database to hit and passes the request through the .withParameters() function or the .saveOptions() function. Sometimes we want to request the same query from both databases (for example, if we are requesting a list of all available countries), and we use a EntityManager wrapper on the client to manage this and request the same query from each database. This is implemented through a custom EFContextProvider which uses the data returned to determine the appropriate database and creates the appropriate context in CreateContext().
To further complicate things, in some instances one or the other database won't exist (these are local deployments created through filtered replication), but the client won't know this. Therefore, when querying for a list of all countries, it issues two requests and one will cause failures because the context cannot be instantiated properly.
This is easy enough to detect on the Server. What I would like to do is to detect whether the requested context is available and, if not, return a 200 response and an empty set.
I can detect this in the Breeze DBContextProvider CreateContext() method, but cannot figure out how to cause the request to fallback gracefully to a empty-set response.
Thanks
Not exactly what I was looking for, but it probably makes more sense since most of the work is being done on the client-side:
Instead of trying to change the controller, I added a getAvailableDatabases to the C# controller actions and use that to determine which of the databases I will query from the client.
I have already read Rails - How do I temporarily store a rails model instance? and similar questions but I cannot find a successful answer.
Imagine I have the model Customer, which may contain a huge amount of information attached (simple attributes, data in other tables through has_many relation, etc...). I want the application's user to access all data in a single page with a single Save button on it. As the user makes changes in the data (i.e. he changes simple attributes, adds or deletes has_many items,...) I want the application to update the model, but without committing changes to the database. Only when the user clicks on Save, the model must be committed.
For achieving this I need the model to be kept by Rails between HTTP requests. Furthermore, two different users may be changing the model's data at the same time, so these temporary instances should be bound to the Rails session.
Is there any way to achieve this? Is it actually a good idea? And, if not, how can one design a web application in which changes in a model cannot be retained in the browser but in the server until the user wants to commit them?
EDIT
Based on user smallbutton.com's proposal, I wonder if serializing the model instance to a temporary file (whose path would be stored in the session hash), and then reloading it each time a new request arrives, would do the trick. Would it work in all cases? Is there any piece of information that would be lost during serialization/deserialization?
As HTTP requests are stateless you need some kind of storeage between requests. The session is the easiest way to store data between requests. As for you the session will not be enough because you need it to be accessed by multiple users.
I see two ways to achive your goal:
1) Get some fast external data storage like a key-value server (redis, or anything you prefer http://nosql-database.org/) where you put your objects via serializing/deserializing (eg. JSON).
This may be fast depending on your design choices and data model but this is the harder approach.
2) Just store your Objects in the DB as you would regularly do and get them versioned: (https://github.com/airblade/paper_trail). Then you can just store a timestamp when people hit the save-button and you can always go back to this state. This would be the easier approach i guess but may be a bit slower depending on the size of your data model changes ( but I think it'll do )
EDIT: If you need real-time collaboration between users you should probably have a look at something like Firebase
EDIT2: Anwer to your second question, whether you can put the data into a file:
Sure you can do that. But you would need some kind of locking to prevent data loss if more than one person is editing. You will need that aswell if you go for 1) but tools like redis already include locks to achive your goal (eg. redis-semaphore). Depending on your data you may need to build some logic for merging different changes of different users.
3) Another aproach that came to my mind would be doing all editing with Javascript and save it in one db-transaction. This would go well with synchronization tools like firebase (or your own synchronization via Rails streaming API)
i would like to set an entity sent from the server to "added". it looks like entityaspect has methods setdeleted, setmodified, etc... but i can't seem to find one called setadded... what is the cleanest way to set an entity to "added"? i was thinking perhaps i would need to detach and then attach as "added". i have a server method called "newdeal" which creates a new entity ready for data entry... this method has business logic which i would prefer to keep on the server... when it gets to the client the entity is marked as "unmodified" which makes sense... but i would then like to change it to "added"...
thank you
#giancarloa, I'm assuming that, by the time the entity is sent from server to client, it has been persisted in the database. If that's the case, it wouldn't make sense to have its entityState set to Added as it would cause a duplicate error. If that's not how it works, please explain in detail what you are doing as I'm trying to get an idea of all the steps you're taking.
I'm also confused as to why create an entity in the server, send it to the client, update it, and then send it back to the server to save it in the DB - this just appear to cause more traffic and possibly reduce performance. Also, what it the user decides not to save? - then the work in the server would've been wasted.
Why not create the entity in the client and if it turns out to be saved, then the business logic would kick in the server during the beforeSaveEntity/beforeSaveEntities?
I had a similar problem. The breeze expect that entities returned from the server already exists in your database. This is not the case if your server fetched the entities from some other sources (not the database), returned them to client and then user can decide to the client if those entities should really be inserted in the database.
As you indicated, what you must do is skip the code that adds the entities into client's entity manager. later, you can add the detached entities to Entitymanager.
See the following answer for more details.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18596070/174638
I'm developing a webapp that allows the editing of records. There is a possibility that two users could be working on the same screen at a time and I want to minimise the damage done, if they both click save.
If User1 requests the page and then makes changes to the Address, Telephone and Contact Details, but before he clicks Save, User2 requests the same page.
User1 then clicks save and the whole model is updated using TryUpdateModel(), if User2 simply appends some detail to the Notes field, when he saves, the TryUpdateModel() method will overwrite the new details User1 saved, with the old details.
I've considered storing the original values for all the model's properties in a hidden form field, and then writing a custom TryUpdateModel to only update the properties that have changed, but this feels a little too like the Viewstate we've all been more than happy to leave behind by moving to MVC.
Is there a pattern for dealing with this problem that I'm not aware of?
How would you handle it?
Update: In answer to the comments below, I'm using Entity Framework.
Anthony
Unless you have any particular requirements for what happens in this case (e.g. lock the record, which of course requires some functionality to undo the lock in the event that the user decides not to make a change) I'd suggest the normal approach is an optimistic lock:
Each update you perform should check that the record hasn't changed in the meantime.
So:
Put an integer "version" property or a guid / rowversion on the record.
Ensure this is contained in a hidden field in the html and is therefore returned with any submit;
When you perform the update, ensure that the (database) record's version/guid/rowversion still matches the value that was in the hidden field [and add 1 to the "version" integer when you do the update if you've decided to go with that manual approach.]
A similar approach is obviously to use a date/time stamp on the record, but don't do that because, to within the accuracy of your system clock, it's flawed.
[I suggest you'll find fuller explanations of the whole approach elsewhere. Certainly if you were to google for information on NHibernate's Version functionality...]
Locking modification of a page while one user is working on it is an option. This is done in some wiki software like dokuwiki. In that case it will usually use some javascript to free the lock after 5-10 minutes of inactivity so others can update it.
Another option might be storing all revisions in a database so when two users submit, both copies are saved and still exist. From there on, all you'd need to do is merge the two.
You usually don't handle this. If two users happen to edit a document at the same time and commit their updates, one of them wins and the other looses.
Resources lockout can be done with stateful desktop applications, but with web applications any lockout scheme you try to implement may only minimize the damage but not prevent it.
Don't try to write an absolutely perfect and secure application. It's already good as it is. Just use it, probably the situation won't come up at all.
If you use LINQ to SQL as your ORM it can handle the issues around changed values using the conflicts collection. However, essentially I'd agree with Mastermind's comment.