I'm using Grails and I want to have a unidirectional many-to-many relationship.
In my application, an Employee can "bookmark" another Employee in order to quickly access them to leave notes. Employees need not know who has bookmarked them.
In other words, I essentially want to have an employee.bookmarks property that I can use for this.
Thus far, I've found the documentation on many-to-many relationships for Grails ORM, but this seems to be exclusively across two different tables.
Sounds like you just need a regular unidirectional 1-many:
class Employee {
...
static hasMany = [bookmarks: Employee]
}
You can use transient properties and an additional table "Bookmark" to do this task:
class Employee {
String name
static transients = ["bookmarks"]
def getBookmarks() {
Bookmark.findAllByBookmarker(this, [sort: "id", order: "asc"])
}
...
}
class Bookmark implements Serializable {
Employee bookmarker // the employee who bookmark someone
Employee bookmarkee // the employee who is bookmarked
static mapping = {
table "Bookmark"
id composite: ['bookmarker', 'bookmarkee']
bookmarker(column: "BOOKMARKER_ID")
bookmarkee(column: "BOOKMARKEE_ID")
version false
}
static Bookmarker get(long bookmarkerId, long bookmarkeeId) {
find 'from Bookmark where bookmarker.id=:bookmarkerId and bookmarkee.id=:bookmarkeeId',
[bookmarkerId: bookmarkerId, bookmarkeeId: bookmarkeeId]
}
...
}
This method uses table "Bookmark" to store the relations between employees, so it is possible to have 2 people bookmark the same employee. Note that class Bookmark must implements Serializable.
Related
While migrating an existing app from Grails 2.5 to 3.1, I ran into an odd issue with a bi-directional one-to-one relationship.
Imagine a simple model with a User and Employee objects. A User represents a generic user account. Not all users are Employees but all Employees are Users. Moreover Employees have references to managers, supervisors, etc (also User instances). User is the owning side of the relationship.
class User {
Employee employee
static mappedBy = [employee: "user"]
static hasOne = [employee: Employee]
static constraints = {
employee(nullable:true)
}
}
class Employee {
User user // represents employee's own account, a bi-directional one-to-one
User supervisor // represents a supervisor
static belongsTo = [user: User]
static constraints = {
user(unique:true)
supervisor(nullable:true)
}
}
The trouble after upgrading to Grails 3 is that in the create mode, this results in supervisor_id column of employee table being generated as NOT NULL, whereas in Grails 2 it was nullable as expected (with only user_id being NOT NULL).
I tested this with Grails 3.1.12 and 3.2.0, getting the same behavior with both. Am I doing anything stupid in my domain class declarations? I've tried multiple mappings to achieve the same behavior as in Grails 2.5 without luck. In some cases I'm even getting a foreign key on both sides of the relationship...
I don't know why your code was working with previous version of Grails, but it is wrong.
When you use hasMany and belongsTo, it is not necessary to define other property in the child object, and you don't need also to use the mappedBy property on the parent, and the same with the parent (property employee at User)
Grails doesn't need anything else to know which is the bidirectional property on both classes, and the constraint user(unique : true) neither.
So your classes should look like this:
class User {
static hasOne = [employee: Employee]
static constraints = {
employee(nullable: true)
}
}
class Employee {
User supervisor // represents a supervisor
static belongsTo = [user: User]
static constraints = {
supervisor(nullable:true)
}
}
It could be nice to know how is your DB structure. But in this way all foreign keys are stored in the employee table. But of course you could navigate from both entities. If you have different structure you could map your current database with this model. See this
employee.user
user.employee
I am having a GORM issue.
I try to map one domain Object with another with hasMany.
class PrototypePriceModifierCode {
...
static hasMany = [activitys:Activity]
...
}
Since I don't need a back reference in Class Activity I don't have any reference to PrototypePriceModifierCode.
Having only this creates my mapping table as expected (1).
prototype_price_Modifier_code_id activity_id
In the Activity, I need a reference to a PrototypePriceModifier, which has nothing to do with the above mapping table.
The problem is that the mapping table is not generated anymore as soon as I define
class Activity{
...
PrototypePriceModifierCode prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached
How can I get the mapping table created and having a reference to PrototypePriceModifierCode in my Activity domain class?
Try like this:
class Activity {
static belongsTo = [PrototypePriceModifierCode]
}
This way, there will be a column in the activity table for PrototypePriceModifierCode instead of creating a separate table for hasMany.
When Activity does not have the prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached property, the hasMany in PrototypePriceModifierCode results in a uni-directional one-to-many association. In the database, this is implemented with a mapping table.
However, when Activity has the prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached property the association changes to a bi-directional one-to-many. In the database this means the activity table has a foreign key pointing to it's prototype_price_modifierCode, so the mapping table is not used. You can read more about these differences here.
"prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached" property
If you want a uni-directional one-to-many and the property Activity.prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached, you can create a getter method which looks up the PrototypePriceModifierCode:
class Activity {
PrototypePriceModifierCode getPrototypePriceModifierCodeAttached() {
PrototypePriceModifierCode.where {
activitys.id == this.id
}.get()
}
}
The downside here is that the property is inaccessible to GORM; can't query on it.
"price_modifier_code_id" column
On the other hand, if what you want is a price_modifier_code_id column in the activity table, you can add it as a long:
class Activity {
long prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached
static mapping = {
prototypePriceModifierCodeAttached column: 'price_modifier_code_id'
}
}
This makes it possible to use GORM queries on the property, but only on the PrototypePriceModifiedCode ID, not the domain class instance itself.
A combo
You can combine both approaches, as long as you're willing to do a bit of maintenance:
class Activity {
long priceModifierCodeId // <--- You gotta maintain this property manually.
PrototypePriceModifierCode getPrototypePriceModifierCodeAttached() {
PrototypePriceModifierCode.get(priceModifierCodeId)
}
}
Note: activitys is misspelled. It should be activities.
I ended up using String saving comma separated ids.
String activitys
this.activitys.split(',')each{
p.activitys.add(Activity.get(Long.parseLong(it)))
}
As I don't need referencial integrity here this works fine for me.
I want to create a domain class as like , One user can post many orders [Bidirectional] and one order can be liked by many users [unidirectional].
I have written a domain class as shown below ,
Class User {
String userName;
List orders
static hasMany = [Order]
}
Class Order {
String orderId
String orderName
//Indicates this order belongs to only one user
static belongsTo =[owner : User ] // Bidirectional
//Indicates order can be liked by many users
static hasMany = [likedUser : User] //Unidirectional
}
But I am getting am error saying invalid schema . Any body please help...
This post looks similar to my question but I am not getting , Please help.
First, order is a reserved word in SQL. Since GORM by default creates a table with the same name as your class, you'll need to either rename your class or provide a different name to use when mapping to SQL tables.
For example:
class Order {
static mapping = {
table 'user_order'
}
// ...
}
Another problem is that Order contains two associations to User. You need to tell GORM which one of these that is the bi-directional association from User to Order. That can be achieved using mappedBy, like this:
class User {
String userName
static hasMany = [orders: Order]
static mappedBy = [orders: 'owner']
}
Hope this helps.
Is it possible to map the following with GORM?
I want to get rid off all associated events when I delete a person.
Person object should not have a link to events.( I want to avoid using hasMany on Person domain)
class Person {
String username
}
class Event {
String description
static belongsTo = [person:Person]
}
I'm getting now a 'Referential integrity constraint violation' when doing person.delete() because events are not removed before deleting person.
I don't think that is possible without using hasMany (speaking of which, why do you want to avoid that anyway?)
This SO Question states:
Hibernate only cascades along the defined associations. If A knows
nothing about Bs, nothing you do with A will affect Bs.
Use static hasMany and bam, problem fixed.
Edit:
The only way I think you could achieve this is using beforeDelete on the Person class to delete all the associated Events, i.e.
class Person {
def beforeDelete() {
def events = Event.findAllByPerson(this)
for (e in events) {
e.delete()
}
}
}
See the documentation on Events and Auto Timestamping for more info on that.
The above will not work
Why not define a no reference mapping:
class Person {
String username
static hasMany=[Events]
}
This way there is no actual bindings of events to person but a person can have many events
I have some domain class Incident,Problem, Category, Impact, Urgency etc.
Class Incident
{
Category category
String subject
Impact impact
}
Class Problem
{
Urgency urgency
Category category
String title
}
Class Category
{
String categoryName
String description
}
now, some rows are inserted into this class. now if I am deleting category it throws error like 'grails cannot delete or update a parent row'..
so what I have to do for deleting?
The problem is - you have reference to Category in Incident and Problem classes, so database tables for those classes will have Foreign key on category table, so you can not delete a category untill you either remove those incidents/problems or update those incidents problems and set category to null (you will have to make them as nullable in domain constraints)
So either you do
Problem.executeUpdate('update Problem p set category = null where category = ?', [category])
Same for incidents
Or you can model your domain classes using belongsTo and hasMany and grails will handle every thing automatically
Some thing like
class Problem {
static belongsTo = [category:Category]
}
class Category {
static hasMany = [
problems: Problem
]
static mappings = {
problems cascade: "all-delete-orphan"
}
}
I would prefer to manage relationships using belongsTo, hasMany, hasOne rather then just using references, it expresses the model better.
It depends on your domain model as well, in your business can problems, incidents exist without a category ! or they must belong to some category. If your answer is first option, your dont want to cascade delete, but update those incidents/problems with null category, if your answer is second option - you needs cascade all-delete-orphan
How your Category looks like, is it belongsTo Incident domain class,if category belongs to some domain class you can not delete it.
Ref : See here