My models have both id and counter attributes. The id is a UUID, and the counter is an integer which is auto-incremented by the database.
Both are unique however I rely on id as the primary key. The counter is just a human-friendly name that I sometimes display to the user.
Immediately before an object is created a listener gives it a UUID. This works fine.
When the record is saved, MySQL increments the counter field. This works fine except that the copy of the object which I have in memory does not have the counter value. I can reload the object to find out what its counter is, but that would require another database query.
Is there a way to find the value of the counter without a specific database query? For example, is it returned as part of the response from the database when a record is created?
Few things:
Use create(array $attributes) and you'll get exactly what you want. For this having right, you have to ensure that $fillable array consists all attributes' names passed to create method.
You should use Observer on model instead of listener (most likely creating method).
Personal preference using Eloquent is that you should use id for id (increment field) and forget custom settings between models because by default it is what relations expect and so on
public function secondModels()
{
return $this->hasMany(SecondModel::class);
}
is pretty much no brainer. But for having this working best way would be (also following recommendations of this guy) FirstModel::id, SecondModel::id, SecondModel::first_model_id; first_models, second_models as table names. Avoiding and/or skipping this kind of unification is lot of custom job afterward. I don't say it can't be done but it is lot of non-first-time-successful work done.
Also, if you want visitor to get something other than id field name, you can make computed field with accessor:
/**
* Get the user's counter.
*
* #return string
*/
public function getCounterAttribute(): string
{
return (string)$this->id;
}
Which you call then with $user->counter.
Also personal preference of mine is to have most possible descriptive variable names so uuid field of mine would be something like
$table->uuid('uuid4');
This is some good and easy to make practice of Eloquent use.
Saying all this let me just to say that create() and save() will return created object from database while insert() shall not do it.
Related
I have a feed table that contains id, body, created_at fields. When I send Post() on postman after Delete() method the id for the feed table auto_increments as if a record has not been deleted. I am unsure how to rectify this, I am using MySql database, nestjs and TypeORM for the backend.
feed controller.ts
#Controller("feed")
export class FeedController {
constructor(private feedService: FeedService) {}
#Post()
createNewPost(#Body() feedPost: HomeFeedDto): Observable<HomeFeedDto> {
return this.feedService.createPost(feedPost);
}
#Get()
allPosts(): Observable<HomeFeedDto[]> {
return this.feedService.getAllPosts();
}
//api delete method
#Delete(":id")
// delete home feed post by id
deleteFeedPost(#Param("id") id: number): Observable<DeleteResult> {
return this.feedService.deletePost(id);
}
}
This is just the way that auto incrementing columns work in a database. Once a record has been created that uses a particular id value it can never be used again, even if the record that owned it was deleted.
What would you expect to happen in the case where there were many records? If the current incrementing id was 1000 and then you deleted the record with id = 1 would you expect that the next time you inserted a record it would be given id = 1 again instead of id = 1001?
There are lots of practical reasons why re-using a previously issued id would be very bad for business logic especially if anyone who is a consumer of your API has a cached version of the old record.
If you really want to achieve this behavior you would have to look at writing custom functions either inside of the database or your API which check to see if any ids are missing from sequence and then manually assign your own IDs instead of letting the database do it. I would highly recommend you don't do this though as the behavior you're seeing is designed like that for a reason.
I'm very much a beginner when it comes to database relationships hence what I suspect is a basic question! I have two database tables as follows:
Projects
id
company_id
name
etc...
rfis
id
project_id (foreign key is id on the Projects table above)
Number (this is the column I need help with - more below)
question
The relationships at the Model level for these tables are as follows:
Project
public function rfi()
{
return $this->hasMany('App\Rfi');
}
RFI
public function project()
{
return $this->belongsTo('App\Project');
}
What I'm trying to achieve
In the RFI table I need a system generated number or essentially a count of RFI's. Where I'm finding the difficulty is that I need the RFI number/count to start again for each project. To clarify, please see the RFI table below which I have manually created with the the 'number' how I would like it displayed (notice it resets for each new project and the count starts from there).
Any assistance would be much appreciated!
Todd
So the number field depends on the number of project_id in the RFI table. It is exactly the number of rows with project_id plus one.
So when you want to insert a new row, you calculate number based on project_id and assign it.
RFI::create([
'project_id' => $project_id,
'number' => RFI::where('project_id', $project_id)->count() + 1,
...
]);
What I understood is that you want to set the value of the "number" field to "1" if it's a new project and "increment" if it's an existing project. And you want to automate this without checking for it every time you save a new row for "RFI" table.
What you need is a mutator. It's basically a method that you will write inside the desired Model class and there you will write your own logic for saving data. Laravel will run that function automatically every time you save something. Here you will learn more about mutators.
Use this method inside the "RFI" model class.
public function setNumberAttribute($value)
{
if(this is new project)
$this->attributes['number'] = 1;
else
$this->attributes['number']++;
}
Bonus topic: while talking about mutators, there's also another type of method called accessor. It does the same thing as mutators do, but just the opposite. Mutators get called while saving data, accessors get called while fetching data.
I have a named scope set up in my rails application that is used to locate a record either by its ID (directly from the index view) or a UUID (from an email - basically only so that users can't enter in any ID and view a record)
scope :by_uuid, lambda { |id| where('id = ? OR uuid = ?', id, id) }
This is used in the show action, so the ID comes from the url, like
services/114
services/74c083c0-8c29-012f-1c87-005056b42f8a
This works great, until you get a UUID such as 74c083c0-8c29-012f-1c87-005056b42f8a
This, rails unfortunately converts to the int value and we get services/74 AS WELL AS the record with the correct UUID
Adding a .first to the scope will not help because the order could be different for each record, so that does not work.
Is there a way to prevent rails from converting the ID like this and taking the string literally? Obviously, there will not be a record with an ID that matches that, but if it goes willy-nilly with the integer values of the string passed to it, we could get anything back.
Using the dynamic finders, such as
Service.find_by_uuid
or
Service.find_by_id
work as intended, however we need to be able to retrieve a record using the UUID OR the ID in the same method (show).
Is there a way to do something like
Service.find_by_id_or_uuid
We fixed this issue with the following change to the scope:
scope :by_uuid, lambda { |id| where('binary id = ? OR uuid = ?', id, id) }
This ensures that the id string is taken by its binary value instead of being converted into an int. However, this will ONLY WORK WITH MYSQL BASED APPS
I'm using yii active records for mysql, and i have a table where there's a field that needs to be appended with the primary key of the same table. The primary key is an auto increment field, hence i can't access the primary key before saving.
$model->append_field = "xyz".$model->id; // nothing is appending
$model->save();
$model->append_field = "xyz".$model->id; //id is now available
How do i do this?
I know that i can update right after insertion, but is there a better method?
Your record is only assigned an id after the INSERT statement is executed. There is no way to determine what that id is prior to INSERT, so you would have to execute an UPDATE with the concatenated field value after your INSERT.
You could write a stored procedure or trigger in MySQL to do this for you, so your app executes a single SQL statement to accomplish this. However, you are just moving the logic into MySQL and in the end both an INSERT and UPDATE are occurring.
Some more workarounds:
This is almost your approach ;)
$model->save();
$model->append_field = "xyz".$model->id; //id is now available
$model->save();
But you could move this functionality to a behavior with a custom afterSave() method, note that you'd have to take care about not looping the event.
Or just write a getter for it
function getFull_append_field(){
return $this->append_field.$this->id;
}
but then you can not use it in a SQL statement, unless you create the attribute there with CONCAT() or something similar.
Anyone else coming to this question might be interested in exactly how i implemented it, so here's the code :
//in the model class
class SomeModel extends CActiveRecord{
...
protected function afterSave(){
parent::afterSave();
if($this->getIsNewRecord()){
$this->append_field=$this->append_field.$this->id;
$this->updateByPk($this->id, array('append_field'=>$this->append_field));
}
}
}
One way to avoid the looping the event(as mentioned by #schmunk) was to use saveAttributes(...) inside the afterSave() method, but saveAttributes(...) checks isNewRecord, and inserts a value only if it is a new record, so that requires us to use setNewRecord(false); before calling saveAttributes(...).
I found that saveAttributes(...) actually calls updateByPk(...) so i directly used updateByPk(...) itself.
If I have a LINQ to SQL table that has a field called say Alias.
There is then a method stub called OnAliasChanging(string value);
What I want to do is to grab the value, check the database whether the value already exists and then set the value to the already entered value.
So I may be changing my alias from "griegs" to "slappy" and if slappy exists then I want to revert to the already existing value of "griegs".
So I have;
partial void OnaliasChanging(string value)
{
string prevValue = this.alias;
this.Changed = true;
}
When I check the value of prevValue it's always null.
How can I get the current value of a field?
Update
If I implement something like;
partial void OnaliasChanging(string value)
{
if (this.alias != null)
this.alias = "TEST VALUE";
}
it goes into an infinte loop which is unhealthy.
If I include a check to see whether alias already == "TEST VALUE" the infinate loop still remains as the value is always the original value.
Is there a way to do this?
The code snippets you've posted don't lend themselves to any plausible explanation of why you'd end up with an infinite loop. I'm thinking that this.alias might be a property, as opposed to a field as the character casing would imply, but would need to see more. If it is a property, then you are invoking the OnAliasChanging method before the property is ever set; therefore, trying to set it again in the same method will always cause an infinite loop. Normally the way to design this scenario is to either implement a Cancel property in your OnXyzChanging EventArgs derivative, or save the old value in the OnXyzChanging method and subsequently perform the check/rollback in the OnXyzChanged method if you can't use the first (better) option.
Fundamentally, though, what you're trying to do is not very good design in general and goes against the principles of Linq to SQL specifically. A Linq to SQL entity is supposed to be a POCO with no awareness of sibling entities or the underlying database at all. To perform a dupe-check on every property change not only requires access to the DataContext or SqlConnection, but also causes what could technically be called a side-effect (opening up a new database connection and/or silently discarding the property change). This kind of design just screams for mysterious crashes down the road.
In fact, your particular scenario is one of the main reasons why the DataContext class was made extensible in the first place. This type of operation belongs in there. Let's say that the entity here is called User with table Users.
partial class MyDataContext
{
public bool ChangeAlias(Guid userID, string newAlias)
{
User userToChange = Users.FirstOrDefault(u => u.ID == userID);
if ((userToChange == null) || Users.Any(u => u.Alias == newAlias))
{
return false;
}
userToChange.Alias = newAlias;
// Optional - remove if consumer will make additional changes
SubmitChanges();
return true;
}
}
This encapsulates the operation you want to perform, but doesn't prevent consumers from changing the Alias property directly. If you can live with this, I would stop right there - you should still have a UNIQUE constraint in your database itself, so this method can simply be documented and used as a safe way to attempt a name-change without risking a constraint violation later on (although there is always some risk - you can still have a race condition unless you put this all into a transaction or stored procedure).
If you absolutely must limit access to the underlying property, one way to do this is to hide the original property and make a read-only wrapper. In the Linq designer, click on the Alias property, and on the property sheet, change the Access to Internal and the Name to AliasInternal (but don't touch the Source!). Finally, create a partial class for the entity (I would do this in the same file as the MyDataContext partial class) and write a read-only wrapper for the property:
partial class User
{
public string Alias
{
get { return AliasInternal; }
}
}
You'll also have to update the Alias references in our ChangeAlias method to AliasInternal.
Be aware that this may break queries that try to filter/group on the new Alias wrapper (I believe Linq will complain that it can't find a SQL mapping). The property itself will work fine as an accessor, but if you need to perform lookups on the Alias then you will likely need another GetUserByAlias helper method in MyDataContext, one which can perform the "real" query on AliasInternal.
Things start to get a little dicey when you decide you want to mess with the data-access logic of Linq in addition to the domain logic, which is why I recommend above that you just leave the Alias property alone and document its usage appropriately. Linq is designed around optimistic concurrency; typically when you need to enforce a UNIQUE constraint in your application, you wait until the changes are actually saved and then handle the constraint violation if it happens. If you want to do it immediately your task becomes harder, which is the reason for this verbosity and general kludginess.
One more time - I'm recommending against the additional step of creating the read-only wrapper; I've put up some code anyway in case your spec requires it for some reason.
Is it getting hung up because OnaliasChanging is firing during initialization, so your backing field (alias) never gets initialized so it is always null?
Without more context, that's what it sounds like to me.