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
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.
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.
I have models:
class Reference(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
class Search(models.Model):
reference = models.ForeignKey(Reference)
update_time = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
I have an instance of Reference and i need to get all last searches for the reference. Now i am doing it in this way:
record = Search.objects.filter(reference=reference)\
.aggregate(max_date=Max('update_time'))
if record:
update_time = record['max_date']
searches = reference.search_set.filter(update_time=self.update_time)
It is not a big deal to use 2 queries except the one but what if i need to get last searches for each reference on a page? I would have got 2x(count of references) queries and it would not be good.
I was trying to use this solution https://stackoverflow.com/a/9838438/293962 but it didn't work with filter by reference
You probably want to use the latest method.
From the docs, "Returns the latest object in the table, by date, using the field_name provided as the date field."
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/ref/models/querysets/#latest
so your query would be
Search.objects.filter(reference=reference).latest('update_time')
I implemented a snippet from someone in gist but I don't remember the user neither have the link.
A bit of context:
I have a model named Medicion that contains the register of mensuration of a machine, machines are created in a model instance of Equipo, Medicion instances have besides of a Foreign key to Equipo, a foreign key to Odometro, this model serves as a kind of clock or metre, that's why when I want to retrieve data (measurements aka instances of Medicion model) for a certain machine, I need to indicate the clock as well, otherwise it would retrieve me a lot of messy and unreadable data.
Here is my implementation:
First I retrieve the last dates:
ult_fechas_reg = Medicion.objects.values('odometro').annotate(max_fecha=Max('fecha')).order_by()
Then I instance an Q object:
mega_statement = Q() # This works as 'AND' Sql Statement
Then looping in every date retrieved in the queryset(annotation) and establishing the Q statement:
for r in ult_fechas_reg:
mega_statement |= (Q(odometro__exact=r['odometro']) & Q(fecha=r['max_fecha']))
Finally passed this mega statement to the queryset that pursues to retrieve the last record of a model filtered by two fields:
resultados = Medicion.objects.filter(mega_query).filter(
equipo=equipo,
odometro__in=lista_odometros).order_by('odometro', 'fecha') # lista_odometros is a python list containing pks of another model, don't worry about it.
I have been struggling with an issue for a couple of days. I am sharing a Content Provider with two different apps (app A and app B). All the stuff regarding DB creation and Content Provider management is done by app A. App B just accesses it using the corresponding Authorities and a Content Provider Client.
ContentProviderClient myCPClient = this.miContext.getContentResolver().acquireContentProviderClient(this.miUri);
The problem comes up when trying to query the database in a more complex way, i.e. using some key words like GROUP BY, HAVING, etc. I need to get unique references according to one specific column (I want to use GROUP BY), and I have found out that there is no rawQuery() method for a ContentProviderClient, but a simplified query() method (compared to the one available in the class SQLiteDatabase, which allows to formulate proper MySQL commands).
I have checked this answer, but since my ContentProvider is accessed from a different app, I do not have any class like MyContentProvider.
To sum up, is there any way to make a proper query (like rawQuery()) to a ContentProvider which was generated by a different app?
I have finally got to a solution which is rather simple and sensible. I got a very good explanation about Content Providers and Content Resolvers. The latter is used to access the former, which means that they can not control what is in the provider, but get data from them. This means that you can not make a Content Provider Client to use a rawQuery() if it is not implemented (override) in the query() method of the corresponding ContentProvider.
To work around my problem, I have used a flag in my provider client and modify my content provider to read it so I can make use of GROUP BY. I just wanted to get unique references from the database according to a particular column.
Here it is the solution, which is not a very clean one, but it works quite well.
For the ContentProviderClient,
ContentProviderClient myCPClient = this.miContext.getContentResolver().acquireContentProviderClient(this.miUri);
//I declare some variables for the query
//'selection' will get all the rows whose "_id" is greater than 0, i.e. all the rows
String selection = BaseDatosParam.Tabla._ID + ">?";
String[] selectionArgs = {"0"};
//'groupBy' is not formatted in any particular way. I just need it to contain the pattern "GROUP BY"
String groupBy = "GROUP BY" + BaseDatosParam.Tabla.REF;
//the last field of the query corresponds to 'sortOrder', but I
Cursor c = myCPClient.query(Uri.parse(miUri.toString()),
projection, selection, selectionArgs, groupBy);
In the ContentProvider,
public Cursor query(Uri uri, String[] projection, String selection, String[] selectionArgs, String sortOrder)
{
String where = selection;
String groupBy = null;
SQLiteDatabase db = this.miBDManager.getWritableDatabase();
//We just check out whether 'sortOrder' includes the pattern "GROUP BY", otherwise that field will remain null
Pattern myPat = Pattern.compile("GROUP BY");
Matcher myMat = myPat.matcher(sortOrder);
if (myMat.find())
groupBy = myMat.replaceFirst("");
Cursor c = db.query(BaseDatosParam.Tabla.NOMBRE_TABLA, projection, where, selectionArgs, groupBy, null, null);
c.setNotificationUri(this.getContext().getContentResolver(), uri);
return c;
}
Regards,
I'm a bit confused in regards to how EF's dbContext works.
If I do something like _context.Persons.Add(_person) (assuming person is a valid entity), if I then (before calling _context.SaveChanges()) query Persons, will the person I just added be included in the results?
For example:
Person _person = new Person() {Firstname = "Bill", Lastname = "Snerdly"};
_context.Persons.Add(_person);
var _personList = _context.Persons.Where(p => p.Lastname.StartsWith("Sne"));
Whenever I try this, it seems as though the context loses track of the fact that I've added this new person to the context.
What confuses me is that if I edit an existing person and attach the person and set the state to modified, querying the context seems to keep track of the changes that were made and returns them in the results. For example:
//Assuming that Person 5 exists with the name William Snerdly
Person _person = new Person() {Id = 5, Firstname = "Bill", Lastname = "Snerdly"};
_context.Persons.Attach(_person);
_context.Entry(_person).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
var _personList = _context.Persons.Where(p => p.Lastname.StartsWith("Sne"));
In this case, it seems like the person with the id of 5 will show up in the list with the name Bill instead of William. IOW, the context queried the data but retained the changes while in the first scenario, the context queried the data but ignored any added items. It just seems a bit inconsistant.
Am I understanding this correctly or am I missing something?
Thanks for your help with this.
No, as it does not yet exist in the database. It will, however, be accessible through the ObjectStateManager of the ObjectContext, or alternatively, if you're using the DbContext/DbSet wrappers, through the .Local property of the DbSet.
In the case of the edit, you're seeing the ORM's first level cache at work. The query is executed against the database (and so compares against the values in there - your example would get even weirder if you modified the Lastname in the context, but still get the result from the query looking for the unmodified Lastname), but when its results are processed, first the ID of the returned entity is checked, and since the entity with that ID is already present in the context, you get that instance back. This is the default "AppendOnly" mode of operation.
I don't know what you want to do, but I had to understand all that when I wanted to validate my changes according to rules that needed to use the values of both loaded and unread entities. I ended up starting a transaction, saving the changes with the "None" options, doing my validation queries againt the database (which then contained the "merged" view of the data), and the rolling back the transaction if the data was invalid, or accepting the changes and committing the transaction otherwise.