Curious if I constructed and tracked this m2m relationship correctly. Seems strange that every object in those arrays are named "user": {...} or "pip": {...}
Seems like these both should work
Update with screenshots:
Users table relationships:
Pips table relationships:
There's currently no automatic way to "hide" the join table from the GraphQL query and response. You need to traverse through the join table to get back the results you want from both directions so you can't avoid it using the default generated API.
It is possible to extend the GraphQL API using SQL Views if you want to try and "flatten" things from the perspective of people consuming this data.
Alternatively, I'd recommend calling the relationship something different to make it obvious that you're navigating through a join table. I'd recommend actually calling the relationship user_pips instead of pips as it makes it more clear what you're actually retrieving.
Related
Im trying to learn GraphQL with Laravel & Lighthouse and have a question Im hoping someone can help me with. I have the following five database tables which are also defined in my Laravel models:
users
books
user_books
book_series
book_copies
I'd like to create a GraphQL endpoint that allows me to get back an array of users and the books they own, where I can pull data from multiple tables into one subfield called "books" like so:
query {
users {
name
books {
title
issue_number
condition
user_notes
}
}
}
To accomplish this in SQL is easy using joins like this:
$users = User::all();
foreach ($users as $user) {
$user['books'] = DB::select('SELECT
book_series.title,
book.issue_number
book_copies.condition,
user_books.notes as user_notes
FROM user_books
JOIN book_copies ON user_books.book_copy_id = book_copies.id
JOIN books ON book_copies.book_id = books.id
JOIN book_series ON books.series_id = book_series.id
WHERE user_books.user_id = ?',[$user['id']])->get();
}
How would I model this in my GraphQL schema file when the object type for "books" is a mashup of properties from four other object types (Book, UserBook, BookCopy, and BookSeries)?
Edit: I was able to get all the data I need by doing a query that looks like this:
users {
name
userBooks {
user_notes
bookCopy {
condition
book {
issue_number
series {
title
}
}
}
}
}
However, as you can see, the data is separated into multiple child objects and is not as ideal as getting it all in one flat "books" object. If anyone knows how I might accomplish getting all the data back in one flat object, Id love to know.
I also noticed that the field names for the relationships need to match up exactly with my controller method names within each model, which are camelCase as per Laravel naming conventions. Except for my other fields are matching the database column names which are lower_underscore. This is a slight nitpick.
Ok, after you edited your question, I will write the answer here, to answer your new questions.
However, as you can see, the data is separated into multiple child objects and is not as ideal as getting it all in one flat "books" object. If anyone knows how I might accomplish getting all the data back in one flat object, Id love to know.
The thing is, that this kind of fetching data is a central idea of GraphQL. You have some types, and these types may have some relations to each other. So you are able to fetch any relations of object, in any depth, even circular.
Lighthouse gives you out of the box support to eloquent relations with batch loading, avoiding the N+1 performance problem.
You also have to keep in mind - every field (literally, EVERY field) in your GraphQL definition is resolved on server. So there is a resolve function for each of the fields. So you are free to write your own resolver for particular fields.
You actually can define a type in your GraphQL, that fits your initial expectation. Then you can define a root Query field e.g. fetchUsers, and create you custom field resolver. You can read in the docs, how it works and how to implement this: https://lighthouse-php.com/5.2/the-basics/fields.html#hello-world
In this field resolver you are able to make your own data fetching, even without using any Laravel/Eloquent API. One thing you have to take care of - return a correct data type with the same structure as your return type in GraphQL for this field.
So to sum up - you have the option to do this. But in my opinion, you have to write more own code, cover it with tests on you own, which turns out in more work for you. I think it is simpler to use build-in directives, like #find, #paginate, #all in combination with relations-directives, which all covered with tests, and don't care about implementation.
I also noticed that the field names for the relationships need to match up exactly with my controller method names within each model, which are camelCase as per Laravel naming conventions.
You probably means methods within Model class, not controller.
Lighthouse provides a #rename directive, which you can use to define different name in GraphQL for your attributes. For the relation directives you can pass an relation parameter, which will be used to fetch the data. so for your example you can use something like this:
type User {
#...
user_books: [Book!]! #hasMany(relation: "userBooks")
}
But in our project we decided to use snak_case also for relations, to keep GraphQL clean with consistent naming convention and less effort
I have a Laravel 8 application and am wondering how to solve the problem of how to solve a typical polymorphic issue. I have an Employee model. That Employee can be an ExecutiveEmployee or EntryLevelEmployee. There will be methods an ExecutiveEmployee has that an EntryLevelEmployee doesn't have and the inverse is also true.
Using Laravel 8, is it right to create a base Employee model (without a corresponding table?) and then create two models named ExecutiveEmployee and EntryLevelEmployee that inherit from Employee? This would also imply that both employee types will have two different database tables, even though there will be a lot of overlapping data.
Does it make sense to just have one Employee model and create a migration that has the employee type listed in the model? I am assuming that it's ok if an EntryLevelEmployee has some database attributes which are relevant to it that may or may not be relevant to an ExecutiveEmployee type here, or is that an incorrect assumption?
What's the correct way to model this in Laravel 8? I prefer to keep everything in one table because of how similar the models are. I do have to keep in mind that there will be data that one has that the other doesn't. There will be different accessor methods as well.
Is it possible to have everything in one employees table while utilizing multiple models? Meaning, if I create two models named ExecutiveEmployee and EntryLevelEmployee they would both query the underlying table employees?
UPDATE 1
The more I research, the more I think polymorphism is the incorrect approach here and what I might need is Single-Table Inheritance. This package seems to bring the capability to Eloquent. Would there be a good reason to not use this?
I would use polymorphic relationships in this case, because you are more flexible and have less coupling.
Using the Single Table Inheritance (STI), you can add type specific columns in the employees table and make them nullable. But think about adding/removing types in the future.
executive_employees
id - integer
executive_specific - string
entry_level_employees
id - integer
entry_level_specific - string
employees
id - integer
name - string
email - string
employable_id - integer
employable_type - string
As for the STI the same would be
employees
id - integer
name - string
email - string
type - string
executive_specific - nullable string
entry_level_specific - nullable string
So STI would be suitable when you don't have type specific columns. But you want to add specific behavior in your code. For example a User type (Admin, Author).
Even so, it's a matter of preferences.
It really depends on the state and behavior of your employee object.
Below are few points I will consider to make a decision
If your objects' states/properties are different then definitely you will create different models as your data will be stored in different tables.
If most states/properties are same and some are different, you can
consider storing all in one table/model and for the difference in
behavior create separate table like Ron Van Der Heijden has
suggested and you can consider query scope with that to make
transaction with database.
And another view will be
How many JOINs you will create if you will create different tables,
will that impact the performance and other stuffs, will it make your
code complex?
Can you make simpler relations and handle stuffs independently?
When you are making an API, will your
code make the api overworking? or you need to create too many request
for any operation?
These stuffs will decide how you will make a decision.
Update 1:
Another point I would like to add about the package you are thinking to use, consider using a parent key in table and you can define relationships in a single model.I do not think you need to use a package, you can define it yourself, I guess.
I don't understand why you don't create a simple one-to-many relation. Based on the information you provided, the polymorphic relation looks unnecessary. I think the right way is to create employee_roles table and relations. Then you can give different permissions to different employee types. There are several ways to do that. You can create a middleware to create route restrictions. You can check the role before executing a function in the controller, and run only if the employee has permission. You can use if-else in blade not to render the parts that can't be used by auth user etc.
If you have different “types” of employees, and each employee type should have different logic then yeah, that sounds like a polymorphic relationship.
I am working on a Symfony project with a new team, and they decide to stop using Doctrine relations the most they can because of performances issues.
For instance I have to stock the id of my "relation" instead of using a ManyToOne relation.
But I am wondering if it is a real problem?
The thing is, it changes the way of coding to retrieve information and so on.
The performance issue most likely comes from the fact that queries are not optimised.
If you let Doctrine (Symfony component that handle the queries) do the queries itself (by using findBy(), findAll(), findOneBy(), etc), it will first fetch what you asked, then do more query as it will require data from other tables.
Lets take the most common example, a library.
Entities
Book
Author
Shelf
Relations
One Book have one Author, but one Author can have many Books (Book <= ManyToOne => Author)
One Book is stored in one Shelf (Book <= OneToOne => Sheilf)
Now if you query a Book, Doctrine will also fetch Shelf as it's a OneToOne relation.
But it won't fetch Author. In you object, you will only have access to book.author.id as this information is in the Book itself.
Thus, if in your Twig view, you do something like {{ book.author.name }}, as the information wasn't fetched in the initial query, Doctrine will add an extra query to fetch data about the author of the book.
Thus, to prevent this, you have to customize your query so it get the required data in one go, like this:
public function getBookFullData(Book $book) {
$qb=$this->createQueryBuilder('book');
$qb->addSelect('shelf')
->addSelect('author')
->join('book.shelf', 'shelf')
->join('book.author', 'author');
return $qb->getQuery()->getResult();
}
With this custom query, you can get all the data of one book in one go, thus, Doctrine won't have to do an extra query.
So, while the example is rather simple, I'm sure you can understand that in big projects, letting free rein to Doctrine will just increase the number of extra query.
One of my project, before optimisation, reached 1500 queries per page loading...
On the other hand, it's not good to ignore relations in a database.
In fact, a database is faster with foreign keys and indexes than without.
If you want your app to be as fast as possible, you have to use relations to optimise your database query speed, and optimise Doctrine queries to avoid a foul number of extra queries.
Last, I will say that order matter.
Using ORDER BY to fetch parent before child will also greatly reduce the number of query Doctrine might do on it's own.
[SIDE NOTE]
You can also change the fetch method on your entity annotation to "optimise" Doctrine pre-made queries.
fetch="EXTRA_LAZY
fetch="LAZY
fetch="EAGER
But it's not smart, and often don't really provide what we really need.
Thus, custom queries is the best choice.
We run two websites, A and B. Each website has its own table, _a_ and _b_ which have exactly the same structure. Yes, I know it's silly, we'll be rewriting them over the course of this year and next.
Using Laravel I need to create a model that will hold both tables content. I don't need any kind of UPDATE or INSERT functionality, I just need to SELECT and use with to access other model information.
Is this possible with Laravel 4.1? I can individually model each table, but that would make it difficult in the future.
I was able to fix this by making using the Repository pattern and merging the results of each model into the get and all functions.
Not sure if this is called a lookup table... Here's a screenshot of the schema: http://apoads.com/db-schema.png
What I want to do is join the Ad and MilBase table where the MilBase.BaseID is a given value. In the result, I'd like to be able to access the data like so: ad.MilBase.BaseName, etc...
I just can't seem to wrap my mind around this right now... ;/
Your problem is that your schema has the semantics of a many-to-many relationship between Ad and MilBase and as such the really desired way you would be wanting to do this in LINQ would be ad.Milbases which would then hold a Collection of Milbases.
The problem is not made any better by the fact that LINQ To SQL does not support many-to-many relationships directly, and in reality (assuming that your lookup table only defines a one-to-one or one-to-many relationship) you'd have to do something like
ad.Adbases.Single().MilBase
Of course assuming there will always be one - if that's not the case, then you've got some more complicated things ahead of you.
Of course a join is also always possible too - either way - if this is not the information you were looking for, could you clarify the relationship between Ad and Milbase? (many-to-many, etc?). Also - if this is not a many-to-many and you are able to do so, I would really change this to be a foreign key in either Milbase or the Ad table.
EDIT: In response to your comment,
You could do something like
var query = from a in db.ad
select new {
a.property1,
a.property2,
...
Milbases = a.Adbases.Select(s => s.Milbase)
};
Obviously that code won't compile, but it should give you a rough idea - also I'm certain it can be done in better ways, but something like that should work.