I've checked google, but I haven't found a way to preserve data while changing a foreign key on a table.
I have two tables, User Events and User Sports
Table User Events
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| date | date | YES | | NULL | |
| description | text | YES | | NULL | |
| user_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| sport_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| created_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
| updated_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | MUL | NULL | |
+--------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Table User Sports
+------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(191) | NO | | NULL | |
| default_sport_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | UNI | NULL | |
| user_id | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| created_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
| updated_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
+------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Before creating User Sports table, in table User Events I had foreign sport_id from Sports table.
Now, when I want to change that column to be foreign key from Sports to User Sports table I'm getting this message on php artisan migrate:
SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1452 Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails
The migration works if I drop the column sport_id from User Events but I don't want data loss.
Here is my migration:
public function up()
{
Schema::table('user_events', function (Blueprint $table) {
$table->dropForeign('event_sport_id');
});
Schema::table('user_events', function (Blueprint $table) {
$table->foreign('sport_id')
->references('default_sport_id')
->on('user_sports')
->onDelete('set null');
});
}
Can someone point me in the right direction?
Thanks
You must pass an array not a string to the method dropForeign: $table->dropForeign(['event_sport_id']);
Related
In my Laravel 8.x project I have this table structure:
plays
+--------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
sceneries
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
play_scenery
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| play_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| scenery_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | | NULL | |
In my migration file I want to add foreign keys in this way:
Schema::table('play_scenery', function (Blueprint $table) {
$table->foreign('play_id')
->references('id')->on('plays')
->onUpdate('cascade')
->onDelete('cascade');
$table->foreign('scenery_id')
->references('id')->on('scenerys')
->onUpdate('cascade')
->onDelete('cascade');
});
And it fails with this message:
SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 1215 Cannot add foreign key
constraint (SQL: alter table `play_scenery` add constraint `play_scenery_scenery_id_foreign` foreign key (`scenery_id`)
references `scenerys` (`id`) on delete cascade on update cascade)
I checked this but not helped any of these answers.
Any idea what do I wrong?
You have a typo. scenerys should be sceneries to match the table name being referenced.
$table->foreign('scenery_id')
->references('id')
->on('sceneries')
->onUpdate('cascade')
->onDelete('cascade');
});
I have 3 tables with schema like below
countries (rows: 250)
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| code | varchar(255) | NO | UNI | | |country code
| phone_code | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| region | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| subregion | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| created_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| updated_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
states (rows: 4866)
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| country_code| varchar(255) | NO | MUL | | | this is country code
| state_code | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| lat | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| lon | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| created_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| updated_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
+-------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
cities (rows: 146068)
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | | |
| lat | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| lng | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| population | varchar(255) | YES | | | |
| state_code | varchar(255) | NO | | | |state code not unique
| created_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| updated_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | | | |
+------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
I am using quickadminpanel to generate these CRUD but the main issue is i imported these from a csv files
git link for csv and csvimport trait like https://pastebin.com/G9z8Rjf1
is there any way i can build relationship between these three tables using
country:code and state:country_code relationship and state:state_code and city:state_code
relationship because i cannot add states (rows: 4866) and cities (rows: 146068) manually
so how can i form relationship using models or any better way or any better trait for making relationship?
Just Change The Primary Keys of each table to code,state_code,city_code Respectively
NB:change multiple to unique the state_code in states table and city_code in cities table
And In your Models change The Relationship like
/* return $this->hasMany(Model::class, 'foreign_key', 'local_key');*
return $this->hasMany(State::class, 'country_code', 'code');
And
/// return $this->belongsTo(Model::class, 'foreign_key', 'owner_key');///
return $this->belongsTo(Country::class, 'code', 'country_code');
then You can access all data like normal..
sqoop import
--connect jdbc:mysql://localhost/classicmodels
--username root --password cloudera
--query ' select c.customernumber, c.customername, o.orderdate, o.ordernumber from customers AS c JOIN orders As o ON c.customernumber = o.customernumber WHERE $CONDITIONS '
--boundary-query 'select min(customernumber), max(customernumber) from customers '
--target-dir /data/info/customerdata/join
--split-by customernumber ;
mysql> describe customers ;
+------------------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| customerNumber | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| customerName | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| contactLastName | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| contactFirstName | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| phone | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| addressLine1 | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| addressLine2 | varchar(50) | YES | | NULL | |
| city | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| state | varchar(50) | YES | | NULL | |
| postalCode | varchar(15) | YES | | NULL | |
| country | varchar(50) | NO | | NULL | |
| salesRepEmployeeNumber | int(11) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| creditLimit | decimal(10,2) | YES | | NULL | |
+------------------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
mysql> describe orders ;
+----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| orderNumber | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| orderDate | date | NO | | NULL | |
| requiredDate | date | NO | | NULL | |
| shippedDate | date | YES | | NULL | |
| status | varchar(15) | NO | | NULL | |
| comments | text | YES | | NULL | |
| customerNumber | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+----------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
Try using tablename.column name syntax for the sql in your query's where clause.
sqoop import
--connect jdbc:mysql://localhost/classicmodels
--username root --password cloudera
--query 'select customers.customernumber, customers.customername,
orders.orderdate, orders.ordernumber FROM customers, orders WHERE
customers.customernumber = orders.customernumber AND $CONDITIONS'
--boundary-query 'select min(customernumber), max(customernumber) from customers'
--target-dir /data/info/customerdata/join
--split-by customers.customernumber ;
For --boundary-query, make sure customernumber should be numeric columns and should not be null.
I have model Product, it has 2 types: Lamps and Bulbs. A lamp have set of attributes that differs from a bulb, so I have 2 another models Lamp and Bulb which represent set of attributes. What type of relation from Product to attribute model should I implement in this situation?
I've been trying one-to-one relation, but in my situation this second "one" differs from product's type.
I've been thinking of EAV pattern, but I don't want tons of joins in my architecture right now because I don't need more than these two types of item.
What would you suggest?
UPD1: here are the tables (simplified):
mysql> show columns from products;
+-------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(127) | NO | | NULL | |
| price | double | NO | | NULL | |
| old_price | double | NO | | NULL | |
| category_id | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
+-------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> show columns from lamps;
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| product_id | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| width | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| height | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| length | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| weight | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
7 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> show columns from bulbs;
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| product_id | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| voltage | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| power | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| base | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
| type | int(11) | NO | | NULL | |
+------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
6 rows in set (0.00 sec)
UPD2: I understand that I can use two foreign keys in products table and set up only one of them for each record, but is there some more elegant scheme for this situation?
I'm working on a rather complex Users system that requires the ability to grant access privileges to either individuals or entire groups. For example, you could grant Jane Doe access to moderate the Message Board, or all users of the Communications Group to send emails, moderate the message board, and post events (all users assigned to the group are granted access to those privileges when added).
Rather than strictly track individual privileges for each user, I want to grant access to a feature first based on whether or not the user belongs to a group containing that privilege. If they don't, I then want to check to see if they are granted individual access (privilege_user pivot table).
Basically, I want something like this:
// 1 = Message Board Moderator
// See if any of the user's groups contain this privilege -
$hasAccess = Auth::user()->groups->privileges->contains(1);
Here is my table structure:
Users
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| username | varchar(80) | NO | | NULL | |
| email | varchar(120) | NO | | NULL | |
| first_name | varchar(20) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| last_name | varchar(45) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| password | varchar(140) | NO | | NULL | |
| active | tinyint(1) | NO | | NULL | |
| remember_token | varchar(100) | NO | | NULL | |
| last_login | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
| last_login_ip | varchar(45) | YES | | NULL | |
| updated_at | timestamp | NO | | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | |
| created_at | timestamp | NO | | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | |
| deleted_at | timestamp | YES | | NULL | |
+----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
Groups (table: user_groups)
+-------------+------------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------+------------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
| slug | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
| description | text | NO | | NULL | |
| created_at | timestamp | NO | | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | |
| updated_at | timestamp | NO | | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | |
+-------------+------------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
User Groups Pivot (table: user_user_group)
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| user_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| user_group_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
Privileges (table: privleges)
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| name | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
| slug | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | |
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
Privileges User Group Pivot (table: privilege_user_group)
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| privilege_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| user_group_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
+---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
Was disappointed that nobody chimed in here on SO but fortunately I was able to find some great help at Laracasts.com.
I went with Zizaco/entrust, which does exactly what I was describing. The only part lacking is answering the question "does this User have a Permission" without the user being assigned to a Group, but that is easy to accomplish with Eloquent. What entrust does do is answer the question "Does this User have access to this Permission through a Group?" And that's what I was after.