I have a many2many structure similar to GORM's example:
// User has and belongs to many languages, use `user_languages` as join table
type User struct {
gorm.Model
Languages []Language `gorm:"many2many:user_languages;"`
}
type Language struct {
gorm.Model
Name string
}
db.Model(&user).Related(&languages)
Let's say I create a user and it has two associated languages.
I fetch a user record from the database and remove one language from the user's Languages array. I then save the user with gorm:save_associations set to true.
I would expect GORM to delete the record associating the user to this language (in the association table that GORM manages). However, it is not deleted. Is this expected?
Is it possible to delete many2many association records by removing a language from the Languages list on the user record and then saving the user? If not, how should this be done in GORM?
Update
I found a solution to this question, but not sure it's the best way to do this. I store the current languages, clear all the associations, then add back the languages, then save.
languages := user.Languages
DB.Model(&user).Association("Languages").Clear()
user.Languages = languages
I was having the same problem, If you want to just remove one of the associations this worked for me
c.DB.Model(&user).Association("Roles").Delete(&role)
Also, you can do this by using "replace"
DB.Model(&user).Association("Languages").Replace(user.Languages)
I found a solution to this question, but not sure it's the best way to do this. I store the current languages, clear all the associations, then add back the languages, then save.
languages := user.Languages
DB.Model(&user).Association("Languages").Clear()
user.Languages = languages
This is something that i am using it. If this is helpful to anyone.
db.Preload("Languages").Find(&user, r.FormValues("id"))
db.Model(&user).Association("Languages").Clear()
db.Save(&user) // We are deleting all the records first
.....
.....
user.Languages = languages
db.Save(&user) // Re insert all the records
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 using golang gorm in my RestFul service, however, now I have a doubt that might be simple but I cannot find any example or specific documentation, its not clear to me.
Let's say that I have the tables users and languages, any user can have many languages and any language can have many users, in this case for theory of relational database modeling we have to create a table users_languages, and checking gorm I see that I will have to use many to many relationship.
By now, I have the structs that define the user and language tables, lets say:
type User struct {
gorm.Model
Languages []Language `gorm:"many2many:user_languages;"`
}
type Language struct {
gorm.Model
Name string
}
Then I ran the migrations and the tables User and Language were created. My question is, how should I define then the structure of the user_languages table? how the foreign keys are set there?
how should I define then the structure of the user_languages table?
You should also describe the user_languages model for many2many relations like User and Language as example
type UserLanguages struct {
gorm.Model
UserId int
LanguageId int
}
And probably you should define primary keys for User and Language models
how the foreign keys are set there?
GORM generates names of foreign keys in queries yourself, in underscore format (like user_id, language_id), for redefining it you can use special AssociationForeignKey annotation on model fields, I hope it will help!
Recently I've been requested to add on something for the administrator of a site where he can 'feature' something.
For this discussion let's say it's a 'featured article'.
So naturally we already have a database model of 'articles' and it has ~20 columns as it is so I really do not feel like bloating it anymore than it already is.
My options:
Tack on a 'featured' bool (or int) and realize that only one thing will be featured at any given time
Create a new model to hold this and any other feature-creep items that might pop up.
I take your suggestions! ;)
What do you do in this instance? I come across this every now and then and I just hate having to tack on one more column to something. This information DOES need to be persisted.
I'd probably just add a simple two-column table that's basically a key-value store. Then add a new column with values like (featured_article_id, 45) or whatever the first featured ID is.
Edit: as pointed out in the comments by rmeador, it should be noted that this is only a good solution as long as things stay relatively simple. If you need to store more complex data, consider figuring out a more flexible solution.
If only one article can be featured at a time it is a waste to add a bool column. You should go up a level and add a column for the FeaturedArticleID. Do you have a Site_Settings table?
You could use an extensible model like having a table of attributes, and then a linking table to form a many-to-many relationship between articles and attributes. This way, these sorts of features do not require the schema to be modified.
Have some kind of global_settings table with a parameter_name and parameter_value columns. Put featured article id here.
For quick-and-dirty stuff like this, I like to include some sort of Settings table:
CREATE TABLE Settings (
SettingName NVARCHAR(250) NOT NULL,
SettingValue NVARCHAR(250)
)
If you need per-user or per-customer settings, instead of global ones, you could add a column to identify it to that specific user/customer. Then, you could just add a row for "FeaturedArticle" and parse the ID from a string. It's not super optimized, but plaintext is very flexible, which sounds like exactly what you need.
I am working with a few legacy tables that have relationships, but those relationships haven't been explicitly set as primary/foreign keys. I created a .dbml file using "Linq To Sql Classes" and established the proper Case.CaseID = CaseInfo.CaseID association. My resulting class is CasesDataContext.
My Tables (One to many):
Case
------------------
CaseID (int not null)
MetaColumn1 (varchar)
MetaColumn2 (varchar)
MetaColumn3 (varchar)
...
CaseInfo
------------------
CaseInfoID (int)
CaseID (int nulls allowed)
CaseInfoMeta (varchar)
...
I'm new to LinqToSQL and am having trouble doing..
CasesDataContext db = new CasesDataContext();
var Cases = from c in db.Cases
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"
select c;
(Edit) My problem being that CaseInfo or CaseInfos
is not available as a member of Cases.
I heard from a colleague that I might try ADO.Net Entity Data Model to create my Data Context class, but haven't tried that yet and wanted to see if I'd be wasting my time or should I go another route. Any tips, links, help would be most appreciated.
Go back to the designer and check the relation is set up correctly. Here is one real life example, with BillStateMasters have "CustomerMasters1" property (customers for the state):
Ps. naming is being cleaned up ...
Update 1: You also need to make sure both tables have a primary defined. If the primary key isn't defined on the database (and can't be defined for whatever reason), make sure to define them in the designer. Open the column's properties, and set it as primary key. That said, entity tracking also won't work if you haven't a primary key for the entity, which for deletes means it silently doesn't updates the entity. So, make sure to review all entities and to have them all with a primary key (as I said, if it can't be on the db, then on the designer).
CasesDataContext db = new CasesDataContext();
var Cases = from c in db.Cases
join ci in db.CaseInfo on
ci.ID equals c.InfoID
where ci.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"
select new {CASE=c, INFO=ci};
my "join" linq is a bit rusty, but the above should get close to what you're after.
Is the association set to One to One or One to Many? If you have the association set to One to Many, then what you have is an EntitySet, not an EntityRef and you'll need to use a where clause on the dependent set to get the correct value. I suspect that you want a One to One relationship, which is not the default. Try changing it to One to One and see if you can construct the query.
Note: I'm just guessing because you haven't actually told us what the "trouble" actually is.
Your query looks correct and should return a query result set of Case objects.
So... what's the problem?
(Edit) My problem being that CaseInfo
is not available under Cases... i.e.
c.CaseInfo doesn't exist where I'm
assuming it would be if there were
explicit primary/foreign key
relationships.
What do you mean by "not available"? If you created the association in the designer as you say you did, then the query should generate SQL something along the lines of
SELECT [columns]
FROM Case INNER JOIN CaseInfo
ON Case.CaseID = CaseInfo.CaseID
WHERE CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta = 'some value'
Have you debugged your linq query to get the SQL generated yet? What does it return?
Couple of things you might want to try:
Check the properties of the association. Make sure that the Parent property was created as Public. It does this by default, but something may have changed.
Since you're not getting CaseInfo on C, try typing it the other direction to see if you get ci.Case with intellisense.
Delete and recreate the association all together.
There's something very basic going wrong if the child members are not showing up. It might be best to delete the dbml and recreate the whole thing.
If all else fails, switch to NHibernate. :)
After a few tests, I'm pretty sure the FK relationships are required in the DB regardless of whatever associations are created in Linq-to-SQL. i.e. if you don't have them explicitly set in the DB, then you will have to do a join manually.
Is this c#? I think you need == instead of = on this line:
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta = "some value"
should read
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"