i got two projects. In the first one are entities, which changes i save with javes. then i got a second project, where i want to test if the first project saves the changes correctly. but the second one has no dependency to the entities of the first one. is ist possible in the second project to query for changes of the entities of the first one ?
No, it's not possible since JaVers needs to know how to deserialize object snapshots. Snapshots doesn't capture property types. Original classes are used as the 'property source' (list of current properties with their types).
Related
I'm using VS2013 in a MVC 5 app. Created EF6 model using the database first approach which yielded the model as expected. Subsequently I will make changes in the database objects (tables, views, stored procs). When I go into the model to update it, the visible model will get updated. Looking at the Model Browser, I have to manually clean up the artifacts that no longer exist. Am I missing something in my procedure?
When you right click and update the model from the database, it will typically add new pieces automatically, but in my experience it doesn't automatically remove pieces that are no longer there, so you'll need to watch for those and delete them manually.
On the plus side, if you had any special customizations around a field (e.g. enum types), and the field gets renamed, this gives you a chance to compare the two configurations and make sure they line up before you delete the old field from your model.
I added the add on for time stamp on spring roo to a particular entity. The time stamp works fine, that is to say, when listing all entries in an entity the date created and updated fields are visible. The issue is, when I view the entries web page I can also see the time stamp of other entries to the left hand side, how do you remove this, I have looked into the show.jspx files but it's quite trivail
It looks like project/suffix are entities themselves.
By default spring roo use application conversion service to convert these objects to strings.
In your project, look for ApplicationConversionServiceFactoryBean, and push in the methods you need to change.
I have an entity with several fields, but on one view i want to only edit one of the fields. for example... I have a user entity, user has, id, name, address, username, pwd, and so on. on one of the views i want to be able to change the pwd(and only the pwd). so the view only knows of the id and sends the pwd. I want to update my entity without loading the rest of the fields(there are many many more) and changing the one pwd field and then saving them ALL back to the database. has anyone tried this. or know where i can look. all help is greatly appreciated.
Thx in advance.
PS
i should have given more detail. im using hibernate, roo is creating my entities. I agree that each view should have its own entity, problem is, im only building controllers, everything was done before. we were finders from the service layer, but we wanted to use some other finders, they seemed to not be accessible through the service layer, the decision was made to blow away the service layer and just interact with the entities directly (through the finders), the UserService.update(user) is no longer an option. i have recently found a User.persist() and a User.merge(), does the merge update all the fields on the object or only the ones that are not null, or if i want one to now be null how would it know the difference?
Which technologies except Spring are you using?
First of all have separate DTOs for every view, stripped only to what's needed. One DTO for id+password, another for address data, etc. Remember that DTOs can inherit from each other, so you can avoid duplication. And never pass business/ORM entities directly to view. It is too risky, leaks in some frameworks might allow users to modify fields which you haven't intended.
After the DTO comes back from the view (most web frameworks work like this) simply load the whole entity and fill only the fields that are present in the DTO.
But it seems like it's the persistence that is troubling you. Assuming you are using Hibernate, you can take advantage of dynamic-update setting:
dynamic-update (optional - defaults to false): specifies that UPDATE SQL should be generated at runtime and can contain only those columns whose values have changed.
In this case you are still loading the whole entity into memory, but Hibernate will generate as small UPDATE as possible, including only modified (dirty) fields.
Another approach is to have separate entities for each use-case/view. So you'll have an entity with only id and password, entity with only address data, etc. All of them are mapped to the same table, but to different subset of columns. This easily becomes a mess and should be treated as a last resort.
See the hibernate reference here
For persist()
persist() makes a transient instance persistent. However, it does not guarantee that the
identifier value will be assigned to the persistent instance immediately, the assignment
might happen at flush time. persist() also guarantees that it will not execute an INSERT
statement if it is called outside of transaction boundaries. This is useful in long-running
conversations with an extended Session/persistence context.
For merge
if there is a persistent instance with the same identifier currently associated with the session, copy the state of the given object onto the persistent instance
if there is no persistent instance currently associated with the session, try to load it from the database, or create a new persistent instance
the persistent instance is returned
the given instance does not become associated with the session, it remains detached
persist() and merge() has nothing to do with the fact that the columns are modified or not .Use dynamic-update as #Tomasz Nurkiewicz has suggested for saving only the modified columns .Use dynamic-insert for inserting not null columns .
Some JPA providers such as EclipseLink support fetch groups. So you can load a partial instance and update it.
See,
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Examples/JPA/AttributeGroup
I have created a web site using mvc 3 and Ef code first , now after publishing the site and it's DB I have found out that I need to add a new columns to one of my DB table,
(the DB already has a lot of data in it )
should I add the columns direct to the DB or should I add to the class?
(just a simple string with get and set)
And how can I do it without losing my data in the DB ?
thanks
Adding the columns to the class should be enough. Evidence you can find here.
Here is the full list of changes that migrations can take care of automatically:
Adding a property or class
Nullable columns will be assigned a value of null for any existing rows of data
Non-Nullable columns will be assigned the CLR default for the given data type for any existing rows of data
Renaming a property or class
See ‘Renaming Properties & Classes’ for the additional steps required here
Renaming an underlying column/table without renaming the property/class
(Using data annotations or the fluent API)
Migrations can automatically detect these renames without additional input
Removing a property
See ‘Automatic Migrations with Data Loss’ section for more information
I suggest you to add the columns direct to the DB and to the class, and test it on the local machine.
I've made a custom entity that will work as an data modification audit (any entity modified will trigger creating an instance of this entity). So far I have the plugin working fine (tracking old and new versions of properties changed).
I'd like to also keep track of what entity this is related to. At first I added a N:1 from DataHistory to Task (eg.) and I can indeed link back to the original task (via a "new_tasksid" attribute I added to DataHistory).
The problem is every entity I want to log will need a separate attribute id (and an additional entry in the form!)
Looking at how phone, task, etc utilize a "regardingobjectid", this is what I should do. Unfortunately, when I try to add a "dataobjectid" and map it to eg Task and PhoneCall, it complains (on the second save), that the reference needs to be unique. How does the CRM get around this and can I emulate it?
You could create your generic "dataobjectid" field, but make it a text field and store the guid of the object there. You would lose the native grids for looking at the audit records, and you wouldn't be able to join these entities through advanced find, fetch or query expressions, but if that's not important, then you can whip up an ASPX page that displays the audit logs for that record in whatever format you choose and avoid making new relationships for every entity you want to audit.
CRM has a special lookup type that can lookup to many entity types. That functionality isn't available to us customizers, unfortunately. Your best bet is to add each relationship that could be regarding and hide the lookups that aren't in use for this particular entity.