I'm using Fluent NHibernate, and am attempting to update all the records for entity type "Files". I have eager loaded FileTypes along with it. By practice all tables have an UpdatedTime even if they are not necessary for use.
The problem I'm having is the following classic:
SqlDateTime overflow. Must be between 1/1/1753 12:00:00 AM and 12/31/9999 11:59:59 PM
This is coming from the FileType's "UpdatedTime = null" even though my update method is being called on a File.
I do not want to overwrite the null in FileType, in fact I don't want to update it at all.
It seems to me that i should be able to either elect to not include the related entities in the update via mapping, or I should be able to get it to leave that field as null instead of DateTime.min.
EDIT
Below I have provided a solution to the the datetime issue, however, it would be a superior answer to prevent the second table from updating in the first place.
The answer turned out being relatively simple after more messing around. I changed the domain to use DateTime? instead of DateTime.
While this solved the problem, It is a bit 'hacky' and I would prefer to not update the second table.
Related
Our particular situation is that we have a DateOnly field and would like to change it to DateTime field supporting also the time portion. The operation is not allowed in UI and it's also stated in the documentation. Hence, I excepted deleting the field and recreating it with the new setting would work.
However when I try to create the field with the same name the Duplicate Field Name error is thrown. I've read the column actually still exists behind in the DB.
Of course, I could create a field with a new name but it would require changing all related workflows and code customizations.
Is there a way how to overcome this issue?
Deleting and recreating an attribute with the same name but different type should work - of course with the caveat that you have to remove all dependencies before deleting the attribute and recreate them with the new attribute.
The Duplicate Field Name error seems to indicate that the field still exists - perhaps the entity needs to be published after deleting.
You may also find the XrmToolbox tool Attribute Manager helpful.
It allows you to migrate an attribute and its data to a new attribute.
I am working on a JSF project that deals with MySQL DB.
in my backbean method I did:
entityFacade.edit(entity object);
after that I wanted to make sure of the changes, I queried my database to retrieve the edited record, However, the retrieved values are the old ones. it is like entityFacade.edit(entity object); was not made.
I solved this problem by doing this
entityFacade.remove(entity object);
entityFacade.create(entity object);
But the problem is that the object has ID which is auto-increment & I want to keep the old ID.
I don't get why the edit does not change values. what are the possible causes of this problem?
Looking forward to your answers, experts.
For those who are facing the same problem, I solved it as follows:
The problem was not with the facade.edit()
it was with the queries.
Try facade.find(id) to retrieve the records from the database instead of queries. The retrieved records will show the edited data.
I know you can soft delete in Doctrine (i.e. do not delete a record but rather add a "deleted" value). There's an extension for that.
Now I wonder if there's a way to "soft update" a record. I mean not actually update the record but rather create a new record and make the old one invalid. In the same extension as soft-delete, there's a function loggable, but this one logs to a different table.
I could create a controller that, instead of updating, soft-deletes
(and thus invalidates) the old record, and then creates a new one
with the new values. But I'm unsure if this is a good practice.
Maybe I should create this action on the object itself? But I'm
unsure how to do this.
Edit
I've looked into Versionable and EntityAudit (as suggested by Tomas), but it seems these bundles do way too much. I merely want to check if a given field is different from the old one, and if not: soft-delete the old one (I'm using softDeleteable so a simple remove() will do); then create a new one with the changed values.
So ideally it would lurk in the shadows until an update is performed. Then read from the mapping configuration which fields it needs to watch, and if these fields are indeed different from what's persisted, the program should execute the remove() and persist() commands.
This extension might suit your use case:
simplethings/EntityAudit
It records any changes you want to track.
So it should be pretty easy to modify it to meed your needs.
I'm curious what the difference is between overriding a table's modifiedField method versus overriding the update method.
In our case, we are working on switching the field datatype on a table. Since we cannot just change the data type of the field, we make a second field, and copy the information from the first into the second. Eventually, we update all the UI elements (forms and reports namely) to point to the new field, and then remove the old field. To help with copying the information from one field to another, we have been overriding the update method on the table to copy the value from the first field to the second.
I know this would probably be easier to maintain using the modifiedField method, but I'm curious if there are any significant differences (performance, missed updates, etc) by using the update method instead.
The main difference is that the code in modifiedField method is executed without writing into the Database. This way you can change the value of field2, but if a user close the form without saving the record then no updates will be in the DB. While using an update method you certainly write the changes.
Ok, so I have 2 entities: Course and Industry
The industry entity is just a reference table which lists all available Industries that can be tagged to a course, to categorizing them. I put in a many to zero or one relationship (a course can choose to have an industry or not, while an industry can be tagged with many courses).
I know I've played around with the diagrams a bit, adding and removing associations in the past.
Now here is the odd part: The column mappings for Course has 2 similar columns, IndustryId and Industry_Id
I suspect it's from a past association, but thought EF would have taken care of that.
Here is the problem:
In my view that creates the course, the IndustryId is the property which needs to be populated. When I create new courses, I see the IndustryId in the database populated.
However, when I access Industry's properties through Course (Course.Industry.Description) nothing is populated. It can't seem to get the Industry entity.
I see the IndustryId populated in the db, so I tried to populate the Industry_Id column. That fixed it.
Weird enough, the property declared in the model is IndustryId, so that column is populated in the db. But when I try to get Industry entities through Course, it needs the Industry_Id, which I don't quite know where it is from.
Anyone have any ideas?
It sounds like in your updating from the database, you changed the column name on your tables from Industry_Id to IndustryId. The next time you updated from the database, EF5 (which can't determine that this is the same column, as it matches on names) dropped the mapping for Industry_Id, and added a new column called IndustryId.
However, you had already created the foreign-key mapping in your EDMX file based on the Industry_Id column - which is why you get the issue around needing it when loading related records.
In general, when using Database-First, whenever you rename a column in the database, you need to update your EF5 model and update / correct any such discrepancies.