I can see that Extended Data Types can have Array Element which seems to make it a composite type. I'll be looking into that later.
What are the relations used for? MSDN was woefully crap at explainined what it would actually be used for. Why would you want to relate a type to a specific table and why would other tables using the type care?
When I create a new 'PersonTable' table I could have a key field called personId, creating/using a new Extended Data Types called personId and adding the relation you've mentioned. Now when I add our EDT to other tables we do not have to specify either labels or relations to our PersonTable as this it's defined by the extended data type.
In a related form (e.g. PersonSkillsTable) where our personid field has been added to an existing table it will now automatically create the dropdown/grid to select a value from our persontable. We didn't need to add our persontable to the form's Data Source.
Automatic relations between tables
Automatic lookups
Automatic "Go To Main Table" menu option after right-click
Related
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.
In service now for reference, there's a field type called 'reference'. Now I need to create a multi-reference field. But I don't see any field type for it. Can we achieve the same using field type 'List'? If yes, How to achieve it in the UI and REST API?
Multi-reference means to search through multiple objects
FYI, I'm using Madrid version and Customer Service Plugin.
No, there is no such thing as multiple table reference Field. How should the system react, if you write eg. Incidents and Catalog Items in the same Field?
I would advice you to just make two Fields, each with it's own reference table.
If you really want multiple types of references to pick, you would have to create a new table, import eg. Incident and Catalog Item references into that table and create a reference Field to that table.
I was looking to a Code Road Map feature that Toad provides which shows dependencies of Objects.
Can anyone tell me on what basis the Toad Generate the Dependencies? I am assuming that there is a data dictionary view exists dba_dependencies which work at the backend for getting this relation.
So can we write a script to which we pass object name like package name, table_name amongst others that will show the dependency of the object passed by me.
In code Road Map there is an option to generate data for a table ...how does this work?
What is the algorithm behind it? If there is foreign key on the child table and the parent table is empty, how does this work? How it will populate the depending table first and then the child table.
Looking at user_depencies/ dba_dependencies view structure, querying the view with column REFERENCED_NAME equal to the object that you want to query with should provide you with a list of objects where the object you're searching for is referenced.
Second question is too broad & probably only the Toad developers know how they've implemented it. The data dictionaries provide information about the various constraints on a table. My guess would be the algorithm looks at data dictionary & has different code paths for handling constraints / master child relations. Another assumption would use of handled exceptions to ensure the data is generated cleanly.
I have three views that I've manually created in the DB.
First view is "Region", the second is "FIPS" and the last is a many-to-many between them called "Region2FIPS". These are all views, and I only need read access the data, so I'm not worried about having updateable views.
I have added each of these views to Entity Framework, and created the appropriate associations between them.
Region to Region2FIPS is a 1 to many.
FIPS to Region2FIPS is a 1 to many.
The "Region2FIPS" view contains only two columns, one called "FIPSID" the other "RegionID". These column are associated with their respective views in the relationships I defined above.
When this type of association is made on tables in the DB, Entity Framework knows that it is a many-to-many relationship and it creates a navigation property on "Region" called "FIPS" that I can use to navigate through the child collection of FIPS. It does likewise for "FIPS" to "Region".
However, when done manually, with views, it does not exhibit that behavior. Instead, my "Region" object has a collection of "Region2FIPS" objects, which each have a navigation property called "FIPS" which is of type "FIPS". And my "FIPS" object has a collection of "Region2FIPS" objects, which each have a navigation property called "Regions" of type "Region".
I assume this has something to do with the fact that I can't create foreign key references on the views, so entity framework doesn't realize the many-to-many relationship. But I thought that if I manually created the many-to-many relationship between the views it would recognize it and properly handle the navigation between the types. Is there a way for me to force it to do this?
It's possible, but the designer doesn't really help you here. You have to do the mapping manually.
One fairly easy way is to use Code First mapping. But this means your model has to be Code First to begin with. If you're writing a new model, just do that.
If you're using DB First mapping, however, you will have to do the mapping manually. Your SSDL will probably already be correct, once you define the "primary keys" of the views. You would then have to remove the "Region2FIPS" objects from the CSDL (not just from the designer!) and manually patch up the MSL.
Perhaps the easiest way to do this would be to use the designer to automatically map real DB tables (not views) with a similar schema and then replace the table names with view names in the EDMX, using the XML editor.
Entity framework returning only one value but the list size is correct
I have a table that does not have primary id and I need to get or select all the values in it.
What I see is when I do the selection with linq the number of objects is correct but it is the first row over and over.
I am simply doing something like this
List<MyValueType> valuesInDB = myDb.MyValueTypes.ToList();
Problem is I may get thousands of rows (which is correct) but the rows all have the same exact data.
I am using VS 2010 and used the wizard to create my EF object.
The problem is that entity framework is not able to work with entity without a key. So if your table doesn't specify a key, entity framework will infer its own. The key created by EF is composed of all non-nullable non-binary columns.
So if you for example have single non-nullable column in your entity which have only very small set of values (like enum) you will be able to load only single entity "per value". The reason is an inner implementation of the context and the state manager which uses Identity map pattern. When data record is retrieved from database, EF will first check an entity key and tries to find an object with the same key in its internal storage. If an object is found it will use that object instead of data record retrieved (despite of different data). If an object with the key is not found a new object is materialized and added to internal storage.
That is the purpose of Identity map - object with given key should be created only once by each context. Identity map is core pattern in ORM.
I wrote about Identity map also in this question.
I would suggest searching for the word "Warning" in your EDM's designer.cs file. It might tell you if Entity Framework is having any issues with your table.
I really can't comment much in the absence of the table design. I tried replicating your problem but wasn't able to do so. Here is what I did:
Created a table with no primary key but it had a unique key on an ID column. Entity Framework was able to infer a primary key and when I fetched the data, I not only got the correct number of rows but also the corrects data in those rows.
Created a table with no primary key and no unique key. Also there was no column called ID. Entity Framework excluded this table in the EDM that was generated. Consequently I wasn't able to query this table at all.This was displayed as a warning in the EDM designer file.
It would be better if you can share the create script for your table.