I have a many-to-one relationship that I want to be nullable:
#ManyToOne(optional = true)
#JoinColumn(name = "customer_id", nullable = true)
private Customer customer;
Unfortunately, JPA keeps setting the column in my database as NOT NULL. Can anyone explain this? Is there a way to make it work? Note that I use JBoss 7, JPA 2.0 with Hibernate as persistence provider and a PostgreSQL 9.1 database.
EDIT:
I found the cause of my problem. Apparently it is due to the way I defined the primary key in the referenced entity Customer:
#Entity
#Table
public class Customer {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
#Column(columnDefinition="serial")
private int id;
}
It seems that using #Column(columnDefinition="serial") for the primary key automatically sets the foreign keys referencing it to NOT NULL in the database. Is that really the expected behavior when specifying the column type as serial? Is there a workaround for enabling nullable foreign keys in this case?
Thank you in advance.
I found the solution to my problem. The way the primary key is defined in entity Customer is fine, the problem resides in the foreign key declaration. It should be declared like this:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(columnDefinition="integer", name="customer_id")
private Customer customer;
Indeed, if the attribute columnDefinition="integer" is omitted the foreign key will by default be set as the source column: a not-null serial with its own sequence. That is of course not what we want as we just want the to reference the auto-incremented ID, not to create a new one.
Besides, it seems that the attribute name=customer_id is also required as I observed when performing some testing. Otherwise the foreign key column will still be set as the source column. This is a strange behavior in my opinion. Comments or additional information to clarify this are welcome!
Finally, the advantage of this solution is that the ID is generated by the database (not by JPA) and thus we do not have to worry about it when inserting data manually or through scripts which often happens in data migration or maintenance.
I came across this problem but I was able to solve it this way:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(nullable = true)
private Customer customer;
Maybe the problem emerged from declaring #ManyToOne(optional = true)
That is very weird.
In JPA nullable parameter is true by default. I use this kind of configuration all the time and it works fine. If you try to save entity it should be successful.
Did you try to delete table that is created for this relationship? Maybe you have legacy table with that column?
Or maybe you should try to find solution on other chunks of code, because this is proper configuration.
Note: I have tried this configuration on PostgreSQL with JPA2 and Hibernate.
EDIT
In that case maybe you can try a little bit different definition of primary key.
For example you can use definition like this:
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
#Column()
private Long id;
and postgresql will generate
id bigint NOT NULL
-- with constraint
CONSTRAINT some_table_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id)
If this is good enough you can try this solution.
within transaction but before the save operation, explicitly set the foreign key column value as null. By this hibernate ,never perform select queries for this foreign key related table and don't throw the exception "save the transient instance before flushing". if you want to set "null value " conditionally, then perform 1. fetch & set the value using repo call get/ find 2. then check the fetched value for the condition and set it to null accordingly .pasted the code below which is tested and found working
// Transaction Start
Optional<Customer> customerObject = customerRepository.findByCustomerId(customer.getCustomerId())
if(customerObject.isPresent())yourEnclosingEntityObject.setCustomer(customerObject)}
else {yourEnclosingEntityObject.setCustomer(null)}
yourEnclosingEntityObjectRepository.save(yourEnclosingEntityObject)
// Transaction End
Related
I want to add the option onDelete="CASCADE" on one of my attributes via the #JoinColumn annotation:
/**
* #ORM\OneToMany(targetEntity="AppBundle\Entity\Product",mappedBy="category",fetch="EAGER")
* #ORM\JoinColumn(onDelete="CASCADE")
*/
private $products;
But when I try to update with php bin/console doctrine:schema:update --force , I always get:
nothing to uptade - database already sync.
I tried to add some other attributes and I got the same issue. However, if I intentionally add a mistake I get an error as expected.
How can I fix this?
The #OneToMany annotation is the one you use on the inverse side of your many-to-one association. The table storing the entities on this side of the association does not hold any foreign key pointing to the table storing your Product entities, thus there is no "join column" there.
The documentation states the following about #JoinColumn:
This annotation is used in the context of relations in #ManyToOne, #OneToOne fields and in the Context of #JoinTable nested inside a #ManyToMany.
In your case, the annotation does not apply to any column at all and consequently, your database does not need to be updated.
If you wish to have Product entities related to a given Category removed through cascade operations by your database, you have to add a #JoinColumn(onDelete="CASCADE") on the owning side of the association, next to the #ManyToOne annotation of the category attribute of Product.
I have a mapped entity with JPA in a PostgreSQL database.
The table exists and I have some records in it, now I want to add a simple new boolean (not Boolean) property.
In logs I can correctly see the alter table using not null because I chose boolean and not Boolean, it is all right but....
without seeing any errors, the database isn't being updated.
Trying to execute the alter table directly in my SQL client finally I can see the problem, that is the column that I'm just adding contains null values...
Obviously already existent records will have null values as soon as that column will be created.
That said, what could I do if I want to create a not null property in a table having already at least one record?
Thanks
From what i understood from your question, you are getting issues with your earlier added table rows when you update your table by adding a new boolean column.
Your previous table rows gets null values for the newly added column.
You can set the default values on your JPA entity properties using columnDefinition provided as an attribute in #Column annotation.
If you want to add a new boolean property in your JPA entity you can try this
#Column(name = "is_active", columnDefinition="tinyint(1) default 1")
private boolean isActive;
And since you are using hbm2ddl, this will not only create a fresh boolean column for you but also give it a default of true. It will also set true for all the previously added rows in that table.
Hope it helps!
I have a foreign key relationship between two tables UserProducts and Users in my database, with UserProducts having a UserID referencing the UserID in the Users table.
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[UserProducts] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_UserProducts_Users] FOREIGN KEY ([UserID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[Users] ([UserID])
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[UserProducts] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_UserProducts_Users]
GO
The UserID column in the UserProducts table is part of a composite primary key with another column ProductID. There are also two additional DateTime columns, so Entity Framework does not treat UserProducts as a link table.
There is NO cascade delete on that foreign key above, nor did I set up anything to handle OnDelete on the Entity Framework foreign key association. Yet, when I delete a User entity from code, Entity Framework is taking the liberty of deleting the UserProducts associated with it by UserID. It is also generating a lot of SQL to do it: there is a separate DELETE per related record in the UserProducts table.
The code to perform the entity deletion is as follows:
using (var context = new LicensingRegistrationContext(_csb))
{
context.Database.Log = a => _logger.Trace(a);
var dbUser = GetUserDbSetWithIncludes(context)
.Where(a => a.UserID == user.Id).Single();
context.DbUsers.Remove(dbUser);
//TODO(MRL): Um...how are the dbUserProducts being removed???
context.SaveChanges();
}
How is this happening? In EF 4 I am pretty sure EF never took this liberty of doing this: you HAD to load and then delete all related entities manually in code.
Thanks
Entity framework by default has a
OneToManyCascadeDelete
convention. Here is the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.entity.modelconfiguration.conventions.onetomanycascadedeleteconvention(v=vs.113).aspx
So entity framework cascade deletes the one to many relationship by default.
You can disable this by disabling the convention or explicitly disabled it for this relationship via the fluent API.
I found this on MSDN and I believe this is what is happening:
When a primary key of the principal entity is also part of the primary key of the dependent entity, the relationship is an identifying relationship. In an identifying relationship the dependent entity cannot exist without the principal entity. This constraint causes the following behaviors in an identifying relationship: Deleting the principal object also deletes the dependent object. This is the same behavior as specifying OnDelete Action="Cascade" in the model for the relationship. Removing the relationship deletes the dependent object. Calling the Remove method on the EntityCollection marks both the relationship and the dependent object for deletion.
This is what is happening in my model where the UserComponent table has a composite primary key: UserID, ComponentID and the UserID column is a foreign key to the UserID in the User table.
i want to use eclipselink to partition my database. for performance reasons i will have one table (entity A) replicated to all nodes and one table (entity B) that is hash partitioned over all nodes.
Since every A has a one-to-one relationship with a B entity eclipseLink creates a foreign key constraint on a column of the "A"-Table. because of the different partitioning mechanisms this contraint will fail for a lot of entries in A.
currently the properties of the entities can change dayly so i wouldn't want to miss ddl-generation for tests and development.
Is it possible to tell eclipse link not to create this specific foreign key? all foreign keys?
the current test database is an in memory hsqldb. is it possible to tell the db to ignore foreign key constraints?
You can use your own DDL script to create the tables, or just drop the constraint with your own script or native SQL query.
You can disable all constraints by subclassing your database platform class (and using "eclipselink.target-database" with your subclass).
If there is no foreign key there is no relationship.
Alternatively, you could mark the property b in class A as transient so it does not get managed by JPA. It means that you will have to retrieve the appropiate b value yourself.
Also, you could just try to make field b nullable (if JPA supports null=true for a One-to-One relationship, I am not sure) and check what happens.
I had a custom primary key that need to be set up on a particular data in a model.
This was not enough, as an attempt to insert a duplicate number succeeded. So now when i replace primary_key=True to unique=True it works properly and rejects duplicate numbers!!. But according this document (which uses fields).
primary_key=True implies null=False
and unique=True.
Which makes me confused as in why does
it accept the value in the first place
with having an inbuilt unique=True ?
Thank you.
Updated statement:
personName = models.CharField(primary_key=True,max_length=20)
Use an AutoField with primary_key instead.
Edit:
If you don't use an AutoField, you'll have to manually calculate/set the value for the primary key field. This is rather cumbersome. Is there a reason you need ReportNumber to the primary key? You could still have a unique report number on which you can query for reports, as well as an auto-incrementing integer primary key.
Edit 2:
When you say duplicate primary key values are allowed, you indicate that what's happening is that an existing record with the same primary key is updated -- there aren't actually two objects with the same primary key in the database (which can't happen). The issue is in the way Django's ORM layer chooses to do an UPDATE (modify an existing DB record) vs. an INSERT INTO (create a new DB record). Check out this line from django.db.models.base.Model.save_base():
if (force_update or (not force_insert and
manager.using(using).filter(pk=pk_val).exists())):
# It does already exist, so do an UPDATE.
Particularly, this snippet of code:
manager.using(using).filter(pk=pk_val).exists()
This says: "If a record with the same primary key as this Model exists in the database, then do an update." So if you re-use a primary key, Django assumes you are doing an update, and thus doesn't raise an exception or error.
I think the best idea is to let Django generate a primary key for you, and then have a separate field (CharField or whatever) that has the unique constraint.