Here is situation.... ...
I have a DBManager, which is implement a DBInterface, in the DBInterface, I got 4 method:
-create(DBCmd);
-read(DBCmd);
-update(DBCmd);
-delete(DBCmd);
The DBCmd object is responsible for generate the SQL statement, and the DBCmd requires an object in sql statement:
class DBCmd{
public _constructor($aObj){
}
public executeCreate(){
}
public executeRead(){
}
public executeUpdate(){
}
public executeDelete(){
}
}
The flow will be like this:
aObject ---> put it into DBCmd ----> put the DBCmd in DBManager ---> execute
But the problems happen when I get some objects related to other tables, for example...a customer have a purchase record, and which purchase record have many items....
So, what do I do in my read method? should I read all the records related to the customer?? Do I need to loop all the items inside the purchase record too?
If yes, when I doing read customer, I need to query 3 tables, but some that may not need to see.....it waste the resource...
And I come up with another solution, I make a new set of DBCmd, that allow me to get the related DB items, for example:
class getReleatedPurchaseRecordDBCmd{
public _constructor($aCustomerObject){
}
//.... ....
}
But in this "solution", I got some problems, is I loss the relationship in the object customer...yes, I can read back all the records, get the customer object basically don't know any things about the purchase record....
Some may ask me to do something like this:
class customer{
//skip other methods...
public getPurchaseRecords(){
//query the db
}
}
It works, but I don't want the object structure have some strong relationship between the db....That's why I come up with the DBCmd stuff...
So, everything seems to be very coupling, how can solve it? Thank you.
for stuff like this i tend to get the count of sub objects with the initial query usually involving sql COUNT and JOIN, then have a seperate getSubObjects command that can be called if needed later. So for example:
$datamodel->getCustomer($id);//or some such method
returns
class Customer{
$id = 4;
$recordCount = 5;
$records = null;
}
I can then use the count for any display stuff as needed, and if i need the records populated call:
$customer->records = $datamodel->getCustomerRecords($customer->id);
Related
I have problem here with query result from Eloquent, I tried to query from DB and put in variable $contractList in my mount() method and the result as expected. But when I tried to retrieve specific data from $contractList with $contractList->find($id), the result not same as in mount() method.
Here is query from mount():
public function mount(){
$contractList = Kontrak::select(['id', 'mou_id'])->with(['order:id,kontrak_id', 'order.worklist:id', 'order.worklist.khs:id,mou_id,worklist_id,khs', 'amdNilai:id,kontrak_id,tgl_surat'])->withCount('amdNilai')->get()
}
Here the result:
But when I tried to find specific data from $contractList, properties that shown not same as in mount:
public function itemSelected($id)
{
//amd_nilai_count not showing
$kontrak = $this->contractList->find($id);
if ($kontrak->amd_nilai_count == 1) {
$this->nilai_amd = $this->calculateNilai($id);
}
}
Here is the result called from itemSelected():
I have tried use get() but the result still problem, how to get same properties same as in mount().By the way im use laravel & livewire.
As i read your comments you seem to mix up ActiveRecords ORM with an Data Mapper ORM. Laravel uses active records.
Laravel will always fetch models on every data operation.
Kontrak::select('name')->find(1); // select name from kontraks where id = 1;
Kontrak::find(1); // select * from kontraks where id = 1;
This will always execute two SQL calls no matter what and the objects on the heap will not be the same. If you worked with Doctrine or similar, this would be different.
To combat this you would often put your logic in services or similar.
class KontrakService
{
public function find(int $id) {
return Kontrak::select(['id', 'mou_id'])->find($id);
}
}
Whenever you want the same logic, use that service.
resolve(KontrakService::class)->find(1);
However, many relationship operations is hard to do with this and then it is fine to just fetch the model with all the attributes.
I'm currently struggling with retrieving data towards a parent model. I'll drop my database, classes, and things I've tried before.
I have 4 tables: sales_orders, products, work_orders, and product_sales_order (pivot table between sales_orders and products).
SalesOrder.php
class SalesOrder extends Model
{
public function products()
{
return $this->belongsToMany(Product::class)
->using(ProductSalesOrder::class)
->withPivot(['qty', 'price']);
}
}
ProductSalesOrder.php
class ProductSalesOrder extends Pivot
{
public function work_orders()
{
return $this->hasMany(WorkOrder::class);
}
public function getSubTotalAttribute()
{
return $this->qty* $this->price;
}
}
WorkOrder.php
class WorkOrder extends Model
{
public function product_sales_order()
{
return $this->belongsTo(ProductSalesOrder::class);
}
public function sales_order()
{
return $this->hasManyThrough(
ProductSalesOrder::class,
SalesOrder::class
);
}
}
So, what I want to retrieve sales order data from work order since both tables don't have direct relationship and have to go through pivot table and that is product sales order. I've tried hasOneThrough and hasManyThrough but it cast an error unknown column. I understand that error and not possible to use that eloquent function.
Is it possible to retrieve that sales order data using eloquent function from WorkOrder.php ?
You cannot achieve what you want using hasOneThrough as it goes from a table that has no ID related to the intermediate model.
In your example you are doing "the inverse" of hasOneThrough, as you are going from a model that has the ID of the intermediate model in itself, and the intermediate model has the ID of your final model. The documentation shows clearly that hasOneThrough is used exactly for the inverse.
So you still should be able to fix this, and use a normal relation as you have the sales_orders_id in your model SuratPerintahKerja, so you can use a normal relation like belongsTo to get just one SalesOrder and define it like this:
public function salesOrder()
{
return $this->belongsTo(SalesOrder::class, 'sale_orders_id');
}
If you want to get many SalesOrders (if that makes sense for your logic), then you should just run a simple query like:
public function salesOrders()
{
return $this->query()
->where('sale_orders_id', $this->sale_orders_id)
->get();
}
Have in mind that:
I have renamed your method from sales_order to salesOrder (follow camel case as that is the Laravel standard...).
I have renamed your method from sales_order to salesOrders for the second code as it will return more than 1, hence a collection, but the first one just works with one model at a time.
I see you use sale_orders_id, but it should be sales_order_id, have that in mind, because any relation will try to use sales_order_id instead of sale_orders_id, again, stick to the standards... (this is why the first code needs more parameters instead of just the model).
All pivot tables would still need to have id as primary and auto incremental, instead of having the id of each related model as primary... Because in SuratPerintahKerja you want to reference the pivot table ProdukSalesOrder but it has to use both produks_id (should have been produk_id singular) and sale_orders_id (should have been sales_order_id). So if you were able to use something like produk_sales_order_id, you could be able to have better references for relations.
You can see that I am using $this->query(), I am just doing this to only return a new query and not use anything it has as filters on itself. I you still want to use current filters (like where and stuff), remove ->query() and directly use the first where. If you also want to add ->where('produks_id', $this->produks_id) that is valid and doesn't matter the order. But if you do so, I am not sure if you would get just one result, so ->get() makes no sense, it should be ->first() and also the method's name should be salesOrder.
Sorry for this 6 tip/step, but super personal recommendation, always write code in English and do not write both languages at the same time like produks and sales orders, stick to one language, preferrably English as everyone will understand it out of the box. I had to translate some things so I can understand what is the purpose of each table.
If you have any questions or some of my code does not work, please tell me in the comments of this answer so I can help you work it out.
Edit:
After you have followed my steps and changed everything to English and modified the database, this is my new code:
First, edit ProductSalesOrder and add this method:
public function sales_order()
{
return $this->belongsTo(SalesOrder::class);
}
This will allow us to use relations of relations.
Then, have WorkOrder as my code:
public function sales_order()
{
return $this->query()->with('product_sales_order.sales_order')->first();
}
first should get you a ProductSalesOrder, but then you can access ->sales_order and that will be a model.
Remember that if any of this does not work, change all the names to camelCase instead of kebab_case.
We have a COMMON database and then tenant databases for each organization that uses our application. We have base values in the COMMON database for some tables e.g.
COMMON.widgets. Then in the tenant databases, IF a table called modified_widgets exists and has values, they are merged with the COMMON.widgets table.
Right now we are doing this in controllers along the lines of:
public function index(Request $request)
{
$widgets = Widget::where('active', '1')->orderBy('name')->get();
if(Schema::connection('tenant')->hasTable('modified_widgets')) {
$modified = ModifiedWidget::where('active', '1')->get();
$merged = $widgets->merge($modified);
$merged = array_values(array_sort($merged, function ($value) {
return $value['name'];
}));
return $merged;
}
return $countries;
}
As you can see, we have model for each table and this works OK. We get the expected results for GET requests like this from controllers, but we'd like to merge at the Laravel MODEL level if possible. That way id's are linked to the correct tables and such when populating forms with these values. The merge means the same id can exist in BOTH tables. We ALWAYS want to act on the merged data if any exists. So it seems like model level is the place for this, but we'll try any suggestions that help meet the need. Hope that all makes sense.
Can anyone help with this or does anyone have any ideas to try? We've played with overriding model constructors and such, but haven't quite been able to figure this out yet. Any thoughts are appreciated and TIA!
If you put this functionality in Widget model you will get 2x times of queries. You need to think about Widget as an instance, what I am trying to say is that current approach does 2 queries minimum and +1 if tenant has modified_widgets table. Now imagine you do this inside a model, each Widget instance will pull in, in a best case scenario its equivalent from different database, so for bunch of Widgets you will do 1 (->all())+n (n = number of ModifiedWidgets) queries - because each Widget instance will pull its own mirror if it exists, no eager load is possible.
You can improve your code with following:
$widgets = Widget::where('active', '1')->orderBy('name')->get();
if(Schema::connection('tenant')->hasTable('modified_widgets')) {
$modified = ModifiedWidget::where('active', '1')->whereIn('id', $widgets->pluck('id'))->get(); // remove whereIn if thats not the case
return $widgets->merge($modified)->unique()->sortBy('name');
}
return $widgets;
OK, here is what we came up with.
We now use a single model and the table names MUST be the same in both databases (setTable does not seem to work even though in exists in the Database/Eloquent/Model base source code - that may be why it's not documented). Anyway = just use a regular model and make sure the tables are identical (or at least the fields you are using are):
<?php
namespace App\Models;
use Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model;
class Widget extends Model
{
}
Then we have a generic 'merge controller' where the model and optional sort are passed in the request (we hard coded the 'where' and key here, but they could be made dynamic too). NOTE THIS WILL NOT WORK WITH STATIC METHODS THAT CREATE NEW INSTANCES such as $model::all() so you need to use $model->get() in that case:
<?php
namespace App\Http\Controllers;
use Illuminate\Http\Request;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Config;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\DB;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Schema;
class MergeController extends Controller
{
public function index(Request $request)
{
//TODO: add some validations to ensure model is provided
$model = app("App\\Models\\{$request['model']}");
$sort = $request['sort'] ? $request['sort'] : 'id';
$src_collection = $model->where('active', '1')->orderBy('name')->get();
// we setup the tenants connection elsewhere, but use it here
if(Schema::connection('tenant')->hasTable($model->getTable())) {
$model->setConnection('tenant');
$tenant_collection = $model->get()->where('active', '1');
$src_collection = $src_collection->keyBy('id')->merge($tenant_collection->keyBy('id'))->sortBy('name');
}
return $src_collection;
}
}
If you dd($src_collection); before returning it it, you will see the connection is correct for each row (depending on data in the tables). If you update a row:
$test = $src_collection->find(2); // this is a row from the tenant db in our data
$test->name = 'Test';
$test->save();
$test2 = $src_collection->find(1); // this is a row from the tenant db in our data
$test2->name = 'Test2'; // this is a row from the COMMON db in our data
$test2->save();
dd($src_collection);
You will see the correct data is updated no matter which table the row(s) came from.
This results in each tenant being able to optionally override and/or add to base table data without effecting the base table data itself or other tenants while minimizing data duplication thus easing maintenance (obviously the table data and population is managed elsewhere just like any other table). If the tenant has no overrides then the base table data is returned. The merge and custom collection stuff have minimal documentation, so this took some time to figure out. Hope this helps someone else some day!
I have a user model which stores basic user information such as username, password etc.
There are also 3 types of user, Student, Staff and Parent. Each type also has a seperate model. For example, there is a Student model which belongs to a User model.
I also have a relationships table, which stores relationships between students and parents. This relationship is stored in the User model.
If I do something like:
App\Student::first()->user->relations;
It happily returns a collection of related parents.
In my Students model, I have a method called hasParent() which accepts a given user ID, and checks to ensure the student has a parent with that id. In that method, I have the following:
public function hasParent($parent)
{
return $this->user->relations->where('id', $parent)->count() === 1;
}
However, this returns an error Cannot call 'where' on a non-object. If I debug further, $this->user->relations returns an empty array.
The problem is, like above, if I call the methods separately, I get the results I want.
So to clarify, if I run:
App\Student::first()->user->relations;
This returns a collection of users just fine.
In my Student model however, if I call:
$this->user
Then I get the correct student
If I call
$this->user->relations
I get an empty array. Which doesn't make sense! Can anyone shed any light on this, or what I might be doing wrong? If you need any further info, please let me know.
You need to call where on the relation like below.
public function hasParent($parent)
{
return $this->user->relations()->where('id', $parent)->count() === 1;
}
See the parenthesis after the relations. If you call the relation without the parenthesis Laravel returns you a collection. To get the builder you need to call the relation with the parenthesis.
I'd suggest - to avoid creating a huge query overhead (which you'll do by calling where and count on the Query builder, not the collection) - to do what you're doing already, except using Illuminate Collections filter-method:
public function hasParent($parent)
{
return $this->user->relations->filter(function($relation) use ($parent){return $entity->id === $parent;})->count() === 1;
}
(link to previous question just in case: Struggling with one-to-many relation in an admin form)
I have this many-to-many relation in my Symfony-1.3 / Propel-1.4 project between User and Partner. When the User is being saved, if it has certain boolean flag being true, I want to clear all the links to the partners. Here is what I do at the moment and it doesn't work:
// inside the User model class
public function save(PropelPDO $con = null) {
if ($this->getIsBlaBla()) {
$this->setStringProperty(NULL);
$this->clearUserPartners();
}
parent::save($con);
}
Setting the string property to NULL works; looking at the DB clearly shows it. Thing is however, the USER_PARTNER table still holds the relations between the users and the partners. So I figured I have to clear the links one by one, like this:
foreach($this->getUserPartners() as $user_partner) {
$user_partner->delete();
//UserPartnerPeer::doDelete($user_partner); // tried that too
}
Both don't do the trick.
As I mentioned in my previous question, I am just monkey-learning Symfony via trial and error, so I evidently miss something very obvious. Please point me in the right direction!
EDIT: Here is how I made it work:
Moved the code to the Form class, like so:
public function doSave(PropelPDO $con = null) {
parent::doSave($con);
if ($this->getObject()->getIsSiteOwner()) {
$this->getObject()->setType(NULL);
$this->getObject()->save();
foreach($this->getObject()->getUserPartners() as $user_partner) {
$user_partner->delete();
}
}
return $this->getObject();
}
public function updateObject($values = null) {
$obj = parent::updateObject($values);
if ($obj->getIsSiteOwner()) {
$obj->clearUserPartners();
}
return $this->object;
}
What this does is:
When the boolean flag `is_site_owner` is up, it clear the `type` field and **saves** the object (ashamed I have not figured that out for so long).
Removes all existing UserPartner many-to-many link objects.
Clears newly associated (via the DoubleList) UserPartner relations.
Which is what I need. Thanks to all who participated.
Okey so now you have a many-to-many relation where in database terms is implemented into three tables (User , Parter and UserPartner). Same thing happens on Symfony and Propel, so you need to do something like this on the doSave method that should declare in UserForm:
public function doSave($con = null)
{
parent::doSave($con); //First all that's good and nice from propel
if ($this->getValue('please_errase_my_partners_field'))
{
foreach($this->getObject()->getUserPartners() as $user_partner_relation)
{
$user_partner_relation->delete();
}
}
return $this->getObject();
}
Check the method name "getUserPartners" that should be declared on the BaseUser.class.php (lib/model/om/BaseUser.class.php)
If you are learning Symfony, I suggest you use Doctrine instead of Propel because, I think Doctrine is simplier and more "beautiful" than Propel.
For your problem, I think you are on the good way. If I were you, I will keep my function save() I will write an other function in my model User
public function clearUserPartners(){
// You have to convert this query to Propel query (I'm sorry, but I don't know the right syntax)
"DELETE FROM `USER_PARTNER` WHERE user_id = '$this->id'"
}
With this function, you don't must use a PHP foreach.
But I don't understand what is the attribute StringProperty...
UserPartnerQuery::create()->filterByUser( $userObject )->delete();
or
UserPartnerQuery::create()->filterByUser( $partnerObject )->delete();
Had the same problem. This is a working solution.
The thing is that your second solution, ie. looping over the related objects and calling delete() on them should work. It's the documented way of doing things (see : http://www.symfony-project.org/book/1_0/08-Inside-the-Model-Layer#chapter_08_sub_saving_and_deleting_data).
But instead of bombing the DB with delete queries, you could just as well delete them in one go, by adding a method to your Peer class that performs the deletion using a simple DB query.