Suppose I have two tables USER_GROUP and USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE. I have a classic relation where one userGroup can have multiple dataSources and one DataSource simply is a String.
Due to some reasons, I have a custom RecordMapper creating a Java UserGroup POJO. (Mainly compatibility with the other code in the codebase, always being explicit on whats happening). This mapper sometimes creates simply POJOs containing data only from the USER_GROUP table, sometimes also the left joined dataSources.
Currently, I am trying to write the Multiset query along with the custom record mapper. My query thus far looks like this:
List<UserGroup> = ctx
.select(
asterisk(),
multiset(select(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE.DATASOURCE_ID)
.from(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE)
.where(USER_GROUP.ID.eq(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE.USER_GROUP_ID))
).as("datasources").convertFrom(r -> r.map(Record1::value1))
)
.from(USER_GROUP)
.where(condition)
.fetch(new UserGroupMapper()))
Now my question is: How to create the UserGroupMapper? I am stuck right here:
public class UserGroupMapper implements RecordMapper<Record, UserGroup> {
#Override
public UserGroup map(Record rec) {
UserGroup grp = new UserGroup(rec.getValue(USER_GROUP.ID),
rec.getValue(USER_GROUP.NAME),
rec.getValue(USER_GROUP.DESCRIPTION)
javaParseTags(USER_GROUP.TAGS)
);
// Convention: if we have an additional field "datasources", we assume it to be a list of dataSources to be filled in
if (rec.indexOf("datasources") >= 0) {
// How to make `rec.getValue` return my List<String>????
List<String> dataSources = ?????
grp.dataSources.addAll(dataSources);
}
}
My guess is to have something like List<String> dataSources = rec.getValue(..) where I pass in a Field<List<String>> but I have no clue how I could create such Field<List<String>> with something like DSL.field().
How to get a type safe reference to your field from your RecordMapper
There are mostly two ways to do this:
Keep a reference to your multiset() field definition somewhere, and reuse that. Keep in mind that every jOOQ query is a dynamic SQL query, so you can use this feature of jOOQ to assign arbitrary query fragments to local variables (or return them from methods), in order to improve code reuse
You can just raw type cast the value, and not care about type safety. It's always an option, evne if not the cleanest one.
How to improve your query
Unless you're re-using that RecordMapper several times for different types of queries, why not do use Java's type inference instead? The main reason why you're not getting type information in your output is because of your asterisk() usage. But what if you did this instead:
List<UserGroup> = ctx
.select(
USER_GROUP, // Instead of asterisk()
multiset(
select(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE.DATASOURCE_ID)
.from(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE)
.where(USER_GROUP.ID.eq(USER_GROUP_DATASOURCE.USER_GROUP_ID))
).as("datasources").convertFrom(r -> r.map(Record1::value1))
)
.from(USER_GROUP)
.where(condition)
.fetch(r -> {
UserGroupRecord ug = r.value1();
List<String> list = r.value2(); // Type information available now
// ...
})
There are other ways than the above, which is using jOOQ 3.17+'s support for Table as SelectField. E.g. in jOOQ 3.16+, you can use row(USER_GROUP.fields()).
The important part is that you avoid the asterisk() expression, which removes type safety. You could even convert the USER_GROUP to your UserGroup type using USER_GROUP.convertFrom(r -> ...) when you project it:
List<UserGroup> = ctx
.select(
USER_GROUP.convertFrom(r -> ...),
// ...
I am running into a problem setting up a simple proof of concept servant API. This is my User datatype and my API type:
data User = User { id :: Int, first_name :: String, last_name :: String } deriving (Eq, Show, Generic)
instance FromRow User
instance ToRow User
$(deriveJSON defaultOptions ''User)
type API = "users" :> ReqBody '[JSON] User :> Post '[JSON] User
The handler method for this uses postgresql-simple like this:
create u = liftIO $ head <$> returning connection "insert into users (first_name, last_name) values (?,?) returning id" [(first_name u, last_name u)]
Boilerplate code such as connecting to the db and the routing method has been elided.
The problem is that if I make a POST request, what I want to be doing is creating a new user, so I would supply the JSON:
{ "first_name": "jeff", "last_name": "lebowski" }
but then my program fails at runtime with
Error in $: When parsing the record User of type Lib.User the key id was not present.
This makes sense because the API specified a User which has an id field. But I do not want to have to pass a bogus id in the request (since they are assigned by postgres sequentially) because that is gross. I also can't move the id field out of the User datatype because then postgres-simple fails because of a model-database mismatch when making a GET request to a different endpoint (which does the obvious thing: get by id. Not included above).
What do I do here? Write a custom FromJson instance? I already tried setting the Data.Aeson.TH options flag omitNothingFields to True and setting the id field to be a Maybe Int, but that didn't work either.
Any advice would be appreciated.
First you need to understand that a User and a row in a table corresponding to this User are two different things.
A row has an id, a user does not. For example, you can imagine to compare two users without dealing with ids, or the fact that they are saved or not.
Once convinced, you will have to explain this to the type system, or you will have to deal with Maybe fields, which I think is not the solution here.
Some people talked about Template Haskell, I think it would be overkill here, and you need to solve the problem first.
What you can do is use a data type to represent a saved row in your database. Let's call it an Entity.
newtype PrimaryKey = PrimaryKey Int
data Entity b = Entity PrimaryKey b
Then the function saving a User row in your database could take a user as parameter and return a PrimaryKey (In you database monad, of course).
Other functions reading from the database would return something using Entity User
Your field declarations are not duplicated, since you are reusing the User type as a parameter.
You will have to adapt FromRow/ToRow and FromJSON/ToJSON accordingly.
Background: Project is a Data Import utility for importing data from tsv files into a EF5 DB through DbContext.
Problem: I need to do a lookup for ForeignKeys while doing the import. I have a way to do that but the retrieval if the ID is not functioning.
So I have a TSV file example will be
Code Name MyFKTableId
codevalue namevalue select * from MyFKTable where Code = 'SE'
So when I process the file and Find a '...Id' column I know I need to do a lookup to find the FK The '...' is always the entity type so this is super simple. The problem I have is that I don't have access to the properties of the results of foundEntity
string childEntity = column.Substring(0, column.Length - 2);
DbEntityEntry recordType = myContext.Entry(childEntity.GetEntityOfReflectedType());
DbSqlQuery foundEntity = myContext.Set(recordType.Entity.GetType()).SqlQuery(dr[column])
Any suggestion would be appreciated. I need to keep this generic so we can't use known type casting. The Id Property accessible from IBaseEntity so I can cast that, but all other entity types must be not be fixed
Note: The SQL in the MyFKTableId value is not a requirement. If there is a better option allowing to get away from SqlQuery() I would be open to suggestions.
SOLVED:
Ok What I did was create a Class called IdClass that only has a Guid Property for Id. Modified my sql to only return the Id. Then implemented the SqlQuery(sql) call on the Database rather than the Set([Type]).SqlQuery(sql) like so.
IdClass x = ImportFactory.AuthoringContext.Database.SqlQuery<IdClass>(sql).FirstOrDefault();
SOLVED:
Ok What I did was create a Class called IdClass that only has a Guid Property for Id. Modified my sql to only return the Id. Then implemented the SqlQuery(sql) call on the Database rather than the Set([Type]).SqlQuery(sql) like so.
IdClass x = ImportFactory.AuthoringContext.Database.SqlQuery<IdClass>(sql).FirstOrDefault();
I've an entity with assigned string Id on NHibernate and I've a little problem when get an entity by Id.
Example...
Suppose that have a database record like this...
Id Description
-------------------
AAA MyDescription
now, if I use "Get" method using search id "aaa"...
MYENTITYTYPE entity = Session.Get<MYENTITYTYPE>("aaa")
return right entity but Id field (entity.Id) is "aaa", while I wish it were equal to "AAA".
In summary I would like that "Get" method return the id identical to the one stored in the database...with the same case.
Is possible? How can I do?
Interesting question. My guess is that it's not possible, because the Id might exist before the DB call. Consider the following:
var foo = session.Load<Foo>("aaa"); //no DB call, foo is a proxy
Console.WriteLine(foo.Id); //Prints "aaa";
var bar = foo.Bar; //Forces loading
Console.WriteLine(foo.Id); //No matter what, the Id can't change at this point
This illustrates another reason why primary keys with meaning are usually a bad idea, especially if their input is not controlled.
Now, if instead of Get you use a query, you will get the right-cased Id:
//example with LINQ; you can use HQL, Criteria, etc
var foo = session.Query<Foo>().Single(x => x.Id == "aaa");
The drawback is that you will always go to the DB, even if the entity is already loaded.
Now, if you defined your entity as {Id, Code, Description}, where Id is a synthetic POID (I recommend Hilo or Guid) and Code is the existing string Id, you will avoid potential bugs caused by using Get instead of a query with the code.
[UPDATE] Chosen approach is below, as a response to this question
Hi,
I' ve been looking around in this subject but I can't really find what I'm looking for...
With Code tables I mean: stuff like 'maritial status', gender, specific legal or social states... More specifically, these types have only set properties and the items are not about to change soon (but could). Properties being an Id, a name and a description.
I'm wondering how to handle these best in the following technologies:
in the database (multiple tables, one table with different code-keys...?)
creating the classes (probably something like inheriting ICode with ICode.Name and ICode.Description)
creating the view/presenter for this: there should be a screen containing all of them, so a list of the types (gender, maritial status ...), and then a list of values for that type with a name & description for each item in the value-list.
These are things that appear in every single project, so there must be some best practice on how to handle these...
For the record, I'm not really fond of using enums for these situations... Any arguments on using them here are welcome too.
[FOLLOW UP]
Ok, I've gotten a nice answer by CodeToGlory and Ahsteele. Let's refine this question.
Say we're not talking about gender or maritial status, wich values will definately not change, but about "stuff" that have a Name and a Description, but nothing more. For example: Social statuses, Legal statuses.
UI:
I want only one screen for this. Listbox with possibe NameAndDescription Types (I'll just call them that), listbox with possible values for the selected NameAndDescription Type, and then a Name and Description field for the selected NameAndDescription Type Item.
How could this be handled in View & Presenters? I find the difficulty here that the NameAndDescription Types would then need to be extracted from the Class Name?
DB:
What are pro/cons for multiple vs single lookup tables?
Using database driven code tables can very useful. You can do things like define the life of the data (using begin and end dates), add data to the table in real time so you don't have to deploy code, and you can allow users (with the right privileges of course) add data through admin screens.
I would recommend always using an autonumber primary key rather than the code or description. This allows for you to use multiple codes (of the same name but different descriptions) over different periods of time. Plus most DBAs (in my experience) rather use the autonumber over text based primary keys.
I would use a single table per coded list. You can put multiple codes all into one table that don't relate (using a matrix of sorts) but that gets messy and I have only found a couple situations where it was even useful.
Couple of things here:
Use Enumerations that are explicitly clear and will not change. For example, MaritalStatus, Gender etc.
Use lookup tables for items that are not fixed as above and may change, increase/decrease over time.
It is very typical to have lookup tables in the database. Define a key/value object in your business tier that can work with your view/presentation.
I have decided to go with this approach:
CodeKeyManager mgr = new CodeKeyManager();
CodeKey maritalStatuses = mgr.ReadByCodeName(Code.MaritalStatus);
Where:
CodeKeyManager can retrieve CodeKeys from DB (CodeKey=MaritalStatus)
Code is a class filled with constants, returning strings so Code.MaritalStatus = "maritalStatus". These constants map to to the CodeKey table > CodeKeyName
In the database, I have 2 tables:
CodeKey with Id, CodeKeyName
CodeValue with CodeKeyId, ValueName, ValueDescription
DB:
alt text http://lh3.ggpht.com/_cNmigBr3EkA/SeZnmHcgHZI/AAAAAAAAAFU/2OTzmtMNqFw/codetables_1.JPG
Class Code:
public class Code
{
public const string Gender = "gender";
public const string MaritalStatus = "maritalStatus";
}
Class CodeKey:
public class CodeKey
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string CodeName { get; set; }
public IList<CodeValue> CodeValues { get; set; }
}
Class CodeValue:
public class CodeValue
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public CodeKey Code { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
I find by far the easiest and most efficent way:
All code-data can be displayed in a identical manner (in the same view/presenter)
I don't need to create tables and classes for every code table that's to come
But I can still get them out of the database easily and use them easily with the CodeKey constants...
NHibernate can handle this easily too
The only thing I'm still considering is throwing out the GUID Id's and using string (nchar) codes for usability in the business logic.
Thanks for the answers! If there are any remarks on this approach, please do!
I lean towards using a table representation for this type of data. Ultimately if you have a need to capture the data you'll have a need to store it. For reporting purposes it is better to have a place you can draw that data from via a key. For normalization purposes I find single purpose lookup tables to be easier than a multi-purpose lookup tables.
That said enumerations work pretty well for things that will not change like gender etc.
Why does everyone want to complicate code tables? Yes there are lots of them, but they are simple, so keep them that way. Just treat them like ever other object. Thy are part of the domain, so model them as part of the domain, nothing special. If you don't when they inevitibly need more attributes or functionality, you will have to undo all your code that currently uses it and rework it.
One table per of course (for referential integrity and so that they are available for reporting).
For the classes, again one per of course because if I write a method to recieve a "Gender" object, I don't want to be able to accidentally pass it a "MarritalStatus"! Let the compile help you weed out runtime error, that's why its there. Each class can simply inherit or contain a CodeTable class or whatever but that's simply an implementation helper.
For the UI, if it does in fact use the inherited CodeTable, I suppose you could use that to help you out and just maintain it in one UI.
As a rule, don't mess up the database model, don't mess up the business model, but it you wnt to screw around a bit in the UI model, that's not so bad.
I'd like to consider simplifying this approach even more. Instead of 3 tables defining codes (Code, CodeKey and CodeValue) how about just one table which contains both the code types and the code values? After all the code types are just another list of codes.
Perhaps a table definition like this:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Code](
[CodeType] [int] NOT NULL,
[Code] [int] NOT NULL,
[CodeDescription] [nvarchar](40) NOT NULL,
[CodeAbreviation] [nvarchar](10) NULL,
[DateEffective] [datetime] NULL,
[DateExpired] [datetime] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Code] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CodeType] ASC,
[Code] ASC
)
GO
There could be a root record with CodeType=0, Code=0 which represents the type for CodeType. All of the CodeType records will have a CodeType=0 and a Code>=1. Here is some sample data that might help clarify things:
SELECT CodeType, Code, Description FROM Code
Results:
CodeType Code Description
-------- ---- -----------
0 0 Type
0 1 Gender
0 2 Hair Color
1 1 Male
1 2 Female
2 1 Blonde
2 2 Brunette
2 3 Redhead
A check constraint could be added to the Code table to ensure that a valid CodeType is entered into the table:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Code] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Code_CodeType]
CHECK (([dbo].[IsValidCodeType]([CodeType])=(1)))
GO
The function IsValidCodeType could be defined like this:
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[IsValidCodeType]
(
#Code INT
)
RETURNS BIT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #Result BIT
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Code WHERE CodeType = 0 AND Code = #Code)
SET #Result = 1
ELSE
SET #Result = 0
RETURN #Result
END
GO
One issue that has been raised is how to ensure that a table with a code column has a proper value for that code type. This too could be enforced by a check constraint using a function.
Here is a Person table which has a gender column. It could be a best practice to name all code columns with the description of the code type (Gender in this example) followed by the word Code:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Person](
[PersonID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[LastName] [nvarchar](40) NULL,
[FirstName] [nvarchar](40) NULL,
[GenderCode] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Person] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([PersonID] ASC)
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Person] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Person_GenderCode]
CHECK (([dbo].[IsValidCode]('Gender',[Gendercode])=(1)))
GO
IsValidCode could be defined this way:
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[IsValidCode]
(
#CodeTypeDescription NVARCHAR(40),
#Code INT
)
RETURNS BIT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #CodeType INT
DECLARE #Result BIT
SELECT #CodeType = Code
FROM dbo.Code
WHERE CodeType = 0 AND CodeDescription = #CodeTypeDescription
IF (#CodeType IS NULL)
BEGIN
SET #Result = 0
END
ELSE
BEGiN
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Code WHERE CodeType = #CodeType AND Code = #Code)
SET #Result = 1
ELSE
SET #Result = 0
END
RETURN #Result
END
GO
Another function could be created to provide the code description when querying a table that has a code column. Here is an
example of querying the Person table:
SELECT PersonID,
LastName,
FirstName,
GetCodeDescription('Gender',GenderCode) AS Gender
FROM Person
This was all conceived from the perspective of preventing the proliferation of lookup tables in the database and providing one lookup table. I have no idea whether this design would perform well in practice.