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'm new to Flask and have started designing a front end for an inventory management database using Flask-AppBuilder.
I have created several models and have have managed to display my sqlite data in tables using Flask-AppBuilder's views.
However, I don't seem to be able to find the equivalent of SQLite WHERE clause to filter or "restrict" column data. I've been reading a lot about sqlalchemy, filters, queries but this has left me more confused that anything else and the explanations seem to be extremely elaborate and complicated to do something which is extremely simple.
Assuming we reproduce the following SQLite query in Flask-AppBuilder:
SELECT Field_A
FROM Table_A
WHERE Field_A = 'some text'
with:
result = session.query(Table_A).filter_by(Field_A = 'some text').all()
Where does the above line of code go in my app?
Considering I have the following Class:
class Table_A(Model):
id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True)
Field_A = Column(String)
def __repr__(self):
return self
and View:
class Table_AView(ModelView):
datamodel = SQLAInterface(Table_AView)
label_columns = {'Field_A':'A'}
list_columns = ['Field_A']
After much digging flask-appbuilder uses it's own filterclass in order to enable you to filter your views.
All the classes are referenced here on GitHub:
Flask Filter Clases List
Also not the difference between FilterEqual and FilterEqualFunction here:
What is the difference between : FilterEqual and FilterEqualFunction?
For other customisation and first port of call of Flask-appbuilder go straight to the API Reference where you'll find a couple of examples of the filterclass in action.
In essence it is extremely simple. In your views.py code within the ModelView class you want to filter simply add base_filters = [['field_A', FilterEqual, 'abc']] like so:
`class Table_AView(ModelView):
datamodel = SQLAInterface(Table_AView)
label_columns = {'Field_A':'A'}
list_columns = ['Field_A']
base_filters = [['field_A', FilterEqual, 'abc']]`
This will only show the lines where the field_A variable is equal to abc.
Hope this helps someone as it took me nearly (sigh) two weeks to figure it out...
SQLALchemy is an ORM (Object-Relational Mapping), it mean that you dont have to deal with raw SQL, you will call a function that you "build" (by adding filters in your case). It will transparently generate an SQL query, execute it, and return the result as python objects.
I would suggest you to read closely at sqlalchemy documentation about filters again, especially filter_by :
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/latest/orm/query.html#sqlalchemy.orm.query.Query.filter_by
It is the easiest way to apply a WHERE with sqlalchemy.
If you have declared correctly the model for Table_A, you should be able to use it so:
result = session.query(Table_A).filter_by(Field_A = 'some text').all()
Here session.query(Table_A).filter_by(Field_A = 'some text') will generate the SQL, and .all() will execute it.
I'm creating a search function to browse through one of my domain classes.
I have a string which i would like to split into individual words, so that I can search through my domain class for each word.
For example, my User class has a name attribute and a biography attribute.
If I searched "Tom Chicago" in my system, it would return all the users with a name like %tom% or with a name like %chicago% AND all the users with a biography containing either of those words to.
I have started my search function like this:
def userCriteria = User.createCriteria()
userResults = userCriteria.list(){
like("name", "%${q}%")
like("biography", "%${q}%")
}
Obviously this is not doing quite what I'd like it to do. How can I adjust it so that it does?
While this is going to create some horrible SQL statements it will do what you want. Not sure I could in good faith use this in a production system when such things as Searchable exist.
def userCriteria = User.createCriteria()
def userResults = userCriteria.list() {
or {
q.split(" ").each { t ->
ilike("name", "%$t%")
ilike("biography", "%$t%")
}
}
}
Say I have a stored procedure that returns dataSet from 2 different tables. Example:
SELECT Customers.FirstName, Customers.LastName, SUM(Sales.SaleAmount) AS SalesPerCustomer
FROM Customers LEFT JOIN Sales
ON Customers.CustomerID = Sales.CustomerID
GROUP BY Customers.FirstName, Customers.LastName
Is there any way to get a strongly typed list as a result from this stored procedure ? Something like this:
StoredProcedure sp = myDevDB.GetCustomerSales();
List<MyCustomType> resultSet = sp.ExecuteTypedList<MyCustomType>();
How and where do I define the MyCustomType class ? How do I map its properties to the actual table columns ?
thanks,mehul
I solved it by creating a class (in the same place as all my other classes, but I didn't extend IActiveRecord, it's just a vanilla class).
Make sure the property names have exactly the same name and data type as the ones in the procedure, then call db.sproc(params).ExecuteTypedList().AsQueryable(); and it populated fine.
[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.