Is it okay to not disconnect separately if I delete a row??
data: {
user: {
disconnect: {
id: 1,
},
},
},
Or do I have to do a separate disconnect before deleting a row like the code above?
It depends on the referential action set on the relation: https://www.prisma.io/docs/concepts/components/prisma-schema/relations/referential-actions
You can choose the behaviour you want when you delete a row and it has related data in other tables. You can choose to set the data to null or to delete the row it itself.
Related
I'm looking for a solution, using MongoDB, to regroup/aggregate/whateverthenameis a specific field present in each collection inside a new collection or view.
It is my first time using MongoDB so I'm not familiar with it. What the project I've joined has, is a MongoDB database with multiple collections that save the same kind of information but from different provider.
Each collection has the field called "legalInformation" that has a name and an identifier. What we actually have in our project is an other collection, called name-id that duplicates informations from the provider's collection legalInformation. The purpose of the name-id collection is to centralize every name-id in the app, regardless of the provider. But I think that we could create a collection/view instead of programmatically duplicates those data.
I don't know what MongoDB can offer to me to achieve this. I would like to have a way to fetch and aggregate all the legalInformation from all the providers inside on collection/view.
As anyone an idea about how I could do this ?
To illustrate, this is a representation of the DB schema:
providerA({
legalInformations: { name: ..., id: ... },
specificDataFromProviderA: { ... }
})
providerB({
legalInformations: { name: ..., id: ... },
specificDataFromProviderB: { ... }
})
providerC({
legalInformations: { name: ..., id: ... },
specificDataFromProviderC: { ... }
})
and I want a simple collection/view called legalInformation that aggregates all legalInformations
legalInformation({
name: ...,
id: ...
})
Thanks !
I have docs like these:
{
_id:61af43169dae3a9c3e133a90
name:"user1",
status: "RECOMMENDED",
recommendedId:61b708b8041895f4c68a3b3d
}
{
_id:61b708b8041895f4c68a3b3d
name:"user2",
status: "RECOMMENDED"
recommendedId:61af43169dae3a9c3e133a90
}
Both users are recommended to each other, so, I don't want both documents having recommended Id populated. I just want one document having recommendedId populated (Keep one combo only)
I would try to prevent this from happening at the time of setting the value of recommendedId in the first place.
So before trying to set the value, you could do something like this:
const idToRecommend = Types.ObjectId()
const recommenders = await Foo.find({
_id: idToRecommend,
recommendedId: user._id
})
if (recommenders.length > 0) {
// We don't want to make the change, we already have a relationship recorded.
}
Cleaning up a db already tainted with these duplicate relationships is a different question, but I would do that as a one-off task rather than a matter of process.
I'm trying to write a sequelize query which includes a relation from different table with hasMany relation. I want my query to return if some column in related table has matches my condition or there is not related row in the related table with foreign key from my main table.
Think about two different models, main one, which is folders, has id, name etc. columns and related table, which is folderOwners has id, folderId and groupId columns which shows which folders is owned by which groups. So, folders can have multiple owner groups.
include: [{
association: "owners",
required: true,
where: {
groupId: {[Op.in]: userGroups.map(group => group.id)}
}
}]
I can get the folders which owned by one of the groups that user is in but I want to get all folders if there is no row in related table, which means folder is not owned by anyone.
I've tried to change required to false and use Op.or for where like below
required: true,
where: {
[Op.or]: [
{groupId: {[Op.in]: userGroups.map(group => group.id)}},
{groupId: {[Op.eq]: null}}
],
}
So, are there any ways to achieve what I want?
If I understood correctly your problem, try this code :
Folder.findAll({include: [{model: Group, required: false}])
it will get all the folders with and without Groups
You can reference to nested model's column from parent model's "where" object using syntax like this: "$AssociatedTableName.columnName$"
Folder.findAll({
where: {
[Op.or]: [
{ '$Group.id$': null },
{
'$Group.id$': {
[Op.in]: [ids],
},
},
],
},
include: [
{
model: Group,
as: 'Group',
required: false,
},
],
});
I am trying to pull an extra attribute for a model from a different table.
I have been trying with associations but it seems wrong to create an extra model and associate that to my original model.
This is my model Company.js
module.exports = {
schema: true,
autoCreatedAt: false,
autoUpdatedAt: false,
autoPK: false,
attributes: {
name: {
type: 'string'
},
url: {
type: 'string'
},
summary: {
type: 'text'
}
}
};
I have another table in MySQL with two columns, crunchbase_url and company_id, I would like to pull the crunchbase_url into the Company model, what would be the best way to do it without migrating the DB (not an option unfortunately).
Thanks,
Well, turns out that the documentation is fine and all works like a charm by simply creating another model and using one to many association with joined with via.
However, there is a bug that threw me off:
When defaultLimit is set to -1, the find action return an empty list if there are associations.
I have a Dojo EnhancedGrid which uses a data store filled with the following data structure:
[
{ id: 1, desc: "Obj Desc", options: [ { txt: "text", value: 0 }, { obj2 }, { objn } ] },
{ id: 2, ... },
{ id: 3, ... },
{ id: n, ... }
]
Currently I'm doing all this with an auxiliary store...but I believe this is far from a good approach to the problem, it's too ugly and doesn't work really well with edition (because I have to send changes from one store to another).
Instead of displaying all this objects at the same time, I wanted to select just one object (using its id) and display its options objects on grid. At the same time, the changes on grid should make effect on store, to be able to save them later.
Is it possible to query the grid's store, in order to display just one object? How?
And is it possible to fill the grid with objects list present on "options" attribute?