Kindly help me to find out a solution to my problem.
I have a property of type String in my entity which is not primary key.
This would act as system generated unique profile id for users in my project.
I want to auto generate this value like a random string of particular size.
Could you please help me to arrive at a solution.
I have tried the #Generator and custom id generator class. but still null is getting inserted to the field in db.
I am using maria db.
Hi you can use the hibernate events.
#PostPersist Executed after the entity manager persist operation is actually executed or cascaded. This call is invoked after the database INSERT is executed.
Starting with Java 5, the UUID class provides a simple means for generating unique ids. The identifiers generated by UUID are actually universally unique identifiers.
Please follow the sample example.
public class TestModel {
#Column("column_name")
private String uid;
//setter and getter for uid
#PrePersist
protected void onCreate() {
// set the uid
setUid(java.util.UUID.randomUUID());
}
}
Please find the below link for more information on #PrePersist.
https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/entitymanager/3.5/reference/en/html/listeners.html
Related
I am trying to find a work-around for the EclipseLink bug bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=344448.
The issue is that EclipseLink chooses a primary key made of entity ID + hashmap value ID for each entry of the HashMap. I would like to modify to have the primary key of entity ID + hashmap key ID instead. This is not only an issue with the primary key constraint but also with the SQL statements generated by EclipseLink, eg delete, update, etc...
So... I saw there is a way to customise this behaviour using a Customiser and by grabbing the ManyToManyMapping of the hashmap field and modifying whatever is needed. I can't find much documentation on this so I am sort of trying out things... but so far no success.
public class ConfigureValuesFilter implements DescriptorCustomizer {
public void customize(ClassDescriptor descriptor) throws Exception {
ManyToManyMapping mapping = (ManyToManyMapping) descriptor
.getMappingForAttributeName("values");
// various attempts
}
I tried setting the primary key with mapping.setTargetRelationKeyFieldName ("value_KEY"); and the setTargetKeyFieldNames (why does it need both?) but this resulted in an array index out of bound error with the table (from the key) I want to use not available in the descriptor, see below.
Exception Description: The table [CASEVALUE] is not present in this descriptor.
Descriptor: RelationalDescriptor(testdb.EULADocument --> [DatabaseTable(EULADOCUMENT)])
Then I tried changing the delete query statement with setDeleteSQLString, but I am stuck on how to pass the parameter values
mapping.setDeleteSQLString("DELETE FROM LICENSE_EULADOCUMENT WHERE ((values_KEY = #VALUES_KEY) AND (License_ID = #LICENSE_ID))");
says it could not find the VALUES_KEY so sets it to NULL...
What is the recommended way to modify the behaviour?
I want to uniquely identity an entity without using the primary key. So I thought about generating an unique and random value. Moreover, value must be easy to read / manually copy and is expected to be 6 or 7 characters long.
Design
My entity A:
public class A{
// ...
#Column(name="value", unique=true, nullable=false, insertable=false, updatable=false)
private String value;
// ...
public String getValue(){
return value;
}
protected void setValue(String value){
this.value = value;
}
}
represented in the database by the table
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS schema.mytable{
-- ...
value TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT generate_unique_value_for_mytable(),
-- ...
CONSTRAINT "un_value" UNIQUE (value),
-- ...
}
I thought letting the database handling this and then fetch the value...
Problem
With the current design, value is correctly generated in the database but when JPA fetches A entities, value field is empty.
I cannot remove insertable=false otherwise, it will hit against the NOT NULL constraint
If I remove insertable=false and I put some dummy data, the data overrides the value generated by generate_unique_value_for_mytable()
If I remove everything in the Column annotation, I can save the A entity but value is still empty
Ugly solution
I couldn't find a proof but it looks like having the database generating a value is a bad idea. I do have the same problem for a non-primary key field which is generated by a sequence: I cannot fetch the value from the database.
So my ugly solution is to decorate the create() method of the EJB responsible for A entities:
public class Aejb{
public void create(A entity){
// method kind of ensures randomness
String value = MyUtil.generateRandomValue();
A isThereAnyoneHere = findByValue(value);
while(isThereAnyoneHere != null){
String value = MyUtil.generateRandomValue();
isThereAnyoneHere = findByValue(value);
}
// unicity is ensured
entity.setValue(value);
em.persist(entity);
}
}
Questions
Can I fetch a non-primary key value generated by the database from a JPA entity? Value can be generated by a function or a sequence.
Is there a more elegant solution than my ugly workaround to provide an unique and random value?
Yes.You haven't mentioned your database, but it is possible for
Oracle to return the value inserted via triggers, and have
Eclipselink obtain this value in your model - see
https://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/documentation/2.5/jpa/extensions/a_returninsert.htm
Set the value using a #PrePersist method that will get executed
before the entity is inserted, but if you are relying on one or more database queries, you will run into performance issues, as inserting a new A will be expensive. You might instead just insert the random value and deal with the occasional conflict, and pick some random that has less chance of overlaps, like a UUID.
If I understand correctly, #Generated annotation should do the trick. This annotation sets the value from database DEFAULT field value.
Example:
#Generated(GenerationTime.INSERT)
#Column(name="value", unique=true, nullable=false, insertable=false, updatable=false)
private String value;
However there is a drawback: if you decide to set value of your field in Java, it would be overwritten by Hibernate using the result from DEFAULT in your database.
Self-answer to mark question as closed
Final solution
We finally went for a combination of
Stored procedures: the database will generate the value. The procedure also ensures that the value is unique across the table
Named queries: to fetch the generated value by the procedure. I did not use NamedStoredProcedures because we are using PostgreSQL and PostgreSQL JDBC driver did not support name parameters which raised some problems.
With this configuration, the EJB is sure to have at most one database call to fetch the requested value.
Response to other answers
Here is a summary of the other answers feedback for self-reference and next readers:
Oracle trigger: we're using PostgreSQL :(
UUID: We had the constraint of having our unique and random code human-readable. An end-user is assumed to be able to manually rewrite it. Consequently, we could not have a long String such as an UUID.
PrePersist: Other business actions take place after the code generation in the same transaction which means that those actions need to be redone in case of collision. I'm not very confident about managing JPA exception (transaction scope and so on) so I preferred not to play with it.
#Generated: This is a Hibernate specific feature. We're using EclipseLink
Database Trigger: If code were purely generated at database level, I encountered the same problems of not fetching the value: the value is properly generated as database level but the entity will have the value as null
Given the Model:
Public Class Customer
Property Id() As Guid
Property FirstName() As String
Property MiddleName() As String
Property LastName() As String
Property Addresses() As ICollection(Of Address)
End Class
Public Class Address
Property Id() As Guid
Property Name() As String
Property Street() As String
Property City() As String
Property Zip() As String
Public Property Customer() As Customer
End Class
Entity Framework 6 Code First has created a column called Customer_Id in my table Addresses. Now, I'd like to add a Property Customer_Id to my class Address that represents the existing foreign key relation:
Public Class Address
Property Id() As Guid
Property Name() As String
Property Street() As String
Property City() As String
Property Zip() As String
Public Property Customer() As Customer
//Added
Public Property Customer_Id() As Guid
End Class
Unfortunately this results in an InvalidOperationException while creating the DbContext saying:
The model backing the 'DataContext' context has changed since the database was created.
I tried different property names (with and without underscore, different casing). But still no luck. So, what is the correct way to add those properties subsequently without the need for migrations? I assume it's possible, because the model does not really change, I am only changing from an implicit declaration of a property to an explicit...
Update:
The responses show me, that I did not explain the problem very well. After some more reading I found the correct names now: I have an application which is installed several times at customer locations (therefore dropping and recreating the database is no option). Currently, it depends on Entity Framework's Independent Associations, but I want to have the Foreign Key in my entity as well (this is no change to the model, the foreign key is already there, but does not exist as a property in my entity, since this is currently only relying on the IA instead). I did not manage to add it without EF thinking my Database is outdated.
for me two ways :
drop table __MigrationHistory : that is have the new model runs, but forget migration functionalities
create a new db by changing the connection string of the application. Replace old __MigrationHistory by __MigrationHistory of the newly created db
Never tested the second solution, but it should work.
Before using any solution:
backup you db.
Before using first solution: are you sure you will never need migration functionalities ?
This exception is because you change your model. You have to set migration strategy. Please look at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj591621#enabling
(edited)
First of all you have to remove that exception. Even if you didn't add any new column to your database your model has changed because you added new property to Address class. If you check your DB you will find dbo.__MigrationHistory table with Model column. Last (earliest) value from that column is used for checking that your model and DB are compatible. I'm not sure but I think that EF stores there binary serialized model. So the solution is - recreate DB or add migration (probably empty migration).
(edited)
When you want to set FK you can do this very simple by Data Annotations
// c# example
public class Address
{
...
public string CustomerId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CustomerId")]
public Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
or in fluent api
// c# example
modelBuilder.Entity<Address>()
.HasRequired(arg => arg.Customer)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(arg => arg.CustomerId);
or look at:
http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2011/05/01/associations-in-ef-4-1-code-first-part-5-one-to-one-foreign-key-associations.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/hh134698.aspx
I know there have been a number of similar posts about this, but I couldn't find a clear answer to my problem.
To make it as simple as possible, say I have such an entity:
#Entity
public class Person implements Serializable {
#Id
private Long id; // PK
private String name; // business key
/* getters and setters */
/*
override equals() and hashCode()
to use the **name** field
*/
}
So, id is the PK and name is the business key.
Say that I get a list of names, with possible duplicates, which I want to store.
If I simply create one object per name, and let JPA make it persistent, my final table will contain duplicate names - Not acceptable.
My question is what you think is the best approach, considering the alternatives I describe here below and (especially welcome) your own.
Possible solution 1: check the entity manager
Before creating a new person object, check if one with the same person name is already managed.
Problem: The entity manager can only be queried by PK. IS there any workaround Idon't know about?
Possible solution 2: find objects by query
Query query = em.createQuery("SELECT p FROM Person p WHERE p.name = ...");
List<Person> list = query.getResultList();
Questions: Should the objects requested be already loaded in the em, will this still fetch from database? If so, I suppose it would still be not very efficient if done very frequently, due to parsing the query?
Possible solution 3: keep a separate dictionary
This is possible because equals() and hashCode() are overridden to use the field name.
Map<String,Person> personDict = new HashMap<String,Person>();
for(String n : incomingNames) {
Person p = personDict.get(n);
if (p == null) {
p = new Person();
p.setName(n);
em.persist(p);
personDict.put(n,p);
}
// do something with it
}
Problem 1: Wasting memory for large collections, as this is essentially what the entity manager does (not quite though!)
Problem 2: Suppose that I have a more complex schema, and that after the initial writing my application gets closed, started again, and needs to re-load the database. If all tables are loaded explicitly into the em, then I can easily re-populate the dictionaries (one per entity), but if I use lazy fetch and/or cascade read, then it's not so easy.
I started recently with JPA (I use EclipseLink), so perhaps I am missing something fundamental here, because this issue seems to boil down to a very common usage pattern.
Please enlighten me!
The best solution which I can think of is pretty simple, use a Unique Constraint
#Entity
#UniqueConstraint(columnNames="name")
public class Person implements Serializable {
#Id
private Long id; // PK
private String name; // business key
}
The only way to ensure that the field can be used (correctly) as a key is to create a unique constraint on it. You can do this using #UniqueConstraint(columnNames="name") or using #Column(unique = true).
Upon trying to insert a duplicate key the EntityManager (actually, the DB) will throw an exception. This scenario is also true for a manually set primary key.
The only way to prevent the exception is to do a select on the key and check if it exists.
I'm using Ebean, and define such a model:
#Entity
#Table(name = "users")
public class User extends Model {
#Id
public String id;
public String email;
public String name;
}
You can see the field id is String, and has a #Id annotation.
Now I save it:
User user = new User();
user.id = "abc";
user.email = "a#a.com";
Ebean.save(user);
But when I saved it, I found the value of it's id is: 1, not abc I specified.
I checked the sql, found the table generate:
create table users (
id varchar(255) not null,
email varchar(255),
name varchar(255),
constraint pk_users primary key (id))
;
create sequence users_seq;
You can see there is a seq users_seq which has been used when inserting a user.
How to define the model or how to configure Ebean to let it not do anything to the #Id field? Just let it use my specified value?
===========
UPDATE
Sorry, guys, I found this strange behavior is because of my mistake!
Yes, I use it with playframework 1, and I tried to create a play-ebean module for myself. But there is something wrong: When I save a model, I cleared the id value by mistake!
So the assigned value abc is missing, then Ebean will try to use a seq to get a new value for it.
Thanks for all you help, and sorry again, I will be more careful when I ask question next time.
Isn't it better idea to create another unique field and use it optionally ie. String userCode or something?
Play with Ebean uses auto incrementation of Id's to make sure the Id is unique so I'd personally didn't change that as all docs assumes that id of model is some numeric kind.
You can thought use Play's routes to find user by its string-id and still use Long id to perform basic operations.
(I'm writing in Play's context as I assume that you ask in it ;) )
You need to extend GenericModel instead of Model if you want to operate on your own #Id field. I am also talking in PlayFramework context.