Default name for database objects - jpa

I'm trying to find out what column name JPA uses when there's no explicit name set.
Example:
#Entity
public class TestType {
private Boolean active;
private Character testTypeCode;
public Boolean getActive() {
return active;
}
public void setActive(Boolean active) {
this.active = active;
}
#Id
public Character getTestTypeCode() {
return testTypeCode;
}
public void setTestTypeCode(Character testTypeCode) {
this.testTypeCode = testTypeCode;
}
}
What name will be used for the primary key column, which column name will be used for the property "active" and what table name will be used. I'm looking for the specification of what names JPA uses by default.

It is the chapter "2.13 Naming of Database Objects" that specifies that (JPA 2.0 spec).
This specification requires the following with regard to the
interpretation of the names referencing database objects. These names
include the names of tables, columns, and other database elements.
Such names also include names that result from defaulting (e.g., a
table name that is defaulted from an entity name or a column name that
is defaulted from a field or property name).
In you example, the table name would be TestType, the ID column name testTypeCode and the active column would the called the same. Please also note, that in the SQL Standard all column and table names are case insensitive, although there are some counterexamples (e.g MySQL on Unix: the table names are case sensitive).

Related

EF Core - Change column type from varchar to uuid in PostgreSQL 13: column cannot be cast automatically to type uuid

Before:
public class MyEntity
{
public string Id { get; set; }
//...
}
Config:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
//...
modelBuilder.Entity<MyEntity>()
.Property(e => e.Id)
.ValueGeneratedOnAdd();
}
This was the previous developer's code which resulted in GUID values for the column. But in C# I had to deal with strings, so I decided to change the model.
After:
public class MyEntity
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
//...
}
And I removed the ValueGeneratedOnAdd() code from Fluent API config.
I get the column "Id" cannot be cast automatically to type uuid error.
I think the key in this message is the automatically word.
Now my question is that since the values on that column are already GUID/UUID, is there any way to tell Postgres to change the varchar type to uuid and cast the current string value to UUID and put it in the column? I'm guessing there should be a SQL script that can do this without any data loss.
Use USING _columnname::uuid. Here is an illustration.
-- Prepare a test case:
create table delme (x varchar);
insert into delme (x) values
('b575ec3a-2776-11eb-adc1-0242ac120002'),
('4d5c5440-2776-11eb-adc1-0242ac120002'),
('b575f25c-2776-11eb-adc1-0242ac120002');
-- Here is the conversion that you need:
ALTER TABLE delme ALTER COLUMN x TYPE uuid USING x::uuid;
In your particular case:
ALTER TABLE "MyEntity" ALTER COLUMN "Id" TYPE uuid USING "Id"::uuid;
Btw, is your application the sole owner of the database model? If not then changing an existing table is a bad idea.

Add Column Name Convention to EF6 FluentAPI

This question was asked here 4 years ago: EF Mapping to prefix all column names within a table I'm hoping there's better handling these days.
I'm using EF6 Fluent API, what I'll call Code First Without Migrations. I have POCOs for my models, and the majority of my database column names are defined as [SingularTableName]Field (e.g., CustomerAddress db column maps to Address field in Customers POCO)
Table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.Customers (
-- ID, timestamps, etc.
CustomerName NVARCHAR(50),
CustomerAddress NVARCHAR(50)
-- etc.
);
Model:
public class Customer
{
// id, timestamp, etc
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Address {get;set;}
}
ModelBuilder:
modelBuilder<Customer>()
.Property(x => x.Name).HasColumnName("CustomerName");
modelBuilder<Customer>()
.Property(x => x.Address).HasColumnName("CustomerAddress");
Goal:
What I'd really like is to be able to say something like this for the FluentAPI:
modelBuilder<Customer>().ColumnPrefix("Customer");
// handle only unconventional field names here
// instead of having to map out column names for every column
With model-based code-first conventions this has become very simple. Just create a class that implements IStoreModelConvention ...
class PrefixConvention : IStoreModelConvention<EdmProperty>
{
public void Apply(EdmProperty property, DbModel model)
{
property.Name = property.DeclaringType.Name + property.Name;
}
}
... and add it to the conventions in OnModelCreating:
modelBuilder.Conventions.Add(new PrefixConvention());

Entity Framework 5 recursive relations

CREATE TABLE ConfigurationItem
(
OID BIGINT NOT NULL
,ParentItemOID BIGINT
);
ALTER TABLE ConfigurationItem ADD CONSTRAINT PK_CONFIGURATIONITEM PRIMARY KEY (OID);
ALTER TABLE ConfigurationItem ADD CONSTRAINT FK_CONFIGURATIONITEM_PARENTITEMOID FOREIGN KEY (ParentItemOID ) REFERENCES CONFIGURATIONITEM(OID);
Every time fetch data ConfigurationItem I would like to get
parent ConfigurationItem
and List of child ConfigurationItems
and no recursion.
This was the entity created
[Table("ConfigurationItem", Schema = "dbo")]
public partial class ConfigurationItem : TaggableItem
{
public Int64 OID { get; set; }
public Int64? ParentItemOID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentItemOID")]
public ConfigurationItem Parent;
[InverseProperty("ParentItemOID")]
//Not a virtual because it is need to be marshalled via WCF
public List<ConfigurationItem> Children { get; set; }
}
I can't make this to work.
Example following errors happen:
InnerException: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException
HResult=-2146232060
Message=Invalid column name 'ConfigurationItem_OID'.
Source=.Net SqlClient Data Provider
ErrorCode=-2146232060
Class=16
LineNumber=32
Number=207
Procedure=""
Server=localhost
State=1
What would be the correct way to make this work in Entity framework?
I think your original exception stems from the default naming convention used by EF. Either rename the OID property in the ConfigurationItem class to Configuration_OID or use the Column annotation on the OID property to indicate that you want to override the default naming convention for that column, e.g. [Column("OID")].
I have a schema with a self-referential table like this and I haven't found it necessary to use the InverseProperty annotation, so you may be able to just get rid of it.

JPA Error : The entity has no primary key attribute defined

I am using JPA in my application. In one of the table, I have not used primary key (I know its a bad design).
Now the generated entity is as mentioned below :
#Entity
#Table(name="INTI_SCHEME_TOKEN")
public class IntiSchemeToken implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Column(name="CREATED_BY")
private String createdBy;
#Temporal( TemporalType.DATE)
#Column(name="CREATED_ON")
private Date createdOn;
#Column(name="SCH_ID")
private BigDecimal schId;
#Column(name="TOKEN_ID")
private BigDecimal tokenId;
public IntiSchemeToken() {
}
public String getCreatedBy() {
return this.createdBy;
}
public void setCreatedBy(String createdBy) {
this.createdBy = createdBy;
}
public Date getCreatedOn() {
return this.createdOn;
}
public void setCreatedOn(Date createdOn) {
this.createdOn = createdOn;
}
public BigDecimal getSchId() {
return this.schId;
}
public void setSchId(BigDecimal schId) {
this.schId = schId;
}
public BigDecimal getTokenId() {
return this.tokenId;
}
public void setTokenId(BigDecimal tokenId) {
this.tokenId = tokenId;
}
}
Here In my project, eclipse IDE shows ERROR mark(RED colored cross) on this class and the error is "The entity has no primary key attribute defined".
Can anyone tell me, How to create an entity without primary key ?
Thanks.
You can't. An entity MUST have a unique, immutable ID. It doesn't have to be defined as a primary key in the database, but the field or set of fields must uniquely identify the row, and its value may not change.
So, if one field in your entity, or one set of fields in your entity, satisfies these criteria, make it (or them) the ID of the entity. For example, if there is no way that a user can create two instances in the same day, you could make [createdOn, createdBy] the ID of the entity.
Of course this is a bad solution, and you should really change your schema and add an autogenerated, single-column ID in the entity.
If your Primary Key(PK) is a managed super class which is inherited in an entity class then you will have to include the mapped super class name in the persistence.xml file.
Look at the bug report:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=361042
If you need to define a class without primary key, then you should mark that class as an Embeddable class. Otherwise you should give the primary key for all entities you are defining.
You can turn off (change) validation that was added.
Go to workspace preferences 'Java Persistence->JPA->Errors/Warnings' next 'Type' and change 'Entity has no primary key' to 'Warnning'.
In addition to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Identity_and_Sequencing#No_Primary_Key you can use some build-in columns like ROWID in Oracle:
Oracle legacy table without good PK: How to Hibernate?
but with care:
http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/ROWID
Entity frameworks doesn't work for all kind of data (like statistical data which was used for analysis not for querying).
Another solution without Hibernate
If
- you don't have PK on the table
- there is a logical combination of columns that could be PK (not necessary if you can use some kind of rowid)
-- but some of the columns are NULLable so you really can't create PK because of DB limitation
- and you can't modify the table structure (would break insert/select statements with no explicitly listed columns at legacy code)
then you can try the following trick
- create view at database with virtual column that has value of concatenated logical key columns ('A='||a||'B='||'C='c..) or rowid
- create your JPA entity class by this view
- mark the virtual column with #Id annotation
That's it. Update/delete data operations are also possible (not insert) but I wouldn't use them if the virtual key column is not made of rowid (to avoid full scan searches by the DB table)
P.S. The same idea is partly described at the linked question.
You need to create primary key ,If not found any eligible field then create auto increment Id.
CREATE TABLE fin_home_loan (
ID int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
PRIMARY KEY (ID));
Just add fake id field.
In Postgres:
#Id
#Column(name="ctid")
String id;
In Oracle:
#Id
#Column(name="ROWID")
String rowid;

ADO.NET Entity : getting data from 3 tables

I have following table structure:
Table: Plant
PlantID: Primary Key
PlantName: String
Table: Party
PartyID: Primary Key
PartyName: String
PlantID: link to Plant table
Table: Customer
PartyID: Primary Key, link to Party
CustomerCode: String
I'd like to have Customer entity object with following fields:
PartyID: Primary Key
CustomerCode: String
PartyName: String
PlantName: String
I am having trouble with PlantName field (which is brought from Plant table
I connected Customer to Party and Party to Plant with associations
However I can not connect Customer to Plant with association ( because it does not have one)
I can not add Plant table to mapping, when I do that - I am getting following error:
Error 3024: Problem in Mapping Fragment starting at line 352: Must specify mapping for all key properties (CustomerSet.PartyID) of the EntitySet CustomerSet
Removing Plant association works.
Any hints or directions very appreciated.
You can get these fields by using the reference path on the Entity Object.
To get the PartyName, use this syntax: Customer.Party.PartyName
To get the PlantName, use this syntax: Customer.Party.Plant.PlantName
You can extend the Customer entity by using the public partial class:
public partial class Customer
{
public string PartyName
{
get { return Party.PartyName; }
set { Party.PartyName = value; }
}
public string PlantName
{
get { return Party.Plant.PlantName; }
set { Party.Plant.PlantName = value; }
}
}
After some research, I came across this thread on MSDN that says you can create a read-only entity, which is enough of a downside to not use it alone, but it gets worse. You will also lose the ability to update all of the models dynamically based on the schema of the database.