Two arrayCollection. Only one is an ArrayCollection [duplicate] - arrays

since 2 weeks, we are having this problem while trying to flush new elements:
CRITICAL: Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException:
A new entity was found through the relationship 'Comment#capture' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity
But the capture is already in the database, and we are getting it by a findOneBy, so if we cascade persist it, or persist it, we get a
Table constraint violation: duplicate entry.
The comments are created in a loop with differents captures, with a new, and all required field are set.
With all of the entities persisted and / or got by a findOne (and all valid), the flush still fails.
I'm on this issue since a while, so please help me

I had the same problem and it was the same EntityManager. I wanted to insert an object related ManyToOne. And I don't want a cascade persist.
Example :
$category = $em->find("Category", 10);
$product = new Product();
$product->setCategory($category)
$em->persist($product);
$em->flush();
This throws the same exception for me.
So the solution is :
$category = $em->find("Category", 10);
$product = new Product();
$product->setCategory($category)
$em->merge($product);
$em->flush();

In my case a too early call of
$this->entityManager->clear();
caused the problem. It also disappeared by only doing a clear on the recent object, like
$this->entityManager->clear($capture);

My answer is relevant for topic, but not very relevant for your particular case, so for those googling I post this, as the answers above did not help me.
In my case, I had the same error with batch-processing entities that had a relation and that relation was set to the very same entity.
WHAT I DID WRONG:
When I did $this->entityManager->clear(); while processing batch of entities I would get this error, because next batch of entities would point to the detached related entity.
WHAT WENT WRONG:
I did not know that $this->entityManager->clear(); works the same as $this->entityManager->detach($entity); only detaches ALL of the repositorie`s entities.
I thought that $this->entityManager->clear(); also detaches related entities.
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE:
I should have iterated over entities and detach them one by one - that would not detach the related entity that the future entities pointed to.
I hope this helps someone.

First of all, you should take better care of your code, I see like 3 differents indentations in your entity and controller - this is hard to read, and do not fit the Symfony2 coding standards.
The code you show for your controller is not complete, we have no idea from where $this->activeCapture is coming. Inside you have a $people['capture'] which contains a Capture object I presume. This is very important.
If the Capture in $people['capture'] is persisted / fetched from another EntityManager than $this->entityManager (which, again, we do not know from where it come), Doctrine2 have no idea that the object is already persisted.
You should make sure to use the same instance of the Doctrine Entity Manager for all those operations (use spl_object_hash on the EM object to make sure they are the same instance).
You can also tell the EntityManager what to do with the Capture object.
// Refreshes the persistent state of an entity from the database
$this->entityManager->refresh($captureEntity);
// Or
// Merges the state of a detached entity into the
// persistence context of this EntityManager and returns the managed copy of the entity.
$captureEntity = $this->entityManager->merge($captureEntity);
If this does not help, you should provide more code.

The error:
'Comment#capture' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity
The problem:
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Capture", inversedBy="comments")
* #ORM\JoinColumn(name="capture_id", referencedColumnName="id",nullable=true)
*/
protected $capture;
dont configured the cascade persist
try with this:
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="Capture", inversedBy="comments", cascade={"persist", "remove" })
* #ORM\JoinColumn(name="capture_id", referencedColumnName="id",nullable=true)
*/
protected $capture;

Refreshing the entity in question helped my case.
/* $item->getProduct() is already set */
/* Add these 3 lines anyway */
$id = $item->getProduct()->getId();
$reference = $this->getDoctrine()->getReference(Product::class, $id);
$item->setProduct($reference);
/* Original code as follows */
$quote->getItems()->add($item);
$this->getDoctrine()->persist($quote);
$this->getDoctrine()->flush();
Despite my $item already having a Product set elsewhere, I was still getting the error.
Turns out it was set via a different instance of EntityManager.
So this is a hack of sorts, by retrieving id of the existing product, and then retrieving a reference of it, and using setProduct to "refresh" the whatever connection. I later fixed it by ensuring I have and use only a single instance of EntityManager in my codebase.

I got this error too when tried to add new entity.
A new entity was found through the relationship 'Application\Entity\User#chats'
that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: ###.
To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or
configure cascade persist this association in the mapping for example #ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}).
My case was that I tried to save entity, that shouldn't be saved. Entity relations was filled and tried to be saved (User has Chat in Many2Many, but Chat was a temporary entity), but there were some collisions.
So If I use cascade={"persist"} I get unwanted behaviour - trash entity is saved. My solution was to remove non-saving entity out of any saving entities:
// User entity code
public function removeFromChats(Chat $c = null){
if ($c and $this->chats->contains($c)) {
$this->chats->removeElement($c);
}
}
Saving code
/* some code witch $chat entity */
$chat->addUser($user);
// saving
$user->removeFromChats($chat);
$this->getEntityManager()->persist($user);
$this->getEntityManager()->flush();

I want to tell about my case as that might be helpful to somebody.
Given two entities: AdSet and AdSetPlacemnt. AdSet has the following property:
/**
* #ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="AdSetPlacement", mappedBy="adSet", cascade={"persist"})
*
* #JMS\Expose
*/
protected $placement;
Then error appears when I try to delete some AdSet objects in a cycle after 1st iteration
foreach($adSetIds as $adSetId) {
/** #var AdSet $adSet */
$adSet = $this->adSetRepository->findOneBy(["id" => $adSetId]);
$this->em->remove($adSet);
$this->em->flush();
}
Error
A new entity was found through the relationship 'AppBundle\Entity\AdSetPlacement#adSet' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: AppBundle\Entity\AdSet#00000000117d7c930000000054c81ae1. To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or configure cascade persist this association in the mapping for example #ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}). If you cannot find out which entity causes the problem implement 'AppBundle\Entity\AdSet#__toString()' to get a clue.
Solution
The solution was to add "remove" to $placement cascade options to be:
cascade={"persist","remove"}. This guarantees that Placement also becomes detached. Entity manager will "forget" about Placement object thinking of it as "removed" once AdSet is removed.
Bad alternative
When trying to figure out what's going on I've seen a couple answers or recommendations to simply use entity manager's clear method to completely clear persistence context.
foreach($adSetIds as $adSetId) {
/** #var AdSet $adSet */
$adSet = $this->adSetRepository->findOneBy(["id" => $adSetId]);
$this->em->remove($adSet);
$this->em->flush();
$this->em->clear();
}
So that code also works, the issue gets solved but it's not always what you really wanna do. Indeed it's happens quite rarely that you actually need to clear entity manager.

Related

cakePHP get a variable from each Model and Controller

I got a question. I have a db table with settings (id, name).
If I read them from the db
$settings = $this->Setting->find('list');
How can I do this in the AppController or something like that to access from each Controller and Model?
Hope someone can help me.
Thanks
Explanation:
I would assume you're looking for something like below (Obviously you'll want to tweak it per your own application, but - it's the idea).
In the app controller, it
finds the settings from the table
repeats through each and puts each one into a "Configure" variable
Code:
/**
* Read settings from DB and populate them in constants
*/
function fetchSettings(){
$this->loadModel('Setting');
$settings = $this->Setting->findAll();
foreach($settings as $settingsData) {
$value = $settingsData['Setting']['default_value'];
//note: can't check for !empty because some values are 0 (zero)
if(isset($settingsData['Setting']['value'])
&& $settingsData['Setting']['value'] !== null
&& $settingsData['Setting']['value'] !== '') {
$value = $settingsData['Setting']['value'];
}
Configure::write($settingsData['Setting']['key'], $value);
}
}
Then, you can access them anywhere in your app via Configure::read('myVar');
A warning from the CakePHP book about Configure variables. (I think they're fine to use in this case, but - something to keep in mind):
CakePHP’s Configure class can be used to store and retrieve
application or runtime specific values. Be careful, this class allows
you to store anything in it, then use it in any other part of your
code: a sure temptation to break the MVC pattern CakePHP was designed
for. The main goal of Configure class is to keep centralized variables
that can be shared between many objects. Remember to try to live by
“convention over configuration” and you won’t end up breaking the MVC
structure we’ve set in place.

Document status that depend on the user type object

I have the following objects: L1User, L2User, L3User (all inherits from User) and Document.
Every user can create the document but depending on the user type, the document will have a different status. So in case it's L1User, the document will be created with L1 status and so on:
Solution 1
Please note that after document is created, it will be saved in the database, so it should be natural to have a method create_document(User user) in Document object. In the method body I could check which type is the user and set manually appropriate status. Such approach seems rather not OOP to me.
Solution 2
Ok, so the next approach would be to have all users implement a common method (say create_document(Document doc)) which will set a status associated with the user and save the document in the database. My doubt here is that the document should be saved in it's own class, not the user.
Solution 3
So the final approach would similar to the above, except that the user will return modified document object to it's create_document(User user) method and save will be performed there. The definition of the method would be like this:
create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document(this);
this->save();
}
It also doesn't seems right to me...
Can anyone suggest a better approach?
I think that both Solutions 2 and 3 are ok from the OO point of view, since you are properly delegating the status assignment to the user object (contrary to solution 1, whare you are basically doing a switch based on the user type). Whether to choose 2 or 3 is more a matter of personal tastes.
However, I have a doubt: why do you pass a document to a create_document() method? I would go for a message name that best describes what it does. For example, in solution 3 (the one I like the most) I would go for:
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = user.create_document();
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>create_document()
{
return new Document('L1');
}
or
Document>>create_document(User user)
{
this = new Document()
this = user.set_document_type(this);
this->save();
}
and then
L1User>>set_document_type(document)
{
document.setType('L1');
}
Edit: I kept thinking about this and there is actually a fourth solution. However the following approach works only if the status of a document doesn't change through its lifetime and you can map the DB field with a getter instead of a property. Since the document already knows the user and the status depends on the user, you can just delegate:
Document>>getStatus()
{
return this.user.getDocumentStatus();
}
HTH

Retrieving Specific Active Directory Record Attributes using C#

I've been asked to set up a process which monitors the active directory, specifically certain accounts, to check that they are not locked so that should this happen, the support team can get an early warning.
I've found some code to get me started which basically sets up requests and adds them to a notification queue. This event is then assigned to a change event and has an ObjectChangedEventArgs object passed to it.
Currently, it iterates through the attributes and writes them to a text file, as so:
private static void NotifierObjectChanged(object sender,
ObjectChangedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.ResultEntry.Attributes.AttributeNames == null)
{
return;
}
// write the data for the user to a text file...
using (var file = new StreamWriter(#"C:\Temp\UserDataLog.txt", true))
{
file.WriteLine("{0} {1}", DateTime.UtcNow.ToShortDateString(), DateTime.UtcNow.ToShortTimeString());
foreach (string attrib in e.ResultEntry.Attributes.AttributeNames)
{
foreach (object item in e.ResultEntry.Attributes[attrib].GetValues(typeof(string)))
{
file.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", attrib, item);
}
}
}
}
What I'd like is to check the object and if a specific field, such as name, is a specific value, then check to see if the IsAccountLocked attribute is True, otherwise skip the record and wait until the next notification comes in. I'm struggling how to access specific attributes of the ResultEntry without having to iterate through them all.
I hope this makes sense - please ask if I can provide any additional information.
Thanks
Martin
This could get gnarly depending upon your exact business requirements. If you want to talk in more detail ping me offline and I'm happy to help over email/phone/IM.
So the first thing I'd note is that depending upon what the query looks like before this, this could be quite expensive or error prone (ie missing results). This worries me somewhat as most sample code out there gets this wrong. :) How are you getting things that have changed? While this sounds simple, this is actually a somewhat tricky question in directory land, given the semantics supported by AD and the fact that it is a multi-master system where writes happen all over the place (and replicate in after the fact).
Other variables would be things like how often you're going to run this, how large the data set could be in AD, and so on.
AD has some APIs built to help you here (the big one that comes to mind is called DirSync) but this can be somewhat complicated if you haven't used it before. This is where the "ping me offline" part comes in.
To your exact question, I'm assuming your result is actually a SearchResultEntry (if not I can revise, tell me what you have in hand). If that is the case then you'll find an Attributes field hanging off of that guy, and from there there is AttributeNames and Values. I think you'll see how it works from there if you have Values in hand, for example:
foreach (var attr in sre.Attributes.Values)
{
var da = (DirectoryAttribute)attr;
Console.WriteLine(da.Name);
foreach (var val in da.GetValues(typeof(byte[])))
{
// Handle a byte[] val ...
}
}
As I said, if you have something other than a SearchResultEntry in hand, let us know and I can revise the code sample.

JDO for GAE: Update objects returned by a query

There is persistable class Project, each instance of which has list of objects of Version type (owned one-to-many relation between Project and Version classes).
I'm getting several Version objects from datastore with query, change them and try to save:
PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager();
Transaction tx = pm.currentTransaction();
try {
tx.begin();
Query q = pm.newQuery(Version.class, "... filters here ...");
q.declareParameters(" ... parameters here ...");
List<Version> versions = (List<Version>)q.execute(... parameters here ...);
if (versions.size() > 0) {
for (Version version : versions) {
version.setOrder(... value here ...);
}
pm.makePersistentAll(versions);
}
tx.commit();
return newVersion.toVersionInfo();
} finally {
pm.close();
}
Everything is executed without errors, query actually returns several objects, properties are set correctly in runtime versions list, but objects properties are not updated in datastore.
Generally, as far as I understand, versions should be saved even without calling
pm.makePersistentAll(versions);
, since object properties are set before pm.close(), but nothing is saved, if this row is omitted, as well.
At the same time, if I retrieve instance of type Project (which owns many instances of type Version) with pm.getObjectById() method, and walk through all related Version objects in the loop, all changes are saved correctly (without calling pm.makePersistent() method).
The question is, what's wrong with such way of updating objects? Why Version object properties are not updated in datastore?
I could not find anything helpful neither in JDO nor in GAE documentation.
Thanks for advice about logs from DataNucleus and sympathy from Peter Recore :)
Frankly, I missed few important points in my question.
Actually,between
tx.begin();
and
Query q = pm.newQuery(Version.class, "... filters here ...");
I am retrieving Project instance, and after Version instances updating loop I am persisting some one more Version object.
So, I actually retrieved some of versions list twice, and according to committing order in logs, Project instance was saved twice, as well. The second save operation overwritten the first one.
I changed the order of operations, and got expected behavior.

Cannot retrieve user object from foreign key relationships using Linq to Entities statement

I'm trying to retrieve a user object from a foreign key reference but each time I try to do so nothing gets returned...
My table is set up like this:
FBUserID long,
UserID uniqueidentifier
so I have my repository try to get the User when it's provided the FBUserID:
public User getUserByFBuid(long uid)
{
User fbUser = null;
IEnumerable<FBuid> fbUids = _myEntitiesDB.FBuidSet.Where(user => user.FBUserID == uid);
fbUser = fbUids.FirstOrDefault().aspnet_Users;
return fbUser;
}
I've checked that the uid (FBUserID) passed in is correct, I've check that the UserID is matched up to the FBUserID. And I've also checked to make sure that fbUids.Count() > 0...
I've returned fbUids.FirstOrDefault().FBUserID and gotten the correct FBUserID, but any time I try to return the aspnet_Users or aspnet_Users.UserName, etc... I don't get anything returned. (I'm guessing it's getting an error for some reason)
I don't have debugging set up properly so that's probably why i'm having so much troubles... but so far all the checking I've done I've been doing return this.Json(/* stuff returned form the repository */) so that I can do an alert when it gets back to the javascript.
Anyone know why I would have troubles retrieving the user object from a foreign key relationship like that?
Or do you have any suggestions as to finding out what's wrong?
For now, with Entity Framework 1, you don't get automatic delayed loading, e.g. if you want to traverse from one entity to the next, you need to either do an .Include("OtherEntity") on your select to include those entities in the query, or you need to explicitly call .Load("OtherEntity") on your EntityContext to load that entity.
This was a design decision by the EF team not to support automagic deferred loading, since they considered it to be too dangerous; they wanted to make it clear and obvious to the user that he is also including / loading a second set of entities.
Due to high popular demand, the upcoming EF v4 (to be released with .NET 4.0 sometime towards the end of 2009) will support the automatic delayed loading - if you wish to use it. You need to explicitly enable it since it's off by default:
context.ContextOptions.DeferredLoadingEnabled = true;
See some articles on that new feature:
A Look at Lazy Loading in EF4
POCO Lazy Loading
Don't know if this is what you are asking but i do a join like so;
var votes = from av in dc.ArticleVotes
join v in dc.Votes on av.voteId equals v.id
where av.articleId == articleId
select v;
Did this help or am I off base?

Resources