As a laravel user for a couple of months now, I'm trying to better understand advanced use of Eloquent.
I ran into a case where I can't come up with a solution that feels right.
I've got the following structure (simplified)
Mandate
id
status_id
Mandate_user
mandat_id
user_id
link_status
User
id
I declared belongsToMany in both User and Mandat via the pivot table.
on User:
public function mandates(){
return belongsToMany(..)->withPivot('link_status');
}
I'm able to get accepted mandates for a user by using
public function acceptedMandates(){
return $this->mandates()->wherePivot('link_status', MandateUserStatus::Accepted);
}
This works but I'm wondering if there would be a better way by using scopes or other eloquent methods.
And I'm trying to get accepted mandates that also have a status_id lower than 4 (which comes from an enum as well)
I thought of something like :
public function runningMandates(){
return $this->acceptedMandates()->where('status_id','<', 4);
}
Then gathering mandates like so:
$mandates = User::find(1)->runningMandates();
But would the eloquent way be of doing something like:
$mandates = User::find(1)->mandates()->running()->accepted();
Thanks for your time.
It's a very subjective question and hard to give a straight answer to, but hopefully I can stop you from second-guessing yourself: what you're doing is perfectly fine and no less "eloquent-like" than the other.
Personally I like what you're doing now much more than what you present as the "Eloquent way" and have done so before in professional projects, but ultimately there is a difference in the way you design the code for a framework or package, which must be flexible to account for many different scenarios, most of which you cannot even envision when doing version one, versus how you design the code for an app which will only be consumed by itself. If you know the business logic that drives your app and the views it will present to its users (subsequently, the queries it must perform), why wouldn't you create methods that will easily achieve just that?
Eloquent relies on chaining not just because it's cool, but because it does not know (or care to know) what your business logic is. To me, the "Eloquent way" is more about fluent, readable code, and I find that $user->runningMandates is more readable than $user->mandates()->running()->accepted()->get().
I also find that the first approach is easier to get into. If you're constantly forcing yourself to separate methods so they can be chained, it can be harder to grasp which method is doing what and which method relies on which. Query scopes can modify the query as they like (join, alias, etc) so the danger lies in one method requiring another to come first, because you're conditioning based on a table or column that isn't on the original query, so a method will only work in conjunction with another; or maybe two methods are trying to join the same table, or using the same aliases, so they cannot be used together. It may seem far-fetched, but often the effort to keep things separate and tidy will make your code harder to use. But even if things don't blow up code-wise, the deal-breaker to me would be neglecting business logic: in your case, does it make sense to have two separate scopes for running and accepted? Can a mandate be running if it's not accepted? If not, you should try to prevent a less knowledgeable developer from creating that flawed query (logic-wise). And as you said, the structure is simplified so there may be other gotchas lurking around, and many more will come as the app grows in complexity.
If I'm taking over someone else's code, I'd rather have limited, self-contained methods that don't break over simple, decentralized methods that require you to read (often non-existent) documentation in order to prevent the many ways in which to mis-use them.
Basically, scopes add constraints to the query so you may use the scope approach to modify the query by calling scope methods that will eventually give you a chance to make a query dynamically. So, you may declare (as you did) one relationship method where you may do all the query and call that specific method or use scope methods two build the query using method calls where each method adds a constraint. In this case, it'll be more dynamic but still it's a preference and it gives you more flexibility (IMO). So yes, you can use query scopes for that, for example:
// Declare the main relationship
public function mandates()
{
return $this->belongsToMany(..)->withPivot('link_status');
}
Now, declare query scope for accepted (add a constraint on the query returned by mandates method call)
public function scopeAccepted($query)
{
return $query->wherePivot('link_status', MandateUserStatus::Accepted);
}
Now, add another query scope for running, for example:
public function scopeRunning($query)
{
return $query->where('status_id','<', 4);
}
Now, if you call something likethe following:
$user = User::find(1);
Now, call the relationship method (not as property)
$mendates = $user
->mandates() // The method is called and a query object is constructed
->running() // Add another constraint into the query: ->where('status_id','<', 4)
->accepted() // Add another constraint into the query: ...
->get(); // Finally, execute the query to get the result
Probably, it's clear to you now. Notice the method call mandates(), it's a method call on the relation defined which returns the Query Builder and by chaining additional scope method calls, you are just modifying the query by adding some more constraints but you can do all the query in one method without dynamic scopes, so it's up to you. While, scopes gives you more flexibility but it doesn't mean you've to follow this approach always, it depends.
Related
I'd like to ask what are your thought on deprecation of the TableRegistry::get() static call in CakePHP 3.6?
In my opinion it was not a good idea.
First of all, using LocatorAwareTrait is wrong on many levels. Most important, using traits in such way can break the Single Responsibility and Separation of Concerns principles. In addition some developers don't want to use traits as all because they thing that it breaks the object oriented design pattern. They prefer delegation.
I prefer to use delegation as well with combination of flyweight/singleton approach. I know that the delegation is encapsulated by the LocatorAwareTrait but the only problem is that it exposes the (get/set)TableLocator methods that can be used incorrectly.
In other words if i have following facade:
class Fruits {
use \Cake\ORM\Locator\LocatorAwareTrait;
public function getApples() { ... }
public function getOranges() { ... }
...
}
$fruits = new Fruits();
I don't want to be able to call $fruits->getTableLocator()->get('table') outside of the scope of Fruits.
The other thing you need to consider when you make such changes is the adaptation of the framework. Doing TableRegistry::getTableLocator()->get('table') every time i need to access the model is not the best thing if i have multiple modules in my application that move beyond simple layered architecture.
Having flyweight/singleton class like TableRegistry with property get to access desired model just makes the development more straight forward and life easier.
Ideally, i would just like to call TR::get('table'), although that breaks the Cake's coding standards. (I've created that wrapper for myself anyways to make my app bullet proof from any similar changes)
What are your thoughts?
I have models with the the following relations, defining a situation where users can belong to many groups, and multiple groups can be granted access to a project.
User HABTM Group HABTM Project
I would like to set things up so that any find() done on the Project model will only return results to which the current user has access, based on her group membership.
My first thought is to use the beforeFind() callback to modify the query. However, the two-level association has me stumped. I solved a similar problem (see this question) by rebinding models. However, that was for a custom find method—I don't think that approach will work in a general situation like this where I need to modify arbitrary queries.
Using afterFind() to filter results isn't a good idea because it will confuse pagination (for example) when it doesn't return the right number of records.
Finally, I have a nagging suspicion that I'm trying to re-invent the wheel. The access control I've seen in CakePHP (e.g. Cake ACLs) has been at the controller/action level rather than at the model/record level, but I feel like this should be a solved problem.
Edit: I eventually decided that this was over-complicated and just added a getAccessibleByUser($id) method to my Project model. However, I'm still curious whether it's possible to globally add this kind of restriction to all find() operations. It seems like exactly the sort of thing you'd want to do in beforeFind(), and I suspect (as DavidYell suggests below) that the answer may lie with the Containable behavior.
You should look at the Containable behaviour. If you are using CakePHP 2.x then it comes in the box.
This behaviour allows you to manage the model relations and the data which is returned by them, along with allowing you to pass conditions, such as a group_id into your contain.
http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/core-libraries/behaviors/containable.html
I'm working on a personal project using WPF with Entity Framework and Self Tracking Entities. I have a WCF web service which exposes some methods for the CRUD operations. Today I decided to do some tests and to see what actually travels over this service and even though I expected something like this, I got really disappointed. The problem is that for a simple update (or delete) operation for just one object - lets say Category I send to the server the whole object graph, including all of its parent categories, their items, child categories and their items, etc. I my case it was a 170 KB xml file on a really small database (2 main categories and about 20 total and about 60 items). I can't imagine what will happen if I have a really big database.
I tried to google for some articles concerning traffic optimization with STE, but with no success, so I decided to ask here if somebody has done something similar, knows some good practices, etc.
One of the possible ways I came out with is to get the data I need per object with more service calls:
return context.Categories.ToList();//only the categories
...
return context.Items.ToList();//only the items
Instead of:
return context.Categories.Include("Items").ToList();
This way the categories and the items will be separated and when making changes or deleting some objects the data sent over the wire will be less.
Has any of you faced a similar problem and how did you solve it or did you solve it?
We've encountered similiar challenges. First of all, as you already mentioned, is to keep the entities as small as possible (as dictated by the desired client functionality). And second, when sending entities back over the wire to be persisted: strip all navigation properties (nested objects) when they haven't changed. This sounds very simple but is not at all trivial. What we do is to recursively dig into the entities present in trackable collections of say the "topmost" entity (and their trackable collections, and theirs, and...) and remove them when their ChangeTracking state is "Unchanged". But be carefull with this, because in some cases you still need these entities because they have been removed or added to trackable collections of their parent entity (so then you shouldn't remove them).
This, what we call "StripEntity", is also mentioned (not with any code sample or whatsoever) in Julie Lerman's - Programming Entity Framework.
And although it might not be as efficient as a more purist kind of approach, the use of STE's saves a lot of code for queries against the database. We are not in need for optimal performance in a high traffic situation, so STE's suit our needs and takes away a lot of code to communicate with the database. You have to decide for your situation what the "best" solution is. Good luck!
You can find an Entity Framework project item at http://selftrackingentity.codeplex.com/. With version 0.9.8, I added a method called GetObjectGraphChanges() that returns an optimized entity object graph with only objects that have changes.
Also, there are two helper methods: EstimateObjectGraphSize() and EstimateObjectGraphChangeSize(). The first method returns the estimate size of the whole entity object along with its object graph; and the later returns the estimate size of the optimized entity object graph with only object that have changes. With these two helper methods, you can decide whether it makes sense to call GetObjectGraphChanges() or not.
I'm new to Silverlight, but being dumped right into the fray - good way to learn I suppose :o)
Anyway, the webapp I'm working on has a relatively complex database structure that represents various object types that are linked to each other, and I was wondering 2 things:
1- What is the recommended approach when it comes to dataclasses? Have just one big dataclass, or try and separate it into several smaller dataclasses, keeping in mind they will need to reference each other?
2- If the recommended approach is to have several dataclasses, how do you define the inter-dataclasses references?
I'm asking because I did a small test. In my DB (simplified here, real model is more complex but that's not important), I have a table "Orders" and a table "Parameters". "Orders" has a foreign key on "Parameters". What I did is create 2 dataclasses.
The first one, ParamClass, were I dropped the "Parameters" table only, so I can have a nice "parameter" class. I then created a simple service to add basic SELECT and INSERT functionality.
The second one, OrdersClass, where I dropped both tables, so that the relation between the tables would automatically create a "EntityRef<parameter>" variable inside the "order" class. I then removed the "parameters" class that was automatically created in the OrdersClass dataclass, since the class has already been declared in the ParamClass dataclass. Again I created a small service to test it.
So far so good, it builds happily. The problem is that when I try to handle things on the application code, I added service references for both dataclasses, but it is not happy doing something like:
OrdersServiceReference.order myOrder = new OrdersServiceReference.order();
myOrder.parameter = new ParamServiceReference.parameter(); //<-PROBLEM IS HERE
It comlpains that it cannot implicitly convert from type 'MytestDC.ParamServiceReference.parameter' to 'MytestDC.OrdersServiceReference.parameter'
Do I somehow need to declare some sort of reference to ParamClass from OrdersClass, or how do I "convert" one to the other?
Is this even a recommended and efficient way of doing this?
Since it's a team-project, I initially wanted to separate the dataclasses so that they (and their services) can be easily checked out by one member without checking out the whole entire dataclass.
Any help appreciated!
PS: using Silverlight 4, in case that's important
Based on the widely accepted Single Responsability Principle (SRP), a class should always be responsible for one task, and one task only.
That pretty much invalidates your "one big dataclass" approach.
I would always recommend smaller, more manageable bits that can be combined, instead of one humonguous class that does everything (except brew coffee for you).
Resources for the SRP:
Wikipedia on SRP
OODesign: Single Responsibility Principle
ObjectMentor: list of articles on good app design - which has a few links to PDF documents, like this one on SRP written by Robert C. Martin - the "guru" on proper OO design
OK, some more research let me to this: it is not simple to separate classes from a relational model using LINQtoSQL. I ended up switching to an Entity Framework approach, which itself doesn't deal with it gracefully (see here and there, for example), but at least it solved another major problem I had with LINQtoSQL.
There are other ORMs out there that are apparently much more capable at this (NHibernate comes up often in recommendations), unfortunately, I don't have time to investigate them now, being under such a tight deadline.
As for the referencing, it was quite simple, change the line to:
myOrder.parameter = new OrderServiceReference.parameter();
even though I removed the declaration from that dataclass.
Hope this helps someone!
Weird question, but I'm not sure if it's anti-pattern or not.
Say I have a web app that will be rendering 1000 records to an html table.
The typical approach I've seen is to send a query down to the database, translate the records in some way to some abstract state (be it an array, or a object, etc) and place the translated records into a collection that is then iterated over in the view.
As the number of records grows, this approach uses up more and more memory.
Why not send along with the query a callback that performs an operation on each of the translated rows as they are read from the database? This would mean that you don't need to collect the data for further iteration in the view so the memory footprint shrinks, and you're not iterating over the data twice.
There must be something implicitly wrong with this approach, because I rarely see it used anywhere. What's wrong with this approach?
Thanks.
Actually, this is exactly how a well-developed application should behave.
There is nothing wrong with this approach, except that not all database interfaces allow you to do this easily.
If we talk about tabularizing 10 records for a yet another social network, there is no need to mess with callbacks if you can get an array of hashes or whatever with a single call that is already implemented for you.
There must be something implicitly wrong with this approach, because I rarely see it used anywhere.
I use it. Frequently. Even when i wouldn't use too much memory repeatedly copying the data, using a callback just seems cleaner. In languages with closures, it also lets you keep relevant code together while factoring out the messy DB stuff.
This is a "limited by your tools" class of problem: Most programming languages don't allow to say "Do something around this code". This was solved in recent years with the advent of closures. Think of a closure as a way to pass code into another method which is then executed in a context. For example, in GSQL, you can write:
def l = []
sql.execute ("select id from table where time > ?", time) { row ->
l << row[0]
}
This will open a connection to the database, create a statement and a result set and then run the l << it[0] for each row the DB returns. Note that the code runs inside of sql.execute() but it can access local variables (l) and variables defined in sql.execute() (row).
With this kind of code, you can even generate the result of a HTTP request on the fly without keeping much of the page in RAM at any time. In my case, I'd stream a 2MB document to the browser using only a few KB of RAM and the browser would then chew 83s to parse this.
This is roughly what the iterator pattern allows you to do. In many cases this breaks down on the interface between your application and the database. Technologies like LINQ even have solutions that can send back code to the database.
I've found it easier to use an interface resolver than deep callback where its hooked up through several classes. MS has a much fancier version than mine called Unity. This provides a much cleaner way of accessing classes that should not be tightly coupled
http://www.codeplex.com/unity