I have an existing view in my SQL database "view_account" which represents a account entity. This view is read only and has no primary_key field. Actually it has a primary key "id" but the field is not declared as primary key. I can also not change the table design, because its an automatic export from another application generating this tables (the automatic export is every week).
But thats not the problem cause doctrine don't care about "primary key" flag in the database until you don't update the schema.
But whenever i try to "doctrine:schema:update --force" doctrine wants to create this table. How can i ignore this view (or better the entity) from updating by doctrine? Marking the entity read_only with doctrine annotation is not working. Extending a own update-command will also not work, as i found out, it will not work since doctrine 2.4.7 to extend the doctrine-schema-update command (the update command method is ignored in any way).
Whats the best solution?
Edit:
I also tried to configure two entitymanager. One for the "internal" entities and for the "foreign" entities. Since all entities are linked to each other on some point, it is also not possible to have two separated manager don't knowing from each other entities.
Related
I'm building an app that allows a user to create reports for advertisers. The entities are set up so that there is a relation between the Report object and the Advertiser object - so that the advertiser has a getReports() method to get them.
I would like to change the app so that instead of actually deleting entities, that it simply changes a "deleted" property to true. That part is no problem, but I'm unsure how to make it so that the getReports() on the Advertiser entity only returns reports for the advertiser that have a deleted property of false.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions how that should be done in accordance with Symfony best practices.
You should look into Gedmo Doctrine Extensions. http://atlantic18.github.io/DoctrineExtensions/
Specifically for your case:
http://atlantic18.github.io/DoctrineExtensions/doc/softdeleteable.html
TLDR; they allow you to configure behavior of your entities in a way you desire, so for example when you "delete" an entity, Gedmo's listeners would set it's deleted value to a current datetime. Now you'd still have that record in your database but with not null value of deleted column marking it 'soft deleted', so when querying, it wouldn't be returned (because Doctrine knows how to query these stuff and would add a condition i.e.: ... where deleted ...) unless you explicitly say you want to see those soft deleted records.
Let's say I have a Setting entity with some fields like IntValue, dateValue, stringValue and some linked entities, like countries (ManyToMany to entity Country), languages (ManyToMany to Language) etc.
Settings are created by users and assigned to specific objects (not important here, but I wanted to clarify).
Now I suddenly need to have UserDefaultSetting, which will be the same, but with additional user field (ManyToOne to User entity).
I tried to extend existing Setting entity class with one more field added. The problem is, as I looked at the schema update SQL, it created new table for the new entity, but without all the tables needed to ORM connections (mostly ManyToMany). Just one table with "scalar" fields.
So previously I've had setting table with int_value, date_value etc. but also setting_country and setting_language tables, linking ManyToMany relations. After creating child entity, Doctrine created only user_default_setting table with int_value, date_value etc. and additionally user_id column, but I can't see any relation/link tables.
I know I should've been do it with abstract base entity class, but at the time I started, I didn't know that and now part of the project is on production (don't look at me like that, I blame the client) and I don't want to change that "base" class now. Can I inherit everything from non-abstract entity class in a way it will work?
UPDATE: everything explained. See Cerad's comment. Thanks!
I have 2 entities, User and Profile. Profile has in-symfony relation with User, but there is no in-database relation (no foreign key, no cascade) - only simple int column named user_id and nothing more.
Problem is obvious: when i delete user - associated profiles persists, but their user_id points to non-existing user row.
Since I use in-symfony relations when i fetch profile from database it fetches also related user entity. I expected that if there is no row with specific ID, it would just leave null or at least throw an exception or something.
Problem is that symfony creates empty User entity object with only id set. rest of its fields are null.
I know solution would be to create FK, constraints etc ... but I'm not allowed to touch anything in database schema.
How can I manage this problem ? I could even leave those empty object if only i had simple way to determine if they exist in database inside TWIG - so i would know if i can display {{ profile.user.email }} for example.
Fast and dirty solution, as you ask, is to use this test: http://twig.sensiolabs.org/doc/tests/defined.html
But I strongly recommend to rework your entity relations.
Found solution: its fetch: EAGER set to problematic mapping in doctrine.
By default doctrine uses LAZY fetching what results in using Proxy classes generated by doctrine for related entity. That class is almost same as real entity class. Difference is inside getter methods that before returning value performs fetching entity from database.
At this point, when you call getter on such proxy, doctrine tries to find entity in database using its ID, and since it doesn't find anything it throws exception.
When using EAGER fetching doctrine performs fetching of related entities on the same time when it fetches main entity and if it doesn't find it then sets null on relation field.
I'm running into a problem with the Symfony2 Security system, particularly when trying to load Roles from a database. Before going further, I am aware of FOSUserBundle, but at the moment, in an effort to better understand the Symfony2 framework, I want to try and make my bundle work using Symfony2 components only. TL;DR -> please don't tell me to just use the FOSUserBundle. :-)
I have 3 entities configured in my bundle, Accounts, AccountsRoles, and AccountsRepository.
src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\Entity\Accounts.php
http://pastebin.com/0VgXvtJp
src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\Entity\AccountsRoles.php
http://pastebin.com/GiKNnYg3
src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\Entity\AccountsRepository.php
http://pastebin.com/SVuMVdpN
MySQL demo_template.accounts Table
http://pastebin.com/YzmjD9e4
MySQL demo_template.accounts_roles Table
http://pastebin.com/Ybwr4f7y
All aspects of the bundle were working correctly (registration, confirmation, password reset, and login) before I attempted to add the loading of user roles from a database. When I simply set the role to array('ROLE_USER') via the getRoles() { return array('ROLE_USER') }, authentication worked and the user successfully logged into the site.
However, upon attempting to integrate roles from the database, I receive the following error, which I understand is an instance of AuthenticationException:
Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/humplebert/Websites/www/template/vendor/doctrine/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Query/SqlWalker.php line 804
Stack Trace
http://pastebin.com/Sr5RvZaY
The exception is only generated when I modify the query in AccountsRepository and remove
the "->select()" and "->leftJoin()" components. In looking at the Stack Trace, around line 16 on the pastebin.com link, it appears I have all sorts of "crazy" happening with regards to the many-to-many mapping in the BasicEntityPersister.
I've searched high and low in my Entity classes for any reference to plain "id" and can find none. I've noticed that if I change the names of my "ID" columns in my entities to just "id" (i.e. replace "AccountsID" with "id" in src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\Entity\Accounts) the error goes away (and is replaced with another error, more on that in a moment).
Question 1)
Is there something blatently wrong with my Entities to be generating the "Undefined index: id" error I am receiving? If not, does Symfony2/Doctrine2 require that Auto-Increment columns in be labeled "id"?
As I have continued to tinker, I decided to try renaming my table ID columns to "id". Therefore, src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\Accounts replaces AccountsID with just "id". And likewise, src\RedK\Core\IndexBundle\AccountsRoles replaces RolesID with just "id". Upon doing so, the "Undefined index: id" error goes away. However, I am presented with a new error: "table or view demo_template.accounts_accountsroles does not exist". Well of course it doesn't exist, I don't have a table defined as accounts_accountsroles. I have two tables, accounts and accounts_roles.
Question 2)
In order to use the Symfony2/Doctrine2 tools for importing user roles from a database, what rules are there regarding the naming of the tables? Based on the error I received, it seems that some form of concatenation is taking place. Or have I just simply screwed up my annotations somewhere along the line?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regarding Question 1) the short answer is no! For the long answer see section 5.3 Mapping Defaults in the Doctrine Association Mapping documentation:
It states that if you use this short annotation:
/** #ManyToMany(targetEntity="Group") */
private $groups;
"In that case, the name of the join table defaults to a combination of the simple, unqualified class names of the participating classes, separated by an underscore character. The names of the join columns default to the simple, unqualified class name of the targeted class followed by “_id”. The referencedColumnName always defaults to “id”, just as in one-to-one or many-to-one mappings."
You can override the defaults by providing more detailed many to many annotations (see link above) and therefore avoid the id error.
Regarding Question 2) the concatenation is correct. Many to many relationships require a third 'junction' table. The Doctrine paragraph above explains how the name of this table is generated.
I don't know why the 'table ... does not exist' error is occurring for the junction table as the annotations look ok to me. It appears as though your database schema is somehow out of sync with your annotations.
I implemented a solution, above FOSUserBundle and described it here
After implementing Role access throug Doctrine you still need to make a RoleHierarchy service aware of it.
I've started porting a .NET SQL Server application to LINQ to Entities. I have (among others...) one table called Users, and one called Time. Time is reported on a specific user (UserId), but it is also recorded which user made the report (InsertedByUserId) and possibly who has updated the Time since insert (UpdatedByUserId). This gives me three references to the table Users.
When I generate a .EDMX from this I get three references to the table Users: User, User1 and User2. Without manual edit I have no way of knowing which one refers to the UserId, InsertedByUserId or UpdatedByUserId field.
How do others solve this? Maybe it's not necessary to register ALL references, and stick with InsertedByUserId and UpdatedByUserId as ints?
(The manual edit wouldn't be a problem if the database were never updated, but as we make changes to the database every now and then we occasionally have to regenerate the .EMDX, thus removing all manual changes.)
Thanks in advance!
Jos,
Generally when I make my foreign keys, I name them accordingly. From the Entity designer you can differentiate between the different Navigation Properties (ie User, User1, User2) by looking at the FK association (as long as you named your foreign keys distinctly). For Instance I have a ModifiedById and CreatedById field in each table. Both fields reference my SystemUser table, My foreign keys are named like this: FK_[TableName]_SystemUser_CreatedBy and FK_[TableName]_SystemUser_ModifiedBy.
You should notice that in the Navigation properties you can see the Foreign key. You can also modify the name of the Navigation Property (which is in the Conceptual Side "CSDL portion" of the EDMX), and this change will stay when you update your EDMX from the database.