Search Results

Search found 695 results on 28 pages for 'deletes'.

Page 2/28 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • LINQ to SQL: filter nested objects with soft deletes

    - by Alex
    Hello everyone, I'm using soft deleting in my database (IsDeleted field). I'm actively using LoadWith and AssociateWith methods to retrieve and filter nested records. The thing is AssociateWith only works with properties that represents a one-to-many relationship. DataLoadOptions loadOptions = new DataLoadOptions(); loadOption.LoadWith<User>(u = > u.Roles); loadOption.AssociateWith<User>(u = > u.Roles.Where(r = > !r.IsDeleted)); In the example above I just say: I want to retrieve users with related (undeleted) roles. But when I have one-to-one relationship, e.g. Document - File (the only one file is related to the document) I'm unable to filter soft deleted object: DataLoadOptions loadOptions = new DataLoadOptions(); loadOption.LoadWith<Document>(d = > d.File); // the next certainly won't work loadOption.AssociateWith<File>(f = > !f.IsDeleted); So, is there any idea how to filter records within the one-to-one relationship? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • adding nodes to a binary search tree randomly deletes nodes

    - by SDLFunTimes
    Hi, stack. I've got a binary tree of type TYPE (TYPE is a typedef of data*) that can add and remove elements. However for some reason certain values added will overwrite previous elements. Here's my code with examples of it inserting without overwriting elements and it not overwriting elements. the data I'm storing: struct data { int number; char *name; }; typedef struct data data; # ifndef TYPE # define TYPE data* # define TYPE_SIZE sizeof(data*) # endif The tree struct: struct Node { TYPE val; struct Node *left; struct Node *rght; }; struct BSTree { struct Node *root; int cnt; }; The comparator for the data. int compare(TYPE left, TYPE right) { int left_len; int right_len; int shortest_string; /* find longest string */ left_len = strlen(left->name); right_len = strlen(right->name); if(right_len < left_len) { shortest_string = right_len; } else { shortest_string = left_len; } /* compare strings */ if(strncmp(left->name, right->name, shortest_string) > 1) { return 1; } else if(strncmp(left->name, right->name, shortest_string) < 1) { return -1; } else { /* strings are equal */ if(left->number > right->number) { return 1; } else if(left->number < right->number) { return -1; } else { return 0; } } } And the add method struct Node* _addNode(struct Node* cur, TYPE val) { if(cur == NULL) { /* no root has been made */ cur = _createNode(val); return cur; } else { int cmp; cmp = compare(cur->val, val); if(cmp == -1) { /* go left */ if(cur->left == NULL) { printf("adding on left node val %d\n", cur->val->number); cur->left = _createNode(val); } else { return _addNode(cur->left, val); } } else if(cmp >= 0) { /* go right */ if(cur->rght == NULL) { printf("adding on right node val %d\n", cur->val->number); cur->rght = _createNode(val); } else { return _addNode(cur->rght, val); } } return cur; } } void addBSTree(struct BSTree *tree, TYPE val) { tree->root = _addNode(tree->root, val); tree->cnt++; } The function to print the tree: void printTree(struct Node *cur) { if (cur == 0) { printf("\n"); } else { printf("("); printTree(cur->left); printf(" %s, %d ", cur->val->name, cur->val->number); printTree(cur->rght); printf(")\n"); } } Here's an example of some data that will overwrite previous elements: struct BSTree myTree; struct data myData1, myData2, myData3; myData1.number = 5; myData1.name = "rooty"; myData2.number = 1; myData2.name = "lefty"; myData3.number = 10; myData3.name = "righty"; initBSTree(&myTree); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData1); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData2); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData3); printTree(myTree.root); Which will print: (( righty, 10 ) lefty, 1 ) Finally here's some test data that will go in the exact same spot as the previous data, but this time no data is overwritten: struct BSTree myTree; struct data myData1, myData2, myData3; myData1.number = 5; myData1.name = "i"; myData2.number = 5; myData2.name = "h"; myData3.number = 5; myData3.name = "j"; initBSTree(&myTree); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData1); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData2); addBSTree(&myTree, &myData3); printTree(myTree.root); Which prints: (( j, 5 ) i, 5 ( h, 5 ) ) Does anyone know what might be going wrong? Sorry if this post was kind of long.

    Read the article

  • nhibernate many to many deletes

    - by asi farran
    I have 2 classes that have a many to many relationship. What i'd like to happen is that whenever i delete one side ONLY the association records will be deleted with no concern which side i delete. simplified model: classes: class Qualification { IList<ProfessionalListing> ProfessionalListings } class ProfessionalListing { IList<Qualification> Qualifications void AddQualification(Qualification qualification) { Qualifications.Add(qualification); qualification.ProfessionalListings.Add(this); } } fluent automapping with overrides: void Override(AutoMapping<Qualification> mapping) { mapping.HasManyToMany(x => x.ProfessionalListings).Inverse(); } void Override(AutoMapping<ProfessionalListing> mapping) { mapping.HasManyToMany(x => x.Qualifications).Not.LazyLoad(); } I'm trying various combinations of cascade and inverse settings but can never get there. If i have no cascades and no inverse i get duplicated entities in my collections. Setting inverse on one side makes the duplication go away but when i try to delete a qualification i get a 'deleted object would be re-saved by cascade'. How do i do this? Should i be responsible for clearing the associations of each object i delete?

    Read the article

  • Stop propagating deletes

    - by Mark
    Is it just me or is anyone else finding EF very difficult to use in a real app :( I'm using it as the data layer and have created custom business objects. I'm having difficulty converting the business objects back to EF objects and updating/adding/deleting from the database. Does anyone know a good, simple example of doing this? Actually the current problem that's driving me nuts is when I delete something EF tries to delete other related stuff as well. For example, if I delete an invoice it will also delete the associated customer! Seems odd. I can't figure out how to stop it doing this. // tried: invoiceEfData.CustomerReference = null; // also tried invoiceEfData.Customer = null; context.DeleteObject(invoiceEfData); context.SaveChanges(); // at this point I get a database error due to it attempting to delete the customer

    Read the article

  • Using entity framework to detect changes in related table and action appropriate inserts and deletes

    - by Kohan
    Lets say i have a Person table, a Role table with a trel table PersonRoles linking them as many to many. I create a new person and assign them to 2 roles (role 1, role 3). I then want to edit this person; so i retrieve their data and bind their roles to a checkboxes. I change the values (Deselect role 1 and select role 2 instead) I then post this data back through a viewmodel. Can i then get Entity Framework to update these roles for me, as in delete the entry in PersonRoles to role 1 and then add a new entry as role 2? Or do i have to do the logic for this myself? Cheers, Kohan

    Read the article

  • "Undoing deletes" in webapplication?

    - by Industrial
    Hi everybody, I have seen more and more of the websites that offers a undo option after pressing a delete button. How is the logic done behind the button? Is the item deleted by javascript and "dissapears" from the users screen and a scheduled delete added, that gives the user time to undo it or how does it work? What are the other options to offer the users an undo feature?

    Read the article

  • SHFileOperation FO_MOVE deletes a file if the destination drive is full

    - by Shailesh Kumar
    I had a piece of code which uses windows SHFileOperation function with FO_MOVE operation. Additional flags specified were FOF_NOCONFIRMATION | FOF_NOERRORUI | FOF_SILENT. A particular weird behavior was observed when the destination drive was full. In this case, MOVE could not place the file in destination folder but the source file was also lost. This was highly unexpected and this caused a loss of data. Is this the standard behavior of SHFileOperation? Can we have something like MOVE if the destination drive has space otherwise leave the file at the original place?

    Read the article

  • Android - Opening phone deletes app state

    - by Tom G
    Hey everyone, I'm writing an android application that maintains a lot of "state" data...some of it I can save in the form of onSaveInstanceState but some of it is just to complex to save in memory. My problem is that sliding the phone open destroys/recreates the app, and I lose all my application state in the process. The same thing happens with the "back" button, but I overloaded that function on my way. Is there any way to overload the phone opening to prevent it from happening? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • SVG rotate deletes Elemets

    - by user1468661
    I'm trying to generate svg-Code in a web-application. Here's an example output: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:ev="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml-events" version="1.1" baseProfile="full" width="1000px" height="600px"> <rect x="147.50198255352893" y="109.43695479777953" width="15.860428231562253" height="295.79698651863595" stroke="rgb(0,0,0)" fill="rgb(255,255,255)" stroke-width="3" transform="rotate(20 155.43219666931006 257.3354480570975)"/> <rect x="163.36241078509119" y="405.2339413164155" width="379.85725614591587" height="-23.79064234734335" stroke="rgb(0,0,0)" fill="rgb(255,255,255)" stroke-width="3" transform="rotate(20 353.2910388580491 393.3386201427438)"/> <rect x="543.219666931007" y="381.44329896907215" width="22.204599524187188" height="-353.6875495638382" stroke="rgb(0,0,0)" fill="rgb(255,255,255)" stroke-width="3" transform="rotate(20 554.3219666931006 204.59952418715304)"/> </svg> There should be three rotated Rectangles, but somehow in Chrome, Safari, and Inkscape only one of them is displayed. I did google and have no clue what is wrong. Thx for your help.

    Read the article

  • Javascript .removeChild() only deletes even nodes?

    - by user1476297
    first posting. I am trying dynamically add children DIV under a DIV with ID="prnt". Addition of nodes work fine no problem. However strange enough when it comes to deleted nodes its only deleting the even numbered nodes including 0. Why is this, I could be something stupid but it seem more like a bug. I could be very wrong. Please help Thank you in advance. <script type="text/javascript"> function displayNodes() { var prnt = document.getElementById("prnt"); var chlds = prnt.childNodes; var cont = document.getElementById("content"); for(i = 0; i < chlds.length; i++) { if(chlds[i].nodeType == 1) { cont.innerHTML +="<br />"; cont.innerHTML +="Node # " + (i+1); cont.innerHTML +="<br />"; cont.innerHTML +=chlds[i].nodeName; cont.innerHTML +="<br />"; } } } function deleteENodes() { var prnt = document.getElementById("prnt"); var chlds = prnt.childNodes; for(i = 0; i < chlds.length; i++) { if(!(chlds[i].nodeType == 3)) { prnt.removeChild(chlds[i]); } } } function AddENodes() { var prnt = document.getElementById("prnt"); //Only even nodes are deletable PROBLEM for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) { var newDIV = document.createElement('div'); newDIV.setAttribute("id", "c"+(i)); var text = document.createTextNode("New Inserted Child "+(i)); newDIV.appendChild(text); prnt.appendChild(newDIV); } } </script> <title>Checking Div Nodes</title> </head> <body> <div id="prnt"> Parent 1 </div> <br /> <br /> <br /> <button type="button" onclick="displayNodes()">Show Node Info</button> <button type="button" onclick="deleteENodes()">Remove All Element Nodes Under Parent 1</button> <button type="button" onclick="AddENodes()">Add 5 New DIV Nodes</button> <div id="content"> </div> </body>

    Read the article

  • What are the Pros and Cons of Cascading delete and updates?

    - by Misnomer
    Hi, Maybe this is sort of a naive question...but I think that we should always have cascading deletes and updates. But I wanted to know are there problems with it and when should we should not do it? I really can't think of a case right now where you would not want to do an cascade delete but I am sure there is one...but what about updates should they be done always? So can anyone please list out the pros and cons of cascading deletes and updates ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Don't Understand Sql Server Error

    - by Jonathan Wood
    I have a table of users (User), and need to create a new table to track which users have referred other users. So, basically, I'm creating a many-to-many relation between rows in the same table. So I'm trying to create table UserReferrals with the columns UserId and UserReferredId. I made both columns a compound primary key. And both columns are foreign keys that link to User.UserID. Since deleting a user should also delete the relationship, I set both foreign keys to cascade deletes. When the user is deleted, any related rows in UserReferrals should also delete. But this gives me the message: 'User' table saved successfully 'UserReferrals' table Unable to create relationship 'FK_UserReferrals_User'. Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_UserReferrals_User' on table 'UserReferrals' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Could not create constraint. See previous errors. I don't get this error. A cascading delete only deletes the row with the foreign key, right? So how can it cause "cycling cascade paths"? Thanks for any tips.

    Read the article

  • nhibernate will not cascade delete childs

    - by marn
    The scenario is as follows, I have 3 objects (i simplified the names) named Parent, parent's child & child's child parent's child is a set in parent, and child's child is a set in child. mapping is as follows (relevant parts) parent <set name="parentset" table="pc-table" lazy="false" fetch="subselect" cascade="all-delete-orphan" inverse="true"> <key column=FK_ID_PC" on-delete="cascade"/> <one-to-many class="parentchild,parentchild-ns"/> </set> parent's child <set name="childset" table="cc-table" lazy="false" fetch="subselect" cascade="all-delete-orphan" inverse="true"> <key column="FK_ID_CC" on-delete="cascade"/> <one-to-many class="childschild,childschild-ns"/> </set> What i want to achieve is that when i delete the parent, there would be a cascade delete all the way trough to child's child. But what currently happens is this. (this is purely for mapping test purposes) getting a parent entity (works fine) IQuery query = session.CreateQuery("from Parent where ID =" + ID); IParent doc = query.UniqueResult<Parent>(); now the delete part session.Delete(doc); transaction.Commit(); After having solved the 'cannot insert null value' error with cascading and inverse i hopes this would now delete everything with this code, but only the parent is being deleted. Did i miss something in my mapping which is likely to be missed? Any hint in the right direction is more than welcome!

    Read the article

  • Nature of Lock is child table while deletion(sql server)

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    Dear Devs From couple of days i am thinking of a following scenario Consider I have 2 tables with parent child relationship of kind one-to-many. On removal of parent row i have to delete the rows in child those are related to parents. simple right? i have to make a transaction scope to do above operation i can do this as following; (its psuedo code but i am doing this in c# code using odbc connection and database is sql server) begin transaction(read committed) Read all child where child.fk = p1 foreach(child) delete child where child.pk = cx delete parent where parent.pk = p1 commit trans OR begin transaction(read committed) delete all child where child.fk = p1 delete parent where parent.pk = p1 commit trans Now there are couple of questions in my mind Which one of above is better to use specially considering a scenario of real time system where thousands of other operations(select/update/delete/insert) are being performed within a span of seconds. does it ensure that no new child with child.fk = p1 will be added until transaction completes? If yes for 2nd question then how it ensures? do it take the table level locks or what. Is there any kind of Index locking supported by sql server if yes what it does and how it can be used. Regards Mubashar

    Read the article

  • Delete record in Linq to Sql

    - by Anders Svensson
    I have Linq2Sql classes User, Page, and UserPage (from a junction table), i.e. a many-to-many relationship. I'm using a gridview to show all Users, with a dropdownlist in each row to show the Pages visited by each user. Now I want to be able to delete records through the gridview, so I have added a delete button in the gridview by setting "Enable deleting" on it. Then I tried to use the RowDeleting event to specify how to delete the records since it doesn't work by default. And because its a relationship I know I need to delete the related records in the junction table before deleting the user record itself, so I added this in the RowDeleting event: protected void GridView2_RowDeleting(object sender, GridViewDeleteEventArgs e) { int id = (int)((DataKey)GridView2.DataKeys[e.RowIndex]).Value; UserPageDBDataContext context = new UserPageDBDataContext(); var userPages = from userPage in context.UserPages where userPage.User.UserID == id select userPage; foreach (var userPage in userPages) context.UserPages.DeleteOnSubmit(userPage); context.SubmitChanges(); var user = context.Users.Single(u => u.UserID == id); context.Users.DeleteOnSubmit(user); context.SubmitChanges(); } This actually seems to delete records, because the record with the id in question does indeed disappear, but strangely, a new record seems to be added at the end...! So, say I have 3 records in the gridview: 1 Jack stackoverflow.com 2 Betty stackoverflow.com/questions 3 Joe stackoverflow.com/whatever Now, if I try to delete user 1 (Jack), record number 1 will indeed disappear in the gridview, but the same record will appear at the end with a new id: 2 Jack stackoverflow.com 3 Betty stackoverflow.com/questions 4 Joe stackoverflow.com/whatever I have tried searching on how to delete records using Linq, and I believe I'm doing exacly as the examples I have read (e.g. the second example here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Bb386925%28v=VS.100%29.aspx). I have read that you can also set cascade delete on the relationship in the database, but I wanted to do it this way in code, as your supposed to be able to. So what am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework self referencing entity deletion.

    - by Viktor
    Hello. I have a structure of folders like this: Folder1 Folder1.1 Folder1.2 Folder2 Folder2.1 Folder2.1.1 and so on.. The question is how to cascade delete them(i.e. when remove folder2 all children are also deleted). I can't set an ON DELETE action because MSSQL does not allow it. Can you give some suggesions? UPDATE: I wrote this stored proc, can I just leave it or it needs some modifications? SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO CREATE PROCEDURE sp_DeleteFoldersRecursive @parent_folder_id int AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON; IF @parent_folder_id = 0 RETURN; CREATE TABLE #temp(fid INT ); DECLARE @Count INT; INSERT INTO #temp(fid) SELECT FolderId FROM Folders WHERE FolderId = @parent_folder_id; SET @Count = @@ROWCOUNT; WHILE @Count > 0 BEGIN INSERT INTO #temp(fid) SELECT FolderId FROM Folders WHERE EXISTS (SELECT FolderId FROM #temp WHERE Folders.ParentId = #temp.fid) AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT FolderId FROM #temp WHERE Folders.FolderId = #temp.fid); SET @Count = @@ROWCOUNT; END DELETE Folders FROM Folders INNER JOIN #temp ON Folders.FolderId = #temp.fid; DROP TABLE #temp; END GO

    Read the article

  • Django foreign keys cascade deleting and "related_name" parameter (bug?)

    - by Wiseman
    In this topic I found a good way to prevent cascade deleting of relating objects, when it's not neccessary. class Factures(models.Model): idFacture = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True) idLettrage = models.ForeignKey('Lettrage', db_column='idLettrage', null=True, blank=True) class Paiements(models.Model): idPaiement = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True) idLettrage = models.ForeignKey('Lettrage', db_column='idLettrage', null=True, blank=True) class Lettrage(models.Model): idLettrage = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True) def delete(self): """Dettaches factures and paiements from current lettre before deleting""" self.factures_set.clear() self.paiements_set.clear() super(Lettrage, self).delete() But this method seems to fail when we are using ForeignKey field with "related_name" parameter. As it seems to me, "clear()" method works fine and saves the instance of "deassociated" object. But then, while deleting, django uses another memorized copy of this very object and since it's still associated with object we are trying to delete - whooooosh! ...bye-bye to relatives :) Database was arcitectured before me, and in somewhat odd way, so I can't escape these "related_names" in reasonable amount of time. Anybody heard about workaround for such a trouble?

    Read the article

  • How do I delete a child entity from a parent collection with Entity Framework 4?

    - by simonjreid
    I'm using Entity Framework 4 and have a one-to-many relationship between a parent and child entity. I'm trying to delete a child using the parent repository by removing it from the parent's children collection: public virtual void RemoveChild(Child child) { children.Remove(child); } When I try to save the changes I get the following error: A relationship from the 'ParentChild' AssociationSet is in the 'Deleted' state. Given multiplicity constraints, a corresponding 'Child' must also in the 'Deleted' state. Surely I don't have to delete the child entity explicitly using a child repository!

    Read the article

  • What are the options for overriding Django's cascading delete behaviour?

    - by Tom
    Django models generally handle the ON DELETE CASCADE behaviour quite adequately (in a way that works on databases that don't support it natively.) However, I'm struggling to discover what is the best way to override this behaviour where it is not appropriate, in the following scenarios for example: ON DELETE RESTRICT (i.e. prevent deleting an object if it has child records) ON DELETE SET NULL (i.e. don't delete a child record, but set it's parent key to NULL instead to break the relationship) Update other related data when a record is deleted (e.g. deleting an uploaded image file) The following are the potential ways to achieve these that I am aware of: Override the model's delete() method. While this sort of works, it is sidestepped when the records are deleted via a QuerySet. Also, every model's delete() must be overridden to make sure Django's code is never called and super() can't be called as it may use a QuerySet to delete child objects. Use signals. This seems to be ideal as they are called when directly deleting the model or deleting via a QuerySet. However, there is no possibility to prevent a child object from being deleted so it is not usable to implement ON CASCADE RESTRICT or SET NULL. Use a database engine that handles this properly (what does Django do in this case?) Wait until Django supports it (and live with bugs until then...) It seems like the first option is the only viable one, but it's ugly, throws the baby out with the bath water, and risks missing something when a new model/relation is added. Am I missing something? Any recommendations?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate : delete error

    - by MadSeb
    Hi, Model: I have a model in which one Installation can contain multiple "Computer Systems". Database: The table Installations has two columns Name and Description. The table ComputerSystems has three columsn Name, Description and InstallationId. Mappings: I have the following mapping for Installation: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" assembly="myProgram.Core" namespace="myProgram"> <class name="Installation" table="Installations" lazy="true"> <id name="Id" column="Id" type="int"> <generator class="native" /> </id> <property name="Name" column="Name" type="string" not-null="true" /> <property name="Description" column="Description" type="string" /> <bag name="ComputerSystems" inverse="true" lazy="true" cascade="all-delete-orphan"> <key column="InstallationId" /> <one-to-many class="ComputerSystem" /> </bag> </class> </hibernate-mapping> I have the following mapping for ComputerSystem: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <id name="Id" column="ID" type="int"> <generator class="native" /> </id> <property name="Name" column="Name" type="string" not-null="true" /> <property name="Description" column="Description" type="string" /> <many-to-one name="Installation" column="InstallationID" cascade="save-update" not-null="true" /> Classes: The Installation class is: public class Installation { public virtual String Description { get; set; } public virtual String Name { get; set; } public virtual IList<ComputerSystem> ComputerSystems { get { if (_computerSystemItems== null) { lock (this) { if (_computerSystemItems== null) _computerSystemItems= new List<ComputerSystem>(); } } return _computerSystemItems; } set { _computerSystemItems= value; } } protected IList<ComputerSystem> _computerSystemItems; public Installation() { Description = ""; Name= ""; } } The ComputerSystem class is: public class ComputerSystem { public virtual String Name { get; set; } public virtual String Description { get; set; } public virtual Installation Installation { get; set; } } The issue is that I get an error when trying to delete an installation that contains a ComputerSystem. The error is: "deleted object would be re-saved by cascade (remove deleted object from associations)". Can anyone help ? Regards, Seb

    Read the article

  • why when I delete a parent on a one to many relationship on grails the beforeInsert event is called

    - by nico
    hello, I have a one to many relationship and when I try to delete a parent that haves more than one child the berforeInsert event gets called on the frst child. I have some code in this event that I mean to call before inserting a child, not when i'm deleting the parent! any ideas on what might be wrong? the entities: class MenuItem { static constraints = { name(blank:false,maxSize:200) category() subCategory(nullable:true, validator:{ val, obj -> if(val == null){ return true }else{ return obj.category.subCategories.contains(val)? true : ['invalid.category.no.subcategory'] } }) price(nullable:true) servedAtSantaMonica() servedAtWestHollywood() highLight() servedAllDay() dateCreated(display:false) lastUpdated(display:false) } static mapping = { extras lazy:false } static belongsTo = [category:MenuCategory,subCategory:MenuSubCategory] static hasMany = [extras:MenuItemExtra] static searchable = { extras component: true } String name BigDecimal price Boolean highLight = false Boolean servedAtSantaMonica = false Boolean servedAtWestHollywood = false Boolean servedAllDay = false Date dateCreated Date lastUpdated int displayPosition void moveUpDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItem.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == 0){ return }else{ def previousItem = MenuItem.findByCategoryAndDisplayPosition(category,oldDisplayPos - 1) previousItem.displayPosition += 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos - 1 this.save(flush:true) previousItem.save(flush:true) } } void moveDownDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItem.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == MenuItem.countByCategory(category) - 1){ return }else{ def nextItem = MenuItem.findByCategoryAndDisplayPosition(category,oldDisplayPos + 1) nextItem.displayPosition -= 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos + 1 this.save(flush:true) nextItem.save(flush:true) } } String toString(){ name } def beforeInsert = { displayPosition = MenuItem.countByCategory(category) } def afterDelete = { def otherItems = MenuItem.findAllByCategoryAndDisplayPositionGreaterThan(category,displayPosition) otherItems.each{ it.displayPosition -= 1 it.save() } } } class MenuItemExtra { static constraints = { extraOption(blank:false, maxSize:200) extraOptionPrice(nullable:true) } static searchable = true static belongsTo = [menuItem:MenuItem] BigDecimal extraOptionPrice String extraOption int displayPosition void moveUpDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItemExtra.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == 0){ return }else{ def previousExtra = MenuItemExtra.findByMenuItemAndDisplayPosition(menuItem,oldDisplayPos - 1) previousExtra.displayPosition += 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos - 1 this.save(flush:true) previousExtra.save(flush:true) } } void moveDownDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItemExtra.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == MenuItemExtra.countByMenuItem(menuItem) - 1){ return }else{ def nextExtra = MenuItemExtra.findByMenuItemAndDisplayPosition(menuItem,oldDisplayPos + 1) nextExtra.displayPosition -= 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos + 1 this.save(flush:true) nextExtra.save(flush:true) } } String toString(){ extraOption } def beforeInsert = { if(menuItem){ displayPosition = MenuItemExtra.countByMenuItem(menuItem) } } def afterDelete = { def otherExtras = MenuItemExtra.findAllByMenuItemAndDisplayPositionGreaterThan(menuItem,displayPosition) otherExtras.each{ it.displayPosition -= 1 it.save() } } }

    Read the article

  • Tree deletion with NHibernate

    - by Tigraine
    Hi, I'm struggling with a little problem and starting to arrive at the conclusion it's simply not possible. I have a Table called Group. As with most of these systems Group has a ParentGroup and a Children collection. So the Table Group looks like this: Group -ID (PK) -Name -ParentId (FK) I did my mappings using FNH AutoMappings, but I had to override the defaults for this: p.References(x => x.Parent) .Column("ParentId") .Cascade.All(); p.HasMany(x => x.Children) .KeyColumn("ParentId") .ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete() .Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan() .Inverse(); Now, the general idea was to be able to delete a node and all of it's children to be deleted too by NH. So deleting the only root node should basically clear the whole table. I tried first with Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan but that works only for deletion of items from the Children collection, not deletion of the parent. Next I tried ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete so the operation gets delegated to the Database through on delete cascade. But once I do that MSSql2008 does not allow me to create this constraint, failing with : Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FKBA21C18E87B9D9F7' on table 'Group' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Well, and that's it for me. I guess I'll just loop through the children and delete them one by one, thus doing a N+1. If anyone has a suggestion on how do that more elegantly I'd be eager to hear it.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Delete - Froregin Key

    - by Ahmet Altun
    I have got two tables in Sql Server 2005: USER Table: information about user and so on. COUNTRY Table : Holds list of whole countries on the world. USER_COUNTRY Table: Which matches, which user has visited which county. It holds, UserID and CountryID. For example, USER_COUNTRY table looks like this: ID -- UserID -- CountryID 1 -- 1 -- 34 2 -- 1 -- 5 3 -- 2 -- 17 4 -- 2 -- 12 5 -- 2 -- 21 6 -- 3 -- 19 My question is that: When a user is deleted in USER table, how can I make associated records in USER_COUNTRY table deleted directly. Maybe, by using Foreign Key Constaint?

    Read the article

  • mysql codeigniter active record m:m deletion

    - by sea_1987
    Hi There, I have a table 2 tables that have a m:m relationship, what I can wanting is that when I delete a row from one of the tables I want the row in the joining table to be deleted as well, my sql is as follow, Table 1 CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `job_feed` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `body` text NOT NULL, `date_posted` int(10) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ; Table 2 CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `job_feed_has_employer_details` ( `job_feed_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `employer_details_id` int(11) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`job_feed_id`,`employer_details_id`), KEY `fk_job_feed_has_employer_details_job_feed1` (`job_feed_id`), KEY `fk_job_feed_has_employer_details_employer_details1` (`employer_details_id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; So what I am wanting to do is, if the a row is deleted from table1 and has an id of 1 I want the row in table to that also has that idea as part of the relationship also. I want to do this in keeping with codeigniters active record class I currently have this, public function deleteJobFeed($feed_id) { $this->db->where('id', $feed_id) ->delete('job_feed'); return $feed_id; }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >