Lukas,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Lukas Eder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Daniele,
>
> The rationale behind this is easy to explain:
>
>
> PersonRecord p = //... select ...assert p.getName() == "Otto";
>
>
> p.setName("Otto"); //why changed flag remains true?
> p.store();
>
> Explicitly setting a value in a record means that you want this value to
> appear in an INSERT / UPDATE statement. This may have desired side-effects
> on triggers and other database objects. Note that there is also
>
>
> p.reset();
>
> In order to reset the changed flags and the value.
>
Thanks, now it's clear.
In my domain, I have no trigger, nor other database objects. I need only to
store data into database, and I want to do this in efficient way and reduce
database sql size may help.
For my needed the best is to set only values that are effectively updated,
since I use ModelMapper I'd rather have my domain object, map it to one or
more records and invoke store().
I don't want to worry to know which fields are changed.
I have implemented this beaviour with the following class:
public class SetOnlyChangedValueAccountUserRecord implements IAccountUser {
private static boolean equals(final Object orig, final Object current) {
if (orig == current) { return true; }
if (orig != null && current != null) { return orig.equals(current); }
return false;
}
private IAccountUser delegate;
private IAccountUser orig;
public SetOnlyChangedValueAccountUserRecord(final AccountUserRecord r) {
delegate = r;
orig = r.original();
}
@Override
public void setEmail(final String value) {
if (!equals(orig.getEmail(), value)) {
delegate.setEmail(value);
}
}
//other set, get , and other stuff
}
Same result can be obtained with a proxy class, using a bit of reflection,
to make this "solution" general purpose.
Do you think such utility class should be part of JOOQ, or developed when
needed from developer?
More comments inline:
>
> 2013/10/23 Daniele Antonini <[email protected]>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm playing a bit with UpdatableRecords, and I'm falling into this issue:
>> primary key is marked as changed also when setted value is the same of
>> prevoius one.
>>
>> I wirte a test to reproduced the issue:
>> 1) using set<columnName> of generated record
>> 2) using ModelMapper (corresponds to the previous case because it uses
>> generated set)
>>
>> This test fails:
>> @Test public void test() {
>> AccountUserRecord r = ctx.fetchOne(ACCOUNT_USER,
>> ACCOUNT_USER.ID.eq(1L));
>> r.setId(1L);
>> assertFalse(r.changed(ACCOUNT_USER.ID));
>> }
>>
>> When I use setValue(Field, value) the behaviour is correct, as a matter
>> of fact this test pass:
>> @Test public void test() {
>> AccountUserRecord r = ctx.fetchOne(ACCOUNT_USER,
>> ACCOUNT_USER.ID.eq(1L));
>> r.setValue(ACCOUNT_USER.ID, 1L);
>> assertFalse(r.changed(ACCOUNT_USER.ID));
>> }
>>
>
> Hmm, yes there's a bug in the above behaviour. The two calls are not
> exactly equivalent, which is not good. I'll investigate this:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2798
>
>
>> For completeness' sake I attached a full maven project to highlight the
>> problem, the project require mysql.
>>
>> Generated AccountUserRecord.setId is the following code:
>> public void setId(java.lang.Long value) {
>> setValue(0, value);
>> }
>>
>> Why use setValue(int, value) instead of setValue(Field, value)?
>>
>
> Internally, records use field indexes, not Field references. So this call
> is a bit more performant than setValue(Field, value). But the logic should
> still be the same (which will be investigated in #2798)
>
Ok
Hope this helps
>
Cheers
> Lukas
>
>
>> Is this an issue of code generator?
>>
>> I read https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/945?source=c and
>> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/948 but I'm still puzzled:
>>
>> PersonRecord p = //... select ...assert p.getName() ==
>> "Otto";p.setName("Max"); //ok changed is truep.setName("Max"); // ok changed
>> is still true, change flag is not resettedp.setName("Otto"); //why changed
>> flag remains true? p.store();
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Daniele
>>
>
Cheers
--
Daniele
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ
User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
