Hi Nikita,
> You may also try to use the `isSourceIndependentFromTargetChange()` method
> instead of `isToMany()` in your template. It should cover your case and fix
> the problem.
But the problem is not with the second member of the conditional. I removed &&
!${rel.ToMany} completely to test it and confirmed that rel.isMandatory() is
returning true.
I tracked the method in the source through ObjEntity.java,
ObjRelationship.java, DbRelationship.java and DbAttribute.java but got a bit
lost and was unable to determine who is setting it to true.
On the other hand, I can confirm that if I forcefully ignore the fact that the
relationship isMandatory and skip all my validation code based on that flag,
the object context DOES commit it without complaint.
Riccardo
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:10 AM Riccardo De Menna <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for helping. Yes… you modeled exactly what I described down to
>> the delete rules. I imported your files in modeler and run class generation
>> but I still get the relationship (TO_SHIP in your model) to appear as
>> mandatory. Could it be an issue in class generation?
>>
>> This is a little VE snippet I use in my template to output a static list
>> of mandatory relationships.
>>
>> #foreach( $rel in ${object.DeclaredRelationships} )
>> #if (${rel.isMandatory()} && !${rel.ToMany} )
>> #set($bar =
>> $requiredRelationships.add("${stringUtils.capitalizedAsConstant($rel.Name)}_PROPERTY"))
>> #end
>> #end
>> public static final List<String> REQUIRED_RELATIONSHIPS = List.of(
>> #foreach( $rel in ${requiredRelationships} )
>> ${rel}#if(!$foreach.last),#end
>> #end
>> );
>>
>> And contrary to what I would expect, I get this in my superclass:
>>
>> public static final List<String> REQUIRED_RELATIONSHIPS = List.of(
>> TO_SHIP_PROPERTY
>> );
>>
>> Riccardo De Menna
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2024, at 01:20, Michael Gentry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Riccardo,
>>>
>>> I may have completely misunderstood your intention, but here is my first
>>> cut for a model:
>>>
>>> cayenne-o2o.xml:
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
>>> <domain xmlns="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/domain";
>>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/domain
>>> https://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/domain.xsd";
>>> project-version="10">
>>> <map name="datamap"/>
>>> </domain>
>>>
>>> datamap.map.xml:
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
>>> <data-map xmlns="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/modelMap";
>>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/modelMap
>>> https://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/modelMap.xsd";
>>> project-version="10">
>>> <property name="defaultLockType" value="1"/>
>>> <property name="defaultPackage" value="org.test"/>
>>> <db-entity name="SHIPMENT">
>>> <db-attribute name="ID" type="BIGINT" isPrimaryKey="true"
>> isMandatory="true"
>>> />
>>> </db-entity>
>>> <db-entity name="SHIPMENT_NUMBER">
>>> <db-attribute name="ID" type="BIGINT" isPrimaryKey="true"
>> isMandatory="true"
>>>>
>>> <info:property xmlns:info="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/info";
>> name=
>>> "comment" value="This ID is the same as SHIPMENT's ID."/>
>>> </db-attribute>
>>> <db-attribute name="NUM" type="INTEGER">
>>> <info:property xmlns:info="http://cayenne.apache.org/schema/10/info";
>> name=
>>> "comment" value="This is the shipment number."/>
>>> </db-attribute>
>>> </db-entity>
>>> <obj-entity name="Shipment" className="org.test.Shipment" lock-type=
>>> "optimistic" dbEntityName="SHIPMENT"/>
>>> <obj-entity name="ShipmentNumber" className="org.test.ShipmentNumber"
>>> lock-type="optimistic" dbEntityName="SHIPMENT_NUMBER">
>>> <obj-attribute name="num" type="java.lang.Integer"
>> db-attribute-path="NUM"/>
>>> </obj-entity>
>>> <db-relationship name="toShipNum" source="SHIPMENT"
>> target="SHIPMENT_NUMBER"
>>>>
>>> <db-attribute-pair source="ID" target="ID"/>
>>> </db-relationship>
>>> <db-relationship name="toShip" source="SHIPMENT_NUMBER" target="SHIPMENT"
>>> toDependentPK="true">
>>> <db-attribute-pair source="ID" target="ID"/>
>>> </db-relationship>
>>> <obj-relationship name="toShipNum" source="Shipment"
>> target="ShipmentNumber"
>>> deleteRule="Cascade" db-relationship-path="toShipNum"/>
>>> <obj-relationship name="toShip" source="ShipmentNumber" target="Shipment"
>>> deleteRule="Deny" db-relationship-path="toShip"/>
>>> </data-map>
>>>
>>> Copy/Paste these files somewhere, then try loading them up into your 4.2
>>> Modeler and see if it is close.
>>>
>>> mrg
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:54 AM Riccardo De Menna <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Can someone help me understand something?
>>>>
>>>> I’m trying to model a one-to-one relationship between two entities but I
>>>> can’t seem to get the relationship to be optional.
>>>>
>>>> In my specific case I need to model an entity representing shipments
>> with
>>>> a postal service. Each shipment needs to have a number taken from a
>>>> range/group that is pre-assigned by the postal service.
>>>>
>>>> Thus I created a SHIPMENT_NUMBER entity with just an INTEGER attribute
>> and
>>>> then used that attribute to build the relationship with the SHIPMENT
>>>> entity. Possibly with “To dep PK” as well.
>>>>
>>>> I want the relationship to be optional so that I can generate
>>>> SHIPMENT_NUMBER as many as I want and populate them with the numbers
>>>> assigned by the postal service and only later, when the real SHIPMENT is
>>>> actually needed/created, link it with the number in a one-to-one
>> fashion.
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure why, but my class generated content always shows the
>>>> relationship as mandatory.
>>>>
>>>> Coming from the WebObjects world, I'm used to a modeler that explicitly
>>>> shows checkboxes for isMandatory on relationships like with the
>> attributes.
>>>> Here in Cayenne it seems that optionality is implicitly determined
>> based on
>>>> the design.
>>>>
>>>> Have I misunderstood something? Is my design flawed?
>>>>
>>>> Any tip is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Riccardo
>>
>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Nikita Timofeev
