how to link my getEmptyForeignCollection() object with my parent object? - android

I want to persist an object with two foreignCollections.
But when I try to query the object, my foreignId is always null.
I already read this answers but it doesn't really help me: Collections in ORMLite
VOPerception perception = new VOPerception();
perception.setOrientation(daoOrientation.createIfNotExists(
orientationLocalizer.getCurrentOrientation()));
ForeignCollection<VOAccessPoint> fAp =
daoPerception.getEmptyForeignCollection("accessPoints");
fAp.addAll(wifiLocalizer.getCurrentScanResultMap());
perception.setAccessPoints(fAp);
daoPerception.create(perception);
List<VOPerception> list = daoPerception.queryForAll();
here data are correctly stored but VOAccessPoint objects have no link with the parent VOPerception object.
Here are my two classes:
public class VOPerception {
#DatabaseField(generatedId=true)
private int per_id;
#ForeignCollectionField(eager=true)
ForeignCollection<VOAccessPoint> accessPoints;
...
}
public class VOAccessPoint{
#DatabaseField(generatedId=true)
private int ap_id;
#DatabaseField(foreign=true,columnName="apForeignPerception_id")
private VOPerception apForeignPerception;
...
}


Your queryForAll() is returning no objects because none of your VOAccessPoint instances ever set their apForeignPerception field to be perception. Adding the VOAccessPoint objects using the ForeignCollection added them to the DAO but did not automagically assign their apForeignPerception field.
You should do something like:
...
Collection<VOAccessPoint> points = wifiLocalizer.getCurrentScanResultMap();
for (VOAccessPoint point : points) {
point.setApForeignPerception(perception);
}
fAp.addAll(points);
...
I can see how you might think that this would be handled automagically but at the time they are added to the ForeignCollection, the perception is not even assigned. I suspect that there is a missing feature for ORMLite here or at least a better exception.


I would recommend to use assignEmptyForeignCollection(Obj parent, fieldName). This will create a new foreign collection and all objects you will add via add(Obj element) will have the parent value set automatically.

Related

How to delete element from database realm Kotlin

I need to delete elements from the database.
That's my code and I don't know if I am right
realm.executeTransaction(
realm1 -> {
RealmResults<UserWordRealm> result = realm1.where(UserWordRealm.class).equalTo("id",id).findAll();
result.deleteAllFromRealm();
}
);
}

In the RealmObject class, the id(PrimaryKey) field must uniquely identify the object. Therefore, there cannot be more than one element with the same id. Using findFirst() instead of findAll() may solve your problem.
To delete an object from a realm, use either the dynamic or static versions of the deleteFromRealm() method of a RealmObject subclass.
realm.executeTransaction(r -> {
UserWordRealm userWordObject = r.where(UserWordRealm.class).equalTo("id", id).findFirst();
userWordObject.deleteFromRealm();
// discard the reference
userWordObject = null;
});

Dao method returns List<String> while I need a Map<String,Integer>

In an Android app using Architecture Components I have the following view model:
public class MainViewModel extends AndroidViewModel {
private final MutableLiveData<List<String>> mUnchecked = new MutableLiveData<>();
private LiveData<List<String>> mChecked;
public void setUnchecked(List<String> list) {
mUnchecked.setValue(list);
}
public LiveData<List<String>> getChecked() { // OBSERVED BY A FRAGMENT
return mChecked;
}
public MainViewModel(Application app) {
super(app);
mChecked = Transformations.switchMap(mUnchecked,
list-> myDao().checkWords(list));
}
The purpose of the above switchMap is to check, which of the words passed as a list of strings, do exist in a Room table:
#Dao
public interface MyDao {
#Query("SELECT word FROM dictionary WHERE word IN (:words)")
LiveData<List<String>> checkWords(List<String> words);
The above code works well for me!
However I am stuck with wanting something slightly different -
Instead of the list of strings, I would prefer to pass a map of strings (words) -> integers (scores):
public void setUnchecked(Map<String,Integer> map) {
mUnchecked.setValue(map);
}
The integers would be word scores in my game. And once the checkWords() has returned the results, I would like to set the scores to null for the words not found in the Room table and leave the other scores as they are.
The programming code would be easy (iterate through mChecked.getValue() and set to null for the words not found in the list returned by the DAO method) - but how to "marry" it with my LiveData members?
TL;DR
I would like to change my view model to hold maps instead of the lists:
public class MainViewModel extends AndroidViewModel {
private final MutableLiveData<Map<String,Integer>> mUnchecked = new MutableLiveData<>();
private final MutableLiveData<Map<String,Integer>> mChecked = new MutableLiveData<>();
public void setUnchecked(Map<String,Integer> map) {
mUnchecked.setValue(map);
}
public LiveData<Map<String,Integer>> getChecked() { // OBSERVED BY A FRAGMENT
return mChecked;
}
public MainViewModel(Application app) {
super(app);
// HOW TO OBSERVE mUnchecked
// AND RUN myDao().checkWords(new ArrayList<>(mUnchecked.getValue().keys()))
// WRAPPED IN Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor().execute( ... )
// AND THEN CALL mChecked.postValue() ?
}
How to achieve that please? Should I extend MutableLiveData or maybe use MediatorLiveData or maybe use Transformations.switchMap()?
UPDATE:
I will try the following tomorrow (today is too late in the evening) -
The Dao method I will change to return a list instead of LiveData:
#Query("SELECT word FROM dictionary WHERE word IN (:words)")
List<String> checkWords(List<String> words);
And then I will try to extend the MutableLiveData:
private final MutableLiveData<Map<String,Integer>> mChecked = new MutableLiveData<>();
private final MutableLiveData<Map<String,Integer>> mUnchecked = new MutableLiveData<Map<String,Integer>>() {
#Override
public void setValue(Map<String,Integer> uncheckedMap) {
super.setValue(uncheckedMap);
Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor().execute(() -> {
List<String> uncheckedList = new ArrayList<>(uncheckedMap.keySet());
List<String> checkedList = WordsDatabase.getInstance(mApp).wordsDao().checkWords(uncheckedList);
Map<String,Integer> checkedMap = new HashMap<>();
for (String word: uncheckedList) {
Integer score = (checkedList.contains(word) ? uncheckedMap.get(word) : null);
checkedMap.put(word, score);
}
mChecked.postValue(checkedMap);
});
}
};

Well, what you have there in the update probably works, though I wouldn't create a new Executor for every setValue() call — create just one and hold onto it in your MutableLiveData subclass. Also, depending on your minSdkVersion, you might use some of the Java 8 stuff on HashMap (e.g., replaceAll()) to simplify the code a bit.
You could use MediatorLiveData, though in the end I think it would result in more code, not less. So, while from a purity standpoint MediatorLiveData is a better answer, that may not be a good reason for you to use it.
Frankly, this sort of thing isn't what LiveData is really set up for, IMHO. If this were my code that I were working on right now, I'd be using RxJava for the bulk of it, converting to LiveData in the end. And, I'd have as much of this as possible in a repository, rather than in a viewmodel. While your unchecked-to-checked stuff would be a tricky RxJava chain to work out, I'd still prefer it to the MutableLiveData subclass.
What EpicPandaForce suggests is an ideal sort of LiveData-only approach, though I don't think he is implementing your algorithm quite correctly, and I am skeptical that it can be adapted easily to your desired algorithm.
In the end, though, the decision kinda comes down to: who is going to see this code?
If this code is for your eyes only, or will live in a dusty GitHub repo that few are likely to look at, then if you feel that you can maintain the MutableLiveData subclass, we can't really complain.
If this code is going to be reviewed by co-workers, ask your co-workers what they think.
If this code is going to be reviewed by prospective employers... consider RxJava. Yes, it has a learning curve, but for the purposes of getting interest from employers, they will be more impressed by you knowing how to use RxJava than by you knowing how to hack LiveData to get what you want.

Tricky question!
If we check the source code for Transformations.switchMap, we see that:
1.) it wraps the provided live data with a MediatorLiveData
2.) if the wrapped live data emits an event, then it invokes a function that receives the new value of wrapped live data, and returns a "new" live data of a different type
3.) if the "new" live data of a different type differs from the previous one, then the observer of the previous one is removed, and it's added to the new one instead (so that you only observe the newest LiveData and don't accidentally end up observing an old one)
With that in mind, I think we can chain your switchMap calls and create a new LiveData whenever myDao().checkWords(words) changes.
LiveData<List<String>> foundInDb = Transformations.switchMap(mWords, words -> myDao().checkWords(words));
LiveData<Map<String, Integer>> found = Transformations.switchMap(foundInDb, (words) -> {
MutableLiveData<Map<String, Integer>> scoreMap = new MutableLiveData<>();
// calculate the score map from `words` list
scoreMap.setValue(map);
return scoreMap;
});
this.mFound = found;
Please verify if what I'm telling you is correct, though.
Also if there are a bunch of words, consider using some async mechanism and scoreMap.postValue(map).

Change ObjectBox LiveData Query

I have an ObjectBoxLiveData object with a query that is set at runtime:
private ObjectBoxLiveData<MyObject> myObjectLiveData;
public ObjectBoxLiveData<MyObject> getMyObjectLiveData(Box<MyObject> myObjectBox, String filterTerm)
{
if (myObjectLiveData == null)
myObjectLiveData = new ObjectBoxLiveData<>(myObjectBox.query().equal(MyObject_.filterProperty, filterTerm).build());
return myObjectLiveData;
}
But I also need to be able to change the filterTerm at runtime. My thinking is that I can make a private String currentFilterTerm; object in MyViewModel to see if I need to update the filter term in the LiveData object, but is there a correct way to update the filter term? I worry that setting myObjectLiveData = new ObjectBoxLiveData<> again will leave a memory leak for the previously defined myObjectLiveData or anything tied to it, but I don't see any graceful way to dispose of it or update the query once defined. Is there a way to redefine my query once defined?

Set value to a realm object

I have following class
public class Student extends RealmObject{
private int studentID;
private String studentName;
// getters and setters here
}
Then I try to set a value to a already created student object
student.setStudentName("Peter");
Then I get following error
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Mutable method call during read
transaction.
In order to overcome this I have to do it as follows
Realm realm = Realm.getInstance(this);
realm.beginTransaction();
student.setStudentName("Peter");
realm.commitTransaction();
I don't want to persist this change in the database. How can I just set/change a value to an realm object variable without always persisting it to the database?

If you want to modify the object in a non-persisted manner, you need an unmanaged copy of it.
You can create a copy using realm.copyFromRealm(RealmObject realmObject); method.

When you are using Realm.createObject(), the object is added to the Realm and it only works within a write transaction. You can cancel a transaction and thereby discard the object.
Moreover, you can use your model class as a standalone class and create objects in memory (see http://realm.io/docs/java/0.80.0/#creating-objects for details). If you need to persist the objects, you can use the Realm.copyToRealm() method.

You might want to create a new Model. And your new model should implement RealmModel.
public class StudentRM extends RealmModel{
private int studentID;
private String studentName;
// Constructors here
// getters and setters here
}
Now you can do this.
studentRm.setStudentName("Peter"); //Setting Vale Or
studentRm.addAll(student); //Add all value from DB
studentRm.setStudentName("Jhon"); //It won't change DB anymore
studentRm.getStudentName(); // "Jhon"

You can use realm.cancelTransaction();, instead of realm.commitTransaction();

ForeignCollection create or update

How do I create OR update a ForeignCollection in OrmLite?
If I try to simply add an object to a ForeignCollection, the add method acts as a create (insert into) method, but if the object already exists I will get an error about not having a unique primary key. I don't want duplicates to appear with autoincrementing primary keys, so this is fine to get this notice.
If I use the update method, then it will error if there is nothing to update.
It seems that the foreigncollection object doesn't have a way to tell me if an object is already existing in the database.
So is the only way to write a separate query myself, see if each object exists and drop the ones that have changed?

If you are using for example :
#DatabaseTable(tableName = "question")
public class QuestionDb implements Serializable {
#ForeignCollectionField(foreignFieldName = "question", eager = true)
private ForeignCollection<AnswerDb> answers;
}
#DatabaseTable(tableName="answers")
public class AnswerDb implements Serializable{
#DatabaseField (foreign=true,canBeNull=true,columnName=FIELD_QUESTIONID)
private QuestionDb question;
}
You will have to use the function createOrUpdate of the AnswersDB.
answerYouWantToAdd.setQuestion(yourQuestion);
answerDao.createOrUpdate(answerYouWantToAdd);

Categories

Resources