### [DDC-2810] Doctrine\ORM\EntityNotFoundException - Entity was not found. Created: 21/Nov/13  Updated: 21/Nov/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Blocker Reporter: Timothy Lorens Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Linux 2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Aug 2 17:04:38 EDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Server version: Apache/2.2.22 (Unix) PHP 5.3.3 (cli) (built: Jul 12 2013 04:36:18)

 Description
 Doctrine\ORM\EntityNotFoundException - Entity was not found. /zf2/framework/Infrastructure/Vendor/doctrine/orm/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php:177 OneToOne join-side doesn't contain a matching record. One would assume this would just continue with an empty proxy object (full of null properties). The offending line of code is on line 750 of DOctrine\ORM\BasicEntityPersister.php. A quick fix/work-around was to replace the return null value with $entity which seems to be the object proxy class. Change this: return$entities ? $entities[0] : null; To This: return$entities ? $entities[0] :$entity;

### [DDC-2822] Replacing object in a OneToOne with OrphanRemoval=true isn't working as expected Created: 26/Nov/13  Updated: 29/Nov/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.4, 2.4.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Blocker Reporter: Felipe Guaycuru Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: orm Environment: PHP 5.4

 Description
 So I have a class defined like this: class PhoneSettings { [...] /** @OneToOne(targetEntity="Medium", cascade= {"persist", "remove"} , orphanRemoval=true) @JoinColumn(name="medium_id", referencedColumnName="medium_id", nullable=true, onDelete="SET NULL") **/ protected $medium = null; [...] } And class Medium has no reference to the class Settings. Now suppose I have a$Settings object that is already persisted and has been correctly loaded. Also suppose that the $Settings object has a$medium (that is, $Settings->medium =$OldMedium) Now suppose I do: $Settings->medium =$NewMedium; Where $NewMedium is a different Medium object. When I persist$Settings, Doctrine does delete $OldMedium from the DB, but the problem is that it also deletes$NewMedium ... I have tried removing onDelete="SET NULL", but then I receive a "cannot delete, constraint failed" error...

### [DDC-222] Create unit tests for CLI components Created: 22/Dec/09  Updated: 30/Oct/10

Status: Reopened
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-ALPHA3
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Task Priority: Critical Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Guilherme Blanco Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Reference is referenced by DDC-359 Specified, but empty CLI Options --op... Resolved

 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 19/May/10 ] Whats the status here? Do we have any? Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 19/May/10 ] Since we moved to Symfony Console I don't think this is needed anymore. The purpose of this ticket was actually to test our own CLI support, which was dropped. I'm closing the ticket due to this. Reopen if you have any other comment. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 20/May/10 ] I think we do need some basic functional tests of our Commands, they have been subject to many bugs in the past becaues they are not tested. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 19/Jun/10 ] Fixed another fatal error in the command due to missing namespace dependency. We need tests for all the commands, there have been dozens of issues on these things so far. This commit shows a simple approach on how testing is easily possible for symfony commands: http://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/commit/51e6681934a7cf4448b85c5670c04045f66c6056 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 26/Aug/10 ] Can we expect some more tests for beta4 or is it unlikely that you find the time? Should we move this further back or does someone else want to step in?

### [DDC-274] Class and namespace naming inconsistency Created: 24/Jan/10  Updated: 31/Oct/10

Status: In Progress
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0-ALPHA4
Fix Version/s: 2.0-RC1
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Critical Reporter: Glen Ainscow Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None

 Description
 There are inconsistencies with some class and namespace names that include acronyms. Examples: Classes with upper-casing: ORMException, DBALException, OCI8Connection, etc. Classes with proper-casing: RunDqlTask, CliException, MySqlPlatform, etc. Namespaces with upper-casing: DBAL, ORM, Doctrine\DBAL\Driver\PDOMsSql, etc. Namespaces with proper-casing: Doctrine\Common\Cli, Doctrine\DBAL\Tools\Cli\, Doctrine\ORM\Id, etc. There is more proper-casing than upper-casing. IMHO, proper-casing is better as it's easier to read "SqlException" than it is to read "SQLException" (the "E" looks like part of the acronym), and things like "CLITask" can be avoided. I discussed this a bit with Benjamin and Guilherme, and they were unsure and said that the whole team needed to reach consensus. I'm leaving the priority as "Major" because this should probably be fixed sooner rather than later to prevent compatibility breaks.

### [DDC-2237] oracle IN statement with more than 1000 values Created: 11/Jan/13  Updated: 02/Apr/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.2.2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Critical Reporter: Marc Drolet Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 If I have a query with a IN statement with more tahn 1000 values I get an sql error. I've try IN with implode: select * from test where id IN(' . implode(',', $values) . ') and I've also try with executeQuery: select * from test where id IN(:test) executeQuery($sql, array($values), array(\Doctrine\DBAL\Connection::PARAM_INT_ARRAY))  Comments  Comment by Marc Drolet [ 11/Jan/13 ] Here is the way I've implement the solution on my side: (for oracle) into Doctrine/DBAL/Statement.php, I've add this method: /** * Binds a parameter value to the statement. * This is implemented this way for oracle only. Other drivers are redirected to bindValue method. * * The value will be bound with to the type provided (that required to be a table type). * * @param String$name The name or position of the parameter. * @param Array $value The value of the parameter. * @param String$type The name of the type to use to bind. * @return boolean TRUE on success, FALSE on failure. */ public function bindList($name, Array$value, $type) { if ('oracle' !==$this->platform->getName()) { $this->bindValue($name, $value,$type); } else { return $this->stmt->bindList($name, $value,$type); } }  into Doctrine/DBAL/Driver/Statement.php I've add: /** * @TODO: docs */ function bindList($param, Array$values, $type);  into Doctrine/DBAL/Driver/OCI8/OCI8Statement.php I've add this method: /** * {@inheritdoc} */ public function bindList($param, Array $value,$type) { if (!($list = oci_new_collection($this->_dbh, $type))) { //throw new OCI8Exception::fromErrorInfo($this->errorInfo()); } foreach ($value as$entry) { $list->append($entry); } if (!oci_bind_by_name($this->_sth,$param, $list, -1, OCI_B_NTY)) { //throw new OCI8Exception::fromErrorInfo($this->errorInfo()); } }  // NOTE: we should probably add the bindList to all driver Statement object. into your code you can use it this way: $sql = " SELECT * FROM test WHERE id IN ( SELECT * FROM ( CAST (: p_ids AS list_int_type) ) ) ";$stmt = connection->prepare($sql);$stmt->bindList(': p_ids', $ids, 'list_int_type');$stmt->execute(); $rs =$stmt->fetchAll(PDO::FETCH_ASSOC);  NOTE: list_int_type need to be a valid oracle data type. You can create one with the name you want. example: you can have 2 type of accepted array of values: integer and string let's say we create one for string named: list_str_type and one for integer list_int_type create or replace type list_str_type as table of varchar2(4000); create or replace type list_int_type as table of number; Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 01/Apr/13 ] Hey Marc Drolet thanks for the feedback and the solution, however i would like to have something generic that is working independent of the database driver. This code is very specific. Can you point me to some documentation why oci collection works with more than 1000 elements and how it works in PHP? Comment by Marc Drolet [ 02/Apr/13 ] Hi Benjamin, The limitation is not from the oci driver, it's an oracle limitation. There are a couple of possible solution/implementation that can be done but the one I've provide is the one that perform better for the test I've done and from what I can found over the blogs I've read. I can't find the exact documentation of oracle. oracle doc is so poor. Here is the best description link I can provide that describe some possible implementation. http://vsadilovskiy.wordpress.com/substituting-a-collection-for-in-list-performance-study/ I don't know if there is similar limitation with other database. With the implementation I've provided, It will be possible to implement the proper solution depending on the database limitation you face otherwise it will execute the generic IN. What's bad, we need to create the type into the database. NOTE: In my case, I can not perform a sub-query, I get the my collection from a web service call.

### [DDC-2332] [UnitOfWork::doPersist()] The spl_objact_hash() generate not unique hash! Created: 05/Mar/13  Updated: 30/May/13

Status: Awaiting Feedback
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Critical Reporter: Krisztián Ferenczi Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Symfony 2.1.8, php 5.4.7 and php 5.4.12, Windows 7

 Attachments: hashlogs.txt

 Description
 I created fixtures and some data was inserted many times without calling the Task entity PrePersist event listener. I printed the used and generated hash and I saw a Proxies_CG_\Asitly\ProjectManagementBundle\Entity\User hash equal a Task entity hash!

 Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 05/Mar/13 ] Please provide either a code example or a test case. As it stands, this issue is incomplete Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 05/Mar/13 ] Are you calling EntityManager#clear() inbetween? Because PHP reuses the hashes. The ORM accounts for this. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 05/Mar/13 ] This is not a reproduce case, i don't want to execute your whole project. I want to know, what is the actual bug that you see? Can you just print a list of all the hashes? Because the hashes dont differ at the end, bu tjust somewhere in the middle. Comment by Krisztián Ferenczi [ 05/Mar/13 ] I attached a hashlogs.txt file. The last Task class hash is 0000000050ab4aba0000000058e1cb12 ( line 3 129 ) This is not unique, view the line 2 760 . The Task is not being saved and the program don't call the prePersist listener. The "UnitOfWork" believe the entity has been saved because the isset($this->entityStates[$oid]) is true. But it is an other entity. Comment by Krisztián Ferenczi [ 06/Mar/13 ] The EntityManager::clear() fix the problem, but this is not "good" and "beautiful" solution. Shows no sign of that conflicts were and this is causing the problem. I was looking for the problem 7 hours.

### [DDC-2624] ManyToManyPersister fails to handle cloned PeristentCollections Created: 20/Aug/13  Updated: 18/Nov/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: Git Master
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Critical Reporter: Martin Prebio Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None

 Description
 I want to clone an entity and persist the clone. The entity itself works (if I reset the identifiers to null) but a M2M collection was first ignored since I only did a shallow copy. When I do a deep copy with the following, Doctrine throws the following exception: public function __clone() { if ($this->question_versions instanceof PersistentCollection) {$this->question_versions = clone $this->question_versions; } } Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Doctrine\Common\Persistence\Mapping\MappingException' with message 'The class 'Doctrine\ORM\Persisters\ManyToManyPersister' was not found in the chain configured namespaces Foo\Entity' in /var/www/foo/vendor/doctrine/common/lib/Doctrine/Common/Persistence/Mapping/MappingException.php on line 37 I've traced the error to the ManyToManyPersister class at the methods get {Delete,Insert} RowSQL where$coll->getOwner() is called which returns null because the owner is cleared when the collection is cloned. Therefore get_class does not work as expected under this circumstances. I've also tried to use $coll->getTypeClass() for$class at that point but this leads to other warnings ("array key not existing" and "spl_object hash got null") and finally an SQL exception because Doctrine is inserting null as one of the identifiers. There is a workaround for this issue but I think that this edge case should be handled too. The workaround is not to clone the collection itself but only copy the values with getValues() and let Doctrine convert it back to a collection.

### [DDC-93] It would be nice if we could have support for ValueObjects Created: 01/Nov/09  Updated: 23/Nov/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Avi Block Assignee: Guilherme Blanco Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 40 Labels: None

 Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-648 Custom mapping types for multiple DB ... Resolved Reference is referenced by DDC-2374 [GH-634] [WIP] Value objects Open

 Description
class User {
/**
* @Column(type="string")
*/
private $address; /** * @Column(type="string") */ private$city;

/**
* @Column(type="string")
*/
private $state; }  We could have: class User { /** * @Component(class="Address") */ private$address;
}


It would my life a lot easier....

## Notes for implementation

Value objects can come in two forms:

a) as embedded value objects
b) as collections of value objects

An implementation should concentrate on a) first. The following things all concentrate on a).

### DQL Support

Conditions:

1. "select f from Foo f where f.embedded.value = ?1" (setParameter(1, $scalarValue)) 2. "select f from Foo f where f.embedded = ?1" (setParameter(1,$embeddedValueObject))

At least Nr.1 must be possible in a first implementation.

Selecting:

1. "select f from Foo f" must explode embedded value objects in the SQL SELECT clause.
2. "select f.embedded from Foo f" must explode the columns of the embedded object in the SQL SELECT clause.

At least Nr. 1 must be possible in a first implementation, obviously.

Components affected (among others): Parser, SqlWalker, ...

### Persisters

The persisters need to take embedded value objects into account when persisting as well as loading entities.

Components affected (among others): Persisters, UnitOfWork, ...

ClassMetadataInfo needs to be extended with a field (probably an array) that contains the mappings of embedded values.
New annotations as well as XML/YAML elements are needed.

Components affected (among others): ClassMetadataInfo, AnnotationDriver, YamlDriver, XmlDriver, doctrine-mapping.xsd, ...

### Change Tracking

If value objects are supposed to be immutable this is easy and might require no or few changes. If, however, we want to track changes in mutable value objects it might get more complicated.

Components affected (among others): UnitOfWork, ...

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 05/Nov/09 ] formated snippets nicely Comment by Andrea Turso [ 09/Dec/09 ] I need this feature too. But I would suggest using the same annotation used by JPA @Embeddable +1 Comment by Alan Gabriel Bem [ 17/Dec/09 ] You should also take into consideration different storage strategies of ValueObjects. Martin Fowler points out - in „PoEAA" - two approaches: Embedded Value (which is the one presented above) and Serialized LOB . Both have their pros and cons, that's why Doctrine2 should give developers choice of selecting the fittest solution. Comment by Avi Block [ 17/Dec/09 ] Of course technically we can similate a serialized LOB with a new Doctrine 2 type. Comment by Alan Gabriel Bem [ 17/Dec/09 ] I don't like that idea - Its so not generic. VO as a pattern is important building block of domain model, which clearly indicates that VO as a feature of Doctrine2 should be tailor-made. To anyone of dev-team reading this issue: without VOs Doctrine is not yet DDD-ready, please hurry Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 18/Dec/09 ] Serialized LOB is not very useful IMHO and has lots of problems (many mentioned in PoEEA already). @Alan: I appreciate your nice reminder and I'm sure you mean it in a friendly way, but please keep in mind that noone is paid to work on this project. It all happens in free/spare time and the current state of the project already consumed at least 1 1/2 years spending many hours weekly on this project from me alone. Not to speak of the others. Thus, there is no point in demanding something or telling us to hurry. The best way to get a feature in is to provide a (good) patch that we find worth including. I started to add notes to this issue to collect all the things that need to be done for this feature. In the meantime, its not too hard/ugly to get a half-way decent embedded value yourself: /** @Entity @HasLifecycleCallbacks */ class Foo { // annotations not shown private $id; private$embedded; private $value1; // never reveal to public private$value2; // never reveal to public private $value3; // never reveal to public public function getEmbedded() { return$this->embedded; } public function setEmbedded($embedded) {$this->embedded = $embedded; } /** @PrePersist @PreUpdate */ function _destructEmbedded() { // destruct$embedded into $value1,$value2, $value3 } /** @PostLoad */ function _constructEmbedded() { // construct$embedded from $value1,$value2, $value3 } }  Several variations of this are possible, also with an external event listener instead of callbacks but in that case you might need to use reflection to get at the values. Comment by Alan Gabriel Bem [ 25/Dec/09 ] I want to share my thoughts on possible VOs collections implementations. 1. As it was mentioned earlier serialized (C)LOB is one solution. Implementation of storing/retrieving object graphs alone is quite simple, but it's complex in terms of SELECTs with conditions. Composing SQL condition would result in some nasty constructions e.g. vo_collection_column LIKE '%foo%bar%' which output format would depend on serialization target (CSV, XML, YAML, PHP serialized objects etc.). Also in most cases it would be impossible to obtain eligible result. I'm not taking Regexp or XPath operators into consideration as only few RDBMS support them. 2. The second solution is to break VOs graph into separate related table... or tables if we consider that VO can contain another VO(s). It's not so fast as serialized LOB but more flexible and it utilize power of RDMS, But there is one catch: Doctrine2 must preserve nature of VO. To make it happen during Entities persisting - if any change in dependant VOs graph has been made - all associated VOs rows in database should be deleted and the new/changed VOs graph should be inserted in their place. I know it could be inefficient while dealing with large object graphs, yet faster than comparing VOs one-by-one. In conclusion: serialized LOB is extremely fast in CRUD-like operations on aggregates, however very search unfriendly. Separate ValueObjects tables are better where serialized LOB lacks, but slower in exploitation. I can't tell which approach is superior, because each of them is valid under different circumstances. Hope this helps. @Alan: I appreciate your nice reminder and I'm sure you mean it in a friendly way [...] Of course I do. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 13/Mar/10 ] It would be easy to implement value objects in userland using the XML capabilities of many RDBMS: 1. Implement an Xpath function on the Dql Parser 2. Implement a User-Defined Type for each value object that handles the translation from and to XML. The second point can be heavily optimized when value objects are immutable with an own identiy map of value types inside the Type flyweight instance. Comment by Avi Block [ 13/Mar/10 ] I more or less suggested something similar above. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 14/Mar/10 ] ah, my bad - i must have overseen this Comment by John Kleijn [ 16/May/10 ] +1 This would be awesome. Comment by Matthias Pigulla [ 09/Nov/10 ] Don't forget (especially with regard to SLOBs) that values might in turn contain references to Entities. Example: An "Order" might be an @Entity and might have a field (an array) of OrderLineItems as value. Each OrderLineItem might e. g. carry quantity or disconunt and references a Product (@Entity). So even if you don't need the traversal from Product to all the Orders it is contained in, serializing the OrderLineItems needs a way to "cut off" the object graph at the transition towards the Product but must place some kind of referral there so that upon unserialization (of the OrderLineItem list, that is, during Order load) the Product references in every OrderLineItem are at least initialized with proxies again. Don't know whether/how referential integrity (OrderLineItems <-> Products) would make sense or could be implemented here. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 24/Dec/10 ] Pushed back to 2.x, this feature is probably the largest feature request we have and we'd rather focus on small improvements for 2.1 Comment by Nino Martincevic [ 11/Jan/11 ] Several thinks to consider/not to oversee here: 1) There are value objects with identity. I know that is not DDD-conform but only at first sight. It means they are technically entities but are treated like VOs. Common examples are Zipcode or country. As they have identity (e.g. Zipcode: de-40723) they are entities but are created and interchanged like normal VOs. On the google DDD-List they were often referenced aS Lookup Entities. 2) In virtually all (business) cases a collection of VO is an Entity. How else could you reference (add or remove) single elements of that list? There are exceptions here like a undefinded number of VOs in a collection, but in that case you can only add or remove a quantity of it. As a true collection (say 3 addresses for a client = Entity ClientAdresses) you would have to give them some kind of identity, even if it is only having a sequential number in that collection. @Matthias: OrderLineItems is an example of actually being an Entity. Comment by Ondrej Sibrina [ 03/Jun/11 ] Hi guys. I face this in my own way. Hope you won't wake up your neighbours with loud laugh. Every @Entity extends my BaseEntity object which provide kind of wrap for value with ValueBase object. So when want to get/set value from entity you call$entity->getData() where you won't get value "data" but wrapping ValueBase for value "data". Then you can get bare value by getValue(). Name of value class is in annotation and would be child of ValueBase. There's also parent class Base for EntityBase and ValueBase. In my case class Base is something like HTML element. So in the end you can use $entity->renderHtml() or$value->renderHtml() no matter if you're rendering value or @Entity. There's more features like validation, filtering and hydration value/entity from HTML forms, but it's extra. Implementation: "Base.php"  /* @MappedSuperclass */ abstract class Base { /* there're methods like _getParent(), _getPropertyName(), etc. used in code behind */ }  "ValueBase.php"  abstract class ValueBase extends Base { public function getValue() { return $this->_getParent()->{$this->_getPropertyName()}; } public function setValue($value) {$this->_getParent()->{$this->_getPropertyName()} =$value; } }  "EntityBase.php"  /** @MappedSuperclass */ abstract class EntityBase extends Base { public function __call($name,$arguments) { /* get property object */ $pattern = '/^get(.*)$/u'; preg_match($pattern,$name, $matches); if (isset($matches[1])) { $propertyName = lcfirst($matches[1]); return $this->get($propertyName); } /* set entity */ $pattern = '/^set(.*)$/u'; preg_match($pattern,$name, $matches); if (isset($matches[1])) { $propertyName = lcfirst($matches[1]); return $this->set($propertyName, $arguments[0]); } } public function get($propertyName) { $property =$this->_getElementProperty($propertyName); if ($property == null) throw new Exception(sprintf("There isn't property like '%s'.", $propertyName)); /* for collections and entities */ if ($property["type"] == "collection" || $property["type"] == "entity") {$element = $this->{$propertyName}; if ($element != null) {$element->_setParent($this);$element->_setPropertyName($propertyName); } elseif ($property["type"] == "entity") { $element = new$property["class"]; $element->_setParent($this); $element->_setPropertyName($propertyName); $element->_setNullEntity();$this->{$propertyName} =$element; } return $element; } else { /* for values */ if (!isset($this->_loadedEntities[$propertyName])) {$this->_loadedEntities[$propertyName] = new$property["class"]($this,$propertyName); } return $this->_loadedEntities[$propertyName]; } } public function set($propertyName,$value) { $property =$this->_getElementProperty($propertyName); if ($property == null) throw new Exception(sprintf("There isn't property like '%s'.", $propertyName)); /* for collections and entities */ if ($property["type"] == "collection" || $property["type"] == "entity") {$this->{$propertyName} =$value; } /* for values */ else { throw new Exception(sprintf("Can't call set on value property '%s'.", $propertyName)); } return$this; } }  Note that there's something i call "NullEntity". Instead of getting bare "null" you'll get @Entity child of EntityBase, where is set property nullEntity. Then there's posibility to work with null entity (for example renderHtml with empty inputs). It would be nice, if this is support by Doctrine natively, because i have some performace problems with my implementation. If it's interest in my whole code i can send you. But of course there's some security holes so i'll send it privetely. Thanks for understand and for Doctrine of course. Comment by Mathias Verraes [ 13/Jul/11 ] Note that Roman's workaround presented here does not work.  /** @PrePersist @PreUpdate */ function _destructEmbedded() { // destruct $embedded into$value1, $value2,$value3 }  Doctrine tracks changes and does not perform updates when no changes are found. $embedded is not mapped, so it's not tracked and won't be taken into account by Doctrine when updating. Therefore, if$embedded is the only value that was changed, the PreUpdate event won't be triggered. The easiest thing to do is to simply destruct the VO on every mutation:  public function setEmbedded($embedded) {$this->embedded = $embedded;$this->_destructEmbedded(); }  The downside is that you need to remember to call the method in every setter, but apart from that, there are no side effects, it always works and it's just one line of code _constructEmbedded() keeps working as is, postLoad will always be triggered. Comment by Benjamin Dulau [ 18/Dec/11 ] Hi, This feature would be awesome ! VOs are really essential in a good domain design. If you plan to implement this, please remember that you can have nested VOs. Take the design for a Booking process for instance, you would have a DateRange object embedding two DateTime objects (in the simplest case). I have no doubts that you've already took this in consideration, but i prefer pointing this out, just in case Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 20/Jan/12 ] work has been started, https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/265 Comment by Matthias Pigulla [ 23/Nov/12 ] Does the new "complex sql types" feature help here - I mean, could that be used to map a value object to more than one column in the database? Comment by songoko songowan [ 10/Feb/13 ] @Benjamin Eberlei The request seems to be closed in the link you provided! Does that mean that this feature won't be implemented?! Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 10/Feb/13 ] songoko songowan no, it just probably wasn't the correct way of implementing this Comment by Daniel Pitts [ 11/Apr/13 ] I'm curious if any effort is currently being put into this. I would really love to have this feature available. Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 11/Apr/13 ] Daniel Pitts this is being developed in DDC-2374 ( https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/634 ) Comment by Andrei Tchijov [ 02/Aug/13 ] I would argue that this SHOULD NOT be implemented. This is typical "convenience" feature. The desired functionality could be implemented with current state of Doctrine with very little efforts. I do not think that ROI on this feature will really be significant. Great frameworks are often defined by what they choose NOT to implement. Lets keep Doctrine Grate! Comment by Daniel Pitts [ 02/Aug/13 ] Andrei, how is this a convenience feature? It allows a more efficient schema to be generated, reduces unnecessary boilerplate code, and can improve runtime performance. Is there a work-around which really provides those three features? Let's make Doctrine Great! (Grates won't help with ORM, they just get in the way) Comment by Matthieu Napoli [ 02/Aug/13 ] Andrei: what?? Can you justify this is a "convenience feature"? Comment by Andrei Tchijov [ 02/Aug/13 ] @Matthieu: Can you justify this is a "convenience feature"? @Roman S. Borschel above showed one way of dealing with this. At the same time, in my experience if you think you need "ValueObject" - most likely you need another table in your schema. Comment by Daniel Pitts [ 02/Aug/13 ] Another table in your schema, yes, but not another entity with a primary key. There is no way to do collections of objects which aren't entities upon themselves. ORM's are a convenience feature, if you don't like convenience features, don't use Doctrine Comment by Andrei Tchijov [ 02/Aug/13 ] @Daniel, What is wrong with another entity with PK? It does not "cost" you anything. ORM's are a convenience feature, if you don't like convenience features, don't use Doctrine There are small conveniences and there are huge conveniences. "huge conveniences" - is what makes projects great. "small conveniences" - in most cases are amount to "feature creep". I would much prefer (limited) resources of Doctrine community spent on "huge conveniences". Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 02/Aug/13 ] If you don't understand value objects then please don't depreciate them like that. An entity is basically a value object with an identity. A value object itself has NO identity. It exists as a representation value or complex value. Besides doctrine ORM, a value object has HUGE advantages when dealing with values composed of multiple fields (currencies, time intervals, etc.). And Doctrine would just provide a good way of serializing/unserializing those to DB. And no, separate table with identifiers/fields is a no-go. Comment by Andrei Tchijov [ 02/Aug/13 ] @Marco Pivetta And no, separate table with identifiers/fields is a no-go. Why? I am genuinely curious. I could be misinterpreting your comment, but it sounds to me like you are talking about storing "objects" in DB fields (in serialized form). If I am correct, this is most certainly doable with current state of Doctrine. Just write you own getter/setter. Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 02/Aug/13 ] Separate tables/identifiers is a no-go because of the additional joins per fields, indexes, general overhead and it creates new types instead of standardized types. Additionally, you are adding identifiers to values, which is not what you may want. To make an example, you don't pick 3 coins from your purse, count "13 pennies" and then assign it a name "paul" (identifier). That's not how it works. You don't pay in "paul" amounts, and also you have only one "paul", which is also a problem since you got a lot of possible groupings of 13 pennies. I don't want to make lessons on what value objects are on an issue tracker (and again, this is an issue tracker, so I'm ok if you want to say something against an issue, but it should be backed by some valid arguments) since there's quite enough writings on the topic out there. If I am correct, this is most certainly doable with current state of Doctrine. Just write you own getter/setter. Andrei Tchijov no, that's not feasible with the current state of hydrators and without using a big amount of post-load events, which basically means the feature is patched up instead of supported out of the box (as it is in other ORMs) Getters/setters mean that your entity has an understanding of how to deal with the value object instantiation. That's not something that should be in the entity, and leads to a lot of code duplication. Comment by Daniel Pitts [ 02/Aug/13 ] A new PK does indeed cost. It adds an index, which has a runtime cost. It adds a column, which has a runtime cost. It adds unnecessary management of the PK when you want to copy a value, which is both a runtime and development cost. Not having this feature also makes it so that I have to create a new entity for each use of the "value object". For example, if I have an otherwise reusable LineItem class, and I have three entities (eg, Invoice, Purchase Order, Shipment) which have a "collection of LineItem", I need to create three LineItem implementations, each one its own entity. So I'd end up with InvoiceLineItem, PurchaseOrderLineItem, and ShipmentLineItem, even though the structure and semantics are exactly the same. or I'd end up with one LineItem table, and three join tables, even though the id space really isn't the same. Comment by Nino Martincevic [ 03/Aug/13 ] @Daniel A collection of Value Objects does not work in most cases. Can you call one specific element? How do you remove one element of the list if it has no identity? Though it does work when you remove items by its values, say remove all line items that are red. @Marco "An entity is basically a value object with an identity. A value object itself has NO identity. It exists as a representation value or complex value." That's not correct. An VO is a value, true. But an entity is not defined by its value(s) plus an identity but by its identity, lifecycle and behaviour. Would be a poor entity otherwise and doubtful if it's an entity at all. Comment by Nino Martincevic [ 03/Aug/13 ] One of the most dicussed representations of VO are addresses. In most busniess cases they are value objects, sometimes a combination of VOs. Say you have a customer table with name, address, phone, etc. Usually that is stored in one table, or at max in more tables with a 1:1 relation. The whole thing here is not the problem of an ORM but of the application. You must not use setStreet() or setZip() in you Entities to create or update an address, but setAddress(VOAddress $address) and the mapping of the attributes of the VO to the fields of the table goes to the application/base classes. If you restore the Entity Customer from storage you can use a factory that builds the VO again from the single fields. A VO can manage the validity of its building, so if any fields are corrupted in the storage the VO won't be restored - and most probably an exception is thrown, or some compensating event. No matter if I use Doctrine, another ORM or a self-build persistence-to-domain mechanism, all rules and invariants for the creation and restoring of entities and value objects are managed by my domain model and I never trust the persistence. Comment by Nino Martincevic [ 04/Aug/13 ] Sorry to bug again, but one very important point is not mentioned yet but could be very helpful when talking about designing Entity/VO in Doctrine, too: An Object can be an Entity in one context and a VO in another! Simplified but still very common example: A shopping system, where you don't bother which address a customer has. There could even be many customers from the very same address. A customer only has to have ANY address, so in that context it's a VO. But in the Accounting and Distribution context you want to check the correctness of a specific address, being it to send the invoice to the legally correct address or to do bulk shipments. In that context address is an Entity, because you check and qualify THAT address. Enitities and VOs are a logical construct. If it's this or that depends on the bounded context. No context, no model. Comment by Matthieu Napoli [ 04/Aug/13 ] Nino: correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read about DDD in that case you should create 2 separate classes. So there shouldn't be a class that could be an entity and a VO. Comment by Daniel Pitts [ 04/Aug/13 ] I agree, VO and Entities are distinct things, and should probably be distinct classes. If you need an "entity" version of your VO, you would create an Entity which contains only the VO. Comment by Nino Martincevic [ 05/Aug/13 ] @Matthieu That's the old question of when a customer is a customer? A customer could be: someone who visits the shop ([anonymous] visitor) someone who registers (user) someone who buys something (buyer) in delivery context it's just an address (recipient) in accounting context it's a legal person or company (invoice recipient) Guess you wouldn't have separate database entities/tables for all of these roles. So, yes. A class could (but doesn't has to) be a VO and an Entity, but only in a different context. In most cases it just plays another role. It could be specially factored by a repository for a specific use case, having other behaviour than in another. E.g. in delivery context it could have more than one address, a private and a delivery one. The more we talk about the more we see that the business (language) drives the design of your classes. And if it's clear which objects play a role in which context it becomes very clear what kind of classes or roles you need. And also that without a bounded context you could never answer the question what kind of classes you really need. Hope that helps. Comment by songoko songowan [ 23/Nov/13 ] well I can see that much work was done on implementing this feature on https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/835#issuecomment-28697601 However, it seems mapping a collection of value objects won't be supported in this patch. Currently we have to treat them as entities till further notice. Should a new issue be opened specifically for mapping a collection of value objects? Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 23/Nov/13 ] songoko songowan yes please! Especially if you can provide some links/details on what the feature would look like and how it is implemented in JPA/Hibernate. ### [DDC-128] Consider adding EntityManager#link/unlink methods for direct association manipulation Created: 07/Nov/09 Updated: 29/Dec/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: 2.0-ALPHA2 Fix Version/s: 2.x Security Level: All  Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None Issue Links:  Reference is referenced by DDC-546 New fetch mode EXTRA_LAZY for collect... Resolved  Description  A problem when working with collection-valued associations is that almost all operations except add($obj) require the collection to become initialized in order for the operation to be performed properly. While this is all correct and beautiful OO-wise it may be problematic at times with regards to performance. Hence we might want to consider to provide some convenient methods along the lines of link/unlink (name suggestions?) which allow more direct, less OO collection manipulation. Such methods obviously would bypass the normal object lifecycle and the changes done through these methods will not be reflected in the in-memory objects and collections, unless the user keeps them in-synch himself.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Dec/09 ] Questions I suppose link and unlinked entities would then handled by UnitOfwork commit also? Since the collection is not initialized, one does not know upfront if the action will be successful, what happens if: an entity is linked with a collection, although they are already connected. an entity is unlinked from a collection it is not in. Regarding the naming, i like link/unlink. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 17/Dec/09 ] What do you mean by "handled by UnitOfWork commit" ? Whether the SQL is "scheduled" or executed immediately? Interesting question. Scheduling would probably be better but also more difficult. As far as usage is concerned, I currently imagine it as follows: // EntityManager#link($sourceObj,$field, $targetObj)$user = $em->getReference($userId); // $userId probably from request parameters$address = $em->getReference($addressId); // $addressId probably from request parameters$em->link($user, 'addresses',$address);  "What happens if: an entity is linked with a collection, although they are already connected." Probably an SQL error which results in an exception from the driver. Depends on the database constraints though. "What happens if: an entity is unlinked from a collection it is not in" Probably nothing, at least not from the SQL side. An exception could be thrown from Doctrine itself if the update affected 0 rows. Thanks for these initial questions. Thats definitely food for thought. Keep it coming. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 26/Aug/10 ] Pushed back.

### [DDC-138] Allow for mixed inheritance mapping Created: 12/Nov/09  Updated: 24/Dec/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: DQL, Mapping Drivers, ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Reinier Kip Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2 Labels: None

 Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-265 Possibility for Nested Inheritance Open

 Description
 Requesting implementation of mixed inheritance mapping (class table inheritance and single table inheritance). This would be especially handy when the difference between certain classes is only "implementational" (i.e. a subclass only functions differently/implements abstract methods and does not specify any additional fields). Using class table inheritance would result in tables only containing an id column.

### [DDC-213] Persist order of collections Created: 15/Dec/09  Updated: 16/Oct/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 14 Labels: None

 Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-181 Order of many-to-many relationship Resolved Reference is referenced by DDC-250 ArrayCollection Key Column @indexBy Resolved

 Description
 A Collection is like a php array, an ordered map. Hence there should be the possibility to persist this order.

 Comment by Christian Heinrich [ 21/May/10 ] Roman, I'd like to do this one as I have currently a use case for this. Do you have any idea of how to do this? What I'm wondering is whether it is possible to implement this without user intervention. (This would simply mean "store the entities as they were added"). But this would need another column in DB that we'd have to add within oneToMany / manyToMany relationships, but in this case one could save a serialized array holding "entityId => position" key / value pairs. Afterwards, one could easily rebuild / reorder the collection via $collection->set($entity, $order[$entity->identifier]); If you've got another thought about this, please don't hesitate to point me into the right direction! Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 22/May/10 ] this won't be implemented until 2.1, since its a pretty complex feature. Changes are probably required in: 1. CollectionPersister - Add a new collection persister that takes the position into account 2. SchemaTool - Add a 'col_position' column to either the many-to-many or the one-to-many tables. 3. EntityPersister - Use and extend current order-by support to make the sorting happen You can implement this already though with some performance hit in update scenarios. If you use the ORDER BY support and implement an API around your entity that abstracts those changes and always sets a "position" field on the many entity that is supposed to be sorted. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 22/May/10 ] I don't think we necessarily need a new collection persister. Simply adjusting the ManyToManyPersister to be able to deal with it might be sufficient. For OneToMany, that is always persisted from the "many" side, thus there is no collection persister, we would need to adjust the normal persisters. They key element for the user should be a new annotation (or corresponding xml/yaml element) @OrderColumn. By default the order should not be persistent, only when an @OrderColumn annotation is present. The name of the order column can have a default, i.e. "position". Thus this enhancement of persisting the order should be fully backwards compatible. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 22/May/10 ] On another note, the getInsertDiff/getDeleteDiff methods of PersistentCollection should already be "ready" for this. That is, when an element in the collection changed only its position, this is already tracked as a change. However the ManyToManyPersister issues no "UPDATE" queries, it simply deletes and inserts. A position change may be more effectively persisted with an UPDATE. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 30/Sep/10 ] From a mailinglist entry, required check/changepoints: 1. ClassMetadata of Many-To-Many associations have to be extended to publish the required datastructure to the ORM. 2. All Metadata Mapping Drivers have to be extended 3. Persisters\ManyToManyCollectionPersister has to be extended to save the key in the many to many table if desired by the user. 4. Schema-Tool has to be extended to create the additional column. 5. PersistentCollection has to be extended so that lazy loading of collections with additional key works. 6. Array- and ObjectHydrator have to be extended to allow fetch join of collections with key column. 7. Discuss wheather to support this for One-To-Many also with the key-column on the many side. This is much more tricky internally though. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 24/Dec/10 ] Push back to 2.x, we will have support for DDC-250 first and for this at a later release. Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 07/Feb/12 ] Hi there, I'm looking for this feature. Benjamin Eberlei said that : "You can implement this already", but I don't understand the "how to". Also, The problem should be solve if RDBMS had a "natural" order. An order based on item position inside table. To get this feature without any change on Doctrine, I have remplace the PK defined by the target & mapped field identifier. The new PK is a new field with type "integer" and with auto-increment enable. In this configuration, Doctrine use the "natural" order of the RDBMS. And I can change order of my item inside Collection and persist it. It's an very bad solution, but It work before an official support. Waiting for advices, and solutions, Thomas. Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 08/Feb/12 ] Answering to Benjamin Eberlei on the "7. Discuss wheather to support this for One-To-Many also with the key-column on the many side. This is much more tricky internally though.". I think that for One-To-Many relations, if user want to store the collection order, Doctrine can store the One-To-Many as Many-To-Many with a "model" limitation. In that case, if storing order collection for Many-To-Many work, it should work for One-To-Many. What do you think about it ? Comment by Nicolas [ 29/Feb/12 ] I think that it must be possible to have two keys ordering : the order isn't obligatory reversible. For exemple with user and group : You can order groups for one user : with preference by exemple, or importance. And with a different order, users for a group : rank by example. And maybe more, if you decide to add multi-order : an user show group by his rank in it, if his rank is identical, the order is make by love preference, and after by the importance given by the user (not necessary a number, if we imagine filter on them). So a default order can be choice with parametized fields and could be :  @ManyToMany(targetEntity="Group") ... @JoinFields ( rank: { type: int} , preference:{type:int}, importance:{type: string, length: 40} ) @OrderByJoinFields({"rank" = "ASC", "preference"="ASC", "importance"="ASC" } )  In this case the order must be optional and would be clean if another order appears in the same scope (DQL...). And manytomany became virtual entities act as other entities except they don't appears permetting in the same time a better conception. So if the solution take in DDC-181 will become the only solution. This would a good idea to document this. Because, this seems to me a very important point. My last point is even an unique ordering field created in the join table will be a big and usefull improvement. Thank a lot for your beautiful work. Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 29/Feb/12 ] In my point of view, a collection can be order in a single way only. If you want to add more than one order between User & Group, it's a new collection, a new relation. Like : User.memberOf() : Group[] Group.members() : User[] Group.importantMembers() : User[] And it's your role to keep a consistency between members & importantMembers array. Because ManyToMany join table is the reflection of a state of an ArrayCollection. It's not a usefull feature to be able to store all of the state of an ArrayCollection, even the order of this Array. It's just a normal feature that is really missing Thomas. Comment by Nicolas [ 29/Feb/12 ] I don't think: If you have three collection, you duplicate one relation 3 times and it's easy in consequence to lost the data integrity and unicity. By example : Thomas have rank 10 in Admin Thomas think the admin group has importance noted 3 on all of his groups. If a responsable of admin group decide to delete Thomas from it. Thomas, in his ordered list of groups, think always to be in group admin. So in my idea, the many to many relation isn't just an array collection, but should be an virtual entity. In UML or in Merise method this is a common problem to have a parametized relation. I think an orm should just implement this. Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 29/Feb/12 ] Hum, I agree with you.. In a SQL Schema, it's a good choice to add many fields in a ManyToMany join table to description "order". Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 07/Mar/12 ] I just want to add a piece of Doctrine ORM Document : "When working with collections, keep in mind that a Collection is essentially an ordered map (just like a PHP array). That is why the remove operation accepts an index/key. removeElement is a separate method that has O ( n) complexity using array_search, where n is the size of the map." Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 23/Mar/12 ] Hi there, After several discussions. on IRC, I have changed my point of view. Doctrine Documentation says : "When working with collections, keep in mind that a Collection is essentially an ordered map (just like a PHP array)". So, I think that Doctrine have to be able to store or not the order of a Collection. By adding a new field on the Joined table to store the position of each elements. But I not agree with @Nicolas. Because in his case, he's talking about Association Class : http://etutorials.org/Programming/UML/Chapter+6.+Class+Diagrams+Advanced+Concepts/Association+Class/ Because he's talking of a business logic, he's talking of a dedicated Entity class. What do you think about it ? Thomas; Comment by Thomas Tourlourat - Armetiz [ 31/Aug/12 ] Any news ? Comment by Matthieu Napoli [ 16/Oct/12 ] Hi, any news on this? If I may add any info to this feature request, maybe something like JPA/Hibernate could be a good start? The idea in Hibernate is that you persist the order of the list in an extra column. This column is not a field of the entity however.

### [DDC-265] Possibility for Nested Inheritance Created: 21/Jan/10  Updated: 16/Jan/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Michael Fürmann Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Duplicate duplicates DDC-138 Allow for mixed inheritance mapping Open

 Description
 It would be great if Doctrine had the possibility to define a further inharitance in a subclass. Example: There is a class DataObject managing things like created- and lastedit- timestamps, archiving objects before updates, ... One of the sub-objects is Content. There are several types of content. Written directly to a database field, read from a textfile on server, executed php file on server, loaded from another server via xmlrpc and so on. I'd like to use a single table inheritance to map all information of the different content objects in one table. If I understand the model right the only alternate solution would be to write each single content object to the discriminator map of DataObject.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 21/Jan/10 ] The DataObject you describe is a no-go for Doctrine 2. Its just a very bad practice. Inheritance Mapping is for REAL inheritance only, otherwise you shouldnt go with a relational database in the first place. You should use the Event system for such changes, it offers you roughly the same possibilities and keeps you from having to use inheritance mapping. You could still create an abstract data object and define the fields that will be used in each "implementation" and then in events do something like: if ($entity instanceof DataObject) {$entity->updated(); $archiver->makeSnapshot($entity); }  Comment by Jonathan H. Wage [ 20/Mar/10 ] With this patch I think you could setup a nice similar model where you can introduce new children of this parent class and have it added to the discriminator map from the child instead of having to modify the parents mapping information. http://www.doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DDC-447

### [DDC-298] Allow Entity to hold a collection of a single primitive type Created: 02/Feb/10  Updated: 10/Oct/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.1
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 4 Labels: None

 Description
 Sometimes you want to save arbitrary information for an entity using a key -> value array-structure. JPA supports this by means of the @ElementCollection annotation with allows to specify HashMaps for example. I propose a new AssocationMapping called "ElementMapping" / "ElementCollection" and annotations (options): ElementCollection + elementTable + keyType + keyLength + keyColumnDefinition + valueType + valueLength + valueColumnDefinition  The key and value definitions are necessary for converting and schema generation. The implementation would make use of the PersistentCollection at all times and work as any other persistent collection just with primitive types. Restrictions for a first implementation: Only available as a Lazy-Load Collection, no hydration with the source entity Can't be used in queries alike "entity.colname.key = ?1" Use-Case: $entity->options['foo'] = 'bar';$entity->options['bar'] = 'baz';  This could be done for 2.0 imho, adding the necessary changes and optimizations could then be scheduled for 2.1

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 02/Feb/10 ] In this implementation Schema-Tool would generate a table: elementTable (entity_id-1, ..., entity_id-n, key, value) and using the Platform Type Generation of keyType and valueType Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 02/Feb/10 ] Column Names should be Change-able also since there could be people who name their primary keys "key" and "value" o_O Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 02/Feb/10 ] Ordering could be implemented on top of this using the @OrderColumn JPA implementation by adding another column to the table with a numeric order that will be "order by"'d on select time. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 24/Dec/10 ] Pushed back Comment by Richard Michael Coo [ 10/Oct/13 ] Any news on this? It has been almost 3 years since its last update =)

### [DDC-349] Add support for specifying precedence in joins in DQL Created: 18/Feb/10  Updated: 01/May/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: DQL
Affects Version/s: 2.0-ALPHA4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Dennis Verspuij Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None

Attachments: DDC349Test.patch
 Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-1256 Generated SQL error with DQL WITH and... Resolved

 Description
 This request is in followup to my doctrine-user message "Doctrine 2.0: Nested joins'. I am a bit surprised by the responses in that defining precedences in joins by placing parenthesis around join expressions is not well-known. Although not in the original SQL92 specification it is a major and important feature offered by all the RDBMS's that Doctrine 2 supports, and oftenly performs better than using subselects or alike. Doctrine 1 did not support it, but imho Doctrine 2 should support it to be a mature allround ORM. As a short example the following is a SQL statement with a nested join, where the nesting is absolutely necessary to return only a's together with either both b's and c's or no b's and c's at all: SELECT * FROM a A LEFT JOIN ( b B INNER JOIN c C ON C.b_id = B.id ) ON B.a_id = A.id In order for Doctrine 2 to support this the BNF should be something like: Join ::= ["LEFT" ["OUTER"] | "INNER"] "JOIN" ( "(" JoinAssociationPathExpression ["AS"] AliasIdentificationVariable Join ")" | JoinAssociationPathExpression ["AS"] AliasIdentificationVariable ) [("ON" | "WITH") ConditionalExpression] instead of the current: Join ::= ["LEFT" ["OUTER"] | "INNER"] "JOIN" JoinAssociationPathExpression ["AS"] AliasIdentificationVariable [("ON" | "WITH") ConditionalExpression] This would allow DQL like: SELECT A, B, C FROM a A LEFT JOIN ( A.b B INNER JOIN B.c C ) WITH B.something = 'value' AND C.something = 'othervalue' What further needs to be done is that the DQL parser loosly couples the ConditionalExpression to any of the previously parsed JoinAssociationPathExpression's instead of tieing it explicitely to the JoinAssociationPathExpression that preceedes it according to the old BNF notation. The new BNF should however not require any changes to the hydrator. Therefore I have the feeling that improving the DQL parser for nested joins does not require extensive work, while the benefit of running these kind of queries is considerable. As an extra substantiation here are links to (BNF) FROM clause documentations of the RDBMS's that Doctrine 2 supports, they all show support for nested joins: MySQL: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/sql-select.html#SQL-FROM and http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/explicit-joins.html MSSQL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177634.aspx Oracle: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e10592/statements_10002.htm#CHDDCHGF SQLite: http://www.sqlite.org/syntaxdiagrams.html#single-source I surely hope you will consider implementing this improvement because it would save me and others from the hassle of writing raw SQL queries or executing multiple (thus slow) queries in DQL for doing the same. Thanks anyway for the great product so far!

 Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 13/Apr/10 ] This seems to be a valid issue to me. This implementation is the actual solution to associations retrieval that are inherited (type joined). Example: /** Joined */ class Base {} class Foo extends Base {} class Bar { public $foo; } // This causes the CTI to link as INNER JOIN, which makes the result become 0 // il if you have no Foo's defined (although it should ignore this)$q = $this->_em->createQuery('SELECT b, f FROM Bar b LEFT JOIN b.foo f');  Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 13/Apr/10 ] Yes, this is a possible solution for DDC-512 but on the SQL level. I still don't see this as appropriate for DQL, it just doesnt make sense to me, DQL joins object associations, there is no precedence. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 13/Apr/10 ] So, no, this has nothing to do with DDC-512. DDC-512 can even be fixed differently as outlined in my comments there. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 13/Apr/10 ] On a side note I would still like to know/see the following for this issue: Some realisitic DQL examples where this feature would be essential, i.e. there is no other way to do it. This also means explaining what the impact on the resulting object graph is and why it makes sense. Which other ORMs support this on the OQL/Criteria level? So far, my stance on this issue is: 1) It doesnt make sense (semantically) in DQL 2) Its rarely needed 3) When you really need it you can use a NativeQuery anyway and use this nesting in SQL, where it probably belongs and makes more sense 4) It would (unnecessarily) complicate DQL Thus I am currently leaning towards "Wont fix" for this issue. Comment by Dennis Verspuij [ 13/Apr/10 ] Hi Roman. I understand your doubts, and I have been breaking my head over creating a realistic example the last few hours that would hopefully convince you for implementing this feature. But actually I cannot find one that you wouldn't consider to be trivial. I do have a number of very complex optimized queries written for sportskickoff dot com (using Doctrine 1.2) but they are probably hard to understand because they may not be selfdescribing. Below is one example literally ripped from the application. Still they often can be broken down to my example query in this ticket's description, but applied grouping, additional other joins on the root component and/or other criteria made them impossible to rewrite using subselects or choosing another root component. Most often they just performed way best using the nested syntax and saved me a number of additional queries. SELECT A.id, A.username, A.balance, COALESCE(SUM(B.stake), 0) AS sumstake, COUNT(B.id) AS nrbets FROM account A LEFT JOIN ( bet B INNER JOIN game G ON G.id = :GAMEID AND B.timestampcompletion BETWEEN G.timestampstart AND G.timestampend ) ON B.accountid = A.id AND B.timestampcompletion IS NOT NULL WHERE A.Status & :ACTIVEORDISQUALIFIED = :ACTIVE GROUP BY A.id, A.username, A.balance ORDER BY A.balance DESC, sumstake ASC, nrbets ASC, A.username ASC But let's put it another way. I would also like this feature to be supported in DQL because I just do not want to use native queries. Why would I want to use native queries if it can be done using DQL? In DQL I work with class names and field names, and they may differ from the underlying table and column names. Doctrine takes care of that mapping based on my schema/annotations and I do not have to "know" these mappings. In native queries I suddenly do have to "know" these mappings. I use Doctrine because it makes my application portable and enables me to work with my database in an OOP way like I do in my model, abstracting things. The need for native queries partly reverts the benefits Doctrine offers in the first place. Btw, I recall to have successfully used the nested join syntax in HQL (.NET Hibernate) but I cannot find examples on the web or a BNF notation. Furthermore, in reply to your stances: 1) It indeed doesnt make sense (semantically) in DQL, it only makes the result set different, but not the way data is hydrated into objects; 2) Its indeed rarely needed for inserting, updating and populating basic lists but it allows you to better select what combinations of associated rows are joined and which not in more optimized queries without having to use native queries, or because they perform better than using subseletcs and alike. 3) Not having to use native queries is just an extra reason for using Doctrine and maintains the abstraction the ORM provides througout on'es whole application 4) Why would it complicate DQL, if people do not know about or understand the feature it wouldn't matter because not using parenthesises is the default way to specify joins? Well, this is it, can't find any more words to promote and make you enthusiastic.... lol. Comment by Dennis Verspuij [ 13/Apr/10 ] Ok, I have not given up yet... , here's a "stupid" example. Imagine a book store that sells books of various authors and keeps track of those sales. Let's say you would have an admin page that lists all authors, and for each author its also shows the books and their sales dates since january 1st, but only for those books that were actually sold and contain an A in its name. An optimized SQL query to fetch all the information at once would be something like: SELECT A., B., S.* FROM author A LEFT JOIN ( book B INNER JOIN sale S ON S.book_id = B.id AND S.dt >= '2010-01-01' ) ON B.author_id = A.id AND A.name LIKE '%A%' In DQL it would then be something like: SELECT A., B., S.* FROM author A LEFT JOIN ( book B INNER JOIN sale S WITH S.dt >= '2010-01-01' ) WITH A.name LIKE '%A%' If the database would contain thousands of books, but sales for just a few books, this will definitely perform better than using subselects. Off course one would like to fetch array graphs instead of objects for further optimization, but this hopefully shows my point. I have attached a test casefor a similar query, though without the additional join constraints for clarity. I surely hope you can consider it. One last note, you shouldn't be afraid that nesting joins is not in the ansi SQL spec. Select queries are about record sets and products between these sets, tables are just the basic means of providing record sets to the query. This is an important terminological difference to think about. Specifying precedence with parenthesis around joins is a logical and natural evolution of the ansi sql standard. For example views are a good proof of this concept, I could define book B INNER JOIN sale S as a view and LEFT JOIN that to authors to get effectively the same result set as the above example. The database server would internally perform the same query (though may additionally take indexes on the view into account). That said, rdbm's that support this syntax would certainly never drop the feature, as its not a feature but just plain logical and smart querying! P.S. I had a hard time finding out how to run the test cases, I could not find it in the Doctrine 2 documentation, development wiki, cookbook or any other place, while finally it was as easy as running phpunit Doctrine_Tests_AllTests from within the tests/ directory, or just phpunit Doctrine_Tests_ORM_Functional_Ticket_DDC349Test for my test. Could you please add some info about this somewhere, it might save others some googling. Comment by Dennis Verspuij [ 13/Apr/10 ] Test case as SVN patch using a parenthesized join. Just remove the parenthesises from the query to have it fail... Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 29/May/10 ] @"The need for native queries partly reverts the benefits Doctrine offers in the first place." That is something I hugely disagree with. Neither SQL abstraction, nor database vendor independence is the main purpose of an ORM like Doctrine 2. It is the state management of your objects, the transparent change tracking, lazy-loading and synchronization of the object state with the database state and nothing of this gets lost when using native queries. We could rip out DQL and any other querying mechanism except a basic find() (and lazy-loading, of course), only providing the native query facility and even only supporting MySQL and would still retain all the core ORM functionality. NativeQuery is one of the best and core "features" of the project. It is even the foundation for DQL. A DQL query is nothing more than an additional (beautiful) abstraction but what comes out is a native query + a ResultSetMapping, the same thing you can build yourself in the first place, even using the mapping metadata to construct the query. Nothing forces you to hardcode table and column names in native queries if you don't want that. Just use the mapping metadata, DQL does the same. SQL abstraction and database vendor independence is icing on the cake, not the heart of the ORM. ### [DDC-536] Remove the _ prefix from private and protected members Created: 23/Apr/10 Updated: 19/Nov/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: None Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: 2.0 Security Level: All  Type: Task Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None  Description  The reasoning is simple: The prefix "_" is usually either used for easier distinction of instance variables from other, i.e. local variables, instead of always using "this." (often seen in C#), or it is used to signal that a member is not meant to be accessed from outside of the class when the language does not have visibility modifiers (PHP4). Since you always have to use "$this->" in PHP5+ when accessing instance members and there are visibility modifiers, the "_" is largely superfluous and just makes the verbose OO code even more verbose. Maybe the following find/replace steps will do the job almost completely: "private $_" => "private$" "protected $_" => "protected$" "$this->_" => "$this->" 

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 27/Apr/10 ] i just found a possible BC issue with this. EntityRepository is allowed to be extended by us, it has several variables that are underscore prefixed. How to proceed in this case? Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 27/Apr/10 ] I know but its not really a problem I think. We should just decide whether we make them private in the first place and provide getters instead (which would have avoided this problem in the first place). Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 27/Apr/10 ] Leaving the prefixes on the repository class only is also an option... but I dont think thats necessary. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 27/Apr/10 ] can we commit getters for Beta 1 then? We could give everyone a period until Beta 2 to fix their code and then make the change. EntityRepository is the only class that is meant to be userland extendable to my knowledge, so this should be the only problem to adress Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 27/Apr/10 ] Yes, you can add getters and commit right away if you want. Plus adding a note on the upgrade document that direct access of these properties is deprecated. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 27/Apr/10 ] Persisters will be also extensible some day in userland but they need more polish for that, I've already started with it Comment by Johnny Peck [ 19/Nov/10 ] Is this still planned? Searching the code base finds this is not being implemented. It would be a good idea to implement the change sooner than later if it will be done at all. Also, +1 for the change. It makes complete sense.

### [DDC-585] Create a coding standards document Created: 13/May/10  Updated: 02/Aug/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.0
Security Level: All

 Type: Task Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Jonathan H. Wage Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 We need a new coding standards document for Doctrine 2.

 Comment by Benjamin Morel [ 29/Jan/13 ] Has there been any work on a coding standards document yet? I'm currently working on fixing documentation on this project, and it might be a good time to define a standard. I've started compiling a few recommendations based on various feedbacks I've got in my pull requests, and I can post them here. Please let me know if there have been previous attempts so far! Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 29/Jan/13 ] Benjamin Morel Guilherme Blanco may have a CS ruleset, but it's not ready yet. Perfect timing btw, we really need to automate this to avoid having all these useless CS fix comments in pull requests Comment by Benjamin Morel [ 29/Jan/13 ] Ok, I'll post my document here once ready, and Guilherme Blanco will be able to compare it with his ruleset! Comment by Benjamin Morel [ 30/Jan/13 ] Here is a first draft: https://gist.github.com/4676670 Please comment! Comment by Benjamin Morel [ 11/Feb/13 ] Guilherme Blanco, if you don't have time to compare your ruleset with my draft, maybe you could publish your current ruleset so that others can have a look? Comment by Benjamin Morel [ 02/Aug/13 ] Any update guys? I'm willing to spend some time on this work, but if no one answers, we won't be going forward Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 02/Aug/13 ] Benjamin Morel I think a pull request against the doctrine website (https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine-website-sphinx) would be fine...

### [DDC-586] Repo does not find "unflushed" object Created: 14/May/10  Updated: 26/Aug/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: John Kleijn Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 The problem is this: $bar = new \entity\content\ContentTag();$bar->setName('bar'); $em->persist($bar); $existingTag =$em->getRepository('entity\content\ContentTag')->findOneByName('bar'); Seeing as in EntityRepository "find()" queries the Unit of Work first, and "findBy()" goes directly to the persister, only remotely stored objects will be found. Now if I want a tag object to attach related tags, it would have to query by name to see if an object already exist, BUT it wont find one as the UoW has not been committed, resulting in a new one being created, ultimately resulting in a PDO error on the unique name constraint. This can be "solved" by inserting a flush, but it is impossible to know whether a flush is required, without knowledge of what comes next. I.e. for one part to know it has to flush, it has to know another wants to fetch an object you just created. This causes an unacceptable amount of coupling. Somehow the repo will have to be able execute DQL against the objects in the UoW. This does not have to be full support (straight away), but it should fail (throw an exception) if the possibility exists that the UoW contains items that are excluded (e.g. the operation is not supported and the UoW still contains items). For right now, this means the EntityManager should throw an exception if DQL is executed on the type when the UoW is not empty. Until the time that the EntityManager can query the UoW using DQL. The alternative would be to "flush" before every operation that goes to the database for data.

 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] Hi, you mention a good point, however, this currently only affects findBy queries made through a repository. A DQL query already triggers a flush when there are pending insertions but this still has its own problems. First of, querying against the objects in the UoW is not a viable solution in my eyes. For a regular find() (by identifier) the situation is clear anyway, you must flush prior to a lookup on an entity you previously persisted in the same request because, by definition, generated primary key values are only guaranteed to be available after the next flush. Automatic flushing if the UoW has pending inserts (new objects) and a query is executed (either through DQL or a repository) currently has its own set of problems, namely that it is still subject to infinite recursion if such a query is triggered in an event (listener) that executes during commit of a UoW, and secondly, that it will easily lead to double-flushes that cause unnecessary overhead (currently a flush() even if nothing needs to be done is not free because the UoW actually has to check whether nothing needs to be done). Both of these problems could be addressed with some sort of flags, but the question still is whether its not better to flush manually in the first place. That would mean, in your example, you should flush after persisting the new objects, irrespectively of what code comes next, you persisted (a) new object(s) and you want to make sure these are fully available to the rest of the script. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] Furthermore, automatic flushing when there is no transaction active is probably also not a great idea, as it may split a single unit of work (that was supposed to be atomic) into 2 without the user knowing about it. So auto-flushing should better only happen when a transaction is active (i.e. explicit transaction demarcation is used). Comment by John Kleijn [ 14/May/10 ] That would mean, in every example, you should flush after persisting new objects, period. If I flush in some cases and not in others, I'm asking for issues that may not be caught by tests. It's an inconsistency that I personally am not comfortable with. Could be that I'm overlooking something, I've just started playing with D2. Why is querying against registered objects not viable? It's not easy, granted, but it doesn't seem impossible. There should probably be a layer between the UoW and the "persisters" (Data Mappers?). RE: the UoW double flush: state management on the UoW as a whole should prevent that. i.e. after a commit the whole UoW is clean? Just a suggestion, as I said, still getting my bearings. On a side note I just want to say that what I've seen so far, for the better part, pleases me greatly. Kudos. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] @"That would mean, in every example, you should flush after persisting new objects, period." Yes, if you want the objects to be visible to queries in the same request. Generally, you should flush when you complete a unit of work and that is usually not the whole request (but can be). I don't want to "query" against registered objects because it is a) not easy b) likely a lot of code and c) very likely error-prone. And in addition I don't see this helping with solving any inconsistency. If you want to use find() you have to flush anyway because you can not find() without having the identifier in the first place, which is only available after a flush. @RE: the UoW double flush: Yes, like I said, it can be done but it is a compromise. Having a "clean/dirty" flag in addition to calculating the changesets of the work to do (which implicitly tells us whether the UoW is dirty) adds more code and more potential for errors. Forget to update the flag in one location and you get flushes that don't do anything, because the flag was not updated. A dirty-flag for the UoW is not really required for proper working. It is similar to the approach of maintaining a separate counter for the number of elements in a collection implementation: can make many size/count requests faster but complicates the internal implementation and increases the likelihood for errors (and lock contention for the counter in a thread-safe/concurrent implementation, an interesting case where performance goes against scalability, but I digress and that does not apply to php obviously). That said, I am not strongly opposed to doing this. If you're interested in how this is specified by "big brother", take a look at section 3.8.7 of the JPA 2 specification. Shortly, with the default behavior it requires the implementation to ensure that unflushed changes are visible to queries which can be achieved by flushing these to the database automatically but only if a transaction is active, otherwise the implementation must not flush to the database. There is alternatively also a "MANUAL" flush mode, in that case the effect of updates made to entities in the UoW upon queries is unspecified. We do not have different flush modes anymore, however, in Doctrine. So I see two possible ways to go here: 1) More effort, more code, (really better?) Maintaining a dirty flag in the UoW (this could be done anyway at some point, even if 2) is chosen) Maintaining a flag to avoid infinite recursion triggered from events within a UoW commit/flush Flushing automatically when querying while there are pending inserts and a transaction is active 2) No effort, less code Removing the current auto-flush on DQL queries which is still subject to infinite recursion No automatic flushes, anywhere (less magic, so to speak?) Clearly documenting that new, unflushed entities are not visible in subsequent queries issued in the same request, and if this is desired, a flush should be issued. That's how I see it. Now we need some votes and volunteers for the implementation Personally, I am not sure yet about which version I prefer, 2) does not sound too bad for me. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] In Nr. 1) the case with the infinite recursion may actually be more problematic. I think you simply can not see unflushed new objects in queries made during a UoW commit. Comment by John Kleijn [ 14/May/10 ] When there's no in-memory objects inclusion, I'd say 2) as well. Again, I have no idea how this is implemented currently, but I would prefer something like this: $repo->start();$repo->register($object);$repo->commit(); Why? Commit instead of flush: "flush" has little semantic value IMO, "commit" leaves no questions: you're committing your changes (which implies that they are not, before) Operating on the repo leaves no question to what you are committing: changes of the associated type and relations configured to cascade, made after start() Register instead of persist: "persist" is misleading as the object is not immediately persisted, and as my example shows, may not be. The way I see it "start" would create a UoW associated with the repo, "commit" would calculate changes and write (the enitity manager would make sure references in other UoWs are removed). Because the way it is currently implemented (or so it seems), it's unclear when to flush and when not to flush, and unclear what I'm flushing at any one point in the code (because it is not locally isolated). If I have to decide whether to flush in some bit of client code, I am apparently making an assumption about the target entity, i.e. coupling. I know, you already went beta, so it's unlikely you would consider such a large change, but anyway, for your consideration. Finally, I realize I'm borderline nagging now as you've made it clear you see nothing it, but a Repository (as in the PoEAA pattern, p 322) may provide a method of fetching native in-memory objects using criteria, acting as a "buffer" between code and database. The Repository in D2 does effectively nothing but delegate to the UoW (or mostly to the underlying persister). Ref PoEAA 327 for an example of an in-memory strategy. As a final point of critique, the Repository does not always seem to be used as entry point for data requests, which is the whole point of the pattern. Most of what's in EntityManager, should be in EntityRepository ("manager" is a bit to abstract a concept to expect clear responsibilities anyway). EntityManager::find() delegates to EntityRepository, but pretty much everything else is the other way around. EntityManager would be better off named DataGateway, as that accurately describes its intended function. I admit, it would be very difficult to use DQL on in memory objects, but it would be far superior and if it work lead to much more predictable behaviour. It's the ONLY way the data store is ever going to be truly transparent. A few examples (DQL from the docs): SELECT u, UPPER(u.name) nameUpper FROM MyProject\Model\User u Fetch everything from the db Select all objects from the User UoW Iterate over the in memory ones and modify the name property to upper case Merge the results and return SELECT u FROM User u WHERE u.id = ?1 OR u.nickname LIKE ?2 ORDER BY u.surname DESC Execute against database Iterate over the User UoW, indexing by "surname", adding items that match the criteria Merge the results and return With joins it could get more complex, provided you want to intelligently merge results into existing objects. Question is whether that is really needed, but there's obviously a performance benefit. Actually this may already be implemented. I suspect there are edge cases, rooted in DQL still being based on SQL, but in theory it should be possible. Likely you would still want to do start(), and delegate to the driver to start an actual transaction to prevent inconsistent reads... The only way to find out if it's truly feasible is to to try it, I think. Ramble, ramble, ramble, I'm done. I know I seem critical, but it's positive critique, I love the direction you went with D2. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] Maybe I was not clear, with approach Nr.1 there would be in-memory objects inclusion (of new objects), in fact, there always is, due to the identity map. When you query for objects and some of them are already in memory, these are used, not again reconstructed. The EntityRepository provided by Doctrine is just a convenient mechanism for writing your own repositories. There are many different understandings for what a repository is, you can make it whatever you want it to be. Is a PoEAA repository the same as a DDD repository? Anyway, the repository could be stripped of the project, it is optional, the state management is handled by the EntityManager and UnitOfWork. These are the core components. I agree that the delegation from EntityManager#find to the repository is suboptimal in this regard and should be the other way around. Now to your question: "When should I flush?". Generally, you should flush at the end of a transaction, which in turn is a unit of work. That means, use explicit transaction demarcation. begin() ... flush() commit(). I've added some control abstractions recently that should make this even easier. I can only recommend to explicitly demarcate your transaction boundaries. As you probably know, you can not talk to your database outside of a transaction anyway. The default behavior (flush() wrapping all its stuff in a transaction) is for convenience mostly and so as not to alienate or confuse people even more who are used to autocommit mode. Concerning the naming, we mostly stick with the JPA specification and I, for one, really like the naming and I don't want to invent new names. PoEAA is far more abstract (and the examples far too specific) than what is specified in JPA, so I recommend giving that a read. The patterns in PoEAA obviously and intentionally leave a lot of room for different variants of implementation and also leave open a lot of open questions (many of the difficult questions especially, it is for a reason that the author recommends using an existing tool instead of writing your own). In my opinion it is just not feasible to query in-memory objects in a generic way, all the examples in PoEAA do not have generic but rather concrete code examples, which is obviously a lot easier. The feasible strategy, and that is what we do, is to do in-memory lookups only when querying by PK, otherwise the query is executed and afterwards nevertheless any objects reused that are already in memory (based on the PK) and not reconstructed. This is the approach we use. Thanks for your input, I do see that you are an experienced fellow in object-relational persistence, maybe we can see you as a committer some day? Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 14/May/10 ] @ "SELECT u, UPPER(u.name) nameUpper FROM MyProject\Model\User u" This selects all users and their names in uppercase, the uppercase names are scalar values, the users are not modified! Scalar values are separate from objects. @ "... and unclear what I'm flushing at any one point in the code" flush() means: Synchronize the in-memory state of my objects with the database, making any changes that are only in-memory persistent. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, objects are always reused based on the identity map and the state that is in-memory prevails, unless you use refresh() or execute a query with the Query::HINT_REFRESH query hint. All objects you fetch from DQL, be it as a root object or as a joined association, are first looked up in-memory (but after the SQL query has been issued!). Maybe we have been talking past each other here, what I refer to as not feasible is querying the in-memory objects first in some way, even before the SQL query. This is just too complicated and error-prone, except for the simple case of a PK lookup and that is where we do it already. Comment by John Kleijn [ 14/May/10 ] > Scalar values are separate from objects. Right. Bad example. > flush() means: Synchronize the in-memory state of my objects with the database, making any changes that are only in-memory persistent. Nothing more, nothing less. I realize that it means that, but commit() would be more obvious. > Maybe we have been talking past each other here, what I refer to as not feasible is querying the in-memory objects first in some way, even before the SQL query. This is just too complicated and error-prone, except for the simple case of a PK lookup and that is where we do it already. Fair enough, you don't think it's feasible, so we'll keep it at that. Maybe I'll give it a shot some time.

### [DDC-624] Partial object query that leaves out an association to avoid loading it fetches the association anyway. Created: 03/Jun/10  Updated: 11/Nov/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA1
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Bug Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2 Labels: None

 Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-1465 Fetching partial objects doesn't work... Open

 Description
 Assuming: Customer Cart where Cart is the owning side. Since the association from Customer to Cart can not be lazy, it would make sense to leave out the association in a query to avoid loading the carts like this: select partial c.{id,name, ... anything except cart} from Customer c"  But this is ignored and the carts of all customers are fetched anyway. Query::HINT_FORCE_PARTIAL_LOAD is an alternative solution, however it has the disadvantage that it disables lazy-loading for all queried objects. If partial querying would honor associations this would allow more fine-grained control.

 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 26/Aug/10 ] Might need to be pushed back to a 2.0.x / 2.x.x bugfix release. Not clear yet.

Allow @Id on @ManyToOne fields (DDC-117)

### [DDC-658] Reverse engineering with Oracle (DBDriver and Associations as Identifier) Created: 27/Jun/10  Updated: 11/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Sub-task Priority: Major Reporter: Mickael Perraud Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None Environment: Ubuntu 10.04 + Oracle 11g Entreprise + PHP 5.3.2 + Doctrine2 Git (up-to-date)

 Description
 I am playing with reverse engineering with Oracle and I have some problems: My schema: drop table PHONE_NUMBER; drop table CUSTOMER; create table CUSTOMER ( CUSTOMER_ID NUMBER(4) not null, CUSTOMER_LASTNAME VARCHAR2(50) not null, CUSTOMER_MODIFIED DATE, constraint PK_CUSTOMER primary key (CUSTOMER_ID) using index tablespace TBS_INDEX storage ( initial 100K next 100K ) ) storage ( initial 100K next 100K ) tablespace TBS_DATA; create table PHONE_NUMBER ( PHONE_NUMBER_ID NUMBER(4) not null, CUSTOMER_ID NUMBER(4) not null, PHONE_NUMBER VARCHAR2(50) not null, PHONE_NUMBERMODIFIED DATE, constraint PK_PHONE_NUMBER primary key (PHONE_NUMBER_ID, CUSTOMER_ID) using index tablespace TBS_INDEX storage ( initial 100K next 100K ) ) storage ( initial 100K next 100K ) tablespace TBS_DATA; alter table PHONE_NUMBER add constraint PHONE_NUMBER__CUSTOMER foreign key (CUSTOMER_ID) references CUSTOMER (CUSTOMER_ID);  I obtain "Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\MappingException' with message 'Property "customerId" in "PhoneNumber" was already declared, but it must be declared only once'" It's because a foreign key is a component of the primary key.

 Comment by Mickael Perraud [ 28/Jun/10 ] This is the continuation of http://www.doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DDC-616. Only the schema is different. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Jun/10 ] just for understanding this scenario: Is this a One-To-One relation and the TABLE_TEST2 "inherits" the primary key from its parent TABLE_TEST1? If yes, this construct is not yet supported by Doctrine 2, we still need to include an ID-Generator that supports this kind of schema. Comment by Mickael Perraud [ 28/Jun/10 ] Change for a more understandable use case. Note that it's not my real use case and that I work on legacy database on which I can't change the structure. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 01/Jan/11 ] updated the issue topic to get a better grasp of what needs to be done here. Comment by waldo [ 09/Jun/11 ] I have the same error with Mysql whit the same condition. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Nov/11 ] More details on the work to be done: The relevant code is in Doctrine/ORM/Mapping/Driver/DatabaseDriver.php only. The idea is currently many-to-many tables are detected by checking that the table has foreign keys on all the primary key columns (no additional columns!) Now with the 2.1 feature of foreign key/primary key entities this is not necessarily true anymore. You can have the primary keys being foreign keys BUT have additional columns that are not part of the primary key. This has to be detected. If a foreign key-primary-key entity is found that has additional columns a ClassMetadata has to be created and the associations have to be created with the "id" => true flag in mapManyToOne(). Comment by Scott Steffens [ 11/Dec/11 ] For what it's worth, I'm getting this error when I have a PK that is a single column and not a FK. PRIMARY KEY (id), UNIQUE KEY cycle_station_id (cycle,station_id), KEY station_id_idx (station_id), KEY readings (readings), KEY source (source), KEY temperature_min_max (temperature_max,temperature_min), KEY station_id_cycle (station_id,cycle,updated_at), CONSTRAINT compiled_1_station_id_stations_id FOREIGN KEY (station_id) REFERENCES stations (id), CONSTRAINT compiled_1_station_id_stations_id_1 FOREIGN KEY (station_id) REFERENCES stations (id) ON DELETE CASCADE ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=160833690 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_unicode_ci

### [DDC-667] Lock Timeout Query Hint for DQL Queries Created: 04/Jul/10  Updated: 16/Sep/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA2
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 After the implementation of DDC-178 there is now only outstanding the support for locking queries based on a given timeout. This will be a DQL query feature only and be available via a query hint: $query->setHint(Query::LOCK_TIMEOUT,$timeoutMs);  It will be only working on Oracle.

 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 30/Aug/10 ] If this is to be implemented for 2.0, it needs to happen for RC1, therefore rescheduling to RC1. Feel free to reschedule to 2.x if necessary. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 16/Sep/10 ] Only oracle supports lock timeouts and no other vendor seems to plan to support it. I move to 2.x, but i guess this would rather be an issue of user extension.

### [DDC-668] add upsert support Created: 04/Jul/10  Updated: 20/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Lukas Kahwe Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 4 Labels: None

 Description
 Didnt find anything in the docs on this. Is D2 capable of doing an UPSERT [1] in case I am trying to persist an object that may or may not have been saved previously. Different RDBMS support different syntax for this case. Like MySQL has INSERT .. ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE (or even INSERT IGNORE) while the SQL standard defines a MERGE syntax which seems to be gaining support. Of course you can always fallback to a SELECT FOR UPDATE (or if you want to be hacky an INSERT which catches duplicate key violations .. but probably not a good idea since many RDBMS rollback on a failure inside a transaction). See also http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-3011 asking for MERGE support Ideally there would be a way to define on a model or model instance level if merge logic should be applied.

 Comment by Robert Burkhead [ 09/Jul/10 ] Doctrine_Record defines a replace() method. In the MySQL Doctrine implementation, however, it is not the same as INSERT .. ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE. The replace() method implemented in Doctrine_Connection_Mysql uses the REPLACE INTO syntax, which is a DELETE and then INSERT when the key exists. This is fine, except for tables that use auto-increment fields. The delete-then-insert operation yields a new auto-incremented value, whereas INSERT .. ON DUPLICTATE KEY UPDATE would not. Comment by Lukas Kahwe [ 09/Jul/10 ] MySQL (and SQLite) REPLACE is a no go. It causes way too much disc I/O and worse yet totally screws up the on disk data structures because of the deleting. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 31/Jul/11 ] Scheduled for 2.2 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 31/Jul/11 ] Evaluating this makes me sad, except MySQL support for this is rather non-existant, and the oracle merge is aiming at batch operations. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 22/Oct/11 ] Should this be done with 1. Select first, then insert 2. Catch and evaluate exception then update I am leaning towards 1. Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 20/Dec/11 ] Updating fix version

### [DDC-676] Find a way to test serialize/unserialize of all ClassMetadata properties in isolation Created: 10/Jul/10  Updated: 29/Aug/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 We should find a way, using PHPUnit Data Providers or anything else, to check the serialize/unserialize of every property in the ClassMetadata instance, since errors here can be very subtle but dangerous.

### [DDC-678] OneToMany/OneToOne + onDelete=CASCADE may corrupt UoW. Created: 10/Jul/10  Updated: 05/Jun/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Roman S. Borschel Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 OneToMany/OneToOne associations together with an onDelete=CASCADE schema generation hint on the @JoinColumn and appropriate foreign key constraints can potentially result in a corrupt UoW if the associated objects are already managed. We need to add tests for such scenarios and settle on a well-defined behavior in such cases.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 31/Oct/10 ] I think to preserve the semantics the following has to happen: "on-delete" => "cascade" has to implicitly set cascade = remove. This hurts performance of course vs just using the on-delete, however it won't corrupt the UoW. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 02/Jan/11 ] Not entirely would it hurt performance, you could check if on-delete => cascade is set. If this is the case you wouldnt need to do an explicit remove using the UnitOfWorks cascade. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 05/Jun/11 ] Changed to improvement

### [DDC-683] EntityManager#lock() on unitialized proxy coudl be optimized Created: 10/Jul/10  Updated: 21/Jul/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Reference relates to DDC-681 PATCH: UnitOfWork#lock locks by colum... Resolved

 Description
 If you call lock() on an unitiialized proxy, it would be possible to combine the fetch and lock in one operation. Is this feasible from a technical / workflow perspsective?

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 21/Jul/10 ] Ok this is what refresh() with LOCK support is actually needed for:  public function lock($entity,$lockMode, $lockVersion = null) { if ($this->getEntityState($entity) != self::STATE_MANAGED) { throw new InvalidArgumentException("Entity is not MANAGED."); } else if ($entity instanceof Proxy && $entity->__isInitialized__) {$this->refresh(....); // with LOCK! } ... } 

### [DDC-688] Original Entity Data gets overridden by the change set Created: 12/Jul/10  Updated: 28/Dec/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Jasper Kuperus Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Mac OS X 10.6; PHP 5.3.2; MySQL 5.1.44

 Description
 When changing data in an entity, the UnitOfWork will call computeChangeSet on a flush event. If there is a changeset, the original data ($this->_originalEntityData) gets overridden by the new data. However, the _originalEntityData should hold the original data, that was present at the time the entity was reconstituted from the database. This does no longer hold now. I think this can simply be fixed by commenting this line, however I do not know of any consequences this may bring with it:$this->_originalEntityData[$oid] =$actualData; (in computeChangeSet, after if( $changeSet )); Anyway, I ran into this problem while trying to retrieve the original data at the onFlush event of an update.  Comments  Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 08/Aug/10 ] This is actually currently expected. You can not get access to the original data in the onFlush event right now. I'm not saying that this will never be possible but it is simply the way it works at the moment. Comment by Jasper Kuperus [ 08/Dec/10 ] Does this mean that it is currently impossible to implement a Versionable mechanism using snapshots? Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 09/Dec/10 ] You can hold a map of them yourself if your listener also implements the "postLoad" event: $entity = $args->getentity();$this->originalData[spl_object_hash($entity)] =$args->getEntityManager()->getUnitOfWork()->getOriginalData($entity);  Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Dec/10 ] Changed into possible improvement for the future ### [DDC-726] DQL should deal correctly with composite primary keys Created: 30/Jul/10 Updated: 04/Oct/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: DQL Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Guilherme Blanco Assignee: Guilherme Blanco Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None Issue Links:  Duplicate is duplicated by DDC-1162 Add support for multi-column IN state... Resolved  Description  DQL should deal correctly with composite primary keys: SELECT u FROM User u WHERE u.CompositeAssocEntity = ?1 Should be converted to: SELECT ... FROM users u WHERE (u.cae_id1, u.cae_id2) = (?, ?) // or something similar  It also supports IN expressions: SELECT u FROM User u WHERE u.CompositeAssocEntity IN (?1, ?2) Should be converted to: SELECT ... FROM users u WHERE (u.cae_id1, u.cae_id2) IN ((?, ?), (?, ?)) // or something similar  MySQL, SQLite and PgSQL works smoothly. Need to check out MSSQL, Oracle and DB2. ### [DDC-763] Cascade merge on associated entities can insert too many rows through "Persistence by Reachability" Created: 23/Aug/10 Updated: 04/Jul/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: 2.x Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Dave Keen Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2 Labels: None  Attachments: 0149-DDC-763.patch DDC763Test.php multipleaddmerge.diff  Description  I think that the UnitOfWork needs to maintain a map of spl_object_hash($newEntity)->$managedEntity for entities that were persisted via reachability during a merge. doMerge should then only call persistNew if the original entity has not already been persisted (if it has already been persisted it should merge the managed entity from the map). The map should be maintained until a flush() or until the UnitOfWork is cleared. The reasoning is as follows. Imagine we have a simple doctor object with no associations: $doctor = new Doctor(); $em->persist($doctor); $em->persist($doctor); $em->flush();  After the first persist()$doctor is MANAGED so the second persist has no effect and this results in a single Doctor row. If we do the same thing using merge and persistence by reachability: $doctor = new Doctor();$em->merge($doctor);$em->merge($doctor);$em->flush();  we get 2 Doctor rows being added. Obviously in this particular case we should use the return value from the first merge() as the parameter of the second merge which would give correct behaviour. However, now imagine one Doctor has many Patients and many Patients have one Doctor, all the associations have cascade merge enabled, and further assume that $d1 (Doctor id=1) is already in the database. We now attempt to create two patients and assign them to the existing doctor: $d1= new Doctor(); $d1->id = 1; // This is a DETACHED entity$p1 = new Patient(); $p2 = new Patient();$d1->patients->add($p1);$p1->doctor = $d1;$d1->patients->add($p2);$p2->doctor = $d1;$em->merge($p1);$em->merge($p2);$em->flush();  This actually results in 4 rows being added to the 'patients' table instead of 2, I think because $p1 and$p2 are getting persisted both as the root objects and then again from the patient->doctor->patients array. Since the cascade merging happens internally we can't replace the array contents with the managed return values without walking through the object graph (in which case there is no point in using cascade merge in the first place). Maintaining a map in UnitOfWork will allow doMerge to ensure it doesn't persist the same entities twice. I'm not sure, but this might be relevant for cascade persist too. P.S. Another bug report on this can be found at http://code.google.com/p/flextrine2/issues/detail?id=32 (it basically says the same thing with different entities).

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 29/Aug/10 ] @Roman A possible fix for this in my opinion is another map in UnitOfWork $mergedEntities = array(); and a patch like this: diff --git a/lib/Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php b/lib/Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php index 242d84b..1d0d8b3 100644 --- a/lib/Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php +++ b/lib/Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php @@ -1340,6 +1340,10 @@ class UnitOfWork implements PropertyChangedListener return; // Prevent infinite recursion } + if (isset($this->mergedEntities[$oid])) { + return$this->mergedEntities[$oid]; + } +$visited[$oid] =$entity; // mark visited $class =$this->em->getClassMetadata(get_class($entity)); @@ -1468,6 +1472,8 @@ class UnitOfWork implements PropertyChangedListener$this->cascadeMerge($entity,$managedCopy, $visited); +$this->mergedEntities[$oid] =$managedCopy; + return $managedCopy; }  Comment by Dave Keen [ 29/Aug/10 ] I have tested this patch with my application and it fixes the problem in all my relevant test cases apart from one. The test case that's failing is one that persists a bi-directional many to many relationship, so the associations interweave with each other (if you know what I mean). I wonder if perhaps doMerge need to continue cascading even if it finds an item in$this->mergedEntities This is the Flextrine code that fails - it results in no entries in movie_artist. This might also be related to DDC-758? m1 = new Movie(); m1.title = "Movie 1"; m2 = new Movie(); m2.title = "Movie 2"; a1 = new Artist(); a1.name = "Artist 1"; a2 = new Artist(); a2.name = "Artist 2"; m1.artists.addItem(a1); a1.movies.addItem(m1); m1.artists.addItem(a2); a2.movies.addItem(m1); m2.artists.addItem(a1); a1.movies.addItem(m2); m2.artists.addItem(a2); a2.movies.addItem(m2); // These translate to cascade merges on the server em.persist(m1); em.persist(m2); em.persist(a1); em.persist(a2); // Now flush em.flush(); Comment by Dave Keen [ 29/Aug/10 ] P.S. This test passes if I translate em.persist() to $em->persist() (not cascading) on the server instead of translating it to a cascade merge; not sure if that helps Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 30/Aug/10 ] I'd really like to avoid introducing an additional instance variable just to solve this issue but I did not find the time yet to really look into it. Does someone have a unit test for this already and can attach it to the issue? Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 31/Aug/10 ] Rescheduling for RC1. Comment by Dave Keen [ 13/Sep/10 ] Here is a functional test case containing three tests: testMultiMerge tests basic merging of two new entities, checking that only a single entity ends up in the database. This passes with Benjamin's patch. testMultiCascadeMerge tests the more complex case of merging a OneToMany association. This also passes with Benjamin's patch. testManyToManyPersistByReachability tests the ManyToMany case described above and this fails with Benjamin's patch, probably because doMerge doesn't cascade down entities that it has already merged and some ManyToMany associations are being ignored. Its a bit hard to be certain what is causing this as even without Benjamin's patch this test would fail due to DDC-758. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 15/Sep/10 ] @Roman i thought about this issue, its not possible without that additional map of merged entities. There is no way we can get that information from other sources. Problem is rather that the use-case probably only applies in mass-merging scenarios and client-server serialization. Comment by Dave Keen [ 21/Sep/10 ] Added another failing test case - adding the same entity from different ends of a many to many bi-directional association to check that there isn't an integrity constraint violation caused by Doctrine trying to add the same row twice. Comment by Dave Keen [ 21/Sep/10 ] Attached a patch for this issue. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 22/Sep/10 ] can you comment why all the additionall stuff is necessary compared to my patch? Comment by Dave Keen [ 22/Sep/10 ] It fixes the two additional test cases - testManyToManyPersistByReachability and testManyToManyDuplicatePersistByReachability. testManyToManyPersistByReachability was failing with your original patch because there are ManyToMany cases where an entity may have already been merged, but its still necessary to add it to an association and continue to cascade. Running the following with the original patch will miss out some of the associations. $m1 = new Movie(); $m1->title = "Movie 1";$m2 = new Movie(); $m2->title = "Movie 2";$a1 = new Artist(); $a1->name = "Artist 1";$a2 = new Artist(); $a2->name = "Artist 2";$m1->artists->add($a1);$a1->movies->add($m1);$m1->artists->add($a2);$a2->movies->add($m1);$m2->artists->add($a1);$a1->movies->add($m2);$m2->artists->add($a2);$a2->movies->add($m2);$em->merge($a1);$em->merge($a2);$em->flush();  The other change in my patch is to protect against this case. It ensures that the following code doesn't add the same entity twice to a collection. $em->merge($m1); $em->merge($m2); $em->merge($a2); $em->merge($a2); $em->flush();  Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 31/Oct/10 ] I am not sure if the issue here is rather multiple calls to merge that contain different parts of the same object-graph. There should be a very simple fix for this, call ->clear() after each merge. I am not sure if this patch drags us into a blackhole of issues with merging. Comment by Dave Keen [ 31/Oct/10 ] Calling ->clear() and ->flush() after each merge is a workaround for the simple case, but unless I am misunderstanding I don't think its a solution for cases where the merging is happening automatically in cascadeMerge. I've actually encountered this issue in another project and scenario to do with creating REST APIs and merging JSON objects into entities, and applying the patch fixed it so a) I think this issue might be a more common that we first thought and b) the patch basically seems to work (plus it doesn't introduce any failing cases in the existing test suite). I can actually still find one edge case to do with cascading merging interlinked many to many associations that this doesn't fix, but I was planning to open that as a new ticket after this My feeling is that the current merge already has issues and this definitely improves it. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 01/Nov/10 ] It cannot happen inside a single merge, single merges use the$visited to avoid infinite recursions, each entity can only be merged once inside a single merge operation. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 10/Nov/10 ] Added a note into the documentation about using EntityManager#clear between merging of entities which share subgraphs and cascade merge. Handling this issue in UnitOfwork will be declared an improvement, not a bug anymore and be scheduled for later releases. The required changes to the core are to dangerous and big. Comment by Dave Keen [ 11/Nov/10 ] Where in the docs is that? Just to summarize, the equivalent operation to having multiple merges and a single flush is to call merge followed by flush each time, with the whole thing surrounded by a transaction? Does this have a big impact on performance? Comment by Dave Keen [ 11/Nov/10 ] Ben - even given the decision not to implement this (and I do understand your thinking, as it is a major change), is there any reason not to implement the bit that ensures that the same entity isn't added to a collection twice during a merge? I can't think of a situation where this should be allowed, and I have a use case where I get 'DUPLICATE KEY' errors if this isn't there. Please see attached patch. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Nov/10 ] What bit of that huge patch is that? Can you extract it into another ticket if thats possible? Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Nov/10 ] I added it to "Working with Objects" and the descripton of Merge. Its not yet live on the site. Using this current workaround has a performance impact, since more SELECT statements have to be issued against the database. Comment by Dave Keen [ 11/Nov/10 ] Apologies for not being clear - only the 3rd patch (multipleaddmerge.diff) is relevant to the 'DUPLICATE KEY' error I am now talking about, but I'll put it in a nother ticket if you prefer. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Nov/10 ] please add a new ticket, patch looks good. Comment by Dave Keen [ 11/Nov/10 ] Created as DDC-875

### [DDC-769] Disabling discriminator column in WHERE clause Created: 26/Aug/10  Updated: 07/Sep/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA3
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Lars Strojny Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None

 Description
 Per default Doctrine 2 adds an IN(...)-part to the query when hydrating an entity where a discriminator column is defined. While this makes sense as a default behavior, it would be pretty helpful if one could disable the WHERE-clause for discriminator columns alltogether for performance optimization.

 Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 26/Aug/10 ] That would obviously produce wrong results. Maybe you can elaborate more with an example. Comment by Lars Strojny [ 07/Sep/10 ] I use ENUM("foo","bar") as discriminator columns. That means, the column will contain the right values out of the box, no further result set limiting required with WHERE.

### [DDC-776] Persisters use a fixed "SELECT" SQL statements Created: 29/Aug/10  Updated: 23/Apr/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA3
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Aaron DM Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Windows 7, Apache 2.2, MSSQL Server, PHP 5.3.3

 Description
 I am currently trying to work with BINARY columns with Doctrine 2 and MSSQL. In order to get my Entities working I had to create a custom Mapping Type for Binary columns. All went well in this case and I've got it running. The problem arises when I am attempting to use Associative mapping (OneToOne/ManyToMany). The problem is, in order to do a select for an SQL column, I had to create a DQL function called "CONVERT" so that I use WHERE statements: return $this->createQueryBuilder('u') ->where("u.id = CONVERT('binary', :id, 1)") ->setParameter('id',$id) ->getQuery() ->getSingleResult(); As you see, I must do this in order to get a result. However, when I'm using associative mapping; this is what it does: return 'SELECT ' . $this->_getSelectColumnListSQL() . ' FROM ' .$this->_class->getQuotedTableName($this->_platform) . ' ' .$this->_getSQLTableAlias($this->_class->name) .$joinSql . ($conditionSql ? ' WHERE ' .$conditionSql : '') . $orderBySql .$lockSql; As you can see, its some what hard coded and I cannot change it without changing the actual code in Doctrine\ORM\Persisters\BasicEntityPersister.php So, I would first like to know if there was maybe a way you could allow us to customize the SELECT statement that the persisters use - or maybe (though I'm not sure how this will be done) make them use user-defined repository functions? Like $myRepo->find($identifier) Not entirely sure if I explained this properly and I do realize my circumstance is highly odd - but this does seem like a limitation and because of this I cannot use associative mapping.

 Comment by locs [ 23/Apr/13 ] Hi, i try to make my custom type for binary field in MSSQL. I don't find own, can you please show me your custom type binary? Thks a lot.

### [DDC-779] Doctrine\ORM\Configuration should be immutable after construction of EntityManager Created: 30/Aug/10  Updated: 30/Aug/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA3
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Currently the Doctrine\ORM\Configuration instance is not immutable after construction of the EM, which can lead to funny behavior when changing essential dependencies such as caches or others.

### [DDC-785] Post-Post-Persist event Created: 02/Sep/10  Updated: 14/Jan/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: arnaud-lb Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 postPersist/postUpdate events are triggered in the middle of a unitOfWork, and querying the DB in such events causes infinite loops. Doctrine attempts to flush the entity manager before running any query, which triggers flushing of entities, and postPersist/postUpdate events are triggered again. I did not checked, but the flush() before each query may be a performance problem too, if doctrine has to determine what has changed, depending on the changetracking policy. Also, it would be great if postPersist / postUpdate events were triggered after all entities have been persisted. It looks like that entities are flushed by groups of same 'type', and that events for a type are triggered once all of the elements of that group have been flushed, potentially before entities of an other type have been flushed : postPersist / postUpdate events are triggered while some other entities are still not flushed.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 03/Sep/10 ] That is documented and for perfomance reasons we cannot move the preUpdate/postUpdate/prePersist/postPersist events to other locations inside the UnitOfWork. There is an onFlush event that allows for more flexibility and is triggered before any update/insert/delete is done by the UnitOfWork. Comment by arnaud-lb [ 04/Sep/10 ] Thanks. I understand that. Is there any chance of getting some onPostFlush or similar, which would be triggered like onFlush, but after all update/insert/delete ? Or just some post-something event which is allowed to issue db queries. Comment by Gediminas Morkevicius [ 24/Sep/10 ] onFlush you can store your entity for furher processing and on postPersist you can check if there are no more insertions and process the entity if it needs additional query I have faced all these issues and you can check http://github.com/l3pp4rd/DoctrineExtensions/tree/master/lib/DoctrineExtensions/Translatable/ for a solution to your problem Comment by Gediminas Morkevicius [ 14/Jan/11 ] I think this issue should be closed since the main reason of opening it was the possibility to execute additional queries when inserts were pending in unit of work. In current release it does not cause a flush during an additional query execution anymore.

### [DDC-803] Create subselect queries within join statements Created: 14/Sep/10  Updated: 14/Sep/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Martijn Evers Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

### [DDC-810] Issue with detaching entities and updating when using change notification Created: 17/Sep/10  Updated: 04/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA4
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Jonathan H. Wage Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Attachments: DDC810Test.php

 Description

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 20/Sep/10 ] From reading the issue i know what the bug is, indeed this sucks. Comment by Roman S. Borschel [ 28/Sep/10 ] @Jon: Any more information coming? @Benjamin: Can you summarize the essence of the issue shortly? Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 29/Sep/10 ] @Roman: The UnitOfWork (may) still be pushed as a listener into that entity, and still recieve noticies of update. Which may throw notices because the oid hashes are removed everywhere. Additionally you cant serialize the thing because you still got the UoW inside there. Comment by Jonathan H. Wage [ 04/Oct/10 ] I don't have anymore information currently. The issue was relayed to me. I will try and find some more information and report back. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 03/Apr/11 ] There is no way to "fix" this issue, i am turning it into a feature request. There needs to be a "postDetach" event that is triggered where the developer can detach the change notification objects.

### [DDC-813] Validate Schema should complain on bi-directional relationships with mapped superclasses Created: 21/Sep/10  Updated: 29/Oct/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Tools
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 @ManyToOne and @OneToOne on mapped superclasses have to be unidirectional. The Schema Validator should verify this.

### [DDC-851] Automerge of detached entities passed to doctrine Created: 31/Oct/10  Updated: 30/Dec/10

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0-BETA4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Daniel Alvarez Arribas Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 This is a feature request. Currently it is not possible to assign a detached entity to a relationship. You have to manually "merge" it, and only then you are able to assign it to relationships of managed objects. This can become complicated to do. The way it is now, when assigning an entity to a relationship in a process using a large number of entities, the entity's state needs to be checked and the entity possibly merged - all in userland code. This adds a level of complexity and potential for errors, while it could be solved transparently and elegantly within the ORM. There are ways to implement it in userland code, too, with moderate effort (see below), but this does not change the fact that responsibility for implementing a purely technical feature is delegated to the user, who could be spending his time much better writing business code. And if the user actually implements it, it will clutter the application with non-problem-domain code. To keep things simple, I propose Doctrine be extended to simply auto-merge any detached entities passed to it. That would save the programmer the manual tracking of object states and merge() calls. This would be especially handy when using cascades, as keeping track of deep object graphs in userland code would duplicate substantial ORM functionality. In programs that work with massive amounts of data, it is practically impossible to keep all entities managed due to resource constraints (see e.g. the batch processing patterns documented in the Doctrine 2 reference at http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/orm/2.0/docs/reference/batch-processing/en). In a situation like that, one would probably simply flush and clear the entity manager regularly. Doctrine 2 currently forces the user to manually "merge" all persistent objects he/she still holds references to and wants to assign e.g. to other newly created persistable objects. I can not think of any reason why Doctrine 2 should not be able to do it automatically. Below is another comment originally attached to the GitHub proposal, containing a userland implementation of the feature as a temporary fix, for whoever cares. Here is a userland implementation for the functionality I am proposing, though I feel it is technical clutter that belongs into the ORM. Changing doctrine to be able to auto-merge unmanaged entities would be ideal. I thought I'd share this, for use as long as Doctrine 2 does not provide equivalent functionality. The implementation assumes all entities inherit from a base class (named "YourEntityBaseClass here") and intercepts the assignment to ToOne-relationships in a __set() method provided in that base class. For ToMany-relationships we extend ArrayCollection to intercept calls to add() and set() to accomplish the same. As an alternative to defining a __set() method in a base class you could also implement the interception by changing any mutator methods you define in your entities. But that would bloat your code quickly as you define more and more relationship attributes on your entities. The following __set() method implementation relies on reflection to parse the DocBlock-Comment with the Annotation and determine whether or not the property to be set is a ToOne-relationship.  public function __set($name, &$value) { $reflectionClass = new ReflectionClass($this); $property =$reflectionClass->getProperty($name); if ( self::isToOneRelationship($property) && $value !== null) {$value = self::mergeIfDetached($value); }$this->$name =$value; }  The following is an implementation of mergeIfDetached(), that assumes there is a __get defined on the entity, to be able to access the protected mapped properties. public static function mergeIfDetached(YourEntityBaseClass $dataObject) {$doctrineEntityManager = DB::getDoctrineEntityManager(); if ($doctrineEntityManager->getUnitOfWork()->getEntityState($dataObject) == \Doctrine\ORM\UnitOfWork::STATE_DETACHED) { $dataObject =$doctrineEntityManager->merge($dataObject); } return$dataObject; }  For your purposes, consider DB to be just a class holding a reference to the Doctrine entity manager. Here are the helper methods for the reflection:  private static function isToOneRelationship(ReflectionProperty $property) { return self::matchDoctrineAnnotation($property, self::$doctrineToOneRelationshipAnnotation); } private static function matchDoctrineAnnotation(ReflectionProperty$property, $pattern) { return preg_match('/\@' .$pattern . '/', $property->getDocComment()) != 0; }  Here is the drop-in-replacement class for use with ToMany-Relationships. It uses the static reloadIfDetached method defined in the entity base class: use Doctrine\Common\Collections\ArrayCollection; class Collection extends ArrayCollection { public function set($key, $value) {$value = YourEntityBaseClass::mergeIfDetached($value); parent::set($key, $value); } public function add($value) { $value = YourEntityBaseClass::mergeIfDetached($value); return parent::add($value); } }  This approach keeps the amount of unnecessary code to a minimum, so that merges are not scattered throughout the problem-domain code.  Comments  Comment by Daniel Alvarez Arribas [ 29/Dec/10 ] I have to note that the code I listed above turned out to be broken. There is nothing that guarantees that a data object just merged will not become detached again after being merged on assignment, unless the object is immediately persisted afterwards. The correct solution would be to merge all data objects found through relationships for a given data object, right from the persistence manager, immediately before calling persist() on the data object. I am currently using this solution (save() saves a data object safely for use within long-running batch jobs):  public static function save(DataObject$dataObject) { self::mergeRelatedDataObjectsIfDetached($dataObject); self::$doctrineEntityManager->persist($dataObject); } public static function merge(DataObject$dataObject) { return self::$doctrineEntityManager->merge($dataObject); } protected static function mergeRelatedDataObjectsIfDetached(DataObject $dataObject) {$reflectionClass = new ReflectionClass($dataObject);$properties = $reflectionClass->getProperties(); foreach ($properties as $property) {$propertyName = $property->getName();$propertyValue = $dataObject->__get($propertyName); if (MetadataReader::isToOneRelationship($property)) { if ($propertyValue !== null && ! $propertyValue instanceof Proxy && self::isDetached($propertyValue)) { $relatedDataObject = self::merge($propertyValue); $dataObject->__set($propertyName, $relatedDataObject); } } else { if (MetadataReader::isToManyRelationship($property)) { $relatedDataObjects =$propertyValue->toArray(); foreach ($relatedDataObjects as$index => $relatedDataObject) { if ( !$relatedDataObject instanceof Proxy && self::isDetached($relatedDataObject)) {$relatedDataObject = self::merge($relatedDataObject); // Replace the entry in the collection with the merged copy.$propertyValue->set($index,$relatedDataObject); } } } } } } protected static function isDetached(DataObject $dataObject) { return self::$doctrineEntityManager->getUnitOfWork()->getEntityState($dataObject) == UnitOfWork::STATE_DETACHED; }  I still wish there would be an automerge feature, kind of Hibernate's "update". Comment by Daniel Alvarez Arribas [ 29/Dec/10 ] Wrapped the code sections into proper code blocks... ### [DDC-896] Use PDepend for Code-Generation Created: 27/Nov/10 Updated: 27/Nov/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Tools Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: 2.x Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Jonathan H. Wage Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  Our current code-generation tool has many shortcomings and due to its hard to test nature also many (known and unknown) bugs, as well as high maintenance. Since people are overusing this tool and I am sort of annoyed by how much time goes into this we should rewrite this in a two-step procedure: 1. Move code into Common so we can share it between ORM, Mongo and CouchDB. 2. Use PDepend to read an entities source file (it generates an AST) and modify the AST with the required changes. This gives us the advantage of having to maintaining less code for this stuff. ### [DDC-919] subselect Created: 08/Dec/10 Updated: 20/Mar/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Documentation Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Mungiu Dragos Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  i'd like to see more example in documentation with this subselects [23:08] can you open a tciket on jira? then i dont forget to do that when i have time  Comments  Comment by Alberto [ 20/Mar/11 ] Subselect as columns or FROM clause should have mor examples. ### [DDC-923] Add note about DateTime Query Parameter Type Hint Created: 10/Dec/10 Updated: 10/Dec/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Documentation Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None ### [DDC-930] A table cannot have more than one many to many relationship with the same table when using reverse engineer Created: 13/Dec/10 Updated: 13/Dec/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Mapping Drivers Affects Version/s: 2.0-RC2 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Jiri Helmich Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: FreeBSD, PostgreSQL 8.4  Description  This is caused by taking the join column name as the identifier while generating a property name for annotation. The mapping driver detects that the same property is already defined and ends the convert process. A little bit smarter approach for me was to take the local table name. But this assumes a specific style of join table naming convention. Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\Driver\DatabaseDriver::loadMetadataForClass() Replace:$associationMapping['fieldName'] = Inflector::camelize(str_replace('_id', '', strtolower(current($otherFk->getColumns())))); With:$name = explode("_",$myFk->getLocalTableName()); if (count($name) > 1) { array_shift($name); }$name = implode("_", $name);$associationMapping['fieldName'] = Inflector::camelize(str_replace('_id', '', strtolower($name))); Maybe to switch to this behavior with an additional option? ### [DDC-946] Evaluate optional use of igbinary for serialization Created: 22/Dec/10 Updated: 22/Dec/10 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: None Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Roman S. Borschel Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None  Description  Igbinary is supposed to be faster and better than serialize/unserialize(). We should check if its relevant for us (metadata and query caching for example): https://github.com/phadej/igbinary  Comments  Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 22/Dec/10 ] http://ilia.ws/archives/211-Igbinary,-The-great-serializer.html#extended ### [DDC-947] Optmize Code-Generation Strategies Created: 24/Dec/10 Updated: 29/Mar/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: None Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: 2.x Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Jonathan H. Wage Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  We should optimize code-generation somehow.  Comments  Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 29/Mar/11 ] Descheduled to 2.x ### [DDC-993] Cookbook: Overriding the ID Generator during a database migration Created: 19/Jan/11 Updated: 28/Oct/12 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Documentation Affects Version/s: 2.0 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Timo A. Hummel Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None  Description  If you need to override the ID Generator, e.g. during a migration, you can do that in your migration script as follows: Overriding the ID generator$em->getClassMetadata('foo\bar\Entity')->setIdGenerator(new \Doctrine\ORM\Id\AssignedGenerator()); $em->getClassMetadata('foo\bar\Entity')->setIdGeneratorType(constant('Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\ClassMetadata::GENERATOR_TYPE_NONE')); Make sure that both calls equal to the same generator type. You can now modify the @Id fields in your entities. Additionally, make sure that you set the IdGenerator after you created the database using e.g. SchemaTool->create().  Comments  Comment by Endre Kósa [ 27/Oct/12 ] Hi, this doesn't seem to work for me. I have written a small database export / import utility. As long as I use the automatic ID generation, everything works flawlessly, but I'm trying to preserve the existing IDs. I do exactly what you've suggested in your post. It works for @OneToOne relations, but I get the following error messages when persisting entities that are parts of @ManyToOne relations: Notice: Undefined index: [....] in [...]Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php on line 2655 I'm using version 2.2.2 Am I doing something wrong? Comment by Endre Kósa [ 28/Oct/12 ] Never mind. I've upgraded to Doctrine 2.3.0 and it works as expected. ### [DDC-998] Code example for custom AST functions incorrect Created: 23/Jan/11 Updated: 23/Jan/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: None Affects Version/s: None Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Timo A. Hummel Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  On http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/dql-doctrine-query-language.html#adding-your-own-functions-to-the-dql-language the code example is slightly incorrect. Mistakes: Lexer::T_ABS doesn't exist anymore, I assume Lexer::T_IDENTIFIER is what one wants to use Missing use for \Doctrine\ORM\Query\Lexer Additionally, the section should tell the user that he best has a look at lib/Doctrine/ORM/Query/AST/Functions/* to learn how to write custom functions. It also could be noted that stored procedures can be called with custom functions. ### [DDC-999] DQL always needs a FROM clause, should be changed Created: 23/Jan/11 Updated: 23/Jan/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: 2.0 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Timo A. Hummel Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None  Description  Sometimes a developer needs to issue a query without a FROM clause. This especially occurs using the QueryBuilder, when you may or may not have a table to select from, but call a stored procedure always. Example: $query = $em>createQuery('SELECT (1+1)');  The above query fails because the lexer expects T_FROM. If you replace (1+1) with a stored procedure, this example makes more sense. One might argue about that you should use DBAL directly, but I disagree, because it always can happen that you end up in a situation like this: $qb = $em->createQueryBuilder();$qb->select("SOMEFANCYPROCEDURE()"); if ($condition) {$qb = $qb->from("additionalTable t"); }  ### [DDC-1011] Finding out if a model is persist Created: 02/Feb/11 Updated: 02/Feb/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Documentation Affects Version/s: 2.0 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Ronny Deter Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  To find out if a model is persist, is missing in the documentation of doctrine 2. To become the state of an model you must call the entitymanager->getUnitOfWork()->getEntityState(model) ### [DDC-1016] Example code does not reflect real code Created: 03/Feb/11 Updated: 03/Feb/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: 2.0.1 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: thoth Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Website  Description  http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/working-with-objects.html#entity-state In the switch cases all the UnitOfWork constants are invalid. Example: UnitOfWork::NEW instead of being UnitOfWork::STATE_NEW ### [DDC-1025] Please repalce 'Doctrine\XXX\YYY' with '\Doctrine\XXX\YYY' in code and document Created: 09/Feb/11 Updated: 13/Dec/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Documentation, DQL, Mapping Drivers, ORM, Tools Affects Version/s: 2.0.1 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: ben yan Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 7 Labels: None  Description  It will help us use the namespace and code autocomplete in some IDE.  Comments  Comment by Matthieu Napoli [ 08/Apr/11 ] Hi, do you have any more information about this ? I'm confused because the php documentation uses the Doctrine\XXX way, and everywhere I've seen, it is used like that. Thanks Comment by Karsten Dambekalns [ 11/Apr/11 ] The issue is simple and logical. When an IDE (I am using PhpStorm and it does it like this) sees a namespace in a file, upon seeing namespaces afterwards, it sees them as absolute if they have a leading backslash, or relative when it does not. This affects the resolution of classes for type navigation, code inspection, ... The same rules as for actual PHP code should be used within comments. Here is an example: namespace Foo; class Bar { /** * @var Baz */ protected$baz; /** * @var \Quux */ protected $quux; }  The IDE will think$baz is \Foo\Baz and $quux will be seen as being \Quux. Now if you have some reference to Doctrine here, and it was relative, the IDE would assume it's \Foo\Doctrine\... Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Apr/11 ] Well yes, but since all our code examples have no leading namespace argument this means the code is in the default namespace, making Doctrine\XXX\YY a relative namespace that is actually valid. Comment by Karsten Dambekalns [ 11/Apr/11 ] Yes, but the source code docblocks are what is meant here as far as I am concerned. Comment by Andrey Kolyshkin [ 13/May/11 ] Example (Entitymanager.php): namespace Doctrine\ORM;  and /** * The used Configuration. * * @var Doctrine\ORM\Configuration */ private$config;  Result: Doctrine\ORM\Doctrine\ORM\Configuration Should be: /** * The used Configuration. * * @var Configuration */ private $config;  Or /** * The used Configuration. * * @var \Doctrine\ORM\Configuration */ private$config;  Comment by Miha Vrhovnik [ 27/May/11 ] Why don't you take this to the PhpStorm tracker as it surely is a bug in IDE? Comment by Karsten Dambekalns [ 27/May/11 ] Miha, what makes you think it's an IDE bug? In a class in namespace Foo another class named Bar is \Foo\Bar, but \Bar is \Bar. Why is it a bug if the IDE follows the namespace resolution rules? Comment by Michael Ridgway [ 11/Jul/11 ] The issue is that PHPStorm and NetBeans have different class resolution rules. I also use PHPStorm and most of Doctrine does not resolve auto-completion correctly because of this issue. I'd be willing to work on this if it would be accepted. Comment by Andrew Mackrodt [ 29/Sep/11 ] I've been evaluating PhpStorm and also came across this issue; I believe the problem is due to Doctrine rather than being a bug with the IDE although it would be nice if PhpStorm would assume namespaces are absolute if they're not resolved upon an initial lookup. I created a quick c# app to append the beginning forward slash to any @var or @return attributes within Doctrine's source. It's working for me with Doctrine 2.1.2 and PhpStorm (IntelliJ): http://pastebin.com/4HxiWvJA - hopefully this will be of use for anyone else using these IDEs;. Note: the application doesn't detect multiple line annotations although the only one I'm aware of is the getAST method in Doctrine\ORM\Query.php. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 13/Dec/11 ] This issue is referenced in Github Pull-Request GH-215 https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/215 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 13/Dec/11 ] This issue is referenced in Github Pull-Request GH-216 https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/216

MsSQL-Server DateTime microseconds issue (DDC-1028)

### [DDC-1032] ensure the dateformat Y-m-d gets used by the MsSQL-Server 2005 Created: 14/Feb/11  Updated: 14/Feb/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Sub-task Priority: Major Reporter: Martin Weise Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: php5.3.5; MsSQL-Server 2005; W2K8; Apache2; MS pdo_sqlsrv_ts_vc6 driver

 Description
 To ensure that the MsSQL-Server 2005 (and maybe higher) uses the format that is specified in the MsSqlPlatform class (Y-m-d) set it via 'SET DATEFORMAT ymd' . This should be done directly after the connection has be opened.

 Comment by Martin Weise [ 14/Feb/11 ] Issue created as wished from Juozas Kaziukenas.

### [DDC-1038] there are tabs in the code base Created: 16/Feb/11  Updated: 16/Feb/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Task Priority: Major Reporter: Lukas Kahwe Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 a quick search through the ORM code base finds quite a few tabs. other doctrine projects there might also be some, though in common i only found some inside the LGPL license file.

### [DDC-1072] Private property mapping can cause issues, suggest changing to protected Created: 17/Mar/11  Updated: 17/Mar/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: 2.0.2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Kevin Bradwick Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: not applicable

 Description
 The documentation recommends using private variables in entities. This can be problematic on entities with relations when using caching drivers as the proxy objects cannot access private variables and so the caching driver can throw notices like ...apc_store(): "_id" returned as member variable from __sleep() but does not exist in ... Making member variables protected resolves this issue when caching is enabled. This information would be helpful on the documentation so others can be made aware of this issue. We spent a few days trying to debug the issue before understanding exactly what was going on.

### [DDC-1088] Description for SequenceGenerator annotation options is wrong Created: 30/Mar/11  Updated: 26/Nov/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: 2.x
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Alexandre Mathieu Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: N/A

 Description
 On paragraph 4.8.1.1 SequenceGenerator, the correct example should be:

 Comment by Steve Müller [ 26/Nov/13 ] Is that still an issue? Seems it is fixed...

### [DDC-1089] Annotations reference examples are inaccurate and confusing Created: 30/Mar/11  Updated: 30/Mar/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Maarten van Leeuwen Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: N.A.

 Description
 In chapter 19 of the reference guide some coding examples seem to be inaccurate or incorrect. Especially when it comes to the bidirectional many-to-many associations, this might be confusing. Example: The code fragment on http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/annotations-reference.html#annref-manytomany has the following issues: it does not include class declarations although the collections associated are both mentioned. It should be clear to which target entity they belong and therefore their classes should be declared. from the context it seems that the associated classes should probably be User and Group, and the owning side is User. So the association should probably be inversed by 'users', although the example mentions 'features'. the mapping for the inverse side maps a collection called $features, although this should probably be$users. Also the class declaration for the Group class is missing. Some other code fragments in chapter 19 have similar issues. I think they could easily be replaced by the examples from the earlier chapters, like for the bidirectional man-to-many association the example from chapter 5: http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/association-mapping.html#many-to-many-bidirectional

### [DDC-1099] Tutorial :: Getting started code sample entity manager Created: 04/Apr/11  Updated: 11/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: Git Master
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Gordon Franke Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 see pull request 24 on github.com

 Comment by Michael Ridgway [ 11/Jul/11 ] This issue should be closed: https://github.com/doctrine/orm-documentation/pull/24

### [DDC-1106] Wrong inversedBy in example Created: 07/Apr/11  Updated: 07/Apr/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: cristobal castro Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Attachments: screen-shot.zip

 Description
 on page http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/working-with-objects.html section : 8.1. Association Example Entities, first example. Please see the .jpg in attachement(it explains clearly what I think is an error) Regards.

### [DDC-1137] SchemaTool#getUpdateSchemaSql() does not respect database identifier in table names Created: 05/May/11  Updated: 14/May/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM, Tools
Affects Version/s: 2.0.4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Hugh Lomas Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Linux 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5.centos.plus x86_64 GNU/Linux

 Description
 Given two databases, 'foo' and 'bar', with entities in /Entities/Foo/ annotated as follows: /** * Test * * @Table(name="foo.test") * @Entity */  Create an EntityManager instance with $connectionOptions = array( 'dbname' => 'Foo', 'driver' => 'pdo_mysql', <..etc..> ); Use EntityManager#getClassMetaData( "Entities\\FooTest" ) to pass to SchemaTool#createSchema() and Doctrine appropriately creates a database table foo.test Use EntityManager#getClassMetaData( "Entities\\FooTest" ) to pass to SchemaTool#updateSchema() and Doctrine fails with Exception -> SQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists: 1050 Table 'test' already exists Inserting die( print_r($fromSchema, 1 ) . print_r( $toSchema, 1 ) . print_r($schemaDiff, 1 ) ); into Doctrine/ORM/Tools/SchemaTool.php line 632 shows $fromSchema outputs [_tables:protected] => Array ( [test] but$toSchema outputs [_tables:protected] => Array ( [foo.test] which causes $schemaDiff to output [newTables] => Array ( [foo.test] In summary, Doctrine/DBAL/Schema/Comparator considers foo.test a new table, because Doctrine/DBAL/Schema/AbstractSchemaManager lists its table as "test" rather than "foo.test".  Comments  Comment by Hugh Lomas [ 05/May/11 ] It seems that changing AbstractSchemaManager.php to the following corrected the issue for me, however I am not sure of any repercussions that may arise as a result, being unfamiliar with the codebase. Doctrine/DBAL/Schema/AbstractSchemaManager.php line 228 return new Table($tableName, $columns,$indexes, $foreignKeys, false, array()); Doctrine/DBAL/Schema/AbstractSchemaManager.php line 228 return new Table($this->_conn->getDatabase() . "." . $tableName,$columns, $indexes,$foreignKeys, false, array()); Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 14/May/11 ] Multi databases are not supported by schema manager and schema tool yet.

### [DDC-1144] How insert a AES_ENCRYPT value in a table field Created: 10/May/11  Updated: 10/May/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0.4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: dquintard Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: Win XP, MySql5, Php5.3, ZendFramework 1.11.4

 Description

### [DDC-1154] Proxies should take convention while loading *ToOne associations to reduce 1 extra query Created: 17/May/11  Updated: 17/May/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Guilherme Blanco Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Read the IRC log: [2:38pm] guilhermeblanco: beberlei: ping [2:38pm] guilhermeblanco: I'm curious about a feature if Doctrine supports [2:38pm] guilhermeblanco: if we do this on a proxy: [2:38pm] guilhermeblanco: $proxy->getOneToOneAssoc() [2:39pm] guilhermeblanco: shouldn't Doctrine already populate the assoc entity? [2:39pm] guilhermeblanco: it would be an inner join [2:39pm] beberlei: how would doctrine know it needs it? [2:39pm] guilhermeblanco: beberlei: it always repass the ClassMetadata to Persister [2:40pm] guilhermeblanco: so all needed item is to also pass the fieldname/assocname [2:40pm] beberlei: but how would doctrine know getOneToOneASsoc() really returns this assoc [2:40pm] beberlei: it could contain any logic [2:40pm] guilhermeblanco: it wouldn't... but as soon as we trigger __load($fieldName) [2:40pm] guilhermeblanco: we know that we could populate not only the Proxy, but also assoc [2:40pm] beberlei: by convention? [2:40pm] guilhermeblanco: ya [2:41pm] beberlei: sounds good, can you open a ticket? [2:41pm] guilhermeblanco: getUser() would trigger __load('user') [2:41pm] guilhermeblanco: sure! [2:41pm] guilhermeblanco: I'll pastie this as content... it would be awesome to have [2:41pm] guilhermeblanco: I see a lot of queries here that could be optimized 

### [DDC-1164] doctrine:schema:update --force == doctrine:schema:create Created: 20/May/11  Updated: 20/May/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Geoff Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Doctrine:schema:update --force is the same as doctrine:schema:create. Under the hood, this may not be true, but they basically accomplish the same task. Schema:create should be removed, as it is redundant. Just look at django, one command to update db: ./manage.py syncdb Not saying that django gets everything correct, but the one command to synchronize the database is consistent. doctrine:schema:update should be smart enough to do all of the work, instead of relying on the redundant doctrine:schema:create.

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Mapping Drivers
Affects Version/s: 2.x
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Miha Vrhovnik Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 If you subscribe to loadClassMetadata you will usually modify the metadata for some classes. The problem is, that that data has to be loaded from somewhere. But later down the chain you can't get to it. Now data specific to what you need in your loadClassMetadata would ideally reside in the same location. If we take for example a file, than all data for a specific entity is in the same file. My proposal would be to add function get(Original|Raw)MappingData into interface Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\Driver\Driver which would either return raw data or data in a object specific for that Driver or null if it doesn't make sense for that driver. Please note, that when loading from e.g XmlDriver we should return simplexmlnode or dom node as loadClassMetadata should be in its own namespace and not pollute the Doctrine one.

 Comment by Gediminas Morkevicius [ 27/May/11 ] Sounds logic, each driver would expect NULL or data (wrapped specifically for the driver used)

### [DDC-1180] Indexed Associations: foreign key (association) cannot be used as indexBy field Created: 29/May/11  Updated: 02/Mar/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Mapping Drivers
Affects Version/s: 2.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Petr Sobotka Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 3 Labels: None Environment: Using Doctrine ORM 2.1.0BETA1

 Description

### [DDC-1216] A way to mark an entity to always use result cache. Like @UseResultCache class annotation. Created: 19/Jun/11  Updated: 06/Apr/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.x
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Reio Piller Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2 Labels: None

 Description
 So that even associations, find(), findBy() etc will be affected. Very useful for entities that are being used on every request. Is that thinkable?

 Comment by Menno Holtkamp [ 06/Apr/12 ] During development, I tried to have the out-of-the-box ORM layer handle as much of the queries as possible, essentially I used the Repository functions a lot: For example, having a specific Repository extend the Doctrine EntityRepository and do something like:  public function findByName($name) {$criteria = array('_name' => $name); return parent::findBy($criteria); }  Now all functionality is developed, I am optimizing performance and I find myself having to refer my Repository to my DAO layer which uses DQL, so I can enable the DQL Result Cache...  public function findByName($name) { //Use the DAO so we can enable DQL ResultSet caching return$this->_getDao()->loadByName($name); }  It would be nice to be able to configure 'DQL Result Cache = on' on Repository level as well... ### [DDC-1217] Use the DBAL ReservedKeywordsValidator in orm:validate-schema Created: 20/Jun/11 Updated: 20/Jun/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: Tools Affects Version/s: 2.0.6, Git Master Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Christophe Coevoet Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  DBAL provides a ReservedKeywordsValidator to check whether a word is reserved. But this tool is not used by the ORM when validating the schema. It would be useful to use it to avoid WTF from users getting a PDOException when creating their schema because of this. The other solution if you don't want to add this in orm:validate-schema would be to create a dedicated command. ### [DDC-1219] Remove dependancy on Collection interface in Domain Objects Created: 21/Jun/11 Updated: 04/Jul/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: 2.1 Fix Version/s: 2.x Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: André R. Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None  Description  Short: This issue is all about being able to use doctrine with naked domain objects without any use of doctrine classes. I 'm not talking about PersistentCollection here, fully aware of that being tied into Doctrine, but those are injected, this is all about code dependency on ArrayCollection. Seems like some of the UnitOfWork code is cable of handling other types of arrays, like:  // If$actualData[$name] is not a Collection then use an ArrayCollection. if ( !$actualData[$name] instanceof Collection) {$actualData[$name] = new ArrayCollection($actualData[$name]); }  But in __cascade* functions this is not the case in all but two:  if ($relatedEntities instanceof Collection) { if ($relatedEntities instanceof PersistentCollection) { // Unwrap so that foreach() does not initialize  2 however have:  if (($relatedEntities instanceof Collection || is_array($relatedEntities))) { if ($relatedEntities instanceof PersistentCollection) { // Unwrap so that foreach() does not initialize  Would it be an idea to do "instanceof Traversable" instead of " instanceof Collection"?

 Comment by André R. [ 21/Jun/11 ] Note: If the fist code block is always performed before the last 2 blocks then there is no issue here, just a need to make it more clear in Doc that this is possible but that you should not rely custom implementation as PersistentCollection will be injected when loaded from db.

### [DDC-1229] generate entity interactive dialog: id column Created: 27/Jun/11  Updated: 28/Jun/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Tools
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: David Buchmann Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 according to Stof, this bug https://github.com/sensio/SensioGeneratorBundle/issues/21 comes from the doctrine tools implementation: in the dialog, i first specified that i want a field id of type integer. the result was [Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\MappingException] Duplicate definition of column 'id' on entity 'Liip\DemoBundle\Entity\Event' in a field or discriminator column mapping. and no file was created. The dialog should tell me i can not create a field named id. (Or better ask first if i want my id column named id or something else.) It would be nice if it would write some file even if its not valid, with a warning on top. As it is, i lost all my work of specifying fields. (Luckily was just playing around)

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Jun/11 ] not a bug, its a feature (though a dumb one). Improvement in a next version.

### [DDC-1235] Provide fluent interfaces in stub methods Created: 28/Jun/11  Updated: 29/Oct/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Andreas Hörnicke Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Or maybe some template-files could be provided for all stubs. private static $_setMethodTemplate = '/** * * * @param$ */ public function ($) {$this-> = $; return$this; }'; 

 Comment by Christophe Coevoet [ 29/Oct/12 ] @beberlei this should be closed as it is the case since 2.2

### [DDC-1259] Atomic creation of Proxy files Created: 08/Jul/11  Updated: 09/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 From 265e5086ea51ebcafc73f91abc64334d17e2f416 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Karsten Dambekalns Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:11:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] Use temporary file and rename for proxy class creation Instead of a simple file_put_contents() the proxy class code is written to a temporary file and renamed to the final filename. This allows file access even if only allowed by the directory permission. --- lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php | 10 +++++++++- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php b/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php index f0cf19c..b2d42fb 100644 --- a/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php +++ b/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Proxy/ProxyFactory.php @@ -152,7 +152,15 @@ class ProxyFactory $file = str_replace($placeholders, $replacements,$file); - file_put_contents($fileName,$file, LOCK_EX); + $temporaryFileName =$fileName . uniqid( ) . '.temp'; + $result = file_put_contents($temporaryFileName, $file ); + + if($result === FALSE) throw new \RuntimeException('The temporary proxy class file "' . $temporaryFileName . '" could not be written.'); +$i = 0; + while(!rename( $temporaryFileName,$fileName ) && $i < 5) { +$i++; + } + if($result === FALSE) throw new \RuntimeException('The proxy class file "' .$fileName . '" could not be written.'); } /** -- 1.7.4.1 

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 09/Jul/11 ] Nette Framework uses a safe stream: https://github.com/nette/nette/blob/master/Nette/Utils/SafeStream.php

### [DDC-1262] Have proxies copy docblocks aswell Created: 09/Jul/11  Updated: 09/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.0.6, 2.1, Git Master
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Whenever a Proxy is generated it does not copy the docblocks. This means when you do something like "$refl = new ReflectionObject($proxy)" you might be in trouble. However if we add docblocks then we have to make sure that proxies do not magically appear as entities by throwing an exception in the AnnotationDriver.

### [DDC-1263] @ManyToOne Arbitrary References Created: 09/Jul/11  Updated: 09/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Could it be possible to allow for arbitrary many to one entities through a "class + id" construct as join columns?

### [DDC-1264] Add more math related DQL funcs (trig, round, stuff?) Created: 09/Jul/11  Updated: 09/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

### [DDC-1269] Unexpected behavior while using association on a non primary key field Created: 11/Jul/11  Updated: 13/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Alexandr Torchenko Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Reference is referenced by DDC-1114 Association on a non primary key fiel... Closed

 Description
 We have association on non primary key. Something like this: Entities\Payment: type: entity table: payments fields: id: id: true type: integer nullable: false generator: strategy: IDENTITY [-- skipped --] manyToOne: order: targetEntity: Entities\Order inversedBy: payments joinColumn: name: scode referencedColumnName: scode  Entities\Order: type: entity table: h_orders fields: id: id: true type: integer unsigned: false nullable: false generator: strategy: IDENTITY scode: type: integer unsigned: false nullable: false [-- skipped --] oneToMany: payments: targetEntity: Entities\Payment mappedBy: order  When I try to fetch Order from Payment with lazy loading I receive empty Order object with null properties. If I use eager fetching Order object is valid. SQL generated for lazy loading seems to be valid, so I suppose the problem is in mapping result to the object. At the same time lazy loading works fine with 2.0.6 version. Another problem appears while persisting new Payment. $payment = new \Entities\Payment(); ...$order = $this->em->getRepository('\Entities\Order')->find(46320);$payment->setOrder($order);$order->addPayments($payment);$this->em->persist($payment);$this->em->flush();  I get this error: Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'PDOException' with message 'SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1048 Column 'scode' cannot be null' in /usr/share/php/Doctrine/DBAL/Statement.php:131 I found issue which is still open and looks like mine – http://www.doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DDC-1114. What do you think about this?

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 12/Jul/11 ] Formatting, please add a second ticket for the second issue. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 12/Jul/11 ] I don't think its supported to use a non primary id for foreign key matching. I cant tell for sure though since i wasnt responsible to design this part of the Doctrine code. I would strongly suggest not to do this. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 12/Jul/11 ] Marked as improvement. The problem is we cannot detect this invalid mapping, so no exception is thrown during compilation of the mappings, Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 12/Jul/11 ] This kind of mapping error is already acknowledged by the schema-validator console task. Comment by Alexandr Torchenko [ 13/Jul/11 ] Should I create second ticket? Please confirm that I understood correctly. Should we avoid such mapping as it is considered as invalid. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 13/Jul/11 ] Yes, it will not work at all. You dont need to create the second ticket as that error steams from the mapping error. You will see an error message when calling ./doctrine orm:schema:validate with this mapping.

### [DDC-1270] Incorrect QueryBuilder example Created: 11/Jul/11  Updated: 11/Jul/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Alex Bogomazov Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description

### [DDC-1393] Skipping tables or columns in database driver or SchemaTool Created: 24/Sep/11  Updated: 20/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.1.1, Git Master
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 There should be a sane way to skip sources of errors in SchemaTool and the DatabaseDriver.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 24/Sep/11 ] Idea: Develop a datastructure of sorts that allows saving information about skipping tables and columns therein when reverse engeneering. Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 09/Dec/11 ] This is not possible unless you take advantage of Topological Sorting to map class dependencies like we do inside of UnitOfWork AFTER creating the ClassMetadata. The necessity of having this is mandatory because we can never skip classes that have associations to other ones though FK. You may try that, but it doesn't compensate the effort. I'd rather mark this bug as won't fix, but I'm leaving for you do that. =) Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 20/Dec/11 ] Updating fix version

### [DDC-1415] EventListener delegate on entity basis Created: 11/Oct/11  Updated: 20/Dec/11

Status: Reopened
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 12/Dec/11 ] Removed from master, as i dont like the api at all Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 20/Dec/11 ] Updating fix version

### [DDC-1429] Add a method to the unit of work that merges any detached entity into UoW without calling SQL Created: 17/Oct/11  Updated: 17/Oct/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 This is for those that know what they are doing

### [DDC-1431] Current event system is not flexible enough Created: 18/Oct/11  Updated: 18/Oct/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.1
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Oleg Stepura Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None Environment: Doctrine 2.1

 Key Summary Type Status Assignee DDC-1449 Create postFlush event Sub-task Resolved Benjamin Eberlei

 Description
 Hi! Current event system seem to be not as flexible as it could be. 1. According Lifecycle Events of the entity (marked with @HasLifecycleCallbacks annotation tag): It would be useful to have access to Entity Manager inside the callbacks. This could be achieved by passing the entity manager as a parameter to all these callbacks. Here is the situation: I have an entity for a news item. After somehow modifying this entity and before persisting I want to be able to change the inner association of images linked to this news (for example parsed from news body text). From the OO point of view it's a task of the News entity itself so this should be done a callback. But since inside callback I do not have access to entity manager (to find existing image entities and only if not found creating a new one) I cannot do this. This leads to creating a separate event listener which is split from the news entity (and that is not possible, see 2.). Passing entity manager to callbacks may improve it's usefulness. 2. Currently there is no events to be called before the changes have been computed. And there is no callback to be called after flush has been finished. (preFlush, postFlush) The problem: Assume we have a News entity. I want to modify external system (even not written in PHP) via remote call after any change to news being made. This has to be called AFTER the flush has persisted all the changes. Currently the only place to do this is onFlush (which is called before the persisting is done). PostPersist, postRemove, postUpdate cannot be used as it's called after each one entity is modified and we cannot tell when all entites has been processed. Also I faced a problem when implementing the event listener for situation 1. If I register the onFlush listener - the entites changeset is already calculated. If I change something according associations I loose this changes. If I call $unitOfWork->computeChangeSet($classMetadata, $entity) or$unitOfWork->recomputeSingleEntityChangeSet($classMetadata,$entity); I only get the changes being made after previous changeset calculation loosing the initial changes. I think the preFlush could be a lifesaver for this (to be called before computing the changeset for the first time).

### [DDC-1438] Add test for DDC-1437 Created: 19/Oct/11  Updated: 19/Oct/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description

### [DDC-1441] Metadata cannot be loaded for not registered proxy objects Created: 20/Oct/11  Updated: 05/Apr/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.1.2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Aigars Gedroics Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None Environment: MySQL, Ubuntu, PHP 5.3.6

 Description

### [DDC-1475] Documentation for One-To-Many, Bidirectional Association does not have YAML example Created: 07/Nov/11  Updated: 07/Nov/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Christian Stoller Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 When you are looking for a config example for the bidirectional mapping of an one-to-many association you will just find an example with XML, but not with YAML or PHP. It would be nice if somebody could add an example or a link to the bidirectional one-to-one association, because it should be the same, right? Here the link to the example: http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/association-mapping.html#one-to-many-bidirectional

Possible Regression with OneToOne relation (DDC-1461)

### [DDC-1506] Possible Regression with OneToOne relation Created: 23/Nov/11  Updated: 23/Nov/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.1.2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Sub-task Priority: Major Reporter: Maxim Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 /** * @ORM\Entity */ class Top { /** * @ORM\Id * @ORM\Column(type="integer") * @ORM\GeneratedValue(strategy="AUTO") */ protected $id; /** * @ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="LevelOne", orphanRemoval="true", cascade={"persist", "remove"}) */ protected$levelOne; public function getId() { return $this->id; } public function setLevelOne(LevelOne$levelOne) { $this->levelOne =$levelOne; } public function getLevelOne() { return $this->levelOne; } } /** * @ORM\Entity */ class LevelOne { /** * @ORM\Id * @ORM\Column(type="integer") * @ORM\GeneratedValue(strategy="AUTO") */ protected$id; /** * @ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="LevelTwo", orphanRemoval="true", cascade={"persist", "remove"}) */ protected $levelTwo; public function getId() { return$this->id; } public function setId($id) {$this->id = $id; } public function setLevelTwo(LevelTwo$levelTwo) { $this->levelTwo =$levelTwo; } public function getLevelTwo() { return $this->levelTwo; } } /** * @ORM\Entity */ class LevelTwo { /** * @ORM\Id * @ORM\Column(type="integer") * @ORM\GeneratedValue(strategy="AUTO") */ protected$id; public function getId() { return $this->id; } public function setId($id) { $this->id =$id; } }  trying to clone objects $top = new Top();$top->setLevelOne(new LevelOne()); $top->getLevelOne()->setLevelTwo(new LevelTwo());$this->em->persist($top);$this->em->flush(); $newTop = new Top();$newTop->setLevelOne(clone $top->getLevelOne());$newTop->getLevelOne()->setId(null); $newTop->getLevelOne()->getLevelTwo()->setId(null); var_dump($newTop->getLevelOne()->getId()); var_dump($newTop->getLevelOne()->getLevelTwo()->getId());$this->em->persist($newTop);$this->em->flush();  the output is: NULL NULL [PDOException] SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1062 Duplicate entry '1' for key 'UNIQ_82A72CD0778BC57F' (it duplicates level two entity) I worked for a while with entities, in a certain set of entity properties it completely persisted into database, but without relation between level one and level two.

### [DDC-1507] State change detection for version incrementation (for optimistic locking) in combination with orphanRemoval Created: 23/Nov/11  Updated: 27/Nov/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.1.4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Georg Wächter Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 As i understand the documentation correctly, orphanRemoval associations have the meaning of a "part of" relationship. In the example (http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.0/en/reference/working-with-associations.html#orphan-removal) the adresses are part of the contact. In my opinion we should reason that the state of the adress consists of the states of all nested contacts. As a consequence we should flag the contact as "dirty" when the adresses change. This is relevant for optimistic locking scenarios or event handlers. In my application i tried to use optimistic locking for "contacts", which does not work if i don't change anything in the contact but only in the nested addresses.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 27/Nov/11 ] This is still only an approvement, you can workaround this and handle is in your domain code. Comment by Georg Wächter [ 27/Nov/11 ] Not in all cases. The first problem is that my domain code can't modify the version property, doctrine seems to block any manipulations to it. So i'm not able to increment the variable myself. The only solution is to implement optimistic locking on my own or to add a dummy persistent boolean field that gets inversed by my domain code .. which would trigger the doctrine implementation for the optimistic locking. I think it's clear that the second option shouldn't be a choice. If doctrine doesn't handle the overall case exactly it should allow me to increment the version number myself.

### [DDC-1513] Missing documentation for using references in Docs Created: 28/Nov/11  Updated: 29/Nov/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Thomas Gray Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 I am in the process of switching over from Doctrine 2.0.7 to Doctrine 2.1 and one of the major missing components in my entities was the new use of using the mapping entity. Example: 

 Comment by Erik Bernhardson [ 28/Nov/11 ] I also glanced through the docs and didn't find it. I would suggest it be added to the Annotations Reference page: http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.1/en/reference/annotations-reference.html Comment by Thomas Gray [ 29/Nov/11 ] Ahh, so there are some docs about it; http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/common/2.1/en/reference/annotations.html however they do not seem to be that clear; nor well linked too.

### [DDC-1530] HIDDEN values cannot be used in WhereClause Created: 12/Dec/11  Updated: 25/Jan/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Git Master
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Guilherme Blanco Assignee: Guilherme Blanco Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 SELECT u, u.name AS HIDDEN n FROM User u WHERE n = ?1  Is broken. Error: SQLSTATE[42S22]: Column not found: 1054 Unknown column 'sclr16' in 'where clause  On a query like: SELECT s0_.id AS id0, s0_.a AS a1, s0_.b AS b2, s0_.c AS c3, s0_.d AS d4, s0_.e AS e5, s0_.f AS f6, s0_.g AS g7, s0_.h AS h8, s0_.i AS i9, s0_.j AS j10, s0_.k AS k11, s0_.l AS l12, s0_.m AS m13, s0_.n AS n14, s0_.o AS o15, 123456789 AS sclr16, s0_.p AS p17 FROM myEntity s0_ WHERE s0_.a = 1 AND sclr16 <= ? ORDER BY sclr16 ASC 

 Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 20/Dec/11 ] Updating fix version Comment by Christian Raue [ 09/Jan/12 ] It occurs even if the value is not HIDDEN. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 10/Jan/12 ] @Christian this sounds like a completly different error, please explain why you think this belongs here or open a new ticket. Comment by Christian Raue [ 10/Jan/12 ] Benjamin: Because I get exactly the same error message regardless of using HIDDEN. So HIDDEN doesn't seem to be liable here. Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 10/Jan/12 ] Can you paste your DQL and SQL? Comment by Christian Raue [ 10/Jan/12 ] Code: $queryBuilder ->select('myEntity, 123456789 AS distance') ->where('distance <= 10') ;  DQL: SELECT myEntity, 123456789 AS distance FROM MyCompany\MyBundle\Entity\MyEntity myEntity WHERE distance <= 10  SQL: SELECT s0_.id AS id0, s0_.a AS a1, s0_.b AS b2, s0_.c AS c3, s0_.d AS d4, s0_.e AS e5, s0_.f AS f6, s0_.g AS g7, s0_.h AS h8, s0_.i AS i9, s0_.j AS j10, s0_.k AS k11, s0_.l AS l12, s0_.m AS m13, s0_.n AS n14, s0_.o AS o15, 123456789 AS sclr16, s0_.p AS p17 FROM myEntity s0_ WHERE sclr16 <= 10  Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 11/Jan/12 ] That is expected behavior, ANSI SQL defines SELECT to be evaluated AFTER WHERE. SELECT 1234 AS foo FROM test HAVING foo = 1234  DQL has a HAVING clause as well, not sure it works without the group by. Please try. Comment by Christian Raue [ 21/Jan/12 ] So we might just close this issue then? Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 25/Jan/12 ] Its not a bug, just the error message is supposed to be improved (if possible) in a cheap way. ### [DDC-1532] PostFlush lifecycle event Created: 13/Dec/11 Updated: 14/Dec/11 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: ORM Affects Version/s: Git Master Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Jack van Galen Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 1 Labels: None  Description  In some cases, the database-id of the newly created record is needed in some postproccessing steps, like sending an e-mail containing a link to the just created entity. I've recently seen the added support for PostFlush, but this is not a lifecycle event. class SomeEntityClass{ /** @PostFlush */ function sendSomeEmail() { sendEmail(' 'Hi, you're new invoice can be found online: http://www.example.com/invoices/invoice_'.$this->id '; } } Perhaps it's even possible to have multiple PostFlush events, that differentiate between the first time a record is created, and when the record is merely updated.

 Comment by Jack van Galen [ 14/Dec/11 ] Okay, please ignore this issue, as I now see that the @PostPersist does exactly what I need. I was thrown by the name, because to me, the order in which stuff happens is persist -> flush. The ID's are only known after flush, so i'd expected something like postflush to exist. Sorry.

### [DDC-1538] GH-217: [BUG] Schema Manager had no way to define extra options Created: 14/Dec/11  Updated: 17/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Pull-Request was automatically synchronized: https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/217 Schema Manager had no way to define extra options ("comment" option for example). It is possible to add these options via Annotations. After the fix adding @ORM\Column(type="string", options= {"comment" = "test"} ) starts to work producing valid SQL schema with COMMENT output.

### [DDC-1543] Support for Mapping Files on Traits Created: 17/Dec/11  Updated: 17/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.x
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 With PHP 5.4 and traits coming we should find a way where you can add xml and yml configurations for a trait and upon loading an entity X, it also loads the trait configuration of this entity.

### [DDC-1549] GH-232: Recursive check for entity identifiers and hashes Created: 20/Dec/11  Updated: 22/Mar/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Pull-Request was automatically synchronized: https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/232 Hi all! This PR will add a better support for entities with association keys. getType will check recursively to find a type for the identifier. getIndividualValue will search recursively to find the identifier value trygetById improved, using a recursive function to find an id value instead of implode functions (that cause exceptions if the identifier is an object and do not implements __toString method).

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Dec/11 ] Mark as improvement Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 22/Mar/12 ] A related Github Pull-Request [GH-232] was https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/232

### [DDC-1551] postFlush event listeners should be able to get a list of all flushed entities Created: 21/Dec/11  Updated: 23/May/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: 2.2
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Albert Casademont Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 9 Labels: None

 Description
 Testing the new Doctrine 2.2 Beta we finally got the postFlush event which is a nice way to handle things after all the DB work has finished. The main problem is that there is no way to get all the flushed entities. In the onFlush event you are able to use the getScheduledEntityUpdates/Inserts/Deletions but as these entities are flushed, those arrays are now empty. To solve this i see 2 aproaches: 1. Not unseting the array that holds the scheduled entities so the getScheduledEntityUpdates/Inserts/Deletions still have data. Those arrays are reset just before finishing the commit method so maybe unsetting them one by one as they are flushed is not necessary 2. Unset the arrays but at the same time, fill another "flushedEntities" array with the flushed entities and then be able to get that array with a getFlushedEntities method I can make a patch if necessary, just wanted to know if that sounds ok before starting it

 Comment by Jasper N. Brouwer [ 23/May/12 ] I agree that Doctrine\ORM\Event\PreFlushEventArgs should contain a record of flushed entities, preferably reachable by entity-insertions/updates/deletions and collection-updates/deletions. I have a project (using Doctrine 2.1) which wrapped the flush call in my own. My flush dispatches custom preFlush/postFlush events (as they didn't exist in Doctrine 2.1), where my postFlushEventArgs does contain such a record. I've just upgraded my project to use Doctrine 2.2 and stumbled upon: Catchable fatal error: Argument 1 passed to Nw\Event\EntityEvent::postFlush() must be an instance of Nw\Event\Args\PostFlushEventArgs, instance of Doctrine\ORM\Event\PostFlushEventArgs given. It seems I've now hooked into Doctrine's postFlush (because I named the events the same way). I have renamed my events to work around this error, but I'd rather see my behavior implemented natively. PS: Using Doctrine 2.2.2 to be precise

### [DDC-1552] JTI Owning table for identifier columns could/should be the entitytable Created: 22/Dec/11  Updated: 22/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Alexander Assignee: Alexander Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 When ordering a JTI entity on id, the generated SQL will use the table of the root entity. This is because the root entity is listed as owner of the field in the _owningTableMap, leading to non-optimal queries. More information see: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/doctrine-user/znkkP7IF_Aw

 Comment by Alexander [ 22/Dec/11 ] I can pick this up if it's agreed upon that this could indeed be improved. Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 22/Dec/11 ] The problem here is that joining with a JTI causes LEFT JOINS, which don't perform very well when it comes to sorting the results. Just as a quick reference, here's where "something" should be changed to get this working: https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/blob/master/lib/Doctrine/ORM/Query/SqlWalker.php#L316 When the field is part of the primary key, the field used for sorting results should be the one of the table of the entity itself, and not of the root of the CTI.

### [DDC-1553] JTI Joining root tables could include ON ... AND root.id IS NOT NULL for each root in the inheritance Created: 22/Dec/11  Updated: 22/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Alexander Assignee: Alexander Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Would lead to more optimal queries, while still allowing for LEFT JOIN. Also related to this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/doctrine-user/znkkP7IF_Aw

 Comment by Alexander [ 22/Dec/11 ] Again I can pick this up if this improvement is agreed upon.

### [DDC-1563] Result cache for repository queries Created: 25/Dec/11  Updated: 26/Aug/12

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: New Feature Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Fabio B. Silva Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Many related "standing data" tables are very static and seldom change. There should be a metadata config to enable result cache for ALL repository operations. @entity(resultCache=@cache(ttl=3600))

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 25/Dec/11 ] This should directly support cache invalidation through a tag. Each repository gets a key with the current version. The version is one part ofthe actual cache datas key. A new cache key version is generated: 1. When none is found during find operation 2. When any write operation is done. For transaction consisteny the rollback operation in UoW needs to reset cache keys and only after a succesful commit operation the new cache key version should be set. We may need begin, commit, rollback events in UoW for this.

### [DDC-1564] MySQL Failure when using setFirstResult() and omitting setMaxResults() Created: 25/Dec/11  Updated: 28/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 2.1.4
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Timo A. Hummel Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 When using setFirstResult() and omitting setMaxResults(), MySQL throws an error. This was very confusing for me until I dumped the SQL statements and found out the reason. I know that MySQL doesn't directly support this, their manual says that you should set the second parameter to LIMIT to a very high number (18446744073709551615 in their example). I'd recommend that either throwing an error in the specific platform driver or follow the MySQL example.

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 28/Dec/11 ] Changed into improvement, i am not sure how this relates to other databases. You can just use this workaround yourself so long.

### [DDC-1570] GH-243: Add ProxyFactoryInterface to allow custom proxy factories Created: 28/Dec/11  Updated: 28/Dec/11

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: None

 Description
 Pull-Request was automatically synchronized: https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/243 I'd love to have my custom proxy factory used with ORM, which is not possible at the moment (my experimental proxy https://github.com/juzna/doctrine2/commit/7822446036201b066e390b2e182cac1dc0c85430 and some comments about it http://blog.juzna.cz/2011/06/lazy-loading-in-php/)

### [DDC-1590] Fix Inheritance in Code-Generation Created: 09/Jan/12  Updated: 07/Sep/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 2.5
Security Level: All

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Benjamin Eberlei Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 3 Labels: None

 Dependency is required for DDC-1579 MappedSuperClass and inheritance prob... Resolved

 Comment by Lukas Domnick [ 10/Dec/12 ] (I have no Link Privileges, but this one #DDC-1379 is a duplicate with more extent info.)

### [DDC-1599] OnFlush event in transaction Created: 14/Jan/12  Updated: 07/Sep/13

Status: Open
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: ORM
Affects Version/s: Git Master
Fix Version/s: 2.5

 Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Gediminas Morkevicius Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 2 Labels: None

 Description
 Is there any particular reason why onFlush event is not triggered when the transaction is allready open? https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/blob/master/lib/Doctrine/ORM/UnitOfWork.php#L290 It would help a lot developing listeners since this event is the mostly used one and since theres preFlush now it seems a logical solution if onFlush would be a start of transaction in general

 Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 14/Jan/12 ] onFluish is not the start of a transaction. It has nothing to do with this. Comment by Marco Pivetta [ 31/Mar/12 ] Is a third event needed? Or is this to be marked as "won't fix"? Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 31/Mar/12 ] Maybe onBeginTransaction, onCommit and onRollback. However since you can start transactions manually using $em->beginTransaction(), the Flush events are somehwat independent of transactions anyways. Comment by Gediminas Morkevicius [ 31/Mar/12 ] Well, user can start transaction anytime, but the fact is that if we think ORM we do not know nothing about the database. we just persist and flush objects. Yes I think these would be very useful, from how I see it, if you use event listeners, is: loadClassMetadata: you can apply extra mapping onFlush: you can modify entity changesets, or persist recalculate new ones, without triggering the database, since it is not used to begin the database modifications yet. onBeginTransaction: could use the database modifications keeping in sync the entity changesets. the thing about this event is that usually in behavioral way atomic updates are required. for example nestedset tree sync lft rgt columns, sortable sync the sort index, materialized path, all these requires atomic updates, and the best place is the start of transaction. onCommit: could be useful to execute right before commit, finalizing database modifications could be done. onRollback: this one is really something, since if you go far, there might be something like files uploaded during the entity processing, and you may want to remove them if transaction fails. Comment by Guilherme Blanco [ 21/May/12 ] This situation was barely documented here: http://www.doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DDC-1443 We need a better Transaction API that completely fixes the computation of changesets and also allow more fine grained control over Entities and their corresponding information. I'd postpone this one until 3.0. ### [DDC-1602] Executors for Class Table Inheritance (JOINED) are extremely slow on MySQL Created: 15/Jan/12 Updated: 27/Jun/12 Status: Open Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM Component/s: DQL Affects Version/s: 2.2-BETA2 Fix Version/s: None Security Level: All  Type: Improvement Priority: Major Reporter: Michael Moravec Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 3 Labels: None Environment: Debian, MySQL 5.5.17  Description Update and delete executors for Class Table Inheritance (JOINED) are extremely slow on MySQL platform. It is most probably due to use of subselect on the temporary table. The slowdown is really significant as the table size increases. As an example, lets have a root entity with one subclass: /** * @Entity * @InheritanceType("JOINED") * @DiscriminatorColumn(name="discr", type="string") * @DiscriminatorMap({"root" = "Root", "a" = "SubA"}) */ class Root { /** * @Column(type="integer") * @Id * @GeneratedValue */ private$id;

/**
* @Column(type="integer")
*/
private $xyz; }  /** * @Entity */ class SubA extends Root { /** * @Column(type="integer") */ private$foo;
}


Now lets perform a simple DQL UPDATE:

UPDATE Entities\Root r SET r.xyz = 123 WHERE r.id > ?


(note: always the upper half of entries)
Which creates following SQLs:

CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE Root_id_tmp (id INT NOT NULL)
INSERT INTO Root_id_tmp (id) SELECT t0.id FROM Root t0 LEFT JOIN SubA s0_ ON t0.id = s0_.id WHERE t0.id > 25000
UPDATE Root SET xyz = 123 WHERE (id) IN (SELECT id FROM Root_id_tmp)
DROP TEMPORARY TABLE Root_id_tmp
`

The time spent on this on MySQL 5.5.17 and PostgreSQL 9.1 is:

no. of entries 500 1000 2500 5000 10000 20000 50000
MySQL 0.26s 0.35s 1.1s 3.68s 14.13s 54.44s 338s
PostgreSQL 0.10s 0.10s 0.13s 0.15s 0.22s 0.35s 1.01s

As you can see, MySQL is drastically slower on even relatively small tables. This currently makes Doctrine unusable for this type of inheritance on MySQL. The solution probably would be to avoid subselect in WHERE clause in Doctrine\ORM\Query\Exec\MultiTableUpdateExecutor and Doctrine\ORM\Query\Exec\MultiTableDeleteExecutor.

Feel free to try/modify the test script yourself, it's here.

Comment by Benjamin Eberlei [ 15/Jan/12 ]

Its not a bug as it works. The performance drawback of JTI is discussed in the manual http://www.doctrine-project.org/docs/orm/2.1/en/reference/inheritance-mapping.html.

Changing this would be an improvement where we would hint if databases prefer subselects or joins for different operations. This would increase complexity of the SQL generation since now we are getting along with just one SQL generation strategy.

Comment by Michael Moravec [ 11/May/12 ]

Any chance to get this implemented before 2.3?

Comment by Michael Moravec [ 11/May/12 ]

I've made a change in DBAL and ORM code to implement a solution issue. It's currently more likely a proof of concept.

With the change, my results are (approximately):

no. of entries 500 1000 2500 5000 10000 20000 50000
MySQL 0.17s 0.19s 0.21s 0.26s 0.27s 0.37s 0.92s

Currently only update executor was changed.
DBAL branch with changes: https://github.com/Majkl578/doctrine-dbal/tree/DDC-1602
ORM branch with changes: https://github.com/Majkl578/doctrine2/tree/DDC-1602

Comment by Michael Moravec [ 27/Jun/12 ]

bump

### [DDC-1605] No documentation about the usage of indexes with YAML and XML Created: 16/Jan/12  Updated: 08/Apr/13

Status: In Progress
Project: Doctrine 2 - ORM
Component/s: Documentation
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: All

 Type: Documentation Priority: Major Reporter: Christian Stoller Assignee: Benjamin Eberlei Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0 Labels: documentation

 Description