nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Nested replicants and DataDeploy

JoeS

I'm having trouble with a new DCR and datadeploy. The DCR contains four nested containers under one root container and the dbscema contains five groups which all point to the same table (content area). Also each container is a replicant.

I can deploy the data if I just include the first three groups. However I get an error when I try to deploy the fourth group. (see attached dbschema file) The weird thing is that it works if I change the following line for each column in the fourth group:

From: nodes/0/nodeLevel0/[0-1]/nodeLevel1/[0-99]/nodeLevel2/[0-99]/nodeLevel3/[0-99]/zid
To: nodes/0/nodeLevel0/0/nodeLevel1/[0-99]/nodeLevel2/[0-99]/nodeLevel3/[0-99]/zid

But then it fails again when I try to add a fifth group. I don't see any helpful info in the DD logs. Thanks for any assistance.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

sheikh1

From: nodes/0/nodeLevel0/[0-1]/nodeLevel1/[0-99]/nodeLevel2/[0-99]/nodeLevel3/[0-99]/zid
To: nodes/0/nodeLevel0/0/nodeLevel1/[0-99]/nodeLevel2/[0-99]/nodeLevel3/[0-99]/zid

But then it fails again when I try to add a fifth group. I don't see any helpful info in the DD logs. Thanks for any assistance.

When I saw the schema I found that your DCR is having all containers with in each other parent containers and each container will point to different group. Is that right? See if you can normalize the design/approach since you are using the same table.

Although I noted a imp attribute mentioned for other groups as no ie. root-group='no' but it should be yes for all since there is no dependency/parent-child relationship among each other.

Rick Poulin

4 levels of nested containers all deploying to the same table? Frankly, I'm surprised you don't have bigger problems. As sheikh suggested/implied, you normally don't want to map more than one group to the same table, otherwise you get weird results like one group wiping out data from the previous one.

You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by 'fails'. Post your whole log if you don't see anything relevant, because those of us that have gone through these pains may pick up on innocuous-looking gibberish.

The main thing I see missing in your dbschema is that your child groups don't reference their relationship to the parent via a <foreign-key> node. That might be the source of the replicant indexing confusion..

JoeS

Thanks for both of your repsonses. I'm only getting the following error in the DD log:

LIB: 2013-01-30 14:01:14 Receiver-ERROR: ERROR: commit-failed.LIB: 2013-01-30 14:01:14 ERROR: Failed to deploy local_directory[.] of area[/default/main/mfs/WORKAREA/mfsemc] for filelist[/tmp/imm_dcrfilelist..1359572471]

LIB: 2013-01-30 14:01:14 ERROR: Failed 1 of 1 filelists

Also I tried adding a foreign key to each of the groups but it didn't help.

[PHP]

[/PHP]

sheikh1

I don't think you have changed the root-group value from 'no' to 'yes' since there is really no parent-child relationship in your table so I don't think it will be helpful if you add foreign-key element. It would be easy if you can try with two groups at a time.
As I already mentioned it's probably good if you can normalize the schema and use one group - one table - one DCR approach because I don't really see any other tables in the schema.

JoeS

OK - thanks. I think that I'll take your advice and re-design the DCR to only have one container/group.

Rick Poulin

OK - thanks. I think that I'll take your advice and re-design the DCR to only have one container/group.

That really would be best if your data can be presented that way.

... since there is really no parent-child relationship in your table so I don't think it will be helpful if you add foreign-key element.

How are you able to make that determination? I see nested containers, each with a 'parent_id' column, so that looks like a parent/child relationship to me.

@JoeS, if I'm reading your schema right, I think your child-column attribute should have been "parent-id". This would be the column name in the child table that maps to the "id" column in your parent table, right?

sheikh1

How are you able to make that determination? I see nested containers, each with a 'parent_id' column, so that looks like a parent/child relationship to me.

Looking at schema I can tell there are four containers which are nested linearly (one into another) and looking at groups/tables I see just one table involved ==>which derives that a table is a self referential table with an heirarchy of upto 3 levels, like a row has a parent in the same table and that parent has a parent and that parent has a parent-- but this approach at Database design end is not viable and at DAO level it's a **** lot of pain reading this data if not impossible.

So IMO one sub level using one table with/without parent/child relationship is a good approach . Moreover I belive DD schema should be a replica of your database schema design, it is easy to deal and flexible enough when writing code for DAO layer.

JoeS

That really would be best if your data can be presented that way.

How are you able to make that determination? I see nested containers, each with a 'parent_id' column, so that looks like a parent/child relationship to me.

@JoeS, if I'm reading your schema right, I think your child-column attribute should have been "parent-id". This would be the column name in the child table that maps to the "id" column in your parent table, right?

Yes - that's correct. There is a parent/child relationship but I didn't have any luck when I tried adding a foreign key.
[PHP]

[/PHP]

sheikh1

Yes - that's correct. There is a parent/child relationship but I didn't have any luck when I tried adding a foreign key.
[PHP]

[/PHP]

In this case your parent and child column names are same, you should try something like this [php]

[/php]

Rick Poulin

In this case your parent and child column names are same, you should try something like this

Dude, what? Not only is this what he had before, but it's also wrong. If the ID column from the child group had the same value as the ID from the parent group, then one row would be overwriting the other because they're going to the same table. Also, what would be the point of having a column called PARENT_ID if not to refer to the parent row of the current one?

Yes - that's correct. There is a parent/child relationship but I didn't have any luck when I tried adding a foreign key.

Yeah, wasn't sure if it would but it was worth a shot. If nothing else, your dbschema is 'more right' than it was before, but nothing beats having a less complicated structure if you can manage it.

sheikh1

Dude, what? Not only is this what he had before, but it's also wrong. If the ID column from the child group had the same value as the ID from the parent group, then one row would be overwriting the other because they're going to the same table. Also, what would be the point of having a column called PARENT_ID if not to refer to the parent row of the current one?

No, I don't that is wrong, If you realize the parent_id column of child group is same as ID column of parent group, then logically its one and same mentioning both child-column and parent column as 'ID' - as long as your DCR has different values in the nested containers.