Why is inverse relation not Mandatory for one-to-many composition

Support
#1

I just noticed in my mapping code that I forgot to set the inverse relation on a one-to-many composition.

parent -* child

Since this is composition I would never want my children to exist without a parent. But now I have a whole bunch of dangling child records in the db.

Wouldn’t it make sense to have this as a not-null constraint (code and db) by default?

As stated in the documentation,
https://www.cuba-platform.com/guides/data-modelling-composition?_ga=2.71499537.303392646.1597898590-1241768928.1574607271#composition_vs_association

1 Like
#2

Hi

Thanks for your feedback. We will consider the suggestion.

Studio generates CASCADE OnDelete policy for one-to-many relations by default. So when ‘Parent’ object is deleted, associated ‘Child’ objects is automatically deleted. This should prevent from the creation of dangling child records in the DB

#4

The problem is that my objects are not coming in through the gui.

I have a custom api and in one of the classes I added children to the collection but forgot to set the parent relation. I use mapstruct for object mapping and have to implement an addX method on every parent that sets the inverse relation on it’s children. I forgot to do this for a couple of classes.

So the children could actually exist without a parent being present which doesn’t make sense in the composition model.