Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Removing one side of BiDi 1-1 relation throws #11580

Open
duzenko opened this issue Aug 22, 2024 · 9 comments
Open

Removing one side of BiDi 1-1 relation throws #11580

duzenko opened this issue Aug 22, 2024 · 9 comments

Comments

@duzenko
Copy link

duzenko commented Aug 22, 2024

Bug Report

Q A
BC Break no
Version 2.19.6

Summary

I have added an inverseBy field to an existing entity class so as to use it in the BiDi 1-1 fashion. The DB structure did not change. The setup is similar to the example given at https://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/2.19/reference/association-mapping.html#one-to-one-bidirectional.
After this, under certain scenarios, deleting an entity throws an Exception.
Specifically, the entities are loaded via a DQL query:

		$dq = 'SELECT e, ec FROM ' . \E5\Entity\EventConfirmation::class . ' ec JOIN ec.event e WHERE ec.user = :user AND e.type = :type';
		$query = $this->getEntityManager()->createQuery( $dq )
				->setParameter( 'type', $type )
				->setParameter( 'user', $user );

		return $query->getOneOrNullResult();

This returns a nested object structure as expected:
image

After removing the $confirmation entity the structure becomes instable:

		$em->remove( $confirmation );
		$em->flush();

image

When I try commit the transaction after this, I get an exception:

Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException: A new entity was found through the relationship 'E5\Entity\Event#confirmation' that was not configured to cascade persist operatio
ns for entity: E5\Entity\EventConfirmation@282. To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or configure cascade persist this
 association in the mapping for example @ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}). If you cannot find out which entity causes the problem implement 'E5\Entity\EventConfirmation#__toString()' to get a clue. in /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/ORMInvalidArgumentException.php:103
Stack trace:
#0 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/UnitOfWork.php(3856): Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException::newEntitiesFoundThroughRelationships()     
#1 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/UnitOfWork.php(417): Doctrine\ORM\UnitOfWork->assertThatThereAreNoUnintentionallyNonPersistedAssociations()#2 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/EntityManager.php(403): Doctrine\ORM\UnitOfWork->commit()
#3 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/E4/C/Admin/Casher.php(209): Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager->flush()
#4 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/E4/C/Admin/Casher.php(190): C_Admin_Casher::eventIdentified()
#5 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/E8/feature/user/UserService.php(287): C_Admin_Casher::emailIdentifiedSend()
#6 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/E8/feature/onboarding/Service.php(84): E8\feature\user\UserService->sendIdentifiedMail()
#7 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/scripts/lib/dev.php(22): E8\feature\onboarding\Service->approveIdentificationDocument()
#8 /media/sf_Remote/main-web-application/scripts/cli.php(27): include_once('...')
#9 {main}

Which means that Doctrine is trying to persist the confirmation entity back to the DB.
This is the opposite to what the code did before successfully (before the additing of the inversedBy confirmation field in the Event entity.

Current behavior

Throws

How to reproduce

Delete the owner side of a BiDi 1-1 relation and commit.

Expected behavior

Delete successful. The inversed side changes to null.

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Aug 22, 2024

Relevant field definitions:

class EventConfirmation {
...
	/**
	 * @ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="Event", inversedBy="confirmation")
	 * @JoinColumn(name="event", referencedColumnName="id")
	 */
	private ?Event $event;

This was added (along with inversedBy above) before the bug manifested:

class Event {
...
	/**
	 * @OneToOne(targetEntity="EventConfirmation", mappedBy="event")
	 */
	private ?EventConfirmation $confirmation;

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Aug 22, 2024

It seems that changing SELECT e, ec FROM to SELECT ec FROM helps in this particular case as it changes the type of event field from Entity to Proxy. However in general this kind of breakage should not occur at all.

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Sep 6, 2024

It would be great to get some feedback regarding this
The bug also manifests with proxy objects after they get initialized

		$em = phpVirtualMachine()->getEntityManager();

		$eventConfirmations = $em->getRepository( \E5\Entity\EventConfirmation::class )->findBy( [ 'user' => $user ] );

		foreach( $eventConfirmations as $eventConfirmation ) {
			if( $eventConfirmation->getEvent()->getType() != $type ) {
				continue;
			}

			// now delete eventConfirmation will throw
		}

@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

greg0ire commented Sep 6, 2024

Which means that Doctrine is trying to persist the confirmation entity back to the DB.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Looking at the stack trace, we can see that we are here:

orm/src/UnitOfWork.php

Lines 353 to 369 in cfc0655

if (
! ($this->entityInsertions ||
$this->entityDeletions ||
$this->entityUpdates ||
$this->collectionUpdates ||
$this->collectionDeletions ||
$this->orphanRemovals)
) {
$this->dispatchOnFlushEvent();
$this->dispatchPostFlushEvent();
$this->postCommitCleanup();
return; // Nothing to do.
}
$this->assertThatThereAreNoUnintentionallyNonPersistedAssociations();

So, directly inside commit(). I think you were mislead into thinking it has to do with persistence because of the error message.

I think you should debug further as to why this entity is considered new, but before that, have you validated your schema? I find it suspicious that such a big bug with what appears to be a pretty common situation happens at all.

You could also try reproducing it with a test.

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Sep 6, 2024

@greg0ire Do you have a test already that deletes an entity on the owner side of a BiDi relation? I'd think no, which is why it was not noticed
And I don't think that deleting a BiDi owner (with a second flush after that) is pretty common
There is a chance that I'm doing something wrong, but I'd like to hear from you first
Note that commit is not necessary. It can be a second flush as well.

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Sep 6, 2024

@greg0ire This reproduced the error reliably for me

<?php
// bootstrap.php
use Doctrine\DBAL\DriverManager;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager;
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\Entity;
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\JoinColumn;
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping\OneToOne;
use Doctrine\ORM\ORMSetup;
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping as ORM;

require_once "vendor/autoload.php";

#[Entity]
class Customer {
	#[ORM\Id]
	#[ORM\Column( type: 'integer' )]
	#[ORM\GeneratedValue]
	private int|null $id = null;

	/** One Customer has One Cart. */
	#[OneToOne( targetEntity: Cart::class, mappedBy: 'customer' )]
	public Cart|null $cart = null;

	#[ORM\Column( type: 'string' )]
	private string $name = 'qwe';

	public function getName(): string {
		return $this->name;
	}

	public function setName( string $name ): void {
		$this->name = $name;
	}
}

#[Entity]
class Cart {
	#[ORM\Id]
	#[ORM\Column( type: 'integer' )]
	#[ORM\GeneratedValue]
	public int|null $id = null;

	/** One Cart has One Customer. */
	#[OneToOne( targetEntity: Customer::class, inversedBy: 'cart' )]
	#[JoinColumn( name: 'customer_id', referencedColumnName: 'id' )]
	public Customer|null $customer = null;

}

unlink( 'db.sqlite' );
$database = new SQLite3( 'db.sqlite' );
$database->query( 'CREATE TABLE if not exists Cart (
    id integer PRIMARY KEY,
    customer_id INT DEFAULT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE if not exists Customer (
    id integer PRIMARY KEY,
    name varchar DEFAULT NULL
);' );

// Create a simple "default" Doctrine ORM configuration for Attributes
$config = ORMSetup::createAttributeMetadataConfiguration(
	paths: [],
	isDevMode: true,
);

// configuring the database connection
$connection = DriverManager::getConnection( [
	'driver' => 'pdo_sqlite',
	'path' => __DIR__ . '/db.sqlite',
], $config );

// obtaining the entity manager
$entityManager = new EntityManager( $connection, $config );

//$schemaTool = new \Doctrine\ORM\Tools\SchemaTool($entityManager);
//$classes = $entityManager->getMetadataFactory()->getAllMetadata();
//$schemaTool->createSchema($classes);

$cart = new Cart();
$cart->customer = new Customer();
$entityManager->persist( $cart->customer );
$entityManager->persist( $cart );
$entityManager->flush();
$entityManager->clear(); // simulate separate run

$cart = $entityManager->find( Cart::class, $cart->id );
$cart->customer->getName(); // initialize proxy
$entityManager->remove( $cart );
$entityManager->flush();

$cusomer = $entityManager->getRepository( Customer::class )->findAll()[ 0 ];
$cusomer->setName( 'asd' );
$entityManager->flush(); // throws here

echo 'OK', PHP_EOL;

Output

"[sshConfig://[email protected]:22 key]:/usr/bin/php" -dxdebug.mode=debug -dxdebug.client_port=9003 -dxdebug.client_host=192.168.52.1 /media/sf_Remote/test/bootstrap.php
PHP Fatal error:  Uncaught Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException: A new entity was found through the relationship 'Customer#cart' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: Cart@99. To solve this issue: Either explicitly call EntityManager#persist() on this unknown entity or configure cascade persist this association in the mapping for example @ManyToOne(..,cascade={"persist"}). If you cannot find out which entity causes the problem implement 'Cart#__toString()' to get a clue. in /media/sf_Remote/test/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/ORMInvalidArgumentException.php:103
Stack trace:
#0 /media/sf_Remote/test/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/UnitOfWork.php(3856): Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException::newEntitiesFoundThroughRelationships()
#1 /media/sf_Remote/test/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/UnitOfWork.php(417): Doctrine\ORM\UnitOfWork->assertThatThereAreNoUnintentionallyNonPersistedAssociations()
#2 /media/sf_Remote/test/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/EntityManager.php(403): Doctrine\ORM\UnitOfWork->commit()
#3 /media/sf_Remote/test/bootstrap.php(94): Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager->flush()
#4 {main}
  thrown in /media/sf_Remote/test/vendor/doctrine/orm/src/ORMInvalidArgumentException.php on line 103

Process finished with exit code 255

@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

greg0ire commented Sep 6, 2024

Is it a minimal reproducer? For instance, is the JoinColumn attribute necessary to reproduce the issue? Also, when I wrote "You could also try reproducing it with a test." I meant a PHPUnit test that you would add to the doctrine/orm test suite.

@duzenko
Copy link
Author

duzenko commented Sep 7, 2024

Is it a minimal reproducer? For instance, is the JoinColumn attribute necessary to reproduce the issue?

How would I know if it is necessary? I took this code from your official docs at https://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/2.19/reference/association-mapping.html.

Also, when I wrote "You could also try reproducing it with a test." I meant a PHPUnit test that you would add to the doctrine/orm test suite.

Sorry, does it mean the a PHP file that you can run from CLI or IDE directly is not acepted as reproduction case? I'd think that you could convert it to a PHPUnit test in less than 5 minutes if you were interested in this bug, without the lengthy procedure of me creating a PR just for it to chill in the waiting list with another 298 PRs you already have.
My originial post had less code for which you advised to "debug further" on my side implying that I'm not using Doctrine right.
I don't think I should be getting any more of these "try harder" responses at this point

@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

greg0ire commented Sep 7, 2024

Let me focus on the 298 PRs first (more actually if you can't other repos), and I will get back to you.

@doctrine doctrine locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 7, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants