Thanks for the explanation, Mike. That makes sense and now I know about 
this behaviour.

> you can get your test program to succeed by sending name=None for the 
second B():

I realize my example was pretty trivial, but suppose in a real-world 
example where table B did not simply have the column 'name', but had a long 
list of columns, for which it would be much more cumbersome to have to 
blank them all out than it would to simply replace the object with a new 
instance.

In that case, what would you suggest as a workaround? Would it be to do an 
explicit session.flush() before assigning the new instance to the 
relationship?

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:15:02 PM UTC-8 Mike Bayer wrote:

>
> this is the long-expected behavior of the unit of work when issuing a 
> delete() and then an add() of two different objects that nonetheless have 
> the same primary key value - instead of DELETE and INSERT, you get an 
> UPDATE.  the reasons have to do with the unit-of-work's ordering of 
> INSERT/UPDATE vs. DELETE, the basic idea of which is that it runs all 
> INSERT/UPDATES before all DELETES so in one flush() cannot achieve the 
> operation you are seeking.   The issue at 
> https://github.com/sqlalchemy/sqlalchemy/issues/2501 has all the old 
> thinking on this as well as some more recent discussion regarding how to 
> document this.  the problem is usually involving a UNIQUE constraint, 
> because I think the version you have here is usually not noticed as the 
> UPDATE typically works out.
>
> you can get your test program to succeed by sending name=None for the 
> second B(): 
>
> a.b = B(name=None)
> session.commit()
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022, at 8:31 PM, Dane K Barney wrote:
>
> I have two tables, A and B, that have a one-to-one relationship. Because 
> of this, table B uses the same column as its primary key and the foreign 
> key to table A.
>
> For some reason, trying to delete and replace an object of table B is not 
> working as expected. Here is a complete runnable example to demonstrate the 
> problem:
>
> import sqlalchemy as sa
>
> from sqlalchemy.orm import backref, declarative_base, relationship, 
> sessionmaker
>
> Base = declarative_base()
>
> class A(Base):
>     __tablename__ = "a"
>     id = sa.Column(sa.Integer, primary_key=True)
>
> class B(Base):
>     __tablename__ = "b"
>     id = sa.Column(sa.Integer, sa.ForeignKey("a.id"), primary_key=True)
>     name = sa.Column(sa.String)
>
>     # 1-to-1 relationship
>     a = relationship("A", backref=backref(
>         "b",
>         uselist=False,
>         # according to the docs, using a combination of delete-orphan
>         # with single_parent=True means that a B object can be deleted
>         # by doing A.b = None
>         cascade="all, delete-orphan",
>         single_parent=True,
>     ))
>
> engine = sa.create_engine("sqlite://", echo=True)
> Base.metadata.create_all(engine)
>
> Session = sessionmaker(engine)
>
> with Session() as session:
>     a = A()
>     session.add(a)
>
>     a.b = B(name="foo")
>     session.commit()
>
>     # replace 'b' with a different object
>     a.b = B()
>     session.commit()
>
>     print("The value of 'b.name' is: ", a.b.name)
>
> I would expect the print statement at the end to say "The value of 'b.name' 
> is None" because a.b was last assigned to B(). But instead it says "The 
> value of 'b.name' is foo".
>
> My guess is that SQLAlchemy is getting confused because it uses the 
> primary key to identify an object and technically the primary key of a.b 
> hasn't changed, even though I've replaced it with a completely different 
> object, one that doesn't have a 'name'.
>
> If I explicitly add the following 2 lines, then it behaves as expected:
>
>     a.b = B(value="foo")
>     session.commit()
>
> *# forcibly delete a.b*
> *a.b = None*
> *session.commit()*
>
>     # replace 'b' with a different object
>     a.b = B()
>     session.commit()
>
> However, this seems like very undesirable behaviour, that I have to force 
> an intermediate deletion step and commit that in order for this to work 
> correctly.
>
> I'm guessing I have just missed a step in the setup of my tables. Is there 
> an additional flag I need to put on table B or its relationship to table A 
> to get it behave as expected?
>
>
> -- 
> SQLAlchemy - 
> The Python SQL Toolkit and Object Relational Mapper
>  
> http://www.sqlalchemy.org/
>  
> To post example code, please provide an MCVE: Minimal, Complete, and 
> Verifiable Example. See http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve for a full 
> description.
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sqlalchemy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sqlalchemy/ca98e126-33f6-46b6-9f0f-b444b4ff5f4an%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sqlalchemy/ca98e126-33f6-46b6-9f0f-b444b4ff5f4an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
SQLAlchemy - 
The Python SQL Toolkit and Object Relational Mapper

http://www.sqlalchemy.org/

To post example code, please provide an MCVE: Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable 
Example.  See  http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve for a full description.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sqlalchemy/8d03187d-4948-4af4-9146-f91e007cdd82n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to