So,
I have two tables, with a 1:M relationship. They have in common two primary keys: tenant and user_id.
I have defined the model relationship and btw, I am not sure if I did it correctly because I am still not sure how to handle composite primary keys on Sequelize. This works well with my many other queries, and I think it influences the problem.
// Sequelize model set-up:
const user = serviceLayerDB.define('user',
{ // Database columns:
tenant: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(45),
primaryKey: true
},
user_id: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(24),
primaryKey: true
},
status: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(11)
}
});
const user_component = serviceLayerDB.define('user_component',
{ // Database columns:
tenant: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(45),
primaryKey: true
},
user_id: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(24),
primaryKey: true
},
component_id: {
type: Sequelize.STRING(24),
primaryKey: true
},
active: {
type: Sequelize.BOOLEAN
}
});
// Sequelize relationship set-up:
user.hasMany(user_component, { foreignKey: 'user_id' });
user.hasMany(user_component, { foreignKey: 'tenant' });
BUT the problem comes when I have the following query:
// Retrieving user and related components.
function getSubscriptions() {
let options = {
where: {
tenant: 'company_A',
user_id: '1001'
},
include: [{ // Adding components, filtered by "active" value:
model: user_component,
where: {
active: 1
},
required: false
}]
};
user.findAll(options)
.then(function(data) {
if (data.length === 0) { // If no data found:
console.log('No data found');
return;
}
// Curate Sequelize result:
let curatedData = data.map(function(userInstance) { return userInstance.get({ plain: true}) }); // Workaround to be able to perform .get().
console.log(JSON.stringify(curatedData, null, 2));
})
.catch(function(error) {
console.log('critical', 'Failed to find data in database. Error: ' + error);
})
}
// Execute:
getSubscriptions();
What I want is to find the user and its components, but only the ones with the active value set to 1. It is not working: the result is every component with the value active set to 1 under the same "tenant", the child include is ignoring the "user_id" that we indicated in the parent.
Am I right to think this is related to my composite primary key? How to fix this in the most elegant manner?