Should deletes to container objects cascade to contained objects, or should they be blocked? #266
Replies: 4 comments 1 reply
-
|
Currently the DB just gets mad |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Disallow any deletion of a dependent object. If a request to delete an object is made that is a dependent object of one or more other objects then an exception should be thrown indicating that the object is a required element of one or more other objects. If it is associated to another object then we may want to discuss how to handle that-but an association like being listed as a member in a categorical variant or cnv member array may be acceptable even though we might need to remove it, assuming it is not the defining context. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the example you gave, I think you should not be allowed to delete the SequenceLocation, and AnyVar should raise an Exception. For the other way around: If you delete something like VRS Allele, I'd vote in favor of cascading that down and deleting all of its contained and associated objects (e.g., SequenceLocation, Annotations, Mappings, etc.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As an aside, I think that we should a) make sure delete behavior is consistent across VRS objects, mappings, and annotations b) make sure the above IntegrityError is caught somewhere and made more transparent to the client by the time the HTTP response fires |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We've talked about this on a few calls and I think we've settled what we want to be doing |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
if I have a VRS allele in AnyVar that contains a SequenceLocation, what should the behavior be if I try to delete the SequenceLocation?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions