Perhaps I don't see the problem but what is preventing you from creating the second inverse relationship?
Op 10 jul 2014, om 22:00 heeft William Squires het volgende geschreven: > I'm trying to convert the following. I have two tables in a database, > "TransactionEntry", and "ReasonCode". A "TransactionEntry" record is just a > posting from a POS (Point-of-Sale) terminal, and has these fields (of > interest): > > Table (TransactionEntry) > ID As Int32 > PrimaryReasonCode As Int32 // both of these link to <ReasonCode>.ID > SecondaryReasonCode As Int32 > ... > > and a "ReasonCode" record is used when a certain types of transactions occur, > such as POSItemReturned, POSItemVoided, POSCommError, and a few others. > > Table (ReasonCode) > ID As Int32 > Description As Varchar(50) > ReasonCode As Int16 // just an enum > ... > > All would be good and well if the TransactionEntry table had only one > reference (.PrimaryReasonCode) to the ReasonCode table, but some transactions > (such as a voided item) require the manager to fill in both the primary and > secondary reason codes. I can create the entities, and replace the Int32 > record numbers/IDs with a relationship. > I create the relationship in entity "TransactionEntry" and set it to > "ReasonCode", leaving the inverse relationship to "none" for now. I then > create an inverse relationship in entity "ReasonCode" to refer back to > "TransactionEntry". Now I can create the inverse relationships in both > directions. 1:1 for TransactionEntry -> ReasonCode, and 1:many for ReasonCode > -> TransactionEntry. All okay so far. > Primary ReasonCode records (entities) are re-used to save memory, and the > .Description fields are pre-set to values such as, "return item", "wrong key > hit", "cc reader not working", etc... Secondary ReasonCode entities are > (usually) created on-demand from the POS terminal when the manager logs in. A > few are re-used, but mostly new entities are created. The problem now comes > when I try to create the same relationships from TransactionEntry entities to > ReasonCode entities for the secondary reason code records (entities), since > it won't let me make both inverse relationships 1:many from ReasonCode back > to TransactionEntry. > Is this a limitation of CoreData? Or is there a way around this? Can I > ignore Xcode's warnings about not having inverse relationships, and simply > set the inverse relationships from the TransactionEntry entity(ies) to the > ReasonCode Entity to "none", and simply get rid of the inverse relationships > in the ReasonCode entity? > Please help! :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) > > Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. > Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/willeke2007%40gmail.com > > This email sent to willeke2...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
