Login to bookmark this video
Buy Access to Course

Embedded Write


Share this awesome video!


Keep on Learning!

With a Subscription, click any sentence in the script to jump to that part of the video!

Login Subscribe

Here's an interesting question: if we fetch a single CheeseListing, we can see that the username comes through on the owner property. And obviously, if we, edit a specific CheeseListing, we can totally change the owner to a different owner. Let's actually try this: let's just set owner to /api/users/2. Execute and... yep! It updated!

That's great, and it works pretty much like a normal, scalar property. But... looking back at the results from the GET operation... here it is, if we can read the username property off of the related owner, instead of changing the owner entirely, could we update the current owner's username while updating a CheeseListing?

It's kind of a weird example, but editing data through an embedded relation is possible... and, at the very least, it's an awesome way to really understand how the serializer works.

Trying to Update the Embedded owner

Anyways... let's just try it! Instead of setting owner to an IRI, set it to an object and try to update the username to cultured_cheese_head. Go, go, go!

And... it doesn't work:

Nested documents for attribute "owner" are not allowed. Use IRIs instead.

So... is this possible, or not?

Well, the whole reason that username is embedded when serializing a CheeseListing is that, above username, we've added the cheese_listing:item:get group, which is one of the groups that's used in the "get" item operation.

The same logic is used when writing a field, or, denormalizing it. If we want username to be writable while denormalizing a CheeseListing, we need to put it in a group that's used during denormalization. In this case, that's cheese_listing:write.

Copy that and paste it above username.

186 lines | src/Entity/User.php
// ... lines 1 - 22
class User implements UserInterface
// ... lines 25 - 51
// ... line 53
* @Groups({"user:read", "user:write", "cheese_listing:item:get", "cheese_listing:write"})
// ... line 55
private $username;
// ... lines 58 - 184

As soon as we do that - because the owner property already has this group - the embedded username property can be written! Let's go back and try it: we're still trying to pass an object with username. Execute!

Sending New Objects vs References in JSON

And... oh... it still doesn't work! But the error is fascinating!

A new entity was found through the relationship CheeseListing.owner that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity User.

If you've been around Doctrine for awhile, you might recognize this strange error. Ignoring API Platform for a moment, it means that something created a totally new User object, set it onto the CheeseListing.owner property and then tried to save. But because nobody ever called $entityManager->persist() on the new User object, Doctrine panics!

So... yep! Instead of querying for the existing owner and updating it, API Platform took our data and used it to create a totally new User object! That's not what we wanted at all! How can we tell it to update the existing User object instead?

Here's the answer, or really, here's the simple rule: if we send an array of data, or really, an "object" in JSON, API Platform assumes that this is a new object and so... creates a new object. If you want to signal that you instead want to update an existing object, just add the @id property. Set it to /api/users/2. Thanks to this, API Platform will query for that user and modify it.

Let's try it again. It works! Well... it probably worked - it looks successful, but we can't see the username here. Scroll down and look for the user with id 2.

There it is!

Creating new Users?

So, we now know that, when updating... or really creating... a CheeseListing, we can send embedded owner data and signal to API Platform that it should update an existing owner via the @id property.

And when we don't add @id, it tries to create a new User object... which didn't work because of that persist error. But, we can totally fix that problem with a cascade persist... which I'll show in a few minutes to solve a different problem.

So wait... does this mean that, in theory, we could create a brand new User while editing a CheeseListing? The answer is.... yes! Well... almost. There are 2 things preventing it right now: first, the missing cascade persist, which gave us that big Doctrine error. And second, on User, we would also need to expose the $password and $email fields because these are both required in the database. When you start making embedded things writeable, it honestly adds complexity. Make sure you keep track of what and what is not possible in your API. I don't want users to be created accidentally while updating a CheeseListing, so this is perfect.

Embedded Validation

But, there is one weird thing remaining. Set username to an empty string. That shouldn't work because we have a @NotBlank() above $username.

Try to update anyways. Oh, of course! I get the cascade 500 error - let me put the @id property back on. Try it again.

Woh! A 200 status code! It looks like it worked! Go down and fetch this user... with id=2. They have no username! Gasp!

This... is a bit of a gotcha. When we modify the CheeseListing, the validation rules are executed: @Assert\NotBlank(), @Assert\Length(), etc. But when the validator sees the embedded owner object, it does not continue down into that object to validate it. That's usually what we want: if we were only updating a CheeseListing, why should it also try to validate a related User object that we didn't even modify? It shouldn't!

But when you're doing embedded object updates like we are, that changes: we do want validation to continue down into this object. To force that, above the owner property, add @Assert\Valid().

199 lines | src/Entity/CheeseListing.php
// ... lines 1 - 39
class CheeseListing
// ... lines 42 - 86
// ... lines 88 - 90
* @Assert\Valid()
private $owner;
// ... lines 94 - 197

Ok, go back, and... try our edit endpoint again. Execute. Got it!

owner.username: This value should not be blank

Nice! Let's go back and give this a valid username... just so we don't have a bad user sitting in our database. Perfect!

Being able to make modifications on embedded properties is pretty cool... but it does add complexity. Do it if you need it, but also remember that we can update a CheeseListing and a User more simply by making two requests to two endpoints.

Next, let's get even crazier and talking about updating collections: what happens if we start to try to modify the cheeseListings property directly on a User?