I have an entity with its primary key made up from two columns.
This is the model class:
public class DemoEntity
{
public Guid EntityId {get;set;} // randomly generated primary key
public int Id {get;set;}. //auto increment identity primary key
public string Description {get;set;}
}
I want to update couple of entities which I will be receiving from client. Client doesn't get EntityId, so in payload we won't have it.
Payload will look like this:
[
{
"id": 1,
"description": "Updating entity with I'd =1"
}
]
Above payload can have maximum 6 object.
In order to update the database, I am using this code:
[HttpPut]
public Task<ActionResult> Update([FromBody] List<DemoEntity> entities)
{
_dbContext.UpdateRange(entities);
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
return No content();
}
This code is throwing an error while saving changes to the database:
An error occurred while saving the entity changes. See the inner exception for details.
Cannot insert non-DEFAULT value into column "id".
Column "id" is an identity column defined as GENERATED ALWAYS.
This error is getting fixed if I set EntityId. But we don't want to expose the EntityId to the client.
Is there any way to specify that which primary key EF core should use internally while updating the entity in case there are multiple primary keys are present?
Related
I am using EF Core and I have a problem when I save a new entity.
Here is my model class
[Column("Id")]
public int ID { get; set; }
[Required]
[Column("Pratica", TypeName = "varchar(10)")]
public string PRATICA { get; set; }
[Column("Anno")]
public int ANNO { get; set; }
[Required]
[Column("Variante", TypeName = "varchar(2)")]
public string VARIANTE { get; set; }
Here I create and initialize a new PRAT object:
var prat = new PRAT();
prat.PRATICA = "Prova";
prat.ANNO = 2000;
prat.VARIANTE = "0";
context.PRAT.Add(prat);
context.SaveChangesAsync();
Just after the context.PRAT.Add(prat) line if I check prat.ID member I get something like -2147482647
After context.SaveChangesAsync I get the error "Cannot insert explicit value for identity column in table 'Prat' when IDENTITY_INSERT is set to OFF"
This is the generated SQL statement:
INSERT INTO [Prat] ([Id], [Anno], [Pratica], [Variante]) VALUES (#p0, #p1, #p2, #p3);
As you can see the Id Field is added to the list of fields, but this field is Identity!
If, before context.SaveChangesAsync() I set
prat.ID = 0
the generated SQL Statement is
INSERT INTO [Prat] ([Anno], [Pratica], [Variante]) VALUES (#p0, #p1, #p2);
And all works fine.
Thank you.
I think you need to configure your model with the DatabaseGenerated attribute, or configure it with fluent api
...
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Column("Id")]
public int ID { get; set; }
...
The primary key property is of type int, by convention EF Core assumes that the database will use the SQL
IDENTITY command to create a unique key when a new row is added. So you must define your database column as identity column.
For anyone still dealing with this, the other answers are insufficient. Primary keys for ints, shorts, guids etc in EF core are automatically generated.
The DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity is for columns that are not primary keys.
The real problem is that somewhere in your code (potentially your database seeder if you have one) is pushing entities with manually entered primary keys.
For example:
_context.Jobs.Add(
new Job()
{
JobId = 1,
Name = "Truck Driver",
},
);
_context.SaveChanges();
Doing so tells ef core that you will be supplying primary keys for that entity and it will not know how to generate them. I am unsure why this is because you would think ef core could just grab the max value primary key and add 1 but I think the PK value generation code under the hood is the same for all primary key datatypes (including guid where max value isn't a thing).
Anyways, remove the code where you are manually inserting primary keys and the Add functionality should work as expected.
My code:
Models.Resource r = new Models.Resource();
r.Name = txtName.Text;
r.ResourceType = resTypes.Find(rt => rt.Name == "Content");
r.ResourceContents.Add(_resourceContent.Find(rc => rc.ID == _resourceContentID));
ctx.Resource.Add(r);
ctx.SaveChanges();
ctx.SaveChanges() causes the error:
Cannot insert explicit value for identity column in table 'Resources' when IDENTITY_INSERT is set to OFF.
Looking at what's being sent to SQL:
ADO.NET:Execute NonQuery "INSERT [dbo].[Resources]([ID], [Name], [Description], [IsOnFile],
[ContentOwnerAlias], [ContentOwnerGroup], [ResourceTypes_ID])
VALUES (#0, #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, NULL)"
My POCO Resource has ID as a Key:
public partial class Resource
{
public Resource()
{
}
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
And my Map code:
public class ResourceMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Resource>
{
public ResourceMap()
{
// Primary Key
this.HasKey(t => t.ID);
How do I tell Entity to not send the Key ID field to the database?
If your PK is generated by the database (like an identity) you have to configure it in your Map.
public class ResourceMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Resource>
{
public ResourceMap()
{
// Primary Key
this.HasKey(t => t.ID);
this.Property(t => t.ID).HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity);
}
}
You do not need the HasKey(t => t.ID) Fluent API mapping or the [Key] Data Attribute because by convention EF will assume that an integer field named ID is the key and is database generated.
As an aside, I'd recommend that when you are not following conventions you should choose one method or the other - otherwise you are repeating yourself and when you want to change something you need to change it in 2 places.
I'm not sure why the field in the database isn't already database generated - maybe when you define the field via the fluent api you have to specify that too. What I do know is that in order to make EF change a key field to be database generated you will need to drop the table.
So - rollback the migration or drop the table / database, then remove the data attribute, remove the fluent mapping and recreate.
This issue is currently on a "backlog" in the entity framework. If you want to vote for it you can do that here: Migrations: does not detect changes to DatabaseGeneratedOption
Other References:
Identity problem in EF
Switching Identity On/Off With A Custom Migration Operation
CREATE TABLE ConfigurationItem
(
OID BIGINT NOT NULL
,ParentItemOID BIGINT
);
ALTER TABLE ConfigurationItem ADD CONSTRAINT PK_CONFIGURATIONITEM PRIMARY KEY (OID);
ALTER TABLE ConfigurationItem ADD CONSTRAINT FK_CONFIGURATIONITEM_PARENTITEMOID FOREIGN KEY (ParentItemOID ) REFERENCES CONFIGURATIONITEM(OID);
Every time fetch data ConfigurationItem I would like to get
parent ConfigurationItem
and List of child ConfigurationItems
and no recursion.
This was the entity created
[Table("ConfigurationItem", Schema = "dbo")]
public partial class ConfigurationItem : TaggableItem
{
public Int64 OID { get; set; }
public Int64? ParentItemOID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentItemOID")]
public ConfigurationItem Parent;
[InverseProperty("ParentItemOID")]
//Not a virtual because it is need to be marshalled via WCF
public List<ConfigurationItem> Children { get; set; }
}
I can't make this to work.
Example following errors happen:
InnerException: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException
HResult=-2146232060
Message=Invalid column name 'ConfigurationItem_OID'.
Source=.Net SqlClient Data Provider
ErrorCode=-2146232060
Class=16
LineNumber=32
Number=207
Procedure=""
Server=localhost
State=1
What would be the correct way to make this work in Entity framework?
I think your original exception stems from the default naming convention used by EF. Either rename the OID property in the ConfigurationItem class to Configuration_OID or use the Column annotation on the OID property to indicate that you want to override the default naming convention for that column, e.g. [Column("OID")].
I have a schema with a self-referential table like this and I haven't found it necessary to use the InverseProperty annotation, so you may be able to just get rid of it.
Given this:
create table Location(
LocationId int identity(1,1) not null primary key,
Address nvarchar(max) not null,
City nvarchar(max) null,
State nvarchar(max) not null,
ZipCode nvarchar(max) not null
);
create table Park(
ParkId int not null primary key references Location(LocationId),
Name nvarchar(max) not null
);
I tried this mapping:
modelBuilder.Entity<Location>();
modelBuilder.Entity<Park>().ToTable("Park");
modelBuilder.Entity<Park>().Property(x => x.LocationId).HasColumnName("ParkId");
Unfortunately that didn't work.
using (var db = new Ef())
{
var park = new Park { Name = "11th Street Park", Address = "801 11th Street", City = "Aledo", State = "TX", ZipCode = "76106" };
db.Set<Location>().Add(park);
db.SaveChanges();
}
It has this error:
The property 'LocationId' is not a declared property on type 'Park'.
Verify that the property has not been explicitly excluded from the
model by using the Ignore method or NotMappedAttribute data
annotation. Make sure that it is a valid primitive property.
How should I map Park entity so its LocationId property fall to ParkId column?
I have this mapping by the way:
public class Location
{
public virtual int LocationId { get; set; }
public virtual string Address { get; set; }
public virtual string City { get; set; }
public virtual string State { get; set; }
public virtual string ZipCode { get; set; }
}
public class Park : Location
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
If it could help, this is possible in EF 4.0 (via designer), just followed the steps in Chapter 2-11 of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes, Problem Solution Approach. Now I'm trying it on code first via EF 4.1
[EDIT]
If I change the ParkId to LocationId, things are ok. However, with designer approach, it is possible to map the LocationId to ParkId of table Park; I want to achieve the same thing with code first
create table Park(
LocationId int not null primary key references Location(LocationId),
Name nvarchar(max) not null
);
As I know (and I tried it multiple times) code first doesn't support this => your derived type should use same column names for primary key.
This problem can be described very simply: Current fluent mapping implementation doesn't allow overriding mapping rules from parent entity => parent entity defines names of primary key columns in all derived entities.
IMO the most probable reason is that it was really designed as code first where you don't have existing database and you do not have to bother with database naming - it was up to EF to define names as it needed. Once DbContext API was released people started to use it with existing database massively. But here comes a problem: Initial use cases didn't count with this so some scenarios which are pretty easily done in EDMX are not possible. This is one of them.
Here is a workaround for this issue:
Create a view for the derived table and map your entity class that view. Rename the key column in your view so that it matches the key column in the base table.
eg:
base table User (UserID, FirstName, LastName)
derived table Manager (ManagerID, DepartmentID)
Entity Framework fails to update Manager as the key column is different!
solution:
create view UserManager
as
select
ManagerID as UserID,
DepartmentID
from Manager
Then map the Manager class to the UserManager view, instead of to the Manager table.
I have following table structure:
Table: Plant
PlantID: Primary Key
PlantName: String
Table: Party
PartyID: Primary Key
PartyName: String
PlantID: link to Plant table
Table: Customer
PartyID: Primary Key, link to Party
CustomerCode: String
I'd like to have Customer entity object with following fields:
PartyID: Primary Key
CustomerCode: String
PartyName: String
PlantName: String
I am having trouble with PlantName field (which is brought from Plant table
I connected Customer to Party and Party to Plant with associations
However I can not connect Customer to Plant with association ( because it does not have one)
I can not add Plant table to mapping, when I do that - I am getting following error:
Error 3024: Problem in Mapping Fragment starting at line 352: Must specify mapping for all key properties (CustomerSet.PartyID) of the EntitySet CustomerSet
Removing Plant association works.
Any hints or directions very appreciated.
You can get these fields by using the reference path on the Entity Object.
To get the PartyName, use this syntax: Customer.Party.PartyName
To get the PlantName, use this syntax: Customer.Party.Plant.PlantName
You can extend the Customer entity by using the public partial class:
public partial class Customer
{
public string PartyName
{
get { return Party.PartyName; }
set { Party.PartyName = value; }
}
public string PlantName
{
get { return Party.Plant.PlantName; }
set { Party.Plant.PlantName = value; }
}
}
After some research, I came across this thread on MSDN that says you can create a read-only entity, which is enough of a downside to not use it alone, but it gets worse. You will also lose the ability to update all of the models dynamically based on the schema of the database.