I want to add two properties from the city model:
after migration this error shows up:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation
'City.Orders' of type 'ICollection'. Either manually configure
the relationship, or ignore this property using the '[NotMapped]'
attribute or by using 'EntityTypeBuilder.Ignore' in 'OnModelCreating'.
here is my code :
public class Order
{
public virtual City FromCity { get; set; }
public virtual City ToCity { get; set; }
}
public class City
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
I suppose your model is more complicated than just FromCity and ToCity because I don't think it's a good idea to store such information in a different table. Yet, You can use inheritance in this case.
The table-per-hierarchy (TPH) pattern is used by default to map the inheritance in EF. TPH stores the data for all types in the hierarchy in a single table.
However, for your scenario, you can have a base class that holds all related attributes.
public class CityBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; } = string.Empty;
}
Then suppose you need two entities as per your scenario:
public class FromCity : CityBase
{
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; } = null!;
}
public class ToCity : CityBase
{
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; } = null!;
}
And the order entity:
public class Order
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string OrderTitle { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public virtual FromCity FromCity { get; set; } = null!;
public virtual ToCity ToCity { get; set; } = null!;
}
This approach can solve your problem with a One-to-Many relationship between Orders and FromCity, ToCity as per below diagram:
Related
Let's say I have a bike shops that sell various types of bikes: pro, kids, youth, leisure and any mixture. So I have a table of shops that refers/relates to a table of possible types. Now these shops also host events with the same types: events for pros, kids etc again any mixture. And so I have another table of events that also need to refer/relate to the same table of types:
I need to be able in a single quick query get a list of all bike types for a shop or event.
So I figured I'd have 3 main tables: Shops, Events, BikeTypes and two intermediate to link shops and events to bike types:
And I organized my models as:
public class BikeShop
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string address { get; set; }
public string phone { get; set; }
}
public class BikeEvent
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public DateTime date { get; set; }
public string location { get; set; }
}
public class BikeType
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string code { get; set; }
}
public class ShopBikeTypes
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public BikeShop shop { get; set; }
public BikeType biketype { get; set; }
}
public class EventBikeTypes
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public BikeEvent bikeevent { get; set; }
public BikeType biketype { get; set; }
}
With DataCotext:
public class DataContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<BikeShop> Shops { get; set; }
public DbSet<BikeEvent> Events { get; set; }
public DbSet<BikeType> BikeTypes { get; set; }
public DbSet<ShopBikeTypes> ShopBikeTypes { get; set; }
public DbSet<EventBikeTypes> EventBikeTypes { get; set; }
}
Migration creates correct database structure just as my diagram. Great!
Now how do I make a straight forward query:
get list of all bike types for a shop
get list of all bike types for an event
Is my structure even correct?
Do I need some List<> in the main object models BikeShop and BikeEvent?
EF's include and theninclude seem to require some list?
This feels like such a typical scenario. What's the right way of doing this?
Thank you.
Those are the linq queries that you are asked but when i look at that your class models, i can say they are wrong. U need to define first which relation theyre having. if all of that relation has based on one-to-one, u wont gonna need any List<> in your class models. but if u have one-to-many relation,u gonna need them.
1- get list of all bike types for a shop
return DbContext.Shops
.Include(x>=x.ShopBikeTypes)
.ThenInclude(x=>x.BikeTypes).ToList();
2- get list of all bike types for an event
return DbContext.Events
.Include(x=>x.EventBikeTypes)
.ThenInclude(x=>x.BikeTypes).ToList();
3- Get all data in that relation
return DbContext.BikeTypes
.Include(x>=x.EventBikeTypes)
.ThenInclude(x=>x.Events).AsSplitQuery()
.Include(x=>x.ShopBikeTypes)
.ThenInclude(x>=x.Shops).AsSplitQuery()
.ToList();
it can be a tough query, do not try to use AsNoTracking() because it can cause Cartesian Explosion.
#BerkGarip: thank you for your help. I ended up with this models structure:
public class AShop
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string address { get; set; }
public string phone { get; set; }
public List<AShopType> aTypes { get; set; }
}
public class AEvent
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public DateTime date { get; set; }
public string location { get; set; }
public List<AEventType> aTypes { get; set; }
}
public class AType
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string code { get; set; }
}
public class AShopType
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public AType aType { get; set; }
}
public class AEventType
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public AType aType { get; set; }
}
In order to achieve what I needed using answer from #BerkGarip I figured out that the trick there was to have lists in the 'shop' and 'event' models to the intermediate objects which in turn have a single reference to 'type'. This way database layout is the same and it is many-to-many relationship and I can use 'include' and 'thenInclude' exactly as expected:
return await _context.AShops.Where(x => x.name == "Z")
.Include(x => x.aTypes)
.ThenInclude(y => y.aType)
.ToListAsync();
I have implemented following generic model as base model and two models derived from it and i need one to many relationship. I have used fluent api to create the relationships but i get the error mentioned in the title.
Would you please see if you find any thing wrong in my code.
public abstract class ModelBase<T> : BaseEntity, IModelBase<T>
{
public virtual T Id { get; set; }
}
[Table("VehicleModel", Schema = "Tracker")]
public class VehicleModelModel : ModelBase<int>
{
public string Company { get; set; }
public string ModelName { get; set; }
public byte LiPerKM { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<VehicleModel> Vehicles { get; set; }
[Table("Vehicle", Schema = "Tracker")]
public class VehicleModel : ModelBase<Guid>
{
public string VehicleName { get; set; }
public string LicensePlate { get; set; }
public int VehicleModelId { get; set; }
public virtual VehicleModelModel Model { get; set; }
public virtual TrackerModel Tracker { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual DriverModel Driver { get; set; }
modelBuilder.Entity<VehicleModel>()
.HasRequired<VehicleModelModel>(s => s.Model)
.WithMany(s => s.Vehicles)
.HasForeignKey(s => s.VehicleModelId);
Here I get this error:
entity types 'VehicleModelModel' and 'VehicleModel' cannot share table 'VehicleModels' because they are not in the same type hierarchy or do not have a valid one to one foreign key relationship with matching primary keys between them.
Quite new with LINQ. I am wondering how I would be able to achieve this.
I have the following table classes defined:
public partial class Cars
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string CarName { get; set; }
public long CarModelID { get; set; }
public virtual CarModel CarModel { get; set; }
}
public partial class CarModel
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string ModelName { get; set; }
public long StockID { get; set; }
}
public partial class Stock
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string StockName { get; set; }
}
There's also a defined extension for the class Cars (Cars.extension.cs):
public partial class Cars
{
public List<Stock> StockList { get; set; }
}
I am trying to get all the Cars, CarModel and (List of) Stocks via the following query:
var query = (from cars in Context.Cars.Include("CarModel").Include("StockList")
select cars).FirstOrDefault();
It is giving me an error:
"A Specified Include Path is not Valid. The Entity Type Cars does not declare a Navigation Property with the name 'StockList'"
How would I be constructing my LINQ query such it would include possibly the list of Stocks based on a CarModel based off Cars?
The Include method is adhering to FluentAPI principles, that means further Include() calls are still in the context of the parent entity (Cars) and not in the previously included CarModel.
What you need is:
Cars.Include("CarModel.StockList")
Or
Cars.Include(x => x.CarModel.StockList)
I am using EF 6.1.1.
I am unable to figure out how to create One-to-One relationship between two classes/tables with both entities have their owns PKs. I originally posted question link but could not get much help on it OR i am not able to get it. So, here i am putting my question in simple way.
Appreciate if someone can share thoughts on it.
My Requirement:
I would like create One-To-One relationship between Principle and Dependant with 'Id' from Principle class acts as Foreign Key in dependant class.
Principle Class
public class Student
{
public string FullName {get; set;}
}
Dependant Class
public class StudentReport
{
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
}
Add PKs – EF requires this:
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
}
Note that EF 5 and later supports naming conventions: Id indicates a primary key. Alternately, it also supports the name of the class followed by "Id", so the above keys could have been StudentId for Student and StudentReportId for StudentReport, if you wished.
Add the foreign relation as a navigation property to at least one of the tables – in this case, you stated that StudentReport is the dependent, so let's add it to that one:
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
Again – by naming convention – EF determines that a single Student property on StudentReport indicates that this is a navigational property associated with a foreign key. (By defining only the Student property, but no foreign key property, you are indicating that you don't care what EF names the associated FK ... basically, you're indicating you'll always access the related Student via the property.)
If you did care about the name of the FK property, you could add it:
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
public int StudentId { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
Again – by naming convention – EF determines that StudentId is the FK associated with the Student property because it has the class name, "Student", followed by "Id".
All of this, so far, has been using conventions as defined in Entity Framework Code First Conventions, but Data Annotations are also an option, if you wish:
public class Student
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Student")]
public int StudentId { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
Doing this is actually a good idea, because it makes clearer your intent to other programmers that might not be aware of EF Conventions – but can easily infer them from simply looking at EF Data Annotations – and is still less cumbersome than Fluent API.
UPDATE
I just realized, I left this as a one-to-many, with enforcement of the one-to-one relationship being left to do in the code using this model. To enforce the one-to-one in the model, you could add a navigation property to the Student class going the other way:
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
public StudentReport StudentReport { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
However, that's going to break, because EF doesn't know which entity to insert first on an add. To indicate which is dependent, you have to specific that the dependent class' PK is the FK to the principal class (this enforces one-to-one because – in order for a Student/StudentReport pair to be associated – their Id properties must be the exact same value):
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
public StudentReport StudentReport { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
[ForeignKey("Student")]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
or, using the full set of Data Annotations from earlier:
public class Student
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
public StudentReport StudentReport { get; set; }
}
public class StudentReport
{
[Key, ForeignKey("Student")]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string RollNumber { get; set; }
public string StudentType { get; set; }
public Student Student { get; set; }
}
I've the following situation I try to solve : I've 2 tables, a Course table with some fields and a CourseDescription table which is optional (so Course may have a CourseDescription but CourseDescription must have a Course). I'm trying to set this up. So far, here's what I have :
public class Course
{
[Key, Column("Key_Course")]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual CourseDescription CourseDescription { get; set; }
}
public class CourseDescription
{
[Key, ForeignKey("Course")]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string PreRequis { get; set; }
public int CoursesID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CoursesID")]
public Course Course { get; set; }
}
This "works" meaning that EF doesn't complains about my model but the relation is not properly done because EF associate the PK of CourseDescription with the PK of Course. In my database, this is not the case (ex : CourseDescription.ID=1 is associated with CourseDescription.CoursesID=3, not 1).
Is there a way to fix that with data annotation ? I know I can use the fluent API but I don't want to override the model building just for that (unless there's no other way).
Thanks
Well, I think you have two choices:
Configure an one to many relationship
If you want to map the FK of the relationship between Course and CourseDescription, and you don't want to declare that FK property as Key of the CourseDescription entity, then, you don't have other choice that configure an one-to-many relationship. In that case your model would be like this:
public class Course
{
[Key, Column("Key_Course")]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<CourseDescription> CourseDescriptions { get; set;}
}
public class CourseDescription
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string PreRequis { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Course")]
public int CourseID { get; set; }
public Course Course { get; set; }
}
Configure an one-to-one relationship but not map the FK of the
relationship
The only way that EF lets you map the FK in an one-to-one relationship is when the FK is declared as a PK too, so if you want to have diferent Ids in both entities and you want to stablish an one-to-one relationship, then you could do something like this:
public class Course
{
[Key, Column("Key_Course")]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public CourseDescription CourseDescription { get; set;}
}
public class CourseDescription
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string PreRequis { get; set; }
[Required]
public Course Course { get; set; }
}
And work with the navigations properties.
It looks like you should not use ForeignKey attribute for ID property of CourseDescription class as you don't want to have an association between primary keys. Try to remove it.
Edit: It looks like I misunderstood the question previous time.
You can have your CourseDescription this way.
public class CourseDescription
{
[Key, ForeignKey("Course")]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string PreRequis { get; set; }
public Course Course { get; set; }
}
In this case you don't need to have CoursesID field. Entities will be connected by primary keys.