I have a working web application (an end point) containing a few methods and connected to two tables in sql server. This application is fully implemented from scratch by myself in an ashx file and does not follow any new or old architecture, simply some methods in ashx file that are remotely called and handle requirements of client. There are shared DLLs among client and server for data handling.
For some reasons I want to upgrade client side to Dot Net core, consequently common DLL needs to be upgraded and finally the end point.
Now I'm facing the problem that EF Core only supports code first, but there are ways for scaffolding . I started with Microsoft tutorials. Then I see There are certain ways for migrating and scaffolding existing database, but I got stuck for hours in first step of using command "dotnet ef dbcontext scaffold "Data Source=..." . Then usually tutorial materials get combined with other technologies like asp.net core very fast, I need to read tons of technologies to do a simple task.
I'm worried I'm going the wrong way. there are only two tables and I can implement table structure by hand. Isn't there any sample code that I can modify it's table definitions and I can restart my project soon? If things are so hard, I will omit EF from my project and redefine the whole end point logic by text sql queries.
I can implement table structure by hand.
Great. Simply create a DbContext subtype that has a DbSet for each of your entities. The only thing scaffolding does is save you time.
Here's a complete example for SQL Server:
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<Order> Orders { get; } = new HashSet<Order>();
}
public class Order
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
public Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class Db : DbContext
{
string connectionString = "Server=localhost; database=efcore5test; integrated security = true;TrustServerCertificate=true;";
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
public DbSet<Order> Orders{ get; set; }
public Db(string connectionString) : base()
{
this.connectionString = connectionString;
}
public Db() : base()
{
this.Database.SetCommandTimeout(180);
}
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
{
var constr = this.connectionString;
optionsBuilder.LogTo(Console.WriteLine);
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(constr, o => o.UseRelationalNulls().CommandTimeout(180).UseNetTopologySuite());
base.OnConfiguring(optionsBuilder);
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Order>().HasKey(o => new { o.CustomerId, o.Id });
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
}
Related
Following code generates only single table "CertificateEvent".
How do I achieve TPT inheritance in EF Core 2.0?
public abstract class CertificateEvent {
public int CertificateEventId { get; set; }
}
public class Assignment : CertificateEvent {...}
public class Assessment : CertificateEvent {...}
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public MyDbContext(DbContextOptions<MyDbContext> options) : base(options)
{
}
public DbSet<Assessment> AssessorAssessments { get; set; }
public DbSet<Assignment> AssessorAssignments { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<CertificateEvent>().ToTable(nameof(CertificateEvent));
modelBuilder.Entity<Assessment>().ToTable(nameof(Assessment));
modelBuilder.Entity<Assignment>().ToTable(nameof(Assignment));
}
}
class MyDesignTimeDbContextFactory : IDesignTimeDbContextFactory<MyDbContext>
{
public MyDbContext CreateDbContext(string[] args)
{
var builder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<MyDbContext>();
builder.UseSqlServer("Server=(local);Database=Test;Trusted_Connection=True;MultipleActiveResultSets=true");
return new MyDbContext(builder.Options);
}
}
I've also tried dotnet ef migrations add Inheritance, but it did not created TPT inheritance in the database
TPT is not in EF Core (yet). See
The feeling from our team is that TPT is generally an anti-pattern and
results in significant performance issues later on. While enabling it
may make some folks "happier" to start with it ultimately just leads
to issues. We are willing to consider it though, so we're leaving this
open and will consider it based on the feedback we get.
https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFrameworkCore/issues/2266
I am absolutely stumped in trying to figure out how to implement a bi-directional 1..n relationship in Entity Framework using Code First. For example, a team (represented by a Team entity) has a coach and a manager (both represented by a Person entity). So, my Team model could be as follows:
public class Team
{
public Team()
{
Manager = new Person();
Coach = new Person();
}
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int TeamID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Manager")]
public int ManagerID { get; set; }
public virtual Person Manager { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Coach")]
public int CoachID { get; set; }
public virtual Person Coach { get; set; }
}
I can implement one-way navigation by implementing the Person Entity as follows:
public class Person
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and the fluent API:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Team>()
.HasRequired(t => t.Manager);
modelBuilder.Entity<Team>()
.HasRequired(t => t.Coach);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
However, while that allows me to navigate from the Team entity to the related Coach and Manager (both instances of Person), it doesn't allow me to directly navigate from the Coach or Manager to the related Team. So, to implement 2-way navigation, I modified the Person entity as follows:
public class Person
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Team")]
public int TeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Team { get; set; }
}
While that builds ok, I get the following runtime error when I try to save to the database:
System.Data.Entity.Core.UpdateException
InnerException: Unable to determine a valid ordering for dependent operations. Dependencies may exist due to foreign key constraints, model requirements, or store-generated values.
So, to specify the ordering between the entities, I tried to modify the fluent API by adding the "WithRequiredPricipal" as follows:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Team>()
.HasRequired(t => t.Manager)
.WithRequiredPrincipal(t => t.Team);
modelBuilder.Entity<Team>()
.HasRequired(t => t.Coach)
.WithRequiredPrincipal(t => t.Team);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
However, when I attempt to execute "add-migration" in the Package Manager Console, I get the following error:
System.InvalidOperationException: The navigation property 'Team' declared on type 'RelatedEntities.Models.Person' has been configured with conflicting foreign keys.
What I'm attempting to achieve seems like a straightforward requirement but I've done heaps of searching for a solution without yet finding an answer. Am I missing something in the fluent API or the annotations?
(I don't want to implement a workaround, such as implementing separate models for Coach and Manager because a team may have numerous other roles (eg, Assistant Coach, Public Relations Manager, etc). I would want each to simply be an instance of a Person entity.)
You didn't define your foreign key constraints.
.HasRequired(t => t.Manager)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(t => t.ManagerId)
As a side note. If your manager was managing multiple teams the WithMany would be .WithMany(m => m.Teams) and your manager model would need something like this:
private ICollection<Team> _teams
public ICollection<Team> Teams
{
get { return _teams ?? (teams = new List<Team>()); }
protected set { _teams = value; }
}
Sorry for formatting. On my phone. Good luck.
Ok, I can now answer my own question in case anyone else encounters the same problem.
Firstly, as I mention in my comment above, the problem that I described in my question turns out to be a recognized shortcoming in Entity Framework that the EF Triage Team has flagged to be addressed in a future release of EF.
In the meantime, the workaround that has been suggested by a number of contributors in response to questions about how to implement circular dependencies in EF (which is what my example above is trying to do) is to do it in stages as follows:
Create the principal entity
Call SaveChanges() on DbContext
Create the dependent entity and set the foreign key before calling SaveChanges() again (at some subsequent point)
So, using the Team example in my original question above, instead of creating the dependent Manager and Coach entities in the Team constructor, the first change was to make the Team's foreign keys to the Coach and Manager optional (instead of required), so that the Team could be instantiated without the Coach and Manager, and then call SaveChanges():
Team team = Teams.Add(new Team());
SaveChanges();
After that, I then create the dependent Manager and Coach entities and set their foreign keys to the ID of the Team instance:
team.Manager = new Person();
team.Manager.TeamID = team.TeamID;
team.Coach = new Person();
team.Coach.TeamID = team.TeamID;
At any time after that, SaveChanges() can be called without causing a runtime error as previously.
When this issue is addressed in a future release of EF, it should be possible to create the principal and dependent entities without having to call SaveChanges() in between.
I want to use EF behind my WCF service to fetch data and display it to the client. I need the following suggestions:
Do I need to have the same interface for all the views (e.g. students, teachers etc.) or do I need to have a different interface and service for every table (or view)
Do I need to generate the database calls within my service (.svc) or some other architecture is preferred?
public Student[] GetAllStudents()
{
//database generation code here
}
How can I use EF code-first approach to generate database. I know that for an MVC app, you need to set the initializer in Global.asax or in web.config but I am not sure how it's called in this case. My model looks like this:
[DataContract]
public class Student
{
[DataMember]
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Type { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Subject { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Description { get; set; }
}
What you really should do is break up your system in to more separate layers. Instead of having a WCF call that directly queries the database, create a "buisness logic" layer that translates the information that the WCF call provides you to what the EF call needs to know. This is called a N-Tier application
public class SchoolAPI : ISchoolAPI
{
private DataAccessLayer _dal = new DataAccessLayer();
public Student[] GetAllStudents()
{
return _dal.GetStudents(null, null);
}
public Student[] GetAllScienceStudents()
{
return _dal.GetStudents(null, DataAccessLayer.ScienceStudentType);
}
}
private class DataAccessLayer
{
public static readonly ScienceStudentType = //...
public Student[] GetStudents(string subject, string type)
{
using(var ctx = new SchoolContext())
{
IQueryable<Student> studentQuery = ctx.Students;
if(subject != null)
studentQuery = studentQuery.Where(s=>s.Subject == subject);
if(type != null)
studentQuery = studentQuery.Where(s=>s.Type == type);
return studentQuery.ToArray();
}
}
}
The caller of the WCF call does not need to know what the string ScienceStudentType is, all it cares about is that it gets the science students. By seperating the business logic from the database call the caller of your service no longer needs to know.
For EF it will initialize on the first time the framework goes out to "touch" the database and detects that it is not there if it is set up to do so. This is done in the constructor of SchoolContext but is getting a little too broad for this answer. I recommend finding a tutorial on EF and get it working in a simple test enviorment without WCF (maybe a simple console app that just calls GetStudents() then move in in to a WCF environment.
I have the following Entity class definition:
[Table("Users")]
public class WebUser
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Client> Clients { get; set; }
// more properties...
}
Notice that table name is different than the class name. I also have a ClientUsers table which is a many-to-many mapping for clients and users. Problem is, when I try to access the webUser.Clients property I get the following exception:
"Invalid object name 'dbo.ClientWebUsers'."
Looks like Entity Framework is trying to guess the name of the third table, but it apparently was not smart enough to take into account the table attribute that I have there. How can I tell EF that it is ClientUsers and not ClientWebUsers? Also what rule does it follow to know which table name comes first and which one comes second in the new table name? I think it's not alphabetical order.
I'm using EF 5.0. Thanks!
From the looks of things you're using Code First, so I'll answer accordingly. If this is incorrect, please let me know.
I believe the convention being used to determine the name of the many-to-many table is determined by the order in which they occur as DbSet properties in your SomeContext : DbContext class.
As for forcing EntityFramework to name your table whatever you like, you can use the Fluent API in the OnModelCreating method of your SomeContext : DbContext class as follows:
public class DatabaseContext : DbContext
{
public DatabaseContext()
: base("SomeDB")
{
}
public DbSet<WebUser> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<Client> Clients { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<WebUser>().HasMany(c => c.Clients)
.WithMany(p => p.WebUsers).Map(
m =>
{
m.MapLeftKey("ClientId");
m.MapRightKey("UserId");
m.ToTable("ClientUsers");
});
}
}
This assumes your classes are something like the following:
[Table("Users")]
public class WebUser
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Client> Clients { get; set; }
// more properties...
}
public class Client
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public ICollection<WebUser> WebUsers { get; set; }
// more properties
}
Finally, here's an integration test (NUnit) demonstrating the functionality working. You may need to drop your database before running it as Code First should want to update/migrate/recreate it.
[TestFixture]
public class Test
{
[Test]
public void UseDB()
{
var db = new DatabaseContext();
db.Users.Add(new WebUser { Clients = new List<Client> { new Client() } });
db.SaveChanges();
var webUser = db.Users.First();
var client = webUser.Clients.FirstOrDefault();
Assert.NotNull(client);
}
}
Edit: Link to relevant documentation for the Fluent API
Rowan's answer (adding here for reference):
Here is the information on how to configure a many-to-many table (including specifying the table name). The code you are after is something like:
modelBuilder.Entity<WebUser>()
.HasMany(u => u.Clients)
.WithMany(c => c.WebUsers)
.Map(m => m.ToTable("ClientUsers");
~Rowan
I googled/searched for an answer here in SO, but didn't find anything, specially specific for model-first approach.
I am just starting with creation of a new model for my new database and want to organize the entities for tables that logically belong to different scopes by having multiple schemas. I am using .NET-4.5
thanks in advance.
imagine that you have these two classes (Models):
public class Order
{
}
public class Book
{
}
now in entity framework code first, you can implement the table in schema like this:
public class ContextClass : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Order>().ToTable("Order", schemaName: "Orders");
modelBuilder.Entity<Book>().ToTable("Book", schemaName: "Books");
}
public DbSet<Book> Customers { get; set; }
public DbSet<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}