EF Query pulls null when dbase shows populated field - entity-framework

I've got an issue with EF Core in which I loop through a list of objects and create related elements in another list. As I process the first object everything is great, it is added to the list properly and looks great when we pull the information from the database.
At the start of the code for processing each object, I grab more detailed information from the database about that object (it's related objects and such). When the query executes for the second object information in another object changes. It changes a foreign key to be null for the first object instead of the proper value. If I look in the database as that occurs, the foreign key is set properly. This change in the foreign key shown in the query causes it to show as dirty in the context.
Therefore, when we finish processing the second object and make an update to the database, the system commits the (now) null foreign key to the database. This causes all sorts of issues, as you would expect.
partial object definition below
public partial class CommandType
{
public int? FkATSId { get; set; }
public virtual ATST FkATS { get; set; }
}
public partial class ATST
{
public virtual ICollection<FAT> FAT{ get; set; }
}
public partial class FAT
{
public int? FkDTRTId{ get; set; }
public virtual DTRT FkDTRT { get; set; }
}
public partial class DTRT
{
public int? FkFDTid{ get; set; }
public virtual FDT FkFDT{ get; set; }
}
public partial class FDT
{
...
}
The value that gets comes back as a change to null is FkFDTid in the DTRT.
if we are processing 5 of the items, 4 will end up with a null id and the last one will have the proper foreign key. If we processed 10, 9 would have the bad id and the last one would be good.
If I go through the code in the debugger and keep an eye on the context directly, the value does not come back from the query as null and so things work fine. But, only if I keep the context open in the locals tab of VS.
Does anyone have any ideas?

It turns out the issue was a discrepancy between the database and the entity framework context. The database for one of the items had the foreign key as not unique, but the context, for some reason, had it as unique.
We were able to store values into the database but if we queried the database and brought more than one record that had the same foreign key value, EF would think to itself: This can't be, that foreign key must be unique. I'll set the first one I grabbed to be null. Voila, they're not unique. Oh, because I changed that foreign key, the record is now dirty and will be committed to the database when we do a save changes.
The takeaway from this: if you see values that are different from what is stored in the database after you query the database, check foreign key and uniqueness constraints.

Related

Entity Framework - Database generated identity is not populated after save if it is not the key of the entity

I have a model like
public class MyEntity
{
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Required]
public int Id { get; set; } // Id
[Required]
[Key]
public System.Guid GUID { get; set; }
}
The GUID property is the PK by design, but I have a db generated Id property that I use within my code to determine if the object is a new object that hasn't been saved yet.
When I save this object with Entity Framework, the Id property does not get back populated as normally happens for database generated properties (although usually these are keys). I have to query the DB for the object and grab the ID manually. It seems EF only back populates Key properties on SaveChanges.
Is there any way to get EF to automatically populate the Id property here? Setting it as the Key is not an option, I have dozens of tables that are FK'd to the GUID property and for good reason.
EDIT: I have discovered that the package https://entityframework-extensions.net/ is handling my save changes. If I use the standard EF savechanges it works, but not with the extensions version.
Disclaimer: I'm the owner of Entity Framework Extensions
It was indeed an issue in our library. This scenario was not yet supported for EF6.
However, starting from the v4.0.50, it should now work as expected.

Why is Entity Framework looking for the wrong foreign key column?

I've seen various questions on related topics, which seem like they would address my issue, but nothing I try seems to help.
I have an EF (6.1.3) model of an existing DB, which has been working fine. I've just added an additional column to a table, which represents a new relationship. Perhaps relevantly, the relationship is the second one between the two tables - the original Location is now joined by ActualDirectSite, both of them relating the Uniform and Location tables.
The moment I added the two new properties, ActualDirectSiteID and ActualDirectSite, my SELECT queries started failing with the error "Invalid column name 'Location_ID'". It's true that that column doesn't exist, but I don't see why EF is looking for it - it was happy before, but something has made it think the column name should be different. The failing name makes me think it's the original Location which is somehow no longer working.
Here's the Entity in question:
public partial class Uniform
{
public int ID { get; set; }
[Column("LocationID")]
public int? LocationID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("LocationID")]
public virtual Location Location { get; set; }
public int? ActualDirectSiteID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ActualDirectSiteID")]
public virtual Location ActualDirectSite { get; set; }
}
And my (shortened) table def:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Uniforms](
[ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[LocationID] [int] NULL,
[ActualDirectSiteID] [int] NULL)
The obvious solution to relying on convention causing incorrect assumptions about column names is to specify them explicitly, and so I've tried using Column annotations, and also to make sure that the ID and navigation properties know about each other using ForeignKey, but no dice. Any ideas?
EDIT: added missing LocationID field (already present in full code)
EDIT2: to be clear, before I added ActualDirectSiteID to the Entity it all worked fine, with no annotations required. I've just had another look at the generated SQL, and it seems like the Location_ID reference corresponds to the ActualDirectSite property:
//[Extent1] is "Uniform"
... , [Extent1].[LocationID] AS [LocationID], [Extent1].[ActualDirectSiteID] AS [ActualDirectSiteID], [Extent1].[Location_ID] AS [Location_ID], //...[Extent4] begins
EDIT3: I didn't include any of my Location entity, here it is:
[Table("Location")]
public partial class Location
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Uniform> Uniforms { get; set; }
}
As noted in the comments: with multiple navigation properties to the same table, EF will get confused as to which navigation property refers to which inverse navigation property and ignore the FK mapping of those. A similar issue I stumbled across some time ago can be found in this SO question.
There are only two ways (I know of) to fix this issue:
Ignore at least all but one of the navigation properties with [NotMapped] or .Ignore() or
Add a inverse navigation property to (at least) all but one navigation properties to this table and adjust the mapping accordingly.
Actually, this behavior smells like a bug on EF side (from a DB point of view, I don't see the problem there), but the workaround is simple enough.
By convention every foreign key declaration include 2 properties.
If you create link to Location entity, then you must add property with name - LocationId type int. That is why you got an error
ForeignKey annotation is used to specify the name of used int id property for link (if you plan to use different name)
You can declare foreign key only like here:
public Location Location {get; set;}
public int LocationId {get; set;}
Or like here:
[ForeignKey("CustomIdProperty")]
public Location Location {get; set;}
public int CustomIdProperty {get; set;}
(Pardon me for possible typos - writting from phone)

key by navigation property using annotation (entity framework)

I have a class as
public class fooClass
{
[Key]
public virtual fooRefClass staff { get; set; }
public Int64 fooProp1{ get; set; }
public DateTime fooProp2{ get; set; }
}
when i do the migration it give me error as "no key defined" but i had added the key attonation already .My intention is to make the referenced entity "fooRefClass " as primary key as well as foreign key, i know there is a way by mentioning the attribute id of the referenced entity and writing the foreign-key annotate over there, but i want to deal with entity directly ,rather than id only, how can i attain this functionality ,please help me with the issue.
Since there seems to be confusion, I decided to write an answer as well.
With the class you defined, EF would expect a table like
fooClass(bigint fooRefClass_Id, bigint fooProp1, datetime fooProp2);
... which is not valid, because this has no key column (the key annotation on your navigation property does nothing, because you see, it won't appear in the table... it will just tell EF there is a relationship to this table, and because you didn't provide a FK, it creates one to create this relationship). You also can't create this relationship yourself in your current model, because you don't even have a FK... how would you access a property you know nothing about, just that it will be created at some point (usually upon model creating with first accessing the database).
You have to tell EF you want the property, that will be created, to also be a key, not only a foreign key. You can do this by simply creating the property yourself and telling EF you want to use this, for example (I'm not too familiar with Data Annotations, I usually use Fluent API, so please excuse maybe occuring errors)
[Key, Foreign Key(fooRefClass)]
public Int64 StaffId {get; set;}

Fixing Model/Column mapping in Code First/EF6

First of all, I shot myself in the foot. I'm building a test application (this is work related, not school btw.) I have a model with a foreign key property
Home_TeamId
That mapped to a column called
Home_TeamId in my database. Everything was happy until I refactored everything to use ID instead of Id. I didn't notice the Migration added a column called Home_TeamID1 and is storing the data there instead of Home_TeamId (where I want it.)
So what I would like to do is:
Drop the column Home_TeamID1 (No problem, I can do that.)
Rename Home_TeamId to Home_TeamID. (No problem, I can do that.)
Tell EF to write the data to the original column.
I've read how to use database mappings in the DbContext, but that isn't what I'm trying to do either (i.e., this is a one-time thing, not something I need to do every time the app runs.) (BTW, there is no .edmx file either.)
So that's the question -- how do I tell EF to write the Home_TeamID field in the domain model to the Home_TeamID column in the table?
I should add that I've done another migration since then so it's not (necessarily) so easy as to just target back one revision.
Edit 1:
EF was writing the same Team ID to both the Home_TeamID and Home_TeamID1 columns, although it had made the ..ID1 file the foreign key.
I've looked everywhere on my project for the text "ID1" (both as text and as binary Unicode) and the only places it shows up are in the *_migration.cs files.
In the meantime, I've tried Steps 1 and 2 above. And now (as expected) I get:
InnerException: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException HResult=-2146232060
Message=Invalid column name 'Home_TeamID1'.
Invalid column name 'Visitors_TeamID1'.
Edit 2:
I tried this:
Create a brand new (blank database)
Excluded all the .cs files in the Migrations from the project
add-migration InitialRecreate
Looked in the resulting .cs file and removed any reference to ID1. (In fact, there were two...where did they come from??)
Looked in the project and found 0 references to ID1.
Update-database
Ran the project
Invalid column name 'Home_TeamID1'.
So obviously the problem isn't the database itself.
It was a case of the software outsmarting the human. In my "higher-level" GameSummary class, I had:
public int GameSummaryID { get; set; }
public int Home_TeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Home { get; set; }
public int Visitors_TeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Visitors { get; set; }
And in the Team class I had:
public int TeamID { get; set; }
So EF was creating two columns, one for Home_TeamID (the field Home_TeamID in the GameSummary class) and one for Home_TeamID (the foreign key for the navigation property that pointed to the Team object). The solution:
public int GameSummaryID { get; set; }
public int HomeTeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Home { get; set; }
public int VisitorsTeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Visitors { get; set; }

EF code-first foreign key

I have a class Question
CompareItems store CurrentQuestion-to-OtherQuestion compare information.
public class Question
{
public virtual ICollection<QuestionMark> CompareItems { get; set; }
}
public class QuestionMark
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Question { get; set; } //Store ID of OtherQuestion
public decimal Mark { get; set; }
}
When I delete some question A I need that all QuestionMark where QuestionMark.Question == A.Id also deleted, because it's no need to have compare information if question not exist. How it possible to do that without making QuestionMark.Question an entity? Maybe EF have some rule in Fluent-API to set that QuestionMark.Question is foreign key on Question entity?
I don't wont to make QuestionMark.Question as entity because it will need to change current solution lot - is a first. Also, question is a quite heavy entity, and to load it multiple time to assign value or delete or something else will be press on performance
I think it's possible to change app to use Entities instead of id, because EF use lazy loading by default and it will not caused performance problems. And I think that using just id instead of entity possible with some fluent API settings or attribute.
If you do not want to make a navigational property Question in QuestionMark class then you need to manually create a foreign key with "cascade delete". Then when every a question is deleted the database will delete the related QuestionMark records.
However this approach has a problem with EF. Because EF does not know there is a "cascade delete" relationship among these entities. So there can be inconsistencies within the locally tracked entities in EF.
You have not given a reason as to why you do not want to map the relationship in EF but I highly advice you against it.