I don't want to give my sql user the permissions to create databases.
Is there any way to create the database manually and then have entity framework create the tables inside it?
I'm certain EF Core is smart enough to handle this case. Just create the database, set your permissions and run the command dotnet ef update-database (assuming you have a valid migration).
Usually, an application (or multiple applications) use the same database from separate DbContext classes, which handle their own bounded context (a logical piece of the whole). That would require being able to recognize that Databases and Tables have already been created, and issue appropriate add and alter commands to the schema.
Related
In one of my projects, I am using an existing SQL Server database. All the database scripts are managed using DBUp and SQL script migrations.
In my application, I am using Entity Framework Core to communicate with this database. When I configure my entities in EF configurations, should I still define functions like IsRequired(), HasMaxLenth() etc.?
I am not using these EF configurations to generate migration scripts; all the migration is outside of EF. I am just using these configurations to communicate with the database.
When I configure my Entities in EF configurations, should I still define functions like IsRequired(), HasMaxLenth() etc.?
Other than table and column name mapping and data type mapping, it's not required, but additional model metadata might be used by front-end components for validation.
In general, yes, you should keep them. Many of these configurations are used throughout EF to make decisions at runtime. For example, some queries can be further optimized if EF knows that a column is never NULL, the max length is used to configure the SQL parameters it sends to the database, and unique constraints are used to sort SQL statements during SaveChanges.
While a few things like constraint names, non-unique indexes, index filters, and sequences aren't currently used at runtime, it's hard to know which ones EF will and won't use, so it's best just to keep them all.
And sometimes, database features like always encrypted on SQL Server, will fail entirely if the mappings aren't precise.
In my asp.net core application, each client has their own database schema.
Hence there are many databases. Sometimes the tables and fields will be different.
I have used Entity Framework core as ORM and we are following Generic Repository pattern.
Is there any option to generate DB Context at run time corresponding to each client?
Thanks
Krishnan
Our team is thinking of utilizing Entity Framework Core code-first to help model the database. We can have both DB projects and EF models, as per article here Database Projects vs. Entity Framework Database Migrations utilizing schema compares, just trying to figure out what will be the source of truth?
Does Entity Framework support all features in SQL Server SSDT Database Projects?
What features does EF Core 2 not support? (eg, does it not support any of following: triggers, views, functions, stored procedures, encryption keys, certificates, db properties (ansi null, quoted identifier), partitions)
I am trying to locate the Microsoft Resource.
tl;dr Database Projects are feature-rich, but database-first. Migrations is code-first, but has a very limited built-in set of database features.
For many people it won't be relevant to compare Database Projects and Migrations. They represent two different modes of working with Entity Framework. Migrations is code-first, DP is database-first. Sure, you can use migrations to control the database schema and besides that keep a DP in sync with the generated database to satisfy DBAs (as the link suggests). But both lead their own separate lives and there's no Single Source Of Truth.
So comparing them is useful if you're not sure yet wich working mode you're going to choose.
For me the most important difference is that DP will cover all database objects and detect all changes between them when comparing databases. Migrations only detect changes between a database and the mapped model. And the set of options for generating database objects is very limited. For everything you need additionally you have to inject SQL statements into the migration code. These statements are your own responsibility. You have to figure out yourself if a migration needs an ALTER PROCEDURE statement or not (for example). EF won't complain if the script and the database differ in this respect.
This is the main reason why I've never been a great fan of migrations. It's virtually impossible to maintain a mature database schema including storage, file groups, privileges, collations, and what have you.
Another advantage of DP is that they're great in combination with source control. Each database object has its own file and it's very easy to check the change history of each individual object. That's not possible with generated migrations. Indeed, many intermediate changes may never make it to a generated migration.
Of course the obvious advantage of migrations is the possibility to do a runtime check (albeit incomplete) whether the code and the database match. In database-first projects you need to create your own mechanism for that.
EF Core is only ORM.
1) You should be ready to create all DB objects except tables manually. What I create manually: constrates (defaults as well as conditions). Since this is code first - there is no need in SP, functions and so on. If you use ORM - DB is only storage. Of course practice is important. For me default constraints adds comfort on tables where I create test data manually. And conditions also are usefull in situations when you do not trust your (team) code.
2) you will do creation (and dropping) of views, triggers, sp and so on to the "migration" code (there is such concept in EF) in plain sql:
migrationBuilder.Sql("CREATE VIEW ...");
As a result you could have a separate "migration" program (e.g. command line tool) that install or remove both Ef Core tables and your manually created objects, do and revert the data migrations.
"EF Core migrations" is quite complex api (reserve a week for learning). Interesting topics: managing several dbcontexts in one db, createing db object during migration from model annotations, unistall. Or find a freelancer for it (this part of project is good for outsourcing).
Is it possible to use Entity Framework 4.3 without linking the model to an actual DB in the back-end?
I need to build a conceptual model of a database in the VS designer and then I'd like to manually handle fetches, inserts and updates to various back-end databases (horrible legacy systems). I need to be able to do this without EF moaning about not having tables mapped, etc. I realise that this is a very odd thing to want to do...
The reason for this is that we would like to move from these legacy systems into a well designed data model and .NET environment, but we need to still maintain functionality and backward compatibility with the old systems during development. We will then reach a stage where we can import the old data (coming from about 6 different databases) into a single DB that matches the EF model I'm building. In theory, we should then be able to switch over from the hacked up EF model to a proper EF model matching the new data structure.
Is this viable? Is it possible to use the EF interface, with LINQ without actually pointing it to a database?
I have managed to query the legacy systems by overriding the generated DbContext and exposing IQueryable properties which query the old systems. My big fight now is with actually updating the data.
If I am able to have EF track changes to entities, but not actually save those changes. I should be able to override the SaveChanges() method on the context to manually insert into various legacy tables.
I'm sort of at wits end with this issue at the moment.
UDPATE 4 Sept 2012: I've opted to use the EDMX file designer to build the data model and I generate the code by using T4. This enables me to then manually write mapping code to suit my needs. It also allows me to later perform a legacy data migration with relative ease.
If I were in your situation I'd setup the new DB server and link the legacy servers to it. Then create stored procedures to interface with EF for the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. This way your EF code remains separate from the legacy support messiness. As you decommission the legacy DB servers you can update your stored procedures accordingly. Once you have no more legacy DB servers you can either continue using your sprocs or do a refresh of your EF data connection to use the table schema directly.
Entity framework is to link entities to a data store without manual populates.
Otherwise you're just using classes with linq.
If you mean you don't want a seperate data store like sql server, mongo etc etc, then just let your application create the database as an mdb file that gets bundled in your app_data file. That means you don't need a databsae server so to speak and the database is part of your app.
If on the other hand you want a different way to save to the database, you can create your own data adapters to behave however you like. The mongo .net entity framework component is an example of this.
Alternatively, using code only you can just use stored procedures to persist to the database which can be a bit verbose and annoying with EF, but could bridge the gap for you you and allow you to build a good architecture with a model you want that gets translated into the crappy one in your repositories.
Then when the new database is ready, you can just rework your repo's to use savechanges and you're done.
This will of course only work with the code only approach.
At my client site the database user has permissions to execute stored procedures only.
Database user doesn’t have permissions to execute queries directly.
But I have used Entity Framework, and no stored procedures used.
What can I do?
In such scenario it is better to use native SQL + ADO.NET directly. The main power of EF is in mapping, linq / ESQL querying and loading strategies. Once you are limited to stored procedures you will lose support for latter two = no querying and no loading strategies. You will still have support for mapping but it will come with performance costs and it will demand strict limitations on your stored procedures.
The Entity Framework allows you to map each entity to a set of stored procedures that will execute the insert, delete and update.
That way the user won't have to execute queries directly when modifying the data in your database.
If the user also doesn't have Select permissions, you need stored procedures to access the data. The Entity Framework can help you because you can import Stored Procedures in the SSDL part of your EDMX and then you can map those stored procedures to functions on your ObjectContext.