I am new to EF so please bear with me. I am using Entity Framework with an existing database in which the relationships are not defined.
Using EF, I am able to produce the model, but obviously the 'navigational properties' are not working. Is there a way I can specify the mapping between the entities?
For example, in my Product entity, I have a field CategoryID_fk (maps to Category entity). But since the relationships are not defined, I cannot load a Category while loading a Product entity.
Can someone guide me in this regard?
I do understand that it would be preferable to refactor our database but I am unable to do that now. Thanks in advance.
This link is very useful.http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/
I think field names are not suitable conventions.Try to change field name as CategoryId or Category_CategoryId .I think it will work
Yes, you can do a group join. Basically you will retrieve Products and Category in separate queries and take an approach as indicated in this answer.
Something along these lines:
var productCategoryList = products.GroupJoin
(
categories,
p=> p.productId,
c=> c.CategoryId,
(p, c) => new ProductCategory
{
//Create your Product Category model here
}
).AsEnumerable();
Related
I have a table named product having product id, product bill id and.. the bill id is passed to my controller as a parameter.
I can use the entities from framework and find all rows with product id using
db.tbl_product.Find(product id).
But now i need to find all transactions using bill id. How do I do that??
Assuming tbl_product is a DbSet<Product> or something similar, you should be able to use LINQ to query the DbSet. To find a single item with a specific BillId property value, you would do something like this:
var product = db.tbl_product.FirstOrDefault(p => p.BillId == billId);
If there were multiple products with the same BillId, you could do the following:
var products = db.tbl_product.Where(p => p.BillId == billId);
It largely depends on the schema of the table and how you're using Entity Framework. I would highly recommend reading a book or tutorial on Entity Framework. There are lots of them out there, for example: Entity Framework Tutorial.
Is it possible to include a computed field in an EF entity? Example, lets say I have a shop selling products, and the products are grouped into categories.
When the list of categories is displayed for editing to the administrator of the shop I wish to list the number of products in each category as part of the list.
In NHibernate I would use a formula e.g.
<property name="Products" formula="dbo.Category_NumProducts(id)" />
I can't work out if something similar is possible for EF. I know I could make a category view and map this to a second entity but that seems wrong as its almost a complete duplication.
EDIT: If this isn't possible in EF, then what is the best way to accomplish this?
Unfortunately if your Category table doesn't have this as computed column you will not be able to map it without creating second entity - it leads to database view, defining query in EDMX or perhaps Query view in EDMX (but Query view may not work because you require aggregate function to be computed).
Edit:
IMHO the simplest solution (and also the best) is simply creating a ViewModel (some non mapped class) and use projection in Linq query:
var query = from c in context.Categories
where ...
select new CategoryView {
Id = c.Id,
Name = c.Name,
...
Products = c.Products.Count()
};
I'm fairly new to EF and STE's, but I've stumbled on a painful point recently, and I'm wondering how others are dealing with it...
For example, suppose I have two STE's: Employee and Project. It's a many-to-many relationship. Each entity has a navigation property to the other (i.e. Employee.Projects and Project.Employees).
In my UI, a user can create/edit an Employee and associate it with multiple Projects. When the user is ready to commit, a list of Employees is passed to the server to save. However, if an Employee is not added to the "save list" (i.e. it was discarded), but an association was made to one or more Projects, the ApplyChanges extension method is able to "resurrect" the Employee object because it was "connected" to the object graph via the association to a Project.
My "save" code looks something like this:
public void UpdateEmployees(IEnumerable<Entities.Employee> employees)
{
using (var context = new EmployeeModelContainer(_connectionString))
{
foreach (var employee in employees)
{
context.Employees.ApplyChanges(employee);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
I've been able to avoid this issue to now on other object graphs by using FKs to manipulate associations as described here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/diego/archive/2010/10/06/self-tracking-entities-applychanges-and-duplicate-entities.aspx
How does one handle this when a many-to-many association and navigation properties are involved?
Thanks.
While this answer's a year late, perhaps it will be of some help to you (or at least someone else)
The simple answer is this: do not allow Entity Framework to infer m:m relationships. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a way of preventing this, only how to deal with it after the fact.
By default, if I have a schema like this:
Employee EmployeeProject Project
----------- --------------- ----------
EmployeeId ---> EmployeeId |--> ProjectId
Name ProjectId ----- Name
... ...
Entity Framework will see that my EmployeeProject table is a simple association table with no additional information (for example, I might add a Date field to indicate when they joined a project). In such cases, it maps the relationship over an association rather than an entity. This makes for pretty code, as it helps to mitigate the oft-referenced impedence mismatch between a RDBMS and object-oriented development. After all, if I were just modeling these as objects, I'd code it the same way, right?
As you've seen, however, this can cause problems (even without using STE's, which cause even MORE problems with m:m relationships). So, what's a dev to do?
(The following assumes a DATABASE FIRST approach. Anything else and you're on your own)
You have two choices:
Add another column to your association table so that EF thinks it has more meaning and can't map it to an association. This is, of course, bad design, as you presumably don't need that column (otherwise you'd already have it) and you're only adding it because of the particular peculiarities of the ORM you've chosen. So don't.
After your context has been generated, map the association table yourself to an entity that you create by hand. To do that, follow the following steps:
Select the association in the designer and delete it. The designer will inform you that the table in question is no longer mapped and will ask you if you want to remove it from the model. Answer NO
Create a new entity (don't have it create a key property) and map it to your association table in the Mapping Details window
Right-click on your new entity and add an association
Correct the entity and multiplicity values (left side should have your association entity with a multiplicity of *, right should have the other entity with a multiplicity of 1)
Check the option that says "Add foreign key properties to the Entity"
Repeat for the other entity in the association
Fix the property names on the association entity (if desired...not strictly necessary but they're almost certainly wrong) and map them to the appropriate columns in the Mapping Details window
Select all of the scalar properties on your association entity and set them as EntityKey=True in the Properties window
Done!
Please help an EF n00b design his database.
I have several companies that produce several products, so there's a many-to-many relationship between companies and products. I have an intermediate table, Company_Product, that relates them.
Each company/product combination has a unique SKU. For example Acme widgets have SKU 123, but Omega widgets have SKU 456. I added the SKU as a field in the Company_Product intermediate table.
EF generated a model with a 1:* relationship between the company and Company_Product tables, and a 1:* relationship between the product and Company_Product tables. I really want a : relationship between company and product. But, most importantly, there's no way to access the SKU directly from the model.
Do I need to put the SKU in its own table and write a join, or is there a better way?
I just tested this in a new VS2010 project (EFv4) to be sure, and here's what I found:
When your associative table in the middle (Company_Product) has ONLY the 2 foreign keys to the other tables (CompanyID and ProductID), then adding all 3 tables to the designer ends up modeling the many to many relationship. It doesn't even generate a class for the Company_Product table. Each Company has a Products collection, and each Product has a Companies collection.
However, if your associative table (Company_Product) has other fields (such as SKU, it's own Primary Key, or other descriptive fields like dates, descriptions, etc), then the EF modeler will create a separate class, and it does what you've already seen.
Having the class in the middle with 1:* relationships out to Company and Product is not a bad thing, and you can still get the data you want with some easy queries.
// Get all products for Company with ID = 1
var q =
from compProd in context.Company_Product
where compProd.CompanyID == 1
select compProd.Product;
True, it's not as easy to just navigate the relationships of the model, when you already have your entity objects loaded, for instance, but that's what a data layer is for. Encapsulate the queries that get the data you want. If you really want to get rid of that middle Company_Product class, and have the many-to-many directly represented in the class model, then you'll have to strip down the Company_Product table to contain only the 2 foreign keys, and get rid of the SKU.
Actually, I shouldn't say you HAVE to do that...you might be able to do some edits in the designer and set it up this way anyway. I'll give it a try and report back.
UPDATE
Keeping the SKU in the Company_Product table (meaning my EF model had 3 classes, not 2; it created the Company_Payload class, with a 1:* to the other 2 tables), I tried to add an association directly between Company and Product. The steps I followed were:
Right click on the Company class in the designer
Add > Association
Set "End" on the left to be Company (it should be already)
Set "End" on the right to Product
Change both multiplicities to "* (Many)"
The navigation properties should be named "Products" and "Companies"
Hit OK.
Right Click on the association in the model > click "Table Mapping"
Under "Add a table or view" select "Company_Product"
Map Company -> ID (on left) to CompanyID (on right)
Map Product -> ID (on left) to ProductID (on right)
But, it doesn't work. It gives this error:
Error 3025: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line 175:Must specify mapping for all key properties (Company_Product.SKU) of table Company_Product.
So that particular association is invalid, because it uses Company_Product as the table, but doesn't map the SKU field to anything.
Also, while I was researching this, I came across this "Best Practice" tidbit from the book Entity Framework 4.0 Recipies (note that for an association table with extra fields, besides to 2 FKs, they refer to the extra fields as the "payload". In your case, SKU is the payload in Company_Product).
Best Practice
Unfortunately, a project
that starts out with several,
payload-free, many-to-many
relationships often ends up with
several, payload-rich, many-to-many
relationships. Refactoring a model,
especially late in the development
cycle, to accommodate payloads in the
many-to-many relationships can be
tedious. Not only are additional
entities introduced, but the queries
and navigation patterns through the
relationships change as well. Some
developers argue that every
many-to-many relationship should start
off with some payload, typically a
synthetic key, so the inevitable
addition of more payload has
significantly less impact on the
project.
So here's the best practice.
If you have a payload-free,
many-to-many relationship and you
think there is some chance that it may
change over time to include a payload,
start with an extra identity column in
the link table. When you import the
tables into your model, you will get
two one-to-many relationships, which
means the code you write and the model
you have will be ready for any number
of additional payload columns that
come along as the project matures. The
cost of an additional integer identity
column is usually a pretty small price
to pay to keep the model more
flexible.
(From Chapter 2. Entity Data Modeling Fundamentals, 2.4. Modeling a Many-to-Many Relationship with a Payload)
Sounds like good advice. Especially since you already have a payload (SKU).
I would just like to add the following to Samuel's answer:
If you want to directly query from one side of a many-to-many relationship (with payload) to the other, you can use the following code (using the same example):
Company c = context.Companies.First();
IQueryable<Product> products = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product);
The products variable would then be all Product records associated with the Company c record. If you would like to include the SKU for each of the products, you could use an anonymous class like so:
var productsWithSKU = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => new {
ProductID = cp.Product.ID,
Name = cp.Product.Name,
Price = cp.Product.Price,
SKU = cp.SKU
});
foreach (var
You can encapsulate the first query in a read-only property for simplicity like so:
public partial class Company
{
public property IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product); }
}
}
You can't do that with the query that includes the SKU because you can't return anonymous types. You would have to have a definite class, which would typically be done by either adding a non-mapped property to the Product class or creating another class that inherits from Product that would add an SKU property. If you use an inherited class though, you will not be able to make changes to it and have it managed by EF - it would only be useful for display purposes.
Cheers. :)
In some scenarios I need a "wide" version of an entity with many properties (say FullCustomer) while in other scenarios it's enough with a "narrow" version with few properties (say MiniCustomer), how could I map these two entities, FullCustomer and MiniCustomer, to the same Customer table in the database? Furthermore, I need to be able to query and update both entities.
Thanks in advance for any advice or pointers!
PD. I'm using VS2010 RC and EF 4
For "efficiency", don't have two versions of the entity; just project onto "lite" POCOs:
var q = from e in Context.Entities
select new LitePoco
{
Id = e.Id,
EditThis = e.EditThis
};
No other columns will be returned.
Similarly for save:
var e = new MyEntity { Id = 123 };
Context.AttachTo("Entities", e);
// anything from here on gets saved
e.EditThis = "Edited";
Context.SaveChanges();
If you have a column that determines whether to treat the record as a FullCustomer or as MiniCustomer, then you can easily create a Table per Hierarchy inheritance model with FullCustomer inherited from MiniCustomer. Such approach is described in the Muhammad Mosa's blog post.
If you don't have this column you can update the model and database in order to add it.
However, there is an alternative approach. If the reason to have two entities for one table is the delay in the loading the numerous large properties in the FullCustomer object, than Table Splitting might be an option. Take a look at the Julie Lerman's blog post.
I would have noted that this problem is not present in ORMs like LINQ to SQL, due to deferred loading.