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.
Related
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:
I have a POCO Entity named Employee.
And then I have a second POCO Entity named Case.
I want a navigation property that looks like instead this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee Employee{ get; set; }
like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
I want to name my property InitialContact. Not Employee.
But I get this error when EF tries to create the Database:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property 'Case.InitialContact' of type 'Employee'. Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property from the model.
Update 1:
I got it to work like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
}
The primary key is ID in my BaseEntity. Not EmployeeId.
But I have second part to my question.
Here is my Complete Employee POCO:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
using Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Framework.Concrete;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ModelBinding;
namespace Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Lerd
{
public class Employee : BaseEntity
{
[BindNever]
public string Email { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long OrganizationId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string Supervisor { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string SupervisorEmail { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Notes { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long BargainingUnitId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long PayPlanId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long GradeRankId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long PositionTitleId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long SeriesId { get; set; }
public bool IsUnionEmployee { get; set; }
public virtual Organization Organization { get; set; }
public virtual BargainingUnit BargainingUnit { get; set; }
public virtual PayPlan PayPlan { get; set; }
public virtual GradeRank GradeRank { get; set; }
public virtual PositionTitle PositionTitle { get; set; }
public virtual Series Series { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<UnionHours> UnionHours { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public string UnionEmployeeYesNo => (IsUnionEmployee) ? "Yes" : "No";
}
}
I want my Employee to have many Cases:
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
Here is my complete Cases POCO:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
}
So now my DB looks like this:
So I have my InitialContactId in Cases ok.
But now I need my Case to have many Employees.
So I add this in to my Case POCO:
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
Now it looks like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
}
Now when I run it, I get this error again:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property 'Case.InitialContact' of type 'Employee'. Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property from the model.
Update 2:
I found this article for a Many-Many relationship in .Net Core 1:
http://www.learnentityframeworkcore.com/configuration/many-to-many-relationship-configuration
So now I have a bridge lookup entity:
public class EmployeeCase
{
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public Employee Employee { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public long CaseId { get; set; }
public Case Case { get; set; }
}
Employee POCO:
Changed:
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
to:
// Mapping - Collection of Cases
public virtual ICollection<EmployeeCase> EmployeeCases { get; set; }
Case POCO:
Changed:
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
to:
// Mapping - Collection of Employees
public virtual ICollection<EmployeeCase> EmployeeCases { get; set; }
In my AppDbContext
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
#region Many-to-Many Employees Cases
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasKey(ec => new { ec.EmployeeId, ec.CaseId });
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Employee)
.WithMany(e => e.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.EmployeeId);
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Case)
.WithMany(c => c.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.CaseId);
#endregion
}
Now when I run I get this error:
An exception of type 'System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException' occurred in Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_EmployeeCase_Employees_EmployeeId' on table 'EmployeeCase' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
Could not create constraint or index. See previous errors.
Update 3:
Finally got my tables the way I want with this piece of code from:
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths - why?
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
// Get rid of Cascading Circular error on ModelBuilding
foreach (var relationShip in modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().SelectMany(e => e.GetForeignKeys()))
{
relationShip.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
}
#region Many-to-Many Employees Cases
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasKey(ec => new { ec.EmployeeId, ec.CaseId });
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Employee)
.WithMany(e => e.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.EmployeeId);
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Case)
.WithMany(c => c.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.CaseId);
#endregion
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
Update 4:
This did not work after all.
Remvoving the delete behavior for everything messes up my other relationships and I get errors.
How can I fix this?
This is disgusting.
So wishing I did not go Core.
Entity Framework uses conventions to guess how to map your C# model to database objects.
In your case you violate convention by custom name, so you should explain Entity Framework how to map this stuff.
There are two possible ways: attributes and fluent API. I'd suggest to use the latter one.
See section "Configuring a Foreign Key Name That Does Not Follow the Code First Convention" here: Entity Framework Fluent API - Relationships
I have made it a habit of explicitly defining my relationships as EF does not always get them the way I want. I like to create a Mapping folder that contains my entity maps. The fluent api works great for this and inherits from EntityTypeConfiguration.
Try this.
public class CaseMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Case>
{
public CaseMap()
{
HasKey(m => m.Id)
HasRequired(m => m.InitialContact)
.WithMany(e => e.Cases)
.HasForeignKey(m => m.InitialContactId);
}
}
Almost forgot. You need to tell your DbContext where to find these mappings. Add this to your DbContexts OnModelCreating method.
modelBuilder.Configurations.AddFromAssembly(typeof(MyContext).Assembly);
This is what worked finally for the Cascading Delete circular references on the many-to-many in EF Core:
// Get rid of Cascading Delete Circular references error.
var type = modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().Single(t => t.Name == "Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Lerd.EmployeeCase");
foreach (var relationship in type.GetForeignKeys())
{
relationship.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
}
You have to get the Entity representing the many to many lookup only.
And from there restrict the DeleteBehavior.
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.
I have following entity class called Code. It stores categories of different kinds - the data for which I would have otherwise needed to create many small tables e.g. User Categories, Expense Categories, Address types, User Types, file formats etc.
public class Code
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string CodeType { get; set; }
public string CodeDescription { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Expense> Expenses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
:
: // many more
}
The class Expense looks like this:
public class Expense
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Category { get; set; }
public int SourceId { get; set; }
public double Amount { get; set; }
public DateTime ExpenseDate { get; set; }
}
With the above class definitions, I have established 1:many relation between Code and Expense using the CategoryId mapping.
My problem is, I want to map the SourceId field in Expense to the Code object. Which means, Expense object would contain
public Code Source { get; set; }
If I use this, at runtime I get an error about cyclic dependencies.
Can someone please help?
You will need to disable cascading delete on at least one of the two relationships (or both). EF enables cascading delete by convention for both relationships because both are required since the foreign key properties are not nullable. But SQL Server doesn't accept multiple cascading delete paths onto the same table that are introduced by the two relationships. That's the reason for your exception.
You must override the convention with Fluent API:
public class Code
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//...
public virtual ICollection<Expense> Expenses { get; set; }
//...
}
public class Expense
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Category { get; set; }
public int SourceId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Source { get; set; }
//...
}
Mapping with Fluent API;
modelBuilder.Entity<Expense>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Category)
.WithMany(c => c.Expenses)
.HasForeignKey(e => e.CategoryId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<Expense>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Source)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(e => e.SourceId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
I recently came across this strange problem with Entity Framework Code First.
My class looks like this
public class Status
{
[Key]
public int StatusID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MemberID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("MemberID")]
public virtual Member Member { get; set; }
public int PosterID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("PosterID")]
public virtual Member Poster { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<StatusLike> StatusLikes { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<StatusComment> StatusComments { get; set; }
}
My Member class looks like this
public class Member
{
[Key]
public int MemberID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Bio { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<MemberCourseTaken> MemberCourseTakens { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Status> Statuses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Club> FoundedClubs { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public string Phone { get; set; }
public int AccountSourceID { get; set; }
public AccountSource AccountSource { get; set; }
public int AddressID { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
public string ProfilePhoto { get; set; }
public int MemberRankID { get; set; }
public MemberRank MemberRank { get; set; }
public DateTime Created { get; set; }
public DateTime Modified { get; set; }
}
And for whatever reason the database table that is created has the following columns
StatusID
Name
MemberID
PosterID
Member_MemberID
with MemberID, PosterID, and Member_MemberID being foreign keys.
How can I keep Member_MemberID from being generated?
Your Member_MemberID column is created because of the Member.Statuses property. I can imagine that this is not what you want. Probably members and statuses should exist independent of each other, so you need a junction table.
I don't know if you already use the OnModelCreating override of the DbContext, but that's the place to change the mapping between Member and Status:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder mb)
{
mb.Entity<Member>().HasMany(m => m.Statuses).WithMany();
}
This will create a table MemberStatuses table with the two Id columns as foreign keys. This is a way to model a many-to-many relationship without a navigation property on the "other" side of the association. (I don't think you want a Members property in Status).
I've seen this before. In my case (Using EF 6.1), it was because my Fluent API Mapping was set up like so:
// In my EntityTypeConfiguration<Status>
HasRequired(x => x.Member).WithMany().HasForeignKey(x => x.MemberID);
That code works perfectly fine, but it doesn't tell EF that my Member class's Collection Navigational Property Status ha been taken into account. So, while I explicitly handled the existence of a Member Navigational Property in my Status Class, I now left an orphaned related collection property. That orphaned property, being a collection, tells EF that my Status class needs to have a Foreign Key to it. So it creates that on the Status Class.
To fix it, I had to be 100% explicit.
HasRequired(x => x.Member).WithMany(x => x.Statuses).HasForeignKey(x => x.MemberID)
It could bee that your Statuses Collection property in Member needs an attribute telling it that it is already considered, and not to go auto-creating mappings. I don't know that attribute.