How to create View (SQL) from Entity Framework in ABP Framework
Not allowed to post comments because of reputation. Just trying to get more information on connecting a database to an Entity Framework, without having to switch to a code-first development style. View selected answer's response (he told the OP to basically do the same thing he was going to do in the DB but with EF, and then added an extra step where EF "...ignores..." the previous instructions...
I want to create tables and design database directly in SQL, and have the csharp library just read/write the table values (kind of like how dapper function where it isnt replacing your database, just working along side of it).
The tutorials don't talk about how to integrate your databases with your project. It either brushes over the subject, ignores it completely, or discusses how to replace it.
I don't want to do any EF migrations (i dont want/need to destroy/create database everytime i decide to run, duplicate, or transfer project). Any and all database back-track (back-up/restore) should be done with and thru SQL (within my work environment).
Just to be clear on exactly what i'm trying to learn:
How does somebody who specializes in database administration (building database schema, managing and monitoring data, and has existing database with data established) connect to project to fetch data (again, specifically referencing Dapper's Query functionality).
I want to integrate and design micro-services, some may share the same database connection or rely on another. But i just simply want to read data in a clean strongly-typed class entity, and maybe deal with insert/update somewhere else if i have to.
I would prefer to use Dapper instead of EF, but ABP is so heavily integrated with EF's design, it's more of a headache to avoid it, than it is to just go along with.
You should be able to map EF under ABP the same way as any other project using DB-first configuration.
The consistent approach I use for EF: (DB-First)
Define entities to match the table/view structure.
Define configuration classes extending EntityTypeConfiguration<TEntity> with the associated ToTable(), HasKey(), and any HasMany/HasRequired/HasOptional for relationships as needed.
In DbContext.OnModelCreating: modelBuilder.Configurations.AddFromAssembly(GetType().Assembly); to load all entity configurations. (assuming DbContext is in the same assembly as the models/configurations Substitute GetType().Assembly to point at the entity assembly.
Turn off Migrations. In DbContext constructor: Database.SetInitializer<MyDbContext>(null);
EF offers a lot more than simply mapping tables to classes. By mapping relationships between entities, EF can help generate optimized queries for retrieving data across those related entities. This can allow you to flatten data structures without returning unnecessary data, replace the need for views, and generally reduce the amount of data coming across the wire from the database to the application server.
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context? We are running into massive development-time performance problems when editing the EDMX file (it takes 1.5 minutes to save). I've moved our non-insert/update/delete UDFs/stored procs to some custom T4 templates that automatically generate model-first code, but I can't seem to get OnModelCreating to be called when EDMX is involved.
Other things we've considered, but won't work for one reason or another:
We can't (reasonably) separate our code to multiple contexts as there is a lot of overlap in our entity relationships. It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route regret it.
We tried having 2 different contexts, but there are quite a few joins between Entities & UDFs. This may be our last hope, but I'd REALLY like to avoid it.
We can't switch to Dapper since we have unfortunately made heavy use of IQueryable.
We tried to go completely to Code-First, but there are features that we are using in EDMX that aren't supported (mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping).
Take a look at the following link. I answered another question in a similar fashion:
How to use Repository pattern using Database first approach in entity framework
As I mentioned in that post, I would personally try to switch to a Code First approach and get rid of the EDMX files as it is already deprecated and most importantly, the maintenance effort is considerable and much more complex compared with the Code First approach.
It is not that hard switching to Code First from a Model First approach. Some steps and images down below:
Display all files at the project level and expand the EDMX file. You will notice that the EDMX file has a .TT file which will have several files nested, the Model Context and POCO clases between them as .cs or .vb classes (depending on the language you are using). See image down below:
Unload the project, right click and then edit.
See the image below, notice the dependencies between the context and the TT file
Remove the dependencies, the xml element should look like the image below:
Repeat the procedure for the Model classes (The ones with the model definition)
Reload your project, remove the EDMX file(s)
You will probably need to do some tweeks and update names/references.
I did this a few times in the past and it worked flawlessly on production. You can also look for tools that do this conversion for you.
This might be a good opportunity for you to rethink the architecture as well.
BTW: Bullet point 4 shouldn't be a show stopper for you. You can map/use Stored Procedures via EF. Look at the following link:
How to call Stored Procedure in Entity Framework 6 (Code-First)?
It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route [multiple contexts] regret it.
I'm not one of them.
Your core problem is a context that gets too large. So break it up. I know that inevitably there will be entities that should be shared among several contexts, which may give rise to duplicate class names. An easy way to solve this is to rename the classes into their context-specific names.
For example, I have an ApplicationUser table (who hasn't) that maps to a class with the same name in the main context, but to a class AuthorizationUser in my AuthorizationContext, or ReportingUser in a ReportingContext. This isn't a problem at all. Most use cases revolve around one context type anyway, so it's impossible to get confused.
I even have specialized contexts that work on the same data as other contexts, but in a more economical way. For example, a context that doesn't map to calculated columns in the database, so there are no reads after inserts and updates (apart from identity values).
So I'd recommend to go for it, because ...
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context?
No, there isn't. Both approaches have different ways of building the DbModel (containing the store model, the class model, and the mappings between both). In a generated DbContext you even see that an UnintentionalCodeFirstException is thrown, to drive home that you're not supposed to use that method.
mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping
As said in another answer, mapping CUD actions to stored procedures is supported in EF6 code-first.
I got here from a link in your comment on a different question, where you asked:
you mentioned that code-first & database-first is "technically possible" could you explain how to accomplish that?
First, the context of the other question was completely different. The OP there was asking if it was possible to use both database-first and code-first methodologies in the same project, but importantly, not necessarily the same context. My saying that it was "technically possible" applies to the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no way to utilize both code-first and database-first in the same context. Actually, to be a bit more specific, let's say there's no way to utilize an existing database and also migrate that same database with new entities.
The terminology gets a bit confused here due to some unfortunate naming by Microsoft when EF was being developed. Originally, you had just Model-first and Database-first. Both utilized EDMX. The only difference was that Model-first would let you design your entities and create a database from that, while Database-first took an existing database and created entities from that.
With EF 4.1, Code-first was introduced, which discarded EDMX entirely and let you work with POCOs (plain old class objects). However, despite the name, Code-first can and always has been able to work with an existing database or create a new one. Code-first, then is really Model-first and Database-first, combined, minus the horrid EDMX. Recently, the EF team has finally taken it a step further and deprecated EDMX entirely, including both the Model-first and Database-first methodologies. It is not recommended to continue to use either one at this point, and you can expect EDMX support to be dropped entirely in future versions of Visual Studio.
With all that said, let's go with the facts. You cannot both have an existing database and a EF-managed database in a single context. You would at least need two: one for your existing tables and one for those managed by EF. More to the point, these two contexts must reference different databases. If there are any existing tables in an EF-managed database, EF will attempt to remove them. Long and short, you have to segregate your EF-managed stuff from your externally managed stuff, which means you can't create foreign keys between entities in one context and another.
Your only real option here is to just do everything "database-first". In other words, you'll have to just treat your database as existing and manually create new tables, alter columns, etc. without relying on EF migrations at all. In this regard, you should also go ahead and dump the EDMX. Generate all your entities as POCOs and simply disable the database initializer in your context. In other words, Code-first with an existing database. I have additional information, if you need it.
Thank you to everyone for the well thought out and thorough answers.
Many of these other answers assume that the stored procedure mappings in EF Code-First work the same, but they do not. I'm a bit fuzzy on this as it's been about 6 months since I looked at it, but I believe as of EF 6.3 code first stored procedures require that you pass every column from your entity to your insert/update stored procedure and that you only pass the key column(s) to your delete procedure. There isn't an option to pick and choose which columns you can pass. We have a requirement to maintain who deleted a record so we have to pass some additional information besides just a simple key.
That being said, what I ended up doing was using a T4 template to automatically generate my EDMX/Context/Model files from the database (with some additional meta-data). This took our developer time experience down from 1.5 minutes to about 5 seconds.
My hope is EF stored procedure mappings will be improved to achieve parody with EDMX and I can then just code-generate the Code-First mappings and remove the EDMX generation completely.
In my spare time, I'm trying restart my effort to learn F#. I'm doing so by trying to create a simple application that will allow me to analyze my financial transactions.
My first attempt at creating this application failed due to the persistence step. I used SQL and the EntityFramework package, but the latter generated database entities, which I did not want to use throughout my application since they're all mutable (I think..). Instead I had to map these database entities to domain entities. Much manual glue code later it worked....until I found a bug and was forced to replace much of that glue code. That was the tipping point that made me quit.
On SO I found a question describing my situation, e.g. Saving F# types to a database. Mark Seeman suggested that the pain of mapping can be overcome if I'd not use objects for persistence. At work I have recently been introduced to MongoDb, which at least saves me the pain of mapping from database entities to domain entities. These entities all need some ID, and I chose to use an ObjectId from Mongo. Ooops, there comes the deja vu, in order not to have my domain entities being dependent on Mongo, I will once more have to create database and domain entities....as well as the mapping. Bah & Ugh.
In C# I'm used to do such mapping with tools like Automapper, but they don't really work for special F# types. So now I'm wondering what Mark Seeman ment by "using objects for persistance". How is this solved in F#? So far I haven't been able to fine more info on this topic besides the aforementioned question on SO.
Working on a brand new project from the ground up. That means the data model is in a constant flux, doubly so because things are, inevitably, not as well planned as they should be. Model classes are being created and changed fairly regularly.
The plan was to use the latest version of EF with all the neat code-first stuff in it. But we're constantly tripping over the limitations the framework has in terms of adding or updating tables. The initialization options seem to allow only the complete deletion and re-creation of the database, which isn't really ideal.
I've had a look at the migrations. But this seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut: we don't need to detail every single small change and update with a new migration scaffold.
Are there some better strategies to deal with this? For instance, I started writing some unit tests to pre-populate one of the contexts with some test data, but because this causes the whole Db to drop and re-create, it causes problems with all the other contexts. Or perhaps making use of a custom initialiser to seed the data for us? How can we easily exclude these in production code?
We're also wondering about perhaps abandoning code-first and going back to EDMX diagrams. At least that way changes result in updated SQL commands which can be run directly against the database.
Any suggestions gratefully received.
I think, imho, that:
as the database schema must at least match your model you should/must detail every single change, and code first migration allows that and trace the changes over time
code first migration also allows to migrate the database schema for you
code first migration also allows you to produce sql that allows you to migrate the schema
For these reasons code first is as good (if not better) as the edmx approach
Please take few minutes to implement http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj591621.aspx
One other point, always imho and in a perfect world, if you unit test the business of you model you should not need the DAL, use generic collection. Be aware of different comportement of linq to object vs linq to entities, for example concerning the case sensitivity.
i've got a question about the tables and stored procedures which are created by aspnet_regsql.exe.
scenario:
new empty database: foodb
execute the script aspnet_regsql.exe for this Database.
now:
can i add a entity model framework for this Database, and add aditional Entities and associations to the existing Entities (e.g. ASPNET_Users) ?
best regards
So, yes you can bring in any database objects to an entity framework model. I'm not sue why you would want to, because these things aren't really made to be directly accessed (there are API's to get to this data).
To your second question of adding new associations, that part I don't think you can do. As far as memory serves, the EF designer does not allow you to just wire up non-existant association. So you would need to actually make the associations within SQL server, and then import them into the model.
I wouldn't recommend doing this if you are still using any of the API's as it might have unintended consequences.