I'm using Entity Framework - Database First in my project. My model has a view with only one VARCHAR column:
CREATE VIEW MyView
AS
SELECT 'Eris' Eris
FROM MyTable
By default, this view gets mapped to its own entity with just one property:
public virtual DbSet<MyView> MyViews { get; set; }
How can I change this so that the view gets mapped to a List of strings instead:
public virtual List<string> Eris { get; set; }
Unfortunately EF does not support mapping collections of value types. If you really want to implement this scenario then you might want to look into other ORM frameworks that have this feature like NHibernate.
If that's not an option and you have to stick to EF then you're forced to create an entity with one property like you mentioned in your question.
The entity model represents one element in the table.
When you retrieve data from the table, you will get a list of entity model objects.
Related
I am working with an existing system and updating it to .NET Core, Web API and EF Core.
The existing system has 2 tables:
Parent table: Id, name, etc..
Child table: Id, ParentId, name, etc..
Though ParentId exists in the child table, there is no foreign key reference, but I want to be able to use include when I query the parent. I have asked not to add FK as part of deleting they are putting -ve values to parentId column. This way they can bring it back and a legacy system was built that way.
Now, in db-first migration how can I specify a navigation property without fk so my EF Core to act relational; or at least return them together. Adding nullable foreign key is not an option as it will break the system when -ve values are added.
I do have suggested for full cleanup of DB and getting rid of -ve values but that involves lots of testing and no deliverable. So long story short how to add navigation property without foreign key in database first migration ?
I tried adding collection and virtual entry in the model, but after migration it got overwritten. I have added this by using HasMany on modelbuilder as per this document - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/modeling/relationships?tabs=fluent-api%2Cfluent-api-simple-key%2Csimple-key
But scaffolding is overriding my navigation property
I found out the answer for this.
In EF core 3.x the dbcontext created by DBFrist scaffolding is all partial classes.
So I did the following:
1. new partial class for context class - here i added the relationship of navigation property using OnModelCreatingPartial() method. Example below
public partial class dbContext : DbContext
{
partial void OnModelCreatingPartial(ModelBuilder builder)
{
builder.Entity<Packcomponent>()
.HasOne(p => p.Pack)
.WithMany(b => b.PackComponent)
.HasForeignKey(p => p.PackId);
}
}
extended the partial class in a new file and added navigation property there.
public partial class Packcomponent
{
public Pack Pack { get; set; }
}
public partial class Pack
{
public List PackComponent { get; set; }
}
This way upon scaffolding it did not overwrite custom navigation properties and I also could use this properties to do EF operations like .Include() and to save related entities as well. It is pretty awesome!!
I'm using Entity Framework 4.1 with a code-first model. A common pattern is that many objects reference the user who owns them, eg.
public class Item
{
public User Owner { get; set; }
}
This creates a nullable column in the DB, but since every Item must have an owner I want the column marked NOT NULL. If I use the [Required] attribute then submitting the form to create an Item results in an error. That field is never set through a form, only manually in code.
It is generally recommended to create separate view models for such situations. Using database models as view models for input forms is seen as an anti-pattern.
Make a ItemViewModel that has the same properties as Item and relevant data validation attributes. You may want to use a library called Automapper to automate the boring property-copy-code needed in those cases.
I have the following code in my context, and no explicit table-class mapping, yet my database keeps getting created (by my DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges initializer) with an EmployeeStatus table, not EmployeeStatuses. Is there a known issue with this, or am I going insane or what?
public DbSet<Department> Departments { get; set; }
public DbSet<EmployeeStatus> EmployeeStatuses { get; set; }
All my other tables are named exactly after their DbSet names, as I expect.
Entity Framework uses its pluralization service to infer database table names based on
the class names in the model—Destination becomes Destinations, Person becomes
People, etc. By convention, Code First will do its best to pluralize the class name and use the results as the name of the table. However, it might not be the same as your
table naming conventions.
You can use the Table Data Annotation to ensure that Code First maps your class to
the correct table name.
When setting up a new Entity data Model, there is an option to
[x] Pluralize or singularize generated object names
I have noticed this is an option in LINQ as well. Also, now that I am studying the ADO.NET entity framework, I noticed it also has 'DEFAULT' to 'pluralize or singularize generated object names'
What is the result of not checking/allowing this option when setting up the 'Entity Data Model'.
What Advantages/Disadvantages/issues will I face by making a selection one way or the other?
If you check Pluralize or singularize generated object names, the set in the class context.cs genrated by EF will be named in the format:
public virtual DbSet<SomeTableName> SomeTableNames { get; set; }
if not check, it'll be named:
public virtual DbSet<SomeTableName> SomeTableName { get; set; }
Advantages/Disadvantages IMHO:
I would like to see collection set be named ending with 's', such as dbset colleciton of Employee class of Employee Table named Employees, so I'll check the option. But I guess maybe someone would like to treat the dbset as a table, so he/she would like to name it same as table name Employee.
No problem at all, except that you'll probably want to do it manually. Usually, you want entity names singular and entity set names plural.
I have the following
[DataContractAttribute]
public class Animal
{
[Key]
[XmlElement(ElementName = "Id")]
[DataMember()]
public Guid Id
{
get;
set;
}
[XmlElement(ElementName = "AnimalType")]
[DataMember()]
public List<AnimalType> AnimalType
{
get;
set;
}
}
And i map it through the code first approach with EF to tables
modelBuilder.Entity<Animal>().ToTable("Animal");
As you see I have not performed some complex mapping, but the List of AnimalType enumerations did not get mapped automatically to any columns/tables in the DB. Do i need to add some extra code to the model builder to control the mapping of an enumeration list ?
As of EF CTP5, enums are not supported yet. The team announced that they are going to fully support enums in their next RTM version which is targeted to be released on the first quarter of 2011.
I know for the longest time, enums weren't supported by EF, though I don't know if that is still the case or not.
Either way, I think there is a general problem with having EF handle a list of a type other than another entity. What is the primary key? What is the value? Should it try to store the data in one column or create a separate table and create a foreign key constraint? These are questions that will likely need to be answered before your model can be converted into a database schema.