I think the question speaks for itself. I have a fairly typical case where I've created a new entity class on which I've specified the [Table] attribute. The Add-Migration command has generated the corresponding DbMigration.CreateTable, etc.
However, I would like to ensure that the table is create in SQL Server with the select permission assigned to group... let's call it ABCGRP.
Can this be done via attributes, the Fluent API or will I need to simply create a SQL script with a GRANT operation?
Related
I was trying to make multiple role in hasura for example assume I have techician,customer role, then I need to have users table to fetch with role attribute and if I use inheritance it works completely but inheritance is not available on hasura.
I tried using script
create table customer () inherits (users);
but I need to know if there is other way to do
Say I have EntityFramework Core 2.1.14.
Say I have to integrate data into a legacy MySql database which was created by a self-taught.
Say also that one of the tables in this database has a surrogate key field that is generated on Add.
Say then that I want to use context.SaveChanges() to handle the Insert DML generation for me because I want to be lazy and because these tables are messy.
Say finally that I do not want Entity Framework to perform a follow-up query to retrieve this surrogate field; I don't care what it is. I just need it generated on insert.
How would one call context.SaveChanges() with an Added object having a property configured as .ValueGeneratedOnAdd() but also instruct Entity Framework to do nothing but generate my INSERT ? I don't want it to return the id.
Using Entity Framework Core 2.0
Stuck with company's production database which has primary keys defined for each table but no foreign keys defined for any relationships.
Dependent records in the database have id fields which are intended to relate to the primary key fields of the parent record like you would normally find with a foreign key relationship/constraint. But these fields were all created as INT NOT NULL and are using a SQL default of '0'.
As a result dependent records have been inserted over time without requiring that a related parent record be specified.
Initially I defined my models in EF with integers and used a fluent configuration to specify "IsRequired". This was done so I could run migrations to create a test database for comparison against the production database to verify that my code first was correctly coded.
This then lead to the problem while using "Include" in my Linq queries which performs an inner join that results in dropping the records that contain the 0's in the id fields of the dependent record.
The only way that I have found to make this work is to model all of the id fields in the dependent entity as nullable integers and remove the "IsRequired" from the fluent configuration.
When using the "Include" it performs a left outer join keeping all of the dependent entities. This also means that any reference properties on the included entities are set to null instead of an empty string. This part can probably be fixed fairly easily.
The downside is if I wanted to use migrations to create a database now, all id fields in the dependent records would be created as NULL.
Is there anyone who has run up against this type of situation? Does anyone have any suggestions to try other than the approach I am using?
I haven't dealt with this scenario before but I wonder if you can solve it by defining the FK property as Nullable and then in the migrations, after the migration is created, edit it to add a HasDefaultValue property to ensure that it's 0? (doc for that migration method: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/modeling/relational/default-values)
I'm using Entity Framework 4.3 Code First and trying out the Migrations feature.
If I add a new property to my class and then run Add-Migration from the package manager console window I get something like this:
public override void Up()
{
AddColumn("Products", "Discontinued", c => c.Boolean(nullable: false));
}
I would like to be able to affect the order of the column as I don't want it to just be appended to the table but rather placed at a specific index. I thought I might be able to add it to my modelBuilder configuration, something like:
Property(p => p.Discontinued).HasColumnOrder(2);
but running Update-database does not appear to use it. Can this be done as a migration?
This is just a matter of missing functionality. SQL by itself does not rely on any implicit order of columns (with some exceptions: ORDER BY , ...).
Neither SQL Server nor ORACLE do have a direct SQL DDL command (aka ALTER TABLE...) to move a column around.
Therefore there's no possibility to change the order without high effort (recreate the table). See for example
How To change the column order of An Existing Table in SQL Server 2008
SQL SERVER – Change Order of Column In Database Tables
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/61978/how-to-change-the-column-order
I'm just starting out with the Entity Framework and ADO.NET Data Services and I've run into an issue that I can't seem to figure out. I have two tables, one that has user information and the other that has a created by field. Within the database, there isn't a foreign key between these tables. The user table contains an arbitrary Id, a username, and a display name. The created by field contains the user's username. In my entity I would like to have the user's display name since this is what I need to display and expose over the ADO.NET Data Service? I'm aware that I could restructure the database, but I was hoping that I could do the join using the username as I would in a SQL statement.
Thanks in advance,
-Damien
You can make a view using a join of both tables, and then use this object to display the user's name.
There's some info on mapping custom queries here.