I'm struggling with using EF6 with DDD principles, namely value objects attached to aggregates. I can't seem to get migrations to generate that reflect the model and I feel like I'm fighting the tooling instead of actually being productive. Given that a NoSQL implementation is probably more appropriate, this is what I'm stuck with.
The first thing that I ran into was the lack of support for interface properties on an EF entity. The work around for that was to add concrete properties to the entity for each of the implementations, but not to the interface. When I implemented the interface, I added logic to return the right one. I had to do this in order to get any migrations to create the properties for the Policies. See Fund.LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy and Fund.PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy This was annoyance one.
The current annoyance and the genesis of the question is the PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy.AllocationValues property. No matter what I do, when running add-migration, I don't get any tables or fields to represent the AllocationValues. This is basically a collection of DDD value objects hanging off of another value object, which hangs off of an aggregate.
I'm convinced that the model and code are correct to do what I want, but EF keeps getting in the way. In MongoDB, when dealing with an interface property, it actually stores the object type in a string so that it knows how to rehydrate the object. I'm considering serializing the problem areas here to a blob and storing it on the object now, which is just as evil...
public interface IFund
{
Guid Id {get;}
string ProperName {get;}
IAllocationPolicy AllocationPolicy{get;}
void ChangeAllocationPolicy(IAllocationPolicy newAllocationPolicy)
}
public class Fund : IFund
{
public Fund()
{
}
public Fund(Guid id, string nickName, string properName)
{
Id = id;
Nickname = nickName;
ProperName = properName;
// This is stupid too, but you have to instantiate these objects inorder to save or you get some EF errors. Make sure the properties on these objects are all defaulted to null.
LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy = new LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy();
PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy = new PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy();
}
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public string ProperName { get; private set; }
// Do not add this to the interface. It's here for EF reasons only. Do not use internally either. Use the interface implemention of AllocationPolicy instead
public LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy
{
get; private set;
}
// Do not add this to the interface. It's here for EF reasons only. Do not use internally either. Use the interface implemention of AllocationPolicy instead
public PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy
{
get; private set;
}
public void ChangeAllocationPolicy(IAllocationPolicy newAllocationPolicy)
{
if (newAllocationPolicy == null) throw new DomainException("Allocation policy is required");
var allocationPolicy = newAllocationPolicy as PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy;
if (allocationPolicy != null) PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy = allocationPolicy;
var policy = newAllocationPolicy as LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy;
if (policy != null ) LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy = policy;
}
public IAllocationPolicy AllocationPolicy
{
get {
if (LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy != null)
return LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy;
if (PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy != null)
return PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy;
return null;
}
}
}
public interface IAllocationPolicy
{
T Accept<T>(IAllocationPolicyVisitor<T> allocationPolicyVisitor);
}
public class LargestBalanceFirstAllocationPolicy : IAllocationPolicy
{
public T Accept<T>(IAllocationPolicyVisitor<T> allocationPolicyVisitor)
{
return allocationPolicyVisitor.Visit(this);
}
}
[ComplexType]
public class PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy : IAllocationPolicy
{
public PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy()
{
AllocationValues = new List<PercentageAllocationPolicyInfo>();
}
public List<PercentageAllocationPolicyInfo> AllocationValues { get; private set; }
public T Accept<T>(IAllocationPolicyVisitor<T> allocationPolicyVisitor)
{
return allocationPolicyVisitor.Visit(this);
}
}
[ComplexType]
public class PercentageAllocationPolicyInfo
{
public Guid AssetId { get; private set; }
public decimal Percentage { get; private set; }
}
A value type (in EF marked as ComplexType) will never have any tables. The reason being is that a value types are (by definition) really just values. They don't have any Id( otherwise they would be enities) thus you can't create a table for them.
also if i review the requirements for complex type in entity framework https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb738472(v=vs.100).aspx i notice that you can't use inheritance on complex types. Thus if you want to use complex type in your entity framework as you've shown here then you need to make your property a PercentageBasedAllocationPolicy instead of an IAllocationPolicy.
Alternatively you could turn it into an entity with automatic generated keys.
Related
I am working on .NET CORE 6 along with EF CORE 7. I need to seed data in joining table but unable to do so and get error.
I am seed FileTypeId but not sure why EF core migration throwing error...
error
The seed entity for entity type 'JobFileType' cannot be added because it has the navigation 'FileType' set. To seed relationships, add the entity seed to 'JobFileType' and specify the foreign key values {'FileTypeId'}. Consider using 'DbContextOptionsBuilder.EnableSensitiveDataLogging' to see the involved property values.
ClassA
public class JobProfile
{
public JobProfile()
{
this.JobFileTypes = new HashSet<JobFileType>();
}
public Guid JobProfileId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<JobFileType>? JobFileTypes { get; set; }
}
ClassB
public class FileType
{
public FileType()
{
this.JobFileTypes = new HashSet<JobFileType>();
}
public Guid FileTypeId { get; set; }
public string Extension { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public ICollection<JobFileType>? JobFileTypes { get; set; }
}
Joing Table
public class JobFileType
{
public Guid JobFileTypeId { get; set; }
public Guid JobProfileId { get; set; }
public JobProfile JobProfile { get; set; } = new JobProfile();
public Guid FileTypeId { get; set; }
public FileType FileType { get; set; } = new FileType();
}
Seed Extension
public static class JobFileTypeSeed
{
public static void Seed(this ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<JobFileType>()
.HasData(
new JobFileType {JobFileTypeId = Guid.Parse("aaa"), JobProfileId = Guid.Parse("ccc"), FileTypeId = Guid.Parse("yyy") },
new JobFileType { JobFileTypeId = Guid.Parse("bbb"), JobProfileId = Guid.Parse("ccc"), FileTypeId = Guid.Parse("zzz") }
);
}
}
config
internal class JobFileTypeConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<JobFileType>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<JobFileType> builder)
{
builder.ToTable("JobFileType", "dbo");
builder.HasKey(column => column.JobFileTypeId);
builder
.HasOne(jobFileType => jobFileType.JobProfile)
.WithMany(jobProfile => jobProfile.JobFileTypes)
.HasForeignKey(jobFileType => jobFileType.JobProfileId);
builder
.HasOne(jobFileType => jobFileType.FileType)
.WithMany(fileType => fileType.JobFileTypes)
.HasForeignKey(jobFileType => jobFileType.FileTypeId);
}
}
There is not much to say about the concrete issue (which btw is not specific to joining entity, but any entity model seeding):
I am seed FileTypeId but not sure why EF core migration throwing error...
as the cause of the issue is included at the beginning of the error message:
because it has the navigation 'FileType' set.
And your entity has
public FileType FileType { get; set; } = new FileType();
// ^ ^ ^
// the problem
and the same for
public JobProfile JobProfile { get; set; } = new JobProfile();
which will be the next error if you resolve the original.
Remove both navigation property initializers (= new ...) and the problem will be gone.
As a general rule, you should never initialize reference navigation properties because it causes many side effects and/or improper behaviors (not only for seeding, but also eager/lazy/explicit data loading). Initializing collection navigation properties is arbitrary, but ok. Only reference navigation property initialization must be avoided. For more info, see EF codefirst : Should I initialize navigation properties? - quite old EF topic, but still applies.
If you are trying to resolve NRT warnings (as I guess), initializing with new is definitely not a proper way. One reason I don't like NRT is because it is forcing people to use "workarounds" for preventing compiler warnings, which in fact break the primary functionality. Specifically in EF Core, enabling NRT also changes the optional/required attribute of some properties, hence database column types (most noticeable for string properties/columns and reference navigations). You could read more about this in the Working with Nullable Reference Types topic in the official EF Core documentation, but in general I would just disable NRT for EF entity model classes.
The proper order is to set the "master data" first and then try to set the join table, as you would expect.
The defaulting
{get;set;} = new Something();
Could be the offending declaration, since any instance upon creation will have the relation JobFileType already set
Is it possible to add columns to the AspNetUserLogins table, or subclass the IdentityUserLogin class, such that the Identity Framework will use that class properly?
This is an answer but I'm sure it's not going to end up the best one:
It can be done, but it's ugly.
First, you'll want to make a class of all the generics you're about to use, just to make your life easier. Those are:
[Table("AspNetUserRoles")]
public class StandardUserRole : IdentityUserRole<string>
[Table("AspNetRoles")]
public class StandardRole : IdentityRole<string, StandardUserRole>
[Table("AspNetUserLogins")]
public class LoginIdentity : IdentityUserLogin
(The above superclasses can be found in Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework).
This is going to make the following generic definitions shorter, and harder to get into a place where they won't compile due to clerical errors.
While you're here may as well add these to the DbContext, which normally does not leave them available to you:
public DbSet<LoginIdentity> LoginIdentities { get; set; }
public DbSet<StandardUserRole> UserRoles { get; set; }
Now, here comes the crazy:
public class Db :
// Replace this with a custom implementation
//IdentityDbContext<Visitor>,
IdentityDbContext<Visitor, StandardRole, string, LoginIdentity,
StandardUserRole, IdentityUserClaim>,
And, Visitor is going to need its own adjustment to match this declaration:
public class Visitor : IdentityUser<string, LoginIdentity, StandardUserRole,
IdentityUserClaim>
That satisfies the Models (which btw, are best to have in their own Project for Migrations performance reasons). But, you've still got all the Identity/OWIN stuff to deal with.
By default you're provided with an ApplicationUserManager that involves a UserStore. It normally inherits from UserManager, but that's going to be too restrictive now - you need to slightly expand it:
public class VisitorManager : UserManager<Visitor, string>
{
public VisitorManager(IUserStore<Visitor, string> store)
: base(store)
{
}
public static VisitorManager Create(
IdentityFactoryOptions<VisitorManager> options,
IOwinContext context)
{
var manager = new VisitorManager(new UserStore<Visitor,
StandardRole, string, LoginIdentity, StandardUserRole,
IdentityUserClaim>(context.Get<Db>()));
I warned you about crazy. SignInManager:
public class SignInManager : SignInManager<Visitor, string>
{
public SignInManager(VisitorManager userManager,
IAuthenticationManager authenticationManager)
: base(userManager, authenticationManager)
{
}
public override Task<ClaimsIdentity> CreateUserIdentityAsync(
Visitor user)
{
return user.GenerateUserIdentityAsync((VisitorManager)UserManager);
}
public static SignInManager Create(
IdentityFactoryOptions<SignInManager> options, IOwinContext context)
{
return new SignInManager(context.GetUserManager<VisitorManager>(),
context.Authentication);
}
}
That should get you through most of the dirty work. Not easy. But, having done that, you've got a working implementation where you can add extra fields to the Logins table! You can now extend the OWIN Auth stuff to provide events, and listen for the creation of new Logins. You can then respond to those by adding that extra info.
In our case, the goal was to have multiple Logins from multiple OpenId/OAuth Providers (Google, Facebook, etc) across multiple email addresses, on a single User/Visitor account. The framework does support that, but, it doesn't make a record of what Email is associated with what Login row, which is important when merging more Logins with a given account.
[Table("AspNetUserLogins")]
public class LoginIdentity : IdentityUserLogin
{
/// <summary>
/// The email address associated with this identity at this provider
/// </summary>
[MaxLength(300)]
public string Email { get; set; }
}
There's more you'll need to do to get the whole thing working, but it should be relatively obvious from the above starting point - with one exception, which I'll point out here.
By migrating from UserManager<TVisitor> to UserManager<TVisitor, string>, you quietly lose the ID-generation functionality built-in to the former. You'll need to emulate it yourself. As another gotcha, along the way you'll most likely implement Visitor as IUser<string>. Doing so will prevent you from setting the Id property, because it's read-only (no setter). You can avoid that with a second interface:
public interface IVisitor
{
string Id { get; set; }
string Uid { get; set; }
string UserName { get; set; }
string Email { get; set; }
string FirstName { get; set; }
string LastName { get; set; }
ICollection<StandardUserRole> Roles { get; }
ICollection<LoginIdentity> Logins { get; }
}
With that in place you can set Id safely (even in an abstracted class):
public override Task<IdentityResult> CreateAsync(Visitor user)
{
var guid = Guid.NewGuid();
string id = guid.ToString();
((IVisitor)user).Id = id;
return base.CreateAsync(user);
}
Remember to do same for CreateAsync(Visitor user, string password). Otherwise created users explode with DbEntityValidationException complaining Id is a required field.
I already have a database with tables outside EF scope. But I want that the tables which will be used by EF to be created automatically.
public class SessionInfo
{
public Guid Id {get;set;}
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime StartsOn { get; set; }
public DateTime EndsOn { get; set; }
public string Notes { get; set; }
}
public class StudentsDbContext:DbContext
{
public StudentsDbContext():base("name=memory")
{
Database.Log = s => this.LogDebug(s);
}
public DbSet<SessionInfo> Sessions { get; set; }
}
This code just throws an exception because the table SessionInfoes doesn't exist.
using (var db = new StudentsDbContext())
{
db.Sessions.Add(new SessionInfo() {Id = Guid.NewGuid(), Name = "bla"});
var st = db.Sessions.FirstOrDefault();
}
What do I need to do so that EF will create the "SessionInfoes" (whatever name, it's not important) table by itself? I was under the impression that Ef will create the tables when the context is first used for a change or a query.
Update
After some digging, it seems that EF and Sqlite don't play very nice together i.e at most you can use EF to do queries but that's it. No table creation, no adding entities.
EF needs additional information in order to do this. You'll have to specify an IDatabaseInitializer first. Take a look at this list and find one that is appropriate for your needs (for example: MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion, DropCreateDatabaseAlways, DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges, etc).
Then create your class:
public class MyDatabaseInitializer : MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion
<MyDbContext,
MyDatabaseMigrationConfiguration>
Then also create the configuration for the initializer (ugh right?):
public class DatabaseMigrationsConfiguration
: DbMigrationsConfiguration<MyDbContext>
{
public DatabaseMigrationsConfiguration()
{
this.AutomaticMigrationDataLossAllowed = true;
this.AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = true;
}
protected override void Seed(MyDbContext context)
{
// Need data automagically added/update to the DB
// during initialization?
base.Seed(context);
}
}
Then one way to initialize the database is:
var myContext = new MyDbContext(/*connectionString*/);
Database.SetInitializer<MyDbContext>(new MyDatabaseInitializer());
myContext.Database.Initialize(true);
Some people prefer the to use the command line to migrate databases, but I don't want to assume I'll always have access to the database from a command lin.
I want to use EF behind my WCF service to fetch data and display it to the client. I need the following suggestions:
Do I need to have the same interface for all the views (e.g. students, teachers etc.) or do I need to have a different interface and service for every table (or view)
Do I need to generate the database calls within my service (.svc) or some other architecture is preferred?
public Student[] GetAllStudents()
{
//database generation code here
}
How can I use EF code-first approach to generate database. I know that for an MVC app, you need to set the initializer in Global.asax or in web.config but I am not sure how it's called in this case. My model looks like this:
[DataContract]
public class Student
{
[DataMember]
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Type { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Subject { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Description { get; set; }
}
What you really should do is break up your system in to more separate layers. Instead of having a WCF call that directly queries the database, create a "buisness logic" layer that translates the information that the WCF call provides you to what the EF call needs to know. This is called a N-Tier application
public class SchoolAPI : ISchoolAPI
{
private DataAccessLayer _dal = new DataAccessLayer();
public Student[] GetAllStudents()
{
return _dal.GetStudents(null, null);
}
public Student[] GetAllScienceStudents()
{
return _dal.GetStudents(null, DataAccessLayer.ScienceStudentType);
}
}
private class DataAccessLayer
{
public static readonly ScienceStudentType = //...
public Student[] GetStudents(string subject, string type)
{
using(var ctx = new SchoolContext())
{
IQueryable<Student> studentQuery = ctx.Students;
if(subject != null)
studentQuery = studentQuery.Where(s=>s.Subject == subject);
if(type != null)
studentQuery = studentQuery.Where(s=>s.Type == type);
return studentQuery.ToArray();
}
}
}
The caller of the WCF call does not need to know what the string ScienceStudentType is, all it cares about is that it gets the science students. By seperating the business logic from the database call the caller of your service no longer needs to know.
For EF it will initialize on the first time the framework goes out to "touch" the database and detects that it is not there if it is set up to do so. This is done in the constructor of SchoolContext but is getting a little too broad for this answer. I recommend finding a tutorial on EF and get it working in a simple test enviorment without WCF (maybe a simple console app that just calls GetStudents() then move in in to a WCF environment.
I've got the following requirement that works well in the OO space but I can't seem to get it to map back to the DB using ADO EF code first.
I have numrous products each will have different aspects (attributes but not in the sense of code attributes). For instance ring would have aspects such as mineral type = gold etc whilst a diamond would have an aspec of clarity = VVSI1.
As you can see the products very greatly in thier composition and I want a dynamic way of growing my system.
As such I've created a product class:
public class Product
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
private List<ProductAspect> aspects = new List<ProductAspect>();
public List<ProductAspect> Aspects { get { return aspects; } set { aspects = value; } }
}
It has a list of ProductAspect which is the base class for all aspects moving forward:
public class ProductAspect
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string AspectName { get; set; }
}
I then inherit from the ProductAspect using a generic which alows me to be specific (strongly typed) about my Aspect Value:
public abstract class ProductAspect<T> : ProductAspect
{
public T AspectValue { get; set; }
}
I then create some Aspects that will allow me to decorate my product:
public class StringAspect : ProductAspect<string> { };
public class DecimalAspect : ProductAspect<decimal> { };
public class ImageAspect : ProductAspect<byte[]> { };
I then give the DbContext a try and have tried both TPH and TPC inheritance mappings.
Neither seem to work. The DB model that get's generated doesn't create a foriegn key to the StringAspect or DecimalAspect tables from the Aspect Table.
public class IxamDataContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
public DbSet<ProductAspect> Aspects { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
AspectMapping(modelBuilder);
}
private void AspectMapping(DbModelBuilder mb)
{
//TPH
//mb.Entity<ProductAspect>()
// .Map<StringAspect>(m => m.Requires("type").HasValue("sa"))
// .Map<DecimalAspect>(m => m.Requires("type").HasValue("da"));
//TPC
//mb.Entity<StringAspect>().ToTable("StringAspect");
//mb.Entity<DecimalAspect>().ToTable("DecimalAspect");
}
}
Resulting in the following exception for this Seeding code:
Product p = new Product();
p.Name = "Diamond";
p.Aspects.Add(new StringAspect() { AspectName = "History", AspectValue = "Old and long" });
p.Aspects.Add(new DecimalAspect() { AspectName = "Weight", AspectValue= 96.5M });
context.Products.Add(p);
context.SaveChanges();
Excpetion:
EntityType 'StringAspect' does not
exist in the EntitySet
'IxamDataContext.Aspects'. Parameter
name: entity
Any ideas from the EF code first pros out there?
Entity framework doesn't support intermediate non mapped types in inheritance hierarchy. It means that you can't have this inheritance: A (mapped) -> B (not mapped) -> C (mapped). EF also doesn't support mapping generic types. It means that you must remove your generic intermediate class from the hierarchy and move AspectValue to derived types with correct type.
Maybe it's to late, but I would offer you using ComplexType attribute it will allows you to extend your types as you wish.