Maybe I'm defeating the purpose of Code First but for one reason or another let's look at the problem.
I'm working in EF Code First. My 'Cars' POCO has a "Make" field,.. that matches the "Make" column in the db. Now I come along and I manually rename the column in the db to "Manufacturer". How can I force EF to catch up and update/ rename the POCO?
At the moment I'm using EntityFramework 6.1.3 and VS 2010.
The only solution I could find to this problem of the database being out of sync with EF on the code side was to delete all of the MIGRATIONS and the ENTITIES poco classes, and on the db side delete the _migrations table. Then go back to your application and add to your project a new "Code First from Existing Database".
This solved the problem for me easily and will allow me to work with Code First AND SQL Server Management Studio (as I like to do (until I get better at EF)).
I know it's a bit of a work-around but it'll get you out of jail if you find yourself in this situation.
Related
Guys we moved Framework 7 to EF core 2.0 .So right now we have a Small problem.
when We use Entity Framework 7 its mostly easy to update client Database without any doubt.(update -database)
but in EF core there is a problem the reason is for every changes we have to add add-migration so in that case we have now 100 migration history.
example :(20180313063924_NewVersion,14689013063934_NewVersion etc)
so when we update client database we have to keep that 100 migration history
But i think this is not the good way when its come to production level
is there anyway to resolve this problem.it would be helpful so much thank you!!
Well, it is exactly the way like EF and EFCore are working.
Every migration represents the needed modification on DbContext/Database to be valid with model's changes. So if you have changes, they will be represented by a migration.
One - in my opinion - not very clean solution could be:
delete current database
delete whole Migrations directory (is valid too to delete all migration files and <yourContextName>Snapshot.cs file in Migrations directory)
add new migration e.g. InitialCreate
The result will be only one migration that represents your current project's model/dbcontext state.
The approach is only possible if the project is still in dev-phase without any deployments on any stages.
Please note, I don't recommend that solution/approach. In my opinion you should leave the migrations like they are.
For further information you should read following:
The Model Snapshot In Entity Framework Core
Migration in Entity Framework Core
I'm using EF6 code-first migrations for existing database but initial DbContext does not fully cover existing schema (since it's massive). So from time to time I have to make updates to the model in database-first style. For example when I need an entity mapping for a table or a column that is already in the database but not reflected in the code I do the following:
Make all change (add new entity, rename the column mapping or add new property)
Scaffold migration representing the latest model snapshot stub_migration
Copy-paste latest serialized model from stub_migration to the last_migration resource file
Delete stub_migration
Revert last_migration in database
Update-Database so that model snapshot in [__MigrationHistory] table would be also updated
I understand that this aproach is a bit hackish and the proper way would be to leave empty stub_migration but this would force lots of empty migrations which I would rather avoid.
Looking at a similar scenario from MSDN article (Option 2: Update the model snapshot in the last migration) I wouldn't imagine that there is an easier way rather than writing power shell script, managed code or both to make it work. But I would rather ask community first before diving deep into it.
So I wonder: is there a simple way to automate generation of new model snapshot in latest migration and reaplying it?
I'm doing something similar. I have a large database and I am using the EF Tools for VS 2013 to reverse engineer it in small parts into my DEV environment. The tool creates my POCOs and Context changes in a separate folder. I move them to my data project, create a fluent configuration and then apply a migration (or turn automigration on).
After a while I want a single migration for TEST or PROD so I roll them up into a single migration using the technique explained here: http://cpratt.co/migrating-production-database-with-entity-framework-code-first/#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=54ad5c7b61c48943&at_ab=per-12&at_pos=0&at_tot=1
You can simplify the steps for updating DbContext snapshot of the last migration applied to database by re-scaffolding it with Entity Framework:
Revert the last migration if it is applied to the database:
Update-Database -Target:Previous_Migraton
Re-scaffold the last migration Add-Migration The_name_of_the_last_migration which will recreate the last migrations *.resx and *.Designer.cs (not the migration code), which is quite handy.
Those 2 steps are covering 4 steps (2-5) from original question.
You can also get different bahavior depending on what you want by specifying the flags -IgnoreChanges and (or) -Force
And by the way, the major problem with the updating the DbContext snapshot is not how to automate those steps, but how to conditionally apply them to TEST/PROD environments depending on whether you actually want to suppress the warning because you've mapped existing DB-first entities in you DbContext or you want it it to fail the build in case you've created new entities and forgot to create a code-first migration for them.
So, try to avoid those steps altogether and maybe create empty migrations when you just want to map existing tables to your code.
Desired outcome:
Use model first approach with Entity Framework and allow changes to deployed database/ model to be done automatically based on the changes in the model. Automatic schema difference script generation to allow smooth migrations.
Is there a way to perform migrations in model first EF6? I can see code first migrations topics all over, but nothing much on Model First.
Options I saw so far:
Database generation power pack (seems outdated)
somehow convert to code first, then use migrations (not desirable, as I like to have a visual designer)
somehow piggy back on code first migrations (http://blog.amusedia.com/2012/08/entity-framework-migration-with-model.html : this is for EF5, got error that can't run migrations on Model First)
some third party tools?
As far as I know there still is no automatic migration for Entity framework model first.
Our approach is:
Create a fresh database from the model.
Create a diff script to migrate the old database to the new one.
Verify that this diff script is indeed correct. Always double check what your automation tool creates.
We first used Open DB diff for our model first migrations. After that we switched to Redgate's SQL compare because it produced more reliable migrations .
In our experience DbDiff produced a lot of unnecessary SQL because it bothers with the order that columns are in, and has some other issues like foreign keys constantly being dropped and re-added. Aside from that it still did the job fine, but we had to do a lot of double checking on its generated SQL.
I have an application already in production using EF 5.0. I'm about to start on the next major revision. But before I do that, I'm trying to clean up a lot of my existing code.
One thing I want to change, is use a different class for one of my table entities. The new class is functionally identical to the previous. The only real difference is the name. E.g. ReceiptEntity will become Receipt.
This is to help simplify things, and stick to a simple naming convention.
However, EF Migrations are wanting to drop-recreate the table. This is not an option because the application is already in production. And I cannot allow for any data-loss.
Is there any way to change the Entity type without recreating the table that would make EF happy?
I was able to fix this by altering the generated migration.
The generated migration tried to create a table(one that already existed), then immediately drop it(which would of resulted in the data-loss).
I deleted all of the generated code, and simply 'Update-Database'ed an empty migration, and this solved the problem for me.
I have to create a new project and (as usual) is with an existing SQL Server database.
I used to use EF Code First connecting with my database, opening my EDMX model designer and then right click --> Add Code Generation Item. (http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2011/02/24/generating-ef-code-first-model-classes-from-an-existing-database.aspx) Easy.
But now I've discovered there's something called EF Power Tools that allows me to do Reverse Engineer Code First (cool name!) and get the same (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj200620)
Do you know the difference between the two options? Which one is better?
Thanks in advance.
(Sorry if this question was previously asked but I didn't find it.)
The difference is that the edmx approach is not code first, but database first with DbContext API. You will always use the database as the source of model changes.
EF Power Tools produce a truly code first model with DbContext: from then on you will change the class model first and modify the database accordingly (e.g. by EF migrations).
Neither is "better". DbContext API is easier to work with than ObjectContext, but both approaches use the former. It's up to you to choose whether you want to work database first or code first. It's a matter of personal preference and it may depend on who maintains the database structure. With database first it is easier to respond to changes someone else imposes on the database structure.
As far as workflow goes for database first, adding to what #Gert-Arnold said:
With database first it is easier to respond to changes someone else imposes on the database structure.
If someone else is managing the database changes, I'm finding it far easier to use the EF Designer. You get an updated database, then just right-click in the EF Designer and update the model from the database. You can use source control to easily view what has changed.
Also, if you only need a subset of tables from the database, reverse engineering causes alot of work having to go back and remove classes and properties from the context.
I found re-reverse engineering via code-first to an existing database to be just too much of a pain trying to figure out what changed and how I needed to update code that used the context.