I am using EF 6 code first. As part of the code-based migration, I would like to rename the existing database after applying all the pending migrations. Can this be done?
I don't think this would be (easily?) possible (without causing errors)
If you rename the database during the migration it wont be able to write the migration out to the migrationhistory table as the connection string will still be pointing to the old database.
Perhaps a better option would be to build something into the system to rename the database and adjust the required configuration outside of EF entirely.
Related
Running typeorm migrations always creates the migrations and typeorm_metadata table. These tables keep track of migrations done for the particular schema. But, I'd like to execute some ddl commands with this migration facility. Is there a way to not generate them for a migration ?
Doesn't seem to be a logical way to do that, but, the way I got around this is by using the migrationsTableName, I changed it dynamically everytime using a word generator, so the net effect would be as if there was no migrations metadata at all. ;-)
I want to do code first development on an existing SQL Server Database. I have used the Scaffold-DbContext command to generate the entities that I want into the tables I want. That's great. But, there were previously code first migrations done to this database. So I deleted the __EFMigrationsHistory table in the SQL Database. Now I want to start doing migrations. Unfortunately, when I run Add-Migration, it generates migration code to generate all of the tables again. I don't understand how I am supposed to tell it that these tables already exist. When I am reverse engineering, how do I generate the migration of the stuff it's scaffolding for me in the existing database?
Code First Migrations uses a snapshot of the model stored in the most recent migration to detect changes to the model (you can find detailed information about this in Code First Migrations in Team Environments).
Source here.
Run Add-Migration InitialCreate –IgnoreChanges to create the initial migration from an existing database. Then update-database to simply add the migration to the _EFMigrationsHistory table.
After that, you are good to go brother.
I am in a situation where we have been using (code first) EF migrations against a database that is used as the backing store for two applications. Over the past year or so, we have successfully made DB changes via migrations.
However, at some point a few tables seem to have been manually added and we are now experiencing FK reference errors when we try to delete.
I have attempted the obvious, with the obvious result: Adding the models and generating a migration is going to attempt to recreate the tables in the database.
Is there a strategy to add these new tables to our data model and get our migrations up to date?
I have been updating my entities in development and that resulted in several migrations and update database commands, to a particular database.
What happens if I change the connection string (because the new database sits on a later version of SQL Server, for example) and then run the database update again? I have the impression that EF would detect the new database, run through all of my migrations, and produce one script and execute so that my new database has all the tables, columns, and relationships exactly as how the last migration left it. Can I just change the connection string and I'll get the new database as expected?
Many tell me that I have to create a separate deployment project for each database I want to manipulate with EF, but that seems rather tedious.
If there are different Tables and Columns it will bomb out right away with an Exception on the mismatched column/table name, if your databases are the exact same (and at the same Migration History), it should update it.
If you have two Databases that are not on the same migration history, you can run
Update-Database -TargetMigration migrationName
And this will effectively revert a Migration, just be sure to delete the migration that was added to the solution directory. (This sometimes happens when switching between branches / databases a lot, and may save you some time)
"Can I just change the connection string and I'll get the new database as expected?"
As long as the Migration History isn't mismatched and the Connection String is Pointing to the right place.
"Many tell me that I have to create a separate deployment project for each database I want to manipulate with EF"
If you are using Visual Studio, you can create different publishing profiles if needed
I've started looking into Entity Framework migrations on 4.3.1. Have a few questions:
What's preferred during development? Why should I not just drop and recreate my
database always and then reseed. If I use code first migrations, can
I choose to seed my db initially and then add a seed method to each
migration to only add in new data? If i use automatic migrations, is
it possible to do something similar? i.e. seed initially and then
seed as required?
What is the benefit of using migrations during development? I only
actually need migrations when moving to production. So, I need to
create my initial script and then scripts for each migration, so
would it be possible to only use migrations once i want to move to
production and at that point create an initial script and maintain a
migration history from that point onwards?
Well, in our case, we started to use Migrations because in our company, devs don't have the necessary rights to create a DB, which lead to the amusing scenario where I dropped the DB a couple of times and had to ask the db admin to recreate it each time...
In my opinion, it seems easier to incrementally grow your DB, rather than having to recreate it each time. If I were to have to drop and recreate our DB every time a property is added, deleted or changed, I'd never see the end of it.
I've not yet seen a possibility for incremental seeds, unless perhaps if you create manual migration files.
Migrations has the possibility to go to a specific version (either forwards or backwards) and it is possible to generate an SQL script from a migration.
So basically, you don't have to create a migration SQL script by hand anymore, you can get Migrations to do it for you.