I have a method where the DBContext is pass in (this is only POC code).
I then try to open another nested transaction, With this code
using (var cxt = new TestEntities(context.Database.Connection, false))
{
using (DbContextTransaction dbContextTransaction = cxt.Database.BeginTransaction())
{
The call to "BeginTransaction" gives this error:
An exception of type 'System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.UnintentionalCodeFirstException' occurred in TestEF6.exe but was not handled in user code
Additional information: The context is being used in Code First mode with code that was generated from an EDMX file for either Database First or Model First development. This will not work correctly. To fix this problem do not remove the line of code that throws this exception. If you wish to use Database First or Model First, then make sure that the Entity Framework connection string is included in the app.config or web.config of the start-up project. If you are creating your own DbConnection, then make sure that it is an EntityConnection and not some other type of DbConnection, and that you pass it to one of the base DbContext constructors that take a DbConnection. To learn more about Code First, Database First, and Model First see the Entity Framework documentation here: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=394715
I have a Database First Model
Any clues?
Regards
GregJF
Related
I have a simple ASP.NET Web Pages site using Entity Framework 6.1 (the Web Pages live in the standard project with csproj so that I could use EF Code First with migrations). This is in my _AppStart.cshtml:
#{
Database.SetInitializer(new MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion<MyContext, Configuration>());
}
It all compiles fine, I have confirmed that the code indeed go through this line but the migrations aren't applied - I have confirmed that by manually executing Update-Database which did the work correctly.
What could be wrong? Do I need to set something else for it to work?
Calling SetInitializer (as name says) does not create database or apply migrations. It just sets the initializer. It will be invoked for instance when you would like to save data to db with SaveChanges method and the database won't exist at that time. To force immediate migration you should use DbMigrator class:
var migrator = new DbMigrator(new MyMigrationsConfiguration());
migrator.Update();
In Entity Framework 5 model first, there seem to be some breaking changes due to the way the class files are generated (No more code generation, but T4 templates)
2 examples:
The generated context file doesn't implement IDisposable anymore
There isn't a constructor which takes a connectionstring anymore
Are there more breaking changes? And what is the solution to them?
The default code generated from a model in Entity Framework 5 now inherits DbContext instead of ObjectContext.
This still implements IDisposable, but if you're getting an error from a line of code similar to this:
using (var mymodel = new MyModelContext()) { ... }
...complaining about not implementing IDisposable, then your problem is most likely that your model is defined in a separate assembly that references EF5 and you have not added an EF5 reference to your project.
As Ladislav Mrnka has already mentioned in his answer, if you want to pass a connection string to the constructor you have to create your own constructor manually to do this.
If you want to switch Entity Framework back to the older style of generated code, which will automatically generate the constructor you're looking for, then follow these steps:
Click on the designer surface of your EDMX file, and look at the properties window. Find a property called "Code Generation Strategy" and set this to "Default" instead of "None". This will tell Visual Studio to start creating the code for your object model in MyModel.Designer.cs in one big file, this time using ObjectContext instead of DbContext.
Delete the following sub files from below your EDMX file: MyModel.Context.tt, MyModel.tt. These are the auto generated files that you don't want anymore. If you don't delete them you'll get class naming conflicts because your objects will be created twice.
The generated context file doesn't implement IDisposable anymore
IDisposable is still implemented by the parent context type. The generated type is still disposable.
There isn't a constructor which takes a connectionstring anymore
It now uses convention to get connection string but you can add your own constructor either to template or to your partial class part of the context.
Are there more breaking changes? And what is the solution to them?
It is whole breaking change because it uses different API - DbContext API instead of ObjectContext API which means different types, different methods, POCO entities etc. If you want to get back to original code generation you have to delete those T4 templates and enable code generation as described in .Designer.cs file but the current recommended way is to use POCOs and DbContext API.
I was having the same issue with the using statement needing a type that extended IDisposable... Turns out that I forgot to reference System.Data.Entity in my project... Added the reference and it fixed the problem.
Just clean and build the project, don't forget to add the reference to your entity.
I am trying to use Entity Framework data migrations, as described in this post.
However, when I try to execute the Enable-Migrations step, I receive the following error in Package Manager Console:
The target context 'MyDataContext' is not constructible. Add a default constructor or provide an implementation of IDbContextFactory
So, I created a factory class that implements IDbContextFactory in the project that contains my DbContext class, but data migrations doesn't appear to recognize it.
Is there something that I should explicitly do to instruct data migrations to use this factory class?
I also hit this problem as i wrote my context to take a connection string name (and then used ninject to provide it).
The process you've gone through seems correct, here is a snippet of my class implementation if it's of any help:
public class MigrationsContextFactory : IDbContextFactory<MyContext>
{
public MyContext Create()
{
return new MyDBContext("connectionStringName");
}
}
That should be all you need.
Like #Soren pointed out, instead of using IDbContextFactory, not supported on some earlier EF Core releases (i.e. EF Core 2.1), we can implement IDesignTimeDbContextFactory<TContext>, which supports the missing ConnectionString parameter.
For a settings.json based aproach, which you can use with either of the referred interfaces, check #Arayn's sample which allows us to define "ConnectionStrings:DefaultConnection" value path
Update 1
According to #PaulWaldman's comment, on EF Core 5 support for IDbContextFactory was reintroduced. For further details, check his comment below.
For various reasons I would like to not store the connection string for my Entity Framework DB model in one of the various .config files. (I am using the latest and greatest DBContext API with the new Entity Framework version 4.1, .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010 C#.) However, the code generation template for DBContext only creates a single parameterless constructor. (If I don't use the DBContext API, then my entity framework model has 7 different constructors to chose from, including the one I want.)
The only way I could figure out how to do this was to directly modify the code-generation template (context.tt file) to give me the constructor I want (example code below). This works, but it feels like I'm doing it "the hard way". What is the correct way to get a DBContext constructor that accepts a connection string?
public <#=Code.Escape(container)#>(string connectionString)
: base(connectionString)
{
<#
WriteLazyLoadingEnabled(container);
#>
}
One final note in case it might help somebody else. Although this method works, it took me a while to realize that the "connection string" is not strictly the DB connection string, but rather the special entity framework connection string which contains the DB connection string (just like what would be stored in the app.config file).
Your approach looks like the most correct way to do this. It's what the t4 templates were created for, and you're basically doing the same thing that the model-first templates do by default.
Another possibility would be to make the db context class be partial (if it isn't by default) and create another partial class file alongside it to add the constructor you want. But it seems likely that you'll want all of your t4-generated contexts to follow this pattern, so I think it's best to leverage the code generation to do this automatically the way you do in the question.
I have an ADO.Net Data Service that I am using to do a data import. There are a number of entities that are linked to by most entities. To do that during import I create those entities first, save them and then use .SetLink(EntityImport, "NavigationProperty", CreatedEntity). Now the first issue that I ran into was that the context did not always know about CreatedEntity (this is due to each of the entities being imported independently and a creation of a context as each item is created - I'd like to retain this functionality - i.e. I'm trying to avoid "just use one context" as the answer).
So I have a .AddToCreatedEntityType(CreatedEntity) before attempting to call SetLink. This of course works for the first time, but on the second pass I get the error message "the context is already tracking the entity".
Is there a way to check if the context is already tracking the entity (context.Contains(CreatedEntity) isn't yet implemented)? I was thinking about attempting a try catch and just avoiding the error, but that seems to create a new CreatedEntity each pass. It is looking like I need to use a LINQ to Data Services to get that CreatedEntity each time, but that seems innefficient - any suggestions?
I think you should look at the EntityState property of your entity.
Only if it is of the value EntityState.Detached than you have to add it to your context.
Do not forget the following remark:
This enumeration has a FlagsAttribute
attribute that allows a bitwise
combination of its member values.
I would create a extension method:
public static class EntityObjectExtensions
{
public static Boolean IsTracked(this EntityObject self)
{
return (self.EntityState & EntityState.Detached) != EntityState.Detached;
}
}
When trying to check whether the context was tracking the entity that I wanted to update (or add) I was pretty disapointed when I found that the context.Entites.Contains(currentItem) didn't work.
I got around it using:
if (context.Entities.Where(entities => entities.Entity == currentItem).Any())
{
this.service.UpdateObject(currentItem);
}