I have created a fairly simply domain model using pocos. I have mapped these to an EF DB context using EntityTypeConfiguration<TEnitityType> classes. This all works fine.
I am now trying to create an OData V4 WebAPI controller endpoint using a ODataConventionModelBuilder and this is where things are coming unstuck. It all works fine until it encounters an association that is not convention based. But I cannot find a way to get the ODataBuilder to pick up the mappings from my EntityTypeConfiguration<TEnitityType> classes.
This leaves my with 2 unpalatable options
Decorate my lovely clean pocos with dirty attributes.
Re-map all the non convention based mappings manually using the ODataBuilder
Not sure if code samples will help but here they are anyway, i have simplified the entities for brevity.
var builder = new ODataConventionModelBuilder();
builder.EntitySet<Item>("Items");
config.MapODataServiceRoute(
routeName: "odata",
routePrefix: "odata",
model: builder.GetEdmModel(),
batchHandler: new DefaultODataBatchHandler((GlobalConfiguration.DefaultServer)));
public class Item
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public Int16 ItemTypeId { get; set; }
public virtual ItemType Type { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ItemVersion> Versions { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ItemTag> Tags { get; set; }
}
The problem comes when it encounters the ItemTags collection, here is an ItemTag:
public class ItemTag
{
public Int32 ItemId { get; set; }
public string Tag { get; set; }
public Item Item { get; set; }
}
Which you can see is not convention based and I have a configuration class for it as follows:
public class ItemTagConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<ItemTag>
{
public ItemTagConfiguration()
{
HasKey(x => new {x.ItemId, x.Tag});
HasRequired(x => x.Item)
.WithMany(y => y.Tags)
.HasForeignKey(x => x.ItemId);
}
}
Does anyone know of a way that I can use these EntityTypeConfiguration files with an ODataBuilder or web API?
EDIT
If found this page which seems to indicate it might be possible with EF 6 which I am using. What I want to do is this
ODataModelBuilder modelBuilder = new ODataConventionModelBuilder();
modelBuilder.EntitySet<Dbf>("Dbfs");
// modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new DbfMap()); <---- NO GOOD - Needs Class from DBContext we only have a model builder :(
Microsoft.Data.Edm.IEdmModel model = modelBuilder.GetEdmModel();
config.Routes.MapODataRoute("ODataRoute", "odata", model);
but the builder does not have a Configurations property.
Two things:
I have read multiple sources now that ward against using lazy loading and serialization; which is basically what OData is; (It even uses the system.runtime.serialization.datacontract and datamember attributes)
I have had more success in explicitly loading from context, and defining navigation properties in the modelbuilder for dbContext. I understand you are looking at customized nav properties, but I am fairly sure these are overriden methods useful for the ODataModelBuilder class (that does not assume much and needs less Entity Framework to work). Where you mentioned using EF already, I imagine that is the direction you will work, and if you do not need to alias your model names, you add an entry for each Set, using convention naming.
EntitySet("routePrefixName")
in building the EdmModel, and it wires up the relationships you made using Fluent previously. If you do have to add extraneous items to the underlying model, you should define each class as an EntityType<>(), only setting the key. EdmBuilder can use mild properties and key association to attach to the EF model in the ODataConventionModelBuilder.
I have wrestled and sought for some time, and there does not seem to be a wealth of information on .Net OData v4 floating around, probably due to the whole force datetimeoffset issue.
Hope that helps somewhat
Related
I'm building a website using Visual Studio 2012 with MVC4 and Entity Framework 4.
I created all my model classes, with all their attributes (with some relationships between them). So far, my classes only have a bunch of attributes (no methods yet).
But whenever I try to create a controller for a class that has a collection in it, I get this error: Unable to retrieve metadata for 'model name'. Value cannot be null. Parameter name: key.
I've googled it and found different solutions, but none of them worked: I tried renaming all my primary key attributes to "Id" (they are also all annotated with [Key]), I also tried commenting out the constructor in the Data Context class, I checked my connection is named DefaultConnection...
This is one of the classes for which I'm being unable to create a controller:
public class JobOffer
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int JobOfferId { get; set; }
public Company Company { get; set; }
public OfferState State { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<OfferApplicant> Applicants { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Requirement> Requirements { get; set; }
}
(I already tried without the [DatabaseGeneratedAttribute] annotation and it didn't help)
The OfferState class is an abstract class that has 2 subclasses: Open and Closed (they're there to implement a State pattern).
The OfferApplicant class maps 1 JobOffer with 1 Applicant, since that was a many-to-many relationships, so I created a new table.
The Requirement class is also an abstract class that has a few subclasses, like Age, Education, Area, etc., and also a CompositeRequirement, which has a public virtual ICollection Requirements { get; set; } collection (it's a Composite pattern).
The classes don't even have methods yet, all they have are their properties.
Any clues?
Thanks!!
I've got POCO domain entities that are persisted using Entity Framework 5. They are obtained from the DbContext using a repository pattern and are exposed to a RESTful MVC WebApi application through a UoW pattern. The POCO entities are proxies and are lazy loaded.
I am converting my entities to DTOs before sending them to the client. I am using Automapper to do this and it seems to be working fine with Automapper mapping the proxy POCOs to DTOs, keeping the navigation properties intact. I am using the following mapping for this:
Mapper.CreateMap<Client, ClientDto>();
Example of Domain/DTO objects:
[Serializable]
public class Client : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, MaxLength(100)]
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ClientLocation> ClientLocations { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ComplianceRequirement> DefaultComplianceRequirements { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Note> Notes { get; set; }
}
public class ClientDto : DtoBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, MaxLength(100)]
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<ClientLocation> ClientLocations { get; set; }
public ICollection<ComplianceRequirementDto> DefaultComplianceRequirements { get; set; }
public ICollection<Note> Notes { get; set; }
}
Now I am trying to update my context using DTOs sent back up from the wire. I am having specific trouble with getting the navigational properties/related entities working properly. The mapping for this I'm using is:
Mapper.CreateMap<ClientDto, Client>()
.ConstructUsing((Func<ClientDto, Client>)(c => clientUow.Get(c.Id)));
Above, clientUow.Get() refers to DbContext.Set.Find() so that I am getting the tracked proxy POCO object from EF (that contains all of the related entities also as proxies).
In my controller method I am doing the following:
var client = Mapper.Map<ClientDto, Client>(clientDto);
uow.Update(client);
client successfully is mapped, as a proxy POCO object, however it's related entities/navigational properties are replaced with a new (non-proxy) POCO entity with property values copied from the DTO.
Above, uow.Update() basically refers to a function that performs the persist logic which I have as:
_context.Entry<T>(entity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
_context.SaveChanges();
The above doesn't persist even persist the entity, let alone related ones. I've tried variations on the mappings and different ways to persist using detaching/states but always get "an object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager" exceptions.
I've had a look at countless other threads and just can't get it all working with Automapper. I can grab a proxy object from the context and manually go through properties updating them from the DTO fine, however I am using Automapper to map domain -> DTO and it would be alot more elegant to use it to do the reverse, since my DTOs resemble my domain objects to a large extent.
Is there a textbook way to handle Automapper with EF, with Domain Objects/DTOs that have navigational properties that also need to be updated at the same time?
UPDATE:
var originalEntity = _entities.Find(entity.Id);
_context.Entry<T>(originalEntity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Detached;
_context.Entry<T>(entity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
The above persistence logic updates the 'root' EF proxy object in the context, however any related entities are not updated. I'm guessing that this is due to them not being mapped to EF proxy objects but rather plain domain objects. Help would be most appreciated!
UPDATE:
It seems that what I'm trying to achieve is not actually possible using the current version of EF(5) and that this is a core limitation of EF and not to do with Automapper:
Link
Link
I guess it's back to doing it manually. Hope this helps someone else who is wondering the same.
You have allready identified the problem:
The above persistence logic updates the 'root' EF proxy object in the
context, however any related entities are not updated
You are setting the modified state on the root node only. You must write code to iterate through all the objects and set the state to modified.
I implemented a pattern to handle this hierarchy model state with EF.
Every entity model class implements an interface like below, as do the view model classes:
public interface IObjectWithState
{
ObjectState ObjectState { get; set; }
}
The ObjectState enumeration is defined below:
public enum ObjectState
{
Unchanged = 0,
Added = 1,
Modified = 2,
Deleted = 3
}
For example when saving a deep hierarchy of objects using EF, I map the view model objects to their equivalent entity objects, including the ObjectState.
I then attach the root entity object to the context (and consequently all child objects):
dbContext.MyCustomEntities.Attach(rootEntityObj);
I then have an extension method on the DbContext that loops through all the items in the context's change tracker and update each entity's state (as you have done above).
public static int ApplyStateChanges(this DbContext context)
{
int count = 0;
foreach (var entry in context.ChangeTracker.Entries<IObjectWithState>())
{
IObjectWithState stateInfo = entry.Entity;
entry.State = ConvertState(stateInfo.ObjectState);
if (stateInfo.ObjectState != ObjectState.Unchanged)
count++;
}
return count;
}
Then we can simply save the changes as normal:
dbContext.SaveChanges();
This way, all the hierarchy of child objects will be updated accordingly in the database.
What you want to do is get the Entity from the database first:
var centity = _context.Client.First(a=>a.Id = id)
Then you map over this and update (this is what you were looking for, it will only map things it finds in the inputDTO, and leave the other properties alone)
Mapper.Map<UpdateClientInput, Client>(inputDto, centity);
_context.update();
When using Entity Framework Code First 4.3.1 it is possible to create relationships with a multiplicity of 1-to-1. That is, one entity on each end of the relationship.
It is possible to configure 1-to-1 relationships to be required-required or required-optional ^. However, when I switch between the two I do not see any differences in:
The database schema generated. I am targeting SQL Server 2008.
The runtime behaviour of EF.
As such, I am able to create a RequiredPrincipalAs record without a corresponding RequiredDependentAs record, despite the relationship being configured as required-required. This seems to contradict the documentation for HasRequired(...):
Configures a required relationship from this entity type. Instances of the entity type will not be able to be saved to the database unless this relationship is specified. The foreign key in the database will be non-nullable.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg671317
The required-required relationship entities:
public class RequiredPrincipalA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredDependentA DependentA { get; set; }
}
public class RequiredDependentA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalA PrincipalA { get; set; }
}
The required-optional relationship entities:
public class RequiredPrincipalB
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual OptionalDependentB DependentB { get; set; }
}
public class OptionalDependentB
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalB PrincipalB { get; set; }
}
The DbContext and model configuration:
public class AppContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<RequiredPrincipalA> PrincipalAs { get; set; }
public DbSet<RequiredDependentA> DependentAs { get; set; }
public DbSet<RequiredPrincipalB> PrincipalBs { get; set; }
public DbSet<OptionalDependentB> DependentBs { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<RequiredPrincipalA>()
.HasRequired(o => o.DependentA)
.WithRequiredPrincipal(o => o.PrincipalA);
modelBuilder.Entity<RequiredPrincipalB>()
.HasOptional(o => o.DependentB)
.WithRequired(o => o.PrincipalB);
}
}
The test code:
Database.SetInitializer(new DropCreateDatabaseAlways<AppContext>());
using (var ctx = new AppContext())
{
ctx.Database.Initialize(force: false);
ctx.PrincipalAs.Add(new RequiredPrincipalA());
ctx.PrincipalBs.Add(new RequiredPrincipalB());
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
I am aware I could add a [Required] data attribute to the navigation properties of RequiredPrincipalA.DependentA and RequiredDependentA.PrincipalA. This would cause EF validation to prevent the scenario above. However, I do not want to do this because it also validates the navigation property is populated when updating an existing entity. This means the application has to pre-fetch the entity at the other end of the relationship for every update.
Why do I not see any difference in the behaviour of EF just when changing a relationship between required-required and required-optional?
^ Note that optional-optional is also supported but this doesn't form part of my question. There are obvious differences in the generated database schema and runtime behaviour when an optional-optional relationship is configured.
I don't know why required-required is allowed for this case but it cannot exist in the database because relation is build on primary keys. Required-required means that A cannot be inserted if related B doesn't exist and B cannot be inserted if related A doesn't exist => neither A or B can be inserted.
Database relation has always principal and dependent entity - principal can always exist without dependent.
Real required-required in EF can be achieved only when both A and B are mapped to the same table (table splitting) because in such case they are both inserted with single insert command.
Not really an answer but I have more to say than will fit in comments. But you know, I write 900 page books...it's just how I roll. :)
Oddly I would expect the fluent configuration to behave the same way as the data annotation and am confused that it's not doing it. (I've pinged Rowan Miller with a link to this thread to get his feedback.) And the behavior I mean is: validating the constraint during SaveChanges.
On the database side, I'm with Ladislav.In the model, EF defines the 1:1 using the keys of the related entities. But in the database, you can't have FKs in both tables, so only the dependent table in the database will require that constraint that it's PK maps to an existing PK in the principal table.
And finally, I understand your reason for not wanting EF to enforce the relationship if you aren't going to always deal with teh full graph. I think 1:1 relationships are the most confusing of the EF relationship mappings and I always find myself having to go back for reminders of the rules and how things should work.
Old question. But since EF6 is still used and even available for .Net standard and this issue can be a real nuisance, I think it's worth mentioning something I couldn't find in other answers.
It is true that both HasRequired - WithRequiredPrincipal and HasOptional - WithRequired produce the same database schema and the same runtime behavior. That is, with both mappings it's possible to save a principal without a dependent entity and to remove the dependent later. So much for HasRequired.
But there is a way to make EF validate the required relationship when creating the entities, which is by simply adding a [Required] attribute:
public class RequiredPrincipalA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required] // <== here
public virtual RequiredDependentA DependentA { get; set; }
}
public class RequiredDependentA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalA PrincipalA { get; set; }
}
As said, only when creating the entities. It's still possible to set RequiredPrincipalA.RequiredDependentA = null and save it successfully. But I think that, fortunately, the likelihood of that happening in code is far lower than forgetting to set the required dependent.
Consider this class used for DB mapping.
[Bind()]
public class ActiveType
{
[Key()]
public int ID { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Navn")]
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public string Prefix { get; set; }
public string Suffix { get; set; }
}
As you can see, I tried to use the Display annotation to make MVC use that name when it auto-generates entity-framework CRUD pages. However, it ignores it. How do I change this? Is it possible through annotations?
If you are genarating your domain classes it will remove the attributes you have added.
It seems like you are using the domain object in entity framework layer for the model in MVC layer. This is not a good practice. You need to create separate view models (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/simonince/archive/2010/01/26/view-models-in-asp-net-mvc.aspx) for the MVC layer. Because you need to separate the presentation logic from the data layer.
You can use something like AutoMapper to map domain object to view model. http://sourceforge.net/projects/automapper-dn/
The example I provided actually worked, but not for auto-generated EF pages, where it would ignore it in some cases.
Using MVC3 and Entity Framework.
Am trying to get validation flowing from data model
Question: On an entity framework save, how can I automatically put in the [MetadataType tag below for my buddy class?
[EdmEntityTypeAttribute(NamespaceName="ModelValidationTestModel", Name="Person")]
[Serializable()]
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)]
[MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))] // I want EF to put this line in automatically
public partial class Person : EntityObject
...
[Bind(Exclude="PersonID")]
public class Person_Validation
{
[Required]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[Required]
public string LastName { get; set; }
[Required]
public int Age { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Email { get; set; }
}
Using example from: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/01/15/asp-net-mvc-2-model-validation.aspx
I think the best option is not to mess with the class generated by EF. Instead define your own partial class:
[MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))]
public partial class Person
{
//rest of class may be empty
}
You can do this in the same file as the Person_Validation class if you like.
It's not automatic, but it is safe (your changes won't get lost). This approach will work with any code generation framework (that uses partial classes), not just EF.
Data Annotations/attributes are baked at compile time and you cannot add them dynamically. I would recommend you to avoid passing/getting your EF models to/from the views. You should be using view models which are classes specifically tailored to the needs of a given view. It is those view models that will handle the would handle view specific validations such required, format, ...). You could then use AutoMapper to have your controller map between your view models and the EF models.