I have been working on a project in which I am trying to mold entity framework to an existing FoxPro 2.x database in order to use the data while leaving the tables readable to a legacy application (more details on my previous question).
I've had pretty good luck configuring the DBContext to the physical data tables and I have most of my mapping set up. The legacy data structure has a Bills table with a unique primary Id key, but all the LineItems that can be posted to a bill are stored in a single Charges table without a simple primary key.
My question pertains to discriminator mapping in code-first EF. I am recreating the table as TPH in my data objects, so I have
public abstract class Posting
{
public System.DateTime? Post_Date { get; set; }
public string Bill_Num { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
public string Pcode { get; set; }
public string Pdesc { get; set; }
public decimal? Custid { get; set; }
public string Createby { get; set; }
public System.DateTime? Createdt { get; set; }
public string Createtm { get; set; }
public string Modifyby { get; set; }
public System.DateTime? Modifydt { get; set; }
public string Modifytm { get; set; }
public string Linenote { get; set; }
public decimal? Version { get; set; }
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Batch { get; set; }
public virtual Billing Bill { get; set; }
}
public abstract class Charge : Posting
{
}
public class ServiceLine : Charge
{
public string Chargeid { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Payment> Payments { get; set; }
}
public class ChargeVoid : Charge
{
}
public abstract class Payment : Posting
{
}
public class PaymentLine : Payment
{
public string Postid { get; set; }
public string Svc_Code { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Checkno { get; set; }
public System.DateTime? Checkdate { get; set; }
}
public class PaymentVoid : Payment
{
}
where my mapping strategy so far is along these lines:
public class PostingMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Posting>
{
public PostingMap()
{
// Primary Key
this.HasKey(t => new {t.Bill_Num, t.Post_Date, t.Pcode});
this.Map<Charge>(m => m.Requires("Type").HasValue("C"))
.ToTable("Charges");
this.Map<Payment>(m => m.Requires("Type").HasValue("P"))
.ToTable("Charges");
}
}
I have omitted some fields and mapping classes, but this is the core of it.
Every record has the C/P classification, so this makes everything in the table either a Charge or a Payment.
Every Posting is associated with a Bill via Bill_Num foreign key.
The ServiceLine object is only distinct from ChargeVoid objects (which are adjustment entries and no-value information entries associated with a bill) by having values for Pcode and Chargeid (which is just Bill_Num tagged with 01++). I have no idea how to model this.
It is very similar for the Payment hierarchy as well.
So with my current setup, I have Postings which doesn't have a unique key, Charges which has a subset of ServiceLines with values for Chargeid and Pcode and a subset with nulls, and Payments similar to Charges. PaymentLines are also many-to-one with ServiceLines by way of Pcode while PaymentVoids have Pcode = null.
Is there a way I can assign this complex mapping since I can't simply discriminate on !null? On top of that, will EF handle the key assignments once I get the inheritance set up, or am I going to have issues there as well?
Also, if there is a better way to break this object inheritance down, I am all ears.
Related
We are developing a new application using ASP.NET Core and EF Core. We're on the latest stable release (v1.1.2). We are unable to load related data via navigation properties.
I am aware that lazy loading is not supported in EF Core but every post on the subject I have looked at suggests that we should be able to explicitly load related data using .Include(). However, this is not working for us and the related entities are always null when we load them in code.
We have two entities - 'Exchange' and 'Trade'. 'Exchange' has a foreign key to 'Trade' and contains a Virtual Trade called Request and another called Offer, thus:-
[Table("Exchange")]
public partial class Exchange : BaseEntity
{
public string Pending { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Exchange Date"), DataType(DataType.Date)]
public DateTime DateOfExchange { get; set; }
public decimal EstimatedHours { get; set; }
public decimal ActualHours { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string FollowUp { get; set; }
public string Status { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("User")]
[Required]
public int Broker_Fk { get; set; }
public virtual User Broker { get; set; }
public int Request_Fk { get; set; }
public virtual Trade Request { get; set; }
public int Offer_Fk { get; set; }
public virtual Trade Offer { get; set; }
I have a View Model that instantiates an 'Exchange' which I know has a related 'Request':-
_vm.Exchanges = _context.Exchange.Include(i => i.Request).Where(t => t.Request.User_Fk == user.Id || t.Offer.User_Fk == user.Id).ToList();
This returns an Exchange, which I am passing to and rendering in the View Model:-
#foreach (var item in Model.Exchanges)
{
<span>#item.Request.Name</span> <br />
}
The problem is that #item.Request is null, even though I have explicitly included it when loading the Exchange. I know that there really is a related entity in existence because one of the other properties on Exchange is its foreign key, which is populated.
What am I missing? Every example I have seen posted suggests that what I've done should work.
Your model attributes are messed up:
[Table("Exchange")]
public partial class Exchange : BaseEntity
{
//...
[ForeignKey("Broker")]
[Required]
public int Broker_Fk { get; set; }
public virtual User Broker { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Request")]
public int Request_Fk { get; set; }
public virtual Trade Request { get; set; }
//...
}
I'm using ASP.NET Core and EF Core and I have the two following parent and child classes. Each gift card can have many transactions:
public class GiftCard
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string BarCode { get; set; }
public DateTime PurchaseDate { get; set; }
public string Comments { get; set; }
public byte[] Timestamp { get; set; }
public List<Transaction.Transaction> Transactions { get; set; }
}
public class Transaction
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public DateTime TransactionDate { get; set; }
public decimal TransactionAmount { get; set; }
public TransactionType TransactionType { get; set; }
public byte[] Timestamp { get; set; }
public GiftCard.GiftCard GiftCard { get; set; }
}
Based on what I read, this is the way to do it, by having navigation property on the parent and reference navigation in child. When I add my migrations and update the database using the command line, everything seemed ok in the database except that the GiftCardId foreign key in the Transactions table is nullable. I want to make sure this is NOT NULL. Am I missing a Data Annotation attribute?
Put the following property on your Transaction entity, and it should be resolved.
public int GiftCardId { get; set; }
What is happening with your definition is that a shadow property is being created and EF's Change Tracker is maintaining the relationships.
See here.
I have this class structure:
public class Activity
{
[Key]
public long ActivityId { get; set; }
public string ActivityName { get; set; }
public virtual HashSet<ActivityLogMessage> ActivityLogMessages { get; set; }
public virtual HashSet<FileImportLogMessage> FileImportLogMessages { get; set; }
public virtual HashSet<RowImportLogMessage> RowImportLogMessages { get; set; }
}
public abstract class LogMessage
{
[Required]
public string Message { get; set; }
public DateTimeOffset CreateDate { get; set; }
[Required]
public long ActivityId { get; set; }
public virtual Activity Activity { get; set; }
}
public class ActivityLogMessage : LogMessage
{
public long ActivityLogMessageId { get; set; }
}
public class FileImportLogMessage : ActivityLogMessage
{
public long? StageFileId { get; set; }
}
public class RowImportLogMessage : FileImportLogMessage
{
public long? StageFileRowId { get; set; }
}
Which gives me this, model
Each Message (Activity, File or Row) must have be associated with an Activity. Why does the 2nd and 3rd level not have the same cardinality as ActivityLogMessage ? My attempts at describing the foreign key relationship (fluent via modelbuilder) have also failed.
This is really an academic exercise for me to really understand how EF is mapping to relational, and this confuses me.
Regards,
Richard
EF infers a pair of navigation properties Activity.ActivityLogMessages and ActivityLogMessage.Activity with a foreign key property ActivityLogMessage.ActivityId which is not nullable, hence the relationships is defined as required.
The other two relationships are infered from the collections Activity.FileImportLogMessages and Activity.RowImportLogMessages. They neither have an inverse navigation property on the other side nor a foreign key property which will - by default - lead to optional relationships.
You possibly expect that LogMessage.Activity and LogMessage.ActivityId is used as inverse property for all three collections. But it does not work this way. EF cannot use the same navigation property in multiple relationships. Also your current model means that RowImportLogMessage for example has three relationships to Activity, not only one.
I believe you would be closer to what you want if you remove the collections:
public virtual HashSet<FileImportLogMessage> FileImportLogMessages { get; set; }
public virtual HashSet<RowImportLogMessage> RowImportLogMessages { get; set; }
You can still filter the remaining ActivityLogMessages by the derived types (for example in not mapped properties that have only a getter):
var fileImportLogMessages = ActivityLogMessages.OfType<FileImportLogMessage>();
// fileImportLogMessages will also contain entities of type RowImportLogMessage
var rowImportLogMessage = ActivityLogMessages.OfType<RowImportLogMessage>();
I'm currently building an SPA with Web API and knockout etc. So far i worte my own simple datacontext and it worked pretty well.
The I bumped in to breeze and thought it might be worth a try. especially I hoped to get a simpler approach on navigation between the entities...
to load a entities or a single entity with breeze worked fine. Working with navigation properties seems not to work. The navigation property is always empty, even though it's a one to many relationship.
Here is my model (simplified):
public class WorkdayHours
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public bool IsWorkDay { get; set; }
...
public Byte WeekDay { get; set; }
}
public class Service
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<WorkdayHours> BookableDays { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<WorkdayHours> BookableDays { get; set; }
}
public class Shop
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<WorkdayHours> BookableDays { get; set; }
}
Then I fetch the entity service ind my SPA as follow:
var query = EntityQuery
.from('Services')
.where('id', 'eq', serviceId)
.expand('BookableDays');
As when teh query is executed I get as result the requested service entity with all the data except the bookableDay property is always an empty array.
When I check the Json answer I see that also the workdayHours are transmitted and breeze even calls my defined ctors for this entities. However they are not linked to the bookableDays property itself.
When checking the genrated DB model, EF generated foreignkeys for service, employee and shop in workdayHours as expected.
Is breeze not capable with having several optional foreignkeys?
Suggestion and ideas highly apprechiated.
Breeze is dependent on Foreign Keys. I had a similar problem. This should solve it:
EF was generating the ForeignKeys for me too and the related Entites where still empty. As far as i know breeze needs the explicit Annotation/Configuration of ForeignKey Fields.
public class Mvl
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long MvlId{ get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedAt { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Mvl")]
public ICollection<MvlOP> MvlOps { get; set; }
public DateTime? ReleasedAt { get; set; }
public DateTime? LockedAt { get; set; }
public DateTime? ClosedAt { get; set; }
//[ConcurrencyCheck]
//public int? RowVersion { get; set; }
[Timestamp]
public byte[] TimeStamp { get; set; }
}
public class MvlOP
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long MvlOpId { get; set; }
public long MvlId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("MvlId")]
public Mvl Mvl { get; set; }
...
}
I'm using EF 4.1 Code First, and I'm making a configurable utility for parsing/importing large delimited files. Each row in the file may contain data for several entities.
The exact data and layout for the file will be unknown at build time (it's configured differently for each client), so I'm making it configurable.
Example model (simplified)
public class Contact {
public int Id { get; set;}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Account {
public int Id { get; set; }
public decimal Balance { get; set; }
public bool IsOpen { get; set; }
}
Depending on the client, a file may contain contact info, account info, or both. Because of the size of these files (tons of records), we have to use SqlBulkCopy to do the data loading. It's also unknown at compile time exactly what rules will be run against the data (validation changes by client, etc.)
I want to have a table and class, like ImportRecord, to hold the imported data. My current working class is like:
public class ImportRecord {
public string Contact_Name { get; set; }
public decimal Account_Balance { get; set; }
public bool Account_IsOpen { get; set; }
}
The issue here is that as we add/change fields in the model classes, the ImportRecord has to get changed also -- it's duplicative/less than ideal. It's somewhat important to me that the import data resides in a single table to simplify the SqlBulkCopy import.
My ideal ImportRecord class would look like this:
public class ImportRecord {
public Contact Contact { get; set; }
public Account Account { get; set; }
}
But that would just create a table with two foreign keys (aside from complaining about no FK properties). Is there a way to have the entity classes behave more like a denormalized, keyless, complex type for the ImportRecord? Am I going about this entirely wrong?
Thanks!
Entity cannot be nested and in the same time complex type cannot have entity key so you cannot use one instead of other but you can try this little cheat. I just tested that it at least creates correct database structure:
public class Context : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Account> Accounts { get; set; }
public DbSet<Contact> Contacts { get; set; }
public DbSet<ImportRecord> ImportRecords { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.ComplexType<ContactBase>();
modelBuilder.ComplexType<AccountBase>();
}
}
public class ContactBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class AccountBase
{
public decimal Balance { get; set; }
public bool IsOpen { get; set; }
}
public class Contact : ContactBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class Account : AccountBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class ImportRecord
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public ContactBase Contact { get; set; }
public AccountBase Account { get; set; }
}