I want to use .Id in my entity classes for the unique id, but our dba wants [tablename]Id in the database tables. Is there a way that Entity Framework can make this mapping automatically without having to create a new map file for every entity?
As long as I understand you correctly, you have something like:
public class Foo
{
public Int32 ID { get; set; }
// ...
}
public class Bar
{
public Int32 ID { get; set; }
// ...
}
And, without too much effort (or creating multiple entityTypeConfiguration<T> models) you'd like something along the lines of the following outcome:
Current Mapping Desired Mapping
[Foo] [Foo]
ID FooID
... ...
[Bar] [Bar]
ID BarID
... ...
For this, a few methods exist (and depend on which version of EF you're using). With that said, some approachable tactics:
ColumnAttribute
You can visit each entity model and decorate the ID property with the ColumnAttribute. This tells EF that, despite what we named the column, we want something else to be the name within the database. e.g.
public class Foo
{
[Column("FooID")]
public Int32 ID { get; set; }
// ...
}
public class Foo
{
[Column("BarID")]
public Int32 ID { get; set; }
// ...
}
The only problem here is that you're now going to every model and adding the attribute.
OnModelCreating & Fluent Mapping
Another method is to do the mapping but keep it all in one place. The OnModelCreating event is great for this kind of thing.
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public Dbset<Foo> Foos { get; set; }
public DbSet<Bar> Bars { get; set; }
protected override void OnmodelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>()
.Property(x => x.ID).HasColumnName("FooID");
modelBuilder.Entity<Bar>()
.Property(x => x.ID).HasColumnName("BarID");
}
}
Again, the problem here is that you're creating a configuration for each entity.
Custom Conventions
As of EF6, you can use Custom Conventions which make things easier (Including developing your own convention that would make ID=TableNameID). Unfortunately I don't have the time to write an example, but the docs are pretty enlightening.
According to MSDN , both way should work.
Primary key detection is case insensitive. Recognized naming patterns
are, in order of precedence: 'Id' [type name]Id
Related
In Entity Framework 6, given class A and derived class B: A, I would like to load entities A into instances of B without having to code for each property.
So given:
public class A
{
public Guid AId { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
}
public class B: A
{
[NotMapped]
public string OtherValue { get; set; }
}
public MyDbContext: DbContext
{
public DbSet<A> As { get; set; }
}
I would like to:
using (MyDbContext db = new MyDbContext())
{
IEnumerable<B> Bs = db.As.LoadBsSomehow()
}
I'm guessing I could add DbSet<B> Bs { get; set; } and then in OnModelCreate I could override the table name to As perhaps. I'd like to avoid that if I can.
The purpose of doing this is that we need view models that need the underlying model plus some other properties and I don't want to mess up the models with all the different view model properties. This would simplify coding and maintenance for when the main model is changed -- the inheritance would automatically handle the changes in the derived class (view models).
I can then set the additional properties of the Bs in a Select or other method.
Also, I do NOT want to use reflection. I can code that up if I need it. I'd rather find out if EF 6 has the ability to do this natively.
UPDATE: I can do DbContext.Database.SqlQuery<T>. I would prefer to be able to use LINQ instead of writing SQL. I have no problem writing SQL, but LINQ is much more maintainable from a code perspective. Perhaps if I can use LINQ to create an IQueryable<B> and get the SQL for it?
We use EntityFramework 6.1 with CodeFirst in our web mvc application (StdWebApp). Now we want to make a new custom version of this application (CustomWebApp) .
The CustomWebApp will use most of the code of the standard one, in it's domain model it will extend the Person class.
In CustomDomain we make implement a new DbContext that must connect with the database of the custom app (CustomSqlDb).
In (C#) code there is no problem that there is a Person in Domain and in CustomDomain. However we have not been able to devise a mapping for Person in the Custom DbContext that will:
Create a single "Person" table.
Contains fields form "CustomDomain.Person" AND those from "Domain.Person".
We tried some variants like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Person>().Map(m =>
{
m.MapInheritedProperties();
m.ToTable("Person");
}
);
using this document as our inspiration msdn mapping types
But EF complains about the simple name beeing equal.
Obviously we could rename the "Person" in "CustomDomain" to "PersonCustom" but that could lead to a lot of silly names if we have to do this again in the future like "PersonCustomExtraSpecial" etc.
Thoughts anyone?
UPDATE
we tried the solution suggested by mr100, here is the complete code:
namespace Domain
{
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Stuff { get; set; }
}
}
namespace CustomDomain
{
public class Person : Domain.Person
{
public string ExtraStuff { get; set; }
}
}
namespace CustomDomain
{
public class DbModel : DbContext
{
DbSet<CustomDomain.Person> Persons { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<CustomDomain.Person>().Map(m => m.ToTable("Person"));
}
}
}
This still result in the error
The type 'CustomDomain.Person' and the type 'Domain.Person' both have the same simple name of 'Person' and so cannot be used in the same model. All types in a given model must have unique simple names. Use 'NotMappedAttribute' or call Ignore in the Code First fluent API to explicitly exclude a property or type from the model.
So we added the following code:
namespace CustomDomain
{
public class DbModel : DbContext
{
DbSet<CustomDomain.Person> Persons { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Ignore<Domain.Person>();
modelBuilder.Entity<CustomDomain.Person>().Map(m => m.ToTable("Person"));
}
}
}
Still same result.
To achieve this your DbContext class in CustomWebApps should have property People defined like this:
public DbSet<CustomDomain.Person> People {get; set;}
and no property:
public DbSet<Domain.Person> People {get; set;}
even if it comes from StdWebApp DbContext class from which CustomWebApp DbContext class may derive (if that is the case for you). Additionally you may set properly table name:
modelBuilder.Entity<Person>().ToTable("Person");
According to msdn article, the following should create an optional:optional relationship, but instead it creates optional:many relationship. Is the article wrong?
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Optional_1>()
.HasKey(o1 => o1.id1);
modelBuilder.Entity<Optional_2>()
.HasKey(o2 => o2.id2);
modelBuilder.Entity<Optional_1>()
.HasOptional(o1 => o1.Dependent)
.WithOptionalPrincipal(o2 => o2.Principal);
}
public class Optional_1
{
public int id1 { get; set; }
public Optional_2 Dependent { get; set; }
}
public class Optional_2
{
public int id2 { get; set; }
public Optional_1 Principal { get; set; }
}
thank you
The table might look like one to many, but Entity Framework will enforce it as optional:optional because of the navigation properties. Since the navigation property is only a single object and not a collection, there is no way to add multiple.
If you look at the generated tables, it creates a nullable foreign key to your principal table (Optional_1). This allows you to create an Optional_2 that is not associated with an Optional_1.
If you were to insert multiple rows into Optional_2 that have the same foreign key to Optional_1 outside of EF, there wouldn't be anything preventing it from going through. If you were to try and load these entities you would get an error. You can't add a unique index to the column because it needs to allow NULL since it is optional.
I haven't been able to find someone else with this issue specifically so here goes.
I have a simple model where one entity simply references another as a parent-child or one-to-many relationship defined like this:
public class Parent
{
public int ID { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
public class Child
{
public int ID { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public virtual Parent Parent { get; private set; }
}
I am creating speicific mapping files for each, which work great for all the normal properties except for the related entity. It is always coming up null. No matter whether i have the virtual/private accessors on the property it will not load UNLESS i pull a copy of the parent separately from the context first. My mapping looks like this:
HasRequired(t => t.Parent).WithMany().Map(t => t.MapKey("ParentID")).WillCascadeOnDelete();
Is there anything I am doing wrong with this? I cannot for the life of me figure this out. Just so I cover all the bases, I am loading the entity like this:
Context.Set<Child>().FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == 1);
And lastly here are some constraints I have:
I cannot have the foreign keys in my model as properties.
I cannot have a collection of children from the parent.
I finally figured it out. After much trial and error I noticed that having a parameterless constructor marked as internal, EF cannot create its dynamic proxy class of your type and therefore disables all lazy loading. I have two contructors, one for EF to hydrate objects, and another with parameters requires for callers to create my entity. Once I changed the signature to protected internal it started working. So I changed this:
internal Child() {}
to
protected internal Child() {}
May be you hasn't enable lazy loading .Try this,
Context.Set<Child>().FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == 1).Include(c=>c.Parent);
A little new to EF, so please bear with me if the answer to this is obvious. I'm doing a tutorial that uses EF, and two DbSets are defined like this:
public DbSet<BrokerageAccount> BrokerageAccounts { get; set; }
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
The customer class looks like this-- it's a POCO (some code cut for brevity):
public class Customer
{
public Customer()
{
BrokerageAccounts = new HashSet<BrokerageAccount>();
}
// Primitive properties
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
// Navigation properties
public ICollection<BrokerageAccount> BrokerageAccounts { get; set; }
}
}
The BrokerageAccount class is a POCO as well, very similar in design to Customer.
So far so good. The code I have a question about is below. There is an association made in the main program between Customer and BrokerageAccount that I don't follow. The code reads like this:
public Customer GetCustomer(string custId)
{
using (var context = DataContext)
{
return context.Customers
.Include("BrokerageAccounts").SingleOrDefault(c => c.CustomerCode == custId);
}
}
I can't figure out how the association/join is made between Customer and BrokerageAccount. I don't see any config or other files in my VS 2010 project that tells what associates the two DbSets, what foreign key column to use, etc.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious or a mapping file of some sort, but just because Customer has an ICollection of BrokerageAccount along with a comment above that says "Navigation Properties", doesn't make it so. In EF, how are those associations established?
The normal way of setting up the navigation properties is to use the ModelBuilder, This gives you a fluent api to set up the associations, take a look at this for some in depth stuff about how you go about this.
http://xhalent.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/configuring-entity-framework-4-codefirst/
Entity framework will guess at what you meant if you dont set up the nav properties manually, in the above case it will probably set up your nav properties as expected as you only have a single 1-* relationship between customer and BrokerageAccount which appears to be named sensibly.
There is also an attribute method that you can use to set up the navigation properties.