We are using existing database stored procedure similar to the one below that returns decimal output,
CREATE PROCEDURE spTest(#a int, #b decimal(18,2) output)
as
BEGIN
SELECT #b=23.22
SELECT * FROM <TABLE> where id = #a
END
When I call the stored procedure in in C# app (code below) I get the result for the output parameter as 23 instead of 23.22
ObjectParameter b = new ObjectParameter("b", typeof(System.Decimal))
var result = myentities.context.spTest(1234, b)
This exactly the same issue posted by Imre Horvath (http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/14bdde82-c084-44dd-ad83-c1305cb966d2/decimal-output-parameter-rounded-to-integer) but the difference is we are using SQL Server 2008 and entity framework 5.0. After reading the suggestion from his post I have opened the edmx file in xml editor and noticed the following for the output parameter #b as below,
<Parameter Name="b" Type="decimal" Mode="InOut"/>;
I changed it to
<Parameter Name="b" Type="decimal" Mode="InOut" Precision="18" Scale="2"/>;
and run the application and I got the result as expected (23.22)
This is a work around but not a solution as you know that changes will be lost when we update the stored procedure in the entity framework designer. In our database we have lots of stored procedure that has decimal(18,2) as output parameter. I'm wondering whether this still an issue in entity framework 5.0.
Your help will be much appreciated.
Kumar
I got the same issue with you and I have resolved it after I referenced from this article http://tiku.io/questions/1120572/decimal-output-parameter-rounded-to-integer-in-ef5-0
There is 3 steps to resolve this issue:
Right click on edmx file => Open with... => XML (text) Editor.
search text <Parameter Name="b" Type="numeric" Mode="InOut" /> then replace it by <Parameter Name="b" Type="numeric" Mode="InOut" Precision="20" Scale="2" />
search text <Parameter Name="b" Mode="InOut" Type="Decimal" /> then replace it by <Parameter Name="b" Mode="InOut" Type="Decimal" Precision="20" Scale="2" />
Hope this will help you!
In EF6, I got the same problem !
But find a simple solution.
I try to set the output ObjectParameter value,
then return the decimal with scale, like 5602.86
public decimal GetQuotationAmount(string rec_id, decimal price)
{
ObjectParameter qTA_AMT = new ObjectParameter("QTA_AMT", typeof(decimal));
qTA_AMT.Value = 100000.00m;
db.GRP_Calc_QuotationAmount(rec_id, price,qTA_AMT);
return Convert.ToDecimal(qTA_AMT.Value);
}
No, this is not fixed in EF 5.0 It probably won't be fixed in 6.0 either.
UPDATE:
I have recently updated to EF 6.0, and no, the problem is still not fixed. I guess that EF 6.0 is now Open Source so you could always patch it yourself if you are into that kind of thing.
Related
I have an EDMX (Entity Framework 6.1.3) that I'm using to query two different databases. There are some minor differences between the databases but I only want the common columns. I generated the EDMX from Database A, and removed the columns that were not in Database B from the Diagram and regenerated the code.
If I query database B the query contains the columns I removed, although the final SELECT does not. This means that the query fails.
The table mapping shows the columns, but with nothing on the Value/Property side:
The exception is:
System.Data.Entity.Core.EntityCommandExecutionException : An error occurred while executing the command definition. See the inner exception for details.
----> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException : Invalid column name 'ValidFromDate'.
Invalid column name 'ValidToDate'.
Invalid column name 'LastPulled'.
Invalid column name 'IsCurrent'.
The query that is being sent to the server is:
SELECT TOP (1)
[c].[FirstName] AS [FirstName],
[c].[LastName] AS [LastName],
[c].[HomePhone] AS [HomePhone],
[c].[WorkPhone] AS [WorkPhone],
[c].[MobilePhone] AS [MobilePhone],
[c].[Email] AS [Email],
[c].[Fax] AS [Fax]
FROM (SELECT
[Person].[FirstName] AS [FirstName],
[Person].[LastName] AS [LastName],
[Person].[HomePhone] AS [HomePhone],
[Person].[WorkPhone] AS [WorkPhone],
[Person].[MobilePhone] AS [MobilePhone],
[Person].[Email] AS [Email],
[Person].[Fax] AS [Fax],
[Person].[ValidFromDate] AS [ValidFromDate],
[Person].[ValidToDate] AS [ValidToDate],
[Person].[LastPulled] AS [LastPulled],
[Person].[IsCurrent] AS [IsCurrent]
FROM [dbo].[Person] AS [Person]) AS [c]
As you can see there is an inner-query which contains the additional columns.
At this point I'm kind of stumped as to why this is happening. How do I remove these columns from both sides of the mapping, or otherwise stop EF from putting unwanted columns in ANY part of the query?
When you use the EDMX designer and simply delete a column from an entity - this does not fully remove the column from the EDMX. Assuming you truly want it gone, you can open the EDMX file with a text editor and remove it by hand. To make sure that your manual changes trigger a rebuild of your auto-generated classes, edit it in Visual Studio and you shouldn't have an issue.
Right-click the EDMX in solution explorer
Open With...
XML (Text) Editor
I would expect if you were to open the EDMX, you would find something that looks like:
<EntityType Name="Person">
<Property Name="FirstName" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="LastName" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="HomePhone" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="WorkPhone" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="MobilePhone" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="Email" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="Fax" Type="varchar" />
<Property Name="ValidFromDate" Type="datetime" />
<Property Name="ValidToDate" Type="datetime" />
<Property Name="LastPulled" Type="datetime" />
<Property Name="IsCurrent" Type="short" />
</EntityType>
And you would just remove the bottom 4 columns, save and close, and rebuild the project.
EDIT: In case anyone in the future references this answer, if you do not first delete the column in the designer (like the OP did in this case), there will be two other instances of the column(s) in the XML that you would also need to remove in order for it to compile.
Thanks to #Borophyll for pointing me in roughly the right direction. Although their answer was not the solution to my issue, it did allow me to see the actual issue.
in the EDMX file there is also a entry that looks like this:
<EntitySet Name="Person" EntityType="Self.Person" store:Type="Tables" store:Schema="dbo">
<DefiningQuery>SELECT
[Person].[FirstName] AS [FirstName],
[Person].[LastName] AS [LastName],
[Person].[HomePhone] AS [HomePhone],
[Person].[WorkPhone] AS [WorkPhone],
[Person].[MobilePhone] AS [MobilePhone],
[Person].[Email] AS [Email],
[Person].[Fax] AS [Fax],
[Person].[ValidFromDate] AS [ValidFromDate],
[Person].[ValidToDate] AS [ValidToDate],
[Person].[LastPulled] AS [LastPulled],
[Person].[IsCurrent] AS [IsCurrent]
FROM [dbo].[Person] AS [Person]</DefiningQuery>
</EntitySet>
And that's where the weird sub-query was coming. I think the reason is that the table has no primary key as it is part of a staging database.
I just deleted from the SELECT statement the last four columns and everything worked.
I have a custom stored procedure with in parameters that return fields of different tables how I can map this custom stored to an entity? I only want to use like a read only values for a report I don't want to save or something like that I try to add the extra fields to the most similar entity but when I execute the method in code the extra fields are null
Solution 1: Using a view
A view allows to aggregate data from different entities.
<Article>
<Id />
<Name />
<Lines typeName="LineCollection" />
<cf:method name="LoadArticlesByCommand" body="load(string commandName) from ArticleByCommand where CommandName = #commandName" />
<cf:view name="ArticleByCommand" autoLightweight="true">
<ArticleName expression="Name"/>
<ArticleQty expression="Lines.Quantity" />
<CommandName expression="Lines.Command.Name" />
</cf:view>
</Article>
<Command>
<Id />
<Name />
<Lines typeName="LineCollection" />
</Command>
<Line setType="List">
<Article typeName="Article" key="true" />
<Command typeName="Command" key="true" />
<Quantity typeName="int" />
</Line>
http://blog.codefluententities.com/2014/04/22/views-auto-lightweight-and-the-modeler/
https://www.softfluent.com/documentation/Views_PersistentViews.html
Solution 2: Using a lightweight entity
Instead of creating a view, you can can create a lightweight entity that contains only the properties used by the stored procedure.
<cf:entity name="Person" lightweight="true">
<cf:property name="FirstName" typeName="string" />
<cf:property name="lastName" typeName="string" />
<cf:method name="ComputeBalance"
body="load () raw"
rawBody="SELECT 'John' AS FirstName, 'Doe' AS LastName" />
</cf:entity>
Solution 3: Custom mapping
For more specific values or types, a custom method can be provided to map the database values to .NET types. This custom method will be called with a DataReader as parameter, meaning that a developer could do whatever he wants.
<cf:entity name="Sample">
<cf:method name="LoadPair" body="raw" rawBody="SELECT 1234,5678"
returnTypeName="CodeFluent.Runtime.Utilities.Pair<System.Int32,System.Int32>"
cfom:methodName="On{0}" />
<cf:snippet>
private static CodeFluent.Runtime.Utilities.Pair<int,int> OnLoadPair(System.Data.IDataReader reader)
{
return new Pair<int, int>(reader.GetInt32(0), reader.GetInt32(1));
}
</cf:snippet>
</cf:entity>
You can also use OnAfterReadRecord or OnBeforeReadRecord rules
If it is not essential that you map the results of the custom stored procedure to an entity than another option is to use the built in support for DataSets.
http://blog.codefluententities.com/2011/06/22/dataset-support-in-codefluent-entities/
<cf:method name="LoadAllCities" body="raw" returnTypeName="System.Data.DataSet">
SELECT $Address::City$ FROM $Address$
</cf:method>
.
DataSet ds = Address.LoadAllCities();
foreach (DataTable table in ds.Tables)
{
foreach (DataRow row in table.Rows)
{
Console.WriteLine("City: " + row[0]);
}
}
Upon re-reading you're question I am providing another answer.
In response to the part where you said "I try to add the extra fields to the most similar entity but when I execute the method in code the extra fields are null". The following steps should be able to solve that problem.
Execute one of the automatically created stored procedure in SQL Management Studio.
Execute the stored procedure you manually created.
Verify that the fieldnames returned by both stored procedures match.
I think the above will solve your immediate problem but I still don't like the solution. The reason is that you said you picked the most similar entity. I think that is going to cause problems in the future especially if the stored procedure is not being mapped to all of the entities properties.
I would recommend either lightweight entity, view or DataSet.
I am using EF in .NET V4.0 in Visual Basic (VS2010) with SQL Compact Edition 4.0. We are building a set of simple forms to maintain some tables. One table 'Companies' is linked to 2 other tables (People,CalibrationInfo) with Companies as the parent table. The Entity Type Definition is:
<EntityType Name="Company">
<Documentation>
<Summary>Provides a list of Companies and shipping addresses.</Summary>
</Documentation>
<Key>
<PropertyRef Name="CompanyID" />
</Key>
<Property Name="CompanyID" Type="Int32" Nullable="false" annotation:StoreGeneratedPattern="Identity" />
<Property Name="Name" Type="String" MaxLength="100" Unicode="true" FixedLength="false" Nullable="false" />
<Property Name="Address1" Type="String" MaxLength="100" Unicode="true" FixedLength="false" />
<Property Name="Address2" Type="String" MaxLength="100" Unicode="true" FixedLength="false" />
<Property Name="Address3" Type="String" MaxLength="100" Unicode="true" FixedLength="false" />
<Property Name="Telephone" Type="String" MaxLength="30" FixedLength="false" Unicode="true" />
<Property Name="PrimaryContactID" Type="Int32" a:GetterAccess="Public" xmlns:a="http://schemas.microsoft.com/ado/2006/04/codegeneration" a:SetterAccess="Public" Nullable="true" >
<Documentation>
<Summary>Optional Primary Contact ID for the primary contact for this company.</Summary>
</Documentation>
</Property>
<Property Name="Disabled" Type="Boolean" Nullable="false" DefaultValue="false" />
<NavigationProperty Name="Calibrations" Relationship="NWCUDataStoreModel.FK_CalibrationInfo_Company" FromRole="Companies" ToRole="CalibrationInfo" />
<NavigationProperty Name="PrimaryContact" Relationship="NWCUDataStoreModel.FK_Company_PrimaryContact" FromRole="Company" ToRole="Person" />
</EntityType>
The form uses a binding source set to the Company set in the context:
bsCompanies = ctx.Companies.OrderBy("it.Name")
The Binding Source is linked to a Navigation Bar. Pressing the BindingNavigatorAddNewItem button gets a new record created. I enter only the company name tab to the next field and press the Save button. The link to the Primary Contact is set to nothing so there are no other relationships for this record. The Save button executes the following:
RowsSaved = ctx.SaveChanges()
This generates the InvalidOperationException. The Inner exception is:
AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object...
There are no other records in the database with the name set to 'Test'. The exception indicates that the record was saved, but was unable to accept the changes. The record is still marked as Added. Calling ctx.AcceptChanges after this error generates an exception.
If I were doing this directly in code, instead of with BindingSource on a form, it would essentially look like this:
dim company as New Company
company.Name="Test"
company.PrimaryContactID = nothing
ctx.Companies.Add(company)
ctx.Save
I have looked at other examples of this on multipe sites, and have applied any fixes I could find, including setting the PrimaryContact id directly to a the correct Person record ID and setting the PrimaryContact to Nothing. Nothing makes any difference.
I have also deleted the three tables from the model and then reloaded them. No difference.
I have used this same code with no problems in SQL Server, but almost nothing seems to work with SQL Compact edition V4.0. You would think it should not be so difficult to store a single record into a table. If we have to go back to data sets, I have a lot of recoding to do.
Any suggestions or insights appreciated.
Thanks, Neil
BTW, the answer to this was to use Nuget to download Entity Framework 6.0, Entity Framework SQL Server Compact and Microsoft SQL Server Compact 4.0. I then downloaded the EF Framework 5 DB Generator .tt file as the EF 6 version does not work in Visual Studio 2010. You do this from the Add Code Generation menu item, and select Online Templates->EF 5 DBContext Generator... Finally, I modified the file using this Microsoft article: Databinding with WinForms. After that, things started to work. EF 4.0 does not work with SQL Server Compact, out of the box, without the changes described above. Using the ObservableListSource class described in the article also helped with parent-child relationships on forms, which did not work until I switched to this class.
i have a simple question.
Is there a simple config file or line that can be edited in order to achieve this:
I need that constraints from Alfresco content model have an empty field (like "unselected") in Advanced Search and Edit Metadata forms.
So a constraint of:
<constraint name="custom:customList" type="LIST">
<parameter name="allowedValues">
<list>
<value>first type</value>
<value>second type</value>
</list>
</parameter>
</constraint>
I need to view these in a "SELECT" form but with the first selection empty, like:
<select>
<value></value>
<value>first type</value>
<value>second type</value>
</select>
Hope I made that clear.
P.S. I don't want to insert a in the custom content model XML file. There should be another way to achieve this.
Thanks to all.
You need to override the presentation logic, i.e. customize or create a new form control template. The default one is implemented in selectone.ftl, you can customize it or start from it for a brand new control template which you can later assign to your metadata field in the forms configuration.
Is it possible to call a SSDL function from within another SSDL function's CommandText? For example, let's say I have the following SSDL function defined in my edmx file:
<Function Name="blah" IsComposable="false">
<CommandText>
...blah related stuff...
</CommandText>
<Parameter Name="blah_param" Type="int" />
</Function>
Can I define a second SSDL function that calls "blah"? For example:
<Function Name="blah2" IsComposable="false">
<CommandText>
...
blah(3);
...
</CommandText>
<Parameter Name="blah2_param" Type="int" />
</Function>
"blah" and "blah2" do NOT exist as stored procedures on the database and are fully defined in the SSDL of the edmx. I tried qualifying the call with a handful of different things (appending the SSDL namespace to the function name -- BlahModel.Store.blah(3), using "execute procedure" and "call" SQL keywords, etc).
It appears that once it hits the CommandText tag, everything is sent over to the database and no parsing/resolving of the inner CommandText is done. Does anyone have any insight into whether this is possible or not?
Thanks!
It is not possible. CommandText should contain a valid SQL/Transact-SQL/PL/SQL expression only.