Entity Framework: DbContext and setting the ProviderName - entity-framework

When you derive from DbContext and use the parameter-less constructor it will load a connection string from web.config. You also have the option of explicitly specifying the connectionString using one of the other DbContext constructors.
My particular situation dictates that the connection string CANNOT be specified in the web.config, as the location of the server/username and password are determined at runtime. Easy fix right? Just use the above mentioned constructor to specify the connection string? Wrong.
The problem is that when you specify the connection string using said constructor, it still attempts to use the default provider, so if you're using one or more non standard providers, as I am, it will not work.
I'm sure I can change the default provider in the web.config, but I want to use multiple providers so this will not do.
The only possible way around this that I can see is to use ObjectContext instead of DbContext, which seems to allow you to specify the provider along with the database connection string.
Is there any other way to do it? Is my workaround fairly reasonable?
I believe I can also create a DbContext from an ObjectContext instance.

Create your DbConnection manually and pass it to the DbContext constructor as follows:
var conn = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory("MY_CONN_PROVIDER").CreateConnection();
conn.ConnectionString = "MY_CONN_STR";
new DbContext(conn, true);
Notice the second parameter bool contextOwnsConnection is true. Since you don't re-use the connection elsewhere, it lets the context manage the connection and Dispose() it when needed.

You can get to the ObjectContext through IObjectContextAdapter:
((IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext
DbContext ("context" above) still wraps ObjectContext, so don't worry that you will have a new instance.
You can instantiate DbContext using this overload
public DbContext(ObjectContext objectContext, bool dbContextOwnsObjectContext) {}
for example:
public class YourDbContext : DbContext
{
public YourDbContext() : this(new YourObjectEntities(), dbContextOwnsObjectContext: true)
{}
}
Then you can set your connection string inside of YourObjectEntities:
public partial class YourObjectEntities : ObjectContext
{
public const string ConnectionString = "name=YourEntities"; // Get it from somewhere
public YourObjectEntities() : base(ConnectionString, "YourEntities")
{
// Some initialization, e.g. ContextOptions.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
}
}
How you specify the provider there is your exercise.

Try like this ,
public DBDataContext _dataContex;
public DBDataContext DBContext
{
get
{
if (_dataContex== null)
{
_v= new DBDataContext(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["yourConnectinString"].ConnectionString);
}
return _dataContex;
}
}

Related

Specify connection string for a query with DbContextScope project

I am currently using Mehdi El Gueddari's DbContextScope project, I think by the book, and it's awesome. But I came across a problem I'm unsure how to solve today. I have a query that I need to execute using a different database login/user because it requires additional permissions. I can create another connection string in my web.config, but I'm not sure how to specify that for this query, I want to use this new connection string. Here is my usage:
In my logic layer:
private static IDbContextScopeFactory _dbContextFactory = new DbContextScopeFactory();
public static Guid GetFacilityID(string altID)
{
...
using (_dbContextFactory.CreateReadOnly())
{
entity = entities.GetFacilityID(altID)
}
}
That calls into my data layer which would look something like this:
private AmbientDbContextLocator _dbcLocator = new AmbientDbContextLocator();
protected CRMEntities DBContext
{
get
{
var dbContext = _dbcLocator.Get<CRMEntities>();
if (dbContext == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("No ambient DbContext....");
return dbContext;
}
}
public virtual Guid GetFaciltyID(string altID)
{
return DBContext.Set<Facility>().Where(f => f.altID = altID).Select(f => f.ID).FirstOrDefault();
}
Currently my connection string is set in the default way:
public partial class CRMEntities : DbContext
{
public CRMEntities()
: base("name=CRMEntities")
{}
}
Is it possible for this specific query to use a different connection string and how?
I ended up modifying the source code in a way that feels slightly hacky, but is getting the job done for now. I created a new IAmbientDbContextLocator with a Get<TDbContext> method override that accepts a connection string:
public TDbContext Get<TDbContext>(string nameOrConnectionString) where TDbContext : DbContext
{
var ambientDbContextScope = DbContextScope.GetAmbientScope();
return ambientDbContextScope == null ? null : ambientDbContextScope.DbContexts.Get<TDbContext>(nameOrConnectionString);
}
Then I updated the DbContextCollection to pass this parameter to the DbContext's existing constructor overload. Last, I updated the DbContextCollection maintain a Dictionary<KeyValuePair<Type, string>, DbContext> instead of a Dictionary<Type, DbContext> as its cached _initializedDbContexts where the added string is the nameOrConnectionString param. So in other words, I updated it to cache unique DbContext type/connection string pairs.
Then I can get at the DbContext with the connection I need like this:
var dbContext = new CustomAmbientDbContextLocator().Get<CRMEntities>("name=CRMEntitiesAdmin");
Of course you'd have to be careful your code doesn't end up going through two different contexts/connection strings when it should be going through the same one. In my case I have them separated into two different data access class implementations.

Can I inject dependency into migration (using EF-Core code-first migrations)?

I tried to inject IConfiguration into the migration (in constructor), and got exception: "No parameterless constructor defined for this object."
any workaround?
you cannot, the migrations need to be able to run outside the context of your application.
Since the Entity-framework command-line tool analyzes your code but does not run the startup.cs class.
Also it is not advisable. your migrations should be plain simple and not depend on anything. if it would, it could lead to major runtime side-effects where missing config could lead to missing tables or columns in production.
additional advise
If it involves a lot of small/equal/manual changes. Best way is to generate your migration file. Why? This way your migration will be deterministic: you know what the outcome will be. If a line in your migration fails, it is simple and clear why that is and easily(er) fixable.
There's a way to do what you want to do. In my scenario, I would like to use the database name in the connection string through the DbContext. EF core 2.1.1 is used. The code is modified from here
Create a custom MigrationsAssembly service
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Diagnostics;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Infrastructure;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Internal;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Migrations.Internal;
using System;
using System.Reflection;
public class ContextAwareMigrationsAssembly : MigrationsAssembly
{
private readonly DbContext context;
public ContextAwareMigrationsAssembly(
ICurrentDbContext currentContext,
IDbContextOptions options,
IMigrationsIdGenerator idGenerator,
IDiagnosticsLogger<DbLoggerCategory.Migrations> logger) : base(currentContext, options, idGenerator, logger)
{
context = currentContext.Context;
}
/// <summary>
/// Modified from http://weblogs.thinktecture.com/pawel/2018/06/entity-framework-core-changing-db-migration-schema-at-runtime.html
/// </summary>
/// <param name="migrationClass"></param>
/// <param name="activeProvider"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
public override Migration CreateMigration(TypeInfo migrationClass, string activeProvider)
{
var hasCtorWithDbContext = migrationClass
.GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(DbContext) }) != null;
if (hasCtorWithDbContext)
{
var instance = (Migration)Activator.CreateInstance(migrationClass.AsType(), context);
instance.ActiveProvider = activeProvider;
return instance;
}
return base.CreateMigration(migrationClass, activeProvider);
}
}
Replace the IMigrationAssembly service in your DbContext with your custom class
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
{
optionsBuilder.ReplaceService<IMigrationsAssembly, ContextAwareMigrationsAssembly>();
}
Then you can add a DbContext parameter in your migration.
public Migration20180801(DbContext context)
{
DatabaseName = context.Database.GetDbConnection().Database;
}
In your case, you can replace all the DbContext references with IConfiguration and the relevant instance in the CreateMigration override.
If it is just about your connection-string (is it?), you may want to check this answer, which basically suggests this code in your startup-project (not in your migrations-project):
var myConnectionString = Configuration.GetConnectionString(myConnectionStringName);
services.AddDbContext<MyDbContext>(options => options.UseSqlServer(
myConnectionString ,
x => x.MigrationsAssembly(myDbContextAssemblyName)));

Entity Framework Object not allowing Connection String to be passed as parameter

I am trying to initialize an Entity object (ADO.NET EF Object), but it does not allow me to choose what connection string I want to use. I need to change connection string in order to give different access levels to users.
There are no overrides in the Entities Object, just a parameterless constructor.
If anyone can give me any pointers, it is appreciated.
If you have used the designer to generate an .edmx file for you, you will have something like below:
public MyEntities() : base("name=MyEntities", "MyEntities")
{
this.ContextOptions.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
OnContextCreated();
}
This will by default, get the connection string from your configuration file.
What you could do in this case is set the connection string
public partial class MyEntities
{
partial void OnContextCreated()
{
//Dynamically Building a Connection String
this.Connection.ConnectionString = "myconnectionstring";
}
}
Bear in mind though that this will first use the base constructor to pull the connection string from config, then set it with your custom version, basically overriding the connection string. This is typically good when you always want a default connection string.
Another option if you want a bit more control, is pass the connection string in via the constructor as shown below:
public partial class MyEntities
{
public MyEntities(string connectionString) :
base(connectionString,"MyEntities")
{
this.OnContextCreated();
}
}
Now you are passing in the connection string down to the base class and this is the only one it will use. This does mean however that you will most often need to supply this each time.
Hope this helps...

EF 5 Changing Connection String at Runtime

Ok, I want to recreate a project that I created using EF 4.1 to EF 5.0, simple enough or at least I thought. One of the things in my old project is that I was able to change the database connection string at runtime in EF 4.1:
using (var myContext = new MyEntities(ConnectionString))
{
}
Easy-peasy but in EF 5.0 you have to do this differently:
string connectionString = "data source=LocalHost;initial catalog=MyDatabase;user id=MyUserName;password=MyPassword;multipleactiveresultsets=True;App=EntityFramework";
using (var myContext = new MyEntities())
{
myContext.Database.Connection.ConnectionString = connectionString;
}
Now, this took me a better part of two hours to figure out, so I guess my question is this the proper way of changing the connection string at runtime or not? If it is why did they make this change?
I did find this Link but it didn't work. I received the error as detailed in the first comment of the first answer by Ladislav Mrnka. I later found this Link which seems to work fine.
UPDATE
I re-read the first link I posted and I found another solution, I simply created a partial class:
public partial class MyEntities : DbContext
{
public MyEntities(string connectionString) : base(connectionString)
{
Database.Connection.ConnectionString = connectionString;
}
}
Use the context constructor overload that takes the connection string as a parameter.
Create a class with the same name as the Target ContextClass class next to the main class
like this :
public CustomerContext( string connectionString)
: base(connectionString)
{
}
For using :
using (var context = new CustomerContext("connectionString"))
{
}
Or
var customerContext=new CustomerContext("yorConnectionString");
var customer=CustomerContext.customer.FirstOrDefault(x=>x.id==1).FirstName;
Have a look at other link Setup Entity Framework For Dynamic Connection String.
It says - " you can do it by creating another partial class as the Entities class is declared partial"

Entity Framework 4, MOQ,

I am using EF4, Microsoft.Entity.CTP, and the latest MOQ. I am trying to create a generic repository class and moq the DBContext using MOQ. Whenever I run my moq test I get "object reference not set to an instance of an object" on this.context.Set().Add(entity); and I don't understand why. The code runs ok without a moq.
public class GenericRepository<TEntity> : IGenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
private IContext context;
public GenericRepository(IContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public IList<TEntity> List
{
get { return context.Set<TEntity>().ToList(); }
}
public void Create(TEntity entity)
{
this.context.Set<TEntity>().Add(entity);
this.context.SaveChanges();
}
}
var mock = new Mock<IContext>();
GenericRepository<Product> producRepository = new GenericRepository<Product>(mock.Object);
mock.Setup(x => x.Product.Add(productType));
mock.Setup(x => x.SaveChanges());
productRepository.Create(product);
mock.VerifyAll();
You need to mock out the list implementation behind Set. I'm not at the compute ATM but iirc it's an IDbSet.
Change your code first definitions from DbSet to IDbSet and then you can mock them.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/efdesign/archive/2010/06/21/productivity-improvements-for-the-entity-framework.aspx
I am considering changing my DbContext.tt file to generate IDbSet instead of DbSet, but only after I get the mocking to work.
I am not saying this makes the rest of the work easy, but it will get you past one problem.
What I need help with is what to do after changing my code first definitions to be based on the EF DbContext interfaces. For example, I create instances of my DbSet objects and add them.
Mock<IPosManContext> posManContext;
posManContext.Object.Set(typeof(note_template));
posManContext.Object.note_template.Add(
new note_template()
{
note_template_id = 1,
act_flag = "Y",
desc_text = "Monday Monday",
last_update_dtm = now,
last_update_user_id = "hsimpson",
});
But I get an error that the DbSet is null.
Microsoft needs to provide a good example of what to do.
They went half the way by providing public interfaces for mocking, but I still need more help.
Joe