var orgAcc = db_.Accounts.Find(account.Id);
db_.Entry(orgAcc).CurrentValues.SetValues(account);
orgAcc.Company = db_.Companys.Find(account.Company.Id);
db_.SaveChanges();
Is this the simplest way to update an entity's association ?
public class ChartofAccount: MasterData
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(6)]
public string Code { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
[Required]
public string AccountName { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(3)]
public string AccountCurrency { get; set; }
public virtual AccountCatagory Category1 { get; set; }
public virtual AccountCatagory Category2 { get; set; }
public string Reference { get; set; }
public bool HasTransaction { get; set; }
}
The way SetValues works is to do a property-by-property compare, and for each property from the left-hand object that is also in the argument, that has a matching type, it will update the left-hand object with the value from the argument.
I presume account.Company is a different type of object to orgAcc.Company, such as something that has come in from an MVC controller argument (ie account and it's referenced objects are not EF entities). In this case your approach seems a sound way of doing it.
That being said, orgAcc probably has a Company property, and a CompanyId property, in order to support the EF relationships, so, if your account object followed the same pattern, ie storing a CompanyId field directly, rather than having to navigate through the company, then SetValues could automatically update the CompanyId field, which should update the foreign key when you save changes. This way you could also avoid the step that specifically assigns the orgAcc.Company field.
Related
I am having a problem in Entity Framework. Entity Framework is generating auto column in sql-server and I am not geting how to make insert operation in that particuler column.
For Example in Teacher class,
public class Teacher
{
[Key]
public String Email { set; get; }
public String Name { set; get; }
public List<TeacherBasicInformation> Teacher_Basic_Information { set; get; } = new List<TeacherBasicInformation>();
public String Password { set; get; }
public List<Course> course { set; get; } = new List<Course>();
[JsonIgnore]
public String JWT_Token { set; get; }
[NotMapped]
[Compare("Password")]
public String ConfrimPassword { set; get; }
}
And in TeacherBasicInformation class ,
public class TeacherBasicInformation
{
[Key]
public int ID { set; get; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(20)]
public String Phone { set; get; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(100)]
public String Address { set; get; }
}
After the migration in the sql server, in TeacherBasicInformation table a auto column is created named 'TeacherEmail'. How Can I insert data into this column using form in asp.net core.
In order to prevent auto-generated columns for FK, use [ForeignKey("YourForeignKey")] on the related table in the entity class:
public int TeacherId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("TeacherId")]
public virtual Teacher Teacher { get; set; }
It looks like you have the email column set up as the primary key column in your Teacher class, and the related database column. If that's the case, you're going to have trouble with it as it will need to be unique to that record, and primary keys aren't designed to be changed. It can be done in certain scenarios but isn't a best practice.
Perhaps a better approach is to have the [Key] attribute on a property of public int Id { get; set; } so they primary key is now a discrete number instead of an email address. Then you can access, set, and update the email address on each record, without interfering with the key at all.
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 am getting Error when trying to run this code.
Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the
types 'AddressBook.DAL.Models.User' and 'AddressBook.DAL.Models.User'.
The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured
using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.
The objective is that i am creating baseClass that has commonfield for all the tables.
IF i don't use base class everything works fine.
namespace AddressBook.DAL.Models
{
public class BaseTable
{
[Required]
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
[Required]
public DateTime DateLastUpdatedOn { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual int CreatedByUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CreatedByUserId")]
public virtual User CreatedByUser { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual int UpdatedByUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UpdatedByUserId")]
public virtual User UpdatedByUser { get; set; }
[Required]
public RowStatus RowStatus { get; set; }
}
public enum RowStatus
{
NewlyCreated,
Modified,
Deleted
}
}
namespace AddressBook.DAL.Models
{
public class User : BaseTable
{
[Key]
public int UserID { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string MiddleName { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
}
You need to provide mapping information to EF. The following article describes code-first strategies for different EF entity inheritance models (table-per-type, table-per-hierarchy, etc.). Not all the scenarios are directly what you are doing here, but pay attention to the mapping code because that's what you need to consider (and it's good info in case you want to use inheritance for other scenarios). Note that inheritance does have limitations and costs when it comes to ORMs, particularly with polymorphic associations (which makes the TPC scenario somewhat difficult to manage). http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2010/12/24/inheritance-mapping-strategies-with-entity-framework-code-first-ctp5-part-1-table-per-hierarchy-tph.aspx
The other way EF can handle this kind of scenario is by aggregating a complex type into a "fake" compositional relationship. In other words, even though your audit fields are part of some transactional entity table, you can split them out into a common complex type which can be associated to any other entity that contains those same fields. The difference here is that you'd actually be encapsulting those fields into another type. So for example, if you moved your audit fields into an "Audit" complext type, you would have something like:
User.Audit.DateCreated
instead of
User.DateCreated
In any case, you still need to provide the appropriate mapping information.
This article here explains how to do this: http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2010/12/11/entity-association-mapping-with-code-first-part-1-one-to-one-associations.aspx
I have a simple class:
public class Member
{
public int AccountId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Role { get; set; }
public DateTime MemberSince { get; set; }
}
I need to make the AccountId a key but if I use the "Key" attribute it turns it into an identity which won't work for me (this data comes from another source so the value cannot be changed).
Is there another way to do this?
There is almost the exact same question here except the answer uses the fluent interface which I cannot do.
Sure, you can use:
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public int AccoungId { get; set; }
I'm having an issue that i just can't seem to figure out. Lets say I have 2 Entities defined in my domain; Person and Document. Below is the definition for Document :
public class Document
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(255)]
public string Title { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public virtual Person Owner{ get; set; }
public virtual Person AssignedTo { get; set; }
}
Now, when EF CTP4 creates the SQL table on initialize, there is only one field mapping to a Person.Id being Owner_id. Whatever i try, the field for AssignedTo is never created.
Anything that could solve this?
Regards,
avsomeren
Your code perfectly created the desired schema in the database for me:
If you don't get this schema in you DB then my guess is that something is not right with the rest of your object model. Could you post your full object model please?
Another Solution:
While your current Document class will give you the desired results, but you can still take advantage of the Conventions for Code First and explicitly specify the FKs for your navigation properties:
public class Document
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required][StringLength(255)]
public string Title { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public int OwnerID { get; set; }
public int AssignedToID { get; set; }
public virtual Person Owner { get; set; }
public virtual Person AssignedTo { get; set; }
}
Code First will now infer that any property named <navigation property name><primary key property name> (e.g. OwnerID), with the same data type as the primary key (int), represents a foreign key for the relationship.
This essentially results to the same DB schema plus you have the FKs on your Document object as well as navigation properties which gives you ultimate flexibility to work with your model.