I am trying to get some reuse out of a class which holds the many-to-many relationship data between a number of entities.
You can do this easily enough where the relationship is simply the pks of the two entities using Map
class A{
icollection<Item> Items
}
class B{
icollection<Item> Items
}
class Item{
string Text
}
then in the config you do something like this
Entity<A>().HasMany(e=>e.Items).WithMany().Map(..);
Entity<B>().HasMany(e=>e.Items).WithMany().Map(..);
this produces a new link table for A and B
Now, I would like to store more info on the link tables, but this would be common
class A{
icollection<LinkItem> Items
}
class B{
icollection<LinkItem> Items
}
class LinkItem{
int ExtraInfo
Item Text
}
class Item{
string Text
}
This fails as the LinkItem is created in a single table and complains about relationships
"Entities in 'DataContext.LinkItem' participate in the 'A_Items' relationship. 0 related 'A_Items_Source' were found. 1 'A_Items_Keywords_Source' is expected."
You can specify a table in the Map method, m.ToTable("AItems"), but this fails too
"The specified table 'AItems' was not found in the model. Ensure that the table name has been correctly specified."
Am I allowed to reuse my LinkItem class somehow?
(It doesn't need to be accessed as a set from the DataContext)
I believe what you want can be done, I've just tried using EF5, with the following model.
public class UsersContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<A> As { get; set; }
public DbSet<B> Bs { get; set; }
public DbSet<LinkItem> LinkItems { get; set; }
public DbSet<Item> Items { get; set; }
}
public class A{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<LinkItem> Items { get; set; }
}
public class B{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<LinkItem> Items { get; set; }
}
public class LinkItem{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime ExtraInfo { get; set; }
public virtual Item Text { get; set; }
}
public class Item{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Text { get; set; }
}
This resulted in the following DB model
I've not added any custom mappings just used what is inferred by the model. Does that work for you?
If you want to avoid the proliferation of the foreign keys on the LinkItems table, you can make it a many-2-many relationship with entities A and B with the following DbModelBuilder commands which will add the implicit link tables.
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<A>()
.HasMany(t => t.Items)
.WithMany();
modelBuilder.Entity<B>()
.HasMany(t => t.Items)
.WithMany();
}
Related
I have a POCO Entity named Employee.
And then I have a second POCO Entity named Case.
I want a navigation property that looks like instead this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee Employee{ get; set; }
like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
I want to name my property InitialContact. Not Employee.
But I get this error when EF tries to create the Database:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property 'Case.InitialContact' of type 'Employee'. Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property from the model.
Update 1:
I got it to work like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
}
The primary key is ID in my BaseEntity. Not EmployeeId.
But I have second part to my question.
Here is my Complete Employee POCO:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
using Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Framework.Concrete;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ModelBinding;
namespace Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Lerd
{
public class Employee : BaseEntity
{
[BindNever]
public string Email { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long OrganizationId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string Supervisor { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string SupervisorEmail { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Notes { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long BargainingUnitId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long PayPlanId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long GradeRankId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long PositionTitleId { get; set; }
[BindNever]
public long SeriesId { get; set; }
public bool IsUnionEmployee { get; set; }
public virtual Organization Organization { get; set; }
public virtual BargainingUnit BargainingUnit { get; set; }
public virtual PayPlan PayPlan { get; set; }
public virtual GradeRank GradeRank { get; set; }
public virtual PositionTitle PositionTitle { get; set; }
public virtual Series Series { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<UnionHours> UnionHours { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public string UnionEmployeeYesNo => (IsUnionEmployee) ? "Yes" : "No";
}
}
I want my Employee to have many Cases:
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
Here is my complete Cases POCO:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
}
So now my DB looks like this:
So I have my InitialContactId in Cases ok.
But now I need my Case to have many Employees.
So I add this in to my Case POCO:
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
Now it looks like this:
public class Case : BaseEntity
{
public long InitialContactId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee InitialContact { get; set; }
public DateTime InitalConsultDate { get; set; }
public Guid AppUserId { get; set; }
public virtual AppUser LerSpecialist { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
}
Now when I run it, I get this error again:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property 'Case.InitialContact' of type 'Employee'. Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property from the model.
Update 2:
I found this article for a Many-Many relationship in .Net Core 1:
http://www.learnentityframeworkcore.com/configuration/many-to-many-relationship-configuration
So now I have a bridge lookup entity:
public class EmployeeCase
{
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public Employee Employee { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public long CaseId { get; set; }
public Case Case { get; set; }
}
Employee POCO:
Changed:
public virtual ICollection<Case> Cases { get; set; }
to:
// Mapping - Collection of Cases
public virtual ICollection<EmployeeCase> EmployeeCases { get; set; }
Case POCO:
Changed:
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
to:
// Mapping - Collection of Employees
public virtual ICollection<EmployeeCase> EmployeeCases { get; set; }
In my AppDbContext
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
#region Many-to-Many Employees Cases
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasKey(ec => new { ec.EmployeeId, ec.CaseId });
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Employee)
.WithMany(e => e.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.EmployeeId);
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Case)
.WithMany(c => c.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.CaseId);
#endregion
}
Now when I run I get this error:
An exception of type 'System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException' occurred in Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_EmployeeCase_Employees_EmployeeId' on table 'EmployeeCase' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.
Could not create constraint or index. See previous errors.
Update 3:
Finally got my tables the way I want with this piece of code from:
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths - why?
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
// Get rid of Cascading Circular error on ModelBuilding
foreach (var relationShip in modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().SelectMany(e => e.GetForeignKeys()))
{
relationShip.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
}
#region Many-to-Many Employees Cases
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasKey(ec => new { ec.EmployeeId, ec.CaseId });
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Employee)
.WithMany(e => e.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.EmployeeId);
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeCase>()
.HasOne(ec => ec.Case)
.WithMany(c => c.EmployeeCases)
.HasForeignKey(ec => ec.CaseId);
#endregion
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
Update 4:
This did not work after all.
Remvoving the delete behavior for everything messes up my other relationships and I get errors.
How can I fix this?
This is disgusting.
So wishing I did not go Core.
Entity Framework uses conventions to guess how to map your C# model to database objects.
In your case you violate convention by custom name, so you should explain Entity Framework how to map this stuff.
There are two possible ways: attributes and fluent API. I'd suggest to use the latter one.
See section "Configuring a Foreign Key Name That Does Not Follow the Code First Convention" here: Entity Framework Fluent API - Relationships
I have made it a habit of explicitly defining my relationships as EF does not always get them the way I want. I like to create a Mapping folder that contains my entity maps. The fluent api works great for this and inherits from EntityTypeConfiguration.
Try this.
public class CaseMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Case>
{
public CaseMap()
{
HasKey(m => m.Id)
HasRequired(m => m.InitialContact)
.WithMany(e => e.Cases)
.HasForeignKey(m => m.InitialContactId);
}
}
Almost forgot. You need to tell your DbContext where to find these mappings. Add this to your DbContexts OnModelCreating method.
modelBuilder.Configurations.AddFromAssembly(typeof(MyContext).Assembly);
This is what worked finally for the Cascading Delete circular references on the many-to-many in EF Core:
// Get rid of Cascading Delete Circular references error.
var type = modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().Single(t => t.Name == "Hrsa.Core.Generic.Model.Lerd.EmployeeCase");
foreach (var relationship in type.GetForeignKeys())
{
relationship.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
}
You have to get the Entity representing the many to many lookup only.
And from there restrict the DeleteBehavior.
I have a project with several tables in the same database.
public class UserImage
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string OwnerId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("OwnerId")]
public virtual ApplicationUser Owner { get; set; }
//some fields are removed for brevity
}
public class FriendRequest
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserId { get; set; }
public string FutureFriendUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UserId")]
public virtual ApplicationUser User { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("FutureFriendUserId")]
public virtual ApplicationUser FutureFriendUser { get; set; }
}
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
{
//some fields are removed for brevity
public virtual ICollection<UserImage> UserImages { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<FriendRequest> FriendRequests { get; set; }
The problem is that I can find the images that belong to a user:
var userStore = new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(db);
var userManager = new UserManager<ApplicationUser>(userStore);
ApplicationUser user = userManager.FindById(User.Identity.GetUserId());
IEnumerable<string> imgs = (from image in user.UserImages select Url.Content(image.ImageUrl)).Skip(skip).Take(5).ToList();
but I can't use the same technique for the FriendRequests. If I search in the database for the rows that have UserId == User.Identity.GetUserId() or some other id, the results are what I expect.
What is the problem?
What you're essentially creating here is a self-referential many-to-many relationship. On your FriendRequest class, you have two properties that are foreign keys to ApplicationUser, but on your ApplicationUser class, you have only a single collection of FriendRequest. Entity Framework has no idea which foreign key should actually compose this collection. As a result, you have to make a few changes to get this working properly.
You must add another navigation property. Essentially, on your ApplicationUser class you'll end up with something like the following:
public virtual ICollection<FriendRequest> SentFriendRequests { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<FriendRequest> ReceivedFriendRequests { get; set; }
Again, you need a collection for each foreign key.
You'll need to add some fluent config to help Entity Framework determine which foreign key to use for each collection:
public class ApplicationContext : DbContext
{
...
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<FriendRequest>().HasRequired(m => m.User).WithMany(m => m.SentFriendRequests);
modelBuilder.Entity<FriendRequest>().HasRequired(m => m.FutureFriendUser).WithMany(m => m.ReceivedFriendRequests);
}
I have two entities where one has a one to many relationship to the other. Example:
public class Question
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public Answer[] Answers { get; set; }
}
public class Answer
{
public int Id {get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
}
Using EF6 Code First I've setup this simple DbContext:
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public MyContext()
{
Database.SetInitializer<MyContext>(new DropCreateDatabaseAlways<MyContext>());
}
public DbSet<Question> Questions { get; set; }
public DbSet<Answer> Answers { get; set; }
}
What I end up with in the DB are two similarly structured tables (int PK column and varchar column) and no representation of the "one Question has many Answers" relationship that I intended with the Question.Answers property.
Why doesn't EF Code First map the relationship and how can I fix this?
Entity Framework doesn't support mapping navigation properties of bare Array types. The property has to be of Type that implements the ICollection<T> interface in order to be mapped.
Try to change your code as follows:
public class Question
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Answer> Answers { get; set; }
}
And when initializing Answers, set it to a HashSet or List:
this.Answers = new List<Answer>();
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>();
From what I understand on several posts the TPT architecure, with EF, does not create the necessary ON DELETE CASCADE when using a shared primary key.... It was also said that the EF context will handle the proper order of deletion of the sub-classed tables (however I do get an error that it breaks the constraint and that I can fix it with adding the ON DELETE CASCADE on the sub-class table)...
more background info...
I have a Section class, which has a number, title, and a list of pages. The page is designed using a super class which holds basic page properties. I have about 10+ sub-classes of the page class. The Section class holds an ICollection of these pages. The DB is created properly with the exception of no ON DELETE CASCADE on the sub-classed tables.
My code will create the entities and adds to the DB fine. However, if I try to delete a section (or all sections) it fails todelete due to the FK constraint on my sub-class page table...
public abstract BaseContent
{
... common properties which are Ignored in the DB ...
}
public class Course : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Descripiton {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<Chapter> Chapters{get;set;}
...
}
public class Chapter : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int Number {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
public virtual Course MyCourse{get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<Section> Sections{get;set;}
...
}
public class Section : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int Number {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
public virtual Chapter MyChapter {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<BasePage> Pages {get;set;}
...
}
public abstract class BasePage : BaseContent, IComparable
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string PageImageRef { get; set; }
public ePageImageLocation ImageLocationOnPage { get; set; }
public int PageNumber { get; set; }
public virtual Section MySection { get; set; }
...
}
public class ChapterPage : BasePage
{
public virtual int ChapterNumber { get; set; }
public virtual string ChapterTitle { get; set; }
public virtual string AudioRef { get; set; }
}
public class SectionPage : BasePage
{
public virtual int SectionNumber { get; set; }
public virtual string SectionTitle { get; set; }
public virtual string SectionIntroduction { get; set; }
}
... plus about 8 other BasePage sub-classes...
public class MyContext: DbContext
{
...
public DbSet<Course> Courses { get; set; }
public DbSet<Chapter> Chapters { get; set; }
public DbSet<Section> Sections { get; set; }
public DbSet<BasePage> Pages { get; set; }
...
}
.. Fluent API ... (note Schema is defined to "" for SqlServer, for Oracle its the schema name)
private EntityTypeConfiguration<T> configureTablePerType<T>(string tableName) where T : BaseContent
{
var config = new EntityTypeConfiguration<T>();
config.ToTable(tableName, Schema);
// This adds the appropriate Ignore calls on config for the base class BaseContent
DataAccessUtilityClass.IgnoreAllBaseContentProperties<T>(config);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<BasePage> ConfigurePageContent()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<BasePage>("PageContent");
config.HasKey(pg => pg.Id);
config.HasRequired(pg => pg.Title);
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.PageImageRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ImageLocationOnPage);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<ChapterPage> ConfigureChapterPage()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<ChapterPage>("ChapterPage");
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.AudioRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ChapterNumber);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ChapterTitle);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<SectionPage> ConfigureSectionPage()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<SectionPage>("SectionPage");
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.AudioRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.SectionNumber);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.SectionTitle);
return config;
}
... other code to model other tables...
So the app is able to populate content and the relationships are properly set up. However, when I try to delete the course, I get the error that the delete failed due to the constraint on the ChapterPage to PageContent table..
Here is the code which deletes the Course (actually I delete all courses)...
using (MyContext ctx = new MyContext())
{
ctx.Courses.ToList().ForEach(crs => ctx.Courses.Remove(crs));
AttachLookupEntities(ctx);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
If I add the 'ON DELETE CASCADE' in the ChapterPage and SectionPage table for its shared primary with PageContent, the delete goes through.
In summary,
The only solution that I have seen is to manually alter the constraints to add the ON DELETE CASCADE for all of my sub-class page tables. I can implement the change, as I have code which generates the DB script for the EF tables I need (a small subset of our whole DB) since we will not use EF to create or instantiate the DB (since it does not properly support migrations as yet...).
I sincerely hope that I have miscoded something, or forgot some setting in the model builder logic. Because if not, the EF designers have defined an architecure (TPT design approach) which cannot be used in any real world situation without a hack workaround. It's a half finished solution. Do not get me wrong, I like the work that has been done, and like most MSFT solutions its works for 70% of most basic application usages. It just is not ready for more complex situations.
I was trying to keep the DB design all within the EF fluent API and self-contained. It's about 98% there for me, just would be nice if they finished the job, maybe in the next release. At least it saves me all the CRUD operations.
Ciao!
Jim Shaw
I have reproduced the problem with a little bit simpler example:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace EFTPT
{
public class Parent
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<BasePage> Pages { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BasePage
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedPage : BasePage
{
public string DerivedName { get; set; }
}
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Parent> Parents { get; set; }
public DbSet<BasePage> BasePages { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Parent>()
.HasMany(p => p.Pages)
.WithRequired(p => p.Parent); // creates casc. delete in DB
modelBuilder.Entity<BasePage>()
.ToTable("BasePages");
modelBuilder.Entity<DerivedPage>()
.ToTable("DerivedPages");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var ctx = new MyContext())
{
var parent = new Parent { Pages = new List<BasePage>() };
var derivedPage = new DerivedPage();
parent.Pages.Add(derivedPage);
ctx.Parents.Add(parent);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
using (var ctx = new MyContext())
{
var parent = ctx.Parents.FirstOrDefault();
ctx.Parents.Remove(parent);
ctx.SaveChanges(); // exception here
}
}
}
}
This gives the same exception that you had too. Only solutions seem to be:
Either setup cascading delete for the TPT constraint in the DB manually, as you already tested (or put an appropriate SQL command into the Seed method).
Or load the entites which are involved in the TPT inheritance into memory. In my example code:
var parent = ctx.Parents.Include(p => p.Pages).FirstOrDefault();
When the entities are loaded into the context, EF creates actually two DELETE statements - one for the base table and one for the derived table. In your case, this is a terrible solution because you had to load a much more complex object graph before you can get the TPT entities.
Even more problematic is if Parent has an ICollection<DerivedPage> (and the inverse Parent property is in DerivedPage then):
public class Parent
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<DerivedPage> Pages { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BasePage
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedPage : BasePage
{
public string DerivedName { get; set; }
public Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
The example code wouldn't throw an exception but instead delete the row from the derived table but not from the base table, leaving a phantom row which cannot represent an entity anymore because BasePage is abstract. This problem is not solvable by a cascading delete but you were actually forced to load the collection into the context before you can delete the parent to avoid such a nonsense in the database.
A similar question and analysis was here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/adodotnetentityframework/thread/3c27d761-4d0a-4704-85f3-8566fa37d14e/