I'm really new to Entity Framework (currently using EF5) and vs2012 and am having difficulty trying to figure something out.
I have an .edmx that was generated from my database. It has two tables in it: Item and 3rdPartyItem. In short, the Item table is the main table for all the company items while the 3rdPartyItem table is a table that is used to hold additional attributes for items. This 3rdPartyItem table was created by an outside company and is used with their software for the company, so I can't mess with either table. What I'm trying to do is show a list of Items in a grid but I need to show a combination of all the fields for both tables. In vs2012, if I create a relationship and make it 'zero-to-one' (because for each record in the Item table, there doesn't necessarily have to be one in the 3rdPartyItem table), vs complains about not being mapped correctly. When I set the mapping, it then complains that there's multiple relationships. I did some research and found that you can't create a relationship with 2 primary keys, so I was thinking that was the problem. But how can I change the .edmx so that in code, I can access Items and 3rdPartyItem like so:
var items = dbContext.Items;
items.3rdPartyItem.SomeField <--field from 3rdPartyItem table.
not too sure if it's even possible, but it would be very, very helpful if so. Any ideas?
What you're looking for is table-per-type (TPT) mapping inheritance. You can view an MSDN walkthrough here (although you'd want your base type to be instantiable):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj618293.aspx
Related
I'm new to Filemaker, but have extensive SQL experience.
How do I add a list of children to my Filemaker layout, if I have a one-to-many relationship (a tree)? I would like to see for my current node all its children. Later I want to filter them as well.
Showing the parent is easy via the related field. But for the reverse it appears that I need to use scripts?
In SQL, I would write:
SELECT * from Element WHERE parent = {current_id};
You set up a relationship between the tables in the relationship graph using a primary key and foreign key arrangement. Then you add a portal to the related table occurrence on your main table layout. You can add filtering in the relationship itself or in the portal afterwards.
I advice you to check out this info from FileMaker on the subject.
I'm using .Net 4.5, entity framework 5, database first. I have a junction (many-to-many) table in my database. For this example lets say the table is "StudentsCourses":
Students
-PkStudentId
-Name
Courses
-PkCourseId
-CourseNumber
StudentsCourses
-FkStudentId
-FkCourseId
This works just fine right now. The 'generate model from database' creates a Student entity with a navigation property to the Course entity. But here is where the trouble is:
I need to add another column to the StudentsCourses table. Lets just call this column "CourseYear". So our junction table would now look like this:
StudentsCourses
-FkStudentId
-FkCourseId
-CourseYear
So, I've added this column to the database and ran "Update Model from Database" on the edmx. I would expect to see an entity created for StudentCourses, with a navigation property to both Students and Courses. But no such entity is created. I still see the same two tables (Students & Courses) with the same navigation property as before.
I've done a lot of reading and researching, but haven't really come across a clear-cut answer. There is a wealth of information on code-first which I can't apply to my scenario. Is there a way to get what I'm after? Is it as simple as adding a PkId to the StudentCourses table? SQL Replication is preventing me from doing this. I would think the composite should suffice, but maybe EF needs a PK to do it's magic? I read a little bit about manually setting relationships, but could not find anything speaking to my particular situation. It could be that I am just missing a simple step in the process of updating the edmx from database. I've done this plenty of times when: adding new tables, adding columns, deleting columns, etc. I'm following the same steps as I always do, but maybe I need to do something different in this case?
Thanks ahead of time for any help. It is greatly appreciated. Please let me know if any more information would help.
From what I've gathered it appears as though EF will not generate a model for a table that doesn't have a Primary Key.
I'm a bit late for this, but you have the answer in this thread Updating Entity Framework Model after adding a field to a previous look up only table
As they say here, you have to delete the relationship between Students and Courses in the designer. Then update your model from the database, and make sure StudentsCourses table is checked in the Tables branch of the Add tab.
In our shop, when we design a database, we typically include auditing attributes for each table (LastUpdateUser, LastUpdateDate, etc). This is common practice, however, I've noticed this becoming an increasing problem when you have tables that "inherit" from other tables, especially using tools such as the entity framework.
For example, if you have tables Customers and Employees, and those tables have a foreign key to table People, then in your entity / class model when you establish the inheritance, you need to change the names for the audit fields because they exist in both tables. Perhaps they need to become PersonLastUpdatedUser and PersonLastUpdatedDate, while the ones from Employees remain as simply LastUpdatedUser and LastUpdatedDate.
When designing tables for inheritance, do you put such audit fields in both tables, or do you just have them in the parent table and update the parent table whenever an attribute changes in a child table?
If you want to use inheritance than those attributes belong to parent table because the parent with related table forms single entity and you track auditing for whole entity. If you for any reason needs those attributes in both tables it should be the first warning that those tables are not good candidates for inheritance.
If you want true auditing, you create separate audit tables that are populated by triggers (never ever by the application or you will miss items that need to be audited).
and they shouw both the old and new value as well as the date and the user or application that made the change.
If you want a last updatedcolumn in each table (which I think is better than having it only in the parenta as that doesn't tell you anything about which of the tables changes last) and you want o use inheritance then you might need to create unique names by adding the table name to lastUpdated. So PersonLastUpdated and OrderLastUpdated, etc.
Or you don't use inheritance.
I have a comment and a question. Entity Framework 4.0 does not show the linking table in a many-to-many relationship between two tables, such as shown in Northwind for “Order_Details”, a linking table between Orders and Products, if only two columns, both primary keys, are used in the linking table, as is often the case. So in Northwind if you use as primary keys both OrderID and ProductID in the Order_Details linking table between Orders and Products, for the many-to-many relationship, the linking table will not show up if only these two columns (primary keys) are present in Order_Details.
Consequently, you cannot Insert or Create in a many-to-many relationship linking table, because Entity Framework 4.0 does not show the linking table Order_Details nor does Intellisense show this linking table of the many to many relationship. How is one to then do an insert or update in the linking table if EF 4 does not show the hidden linking table? Arguments such as 'you must now start thinking in OOP' do not impress me. SQL has a certain structure and OOP is just an interface for it so we can use LINQ-to-entities rather than the clumsier SQL queries, IMO.
The trick to get around this bug was suggested for Silverlight here, http://forums.silverlight.net/t/159414.aspx/1 , and it works for web services and any other .NET solution: simply add, in your linking table, a dummy column of any type.
Now delete your original .edmx file, and rebuild a new one by generating it against the actual database.
Then intellisense shows the linking table, and then you can Insert / Create and do other normal oprations.
For example, Intellisense in EF 4.0 will now show the linking table Order_Details, and you can create or insert such as (partial fragment,omitting try/catch and any rollback options):
using (aDBEntity context = new aDBEntity())
Order_Details newOrdDetails = new Order_Details();
newOrdDetails.OrderID = //some number here
newOrdDetails.ProductID = //some number here
context.AddToOrder_Details(newOrdDetails);
context.SaveChanges();
Question: is this lack of showing a many-to-many linking table a bug or a feature of EF 4.0?
Personally, I think the linking table is not needed if you don't have any additional column other than two keys in it. I have never needed to access to the link table which is just used to define M2M relationship. I feel relaxed with adding relation between Foo and Bar by getting Foo (or Bar) first and use Foo.Bars.Add(sampleBar).
I think you answered your question. If you think OOP, this is a feature. If you want to have access to the link table (and you think you're doing it the right way), this is a lack of feature.
I'm having trouble configuring entity relationships when one entity inherits from another. I'm new to ADO Entity Framework -- perhaps someone more experienced has some tips for how this is best done. I'm using .net 4.
Database tables with fields:
Products (int ID, nvarchar Description)
FoodProducts (int ProductID, bit IsHuge)
Flavors (int ID, int FoodProductID, nvarchar Description)
There are constraints between Products and FoodProducts as well as FoodProducts and Flavors.
Using the designer I create a model from the database. The designer seems to get it right, with a 1:0..1 association between Product and FoodProduct entities, and 1:* association between Flavor and FoodProduct. No errors when I save or build.
Next I set FoodProduct entity to inherit from Product entity. Then I get errors concerning relationship between Product and FoodProduct. Ok, starting fresh, I first delete the relationship between Product and FoodProduct before setting the inheritance. But now I get errors about the relationship between FoodProduct and Flavor. So I delete and then recreate that relationship, connecting Flavor.ID to FoodProduct.ProductID. Now I get other errors.
My question is this: Should I instead be creating relationship between Flavor.FoodProductID and Product.ID? If so, I assume I then could (or should) delete the FoodProduct.ProductID property. Since my database will have many of these types of relationships, am I better off first creating the entity model and exporting the tables to SQL, or importing the database schema and then making many tweaks?
My intent is that there will be several types of products, some of which require many additional fields, some of which do not. So there may be zero or one FoodProducts records associated with each Product record. At least by my thinking, the table for each sub-type (FoodProducts) should be able to "borrow" the primary key from Products (as a FK) to uniquely identify each of its records.
You can find a screen capture here: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9720/entityframework.jpg (I'd embed the img but haven't earned the requisite rep' yet!)
Well, I deleted the FoodProduct.ProductID field, as it should always return the same value as Product.ID anyway. Then, as you hinted, I had to manually map the Products.ID field to FoodProducts.ProductID field. Errors resolved. I'll write a little code to test functionality. Thanks for the "observations"!
Couple of observations:
FoodProducts needs a primary key (e,g identity - FoodProductID). Are you sure it should be a 1:0..1 between Food and FoodProducts? I would have thought it should be 1:0..*. For this cardinality to work you need a unique PK on this table.
When you setup inheritance for entities, the parent entity's properties are inherited. So FoodProducts will inherit ID from the Product table.
BUT, on the physical model (database), this field still needs to be mapped to a column on the FoodProducts table - which is why you need the identity field.
After you setup inheritance, you still need to map all the columns on the derived tables. My money is on you have not mapped "ID" on FoodProducts to any column.
If you screencapped your model and show the errors you are getting it would be much easier to diagnose the issue.