Using a Stored Function in an Entity Framework 4 query - entity-framework

I've got an Entity Framework 4 entity model in my program. There's a stored function I've defined in my SQL Anywhere 12.0.1 database called GuidToPrefix:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION GuidToPrefix( ID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER ) RETURNS INT AS
BEGIN
RETURN CAST( CAST( ID AS BINARY(4) ) AS INT )
END;
Following the directions in this MSDN article, I added the function to my EDMX:
<Function Name="GuidToPrefix" ReturnType="int" Aggregate="false" BuiltIn="false" NiladicFunction="false" IsComposable="true" ParameterTypeSemantics="AllowImplicitConversion" Schema="DBA">
<Parameter Name="ID" Type="uniqueidentifier" Mode="In" />
</Function>
To be totally honest, I updated the model from the database and checked off the function in the list on the first tab of the wizard. I don't know if that makes a difference or not, but I can't see why it would.
According to the article, I need to add a definition of the function in a C# class. My problem is it doesn't tell me what class to put that in. Do I add an entirely new class? Do I create a new .CS file and do something like this:
public static DbFunctions {
[EdmFunction( "CarSystemModel.Store", "GuidToPrefix" )]
public static int GuidToPrefix( Guid id ) {
throw new NotSupportedException( "Direct calls to GuidToPrefix are not supported." );
}
}
or do I put that in a partial of the entities class?
partial MyEntities {
[EdmFunction( "CarSystemModel.Store", "GuidToPrefix" )]
public static int GuidToPrefix( Guid id ) {
throw new NotSupportedException( "Direct calls to GuidToPrefix are not supported." );
}
}
I have two projects where this entity model is used. One is a class library and the model is definied in it. The other is another class library in another solution that just uses it. I've tried both examples above and the query in the second class library generates this error from the compiler in both cases:
The name 'GuidToPrefix' does not exist in the current context
Obviously I'm not doing something right. Has anyone tried this and got it to work?

I found the answer to this one.
Recall that I created a file with a partial of the MyEntities class in my project where the Entity Model is defined:
partial MyEntities {
[EdmFunction( "CarSystemModel.Store", "GuidToPrefix" )]
public static int GuidToPrefix( Guid id ) {
throw new NotSupportedException( "Direct calls to GuidToPrefix are not supported." );
}
}
This was fine and it all compiled. My problem wasn't here but in the project where I have to use the function.
In that project, in a class called DataInterface, I have a method with code like this:
var query = from read in context.Reads
from entry in context.Entries
.Where( e => GuidToPrefix( read.ID ) == e.PrefixID && read.ID == e.ID )
.....
The problem was that I needed to add the name of the class that contained the C# declaration of the GuidToPrefix function in the Where clause. That is, I needed to write the above expression as:
var query = from read in context.Reads
from entry in context.Entries
.Where( e => MyEntities.GuidToPrefix( read.ID ) == e.PrefixID && read.ID == e.ID )
.....
This compiles and when it runs it uses the function in the database in the LEFT OUTER JOIN as I wanted.

Related

f#: Only parameterless constructors and initializers are supported in LINQ to Entities

I am trying to get Envelope's back from a query. Envelope is defined as follows.
[<CLIMutable>]
type Envelope<'T> = {
Id : Guid
StreamId: Guid
Created : DateTimeOffset
Item : 'T }
MyLibAAS.DataStore.MyLibAASDbContext is a EF DbContext written in c#. When I extend it in f# as follows, I get the error: Only parameterless constructors and initializers are supported in LINQ to Entities.
type MyLibAAS.DataStore.MyLibAASDbContext with
member this.GetEvents streamId =
query {
for event in this.Events do
where (event.StreamId = streamId)
select {
Id = event.Id;
StreamId = streamId;
Created = event.Timestamp;
Item = (JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<QuestionnaireEvent> event.Payload)
}
}
If I return the event and map it to Envelope after the fact, it works fine.
type MyLibAAS.DataStore.MyLibAASDbContext with
member this.GetEvents streamId =
query {
for event in this.Events do
where (event.StreamId = streamId)
select event
} |> Seq.map (fun event ->
{
Id = event.Id
StreamId = streamId
Created = event.Timestamp
Item = (JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<QuestionnaireEvent> event.Payload)
}
)
Why does this make a difference? The Envelope type is not even a EF type.
How F# records work
F# records get compiled into .NET classes with read-only properties and a constructor that takes values of all fields as parameters (plus a few interfaces).
For example, your record would be expressed in C# roughly as follows:
public class Envelope<T> : IComparable<Envelope<T>>, IEquatable<Envelope<T>>, ...
{
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public Guid StreamId { get; private set; }
public DateTimeOffset Created { get; private set; }
public T Item { get; private set; }
public Envelope( Guid id, Guid streamId, DateTimeOffset created, T item ) {
this.Id = id;
this.StreamId = streamId;
this.Created = created;
this.Item = item;
}
// Plus implementations of IComparable, IEquatable, etc.
}
When you want to create an F# record, the F# compiler emits a call to this constructor, supplying values for all fields.
For example, the select part of your query would look in C# like this:
select new Envelope<QuestionnaireEvent>(
event.Id, streamId, event.Timestamp,
JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<QuestionnaireEvent>(event.Payload) )
Entity Framework limitations
It so happens that Entity Framework does not allow calling non-default constructors in queries. There is a good reason: if it did allow it, you could, in principle, construct a query like this:
from e in ...
let env = new Envelope<E>( e.Id, ... )
where env.Id > 0
select env
Entity Framework wouldn't know how to compile this query, because it doesn't know that the value of e.Id passed to the constructor becomes the value of the property env.Id. This is always true for F# records, but not for other .NET classes.
Entity Framework could, in principle, recognize that Envelope is an F# record and apply the knowledge of the connection between constructor arguments and record properties. But it doesn't. Unfortunately, the designers of Entity Framework did not think of F# as a valid use case.
(fun fact: C# anonymous types work the same way, and EF does make an exception for them)
How to fix this
In order to make this work, you need to declare Envelope as a type with default constructor. The only way to do this is to make it a class, not a record:
type Envelope<'T>() =
member val Id : Guid = Guid.Empty with get, set
member val StreamId : Guid = Guid.Empty with get, set
member val Created : DateTimeOffset = DateTimeOffset.MinValue with get, set
member val Item : 'T = Unchecked.defaultof<'T> with get, set
And then create it using property initialization syntax:
select Envelope<_>( Id = event.Id, StreamId = streamId, ... )
Why does moving the select to a Seq.map work
The Seq.map call is not part of the query expression. It does not end up as part of the IQueryable, so it does not end up compiled to SQL by Entity Framework. Instead, EF compiles just what's inside query and returns you the resulting sequence, after fetching it from SQL Server. And only after that you apply Seq.map to that sequence.
The code inside Seq.map is executed on CLR, not compiled to SQL, so it can call anything it wants, including non-default constructors.
This "fix" comes with a cost though: instead of just the fields you need, the whole Event entity gets fetched from DB and materialized. If this entity is heavy, this may have a performance impact.
Another thing to watch out for
Even if you fix the problem by making Envelope a type with default constructor (as suggested above), you'll still hit the next problem: the method JsonConvert.DeserializeObject can't be compiled to SQL, so Entity Framework will complain about it, too. The way you should do it is fetch all fields to the CLR side, then apply whatever non-SQL-compilable transformations you need.
Using LINQ to Entities, everything that happens in the query computational expression is actually executed within the database engine, which may reside on a remote server. Everything outside of it is executed in the running application on the client.
So, in your first snippet, Entity Framework refuses to execute Envelope<'T>'s constructor because, in order to do so, it would need to translate that into SQL commands for the server. This is plainly not something it can guarantee, because the constructor could potentially contain any sort of side effects and .NET framework code - it could request user input, read files from the client's hard disk, whatever.
What EF can do, in your second snippet, is sending its own POCO event objects back to the client, which is then tasked with Seq.mapping them to your fancy Envelopes, which it can do because it's running on your client machine with access to the full .NET framework.
Addendum: So why are parameterless constructors ok? What if I were to call MsgBox() in a parameterless constructor? I think that parameterless constructors work by having the client construct the objects (without knowing the query results), sending them to the server in serialised form, and having the server just fill the object's properties with the query results.
I haven't actually tested that. But F# record types have no parameterless constructors anyway, so the point is moot in your case.

EF6: Create stored procedure. Use Fluent API or DBMigrations?

I'm using EF6 code first to create my database. I understand the syntax, the DbContext, and the modelbuilder. I use LINQ for several exhaustive queries and everything works fine.
But now I need to do something that can't be done in one query using linq. I need to perform a Merge statement using a stored procedure.
I've seen several questions on how to create a stored procedure, like:
Create Stored Procedures using Entity Framework Code First?
Most answers are talking about creating a derived class for DbMigrations and overriding the Up() function. I understand what I should write in the Up function to make sure the stored procedure is created.
But what should I do to make that during database creation this Up function is called?
Should I do something in DbContext.OnModelCreating?
I don't think I should instantiate the subclass of DbMigrations and call Up().
The link mentioned above is talking about "Open the Package Manager Control". What is that? Or do you really use this method when migrating from an older version to a newer one?
After some investigation I found how to make sure that a stored procedure is created whenever the database is created.. I found two methods, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Hence I describe them both. Sorry if this makse the answer fairly long.
The two methods described here are:
Create a DataBase Initializer, a class that implements IDataBaseInitializer. This will probably be a class derived from DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges or similar. Override the Seed function and create in this function the stored procedure using context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(...).
Use Entity Framework migrations for the creation of stored procedures.
The first method is simpler. Whenever the database is created, the Seed is called and the stored procedure is created. However this method has the disadvantage that whenever the name or the type of the parameters of the stored procedure change, this is not detected until runtime.
The DbMigration method matches the parameters of the stored procedure using a lambda expression, so whenever the type or the name of the parameter changes, the compiler detects if the definition of the remote procedure matches the parameter.
I'll describe both methods. Both examples have the same simple Hello World! procedure and a big Merge procedure with a lot of parameters.
The definition of the merge statement is not really important. What it
does is that it checks if there is already a record matching several
properties, and if so it adds costs to the existing costs. If not it
creates a record and initializes the costs with costs. This is a
typical example where using linq statement and IQueryable wouldn't suffice.
Using linq, one would have to retrieve the record, update it and call
SaveChanges, with the problems (1) that in
the meantime someone else might have added a value and (2) it needs at
least two roundtrips. Hence the need for a stored procedure.
Method IDatabaseInitializer
In your project you create the entity classes and a class derived form DbContext with DbSet properties for the database tables you want to access.
For example:
public class UsageCosts
{
public int Id {get; set; }
public DateTime InvoicePeriod { get; set; }
public long CustomerContractId { get; set; }
public string TypeA { get; set; }
public string TypeB { get; set; }
public decimal VatValue { get; set; }
// the value to invoice
public decimal PurchaseCosts { get; set; }
public decimal RetailCosts { get; set; }
}
public class DemoContext : DbContext
{
public DemoContext(string nameOrConnectionString) : base(nameOrConnectionString) {}
public DbSet<UsageCosts> UsageCosts { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
// add entity framework fluent api statements here
}
}
Apart from your database classes, create a database initializer, It has a function Seed that will be called when the database is created.
internal class DataBaseInitializer : DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<DemoContext>
{
protected override void Seed(DemoContext context)
{
base.Seed(context);
// create stored procedures here
this.CreateStoredProcedureHelloWorld(context)
this.CreateStoredProcedureUpdateUsageCosts(context)
}
Simple example that shows how to create a Stored Procedure (Hello World!)
private void CreateStoredProcedureHelloWorld(DemoContext context)
{
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("create procedure HelloWorld as begin Select 'Hello World' end;");
}
Create a stored procedure with input parameters:
private void CreateStoredProcedureUpdateUsageCosts(DemoContext context)
{
var x = new StringBuilder();
x.AppendLine(#"create procedure updateusagecosts");
x.AppendLine(#"#InvoicePeriod datetime,");
x.AppendLine(#"#CustomerContractId bigint,");
x.AppendLine(#"#TypeA nvarChar(80),");
x.AppendLine(#"#TypeB nvarChar(80),");
x.AppendLine(#"#VatValue decimal(18, 2),");
x.AppendLine(#"#PurchaseCosts decimal(18, 2),");
x.AppendLine(#"#RetailCosts decimal(18, 2)");
x.AppendLine(#"as");
x.AppendLine(#"begin");
x.AppendLine(#"Merge [usagecosts]");
x.AppendLine(#"Using (Select #InvoicePeriod as invoicePeriod,");
x.AppendLine(#" #CustomerContractId as customercontractId,");
x.AppendLine(#" #TypeA as typeA,");
x.AppendLine(#" #TypeB as typeB,");
x.AppendLine(#" #VatValue as vatvalue)");
x.AppendLine(#" As tmp ");
x.AppendLine(#"On ([usagecosts].[invoiceperiod] = tmp.invoiceperiod");
x.AppendLine(#"AND [usagecosts].[customercontractId] = tmp.customercontractid");
x.AppendLine(#"AND [usagecosts].[typeA] = tmp.typeA");
x.AppendLine(#"AND [usagecosts].[typeB] = tmp.typeB");
x.AppendLine(#"AND [usagecosts].[vatvalue] = tmp.Vatvalue)");
x.AppendLine(#"When Matched Then ");
x.AppendLine(#" Update Set [usagecosts].[purchasecosts] = [usagecosts].[purchasecosts] + #purchasecosts,");
x.AppendLine(#" [usagecosts].[retailcosts] = [usagecosts].[retailcosts] + #retailcosts");
x.AppendLine(#"When Not Matched Then");
x.AppendLine(#" Insert (InvoicePeriod, CustomerContractId, typea, typeb, vatvalue, purchasecosts, retailcosts)");
x.AppendLine(#" Values (#invoiceperiod, #CustomerContractId, #TypeA, #TypeB, #VatValue, #PurchaseCosts, #RetailCosts);");
x.AppendLine(#"end");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(x.ToString());
}
}
The hello world example can be found here on StackOverflow
The method with the StringBuilder can also be found somewhere on StackOverflow, but alas I can't find it.
During creation of the database DatabaseInitializer.Seed(...) is called. Here the context is ordered to perform an SQL statement. This statement is a string.
That's why the compiler won't notice changes in the name or the type of the parameters of the functions.
DbMigration methods
For migrations see:
MSDN: Enabling Migrations
Creating and Calling Stored Procedure from Entity Framework 6 Code First
The idea is to let the visual studio package manager create a derived class of DbManager which has an Up() function. This function will be called whenever the database is migrated upwards to the version for the derived class.
Inside the Up() you can call the base class DbMigration.CreateStoredProcedure. The nice thing about this method would be that the translation from Entity type to parameters is done using delegates (with a lambda expression) and thus checked at compile time: do the properties still exist and do they have the correct type?
Alas it is not enough to construct the derived class from DbMigration, and call the Up() functions from within your Seed() function.
To make sure that the Up() function is called it is the easiest to let visual studio do this.
Create your project
Add Nuget package for entity framework
Create your entity classes and your DbContext with DbSet properties for the entity classes
In visual studio start the Nuget Package Manager Console via the Tools menu
Using the Nuget Package Manager Console enable migrations using the command Enable-Migrations
Using the Nuget Package Manager Console add one migration and give if a name, for instance InitialCreation using the command add-Migration InitialCreation
You'll notice that several classes are added to your project.
Configuration derived from DbMigratinConfiguration with a function Seed()
InitialCreation derived from DbMigration with a function Up() (and a function Down(). In this Up you'll see one or more CreateTable functions
If you still have a database seeder class as described in the previous example, and you use DataBase.SetInitializer to initialize it, then whenever the database needs to be re-created the various Up() and Seed() functions are called in the following order:
Constructor of Configuration
InitialCreation.Up()
DatabaseSeeder.Seed()
For some reason Configuration.Seed() is not called.
This gives us the opportunity to create the stored procedures in InitialCraeation.Up()
public override void Up()
{
CreateTable("dbo.UsageCosts",
c => new
{
Id = c.Int(nullable: false, identity: true),
InvoicePeriod = c.DateTime(nullable: false),
CustomerContractId = c.Long(nullable: false),
TypeA = c.String(),
TypeB = c.String(),
VatValue = c.Decimal(nullable: false, precision: 18, scale: 2),
PurchaseCosts = c.Decimal(nullable: false, precision: 18, scale: 2),
RetailCosts = c.Decimal(nullable: false, precision: 18, scale: 2),
})
.PrimaryKey(t => t.Id);
}
The "Hello World" Stored procedure is created as follows:
base.CreateStoredProcedure("dbo.HelloWorld3", "begin Select 'Hello World' end;");
The stored procedure with input parameters:
base.CreateStoredProcedure("dbo.update2", p => new
{
InvoicePeriod = p.DateTime(),
CustomerContractId = p.Long(),
TypeA = p.String(maxLength: 80),
TypeB = p.String(maxLength: 80),
VatValue = p.Decimal(10, 8),
PurchaseCosts = p.Decimal(10, 8),
RetailCosts = p.Decimal(10, 8),
},
#"begin
Merge [usagecosts]
Using (Select
#InvoicePeriod as invoicePeriod,
#CustomerContractId as customercontractId,
#TypeA as typeA,
#TypeB as typeB,
#VatValue as vatvalue)
As tmp
On ([usagecosts].[invoiceperiod] = tmp.invoiceperiod
AND [usagecosts].[customercontractId] = tmp.customercontractid
AND [usagecosts].[typeA] = tmp.typeA
AND [usagecosts].[typeB] = tmp.typeB
AND [usagecosts].[vatvalue] = tmp.Vatvalue)
When Matched Then
Update Set [usagecosts].[purchasecosts] = [usagecosts].[purchasecosts] + #purchasecosts, [usagecosts].[retailcosts] = [usagecosts].[retailcosts] + #retailcosts
When Not Matched Then
Insert (InvoicePeriod, CustomerContractId, typea, typeb, vatvalue, purchasecosts, retailcosts)
Values (#invoiceperiod, #CustomerContractId, #TypeA, #TypeB, #VatValue, #PurchaseCosts, #RetailCosts);
end;");
}
Remember the Down() method:
public override void Down()
{
this.DropStoredProcedure("dbo.update2");
}
For completeness: the remote procedure call
using (var dbContext = new DemoContext())
{
object[] functionParameters = new object[]
{
new SqlParameter(#"InvoicePeriod", usageCosts.InvoicePeriod),
new SqlParameter(#"CustomerContractId", usageCosts.CustomerContractId),
new SqlParameter(#"TypeA", usageCosts.TypeA),
new SqlParameter(#"TypeB", usageCosts.TypeB),
new SqlParameter(#"VatValue", usageCosts.VatValue),
new SqlParameter(#"PurchaseCosts", 20M),
new SqlParameter(#"RetailCosts", 30M),
};
string sqlCommand = String.Format(#"Exec {0} #InvoicePeriod, #CustomerContractId, #TypeA, #TypeB, #VatValue, #PurchaseCosts, #RetailCosts", functionName);
dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(sqlCommand, functionParameters);
dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
In my opinion it is best to put this in an extension method of the DbSet. Whenever the UsageCosts changes, the compiler can check for the names and the property types.

Play Framework 2.3 How to add unique constraint to sample application

Given the Play Framework 2.3 Computer Database sample application, I would like to practice adding a unique constraint on an attribute. Let's say I want the name attribute of the Computer class to be unique. I've tried to do this by adding a validate() function (and a getter) to Computer.java:
public List<ValidationError> validate() {
List<ValidationError> errors = new ArrayList<ValidationError>();
if(Computer.find.where().eq("name", getName()).findRowCount() != 0){
errors.add(new ValidationError("name", "Name must be unique. That value is already taken."));
}
return errors;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
This check works when creating new records in the database, however, this now causes a validation error when you update a Computer object but don't change the name. Is there a way to add a uniqueness constraint, similar to Rails? How can I validate uniqueness in Play?
Thanks!
UPDATE: see the answer by davide.
I ended up using the #Column(unique = true) constraint from the javax.persistence API. This doesn't generate an error in Play forms; instead, it throws a PersistenceException. Therefore I had to add change my controller to achieve the behavior I wanted. Both the create() and update() actions need a try/catch like this:
try {
computerForm.get().save();
} catch (PersistenceException pe) {
flash("error", "Please correct errors below.");
formData.reject("name", "Name conflict. Please choose a different name.");
return badRequest(createForm.render(computerForm));
}
UPDATE 2: each of the answers below is a possible solution
You need to exclude current entity from unique checking, i.e. like that:
if(Computer.find.where().eq("name", getName()).ne("id", getId()).findRowCount() != 0){
errors.add(new ValidationError("name", "Name must be unique."));
}
It will give you SQL query during update:
select count(*) from computer t0 where t0.name = 'Foo' and t0.id <> 123
And this during create:
select count(*) from computer t0 where t0.name = 'Foo' and t0.id is not null
P.S. ne() expression stands for Not Equal To and of course this approach assumes that your name field is Required
Edit: I sent you pull request with working solution, all you need is to add hidden field in your editForm like:
<input name="id" type="hidden" value='#computerForm("id").value'/>
Other thing is that you can simplify your model, i.e. don't need for getters for public fields.
I not sure if this answer your question, because I'm not familiar with Ruby syntax.
To "create a uniqueness constraint in the database" you can use the javax persistence API. Ebean will also recognize this.
To have a plain uniqueness constraint which involves a single field, you can use the #Column annotation:
#Entity
public class Computer extends Model {
...
#Column(unique = true)
public String name;
...
}
If you need some combination of fields to be unique, instead use the
#Table annotation
#Table(
uniqueConstraints=
#UniqueConstraint(columnNames={"name", "brand"})
)
#Entity
public class Computer extends Model {
...
public String name;
public String brand;
...
}
I hope it helps!

Support for Table Valued Functions in EF6 Code First?

Is it possible to call a TVF in EF6 Code First?
I started a new project using EF6 Database first and EF was able to import a TVF into the model and call it just fine.
But updating the model became very time consuming and problematic with the large read-only db with no RI that I'm stuck dealing with.
So I tried to convert to EF6 code first using the Power Tools Reverse Engineering tool to generate a context and model classes.
Unfortunately the Reverse Engineering tool didn't import the TVFs.
Next I tried to copy the DBFunctions from my old Database First DbContext to the new Code First DbContext, but that gave me an error that my TVF:
"cannot be resolved into a valid type or function".
Is it possible to create a code first Fluent mapping for TVFs?
If not, is there a work-around?
I guess I could use SPs instead of TVFs, but was hoping I could use mostly TVFs to deal with the problematic DB I'm stuck with.
Thanks for any work-around ideas
This is now possible. I created a custom model convention which allows using store functions in CodeFirst in EF6.1. The convention is available on NuGet http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework.CodeFirstStoreFunctions. Here is the link to the blogpost containing all the details: http://blog.3d-logic.com/2014/04/09/support-for-store-functions-tvfs-and-stored-procs-in-entity-framework-6-1/
[Tested]
using:
Install-Package EntityFramework.CodeFirstStoreFunctions
Declare a class for output result:
public class MyCustomObject
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Rank { get; set; }
}
Create a method in your DbContext class
[DbFunction("MyContextType", "SearchSomething")]
public virtual IQueryable<MyCustomObject> SearchSomething(string keywords)
{
var keywordsParam = new ObjectParameter("keywords", typeof(string))
{
Value = keywords
};
return (this as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext
.CreateQuery<MyCustomObject>(
"MyContextType.SearchSomething(#keywords)", keywordsParam);
}
Add
public DbSet<MyCustomObject> SearchResults { get; set; }
to your DbContext class
Add in the overriden OnModelCreating method:
modelBuilder.Conventions.Add(new FunctionsConvention<MyContextType>("dbo"));
And now you can call/join with
a table values function like this:
CREATE FUNCTION SearchSomething
(
#keywords nvarchar(4000)
)
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN
(SELECT KEY_TBL.RANK AS Rank, Id
FROM MyTable
LEFT JOIN freetexttable(MyTable , ([MyColumn1],[MyColumn2]), #keywords) AS KEY_TBL
ON MyTable.Id = KEY_TBL.[KEY]
WHERE KEY_TBL.RANK > 0
)
GO
I was able to access TVF with the code below. This works in EF6. The model property names have to match the database column names.
List<MyModel> data =
db.Database.SqlQuery<MyModel>(
"select * from dbo.my_function(#p1, #p2, #p3)",
new SqlParameter("#p1", new System.DateTime(2015,1,1)),
new SqlParameter("#p2", new System.DateTime(2015, 8, 1)),
new SqlParameter("#p3", 12))
.ToList();
I actually started looking into it in EF6.1 and have something that is working on nightly builds. Check this and this out.
I have developed a library for this functionality. You can review my article on
UserTableFunctionCodeFirst.
You can use your function without writing SQL query.
Update
First of all you have to add reference to the above mentioned library and then you have to create parameter class for your function. This class can contain any number and type of parameter
public class TestFunctionParams
{
[CodeFunctionAttributes.FunctionOrder(1)]
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Name("id")]
[CodeFunctionAttributes.ParameterType(System.Data.SqlDbType.Int)]
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Now you have to add following property in your DbContext to call function and map to the property.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Schema("dbo")] // This is optional as it is set as dbo as default if not provided.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Name("ufn_MyFunction")] // Name of function in database.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.ReturnTypes(typeof(Customer))]
public TableValueFunction<TestFunctionParams> CustomerFunction { get; set; }
Then you can call your function as below.
using (var db = new DataContext())
{
var funcParams = new TestFunctionParams() { Id = 1 };
var entity = db.CustomerFunction.ExecuteFunction(funcParams).ToList<Customer>();
}
This will call your user defined function and map to the entity.

EF 4.1 - How to add a default on insertion for datetime column

Using EF 4.1 how could I add a default value to the underlying table? In this particular case how could I set a datetime column to the equivalent of getdate every time I insert a new record to the database, without having to set it in code.
Thanks in advance
The solution proposed by #elkdanger is way to go but just if you use code-first approach you don't have to create partial class - you can place initialization directly to your entity.
Don't use database approach! It will not work because it would demand marking property as database generated (to be correctly repopulated after insert). Once you mark property database generated you can never change its value in the application.
The last option is overriding SaveChanges in your derived DbContext and setting the property manually. Something like:
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var entities = ChangeTracker.Entries<YourEntityType>()
.Where(e => e.State == EntityState.Added)
.Select(e => e.Entity);
var currentDate = DateTime.Now;
foreach(var entity in entities)
{
entity.Date = currentDate;
}
return base.SaveChanges();
}
This approach can be better if there can be significant difference between creating an instance of the entity and saving the instanance.
You could create a partial class for your entity, and inside the constructor set the date column to DateTime.Now. This way, every time you create an instance of your class, that field will be set to the current date "automatically".
You could (and perhaps should) do it in the table itself using a trigger or a default value.
Entity Framework itself has not a mechanism for it. You have to do it manually in the db or the code.
You can also modify your T4 template (.tt file) to add a partial method that you call from within the generated constructor. Then, you can create your own partial class and implement the partial method and set your default value.
A snippet from the T4 template where the constructor is created, followed by the partial method. Note the last three lines:
public <#=code.Escape(entity)#>()
{
<#
foreach (var edmProperty in propertiesWithDefaultValues)
{
#>
this.<#=code.Escape(edmProperty)#> = =code.CreateLiteral(edmProperty.DefaultValue)#>;
<#
}
foreach (var navigationProperty in collectionNavigationProperties)
{
#>
this.<#=code.Escape(navigationProperty)#> = new HashSet<<#=code.Escape(navigationProperty.ToEndMember.GetEntityType())#>>();
<#
}
foreach (var complexProperty in complexProperties)
{
#>
this.<#=code.Escape(complexProperty)#> = new <#=code.Escape(complexProperty.TypeUsage)#>();
<#
}
#>
SetDefaultValues();
}
partial void SetDefaultValues();
That will result in a generated entity having something like:
public Foo()
{
// Properties set based on defaults in edmx
SetDefaultValues();
}
partial void SetDefaultValues();
Then, in your partial class, you can simply add something like:
partial void SetDefaultValues()
{
this.SomeDate = DateTime.Today;
}
Use [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)]
from System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
if you have the default values configured on the database.