I have a question.
I have these two tables:
The principal table is User with Customer dependence.
The reverse engineer code first generated classes as follows:
public class User
{
public User()
{
this.Customers = new List<Customer>();
}
...
public virtual ICollection<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
public Customer()
{
}
...
public int UserID { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
I made the following modification in the user class:
public class User
{
public User()
{
}
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
Because the relationship is One-to–Zero-or-One.
The original mapping is this:
// Relationships
this.HasRequired(t => t.User)
.WithMany(t => t.Customers)
.HasForeignKey(d => d.UserID);
And the modified mapping is this :
this.HasRequired(t => t.User)
.WithOptional(t => t.Customer)
.Map(m => m.MapKey("UserID"));
Is That correct?
If not, how would this mapping?
Thanks.
No, it's not correct.
The best thing you can do - supposed you can change the database schema - is removing the UserID foreign key from the Customer table and then create the relationship in the database between the two primary keys so that Customer.CustomerID is the foreign key in the association.
Reverse Engineering should then automatically create the expected one-to-one relationship, like so:
public class Customer
{
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
//...
}
public class User
{
public int UserID { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
//...
}
//...
this.HasRequired(t => t.User)
.WithOptional(t => t.Customer);
If you can't change the database schema, your best bet is to only remove the collection ICollection<Customer> Customers from the User class and keep the relationship as one-to-many.
The reason for all this is that EF only supports shared primary key one-to-one associations, but not foreign key one-to-one associations. (The latter one you can only "fake" by removing the collection, but it's still one-to-many from EF viewpoint.)
You can read more about one-to-one associations with EF and its limitations here:
One-to-one Shared Primary Key Associations
One-to-one Foreign Key Associations
Related
I need to add a new party entity (table). This entity follows party design pattern where user, organization unit and role entity Id is primary key and also a foreign key that links to the party entity primary key. I was able to achieve this with user entity and organization entity but not role entity because the role Id is int.
EF core complaints the role table's primary key type mismatched with the party table primary key.
Below are the code samples:
[Serializable]
[Table("MdParties")]
public class Party : FullAuditedEntity<long>, IMayHaveTenant
{
public int? TenantId { get; set; }
}
public partial class User
{
[Required, ForeignKey(nameof(Party))]
public override long Id { get; set; } // PK and FK pointing to Party
public virtual Party Party { get; set; }
}
public class OrganizationUnitExt : OrganizationUnit
{
[Required, ForeignKey(nameof(Party))]
public override long Id { get; set; } // PK and FK pointing to Party
public virtual Party Party { get; set; }
}
public partial class Role : AbpRole<User>
{
[Required, ForeignKey(nameof(Party))]
public override int Id { get; set; } // PK and FK pointing to Party
public virtual Party Party { get; set; }
}
modelBuilder.Entity<User>(b =>
{
b.HasIndex(e => new { e.UserName });
b.HasOne(d => d.Party)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(d => d.Id)
.OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Cascade)
.HasConstraintName("FK_AbpUsers_PartyId");
});
modelBuilder.Entity<OrganizationUnitExt>(entity =>
{
entity.HasOne(d => d.Party)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(d => d.Id)
.OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Cascade)
.HasConstraintName("FK_AbpOrganizationUnits_PartyId");
});
You cannot change RoleId type without rebuilding standard Abp package. This is how it was design unfortunetly. However you can walkaround this and add additional table with RoleId and in modelbuilder make it table as Unique Tenant Wise. This will be not trully SQL strict implementation cause you will get one-to-many relation but behaviour of it will be as you expect.
I have the following model:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int UserId { get; set; }
public User User { get; set; }
...
}
What I want to have is the Customer has to have an User, but can only have one, and the User does not have to have a Customer.
I would like to do it with the Fluent API, but I can't manage to get it to work so that both Customer and User have their Id properties be Identity Fields.
When you are configuring an one-to-one relationship, Entity Framework requires that the primary key of the dependent also be the foreign key, in your case it would be:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer
{
[Key, ForeignKey("User")]
public int UserId { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
...
}
But you want each entities with its own PK, so, EF lets you do that but you should delete the UserId property from Customer entity, because, as I said before, in this kind of relationship the FK must be PK too. To configure properly your relationship use the Required data annotation as #Claies recommend you in his comment:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
...
}
Or you can use Fluent Api, the configuration would be:
modelbuilder.Entity<Customer>().HasRequired(c=>c.User).WithOptional(u=>u.Customer);
Another thing, I recommend you define the navigation properties as virtual. This way, when you consult those properties the first time, they will be lazy loaded. Check this post for more info.
Update 1:
When the key property is an integer, Code First defaults to
DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity. If you want, you can configure explicitly what you need using the [Key,DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] attributes on the Customer Id.
public class Customer
{
[Key,DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Or you can use Fluent Api:
modelbuilder.Entity<Customer>().HasKey(t => t.Id)
.Property(t => t.Id)
.HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity);
Update 2:
I don't understand why is throwing you that exception. I just tested with both variants (Data Annotations and Fluent Api) and everything works well. This is the code generated by Migrations:
public partial class changeCustomerIdToIdentity : DbMigration
{
public override void Up()
{
DropIndex("dbo.Customers", new[] { "Id" });
DropPrimaryKey("dbo.Customers");
AlterColumn("dbo.Customers", "Id", c => c.Int(nullable: false, identity: true));
AddPrimaryKey("dbo.Customers", "Id");
CreateIndex("dbo.Customers", "Id");
}
public override void Down()
{
DropIndex("dbo.Customers", new[] { "Id" });
DropPrimaryKey("dbo.Customers");
AlterColumn("dbo.Customers", "Id", c => c.Int(nullable: false));
AddPrimaryKey("dbo.Customers", "Id");
CreateIndex("dbo.Customers", "Id");
}
}
I'm afraid your error is happened due to your DB schema. The Id on your Customers table must be FK too. The error means that you have some relation between your entities where foreign key property in dependent entity is defined as store generated, and that is because you are trying change the Id of your Customer entity as Identity, which is FK in your DB.
I am receiving this error in my migrations:
Person_EventModerator_Target: : Multiplicity is not valid in Role 'Person_EventModerator_Target' in relationship 'Person_EventModerator'. Because the Dependent Role properties are not the key properties, the upper bound of the multiplicity of the Dependent Role must be '*'.
Here are my models (note: base entity holds the primary key for all models):
public class EventModerator : BaseEntity
{
......
// foreign keys
public int PersonId { get; set; }
// associations
[ForeignKey("PersonId")]
public Person Person { get; set; }
}
public class Person : BaseEntity
{
public Person()
{
....
// association
public virtual EventModerator EventModerator { get; set; }
}
My Mappings:
modelBuilder.Entity<Person>()
.HasOptional(e => e.EventModerator)
.WithRequired(e => e.Person);
This is a 1 to 0.1 relationship.
Can anyone point out my error please?
OK, this worked, but frankly I do not understand the need for ".WithMany()"
internal static void Map(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<EventModerator>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Person)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(e => e.PersonId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
}
Your answer will not produce 1 to 0.1 relationship. There is another key generated on Person table in the database, that is nullable EventModerator_Id.
To have 1 to 0.1, the dependent EventModerator primary key must also be the foreign key.
You can either add [Key] attribute on PersonId.
[Key]
public int PersonId { get; set; }
Or since you have BaseEntity which might have derived Id property (which by default convention is a primary key), then you just need to remove the PersonId property and link foreign key to Id property.
//public int PersonId { get; set; }
// associations
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public Person Person { get; set; }
I have two classes
public class Product
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string ProductDetails { get; set; }
}
public class SpecialProductDetails
{
public Guid Product_Id { get; set; } // PK and FK to Product class
public string SpecialName { get; set; }
public string SpecialDescription { get; set; }
public virtual Product Product { get; set; }
}
SpecialProductDetails is mapped 1-1 with Product class and is optional. It shares the same PrimaryKey and ForeignKey.
In Fluent API i am mapping this relationship like this (inside SpecialProductDetails)
public SpecialProductDetails()
{
HasKey(p => p.Product_Id);
HasRequired(p => p.Product).WithMany().HasForeignKey(p => p.Product_Id).WillCascadeDelete(true);
}
This gives me this error when trying to generate the Database
\tSystem.Data.Entity.Edm.EdmAssociationEnd: : Multiplicity is not valid in Role 'SpecialProductDetails_Product_Source' in relationship 'SpecialProductDetails_Product_Source'. Because the Dependent Role refers to the key properties, the upper bound of the multiplicity of the Dependent Role must be '1'.
How can i have a column set as PK and FK on EF Code First?
I'm quite sure you have already solved that, but I hit the same problem and the solution I found was:
public SpecialProductDetails()
{
HasKey(p => p.Product_Id);
HasRequired(p => p.Product).WithOptional();
}
"it worth noting that when we are mapping a one-to-one association with fluent API, we don't need to specify the foreign key as we would do when mapping a one-to-many association with HasForeignKey method. Since EF only supports one-to-one associations on primary keys, it will automatically create the relationship in the database on the primary keys."
after http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/associations-in-ef-4-1-code-first-part-3-shared-primary-key-associations
I have 2 entities Role and Permission with association one-to-many accordingly.
public class Role
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Permission> Permissions { get; set; }
}
public class Permission
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
public string GroupName { get; set; }
public virtual Role Role { get; set; }
}
And created mapping classes for them inherited from EntityTypeConfiguration class.
When I run my application EF created database for me and foreign key for these entities above was Role_Id.
How can I change existing or add new convention to get ride of the underscore in foreign key?
So I want to have RoleId as a foreign key for my entities.
I don't want use data annotation attributes and don't want to add extra property to Permission class (public int RoleId { get; set; }) in order to use it in mapping like this:
HasRequired(x => x.Role).WithMany(y => y.Permissions).HasForeignKey(o => o.RoleId);
Thanks,
Alexey
Entity framework currently doesn't support custom global conventions but you can overwrite the name of the key in fluen API:
modelBuilder.Entity<Permission>()
.HasRequired(x => x.Role)
.WithMany(y => y.Permissions)
.Map(m => m.MapKey("RoleId"));