Say my object has a Name field, and I wish to split it into FirstName and LastName fields. Or maybe it has an address string and I'm adding Lat and Lng fields that require geocoding. Etc etc.
I expected to have access to my DbContext in the Up() and Down() methods, but all I've been able to find (besides the builtin functions) is the .Sql() call. This is enough for adding and removing columns, but not for transforming existing data into new formats.
Is it safe to reference my DbContext inside an Up() invocation? Or is there another recommended pattern for implement migrations that require more than trivial SQL?
No you cannot use DbContext inside Up method because it already refers new model but your database still targets the old model.
Edit:
All data migrations must be done through Sql. You can for example create temporary table, move old data to temporary table, use migration of table structure and move data from temporary table back to the original with using some transformation directly in SQL - splitting varchar values should not be a big deal.
Rather than trying to split the Name into two different fields, rethink your migration. Sometimes it might be best staged. I can think of two ways to perform your transformation.
Migration path #1: New Fields, then Delete old
Create migration for new field for FirstName and LastName, and in the Up() method, you still have the Name field, split it, insert into First and Last fields.
Create another migration to remove the old Name field.
Migration path #2: Repurpose and Rename
Create a migration adding the LastName field, and renaming Name to FirstName, move the last name data, modify the renamed First/Name field to only hold the first name.
Both paths have advantages and disadvantages. And regardless of the complexity of your transformation, you should be able to break it out into logical stages to accomplish the goal.
Related
I want to know the best way of avoiding entity duplication in an ASP.NET Core Web API project.
Imagine that you have a product with a name and manufacturer and you want to make sure if the name is not duplicated. Imagine that a new product with a name came from client (dto) and we need to look if the name (entity) already exists in the database (using EF).
You need to trim the name (name.trim()) for both names from entity and dto
You need to remove all the whitespaces in between (string.replace(" ", string.empty())
You need to change everything to lower case (string.lower())
Finally you need to compare these two
Is there any best practices how to do this without writing all the code? I tried to use string.compare with the compareoptions like ignorecase and ignoresymbols and also the string.equal() with ignorecase option but the EF gives me an alarm that it can not translate the code.
br
I have a suggestion for your approach.
Introduce another column (This can be a primary key with other keys) and save the name with trimming and lowercase when you insert a new record to that table.
Example:
Original Name : Amir Masoud Babaei -->
New Column value: amirmasoudbabaei
And when you insert a new record, do your trimming and lowercase changes and save it to the database. Since it is a primary key, it should throw an error.
So with this approach, you don't need to loop through all the names and validate if the name is already exist.
I am making a ZF2 app. I am using entities, mappers and services (e.g. UserEntity, UserMapper, UserService) to manage the objects/models. Properties in the entities are CamalCased (e.g. FirstName, LastName) while in the database, fields are using underscore (first_name, last_name). I will plan to use a hydrator to map the properties and db-fields when retrieving or saving. The service object (UserService) will be used to communicate with the mapper to retrieve and save data models using the mapper. The hydrator will convert the result of mapper and convert them into proper entities.
The thing I am confused is that when the service (UserService) need to provide some cirteria - for example to find all users with a specific 'last name', will the service use the database field names (last_name) or entity properties name (LastName)?
If the db field name is used in the Service, so any change in the db structure will require me to update the service also, which completely fails the reason of using the whole approach.
If you take a look at the ClassMethods:hydrate method (https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/blob/master/library/Zend/Stdlib/Hydrator/ClassMethods.php) you will see that it just copies the properties from one object to another. You have the option of converting the property names to/from camelCase but that's it.
If you change a column name in your database then you will need to change corresponding property name in your object. And vice versa. Which I believe is the crux of your question?
If you want to make table column names be independent of your method names then you need something that lets you define an actual mapping table somewhere. Change a column or method name and you only need to update the configuration mapping table.
Not a ZF2 expert so I could be wrong but it doesn't look like any of the supplied hydrators support this.
I do know that Doctrine 2 supports it.
I have a legacy database with a particular table -- I will call it ItemTable -- that can have billions of rows of data. To overcome database restrictions, we have decided to split the table into "silos" whenever the number of rows reaches 100,000,000. So, ItemTable will exist, then a procedure will run in the middle of the night to check the number of rows. If numberOfRows is > 100,000,000 then silo1_ItemTable will be created. Any Items added to the database from now on will be added to silo1_ItemTable (until it grows to big, then silo2_ItemTable will exist...)
ItemTable and silo1_ItemTable can be mapped to the same Item entity because the table structures are identical, but I am not sure how to set this mapping up at runtime, or how to specify the table name for my queries. All inserts should be added to the latest siloX_ItemTable, and all Reads should be from a specified siloX_ItemTable.
I have a separate siloTracker table that will give me the table name to insert/read the data from, but I am not sure how I can use this with entity framework...
Thoughts?
You could try to use the Entity Inheritance to get this. So you have a base class which has all the fields mapped to ItemTable and then you have descendant classes that inherit from ItemTable entity and is mapped to the silo tables in the db. Every time you create a new silo you create a new entity mapped to that silo table.
[Table("ItemTable")]
public class Item
{
//All the fields in the table goes here
}
[Table("silo1_ItemTable")]
public class Silo1Item : Item
{
}
[Table("silo2_ItemTable")]
public class Silo2Item : Item
{
}
You can find more information on this here
Other option is to create a view that creates a union of all those table and map your entity to that view.
As mentioned in my comment, to solve this problem I am using the SQLQuery method that is exposed by DBSet. Since all my item tables have the exact same schema, I can use the SQLQuery to define my own query and I can pass in the name of the table to the query. Tested on my system and it is working well.
See this link for an explanation of running raw queries with entity framework:
EF raw query documentation
If anyone has a better way to solve my question, please leave a comment.
[UPDATE]
I agree that stored procedures are also a great option, but for some reason my management is very resistant to make any changes to our database. It is easier for me (and our customers) to put the sql in code and acknowledge the fact that there is raw sql. At least I can hide it from the other layers rather easily.
[/UPDATE]
Possible solution for this problem may be using context initialization with DbCompiledModel param:
var builder = new DbModelBuilder(DbModelBuilderVersion.V6_0);
builder.Configurations.Add(new EntityTypeConfiguration<EntityName>());
builder.Entity<EntityName>().ToTable("TableNameDefinedInRuntime");
var dynamicContext = new MyDbContext(builder.Build(context.Database.Connection).Compile());
For some reason in EF6 it fails on second table request, but mapping inside context looks correct on the moment of execution.
I've got an application with a working Entity model generated from an existing database. I have to point my application at a new database, with the same schema, except that the table and column names are different.
For example, my current schema has tables named like "Answer". My new schema that I need to point to has the exact same table, except it is named "tblAnswer".
My columns have also changed. Where as a column used to be called "AnswerId", it's now "zAnswerId". Don't ask about the "z" prefix, it's a long story, but it's on every column.
So, what options do I have to point this existing Entity Model (generated from the database) to a new database and adjust the mappings? I've been experimenting with some of the techniques that are used for "Code First" mappings, as outlined in this guide, but haven't had any luck. I simply don't know if this is the right approach, or if there is something that makes more sense.
Suggestions? Thanks in advance.
You can change the database in the web.config file.
Use data annotations to use the different table and column names.
For example:
[Table("tblAnswer")]
class Answer
{
[Column("zAnswerId")]
public int AnswerId { get; set; }
}
We've started using Entity Framework 4 for data access and have come across an issue or perhaps lack of understanding.
Our current system is heavily reliant on Stored Procedures, these procedure contain some necessary business logic so we need to continue to use these when doing Select/Insert/Update/Delete.
The issue we are having is the following:
We've mapped a table to an entity, let's say for example this is a User entity and has the following properties - UserId, FirstName, LastName
Now in our sproc to insert a user we accept FirstName, LastName, CreatedById as parameters.
As our User Entity has no CreatedById we get an error indicating that no property of our Entity can be mapped to the "CreatedById" parameter.
Now one thing we've tried is to manually add a CreatedById scalar property to our Entity, but this results in the issue that there is no Field in our User table in the data source that maps to CreatedById. In general the additional property that we'd like to pass in is not something that is stored.
Now there is potential solution to this in that we can just map the procedures to Function Imports and not bother with using the .AddObject, .DeleteObject, .SaveChanges way of manipulating our objects but that doesn't feel like the way to go about it.
that's a good question. There are few options i can tell u.
instead of mapping the entity to the table, map it a view and have the view return CreatedById and then your problem would be solved.
Second option is to create overloaded stored procedure that takes only FirstName, LastName and calls the actual stored procedure with a default value for CreatedById. You can create overloads at the database layer or create it in the model in the ssdl layer which supports inline stored procedure.
exec myproc #firstName,#LastName,null