I having some issues setting up the correct relationships that I require for a database.
In words...
I want to have a Firm which can multiple (zero:many) Branch
On the Firm I want to be able specify a HeadOffice which will exist will exist in the Branch table (zero:one)
What I expected to see is the Firm table to have the following fields: Id, Name, HeadOfficeId and on the Branches I expect to see: Id, TradingAs, Name, Firm_Id
Instead I see:
Firm table to have the following fields: Id, Name, HeadOfficeId
Branches I expect to see: Id, TradingAs, Name, Firm_Id, Firm_Id1
The model classes are as shown
public class Firm
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Branch> FirmBranches { get; set; }
public virtual LawFirmBranch HeadOffice { get; set; }
}
public class Branch
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string TradingAs {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public Firm Firm { get; set; }
}
I understand that this causes a circular reference type issue and I am happy to have the Firm HeadOffice to initially to be Null until there are values in the FirmBranches property.
Is there some way that I can specify that the HeadOffice has the null or one type relationship
If you're wanting to explicitly do this in your model, you can do this via data annotations:
public class Firm
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Branch> FirmBranches { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("HeadOffice")]
public int? FirmId {get;set;}
public virtual LawFirmBranch HeadOffice { get; set; }
}
If you dont want this exposed in your code, you'll need to do this via fluent:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Firm>()
.HasOptional(f => f.HeadOffice)
.WithOptionalDependent();
}
This creates:
If you want to change the name of the key, you'd add a mapping to the end of the fluent map:
modelBuilder.Entity<Firm>()
.HasOptional(f => f.HeadOffice)
.WithOptionalDependent()
.Map(m => m.MapKey("YourKeyName"));
Related
Scenerio:
public class Department
{
public int DepartmentId { get; set; }
public string DepartmentName { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn {get; set; }
public string CreatedBy {get; set; }
}
public class TestItem
{
public int TestItemId { get; set; }
public string TestItemName { get; set; }
public Department Department { get; set; }
public int DepartmentId { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn {get; set; }
public string CreatedBy {get; set; }
}
public class Patient
{
public int PatientId { get; set; }
public string PatientName { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn {get; set; }
public string CreatedBy {get; set; }
}
the problem is that, every time I create a table I have to add those two columns repeatedly.
But I want like this-
public class EntryLog
{
public int EntryLogId { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn {get; set; }
public string CreatedBy {get; set; }
}
public class Department
{
public int DepartmentId { get; set; }
public string DepartmentName { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public EntryLog EntryLog { get; set; }
public int EntryLogId { get; set; }
}
and so on...
class A { .. }
class B { .. }
But its creating problem [showing conflicts error with other table's foreign key] while creating a row for a Department or a Patient.
In EF core, there is Table Per Hierarchy (TPH) but in that case every table will be merged into a single table. But that doesn't give me any solution.
looking forward to expert's suggestion...
The bottom line is: use EntryLog as a base type and don't tell EF about it. It's easy enough to keep EF-core oblivious of the base type: only register the derived types. Doing so, EF-core will map your subtypes to their own tables, just as if they didn't have a common type.
Now EntryLog will no longer need an Id, and it should be abstract:
public abstract class EntryLog
{
public DateTime CreatedOnUtc { get; set; }
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
}
Whether this is enough depends on your specific requirements. There are several possibilities.
1. No additional configuration
If you're happy with the default conventions EF will apply to the common properties, your done. CreatedOnUtc will be mapped to a DateTime2 column (in Sql Server) and CreatedBy to an nvarchar(max) column in each table for an EntryLog entity.
However, if you do need custom configurations --for example if you want to map CreatedBy to an nvarchar(50) column-- additional mapping instructions should be applied. And of course you still want to do the mapping of the common properties only once --which would also happen if you did map the base type in a TPH scheme. How to do that?
2. Data annotations in the base type
The easiest option is to add data annotations:
public abstract class EntryLog
{
public DateTime CreatedOnUtc { get; set; }
[MaxLength(50)]
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
}
And that's all.
But there are dev teams that don't want to use data annotations for mapping instructions. Also, EF's fluent mappings offer more options than data annotations do. If data annotations don't fit the bill for whatever reason, fluent configurations must be applied. But still, you only want to configure the common properties only once. A viable way to achieve that is to use IEntityTypeConfigurations for each EntryLog and let each concrete configuration derive from a base class. This offers two more options.
3. The base class contains regular properties
Option 4 will make clear why I talk about "regular properties" here. This is what it looks like:
abstract class EntryLogConfiguration
{
public void ConfigureBase<TEntity>(EntityTypeBuilder<TEntity> builder)
where TEntity : EntryLog
{
// Just an example of how to configure a base property.
builder.Property(e => e.CreatedBy).HasMaxLength(50);
}
}
class DepartmentConfiguration : EntryLogConfiguration,
IEntityTypeConfiguration<Department>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Department> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.DepartmentName).HasMaxLength(100);
ConfigureBase(builder);
}
}
And in the context:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.ApplyConfiguration(new DepartmentConfiguration());
}
4. Using shadow properties
Shadow properties is a new feature of EF-core.
Shadow properties are properties that are not defined in your .NET entity class but are defined for that entity type in the EF Core model. The value and state of these properties is maintained purely in the Change Tracker.
Let's suppose you want to have CreatedBy as a class property (because you want to show it in a UI) but only need CreatedOnUtc as a property that's set in the background and that shouldn't be exposed. Now EntryLog will look like this:
public abstract class EntryLog
{
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
}
So the property CreatedOnUtc is gone. It has been moved to the base configuration as shadow property:
abstract class EntryLogConfiguration
{
public void ConfigureBase<TEntity>(EntityTypeBuilder<TEntity> builder)
where TEntity : EntryLog
{
builder.Property(e => e.CreatedBy).HasMaxLength(50);
builder.Property<DateTime>("CreatedOnUtc");
}
}
Now you can't set CreatedOnUtc directly, only through EF's change tracker. The best place to do that is in an override of SaveChanges in the context:
public override int SaveChanges()
{
foreach (var entry in ChangeTracker.Entries<EntryLog>())
{
entry.Property<DateTime>("UpdatedOnUtc").CurrentValue = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
return base.SaveChanges();
}
Of course, if UpdatedOnUtc was a regular property, this override would also come in handy, but you could just do
entry.Entity.CreatedOnUtc = DateTime.UtcNow;
I hope this will give you enough food for thought to figure out which option suits you best.
I'm rather new to Entity Framework (code-first). Here are my two entities-
public class Employee
{
public Employee() { }
public long Id {get; set;}
public string Fullname {get; set;}
public virtual ICollection<Attendance> Attendances { get; set; }
}
public class Attendance
{
public Attendance() { }
public DateTime CheckinDateTime { get; set; }
public DateTime? CheckoutDateTime { get; set; }
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Id")]
public virtual Employee Employee{ get; set; }
}
Employee has one-to-many relation with Attendance.
I've tried to create a new Attendance data-
var attendance = new Attendance()
{ EmployeeId = 1,
CheckinDateTime = today.CurrentDateTime
};
DbContext.Attendances.Add(attendance);
DbContext.SaveChanges(); //Exception here.
I have an Employee record in database.
Why I'm getting the exception?
Code First enables you to describe a model by using C# or Visual Basic .NET classes. The basic shape of the model is detected by using conventions. Conventions are sets of rules that are used to automatically configure a conceptual model based on class definitions when working with Code First. The conventions are defined in the System.Data.Entity.ModelConfiguration.Conventions namespace.
You can further configure your model by using data annotations or the fluent API. Precedence is given to configuration through the fluent API followed by data annotations and then conventions. For more information see Data Annotations, Fluent API - Relationships, Fluent API - Types & Properties and Fluent API with VB.NET.
Here you find more about Entity Framework Code First Conventions
You set wrong ids name as FK and PK, you need add primary key for Attendance also,follow code first conventions name, change your model like:
public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
Attendances = new List<Attendance>();
}
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public string Fullname { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Attendance> Attendances { get; set; }
}
public class Attendance
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long AttendanceId { get; set; }
public DateTime CheckinDateTime { get; set; }
public DateTime? CheckoutDateTime { get; set; }
[Required]
[ForeignKey("Employee")]
public long EmployeeId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee Employee { get; set; }
}
ForeignKey attribute is applied on Attendance navigation property to specify foreignkey property name for Attendance property.
Without DataAnnotation we can use Fluent API for configuration our relationship. Ofcourse you need use code first convention names
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
//one-to-many
modelBuilder.Entity<Attendance>()
.HasRequired<Employee>(e => e.Employee) // Attendance entity requires Employee
.WithMany(a => a.Attendances); // Employee entity includes many Attendances entities
}
If your model not contains convention name, using Fluent API can use .HasForeignKey() and set specific name FK
public class Attendance
{
public long AttendanceId { get; set; }
public DateTime CheckinDateTime { get; set; }
public DateTime? CheckoutDateTime { get; set; }
//Not first code convention name
public long EmpId { get; set; }
public virtual Employee Employee { get; set; }
}
.
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
//one-to-many
modelBuilder.Entity<Attendance>()
.HasRequired<Employee>(e => e.Employee)
.WithMany(a => a.Attendances)
.HasForeignKey(e => e.EmpId);
}
public class Team
{
public Team()
{
TeamSchemes = new HashSet<Scheme>();
TeamUsers = new HashSet<PLUser>();
}
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Office")]
public int OfficeID { get; set;}
public virtual Office Office { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("TeamLeader")]
public int TeamLeaderID { get; set; }
public virtual PLUser TeamLeader { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Scheme> TeamSchemes { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<PLUser> TeamUsers {get;set;}
}
I have a team object and a user object.
The relationships i want are:
A Team has a TeamLeader (User)
A Team has many Users which can be in that team
here is what i have in my User object for these relationships
[ForeignKey("Team")]
public int? TeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Team { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Team> TeamsLeading { get; set; }
however when running codeFirst migrations i was getting an extra column called Team_ID from somewhere
i explicitly stated my relationships in modelbuilder like so:
modelBuilder.Entity<Team>().HasRequired(x => x.TeamLeader).WithMany(u=>u.TeamsLeading).HasForeignKey(t=>t.TeamLeaderID);
modelBuilder.Entity<PLUser>().HasOptional(x => x.Team).WithMany(t=>t.TeamUsers).HasForeignKey(x => x.TeamID);
modelBuilder.Entity<PLUser>().HasMany(u => u.TeamsLeading).WithRequired(t => t.TeamLeader);
The migration code ran succesfully and seem to show the intended outcome. However when i run the application i get the following error and the app won't run:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Invalid column name 'TeamID'.
Any help on the model relationship / fixing issue
You are correct in your comment that EF can't determine the relationships. One way to do it with annotations is with InverseProperty. Try:
[InverseProperty("Team")]
public virtual ICollection<PLUser> TeamUsers {get;set;}
and
[InverseProperty("TeamLeader")]
public virtual ICollection<Team> TeamsLeading { get; set; }
EDIT: You may have to play with it (been a while since I did it), but you may want to go something like this:
[InverseProperty("TeamsLeading")]
public virtual PLUser TeamLeader { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Scheme> TeamSchemes { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Team")]
public virtual ICollection<PLUser> TeamUsers {get;set;}
The persistent attribute ForeignKey usage is wrong here. You are applying it to the primitive value itself.
The correct usage is to apply it to navigation properties, to indicate what primitive property stores its FK value.
In your case it is not required because EF will resolve it by convention:
public class PLUser{
public int? TeamID { get; set; }
public virtual Team Team { get; set; }
}
When EF finds Team navigation property, it will try to find within PLUser a primitive property named TeamID or TeamId, with the same type as the Team class PK, to use it as ForeignKey.
I have following entity class called Code. It stores categories of different kinds - the data for which I would have otherwise needed to create many small tables e.g. User Categories, Expense Categories, Address types, User Types, file formats etc.
public class Code
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string CodeType { get; set; }
public string CodeDescription { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Expense> Expenses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
:
: // many more
}
The class Expense looks like this:
public class Expense
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Category { get; set; }
public int SourceId { get; set; }
public double Amount { get; set; }
public DateTime ExpenseDate { get; set; }
}
With the above class definitions, I have established 1:many relation between Code and Expense using the CategoryId mapping.
My problem is, I want to map the SourceId field in Expense to the Code object. Which means, Expense object would contain
public Code Source { get; set; }
If I use this, at runtime I get an error about cyclic dependencies.
Can someone please help?
You will need to disable cascading delete on at least one of the two relationships (or both). EF enables cascading delete by convention for both relationships because both are required since the foreign key properties are not nullable. But SQL Server doesn't accept multiple cascading delete paths onto the same table that are introduced by the two relationships. That's the reason for your exception.
You must override the convention with Fluent API:
public class Code
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//...
public virtual ICollection<Expense> Expenses { get; set; }
//...
}
public class Expense
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Category { get; set; }
public int SourceId { get; set; }
public virtual Code Source { get; set; }
//...
}
Mapping with Fluent API;
modelBuilder.Entity<Expense>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Category)
.WithMany(c => c.Expenses)
.HasForeignKey(e => e.CategoryId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<Expense>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Source)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(e => e.SourceId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
I recently came across this strange problem with Entity Framework Code First.
My class looks like this
public class Status
{
[Key]
public int StatusID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MemberID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("MemberID")]
public virtual Member Member { get; set; }
public int PosterID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("PosterID")]
public virtual Member Poster { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<StatusLike> StatusLikes { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<StatusComment> StatusComments { get; set; }
}
My Member class looks like this
public class Member
{
[Key]
public int MemberID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Bio { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<MemberCourseTaken> MemberCourseTakens { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Status> Statuses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Club> FoundedClubs { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public string Phone { get; set; }
public int AccountSourceID { get; set; }
public AccountSource AccountSource { get; set; }
public int AddressID { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
public string ProfilePhoto { get; set; }
public int MemberRankID { get; set; }
public MemberRank MemberRank { get; set; }
public DateTime Created { get; set; }
public DateTime Modified { get; set; }
}
And for whatever reason the database table that is created has the following columns
StatusID
Name
MemberID
PosterID
Member_MemberID
with MemberID, PosterID, and Member_MemberID being foreign keys.
How can I keep Member_MemberID from being generated?
Your Member_MemberID column is created because of the Member.Statuses property. I can imagine that this is not what you want. Probably members and statuses should exist independent of each other, so you need a junction table.
I don't know if you already use the OnModelCreating override of the DbContext, but that's the place to change the mapping between Member and Status:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder mb)
{
mb.Entity<Member>().HasMany(m => m.Statuses).WithMany();
}
This will create a table MemberStatuses table with the two Id columns as foreign keys. This is a way to model a many-to-many relationship without a navigation property on the "other" side of the association. (I don't think you want a Members property in Status).
I've seen this before. In my case (Using EF 6.1), it was because my Fluent API Mapping was set up like so:
// In my EntityTypeConfiguration<Status>
HasRequired(x => x.Member).WithMany().HasForeignKey(x => x.MemberID);
That code works perfectly fine, but it doesn't tell EF that my Member class's Collection Navigational Property Status ha been taken into account. So, while I explicitly handled the existence of a Member Navigational Property in my Status Class, I now left an orphaned related collection property. That orphaned property, being a collection, tells EF that my Status class needs to have a Foreign Key to it. So it creates that on the Status Class.
To fix it, I had to be 100% explicit.
HasRequired(x => x.Member).WithMany(x => x.Statuses).HasForeignKey(x => x.MemberID)
It could bee that your Statuses Collection property in Member needs an attribute telling it that it is already considered, and not to go auto-creating mappings. I don't know that attribute.