A little new to EF, so please bear with me if the answer to this is obvious. I'm doing a tutorial that uses EF, and two DbSets are defined like this:
public DbSet<BrokerageAccount> BrokerageAccounts { get; set; }
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
The customer class looks like this-- it's a POCO (some code cut for brevity):
public class Customer
{
public Customer()
{
BrokerageAccounts = new HashSet<BrokerageAccount>();
}
// Primitive properties
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
// Navigation properties
public ICollection<BrokerageAccount> BrokerageAccounts { get; set; }
}
}
The BrokerageAccount class is a POCO as well, very similar in design to Customer.
So far so good. The code I have a question about is below. There is an association made in the main program between Customer and BrokerageAccount that I don't follow. The code reads like this:
public Customer GetCustomer(string custId)
{
using (var context = DataContext)
{
return context.Customers
.Include("BrokerageAccounts").SingleOrDefault(c => c.CustomerCode == custId);
}
}
I can't figure out how the association/join is made between Customer and BrokerageAccount. I don't see any config or other files in my VS 2010 project that tells what associates the two DbSets, what foreign key column to use, etc.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious or a mapping file of some sort, but just because Customer has an ICollection of BrokerageAccount along with a comment above that says "Navigation Properties", doesn't make it so. In EF, how are those associations established?
The normal way of setting up the navigation properties is to use the ModelBuilder, This gives you a fluent api to set up the associations, take a look at this for some in depth stuff about how you go about this.
http://xhalent.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/configuring-entity-framework-4-codefirst/
Entity framework will guess at what you meant if you dont set up the nav properties manually, in the above case it will probably set up your nav properties as expected as you only have a single 1-* relationship between customer and BrokerageAccount which appears to be named sensibly.
There is also an attribute method that you can use to set up the navigation properties.
Related
I have found a solution that works (using DTOs and AutoMapper), which is reproduced below, but I would prefer an answer that lists the different approaches to the problem with examples and this will be marked as the answer if received.
In my entity model I have a navigation property that goes from a child entity to the parent entity. My project was working swimmingly. Then I began to use AutoFixture for unit testing, and testing failed, AutoFixture saying I had a circular reference.
Now, I realise that circular reference navigation properties like this are OK within Entity Framework, but I found this post (Use value of a parent property when creating a complex child in AutoFixture), where Mark Seemann, the creator of AutoFixture states:
"For the record, I haven't written an API with a circular reference for years, so it's quite possible to avoid those Parent/Child relations."
So, I want to understand HOW a domain model can be refactored to avoid child/parent relations.
Below are the entity classes in question, the repository method, and how I use the property causing the circular reference in my View. The perfect answer would explain the different options I could choose from with examples, and the basic pros/cons of each approach.
Note: The property causing the circular reference is User, in the UserTeam model.
Models:
public class UserProfile
{
public UserProfile()
{
UserTeams = new HashSet<UserTeam>();
Games = new HashSet<Game>();
}
[Key]
[DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int UserId { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<UserTeam> UserTeams { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Game> Games { get; set; }
}
public class Game
{
public Game()
{
UserTeams = new HashSet<UserTeam>();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CreatorId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<UserTeam> UserTeams { get; set; }
}
public class UserTeam
{
public UserTeam()
{
UserTeam_Players = new HashSet<UserTeam_Player>();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public int UserId { get; set; }
public int GameId { get; set; }
public virtual UserProfile User { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<UserTeam_Player> UserTeam_Players { get; set; }
}
Repository Method
public IEnumerable<Game> GetAllGames()
{
using (DataContext)
{
var _games = DataContext.Games
.Include(x => x.UserTeams)
.Include(x => x.UserTeams.Select(y => y.User))
.ToList();
if (_games == null)
{
// log error
return null;
}
return _games;
}
}
View
#model IEnumerable<Game>
#foreach (var item in Model){
foreach (var userteam in item.UserTeams){
<p>#userteam.User.UserName</p>
}
}
Now, if I remove the 'User' navigation property, I wouldn't be able to do '#userteam.User.UserName'
So, how do I refactor the domain model to remove the circular reference, whilst being able to easily loop through Games, and do something like
UserTeam.User.Username?
I had a similar problem with AutoFixture and EntityFramework a while ago. My solution was to add an extension to AutoFixture, that allows you to build a SUT with a few recursions. That extension has recently been adopted in AutoFixture.
But I understand that your question was not about how to make AutoFixture construct recursive data structures, which is indeed possible, but how to create domain models without recursion.
First, you have tree or graph structures. Here anything but recursion would mean indirection through loose coupled node ids. Instead of defining an association, you would have to traverse the tree query-by-query or cache the whole thing and traverse by node-key lookup, which may be impractical depending on the tree-size. Here it is very convenient to make EF do the work for you.
The other common structure is a two-way navigational structure similar to your user / game scenario. Here it is often not that inconvenient to prune the navigation flow to a single direction. If you omit one direction, say from game to team, you can still easily query all teams for a given game. So: User has a list of games and a list of teams. Team has a list of games. Games have no navigational reference to either. To get all users for a specific game you could write something like:
var users = (from user in DataContext.Users
from game in user.Games
where game.Name == 'Chess'
select user).Distinct()
I have found a solution that works (using DTOs and AutoMapper), which is reproduced below, but I would still prefer an answer that lists the different approaches to the problem with examples, in particular whether this is a desirable solution, or whether I should stick with the navigation properties as they were, get rid of AutoFixture, and when it comes to serializing for json just utilise other work arounds (attributes etc)...
So, in my View Model, I added a couple of classes:
public class GameDTO
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int CreatorId { get; set; }
public ICollection<UserTeamDTO> UserTeamsDTO { get; set; }
}
public class UserTeamDTO : UserTeam
{
public UserProfile User { get; set; }
}
And in my controller, I use AutoMapper to map the Game / UserTeam objects from the repository to my DTO objects, and return the IList _gamesDto to the View.
var _games = _gameRepository.GetAllGames();
IList<GameDTO> _gamesDto = new List<GameDTO>();
IList<UserTeamDTO> _userteamsDto = new List<UserTeamDTO>();
GameDTO _gameDto = new GameDTO();
UserTeamDTO _userteamDto = new UserTeamDTO();
Mapper.CreateMap<Game, GameDTO>();
Mapper.CreateMap<UserTeam, UserTeamDTO>();
foreach (Game _game in _games)
{
foreach (UserTeam _userteam in _game.UserTeams)
{
_userteamDto = Mapper.Map<UserTeamDTO>(_userteam);
_userteamDto.User = _userRepository.GetUser(_userteam.UserId);
_userteamsDto.Add(_userteamDto);
}
_gameDto = Mapper.Map<GameDTO>(_game);
_gameDto.UserTeamsDTO = _userteamsDto;
_gamesDto.Add(_gameDto);
}
I had a similar problem recently which also impacted serializing JSON objects. I decided to remove the circular references from my data model.
I first removed the redundant navigation properties which were creating the circular references. I made sure that my resulting tree of data made sense. This allowed me to make it clear which objects own which relationships.
This also made EF unable to automatically reason about my relationships. I had to specify the One-to-Many and Many-to-Many relationships using the FluentAPI. I found a solution here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/16719203/1887885
Hope this is helpful.
I am starting MVC4 with VS2012. I am also using EF5 with the "Database First" method of creating my classes.
However because the generated glasses can be regenerated I cannot put the Data Annotation details to assist with validation.
I have seen some code snippets that use MetaData and partial classes but I was wondering if anyone knows of a small compilable example that I can look at and pull apart to better understand how the vasious classes interlink.
Many many thanks for any help.
Dave
You can achieve what you need through extending models. Suppose that EF generated the following entity class for you:
namespace YourSolution
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class News
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public int UserID { get; set; }
public virtual UserProfile User{ get; set; }
}
}
and you want do some work arounds to preserve your you data annotations and attributes. So, follow these steps:
First, add two classes some where (wherever you want, but it's better to be in Models) like the following:
namespace YourSolution
{
[MetadataType(typeof(NewsAttribs))]
public partial class News
{
// leave it empty.
}
public class NewsAttribs
{
// Your attribs will come here.
}
}
then add what properties and attributes you want to the second class - NewsAttribs here. :
public class NewsAttrib
{
[Display(Name = "News title")]
[Required(ErrorMessage = "Please enter the news title.")]
public string Title { get; set; }
// and other properties you want...
}
Notes:
1) The namespace of the generated entity class and your classes must be the same - here YourSolution.
2) your first class must be partial and its name must be the same as EF generated class.
Go through this and your attribs never been lost again ...
The official approach to defining navigation properties for complex entities is:
public class SuperEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//Other properties
}
public class LowerEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int SuperEntityId { get; set; }
public virtual SuperEntity SuperEntity { get; set; }
//Other properties
}
The main thing here is that a class that references (allows navigation to linked super entity) has both public SuperEntity SuperEntity { get; set; } property, as well as it's Id in public int SuperEntityId { get; set; }.
I have gone a few days into my entities design ommiting the public int SuperEntityId { get; set; } property in the "lower entities". So I am navigating only by virtual SuperEntity property. And everything works fine! But I had people on SO telling me that it creates an excessive tables in the DB. I've checked, and that is not true. When I use my approach, the DB tables has the SuperEntityId column and just populates it with the referenced entity Id automatically. What's the point in this public int SuperEntityId { get; set; } field then?
Or, perhaps, what I am doing became available in a "fresh" versions of EF like 4.3?
The point of SuperEntityId is that it is sometimes easier to use a foreign key property in apps where your context isn't alive the entire time, e.g. a webapp.
In such a situation, it's a lot easier to just use a foreign key property, than to try to attach object B to object A.
As far as I know, with nav properties, EF uses an object to track the relation between 2 objects. So if you want to couple object B to object A, in a disconnected app, it's not enough to just set the property on object A, you also have to fiddle with the entry of object A in the changetracker to register the relation between B and A.
Setting a foreign key property is the equivalent of this fiddling.
When we were just beginning with EF and didn't know about all of this, every time we wanted to connect 2 objects, e.g. B to A, and B already existed in the DB, the context thought that B was a new object instead of an existing one, and duplicated the record in the DB.
It won't create excessive tables, but it will probably generate extra, or longer, queries on that database. But that depends on how you're using these entities.
When using Entity Framework Code First 4.3.1 it is possible to create relationships with a multiplicity of 1-to-1. That is, one entity on each end of the relationship.
It is possible to configure 1-to-1 relationships to be required-required or required-optional ^. However, when I switch between the two I do not see any differences in:
The database schema generated. I am targeting SQL Server 2008.
The runtime behaviour of EF.
As such, I am able to create a RequiredPrincipalAs record without a corresponding RequiredDependentAs record, despite the relationship being configured as required-required. This seems to contradict the documentation for HasRequired(...):
Configures a required relationship from this entity type. Instances of the entity type will not be able to be saved to the database unless this relationship is specified. The foreign key in the database will be non-nullable.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg671317
The required-required relationship entities:
public class RequiredPrincipalA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredDependentA DependentA { get; set; }
}
public class RequiredDependentA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalA PrincipalA { get; set; }
}
The required-optional relationship entities:
public class RequiredPrincipalB
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual OptionalDependentB DependentB { get; set; }
}
public class OptionalDependentB
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalB PrincipalB { get; set; }
}
The DbContext and model configuration:
public class AppContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<RequiredPrincipalA> PrincipalAs { get; set; }
public DbSet<RequiredDependentA> DependentAs { get; set; }
public DbSet<RequiredPrincipalB> PrincipalBs { get; set; }
public DbSet<OptionalDependentB> DependentBs { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<RequiredPrincipalA>()
.HasRequired(o => o.DependentA)
.WithRequiredPrincipal(o => o.PrincipalA);
modelBuilder.Entity<RequiredPrincipalB>()
.HasOptional(o => o.DependentB)
.WithRequired(o => o.PrincipalB);
}
}
The test code:
Database.SetInitializer(new DropCreateDatabaseAlways<AppContext>());
using (var ctx = new AppContext())
{
ctx.Database.Initialize(force: false);
ctx.PrincipalAs.Add(new RequiredPrincipalA());
ctx.PrincipalBs.Add(new RequiredPrincipalB());
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
I am aware I could add a [Required] data attribute to the navigation properties of RequiredPrincipalA.DependentA and RequiredDependentA.PrincipalA. This would cause EF validation to prevent the scenario above. However, I do not want to do this because it also validates the navigation property is populated when updating an existing entity. This means the application has to pre-fetch the entity at the other end of the relationship for every update.
Why do I not see any difference in the behaviour of EF just when changing a relationship between required-required and required-optional?
^ Note that optional-optional is also supported but this doesn't form part of my question. There are obvious differences in the generated database schema and runtime behaviour when an optional-optional relationship is configured.
I don't know why required-required is allowed for this case but it cannot exist in the database because relation is build on primary keys. Required-required means that A cannot be inserted if related B doesn't exist and B cannot be inserted if related A doesn't exist => neither A or B can be inserted.
Database relation has always principal and dependent entity - principal can always exist without dependent.
Real required-required in EF can be achieved only when both A and B are mapped to the same table (table splitting) because in such case they are both inserted with single insert command.
Not really an answer but I have more to say than will fit in comments. But you know, I write 900 page books...it's just how I roll. :)
Oddly I would expect the fluent configuration to behave the same way as the data annotation and am confused that it's not doing it. (I've pinged Rowan Miller with a link to this thread to get his feedback.) And the behavior I mean is: validating the constraint during SaveChanges.
On the database side, I'm with Ladislav.In the model, EF defines the 1:1 using the keys of the related entities. But in the database, you can't have FKs in both tables, so only the dependent table in the database will require that constraint that it's PK maps to an existing PK in the principal table.
And finally, I understand your reason for not wanting EF to enforce the relationship if you aren't going to always deal with teh full graph. I think 1:1 relationships are the most confusing of the EF relationship mappings and I always find myself having to go back for reminders of the rules and how things should work.
Old question. But since EF6 is still used and even available for .Net standard and this issue can be a real nuisance, I think it's worth mentioning something I couldn't find in other answers.
It is true that both HasRequired - WithRequiredPrincipal and HasOptional - WithRequired produce the same database schema and the same runtime behavior. That is, with both mappings it's possible to save a principal without a dependent entity and to remove the dependent later. So much for HasRequired.
But there is a way to make EF validate the required relationship when creating the entities, which is by simply adding a [Required] attribute:
public class RequiredPrincipalA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required] // <== here
public virtual RequiredDependentA DependentA { get; set; }
}
public class RequiredDependentA
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual RequiredPrincipalA PrincipalA { get; set; }
}
As said, only when creating the entities. It's still possible to set RequiredPrincipalA.RequiredDependentA = null and save it successfully. But I think that, fortunately, the likelihood of that happening in code is far lower than forgetting to set the required dependent.
Say I have Project and Task EF Code first classes
public class Project
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Task> Tasks { get; set; }
}
public class Task
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int ProjectId { get; set; }
public bool IsDeleted {get; set;}
public virtual Project Project { get; set; }
}
Say I have
public void SomeAction()
{
Project p= repository.GetById(1);
var tasks = p.Tasks;
//var tasks = p.Tasks.Where(t=>t.IsDeleted==false);
}
I would like that my Tasks property on the Project class will always perform that filter on IsDeleted and just return that subset ... to avoid having to write that condition all over the place...
Any recommendations?
Edit:
Im using EF Code First
Add a discriminator to your model in the OnModelCreating method
modelBuilder.Entity<TEntity>().Map(m => m.Requires("IsDeleted").HasValue(false));
Caveats
You can no longer load deleted items (unless you map IsDeleted true to another entity, then you may lose your automatic filtering)
The poco class cannot have the IsDeleted property (discriminators cannot be mapped)
because the IsDeleted cannot be mapped you need to run raw SQL to delete the entity in the first place.
EF Code first = NO WAY. Just one from long list of features which is available in EDMX and it is completely missing in code first. Mapped condition from EDMX does this but it is still problematic because it is hardcoded and cannot be changed (= you will never be able to load deleted entities even if you want to unless you use another EDMX). The solution would be implementation of global filters in EF but EF doesn't have anything like that despite the fact that old Linq-to-entities have them at least for relations (DataLoadOptions.AssociateWith).
This is much more painful in relations where you cannot use eager or lazy loading without loading deleted entities to your application as well and do filtering in your application's memory.
In the Model Designer, select your Task entity, and bring up the Mapping Details window. This should show you the database table your entity is mapped to, and all the columns. Just under where it says "Maps to [YourTable]" you should see an option <Add a Condition>. This should let you set a condition like what you're looking for.