I have a class Question
CompareItems store CurrentQuestion-to-OtherQuestion compare information.
public class Question
{
public virtual ICollection<QuestionMark> CompareItems { get; set; }
}
public class QuestionMark
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Question { get; set; } //Store ID of OtherQuestion
public decimal Mark { get; set; }
}
When I delete some question A I need that all QuestionMark where QuestionMark.Question == A.Id also deleted, because it's no need to have compare information if question not exist. How it possible to do that without making QuestionMark.Question an entity? Maybe EF have some rule in Fluent-API to set that QuestionMark.Question is foreign key on Question entity?
I don't wont to make QuestionMark.Question as entity because it will need to change current solution lot - is a first. Also, question is a quite heavy entity, and to load it multiple time to assign value or delete or something else will be press on performance
I think it's possible to change app to use Entities instead of id, because EF use lazy loading by default and it will not caused performance problems. And I think that using just id instead of entity possible with some fluent API settings or attribute.
If you do not want to make a navigational property Question in QuestionMark class then you need to manually create a foreign key with "cascade delete". Then when every a question is deleted the database will delete the related QuestionMark records.
However this approach has a problem with EF. Because EF does not know there is a "cascade delete" relationship among these entities. So there can be inconsistencies within the locally tracked entities in EF.
You have not given a reason as to why you do not want to map the relationship in EF but I highly advice you against it.
Related
I have two Model classes to be created using Entity Framework: Skill and Activity. The following are the definitions of each:
Skill.cs
public class Skill
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
}
Activity.cs
public class Activity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
public virtual List<Skill> RequiredSkills { get; set; }
}
Ideally, in the database, I'd want the Activity to be linked via foreign key to a association entity (e.g. SkillActivityAssoc) and the Skill not to have to do anything with it. I don't need to track which activities need a certain skill. I just need to track what skills are needed for each activity thus explaining why I don't have a List in the Skill class. I hope that made sense.
My question is: Is this the right way to go about doing this? When I update the RequiredSkills property of Activity via:
activity.RequiredSkills = someInstanceOfRequiredSkillsList;
dbcontext.Entry(activity).State = EntityState.modified;
dbcontext.SaveChanges();
.., it doesn't work. I'm already speculating that it's because I'm not able to update the association entity. Moreover, my current implementation has a virtual List<Activity> property in the Skill class which I want to get rid of. How do I go about changing my model design and how do I update RequiredSkills accordingly?
Thank you in advance!
virtual is for lazy loading and track changes in EF. You can read more about it here: Understanding code first virtual properties. You should also read MSDN documentation about loading entities in EF: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj574232(v=vs.113).aspx
Since you want to have more than one Skills in each Activity and each Skills can be in more than one Activity as well, you have a many-to-many relantionship. Please read this example: How to create a many-to-many mapping in Entity Framework? and this http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/code-first/configure-many-to-many-relationship-in-code-first.aspx
In my EF 6 Model First application, I have an entity with a many-to-many navigation property to another entity. In the first entity, I need to add several references to the same record in navigation property.
The first entity is a “saleslistItem” and the second entity is “warehouseItem”. Normally there will be a one-to-one relationship here, but exceptionally there will be some bundles where one “saleslistItem” contains several “warehouseItems”. “WarehouseItem” can also be included in several “salesListItems”. At the end of the project, my customer says, testing it, that “saleslistItem” must be able to consist of several “WarehouseItems” of the same kind (like two boxes of smoked ham).
These data is used several places in my code. (ie. doing a sale removes items from the warehouse) If I could just add several the same reference, my code would work without any modifications. But in the implementation of the navigation property the “hashtable”-collection is used, and this collection requires unique entries. Is there a workaround here? Performance is irrelevant as the data amount is small.
If there are no such workaround, is it possible to store values together with the instance of navigation property? Maybe it is implemented as a field in the join-table???
Any other suggestions?
Need a solution so the customer pays the last part of the bill!
So you currently have a 1:1 from SalesListItem toWarehouseItemvia a ForeignKey inSalesListItem`? Sounds like you need:
public class SalesListItem
{
public virutal ICollection<SalesListWarehouseItem> WareHouseItems { get; set; }
}
public class SalesListWarehouseItem
{
public virtual SalesListItem Parent{ get; set; }
public virtual WarehouseItem WarehouseItem { get; set; }
public int Quantity { get; set; } // maybe double?
}
I'm trying to create a One-to-One relationship between two tables using a primary key and a unique key of the two tables (rather the primary keys).
The following is what I'd like to work.
// The principal end
public class A
{
// The primary Key
public int AId { get; set; }
// The navigation property
public virtual B B { get; set; }
}
// The dependent end
public class B
{
// The primary Key
public int BId { get; set; }
// The unique key
[Index(IsUnique = true)]
public int AId { get; set; }
// The navigation property
public virtual A A { get; set; }
}
But then I see this error:
Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the types 'A' and 'B'. The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.
I'm quite sure a primarykey-uniquekey relationship is allowed in SQL Server. Looks like EF6 doesn't support it. EF Core 1.0 seems to, but it's not feasible to port to EF Core right now.
Why we need a need a relationship of this kind:
We have two tables A and B in production, but the one-to-one relationship, which should have been there is missing. The relationship is something we need so we can navigate from an A object to a B object with EF. Since both tables have values, we can't really make the primary key, the foreign key - we'll end up with incorrect data.
My approach to fixing this was to:
add a column
fill it with the correct A ids
make it unique
establish the 1-1 relationship
An alternate approach to fixing this is more than welcome.
This is possible with EF Core using Fluent API's .HasPrincipalKey() method. Unfortunately not supported in EF6 which is a shame as relationships over unique keys can essentially be treated the same as foreign key constrains so I'd imagine it would have been an easy addition.
Now that MS has forgot about EF6 and is focusing on EF Core, this will never happen. I really liked using the visual entity designers as it saved so much time. Looking at the thousand+ lines of code the EF Core DbContext scaffold generator spits out for me is discouraging to say the least. Sure, it's pretty when you're dealing with a demo project consisting of two cute tables but we all know this is never the case in the real world. The whole point of using an ORM is to save time but I'm not sure if having to manage thousands of lines of configuration code is any better. Just by two cents.
I have a class as
public class fooClass
{
[Key]
public virtual fooRefClass staff { get; set; }
public Int64 fooProp1{ get; set; }
public DateTime fooProp2{ get; set; }
}
when i do the migration it give me error as "no key defined" but i had added the key attonation already .My intention is to make the referenced entity "fooRefClass " as primary key as well as foreign key, i know there is a way by mentioning the attribute id of the referenced entity and writing the foreign-key annotate over there, but i want to deal with entity directly ,rather than id only, how can i attain this functionality ,please help me with the issue.
Since there seems to be confusion, I decided to write an answer as well.
With the class you defined, EF would expect a table like
fooClass(bigint fooRefClass_Id, bigint fooProp1, datetime fooProp2);
... which is not valid, because this has no key column (the key annotation on your navigation property does nothing, because you see, it won't appear in the table... it will just tell EF there is a relationship to this table, and because you didn't provide a FK, it creates one to create this relationship). You also can't create this relationship yourself in your current model, because you don't even have a FK... how would you access a property you know nothing about, just that it will be created at some point (usually upon model creating with first accessing the database).
You have to tell EF you want the property, that will be created, to also be a key, not only a foreign key. You can do this by simply creating the property yourself and telling EF you want to use this, for example (I'm not too familiar with Data Annotations, I usually use Fluent API, so please excuse maybe occuring errors)
[Key, Foreign Key(fooRefClass)]
public Int64 StaffId {get; set;}
I have the following
[DataContractAttribute]
public class Animal
{
[Key]
[XmlElement(ElementName = "Id")]
[DataMember()]
public Guid Id
{
get;
set;
}
[XmlElement(ElementName = "AnimalType")]
[DataMember()]
public List<AnimalType> AnimalType
{
get;
set;
}
}
And i map it through the code first approach with EF to tables
modelBuilder.Entity<Animal>().ToTable("Animal");
As you see I have not performed some complex mapping, but the List of AnimalType enumerations did not get mapped automatically to any columns/tables in the DB. Do i need to add some extra code to the model builder to control the mapping of an enumeration list ?
As of EF CTP5, enums are not supported yet. The team announced that they are going to fully support enums in their next RTM version which is targeted to be released on the first quarter of 2011.
I know for the longest time, enums weren't supported by EF, though I don't know if that is still the case or not.
Either way, I think there is a general problem with having EF handle a list of a type other than another entity. What is the primary key? What is the value? Should it try to store the data in one column or create a separate table and create a foreign key constraint? These are questions that will likely need to be answered before your model can be converted into a database schema.