It looks like CodeFirst stops doing its homework when it doesn't have full control of the database (I suppose).
The scenario is a web site hosted on Arvixe.com (or I suppose any other shared hosting server), where I have to create databases only from their control panel (and NOT with Sql Server Management Studio, just to say...).
Once created an empty database, I register a connection in the web site, and I use it to generate database from poco objects like in:
add-migration m1 -targetdatabase myconnection
This generates correctly my FIRST migration, that I can apply without problems with
update-database -targetdatabase myconnection
The first concern, not too important, is that since the database is existing, it will NOT issue the Seed command, so I have to insert my first records by hand, but this is not a great problem.
Then I change my poco objects, and I need to update the database, but when I issue ANOTHER
add-migration m2 -targetdatabase myconnection
it gives the error:
System.Data.Entity.Migrations.MigrationsPendingException: Unable to generate an explicit migration because the following explicit migrations are pending: [201111081426466_m1]. Apply the pending explicit migrations before attempting to generate a new explicit migration.
This is really strange, since if I look at the database, I can see even the table __MigrationHistory, but then it looks like it cannot recognize it...
Anyone with the same problem, or some good tip to where investigate?
Thanks in advance,
Andrea Bioli
I had this problem. I was able to resolve it by providing a connectionString and a connectionProviderName parameter to both the Update-Database and the Add-Migration commands.
If you have many projects in your solution with multiple config files, Package Manager seems to be confused. In my case, I had one project selected as the default project for Package Manager Console, but it was pulling the connection string from the Visual Studio solution default start-up project instead.
Related
I am currently playing with beta4 of EF7 using the blank ASP.NET web project template.
After having kicked off the existing migration, resulting in the tables being created in the localdb, the following occurs:
Strangely, when I clean up the migration-folder, including removing ApplicationDbContextModelSnapshot.cs and I run
dnx . ef migration add twice, I get the following error:
dnx : System.InvalidOperationException: No data stores are configured. Configure a data store by overriding OnConfiguring in your DbContext class or in the AddDbContext method when setting up services.
The second migration is not created. When I review the created migration it contains all tables whereas the database is already provisioned, so you should expect the migration being empty.
Then, when I remove the first migration and run the add migration command again more than once, all the migrations are correctly created, i.e. as empty files.
Can someone explain this to me? Is this expected behavior or is this a bug in beta4?
Tip for people coming from former EF-versions:
* Don't use the K command framework anymore.
* Don't use the Add-Migration cmdlets anymore.
Both have been replaced by dnx . (dot). (dnx = .NET execution environment)
Some references:
https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework/wiki/Entity-Framework-Design-Meeting-Notes---September-11,-2014
http://jameschambers.com/2015/05/project-k-dnvm-dnx-dnu-and-entity-framework-7-for-bonus-points/
Remove the constructor of ApplicationContext. It is a temporary workaround to enable deployment, but it interferes with the Migrations commands.
We're using EF 6, in database-first mode.
We've been building a database migration package, using FluentMigrator, and we've been running our migrations against empty LocalDb databases in our solution, for use in integration testing, etc.
Because we need our solutions to build wherever they're checked out, we've been using |DataDirectory| in the connection strings.
We've written some unit [sic] tests, running against LocalDb instances, running the migrations first to ensure that the tests are running against the current schema. (Yes, these are integration tests, but we're using a unit test framework, and I don't want to argue about it.)
What I would like to do next is to change our configuration so that when we run "Update Model from Database" on our .edmx files, it's the LocalDb instance that the tool looks to. And I can't make that work.
My guess is that whatever tool is running, when we do this, doesn't have it's DataDirectory set where I need it to be, in it's appdomain.
Does anyone know what tool this might be? And how I can configure it to connect to a localdb instance, that's using |DataDirectory| to create a relative path?
Before anyone marks this as a duplicate, none of the questions similar to this addressed any of my concerns or answered any of my questions.
I am currently developing all the POCOs and data contexts in a library project, and running migrations from within this project. The database I'm updating is the development database.
What do I do if I want to create the current schema to a fresh, new database? I figure that all I have to do is to change the connection string in web.config and run Update-Database, correct?
While the live/production database is up and running, I want to add new columns and new tables to the schema, and test it out in development. So I switch back the connection string to the development database's connection string, and run Update-Database.
Going back and forth between two databases seems like I'll get conflicts between _MigrationHistory tables and the auto-generated migration scripts.
Is it safe to manually delete the _MigrationHistory tables in both databases, and/or delete the migration files in /Migrations (so I'll run Add-Migration again)? How do we manage this?
What do I do if I want to create the current schema to a fresh, new database?
- Yes, to create fresh database to the current migration level you simply modify the connection string to point to a database that does not yet exist and run update-database. It will run all the migrations in order.
As far as migrating to the Production database, I am running the update-database command with the -script switch to acquire the raw sql and then applying that script to the production database manually. This is helpful if you need to keep a record of sql commands run against the database as well. Additionally, you can generate the script explicitly from a specific migration to another specific migration via some of the other update-database switches.
Alternatively, you can create an Idempotent script that works from any migration by using the–SourceMigration $InitialDatabase switch and optionally specify an end migration with –TargetMigration
If you delete the _MigrationHistory tables you will have issues where the generated script will be trying to add columns that already exist and such.
You may find the following link helpful:
Microsoft Entity Framework Migrations
I would suggest having a separate trunk in your source code repository - one pointing to production and one to development to avoid risks of switching between the two in visual studio.
Me also had the same problem, even when using one and the same database - due to some merges in the repository, and the mix of automatic/manual migrations. For some reason the EF was not taking into account the target database, and calculating what scripts need to me executed, based on what is already in the database.
To fix this, I go to the [__MigrationHistory] table on the target database and get the latest migration name. This will help EF to determinate the state of the DB, and will execute just the scripts needed.
then the following script is run:
update-database -script -sourcemigration {latest migration name}
This creates update script that is specific to the target database (the connection string should be correct, as discussed in the other comments)
you can also use -force parameter if needed
this way you can update any database to latest version, no mater in what version you found it, if it has MigrationHistory table.
Hope this helps
My production and my developmental database went out of synch and it gave me endless problems. I solved it using a tool from Red-Gate to match up the databases. After using the tool, the databases were exactly the same but my migration was not working and I started to get odd errors i.e. trying to add tables/ columns that already existed etc. I solved that. I just deleted the migration folder on the local, recreated it, added the initial migration, updated the database and then matched the data of this migration file (local) to the one on the host (delete all the data in the migration file on the host, and add the same data that is on the local into the host). A more detailed explanation is at:
migration synch developmental and production databases
I have created a module to be included in a main MVC3 web application. The module is packaged into a NuGet package and it can be installed and uninstalled via NuGet. Both, the main site and the module use Code First, EF >= 4.3
To create the package I have another MVC3 site and all the functionality is inside an area, so to create the package I just pack the libraries, the views and all the needed files. Database Migrations work fine in the project and the package is created nicely.
Now I install the package in the main site via NuGet. This site is in another solution, and the solution has two projects:
MyProject.Web.UI: this is an Mvc3 project
MyProject.EntityFramework: this is a class library with all the models, dbContext for MyProject...
The package is installed correctly and the Area, the Area views and libraries are correctly installed.
The problem now is how I update the database? I've tried first to run "Update-Database" but I get the message:
"No migrations configuration type was found in the assembly
'MyProject.Web.UI'. (In Visual Studio you can use the
Enable-Migrations command from Package Manager Console to add a
migrations configuration)."
I've tried then to enable the migrations with "Enable-Migrations" but I got this other message:
"No context type was found in the assembly 'MyProject.Web.UI'."
I tried also just to run the site and see if the changes are automatically applied but I get the exception page with the typical message:
"The model backing the 'NugetPackageDbContext' context has changed
since the database was created. Consider using Code First Migrations
to update the database"
I don't know what to do to update the database with the required changes in migrations that come in the NuGet package. Any one could put some light here in this matter? I'm quite new to Migrations, maybe there are some configs to update the database if there is a change instead of running the commands in the console, I'm a bit lost.
Thanks in advance :)
Good news! It seems that I got it. I was looking for a way to make the NuGet package to update the database to the latest version.
Well, this package comes with an Admin controller, so I added a new action called Update:
public ActionResult Update()
{
System.Data.Entity.Database.SetInitializer(new System.Data.Entity.MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion<MyPackageDbContext, MyPackage.Migrations.Configuration>());
return View();
}
In my Configuration class for the migrations I have:
public Configuration()
{
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = true;
}
I have to say that in my way to do all of this I've found a few strange behaviors. One thing that surprises me is this, I don't know if this is normal, read the secuence:
Package installed with new migrations but database not up to date. So if I access the EF this affected by this I get the exception about this. Ok up to this.
I go to my action /MyPackage/Admin/Update and run it. Apparently it runs. I go to the database and I don't see changes. Even the migrations table does not have a new row.
I access again the EF part that displayed the exception before (point number 1) and then everything goes through, database is updated and the migrations table shows the new line.
One thing that you have to notice is that the Configuration class is internal, but because this is a module I needed to be accessible from another assembly. I tried to make it public but I got some strange warnings/errors that I don't know if they are related. So in the end I kept it internal but used
[assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("OtherAssembly")]
I've found a few of strange behaviors in Visual Studio with all this stuff of the NuGet packages, CF, migrations ... I don't know if these things are bugs, but all this thing took me two full working days.
I hope it is useful for any other that wants to create a CF NuGet package that is updateable.
In package manager console you will need to the Default project to MyProject.EntityFramework
You may also need to make sure MyProject.Web.UI is set as the start up project (in case there are multiple), then you can pass in the connection string into update command:
Update-Database -ConnectionStringName MyConnStringName
This should update the database correctly, unless there is data that will be lost.
If your DbContext is in MyProject.EntityFramework then the Default Project in the Package Manager Console needs to be set to MyProject.EntityFramework before you can use Update-Database.
I realize that this question is very old, but since I don't see this answer I'll throw it in anyway.
To perform migrations and such on projects or external references you can still use the same three command:
Enable-Migrations
Add-Migration
Update-Database
but you wil need to supply some additional parameters. For the Enable-Migrations command you will need to add the -ContextTypeName and optionally the -ContextAssemblyName commands like so:
Enable-Migrations -ContextTypeName MyProject.EntityFramework.NugetPackageDbContext -ContextAssemblyName MyProject
This will give you a migration configuration class in your current project. The other two commands will require you to specify this configuration class:
Update-Database -ConfigurationTypeName MyProject.Web.UI.Migrations.Configuration
Hope that helps
I'm trying to get Entity framework migrations working. I've enabled code first migrations, its created a migrations folder, config file and the mig history table, but no initial create. Am i missing a step? This is a new db created by EF (4.3.1).
This behavior is not in place by default, but it is available to you easily in many different forms.
You can call context.Database.CreateIfNotExists(); at application startup.
You can use one of the built-in DatabaseInitializers. The CreateDatabaseIfNotExists initializer is built into EntityFramework and just needs to be added to your project.
You could create your own custom database initializer which includes option #1 inside of itself. Example: Code First Migrations and initialization
You can include DatabaseInitializers in your project either by code or via a config file.
Include an EntityFramework Database Initializer via code:
In your application startup you can setup the DatabaseInitializer like so:
System.Data.Entity.Database.SetInitializer<DairyMmmContext>(new System.Data.Entity.CreateDatabaseIfNotExists<DairyMmmContext>());
NOTE: this code has changed multiple times throughout the life of entityframework! This example is for EF 4.3 which is the current production release available via nuget.
Include an EntityFramework Database Initializer via configuration element:
<configuration>
<entityFramework>
<contexts>
<context type="MyNamespace.MyEFDataContext, AssemblyName">
<databaseInitializer
type="System.Data.Entity.CreateDatabaseIfNotExists`2[[MyNamespace.MyEFDataContext, AssemblyName],
[MyNamespace.Migrations.Configuration, AssemblyName]], EntityFramework" />
</context>
</contexts>
</entityFramework>
</configuration>
You'll notice this can be a little "ungraceful" with this configuration. You need to replace AssemblyName above with the name of the assembly you keep your entityframework stuff in, replace MyNamespace.MyEFDataContext with the fully qualified name of your entityframework data context, and replace MyNamespace.Migrations.Configuration with the fully qualified name to your configuration class (by default in the Migration folder inside your project).
EDIT: Edited to respond to additional comments
A migration is a change from one schema definition to another schema definition. Creating the empty database is not a migration (but everything after that is). There will be no migration source file in your project for just creating an empty db, that is done in code by the initializer.
If you are already using the DropCreateDatabaseAlways initializer it should be doing that. However, I noticed you are setting the initializer in code which means there is the opportunity for a timing problem (setting the initializer after your context is already past the point of calling any initializers).
You can force entityframework to run your initializer at any point in code with context.Database.Initialize(true); (The parameter is a true/false to force the initialization regardless of the current state). That would drop and recreate your database every time.
But you can also just make sure your initializer is setup as early as possible in your application's life cycle (before you have created a single instance of your context).
"Initial Create" is NOT created automatically! You need to create that yourself. Some tutorials of EF are confusing and I had the same misunderstanding as you.
What you need to do:
-Add-Migration InitialModel
If you already have created your database tables and domain model, then:
-Add-Migration InitialModel -IgnoreChanges
From this point, your code will be in sync with database. Anytime you change the code, you can use Add-Migration to add the changes to your database.
The article / tutorial here here (on microsoft.com)
describes the reason that an initialCreate migration doesn't exist. The migration will only be added if the Database already exists. Otherwise, the first migration will be the 'initialCreate' as there is no point in creating a migration to a Database that doesn't exist yet... no DB means there is nothing to roll back to, on a down migration.
Here is the pertinent paragraph:
Run the Enable-Migrations command in Package Manager Console
This command has added a Migrations folder to our project, this new folder contains two files:
The Configuration class. This class allows you to configure how Migrations behaves for your context. For this walkthrough we will just use the default configuration.
Because there is just a single Code First context in your project, Enable-Migrations has automatically filled in the context type this configuration applies to.
An InitialCreate migration. This migration was generated because we already had Code First create a database for us, before we enabled migrations. The code in this scaffolded migration represents the objects that have already been created in the database. In our case that is the Blog table with a BlogId and Name columns. The filename includes a timestamp to help with ordering.
If the database had not already been created this InitialCreate migration would not have been added to the project. Instead, the first time we call Add-Migration the code to create these tables would be scaffolded to a new migration.
Not sure it's the same but I had a similar issue. I think my problem was related to the fact that I dont use a connections string from the config file to get my connection string.
Fiddling with the start up project in the solution and also the projet combo in the Package Manager Console I was able to generate that first migration.
Also make shure you have a connections string with the name of your dbContext class so the Package Manager can find it.
I am using EF 6 RC1 and ran into this problem where neither the InitialCreate nor __MigrationHistory were being created when running Enable-Migrations.
Actually, just after upgrading from EF 5 to EF 6 I ran Enable-Migrations and for some reason it created a __MigrationHistory table using the EF 5 schema, so I deleted it and my Migrations directory and tried to start over.
But every time I deleted the Migrations directory it wouldn't create an InitialCreate or __MigrationHistory. I tried dropping and recreating the database and restarting Visual Studio 2012 to no avail. I gave up for the day and the next morning tried again - after letting my computer sit for about 8 hours it then created the InitialCreate. I am guessing there must be a cache somewhere that has a really long timeout - anyone? I am also guessing that rebooting might clear the cache, but I didn't try that.
Whatever the case, it is possible to use PM> Add-Migration InitialCreate to do that step manually.
Anyway, I still didn't get a __MigrationHistory table. Apparently, EF 6 has changed from creating it during the Enable-Migrations command to instead only creating it during the Update-Database command. And since my schema had already been created at that point, I needed to tear it down and recreate it manually:
PM> Update-Database -TargetMigration:0
PM> Update-Database
I also stopped after the first command to check the state of the database to ensure I was updating the correct one, since according to this, the database connection string is picked up or autogenerated depending on the configuration, and unless it is configured right, there is no guarantee you are going to access the database or instance of SQL Server you intend to.
After running both commands it created a __MigrationHistory table - and it didn't create it as a system table (which I didn't really want anyway), so all is good. Not exactly the same problem as the OP, but hopefully this will be helpful to someone else.
References:
http://elegantcode.com/2012/04/12/entity-framework-migrations-tips/
Reset Entity-Framework Migrations
How to recreate migrations from scratch
I know this is old, but there is no accepted answer and I had same issue.
The trick is Enable-Migrations command. As stated here there is a command Enable-Migrations –EnableAutomaticMigrations. What it does it starts migrations exactly where you are.
If you want the first migration to be creation of database, just run Enable-Migrations (without --EnableAutomaticMigrations).
And remember to set initializer:
Database.SetInitializer(new MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion<LicenseContext, Configuration>());