I've a problem mapping just one table from database, I add several tables using "Update model from Database" function through Visual Studio 2010 interface, and everyone works as expected except one table!
Looking at "Model Browser" I can see the table doesn't appear under "Entity Types" but it is present under section "ObjectEntity.Store", so my POCO Generator create an entity related and I can't try to add it again from database but I can't access it through context (like context.table_name).
Tha table doesn't have particular form, there are just two key fields
Could someone help me?
Thanks
I guess it is junction table for implementing many-to-many relation, isn't it? In such case it is correct behavior. EF will hide this table because it is not needed in object oriented approach where many-to-many association can be modeled directly without helper entity. You will see in your model that those two related entities are connected by line with * - * multiplicity and each entity will contain navigation property which is collection of related entities. By manipulation with entities in these collections you are creating or removing records in that hidden table. That is the way how you work with such relation in EF.
Related
I attempted to update my edmx file by selecting a table. The tool spit out a info message that said the table did not have a primary key.
The entity did not get added to the design surface but it did get added to the .edmx file. In addition, using the model browser I see an Entities.Store and an Entities. My table got added to Entities.Store, but not to Entities.
I cannot access the table that was "added" in the code.
What do I do?
Steps to reproduce:
Create a SQL table with two columns that are both defined as foreign keys to other tables. Make sure the tables that the FKs point to already exist in the model on the design surface.
Right click and choose Update Model from Database...
Next. Under the Add tab, mark the new table under Tables
Click Finish.
An association will be created and it will be selected on the design surface, but it won't start with FK_, it will just be the name of your table. Go to the Model Browser and look under Entity Types. The table will not be there. Look under Associations and you will see your table name there as an association, but it will look out of place (because of the name).
Entity Framework was too smart for me. It created an association instead of an entity. Odd, but it works for how I need to use it.
I'm really new to Entity Framework (currently using EF5) and vs2012 and am having difficulty trying to figure something out.
I have an .edmx that was generated from my database. It has two tables in it: Item and 3rdPartyItem. In short, the Item table is the main table for all the company items while the 3rdPartyItem table is a table that is used to hold additional attributes for items. This 3rdPartyItem table was created by an outside company and is used with their software for the company, so I can't mess with either table. What I'm trying to do is show a list of Items in a grid but I need to show a combination of all the fields for both tables. In vs2012, if I create a relationship and make it 'zero-to-one' (because for each record in the Item table, there doesn't necessarily have to be one in the 3rdPartyItem table), vs complains about not being mapped correctly. When I set the mapping, it then complains that there's multiple relationships. I did some research and found that you can't create a relationship with 2 primary keys, so I was thinking that was the problem. But how can I change the .edmx so that in code, I can access Items and 3rdPartyItem like so:
var items = dbContext.Items;
items.3rdPartyItem.SomeField <--field from 3rdPartyItem table.
not too sure if it's even possible, but it would be very, very helpful if so. Any ideas?
What you're looking for is table-per-type (TPT) mapping inheritance. You can view an MSDN walkthrough here (although you'd want your base type to be instantiable):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj618293.aspx
I am developing for an existing application which uses a SQL database that is used by two applications. One uses Entity Framework to connect to the database. The other uses LINQ-to-SQL. The SQL database is designed so that there are some tables showing many-to-many relationships between rows in two tables. Entity Framework seems not to import these tables, apparently because it has some object-oriented idea for how many-to-many relationships ought to be represented. So far, the Entity Framework application has not needed to know about those tables, but now it should. I don't know how that works, and I am concerned that even if I learn about Entity Framework's exciting new way to represent these relationships, that it won't cooperate nicely with the other application or the database which is designed to use the many-to-many table.
I.e., there is a table of Foos, and a table of Bars, and then a table with Foo and Bar Ids that lists which Foos relate to which Bars, and I don't want to stop using this relationship table, particularly because there is another LINQ application that heavily uses this relationship table.
Questions:
If I learn to use Entity Framework's many-to-many system, will it use and update the many-to-many table that the other application uses?
If not, what is a good way to get Entity Framework to not ignore the many-to-many relationship table, so I can write code to use the existing table?
Yes, Entity Framework will manage your many-to-many tables for you. Pure link tables (that only have two foreign key columns) in EF are represented as relationships as opposed to POCO objects. The way this is done is that you tell EF that there is a relationship between two of your objects and that table X is where this relationship is stored. As an example in EF 4.1. which is what I'm currently using this is done like so:
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>() //Let me tell you about Foo...
.HasMany(f => f.Bars) //The property in the Foo class that links to Bar objects is Bars
.WithMany(b => b.Foos) //The property in the Bar class that links to Foo objects is Foos
.Map(m => {
m.MapLeftKey("FooID"); //Name of the foreign key column in the link table for Foo
m.MapRightKey("BarID"); //Name of the foreign key column in the link table for Bar
m.ToTable("FooBar"); //Name of the link table
});
You can then make changes to this table by linking/unlinking objects in your code. You pretty much do something like
myFoo.Bars.Add(myBar); //Add a row to the link table
myFoo.Bars.Remove(myBar) //Delete a row from the link table
For a full implementation you should google your version of EF.
In case of link tables that contain extra columns (for example a creation date) they are represented by a POCO just like all the other tables. If you're really paranoid about EF's ability to manage your link tables you can force it to go this route by adding a unique id column to your pure link tables, but I'd definitely advice against it.
Think of it this way: EF has been around for a while now and has achieved a certain degree of maturity. Combine this with the fact that many-to-many relationships are not exactly rare in databases. Do you really think the designers of EF haven't dealt with your case?
I'm fairly new to EF and STE's, but I've stumbled on a painful point recently, and I'm wondering how others are dealing with it...
For example, suppose I have two STE's: Employee and Project. It's a many-to-many relationship. Each entity has a navigation property to the other (i.e. Employee.Projects and Project.Employees).
In my UI, a user can create/edit an Employee and associate it with multiple Projects. When the user is ready to commit, a list of Employees is passed to the server to save. However, if an Employee is not added to the "save list" (i.e. it was discarded), but an association was made to one or more Projects, the ApplyChanges extension method is able to "resurrect" the Employee object because it was "connected" to the object graph via the association to a Project.
My "save" code looks something like this:
public void UpdateEmployees(IEnumerable<Entities.Employee> employees)
{
using (var context = new EmployeeModelContainer(_connectionString))
{
foreach (var employee in employees)
{
context.Employees.ApplyChanges(employee);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
I've been able to avoid this issue to now on other object graphs by using FKs to manipulate associations as described here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/diego/archive/2010/10/06/self-tracking-entities-applychanges-and-duplicate-entities.aspx
How does one handle this when a many-to-many association and navigation properties are involved?
Thanks.
While this answer's a year late, perhaps it will be of some help to you (or at least someone else)
The simple answer is this: do not allow Entity Framework to infer m:m relationships. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a way of preventing this, only how to deal with it after the fact.
By default, if I have a schema like this:
Employee EmployeeProject Project
----------- --------------- ----------
EmployeeId ---> EmployeeId |--> ProjectId
Name ProjectId ----- Name
... ...
Entity Framework will see that my EmployeeProject table is a simple association table with no additional information (for example, I might add a Date field to indicate when they joined a project). In such cases, it maps the relationship over an association rather than an entity. This makes for pretty code, as it helps to mitigate the oft-referenced impedence mismatch between a RDBMS and object-oriented development. After all, if I were just modeling these as objects, I'd code it the same way, right?
As you've seen, however, this can cause problems (even without using STE's, which cause even MORE problems with m:m relationships). So, what's a dev to do?
(The following assumes a DATABASE FIRST approach. Anything else and you're on your own)
You have two choices:
Add another column to your association table so that EF thinks it has more meaning and can't map it to an association. This is, of course, bad design, as you presumably don't need that column (otherwise you'd already have it) and you're only adding it because of the particular peculiarities of the ORM you've chosen. So don't.
After your context has been generated, map the association table yourself to an entity that you create by hand. To do that, follow the following steps:
Select the association in the designer and delete it. The designer will inform you that the table in question is no longer mapped and will ask you if you want to remove it from the model. Answer NO
Create a new entity (don't have it create a key property) and map it to your association table in the Mapping Details window
Right-click on your new entity and add an association
Correct the entity and multiplicity values (left side should have your association entity with a multiplicity of *, right should have the other entity with a multiplicity of 1)
Check the option that says "Add foreign key properties to the Entity"
Repeat for the other entity in the association
Fix the property names on the association entity (if desired...not strictly necessary but they're almost certainly wrong) and map them to the appropriate columns in the Mapping Details window
Select all of the scalar properties on your association entity and set them as EntityKey=True in the Properties window
Done!
Error 3007: Problem in Mapping Fragments starting at lines 186, 205: Non-Primary-Key column(s) [WheelID] are being mapped in both fragments to different conceptual side properties - data inconsistency is possible because the corresponding conceptual side properties can be independently modified.
I found several places on the web describing this error, but I simply don't understand them. (confused smiley goes here)
One
Two
Three
Four
There is something pretty fundamental here, I must be missing. Can you explain it, so that I understand it? Maybe using my real life example below?
Foreign key 1:N Wheels.Id -> Slices.WheelId
I add them to entity framework, and WheelId is not visible in the Slices-entity.
Doing some workaround (deleting the relationship from the db before adding tables to EF - then re-creating it and updating EF) I managed to get the WheelId to stay in Slices, but then I get the error mentioned at the top.
Since Slices.WheelId is an FK, you cannot expose it in your client model, period. There are ways to get the value, though.
var wheelId = someSlice.Wheels.ID;
Update In EF 4 you can do this by using FK Associations instead of independent associations.
Try to remove foreign property column from Entity set using entity model design it will solve your problem
For example
We have two tables one is customer and other one is order, using entity model design we added association between customers and orders when we do this Ado.net entity framework i will add navigation properties to both below tables.
Like
Customer.Orders - Here order is list
Order.Customer
One - Many relation.
So we need to remove property from with name CustomerId[Foreign key column] from Order entity set.
For reference:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/adodotnetentityframework/thread/2823634f-9dd1-4547-93b5-17bb8a882ac2/
I was able to overcome this problem by the following steps:
right click the designer window
Select 'update model from database'
Select Add AND make sure that the 'Include foreign key columns in the model' checkbox is selected.
click on Finish...
I had set foreign keys up in the database but framework still wasn't pulling them in correctly. So I tried to add the association myself.
However, when I did this I would get a mapping error. It took me A WHILE but I figured out. What I did was set up the association using the entity toolbox association tool and then you have to double click on the association (1 to many) line and set the primary and foreign key there. Hopefully, this to help others who might have the same problem. I couldn't find the answer anywhere.
I had this problem for quite a different reason, and the message was slightly different; it didn't say "data inconsistency is possible because the corresponding conceptual side properties can be independently modified."
I have a table involved in my model with a binary column where I store image data. I only want this data returned when I need it (performance is a feature), so I split the table using a method similar to this. Later on, I added a property to that table, then updated the model from the database. The wizard added the property to both entity types that refer to the table with the added property. I had to delete it from one of them to solve the error.
I've had this happen because Entity Framework Update wizard mismapped some keys (or did not update?). As a result, some columns were mistakenly labeled as keys, while actual key columns were treated as plain columns.
The solution was to manually open EDMX file, find the entities, and update the keys.
Couldn't get any of the answer to work with EF6. The problem seems to be the framework doesn't import the foreign keys correctly as Associations. My solution was removing foreign keys from the tables, and then manually adding the associations using Entity Framework model, using the following steps: Entity Framework - Add Navigation Property Manually
For LinQ to Entities queries in EF1, my workaround for not having access to the foreign key as a property is with the following code, which does not produce a join query to the associated table:
dbContext.Table1s.FirstOrDefault(c => (int?)c.Table2.Id == null)
i.e, the generated SQL is:
...WHERE ([Extent1].[Table2Id] IS NULL)...
Solution is to allow deleting Rule = Cascade on Sql association.
Same thing as to be done on .edmx model, adding element to
association:
<Association Name="FK_Wheels_Slices">
<End Role="Wheels" Type= "your tipe here" Multiplicity="1">
<OnDelete Action="Cascade" />
</End>
</Association>
I had a table already mapped in EF. I added two more tables which had foreign keys in the previously added table. I then got the 3007 error.
To fix the error I deleted all three tables from the EDMX file, and then re-added them all at once together (via "Update Model from Database..."), instead of in stages.
I checked my Error List window and noticed I had errors in the model. Fixed them and all is well
in my case I solved this error by tick (include foreign key columns in the model)
- update Model from database
- tick (include foreign key columns in the model)
- finish