I'm using MVC3 VS2010 with EF4.1, I have created my DB using SQL Server and I import it to the MVC3 Web Application.
I have a challenge here, when I come to Update Model from Database I do lost all my models files modifications, for example if I'm using attributes in some models for validation or so all that is overwritten with the new model properties.
Is there anyway to Update Model from Database without losing models' information?
OR
where should I define validation on my models instead of using the models' files directly?
Update: As this is still relatively popular, I have created a blog post on this.
http://jnye.co/Posts/19/adding-validation-to-models-created-by-entity-framework-database-first-c
If you want to validate your models, and not use viewModels, use partial classes to define validation attributes. For example:
Say you have a model like
public class User {
public string Name { get; set; }
}
If you wanted to put a string length validator on it you would need to create a partial class and utilise the MetadataTypeAttribute (this lives in System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations)
The following classes should be defined in their own separate file, NOT put in the same file as your auto generated models.
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(UserMetadata))]
public partial class User {
}
You then define your validation in the UserMetadata class as follows
public class UserMetadata{
[StringLength(50)]
public string Name {get; set;}
}
EDIT
I just found this article which explains the solution in a little more detail
http://themonitoringguy.com/tips-tricks/validating-microsoft-entity-framework-objects-c-mvc/
No, the files will be regenerated every time.
All the classes are defined as partial so you can easily add DataAnnotations using the MetadataTypeAttribute.
Let's say you have a User class defined as follow:
public partial class User {
public string Name {get;set;}
}
Create a IUser interface
public interface IUser {
[Required]
[DisplayName("User name")]
string Name {get;set;}
}
And then extend the User class to specify that IUser will be used as metadata.
[MetadataType(typeof(IUser))]
public partial class User {} //Empty class body
The first rule of any designer is: It it generates any code you can't modify it because it will be completely deleted next time you update anything in the designer.
All generated classes are partial so you can create your own partial part and put your custom logic there. You obviously can't add attributes to properties defined in auto generated part. In case of data annotations it is possible either through buddy classes or by custom T4 template which will contain your own logic to decide which data annotation should be added during code generation. Both scenarios are mostly considered as a bad practice because you should have separate view model per view with validation needed exactly for that view.
Check the namespace of the MainClass is same as Partial, and have the same Attributes. That is my solution.
example:
Metadata: Create this everywhere u want
public class FormMetadata
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public Nullable<bool> IsEnable { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> CreationDate { get; set; }
public int CompanieId { get; set; }
public string RegularExpression { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Field> Fields { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore]
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
}
MainClass
namespace Transactions.Model
{
public partial class Form
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public Form()
{
this.Fields = new HashSet<Field>();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public Nullable<bool> IsEnable { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> CreationDate { get; set; }
public int CompanieId { get; set; }
public string RegularExpression { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<Field> Fields { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
}
}
Partial To Use the MetadataType
namespace Transactions.Model
{
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(FormMetadata))]
public partial class Form
{
}
}
If you have problems to Create a Class Partial in the same NameSpace? Don't worry:
Create a Folder
Create the Class Partial in this folder
Change Namespace at the same of MainClass
Related
One of the overload methods of SelectList (from the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Rendering namespace) is defined as:
public SelectList(IEnumerable items, string dataValueField, string dataTextField);
When I scaffold an "MVC Controller with view, using Entity Framework" and I create my CRUD pages, I may see the following method inside of my Controller:
public IActionResult Create()
{
ViewData["Continent"] = new SelectList(_context.Continent, **"ContinentID", "ContinentID"**);
ViewData["Country"] = new SelectList(_context.Country, **"CountryID", "CountryName"**);
return View();
}
The field supplied to the dataTextField parameter is different between Continent/Country. How does MVC/EntityFramework decide which field to supply to dataTextField when scaffolding a Controller? Is there something in the individual models or in the DbContext that I am overlooking? I'd like for the dataTextField of Continent to be "ContinentName" so that I don't have to change it manually in the future when I need to delete and then re-scaffold the Controller.
Edit:
Here are the model definitions:
The Model of the Controller that I posted above:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace Project.Models
{
public partial class ProjectForm
{
public int ProjectFormID { get; set; }
public int ContinentID { get; set; }
public int CountryID { get; set; }
public virtual Continent ContinentNavigation { get; set; }
public virtual Country CountryNavigation { get; set; }
}
}
The one that displays the "CountryName" in the dataTextField the way that I want to see it:
namespace Project.Models
{
public partial class Country
{
public int CountryID { get; set; }
public string CountryName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ProjectForm> ProjectForm { get; set; }
}
}
The one that displays the "ContinentID" in the dataTextField the way that I do NOT want to see it:
namespace Project.Models
{
public partial class Continent
{
public int ContinentID { get; set; }
public string ContinentName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ProjectForm> ProjectForm { get; set; }
}
}
There is nothing obviously different to me in the model definitions unfortunately.
I stumbled across this post today (a bit late), but see it still hasn't been answered.
While I can't say why the scaffolding chose to use one field over another in your scenarios (unless you initially had your class/model written differently the last time you cleaned/built your project), I can say how to force it to use a specific column.
Add the DisplayColumn attribute to your class. You will need to rebuild before scaffolding again for the change to take.
namespace Project.Models
{
[DisplayColumn("ContinentName")]
public partial class Continent
{
public int ContinentID { get; set; }
public string ContinentName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ProjectForm> ProjectForm { get; set; }
}
}
Let's say I have the following 2 classes that will represent a relationship between 2 DB Tables (created using EF Core Migrations):
public class Author
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Book Book { get; set; }
}
public class Book
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public String name { get; set; }
public string Genre { get; set; }
}
These 2 classes are added in as a DbSet in my ApplicationDbContext class.
When I retrieve the Author record, I want the Book object to also be populated info. It seems I have to retrieve it in the following way:
return _context.Author.Include(x => x.Book).ToList();
If I had a dozen of different objects in the Author class does that mean I have to chain the .Include() method calls for each object? Is there a catch-all method that will tell me to populate all of the objects inside the Author class? Something like .IncludeAll() perhaps?
You can use lazy loading enabled on your EF core. This way you don't need to include it every time.
Basically you need to add virtual keyword to your book entity:
public class Author{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set; }
public virtual Book Book {get; set; }
}
public class Book {
public int Id {get; set;}
public String name {get; set;}
public string Genre {get; set; }
}
Then you need to enable lazy loading by installing the Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies package and enabling it with a call to UseLazyLoadingProxies. For example:
In you startup.cs class modify the dbcontext as below
services.AddDbContext<BloggingContext>(
b => b.UseLazyLoadingProxies()
.UseSqlServer(myConnectionString));
Please refer the following link to understand how lazy loading works
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/querying/related-data
I have looked and havent seen anything on this, most information relates to directly extending Identity tables.
I have extended Application User like so:
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser<long>
{
//[Key()]
//public long Id { get; set; }
[Required()]
[MaxLength(100)]
public string Password { get; set; }
[Required()]
[MaxLength(100)]
override public string UserName { get; set; }
[Required()]
[MaxLength(50)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[Required()]
[MaxLength(50)]
public string LastName { get; set; }
public virtual Organization Organization { get; set; }
}
public class ApplicationRole : IdentityRole<long>
{
}
along with other neccesary changes to ApplicationDbContext (to change the primary key to long). Other than that, its fairly standard Identity stuff. I add migrations, update; the usual tables are created plus Organization table because it's a navigation property. Organization itself has no navigation properties. Keep in mind, for the most part I was handed these classes as part of a project and am trying to work within the confines of what I've been given.
Now, I have several classes that I need to add, one as an example:
public class Event
{
[Key()]
public long Id { get; set; }
[Required()]
[MaxLength(200)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Index]
public virtual Organization Organization { get; set; }
}
There are a handful of other something inter related classes. So in a standard code first core 2 app with no existing db, I would create the context class that derives from DbContext, whereas in Identity ApplicationDbContext (the default name) derives from IdentityDbContext.
So before I start breaking things, are there any concerns or special considerations before I do something like this?
public ApplicationDbContext(DbContextOptions<ApplicationDbContext> options)
: base(options)
{
public DbSet<Event> Events{ get; set; }
public DbSet<OtherClass> OtherClasses{ get; set; }
}
Note: I did find this post which seems to do what I am talking about but it is for MVC 5
You can just add the classes as properties, i.e. public DbContext<Class> Classes {get;set;} to the ApplicationDbContext class and you will get data access. They don't need to be related. If you need a sample let me know. Hope this helps.
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 am getting Error when trying to run this code.
Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the
types 'AddressBook.DAL.Models.User' and 'AddressBook.DAL.Models.User'.
The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured
using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.
The objective is that i am creating baseClass that has commonfield for all the tables.
IF i don't use base class everything works fine.
namespace AddressBook.DAL.Models
{
public class BaseTable
{
[Required]
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
[Required]
public DateTime DateLastUpdatedOn { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual int CreatedByUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CreatedByUserId")]
public virtual User CreatedByUser { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual int UpdatedByUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UpdatedByUserId")]
public virtual User UpdatedByUser { get; set; }
[Required]
public RowStatus RowStatus { get; set; }
}
public enum RowStatus
{
NewlyCreated,
Modified,
Deleted
}
}
namespace AddressBook.DAL.Models
{
public class User : BaseTable
{
[Key]
public int UserID { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string MiddleName { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
}
You need to provide mapping information to EF. The following article describes code-first strategies for different EF entity inheritance models (table-per-type, table-per-hierarchy, etc.). Not all the scenarios are directly what you are doing here, but pay attention to the mapping code because that's what you need to consider (and it's good info in case you want to use inheritance for other scenarios). Note that inheritance does have limitations and costs when it comes to ORMs, particularly with polymorphic associations (which makes the TPC scenario somewhat difficult to manage). http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2010/12/24/inheritance-mapping-strategies-with-entity-framework-code-first-ctp5-part-1-table-per-hierarchy-tph.aspx
The other way EF can handle this kind of scenario is by aggregating a complex type into a "fake" compositional relationship. In other words, even though your audit fields are part of some transactional entity table, you can split them out into a common complex type which can be associated to any other entity that contains those same fields. The difference here is that you'd actually be encapsulting those fields into another type. So for example, if you moved your audit fields into an "Audit" complext type, you would have something like:
User.Audit.DateCreated
instead of
User.DateCreated
In any case, you still need to provide the appropriate mapping information.
This article here explains how to do this: http://weblogs.asp.net/manavi/archive/2010/12/11/entity-association-mapping-with-code-first-part-1-one-to-one-associations.aspx