I am a MVC EF newb.
I'm trying to do a very simple query. Maybe I'm thinking about it too much in the "SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE BLAHBLAH > 3" format and not in a class-based MVC EF layout.
Anyway I have a model/class called "Messages". I'm trying to get all the messages with a specific username. So I have something like this:
var mesg = from msg in elkdb.Messages
where mydb.Messages.user = Membership.GetUser()
select msg;
Visual web developer flags the .msg part of the "where" line and says:
Error 2
'System.Data.Entity.DbSet'
does not contain a definition for
'msg' and no extension method 'msg'
accepting a first argument of type
'System.Data.Entity.DbSet'
could be found (are you missing a
using directive or an assembly
reference?)
msg is defined in the class as follows:
public class Message
{
public long ID { get; set; }
...
public string msg { get; set; }
}
And I know I have scope access to Message at this point.
Am I laying this out wrong? Do I just have the syntax incorrect?
Thanks for your help!
EDIT: I mistakenly had "mydb.Messages.msg = Membership.GetUser()" earlier because it was way past my bedtime.
I think the query are wrong
var mesg = from MSG in elkdb.Messages
where MSG.msg == Membership.GetUser()
select MSG;
does the msg prop match with UserName?
Related
With its recent improvements, I'm looking to move from Dapper back to EF (Core).
The majority of our code currently uses the standard patterns of mapping entities to tables, however we'd also like to be able to make simple ad-hoc queries that map to a simple POCO.
For example, say I have a SQL statement which returns a result set of strings. I created a class as follows...
public class SimpleStringDTO
{
public string Result { get; set; }
}
.. and called it as such.
public DbSet<SimpleStringDTO> SingleStringResults { get; set; }
public IQueryable<SimpleStringDTO> Names()
{
var sql = $"select name [result] from names";
var result = this.SingleStringResults.FromSql(sql);
return result;
}
My thoughts are that I could use the same DBSet and POCO for other simple queries to other tables.
When I execute it, EF throws an error "The entity type 'SimpleStringDTO' requires a primary key to be defined.".
Do I really need to define another field as a PK? There'll be cases where there isn't a PK defined. I just want something simple and flexible. Ideally, I'd rather not define a DBSet or POCO at all, just return the results straight to an IEnumerable<string>.
Can someone please point me towards best practises here?
While I wait for EF Core 2.1 I've ended up adding a fake key to my model
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
and then returning a fake Guid from SQL.
var sql = $"select newid(), name [result] from names";
Is it possible to call a TVF in EF6 Code First?
I started a new project using EF6 Database first and EF was able to import a TVF into the model and call it just fine.
But updating the model became very time consuming and problematic with the large read-only db with no RI that I'm stuck dealing with.
So I tried to convert to EF6 code first using the Power Tools Reverse Engineering tool to generate a context and model classes.
Unfortunately the Reverse Engineering tool didn't import the TVFs.
Next I tried to copy the DBFunctions from my old Database First DbContext to the new Code First DbContext, but that gave me an error that my TVF:
"cannot be resolved into a valid type or function".
Is it possible to create a code first Fluent mapping for TVFs?
If not, is there a work-around?
I guess I could use SPs instead of TVFs, but was hoping I could use mostly TVFs to deal with the problematic DB I'm stuck with.
Thanks for any work-around ideas
This is now possible. I created a custom model convention which allows using store functions in CodeFirst in EF6.1. The convention is available on NuGet http://www.nuget.org/packages/EntityFramework.CodeFirstStoreFunctions. Here is the link to the blogpost containing all the details: http://blog.3d-logic.com/2014/04/09/support-for-store-functions-tvfs-and-stored-procs-in-entity-framework-6-1/
[Tested]
using:
Install-Package EntityFramework.CodeFirstStoreFunctions
Declare a class for output result:
public class MyCustomObject
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Rank { get; set; }
}
Create a method in your DbContext class
[DbFunction("MyContextType", "SearchSomething")]
public virtual IQueryable<MyCustomObject> SearchSomething(string keywords)
{
var keywordsParam = new ObjectParameter("keywords", typeof(string))
{
Value = keywords
};
return (this as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext
.CreateQuery<MyCustomObject>(
"MyContextType.SearchSomething(#keywords)", keywordsParam);
}
Add
public DbSet<MyCustomObject> SearchResults { get; set; }
to your DbContext class
Add in the overriden OnModelCreating method:
modelBuilder.Conventions.Add(new FunctionsConvention<MyContextType>("dbo"));
And now you can call/join with
a table values function like this:
CREATE FUNCTION SearchSomething
(
#keywords nvarchar(4000)
)
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN
(SELECT KEY_TBL.RANK AS Rank, Id
FROM MyTable
LEFT JOIN freetexttable(MyTable , ([MyColumn1],[MyColumn2]), #keywords) AS KEY_TBL
ON MyTable.Id = KEY_TBL.[KEY]
WHERE KEY_TBL.RANK > 0
)
GO
I was able to access TVF with the code below. This works in EF6. The model property names have to match the database column names.
List<MyModel> data =
db.Database.SqlQuery<MyModel>(
"select * from dbo.my_function(#p1, #p2, #p3)",
new SqlParameter("#p1", new System.DateTime(2015,1,1)),
new SqlParameter("#p2", new System.DateTime(2015, 8, 1)),
new SqlParameter("#p3", 12))
.ToList();
I actually started looking into it in EF6.1 and have something that is working on nightly builds. Check this and this out.
I have developed a library for this functionality. You can review my article on
UserTableFunctionCodeFirst.
You can use your function without writing SQL query.
Update
First of all you have to add reference to the above mentioned library and then you have to create parameter class for your function. This class can contain any number and type of parameter
public class TestFunctionParams
{
[CodeFunctionAttributes.FunctionOrder(1)]
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Name("id")]
[CodeFunctionAttributes.ParameterType(System.Data.SqlDbType.Int)]
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Now you have to add following property in your DbContext to call function and map to the property.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Schema("dbo")] // This is optional as it is set as dbo as default if not provided.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.Name("ufn_MyFunction")] // Name of function in database.
[CodeFunctionAttributes.ReturnTypes(typeof(Customer))]
public TableValueFunction<TestFunctionParams> CustomerFunction { get; set; }
Then you can call your function as below.
using (var db = new DataContext())
{
var funcParams = new TestFunctionParams() { Id = 1 };
var entity = db.CustomerFunction.ExecuteFunction(funcParams).ToList<Customer>();
}
This will call your user defined function and map to the entity.
I have an object that has a char property:
public class Product
{
public char Code
{
get;
set;
}
}
Entity Framework doesn't seem to be able to map chars (this field is missing from the database when I create the database schema from my model objects). Is there anyway I can map the char (e.g. to a string) using the fluent API? I don't want to change the model objects as they are part of a legacy shared library.
Char is not valid primitive type for entity framework = entity framework doesn't map it. If you check CSDL reference you will see list of valid types (char is not among them).
Database char(1) is translated as string (SQL to CSDL translation). Char is described as non-unicode string with fixed length 1.
The only ugly option is second mapped property using string and your char non-mapped property will just use string[0] from that property. That is just another example how some simple type mapping or converters are damn missing in EF.
In Fluent API you can specify the database column data type using the HasColumnType method like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Product>()
.Property(p => p.Code)
.HasColumnType("char");
According to Andre Artus' answer here, HasColumnType is available in EF4.1.
For those using Data Annotations, the ColumnAttribute can accomplish the same thing.
[Column(TypeName="char")]
public string Code { get; set; }
[Column( TypeName = "char(1)" )]
works for me with EF core 3.1.4
I have tried all the ways I have imagined and I must say the the accepted answer is the unique way to solve the problem of the char type as far as I know.
The char type isn't available for its use in EntityFramework.
Fluent API is included in this restriction.
If you try to put a char on the Property(p => p.MyCharProperty) will give you an Exception.
That means that char properties aren't available for Fluent API nor Attributes.
The easiest solution is this (as proposed by Ladislav Mrnka).
public class Product
{
public char Code { get; set; }
[Column("Code", TypeName="char")]
[MaxLength(1)]
public string CodeString
{
get { return Code.ToString(); }
set { Code = value[0]; }
}
}
One note: you can't put the property private, protected or internal. Must be public.
Fluent API version would be like this.
public class Product
{
public char Code { get; set; }
//We need the property but we will use the Fluent API to replace the attributes
public string CodeString
{
get { return Code.ToString(); }
set { Code = value[0]; }
}
}
modelBuilder.Entity<Product>().Property(p => p.Code)
.HasTypeName("char")
.HasMaxLength(1)
There is alternate ways to tackle this issue for TESTING purpose only. Make the field not null to null able for time being from design mode. Sometime it is restricted SQL Management Studio. (Change setting Tools -> Option ->Designer -> Table Database designer -> Uncheck "Prevent saving changes that required table creation"
I'm in the process of building the capability for a user to perform ad-hoc queries on a SQL Server database. The resulting query will take on the following basic form:
SELECT <ONE TO MANY USER SELECTED FIELDS>
FROM <ONE TO MANY TABLES DETERMINED BY FIELDS SELECTED BY USER>
WHERE <ZERO TO MANY CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTED FIELDS>
It's a guarantee that the selection will most likely span more than one table.
Some (not all) of the fields may have 0 or more filter criteria for a particular field.
My application is using the default EF4 classes within ASP.NET MVC 2 using C#. I am currently passing in an object called QueryItem that contains all the information for a particular criteria.
My question(s) are:
What is the best approach for coding this? (Code samples of what I have to date below).
Can this be done with Linq2SQL or should I use ADO.NET(My current approach)
If ADO.NET is the best way, how do you access the DBConnection within EF4?
Note: I intend to refactor this into SQLParameter objects, to protect against SQL injection. My goal right now is best practice in developing the query first.
QueryItem class:
public class QueryItem
{
public bool IsIncluded { get; set; }
public bool IsRequired { get; set; }
public string LabelText { get; set; }
public string DatabaseLoc { get; set; }
public List<string> SelectedValue { get; set; }
public List<SelectListItem> SelectList { get; set; }
}
Query Parsing Code
foreach(QueryItem qi in viewModel.StandardQueryItems)
{
string[] dLoc = qi.DatabaseLoc.Split(new Char[] { '.' }); //Split the table.fieldname value into a string array
if(qi.IsIncluded == true) //Check if the field is marked for inclusion in the final query
{
fields.Append(qi.DatabaseLoc + ","); //Append table.fieldname to SELECT statement
if(!tables.ToString().Contains(dLoc[0])) // Confirm that the table name has not already been added to the FROM statement
{
tables.Append(dLoc[0] + ","); //Append the table value to the FROM statement
}
}
if(qi.SelectedValue != null)
{
if(qi.SelectedValue.Count == 1)
{
query.Append(qi.DatabaseLoc + " = '" + qi.SelectedValue[0].ToString() + "'");
}
else
{
foreach(string s in qi.SelectedValue)
{
//Needs to handle "IN" case properly
query.Append(qi.DatabaseLoc + " IN " + qi.SelectedValue.ToString());
}
}
}
}
I have built a similar system to what you are describing in the past by passing in a single parameter to a stored procedure of type xml. By doing so, you can actually specify(in xml), what all you would like to report off of and build the SQL necessary to return the results you want.
This also makes your C# code easier, as all you have to do is generate some xml that your procedure will read. Generating Dynamic SQL is definitely not something you should use unless you have to, but when you want to allow users to dynamically select what they want to report off of, it's pretty much the only way to go about doing it.
Another option for you might be to look into Reporting Services - that will allow the user to pick what fields they want to view and save that particular 'report' in their own section where they can then go back and run it again at any time.. You could also create the reports for them if they aren't computer savvy(which is a lot easier to do with report builder, provided that all they need is data and no special features).
Either way you go about it, their are pros and cons to both solutions.. You'll have to determine which option is best for you.
xml/dynamic sql: Hard to maintain/make changes to.(I feel sorry for anyone who has to come behind someone who is generating dynamic sql and try to understand the logic behind the mess).
reporting services: very easy to spit out reports that look good, but it's a little less flexible and it's not free.
My task is to change the ErrorMessage property of the DataAnnotation validation attribute in MVC2.0. For example I should be able to pass an ID instead of the actual error message for the Model property and use that ID to retrieve some content(error message) from a another service e.g database, and display that error message in the View instead of the ID. In order to do this I need to set the DataAnnotation validation attribute’s ErrorMessage property.
[StringLength(2, ErrorMessage = "EmailContentID.")]
[DataType(DataType.EmailAddress)]
public string Email { get; set; }
It seems like an easy task by just overriding the DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider ‘s
protected override IEnumerable GetValidators(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext context, IEnumerable attributes)
However it seems to be a complicated enough.
a. MVC DatannotationsModelValidator’s ErrorMessage property is read only. So I cannot set anything here
b. System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotationErrorMessage property(get and set) which is already set in MVC DatannotationsModelValidator so we cannot set again. If you try to set you get “The property cannot set more than once…” error message appears.
public class CustomDataAnnotationProvider : DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider
{
protected override IEnumerable<ModelValidator> GetValidators(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext context, IEnumerable<Attribute> attributes)
{
IEnumerable<ModelValidator> validators = base.GetValidators(metadata, context, attributes);
foreach (ValidationAttribute validator in validators.OfType<ValidationAttribute>())
{
messageId = validator.ErrorMessage;
validator.ErrorMessage = "Error string from DB And" + messageId ;
}
//......
}
}
Can anyone please help me on this?
Here is the question: What is your motivation to changing the error message property?
Think this through very carefully, as you are heading down a path where you are obfuscating what is actually happening in the application. Certainly the database informatino is useful, but it is not really part of the validation, nor should it be.
When you head in this direction, you are essentially saying that the validation can only be invalid if there is a database problem. I see two issues with this:
It breaks the separation of concerns. You are reporting a persistance error in the model, which is not where it occurred.
The solution is not unit testable, as you must engage the database.
I don't like either of the two above.
Can you solve this? Possibly if you will create your own custom validation attribute. I would have to check and ensure that is correct. Another option is to aim for custom validation:
http://haacked.com/archive/2009/11/19/aspnetmvc2-custom-validation.aspx
This article can also help you head in the direction you desire:
http://ryanrivest.com/blog/archive/2010/01/15/reusable-validation-error-message-resource-strings-for-dataannotations.aspx
Do you want to solve this? Not really if you are attempting to keep a proper separation of concerns in your application. I would not polute my validation error message (this is not valid) with a database error (I am not valid, but the database also blew up). Just my two cents.
There are built in ways to get the error message via a resource. Instead of a database lookup to get a resource at runtime, generate resources from your database and use that for your error messages.
You can then use the ErrorMessageResourceName and ErrorMessageResourceType to allow the DataAnnotation to perform a resource lookup instead of hard-coding a specific string.
public sealed class MyModel
{
[Required(
ErrorMessageResourceName="MyDescriptionResource",
ErrorMessageResourceType=typeof(MyCustomResource))]
public string Description { get; set; }
}
Also you may want to have a look at ValidationAttribute.FormatErrorMessage Method on msdn.
This method formats an error message
by using the ErrorMessageString
property. This method appends the name
of the data field that triggered the
error to the formatted error message.
You can customize how the error
message is formatted by creating a
derived class that overrides this
method.
A quick sample (and not meant to be a definitive example)
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false,
Inherited = true)]
public sealed class PostCodeValidationAttribute
: ValidationAttribute
{
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if( value == null )
return true;
string postCode = value as string;
if( string.IsNullOrEmpty(postCode) )
return true;
if ( !PostCode.IsValidPostCode(postCode, this.PostCodeStyle) )
return false;
return true;
}
public PostCodeStyle PostCodeStyle { get; set; }
public override string FormatErrorMessage(string name)
{
return string.Format(
"{0} is not a valid postcode for {1}", name, PostCodeStyle);
}
}
* I've omitted the PostCodeStyle enumeration as well as the PostCode class for validating a postcode.