I'm working to solve a very tedious problem.
I have a class called Nation and a class called NationAlly
public class Nation
{
public int ID {get; set;}
public int name {get;set;}
public List<NationAlly> NationAllies {get;set;}
}
public class NationAlly
{
public int ID {get; set;}
public int level {get;set;}
public Nation toNation {get;set;}
}
I'm using EF 4 and CodeFirst with a DbContext called NationsDB to manage my database on SQL Server 2008.
If I create a new object of type Nation and I try to call nationsDB.SaveChanges, I got the following exception:
"Multiplicity constraint violated. The role 'NationAlly_toNation_Target' of the relationship 'CodeFirstNamespace.NationAlly_toNation' has multiplicity 1 or 0..1."
I tried to save a Nation with NationAllies field null and this exception is not thrown, the nation table in the database gets all the correct values.
In my database the table Nation has 2 fields: ID(primary key), name
The table NationAlly has 3 fields: ID(primary key), level, NationID
The two tables are linked with a relationship where NationAlly.NationID is foreign key and Nation.ID is primary key.
Isn't strange? In my eyes the table NationAlly should have a field called NationID1 and another called NationID2 to create the "relationship" between a nation and a list of other nations.
What did I do wrong?
You are perhaps a victim of the EF Code-First mapping conventions which create automatically a relationship between NationAllies and toNation you don't want to have.
If I understand you correctly (but I am not 100 percent sure, if I do), you actually want to have two relationships and you have exposed only one end of the relationship in each of the entities. So, NationAllies does NOT point to toNation but to an "invisible" Owner nation in your NationAlly entity.
If that is the case you need to explicitly overwrite the convention mappings. In the Fluent API of EF 4.1 this could look like:
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Nation> Nations { get; set; }
public DbSet<NationAlly> NationAllies { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Nation>()
.HasMany(n => n.NationAllies)
.WithRequired()
.Map(conf => conf.MapKey("OwnerID"))
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<NationAlly>()
.HasRequired(a => a.toNation)
.WithMany()
.Map(conf => conf.MapKey("NationID"))
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
}
}
This mapping would create the two foreign keys OwnerID and NationID in the NationAllies table, both pointing to the primary key ID in the Nations table.
Edit
Here is the application I have tested with:
Create a new Console App in VS2010 / .NET 4.0, name it "NationsApp"
Add a reference to "EntityFramework.dll"
Clear the content of "Program.cs" and paste instead the following in:
Content of Program.cs:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace NationsApp
{
public class Nation
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public int name { get; set; }
public List<NationAlly> NationAllies { get; set; }
}
public class NationAlly
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public int level { get; set; }
public Nation toNation { get; set; }
}
public class NationsContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Nation> Nations { get; set; }
public DbSet<NationAlly> NationAllies { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Nation>()
.HasMany(n => n.NationAllies)
.WithRequired()
.Map(conf => conf.MapKey("OwnerID"))
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<NationAlly>()
.HasRequired(a => a.toNation)
.WithMany()
.Map(conf => conf.MapKey("NationID"))
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var context = new NationsContext())
{
try
{
// We have three Nations and two Allies
Nation nation1 = new Nation() {
NationAllies = new List<NationAlly>() };
Nation nation2 = new Nation() {
NationAllies = new List<NationAlly>() };
Nation nation3 = new Nation() {
NationAllies = new List<NationAlly>() };
NationAlly ally1 = new NationAlly();
NationAlly ally2 = new NationAlly();
// Nation1 has two Allies
// (Nation1 is the "owner" of both Allies)
nation1.NationAllies.Add(ally1);
nation1.NationAllies.Add(ally2);
// toNation of ally1 refers to Nation2
ally1.toNation = nation2;
// toNation of ally2 refers to Nation3
ally2.toNation = nation3;
context.Nations.Add(nation1);
context.Nations.Add(nation2);
context.Nations.Add(nation3);
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
}
}
}
}
You can set a breakpoint on "throw" to watch possible exceptions in e in the debugger.
This creates a database called NationsApp.NationsContext if you are using SQL Server Express and don't have any further connection strings defined.
It gives two relationships Nation_NationAllies (FK is "OwnerID") and NationAlly_toNation (FK is "NationID"). All columns are non-nullable. The result in the DB is the following:
In case this helps someone getting this error... I was getting this message while doing queries rather than saving to the database. My data design:
public class Base {
public int Id {get; set;}
}
public class Child {
[Key][ForeignKey("Base")] public int Id {get; set;}
public virtual Base Base {get; set;}
public Child() {
Base = new Base();
}
}
The problem was in the constructor. Turns out EF4.1 doesn't like when you initialize associations there! I removed that constructor and things started working again.
Related
I have an object which can optionally have a reference to a next and/or previous record. Something like this:
public class Foo
{
[Key]
public int Id {get; set;}
[ForeignKey("Previous")]
public int? PreviousId {get; set;}
public Foo Previous {get; set;}
[InverseProperty("Previous")]
public Foo Next {get; set;}
}
Unfortunately this does not work, instead resulting in the error message Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the types Foo and Foo.
The idea is that by setting the PreviousId, the Previous Foo will get its Next set automatically by EF. This is to prevent errors caused by Next and Previous getting out of sync. Also note that PreviousId can be null, in which case no record in the database should have a Next pointing at that record. Is there any way to implement this?
I've managed to achieve what you wanted by using fluent api aproach. I needed to remove PreiousId property from Foo class - it will be added later on by mapping.
public class Foo
{
[Key]
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Foo Previous { get; set; }
public virtual Foo Next { get; set; }
}
Change as well all your properties to virtual as this will allow ef to dynamically track state of the properties in the memory. Then inside DbContext derived class you need to override OnModelCreating method and define mapping there:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>()
.HasOptional(f => f.Next)
.WithOptionalPrincipal(f => f.Previous)
.Map(c => c.MapKey("PreviousId"));
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
This will add to Foo table PreviousId column which will be the foreign key of the relationship. It will define 1-0 relationship. If you assign one Foo entity to another's Previous property then assigned entity will have reference to it in Next property. I tested it with the following code:
using(MyDbContext context = new MyDbContext("Test"))
{
context.Database.Delete();
Foo foo1 = context.Foos.Create();
Foo foo2 = context.Foos.Create();
foo1.Next = foo2;
context.Foos.Add(foo1);
context.Foos.Add(foo2);
context.SaveChanges();
}
using (MyDbContext context = new MyDbContext("Test"))
{
Foo foo1 = context.Foos.OrderBy(f => f.Id).First();
Foo foo2 = context.Foos.OrderBy(f => f.Id).Skip(1).First();
// foo1.Next == foo2 and foo2.Previous == foo1
}
For those out there using entity framework core, this is what I wound up doing
public class LinkedListNode
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int? NextId { get; set; }
public virtual LinkedListNode Next { get; set; }
public int? PrevId { get; set; }
public virtual LinkedListNode Prev { get; set; }
public long SortOrder { get; set; }
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder builder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(builder);
builder.Entity<LinkedListNode>()
.HasOne<LinkedListNode>(x => x.Next)
.WithMany()
.HasPrincipalKey("Id")
.HasForeignKey("NextId")
.OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Restrict)
.IsRequired(false);
builder.Entity<LinkedListNode>()
.HasOne<LinkedListNode>(x => x.Prev)
.WithMany()
.HasPrincipalKey("Id")
.HasForeignKey("PrevId")
.OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Restrict)
.IsRequired(false);
}
I have entities A and B and I want to create 2 distinct 1-1 associations between A and B. A should play the role as principal. Like this:
public class A
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public B B1 {get; set;}
public B B2 {get; set;}
}
public class B
{
public int Id {get; set;}
}
Since EF does not support one-to-one foreign key associations I cannot create a working model/database with EF. To my this sounds like a serious limitation. Are there any plans to support such associations in an upcoming version of EF?
What is the best workaround for to get this working. I know about creating two one-2-many associations. However, that would make B the principal and gives me problems with cascading deletes.
Thanks for replying to my question. Below is an example of what I want to do, i.e., create two (or more) 1-to-1 associations between an entity A and another entity B. Is this something that EF could support in vNext, or else, why would it be a bad idea?
Thanks again,
Merijn
public class A
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int B1_Id {get; set;}
public B B1 {get; set;}
public int B2_Id {get; set;}
public B B2 {get; set;}
}
public class B
{
public int Id {get; set;}
}
public class SampleContext : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<A>().HasKey(c => c.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<B>().HasKey(c => c.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<A>().HasRequired(c => c.B1).WihOptional().ForeignKey(x=>x.B1_Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<A>().HasRequired(c => c.B2).WihOptional().ForeignKey(x=>x.B2_Id);
}
}
If "v-Next" is Entity Framework 6, then no, it apparently won't support one-to-one foreign key associations, as you can see on the roadmap for all features planned for EF 6.
You can also see that Unique Constraint support is not on the roadmap and still marked as "Under Review" on UserVoice.
Because a one-to-one foreign key association is basically a one-to-many association with a unique constraint on the foreign key column I would expect that one-to-one FK associations won't be implemented before Unique Constraint support is available. It's especially required if you want that A is the principal in your two relationships. Currently EF does not support relationships where the principal's key is not the primary key but some column with unique constraint.
In this blog post the feature is described and mentioned that it is "postponed", so let's hope for EF 7.
Perhaps it is a terminology issue.
In Code first EF, EF doesnt allow you to have 1:1 relationships with Principal and Dependent both with foreign keys to each other
or with the dependent having its own primary key unrelated to Principal.
With your example it looks like that it is a case of 2 navigation properties required.
And strictly speaking it is not 1:1. since you have 2 relationships to the same table.
you have 2 relationships of type 1:1.. EF sees this as many to 1.
If you have a true 1:1 relationship, EF will want the dependent to have the same Primary Key as the primary.
You can define Multiple NAVIGATION properties on Both Principle and dependent, which result in indexes.
So you may wish to investigate Many to 1 configurations
If you want the Primary to have an OPTINAL Foreign Key at DB level, You would need to ADD this FK later during migration or with script.
But arguably this is best seen as business logic/rule check rather than an OPTIONAL FK on principal.
So yes there are limitations in matching exactly what is possible on the DB.
But it is questionable is actually necessary in a code first scenario.
Neat trick here btw is to model in DB exactly what you want on Code first.
There use the EF Powertool nuget to reerse engineer Codefirst from DB.
EG mini DB with just the desired table relationships.
make a new project in Solution. Install Entity Framework Powertools.
Then use right click option in new project to "reverse engineer code first from DB".
It shows how to build that in code first if it can.... :-)
What I think you wanted to achieve... see code sample (sorry if I misunderstood the point your are making) code should execute if NUGET is loaded
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace EF_DEMO
{
class FK121
{
public static void ENTRYfk121(string[] args)
{
var ctx = new Context121();
ctx.Database.Create();
System.Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Main
{
public int MainId { get; set; }
public string BlaMain { set; get; }
public int? Sub1Id { set; get; } // Must be nullable since we want to use EF foreign key
public int? Sub2Id { set; get; } // Must be nullable since we want to use EF foreign key
public virtual Sub Sub1 { get; set; } // Reverse navigation
public virtual Sub Sub2 { get; set; } // Reverse navigation
// you may also need
public virtual ICollection<Sub> Subs { get; set; }
}
public class Sub
{
public int SubId { get; set; } // Deliberately DIFFERENT KEY TO MAIN.... not 1:1 so this is possible
public string blasub { set; get; }
public int MainId { set; get; } //set in API , this the FK
public virtual Main Main { get; set; } // van to Principal
}
public class Context121 : DbContext
{
static Context121()
{
Database.SetInitializer(new DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<Context121>());
}
public Context121()
: base("Name=Demo") { } // webconfig required to match
public DbSet<Main> Mains { get; set; }
public DbSet<Sub> Subs { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Main>().HasKey(t => t.MainId)
.HasOptional(t => t.Sub1)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(t=>t.Sub1Id) ; // tell EF the field is in POCO, use this please, otherwise it will create it.
modelBuilder.Entity<Main>()
.HasOptional(t => t.Sub2).WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(t=>t.Sub2Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<Sub>()
.HasKey(t => t.SubId)
.HasRequired(q => q.Main)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(t => t.MainId);
}
}
}
WEBCONFIG....
<connectionStrings>
<add name="Demo" connectionString="Data Source=localhost;Initial Catalog=Demo;Integrated Security=True;MultipleActiveResultSets=True;App=EntityFramework"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
</connectionStrings>
Explain what problem do you need to resolve? This is sample of one-to-one mapping in EF 5.0
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var context = new SampleContext())
{
var mainEntity = new MainEntity();
mainEntity.DetailEntity = new DetailEntity();
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
public class SampleContext : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<MainEntity>().HasKey(c => c.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<DetailEntity>().HasKey(c => c.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<MainEntity>().HasOptional(c => c.DetailEntity).WithRequired(p => p.MainEntity);
modelBuilder.Entity<DetailEntity>().HasRequired(c => c.MainEntity).WithOptional(p => p.DetailEntity);
}
public virtual DbSet<MainEntity> MainEntities { get; set; }
public virtual DbSet<DetailEntity> DetailEntities { get; set; }
}
public class MainEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public DetailEntity DetailEntity { get; set; }
}
public class DetailEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public MainEntity MainEntity { get; set; }
}
I have two tables that are built using codefirst entity framework.
public class TimeEntry:Entity
{
[Required]
[Display(Name = "Activity")]
public int ActivityId { get; set; }
public virtual Activity Activity { get; set; }
}
public class Activity:Entity
{
private ICollection<TimeEntry> _timeEntries;
[Required]
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<TimeEntry> TimeEntries
{
get
{
return _timeEntries ?? (_timeEntries = new List<TimeEntry>());
}
set
{
_timeEntries = value;
}
}
}
public class Entity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
These are the classes I have created for my Db. There is no problem with creating the database. When I try to perform CRUD operations I get the error
DataBinding: 'System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.Activity_AD12BF558F098271F1F51B3B1489B4B3B281FD0B686C8457333DE5BEE0E8B6A9' does not contain a property with the name 'ActivityId'
It is trying to find ActivityId in the Activity table however the primary key is Id. How do I map the foreign key ActivityId in the TimeEntry table to the primary key Id in the Activity table.
You can use fluent api to let EF know about you mappings.
public class ActivityMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Activity>
{
public ActivityMap()
{
this.HasKey(a => a.Id);
}
}
public class TimeEntryMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<TimeEntry>
{
public TimeEntryMap()
{
this.HasKey(t => t.Id);
// Relationships
this.HasRequired(t => t.Activity)
.WithMany(t => t.TimeEntries)
} .HasForeignKey(d => d.ActivityId);
}
Then in your context:
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new ActivityMap());
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new TimeEntryMap());
}
}
I think this will solve your issue.
Also, (as a side note) instead of defining _timeEntries, you can use auto implemented property for TimeEntries and initialize it in you ctor. like below:
public class Activity:Entity
{
public virtual ICollection<TimeEntry> TimeEntries { get; set; }
public Activity()
{
this.TimeEntries = new List<TimeEntry>();
}
}
hi i have the same problem
If one specifies DataKeyNames property as ID and the actual column name is CustomerID. It will throw the above error.
If one specifies DataTextField or DataValueField property as ID and the actual column name is CustomerID. It will throw the above error.
and found the answer here it work for me link
If you are using Code First, you need to indicate the mapping of ActivityId => Id by overriding OnModelCreating in your DbContext.
At a suggestion, it seems you are mixing the concerns of DTO and MVC ViewModel in the same entity. Why not separate these concerns into 2 different entities?
Confusing Situation
I have a situation where I have 2 entities where 1 inherits from the other, that need to map to 2 separate tables, but code use should be around the base of the 2 entities.
Details
public class Team
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Members { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Team> Teams { get; set; }
}
public class EmployeeInfo : Employee
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual decimal Amount { get; set; }
}
We have an existing database schema where Employee and EmployeeInfo are separate tables with a FK between EmployeeInfo_Id and Employee_Id.
In our system "managers" will be adding Employee's to the system, with a set of private information (more properties than listed above) like pay, and add them to a Team. Other areas of the system will be using the Team or Employee objects for various other things. We would like to have to code super simple if the mapping can be done.
When a manager creates a new employee we would like the code to look something like this:
public void Foo(string name, decimal pay)
{
// create the employee
var employee = new EmployeeInfo();
employee.Name = name;
employee.Pay = pay;
// add him/her to the team
_team.Employees.Add(employee); // the idea being that consumers of the Team entity would not get the separate employee info properties
// save the context
_context.SaveChanges();
}
The end result would be that the EmployeeInfo properties entered into the EmployeeInfo table and the base Employee data is entered into the Employee table and added to the Team via the association table TeamEmployees.
So far I'm trying the current mappings, and I get an invalid column named "Discriminator." When just adding an employee to a team.
public class TeamConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Team>
{
public TeamConfiguration()
{
ToTable("Team");
HasKey(t => t.Id);
HasMany(t => t.Members).WithMany(m => m.Teams)
.Map(m =>
{
m.MapLeftKey("Team_Id");
m.MapRightKey("Employee_Id");
m.ToTable("TeamEmployees");
});
}
}
public class EmployeeConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Employee>
{
public EmployeeConfiguration()
{
ToTable("Employee");
ToTable("EmployeeInfo");
HasKey(t => t.Id);
Property(p => p.Name);
HasMany(m => m.Teams)
.WithMany(t => t.Members)
.Map(m =>
{
m.MapLeftKey("Employee_Id");
m.MapRightKey("Team_Id");
m.ToTable("TeamEmployees");
});
}
}
Also, if I take the many-to-many between team and employee out of the mix I get a FK exception on Employee_Id to EmployeeInfo_Id.
Thanks, JR.
Discriminator is a column that's being added to your table when you use Table Per Hierarchy approach.
I think what you're looking for is "Table per Type (TPT)". Decorate your EmployeeInfo class as follows:
[Table("EmployeeInfo")]
public class EmployeeInfo : Employee
Or add below to your OnModelCreating event:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
...
modelBuilder.Entity<EmployeeInfo>().ToTable("EmployeeInfo");
...
}
Or, create the following class and use it like modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new EmployeeInfoConfiguration()); in OnModelCreating method:
public class EmployeeInfoConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<EmployeeInfo>
{
public EmployeeInfoConfiguration()
{
ToTable("EmployeeInfo");
}
}
This will cause EF to create EmployeeInfo table with necessary constraints.
Also, it's good to initialize your collections in your objects' constructors to prevent null exception. For example in Team class:
public Team()
{
this.Employees = new HashSet<Employee>();
}
I copied your code exactly, and changed the following parts:
public class Team
{
public Team()
{
this.Members = new HashSet<Employee>();
}
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Members { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
this.Teams = new HashSet<Team>();
}
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Team> Teams { get; set; }
}
[Table("EmployeeInfo")]
public class EmployeeInfo : Employee
{
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual decimal Amount { get; set; }
}
In the DbContext, no changes:
public partial class TestEntities : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
public DbSet<EmployeeInfo> Employee_Info { get; set; }
public DbSet<Team> Teams { get; set; }
}
and your working Foo method:
public static void Foo(string name, decimal pay)
{
var _team = new Team();
var context = new TestEntities();
context.Teams.Add(_team);
// create the employee
var employee = new EmployeeInfo();
employee.Name = name;
employee.Amount = pay;
context.Employees.Add(employee);
context.SaveChanges();
// add him/her to the team
_team.Members.Add(employee);
// save the context
context.SaveChanges();
}
Finally, remove ToTable("EmployeeInfo"); part from EmployeeConfiguration since you have mentioned this correctly in your mode creating event.
For more info about Table Per Type approach, check out this great article.
Okay, this should be really easy, but I've been tearing my hair out. Here's my POCO (which has to do with machine parts, so a part can be contained within a parent part):
public class Part
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Part ParentPart { get; set; }
}
When the database table is created, the column names are "ID", "Name", and "PartID". How do I change the name of that last column to "ParentPartID"?
Basically, you want to rename the foreign key in an Independent Association and this is the fluent API code that will do it:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Part>()
.HasOptional(p => p.ParentPart)
.WithMany()
.IsIndependent()
.Map(m => m.MapKey(p => p.ID, "ParentPartID"));
}
However, due to a bug in CTP5, this code throw as exception in self referencing associations (which is your association type). The workaround would be to change your association to a Foreign Key Association as follows:
public class Part
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int ParentPartID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentPartID")]
public Part ParentPart { get; set; }
}