I am using Entity Framework and I ran into an odd build error.
I am building a forum and I set up a table in the database for "ignores" when people don't like each other they will ignore someone. The table has two columns and together they are the primary keys.
PK InitiatingUser
PK IgnoredUser
When EF maps this table I get this error:
Error 7 Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines 1467, 1477:Two entities with possibly different keys are mapped to the same row. Ensure these two mapping fragments map both ends of the AssociationSet to the corresponding columns.
I opened up the edmx in the XML editor and navigated to the offending lines.
<MappingFragment StoreEntitySet="Ignores">
<ScalarProperty Name="IgnoredUser" ColumnName="IgnoredUser" />
<ScalarProperty Name="InitiatingUser" ColumnName="InitiatingUser" />
</MappingFragment>
I am just getting started with EF and I don't understand what is going on or what the issue might be.
Edit
The relationships between ignores used to have foreign keys mapping both initiating user and ignored user to the primary key (username) of users table. That was how it was when I first mapped EF to this table. I have since deleted the FKs to see if that would help but it didn't.
This is likely due to including a many-to-many join table in your entity model, or what EF thinks is such a table (possibly such as one that doesn't have its own self-contained key, but whose identity is made up of two or more foreign keys).
So, for example, let's say you have the following tables:
Person
Address
PersonAddress (contains only PersonID and AddressID)
In your entity model, you should only add Person and Address. If you add PersonAddress, then EF will throw the error. According to this MSDN Q&A, EF will take the join table into account automatically.
I don't know what was wrong here, but I just deleted the table from the ORM and the DB then recreated it with an actual ID column, instead of two primary keys. I re-mapped the table, compiled, and all is well now. It would have been convenient to do it the way I had it, but oh well.
If anyone has any insight let me know. I'd rather accept someone else's answer.
PK InitiatingUser;
PK IgnoredUser
two primary key cannot allow edmx file.so create sno column in that table and make that as primary key . remove the pk of InitiatingUser and IgnoredUser.
now in that two column there is no primary key available.
like
Pk sno;
FK InitiatingUser;
FK IgnoredUser
Related
I'm new to DBIC. I've imported data into a database. It's not possible to create relationships between the tables because, apparently, not all the values in the child table's foreign key column have a corresponding value in the parent table.
So is it possible to still do joins between the tables? I've skimmed through the tutorial and documentation but found nothing that addresses this problem.
You can of course define relationships in your DBIC schema that don't have a matching constraint in the database.
If you use $schema->deploy it will automatically generate constraints for all foreign key columns.
I am using VS2012 and the Entity designer to generate both the database and the models. I have a very basic scenario of Table1 to Table1and2JoinTable to Table2. Something like Students, Classes, StudentClasses. You can have many students in many classes. I would like to have a cascading delete. So if you delete a student any rows in the StudentClass join table are deleted for that student id. Same for deleting a class any rows in the StudentClass are deleted for that class id. After setting up the many to many association in the designer and setting the cascade delete options you get the following error when you attempt to generate the database:
Error 132: End 'Student' on relationship 'Model1.StudentClass' cannot have operation specified since its multiplicity is ''. Operations cannot be specified on ends with multiplicity ''.
Here is a small example:
Here is the association created:
And the resulting error messages:
Here is a portion of the SQL code for generating the database tables:
-- Creating foreign key on [Students_Id] in table 'StudentClass'
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[StudentClass]
ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_StudentClass_Student]
FOREIGN KEY ([Students_Id])
REFERENCES [dbo].[Students]
([Id])
ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
-- This should be ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
GO
-- Creating foreign key on [Classes_Id] in table 'StudentClass'
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[StudentClass]
ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_StudentClass_Class]
FOREIGN KEY ([Classes_Id])
REFERENCES [dbo].[Classes]
([Id])
ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
-- This should be ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
GO
I know how to work around this by just editing the database script and add in the on delete cascade option. But, I don't want to do this because I am going to come back to the designer many times as the project grows and I don't want to have to remember this step every time.
Has anyone figured out how to resolve this?
It seems to be an edmx restriction, which I don't really understand. Code-first is perfectly capable of generating a junction table with two cascading ON DELETE constraints, but model-first and database-first do not allow the same configuration in the edmx. Normally, cascade actions are configured on the 'one' end of an association. Maybe it is too complex to check the validity of cascade actions on '*' ends (only when both ends are '*').
For the cascaded delete to happen with a context based on an edmx model, you have to load a parent and its children and then delete the parent.
var cls = db.Classes.Include(c => c.Students).Single(c => c.Id = 1);
db.Classes.Remove(cls);
db.SaveChanges();
The executed SQL statements show that the Class is fetched from the database in a JOIN statement with Student. Then the StudentClasss and the Class are deleted respectively.
Obviously, this is much more expensive than enabling cascaded delete in the database.
The work-around to modify the DDL each time after is was generated is not attractive, of course. But I think the only alternative is to make StudentClass part of the model and configure cascaded delete on the 'one' ends of the new associations. Or go code-first.
First of all make sure that you have an ON DELETE CASCADE specified in your Foreign Keys on database side.
I had similar problem and just adding ON DELETE CASCADE solve it instead of setting End1OnDelete and End2OnDelete properties.
I have a junction table with and idenity primary key columns to realize a many to many relationship. Visual Studio automatically detects it as a many to many relationship and the junction table is not an entity.
How can i realize it that also this table is generated as an entity? I need this for breeze.js .
You just need to add additional columns (or properties) to that table (or model).
You said that your table has acolumn named ID and it's the primary key withe IsIdentity set to true. It must works, I'm using this approach...
There must be a problem or missing with your table definition. However, if all are OK, just add a nullable column in your table and update your model from database. The problem will go away.
I've got database tables like this:
A person may be a member of many teams. A team may have many members. Each person may have a position (think job title) within the team.
I've tried to set this up with ADO.NET Entity Framework and get errors:
Error 3021: Problem in mapping
fragments starting at line ... Each of
the following columns in table
Membership is mapped to multiple
conceptual side properties:
Membership.PersonId is mapped to
<MembershipPerson.Membership.PersonId,
MembershipPerson.Person.Id>
and
error 3021: Problem in mapping
fragments starting at line ... Each of
the following columns in table
Membership is mapped to multiple
conceptual side properties:
Membership.TeamID is mapped to
<MembershipTeam.Membership.TeamId,
MembershipTeam.Team.Id>
The primary key of my Membership entity is a compound key of two foreign keys. I think that's the problem.
What must I do differently?
This happens if you use independent association on the property which is both part of primary key and foreign key. EFv4 introduced Foreign key associations (the difference is described here) and once you expose foreign key in the entity you must define foreign key association. After defining referential constraints delete mapping of independent association in Mapping details window.
I'm evaluating using EF against an existing schema - the problem is that I can't work out how to set up associations between tables where the foreign key is NOT the primary key of the master table.
As an example, a foo may have many bars as defined like this (forgive the pseudocode):
table foo {
int foo\_id pk,
char(10) foo\_code,
...
}
table foobar {
int bar\_id pk,
char(10) bar\_foo\_code fk(foo.foo\_code),
...
}
What am I missing to be able to create the foo_foobar association, and hence a Bars navigation property on the Foo entity?
Linq to entities doesn't support Foreign Keys which don't point to the primary key of a table (see log message 3). Linq to entities will treat it as a normal field on a table. You won't be able to navigate to the entity it's linked to.
If you have an existing schema i'd recommend using the edm generator as this will create the EMDX file, code behind and even the view code (which can be very large). If your existing scheme is quite large Check out this post, which explains how to deal with large schemas.
When you run the EDM Generator you'll find out all the things that are not supported.
Looking at a previous EDMGen2.exe log we got the following types of messages back:
The data type 'sql_variant' is not
supported, the column 'ColumnName'
in table 'TableName' was
excluded.
The table/view 'tableName' does not
have a primary key defined. The key
has been inferred and the definition
was created as a read-only table/view
The relationship 'RelationshipName'
has columns that are not part of
the key of the table on the
primary side of the relationship
which is not supported, the
relationship was excluded.
We've also found that the Linq project actually crashed Visual Studio quite alot as the code file produced by EDM was well over 80 mb.