I'm having an issue that i just can't seem to figure out. Lets say I have 2 Entities defined in my domain; Person and Document. Below is the definition for Document :
public class Document
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(255)]
public string Title { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public virtual Person Owner{ get; set; }
public virtual Person AssignedTo { get; set; }
}
Now, when EF CTP4 creates the SQL table on initialize, there is only one field mapping to a Person.Id being Owner_id. Whatever i try, the field for AssignedTo is never created.
Anything that could solve this?
Regards,
avsomeren
Your code perfectly created the desired schema in the database for me:
If you don't get this schema in you DB then my guess is that something is not right with the rest of your object model. Could you post your full object model please?
Another Solution:
While your current Document class will give you the desired results, but you can still take advantage of the Conventions for Code First and explicitly specify the FKs for your navigation properties:
public class Document
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required][StringLength(255)]
public string Title { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public int OwnerID { get; set; }
public int AssignedToID { get; set; }
public virtual Person Owner { get; set; }
public virtual Person AssignedTo { get; set; }
}
Code First will now infer that any property named <navigation property name><primary key property name> (e.g. OwnerID), with the same data type as the primary key (int), represents a foreign key for the relationship.
This essentially results to the same DB schema plus you have the FKs on your Document object as well as navigation properties which gives you ultimate flexibility to work with your model.
Related
I am having a problem in Entity Framework. Entity Framework is generating auto column in sql-server and I am not geting how to make insert operation in that particuler column.
For Example in Teacher class,
public class Teacher
{
[Key]
public String Email { set; get; }
public String Name { set; get; }
public List<TeacherBasicInformation> Teacher_Basic_Information { set; get; } = new List<TeacherBasicInformation>();
public String Password { set; get; }
public List<Course> course { set; get; } = new List<Course>();
[JsonIgnore]
public String JWT_Token { set; get; }
[NotMapped]
[Compare("Password")]
public String ConfrimPassword { set; get; }
}
And in TeacherBasicInformation class ,
public class TeacherBasicInformation
{
[Key]
public int ID { set; get; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(20)]
public String Phone { set; get; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(100)]
public String Address { set; get; }
}
After the migration in the sql server, in TeacherBasicInformation table a auto column is created named 'TeacherEmail'. How Can I insert data into this column using form in asp.net core.
In order to prevent auto-generated columns for FK, use [ForeignKey("YourForeignKey")] on the related table in the entity class:
public int TeacherId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("TeacherId")]
public virtual Teacher Teacher { get; set; }
It looks like you have the email column set up as the primary key column in your Teacher class, and the related database column. If that's the case, you're going to have trouble with it as it will need to be unique to that record, and primary keys aren't designed to be changed. It can be done in certain scenarios but isn't a best practice.
Perhaps a better approach is to have the [Key] attribute on a property of public int Id { get; set; } so they primary key is now a discrete number instead of an email address. Then you can access, set, and update the email address on each record, without interfering with the key at all.
I have an annoying problem that i can't seem to solve. Lets say i have a database with two tables.
Student
INT Id
NVARCHAR(30) Name
INT PrimaryTeacherId
INT SecondaryTeacherId
Teacher
INT Id
NVARCHAR(30) Name
Now when i set foreign key for PrimaryTeacherId and SecondaryTeacherId and use DatabaseFirst mapping in my project i get something like this for Student table
public partial class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int PrimaryTeacherId { get; set; }
public int SecondaryTeacherId { get; set; }
public virtual Teacher Teacher { get; set; }
public virtual Teacher Teacher1 { get; set; }
}
Note the virtual part of the class and their names, Teacher and Teacher1. No matter how i call my FKs entity framework will just override it and set increment names. That's ok if i have one or two keys to the same table but when there is more it's easy to get lost and code looks kinda annoying having object names with numbers in them. I know i can change generated classes name in my solution but when i update model changes will be lost. I'm also using Metadata partial classes for generated classes (mostly for validation and display attributes), can i change name there maybe?
TLDR: I would like to have Teacher and Teacher1 have custom names, so something like this would be awesome
public partial class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int PrimaryTeacherId { get; set; }
public int SecondaryTeacherId { get; set; }
public virtual Teacher PrimaryTeacher { get; set; }
public virtual Teacher SecondaryTeacher { get; set; }
}
var orgAcc = db_.Accounts.Find(account.Id);
db_.Entry(orgAcc).CurrentValues.SetValues(account);
orgAcc.Company = db_.Companys.Find(account.Company.Id);
db_.SaveChanges();
Is this the simplest way to update an entity's association ?
public class ChartofAccount: MasterData
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(6)]
public string Code { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
[Required]
public string AccountName { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(3)]
public string AccountCurrency { get; set; }
public virtual AccountCatagory Category1 { get; set; }
public virtual AccountCatagory Category2 { get; set; }
public string Reference { get; set; }
public bool HasTransaction { get; set; }
}
The way SetValues works is to do a property-by-property compare, and for each property from the left-hand object that is also in the argument, that has a matching type, it will update the left-hand object with the value from the argument.
I presume account.Company is a different type of object to orgAcc.Company, such as something that has come in from an MVC controller argument (ie account and it's referenced objects are not EF entities). In this case your approach seems a sound way of doing it.
That being said, orgAcc probably has a Company property, and a CompanyId property, in order to support the EF relationships, so, if your account object followed the same pattern, ie storing a CompanyId field directly, rather than having to navigate through the company, then SetValues could automatically update the CompanyId field, which should update the foreign key when you save changes. This way you could also avoid the step that specifically assigns the orgAcc.Company field.
I have a User and an Organization class. They look like this
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Organization> Organizations { get; set; }
}
public class Organization : EntityBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
And both inherit from an EntityBase class to get common fields like Id and created/updated tracking.
public abstract class EntityBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public DateTime Created { get; set; }
public virtual User CreatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime Updated { get; set; }
public virtual User UpdatedBy { get; set; }
}
As denoted by the ICollection properties on both, there should be a many-to-many relation. However when my database is autogenerated I get incorrect foreign keys added to my tables
If I change the CreatedBy and UpdatedBy to be strings instead of User properties I get a join table, which is what I was looking for.
Is this a matter of Entity Framework simply being confused and I need to supply many-to-many configuration in the using fluent mappings, or have I done something wrong?
If you have multiple relationships you need to configure them manually by fluent API or using attributes,
Note:If you have multiple relationships between the same types (for
example, suppose you define the Person and Book classes, where the
Person class contains the ReviewedBooks and AuthoredBooks navigation
properties and the Book class contains the Author and Reviewer
navigation properties) you need to manually configure the
relationships by using Data Annotations or the fluent API
Here is the article from Microsoft.
I have an app that was created using EF. The problem is that I noticed some extraneous foreign keys columns created in one of the tables. Dropping these columns causes an [SqlException (0x80131904): Invalid column name 'Material_Id' error.
Here is a simplified version of the class structure...
public class Hazard
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public abstract class HazardAnalysis
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int HazardId { get; set; }
public virtual Hazard Hazard { get; set; }
}
public class ProductHazard : HazardAnalysis
{
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public virtual Product Product { get; set; }
}
The table that was generated looked like this...
dbo.Hazards
Id int
Name string
Product_Id int
Since the relationship between ProductHazards and Hazards is 1:many, the Product_Id field should not be there. Dropping this column generates the Invalid column name 'Product_Id' error.
I've scoured the model for hours and can't find any valid reason for this column to exist.
Is there any way to update the model after manually dropping a column? I obviously don't want to drop and recreate the database.
I've also noticed that the productId of the current product is inserted in the dbo.Hazards Product_Id table whenever a new ProductHazard is created. Since there is a many-to-one relationship between ProductHazards and Hazards, when a new ProductHazard is created, the Product_Id field is updated with the ProductId of the new ProductHazard, which seems bizarre.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Here is the DbSet code:
public DbSet<Hazard> Hazards { get; set; }
public DbSet<HazardAnalysis> HazardAnalyses { get; set; }
and also...
modelBuilder.Entity<HazardAnalysis>()
.HasRequired(e => e.Hazard)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(e => e.HazardId)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
You need to define the many part of the relationship. In this case, you need to add a collection property to your Hazard object, like below:
public class Hazard
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<HazardAnalysis> HazardAnalyses { get; set; }
}