All identities of entities in model have name "EntityNameId". How I can rename all identity to "Id"?
Two way I can think of
manually in EF designer
manually editing EDMX XML file by using some regular expression replace
The first one is safe, the second one is tricky because you only have to rename some of them. SSDL should stay as it is and mapping should only rename entity IDs.
If you have something like up to 50 entities, I suggest you rename them in designer manually. It's safe and it shouldn't take too much time (unless you've written a lot of EF code that uses these already).
Related
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context? We are running into massive development-time performance problems when editing the EDMX file (it takes 1.5 minutes to save). I've moved our non-insert/update/delete UDFs/stored procs to some custom T4 templates that automatically generate model-first code, but I can't seem to get OnModelCreating to be called when EDMX is involved.
Other things we've considered, but won't work for one reason or another:
We can't (reasonably) separate our code to multiple contexts as there is a lot of overlap in our entity relationships. It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route regret it.
We tried having 2 different contexts, but there are quite a few joins between Entities & UDFs. This may be our last hope, but I'd REALLY like to avoid it.
We can't switch to Dapper since we have unfortunately made heavy use of IQueryable.
We tried to go completely to Code-First, but there are features that we are using in EDMX that aren't supported (mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping).
Take a look at the following link. I answered another question in a similar fashion:
How to use Repository pattern using Database first approach in entity framework
As I mentioned in that post, I would personally try to switch to a Code First approach and get rid of the EDMX files as it is already deprecated and most importantly, the maintenance effort is considerable and much more complex compared with the Code First approach.
It is not that hard switching to Code First from a Model First approach. Some steps and images down below:
Display all files at the project level and expand the EDMX file. You will notice that the EDMX file has a .TT file which will have several files nested, the Model Context and POCO clases between them as .cs or .vb classes (depending on the language you are using). See image down below:
Unload the project, right click and then edit.
See the image below, notice the dependencies between the context and the TT file
Remove the dependencies, the xml element should look like the image below:
Repeat the procedure for the Model classes (The ones with the model definition)
Reload your project, remove the EDMX file(s)
You will probably need to do some tweeks and update names/references.
I did this a few times in the past and it worked flawlessly on production. You can also look for tools that do this conversion for you.
This might be a good opportunity for you to rethink the architecture as well.
BTW: Bullet point 4 shouldn't be a show stopper for you. You can map/use Stored Procedures via EF. Look at the following link:
How to call Stored Procedure in Entity Framework 6 (Code-First)?
It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route [multiple contexts] regret it.
I'm not one of them.
Your core problem is a context that gets too large. So break it up. I know that inevitably there will be entities that should be shared among several contexts, which may give rise to duplicate class names. An easy way to solve this is to rename the classes into their context-specific names.
For example, I have an ApplicationUser table (who hasn't) that maps to a class with the same name in the main context, but to a class AuthorizationUser in my AuthorizationContext, or ReportingUser in a ReportingContext. This isn't a problem at all. Most use cases revolve around one context type anyway, so it's impossible to get confused.
I even have specialized contexts that work on the same data as other contexts, but in a more economical way. For example, a context that doesn't map to calculated columns in the database, so there are no reads after inserts and updates (apart from identity values).
So I'd recommend to go for it, because ...
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context?
No, there isn't. Both approaches have different ways of building the DbModel (containing the store model, the class model, and the mappings between both). In a generated DbContext you even see that an UnintentionalCodeFirstException is thrown, to drive home that you're not supposed to use that method.
mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping
As said in another answer, mapping CUD actions to stored procedures is supported in EF6 code-first.
I got here from a link in your comment on a different question, where you asked:
you mentioned that code-first & database-first is "technically possible" could you explain how to accomplish that?
First, the context of the other question was completely different. The OP there was asking if it was possible to use both database-first and code-first methodologies in the same project, but importantly, not necessarily the same context. My saying that it was "technically possible" applies to the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no way to utilize both code-first and database-first in the same context. Actually, to be a bit more specific, let's say there's no way to utilize an existing database and also migrate that same database with new entities.
The terminology gets a bit confused here due to some unfortunate naming by Microsoft when EF was being developed. Originally, you had just Model-first and Database-first. Both utilized EDMX. The only difference was that Model-first would let you design your entities and create a database from that, while Database-first took an existing database and created entities from that.
With EF 4.1, Code-first was introduced, which discarded EDMX entirely and let you work with POCOs (plain old class objects). However, despite the name, Code-first can and always has been able to work with an existing database or create a new one. Code-first, then is really Model-first and Database-first, combined, minus the horrid EDMX. Recently, the EF team has finally taken it a step further and deprecated EDMX entirely, including both the Model-first and Database-first methodologies. It is not recommended to continue to use either one at this point, and you can expect EDMX support to be dropped entirely in future versions of Visual Studio.
With all that said, let's go with the facts. You cannot both have an existing database and a EF-managed database in a single context. You would at least need two: one for your existing tables and one for those managed by EF. More to the point, these two contexts must reference different databases. If there are any existing tables in an EF-managed database, EF will attempt to remove them. Long and short, you have to segregate your EF-managed stuff from your externally managed stuff, which means you can't create foreign keys between entities in one context and another.
Your only real option here is to just do everything "database-first". In other words, you'll have to just treat your database as existing and manually create new tables, alter columns, etc. without relying on EF migrations at all. In this regard, you should also go ahead and dump the EDMX. Generate all your entities as POCOs and simply disable the database initializer in your context. In other words, Code-first with an existing database. I have additional information, if you need it.
Thank you to everyone for the well thought out and thorough answers.
Many of these other answers assume that the stored procedure mappings in EF Code-First work the same, but they do not. I'm a bit fuzzy on this as it's been about 6 months since I looked at it, but I believe as of EF 6.3 code first stored procedures require that you pass every column from your entity to your insert/update stored procedure and that you only pass the key column(s) to your delete procedure. There isn't an option to pick and choose which columns you can pass. We have a requirement to maintain who deleted a record so we have to pass some additional information besides just a simple key.
That being said, what I ended up doing was using a T4 template to automatically generate my EDMX/Context/Model files from the database (with some additional meta-data). This took our developer time experience down from 1.5 minutes to about 5 seconds.
My hope is EF stored procedure mappings will be improved to achieve parody with EDMX and I can then just code-generate the Code-First mappings and remove the EDMX generation completely.
I've just noticed how terribly tough Entity Framework makes simple task of changing name of some field in some table in the model. There are following difficulties. Renaming (or changing type) of field using GUI:
doesn't change the mapping
doesn't rename names in generated models, but regenerates them
So after renaming a field we need to manually update edmx's xml and deal with all references to old name of the generated POCO in all places of our project.
Is there any way to do it smarter? Are there any tools for it?
(I'm using EF 4)
I've been using EF for a while (4 with model first) and so far I've not created any mapping manually. Whenever I need more entities/tables, I add an entity and the associations (all foreign key) and click "update database from model", which, as is well known, doesn't update any database from the model (although it does need a database connection for reasons I don't know). What it does is generating a storage model and the appropriate mappings to it, which are all stored back to the same edmx xml file.
So far, that has always been enough for me but I'm wondering what the workflow would be if one is to tweak the mappings and storage model manually. "Update database from model" overwrites all manual customization - so how is one to fix most of the mappings and storage model? Because I clearly don't want to do it all by hand - in fact I couldn't even figure out how to actually create a table in the storage model other than by editing the edmx in the xml.
I have the same problem. I just use a mixture of methods. If I add a field to the database, I just add the field to the model file. If I do a major restructure, I delete the table and recreate it by generating it from the database. Sometimes, I actually edit the edmx as XML to change or add things. You just kinda gotta figure out what process works best for you. I have managed to avoid heavy customization in the edmx by using the T4 template or changing the database and regenerating.
I want to get rid of the big messy edmx file which has caused me nothing but pain when merging in svn.
I would like to move towards code first. For this, ideally I would generate the classes automatically based on the current edmx, then remove the edmx file completely.
I won't need a designer after that, I'll add columns and relations by hand.
How would you go about obtaining this? Would the new ef 4.2(?) be a better fit ?
Thanks
I would use the Entity Framework Power Tools CTP1
to generate the POCOs from your existing Database.
Entity Framework Power Tools CTP1
Reverse Engineer Code First - Generates POCO classes, derived DbContext and Code First mapping for an existing database.
After you have your POCOs and you Context generated, you dont need the
edmx file anymore.
I eventually generated the .cs files from the edmx changing the generator to "ADO.NET DbContext Generator" from http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/7812b04c-db36-4817-8a84-e73c452410a2 .
Then added primary and foreign keys as they weren't generated (I am using a mysql db if it makes any differences).
Then I had to change a ton of queries because if before you could do :
from x in context.Table1
from y in context.Table2
where x.id = y.xid
and would translate to a join, this no longer works !
Quite a bit to change but eventually it seems to be working.
I have a database that I wish to build an EF model from, however I do not want to include certain columns from the database as the columns concerned are maintained exclusively on the server and should not be manipulated by any application.
Both of the columns are DateTime (if this makes any difference), one of the columns is nullable and is maintained by a trigger on updates and the other is not nullable and set using a default value in the table definition.
I guess I am looking for something like the "Server Generated" option in Linq2Sql; but I cannot find such an option.
Can anybody tell me how to work around this?
Caveat:
I have been trying to introduce business object modelling at my place of work for some years and it has always been rejected because of the amount of additional code that has to be hand-cranked. EF is currently being seen as a viable solution because of the designer and code generation therefore any option that involves hand-cranking the XML will only turn the rest of my colleagues away from EF. I am therefore looking for something that can be done either using the designer or using code.
EDIT:
I guess that what I am looking for here is either...
(a) a way to create the model without EF referencing the columns in the store (ssdl) and therefore not looking to manipulate it in any way
(b) a way to programatically set the "StoreGeneratedPattern" attribute against the property when I create the ObjectContext (the easy answer is to manually manipulate this in the .ssdl, but this would then be overwritten if I refreshed the model from the database and I cannot go down the route where the .csdl, .msl & .ssdl are hand-cranked).
Can you do this with the Entity Framework? Yes; it's easy. Can you do this with the Entity Framework designer? Unfortunately, that is much harder.
The problem you're having is that the column exists in the storage schema (SSDL) in your EDMX. Removing the column with the GUI designer simply removes it from the client schema, not the mapping or the storage schema. However, it's simple enough to go into the EDMX and remove it. Having done that, you can also remove it from the mapping in the client schema portions of the EDMX, and the entity framework will longer complain that it is unmapped.
Problem solved, right?
Well, no. When you use the GUI designer to update the EDMX from the database, the storage schema is thrown away and re-generated. So your column will come back. As far as I know, there is no way to tell the GUI designer to never map a particular column. So you will have to re-do this every time you update with the GUI designer. Fortunately, the EDMX is XML, so you can do this with a XML transform, LINQ, or the XML tool of your choice.
Can you not create a view with the columns you need and import it through entity function wizard and map it to your entities?
You could modify the text template to ignore these columns when generating your entity classes. For example if you added "IGNORE" to the documentation summary, you could modify the template to ignore them by replacing;
Dim simpleProperties as IEnumerable(Of EdmProperty) = typeMapper.GetSimpleProperties(entity)
with;
Dim simpleProperties as IEnumerable(Of EdmProperty) = typeMapper.GetSimpleProperties(entity).Where(Function(p) p.Documentation is nothing orelse p.Documentation.Summary.IndexOf("IGNORE")<0)
Right click on the field in the graphical representation and choose delete. Ive found that sometimes you will get errors when you make a lot of changes to the modeling at once and start to lose track of your changes. Your best bet might be to rebuild the EF generated model.
Keep in mind that when you "update from the database", that old fields on the generated models will not be removed, you will have to remove them manually. For example if you renamed DateField1 to DateField2 in your database, and then you "Update Model from Database", you will now see both DateField1 and DateField2 on the resultant model. This can be a cause of errors.
Do you not want the column to appear in the model at all?
Try selecting the column in the Designer view and hitting the delete key.
Edit
You could make the setter for the property private. Then your app won't be able to modify the value.
Timestamp is a different data type than DateTime. Timestamp seems to be recognized as an attribute the engine manages, much like an identity attribute. You can't "update" a timestamp attribute. Hence, the EDM can manage it correctly (just as it does an identity).
In EDMX designer, select the property and set StoreGeneratedPattern to Computed.