I'm trying to modify the model entity which is sent to the CreateEmployee Method as a parameter to be modified.
public void CreateEmployee(string roleName, EmployeeModel emp)
{
string roleName == "user";
emp.Roles.Select(e => new RoleModel { RoleName = roleName });
AddEmployee(emp);
}
this is how models looks like....
And it give me an error saying
Model does not contain a definition for 'Select' and 'Select' accepting a first argument of type Model could be found....
I have tried using the 'Where' method as well, but still give the same error..
emp.Roles.Where(e => e.RoleName == roleName)
You have some errors in your code,
use = not == for assignment
the selected roles does not used
Linq query functions like Select and Where apply to IEnumerable the Roles property is of type RoleModel not IEnumerable<RoleModel>
so:
public class EmployeeModel
{
//some code
public ICollection<RoleModel> Roles{ get; set; }
}
using System.Linq;
public void CreateEmployee(string roleName, EmployeeModel emp)
{
string roleName = "user";
var empRoles = emp.Roles.Select(e => new RoleModel { RoleName = roleName });
AddEmployee(emp);
}
Edit:
If you want to have one role per employee at most, the relationship between Role and Employee became one-to-many(each role has n employee)
if Role is optional for employee:
public class EmployeeModel
{
//some code
public short? RoleId { get; set; }//nullable foreign key
public virtual RoleModel { get; set; } //Navigation property
}
public class RoleModel
{
//some code
public ICollection<Employee> Employees{ get; set; }
}
But, if Role is required for Employee you must change the foreign key to:
public short RoleId { get; set; }//non-null foreign key
For getting an Employee's Role you do not need to use Select or Where on navigation property, just use employee.Role.
Finally for querying Role's employees you can use Select, Where, ... as mentioned before.
Related
I can display the values from my database both in a dropdownlist and where the value is needed.
But I can't get the value from the dropdownlist to my database while creating something. it's getting null.
I've tried some solutions from s.o.f but they didnt't work.
Models 1:
public class Kategori
{
[Key]
public int KategoriID { get; set; }
public string Namn { get; set; }
}
Models 2:
public class Inlägg
{
[Key]
public int InläggsID { get; set; }
public Kategori Kategori { get; set; }
}
Controller:
// POST: Inlägg/Create
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind("Titel,Text,Kategori.Namn")] Inlägg inlägg)
//The Kategori is getting null
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
inlägg.Datum = DateTime.Now;
_context.Add(inlägg);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
return RedirectToAction(nameof(Index));
}
return View(inlägg);
}
View:
#Html.DropDownList("Kategori", null, htmlAttributes: new { #class = "form-control" })
I've tried using SelectItemList, select with options values, having a SelectItem inside Models class also a "public Kategori List" inside Inlägg.
Don't really know how to solve this. I've just tried 8 hours today, and 2 hours yesterday.
How can I get the value that the user choosen in the dropdownlist instead of getting null? Tell me if I need to send more codes :-)
You should change it;
#Html.DropDownList("Kategori", null, htmlAttributes: new { #class = "form-control" })
to
#Html.DropDownList("SelectedCategory", ViewData["Kategori"] as SelectList, htmlAttributes: new { #class = "form-control" })
The selected dropdown element is passed to serverside as SelectedCategory.
Also, I strongly suggest you to use Model classes instead of ViewData to carry data between controller and view.
You need to add another property for the foreign key value. Since your other related entity class name is Kategori, you may name this new property KategoriId so that it matches the convention for the foreign key property names.
public class Inlagg
{
[Key]
public int InläggsID { get; set; }
public string Titel { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public DateTime Datum { get; set; }
public virtual Kategori Kategori { get; set; }
public int? KategoriId { set;get;} // This is the new property
}
Now in your form inside your view, make sure the select element rendered by the DropDownList helper has the same name attribute value as the new property name (check the view source of the page)
#Html.DropDownList("KategoriId", ViewData["Kategori"] as SelectList)
Now finally, make sure you include this new input name/property name inside the Bind attributes Include list so that the model binder will bind that.
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind(Include="Titel,Text,KategoriId")]
Inlagg inlagg)
{
// to do : your code for saving and returning something
}
Another option is to use a view model with only needed properties, instead of using the Bind attribute with your entity class
I have two tables (NPG_Chemical and NPG_Chemical_Synonym):
public partial class NPG_Chemical
{
[Key]
[Column(TypeName = "numeric")]
public decimal NPG_Chemical_ID { get; set; }
[StringLength(256)]
public string Chemical { get; set; }
}
public partial class NPG_Chemical_Synonym
{
[Key]
[Column(TypeName = "numeric")]
public decimal NPG_Chemical_Synonym_ID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("NPG_Chemical_ID")]
[Column(TypeName = "numeric")]
public decimal NPG_Chemical_ID { get; set; }
[StringLength(512)]
public string Synonym { get; set; }
}
In the NPG_ChemicalController I have something like:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(NPG_ChemicalViewModel model)
{
using (var context = new NPG_Model())
{
var chemical = new NPG_Chemical();
chemical.Chemical = model.NPG_Chemical.Chemical;
context.NPG_Chemical.Add(chemical);
var synonym = new NPG_Chemical_Synonym();
synonym.Synonym = model.NPG_Chemical_Synonym.Synonym;
synonym.NPG_Chemical_ID = chemical.NPG_Chemical_ID;
context.NPG_Chemical_Synonym.Add(synonym);
context.SaveChanges();
}
return View();
}
and NPG_ChemicalViewModel:
namespace NPG_Administrative_Utility.Models
{
public class NPG_ChemicalViewModel
{
public NPG_ChemicalViewModel()
{
NPG_Chemical = new NPG_Chemical();
NPG_Chemical_Synonym = new NPG_Chemical_Synonym();
}
public NPG_Chemical NPG_Chemical { get; set; }
public NPG_Chemical_Synonym NPG_Chemical_Synonym { get; set; }
}
}
When I try to create a view based on NPG_ChemicalViewModel, it shows:
Can any one help me on this?
You'll need a view model. At the simplest, you can just do something like:
public class NPG_ChemicalViewModel
{
public NPG_ChemicalViewModel()
{
NPG_Chemical = new NPG_Chemical();
NPG_Chemical_Synonym = new NPG_Chemical_Synonym();
}
public NPG_Chemical NPG_Chemical { get; set; }
public NPG_Chemical_Synonym NPG_Chemical_Synonym { get; set; }
}
Then, change your action to accept this:
public ActionResult Create(NPG_ChemicalViewModel model)
In your view, you would generate the individual properties like:
#Html.EditorFor(m => m.NPG_Chemical.Chemical)
However, it's far better to only include the properties on your view model that you want to be edited:
public class ChemicalViewModel
{
public string Chemical { get; set; }
public string Synonym { get; set; }
}
Then, in your action, you just map this posted data where it should go:
var chemical = new NPG_Chemical();
chemical.Chemical = model.Chemical;
context.NPG_Chemical.Add(chemical);
var synonym = new NPG_Chemical_Synonym();
synonym.Synonym = model.Synonym;
synonym.NPG_Chemical_ID = chemical.NPG_Chemical_ID;
context.NPG_Chemical_Synonym.Add(synonym);
That said, there's some significant issues with your code here. First, it looks like you're dealing with a one-to-one or one-to-many relationship here between Chemical and Synonym, but right now, you have no foreign keys being utilized. You should add a navigation property to your synonym class:
[ForeignKey("NPG_Chemical_ID")]
public NPG_Chemical Chemical { get; set; }
That tells Entity Framework that you have a relationship and among other things allows it to automatically fill in IDs as necessary. For example, with that, you could now simply do:
synonym.Chemical = chemical;
Instead of directly referencing the ID. That way, if the id is autogenerated or otherwise unknown before saving, the relationship will still be preserved. Whereas, without it, you'd have to save chemical first, set the autogenerated id on synonym and then save the synonym in a separate transaction.
Second, if you're going to use keys typed as "numeric". Then, you're going to be responsible for generating a unique numeric string for each record. That's a huge pain, as it's going to require checking a proposed id against other existing record ids before actually saving. Otherwise, you run the risk of a primary key collision. It's far better to use a standard autoincrementing PK or barring that, at least a GUID, where you're assured a reasonably low risk of collisions occurring.
Third, you should absolute not use using with your context. Here it's not a big deal, since, you're only saving and not reading data from the database, but in a typical view, lazy-loading will kick you in the posterior quick doing that. Your context should be request-scoped, either as an instance variable on your controller (since the controller is newed up and disposed with each request) or using dependency injection. You never want to create an instance of your context anywhere else, including an action method.
First of all, this is not exactly a duplication of the dozens of other posts and I have tried all of them and none of them work.
I have a model that contains many more values than my web api consumers need.
public class Publication
{
[Key]
public int PublicationID { get; set; }
public string PublicationTitle { get; set; }
public string Frequency { get; set; }
public DateTime NextIssueDate { get; set; }
public DateTime SpaceDeadline { get; set; }
public DateTime MaterialsDeadline { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedDt { get; set; }
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime UpdatedDt { get; set; }
public string UpdatedBy { get; set; }
}
I only want say a few of the fields to be passed in the API. I've tried this code but instead of leaving out say UpdateBy in the Json result, it returns it with a null value. How do I get rid of that? I've tried several dozen variations but they either fail to compile or fail to return results.
public IQueryable<Publication> GetPublications()
{
return db.Publications
.ToList()
.Select(p => new Publication {
PublicationID = p.PublicationID,
PublicationTitle = p.PublicationTitle,
Frequency = p.Frequency,
NextIssueDate = p.NextIssueDate
})
.AsQueryable();
}
Don't serialize your DAO. Create a complete contract and then serialize it selectively. To creating different contracts for different cases, you could simplify it using Json.Net; you could just create a custom contract resolver and use it as a parameter of SerializeObject() like so
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var person = new TestContract {FirstName = "John", LastName = "Doe", Age = 36};
var firstNameContract = new SelectiveSerializer("firstname");
var allPropertiesContract = new SelectiveSerializer("firstname, lastname, age");
var allJson = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(
person,
Formatting.Indented,
new JsonSerializerSettings {ContractResolver = allPropertiesContract});
var firstNameJson = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(
person,
Formatting.Indented,
new JsonSerializerSettings {ContractResolver = firstNameContract});
Console.WriteLine(allJson);
// {
// "FirstName": "John",
// "LastName": "Doe",
// "Age": 36
// }
Console.WriteLine(firstNameJson);
// {
// "FirstName": "John",
// }
}
public class SelectiveSerializer : DefaultContractResolver
{
private readonly string[] _fields;
public SelectiveSerializer(string fields)
{
var fieldColl = fields.Split(',');
_fields = fieldColl
.Select(f => f.ToLower().Trim())
.ToArray();
}
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
var property = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
property.ShouldSerialize = o => _fields.Contains(member.Name.ToLower());
return property;
}
}
public class TestContract
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
Without much effort, you could probably work this into your default mediatype formatter (in the pipeline) to look for a parameter in the request called 'fields' or whatever and then use the custom contract resolver if present, and then it would be seamless default behavior to limit fields if specified or serialize the entire object if not specified.
On the academic side, here is the justification:
Any modification to the data is considered a "view concern" which means, in an API, it should controlled by query parameters and accept header. In this case, the "representation" of the data is application/json and you've chose to "filter" the returned fields. All of this can (and should be, imo) be handled during serialization. So your "model" in this case will always be the full model vs. some subset of the model. The full model in this example contains first name, last name, and age. In reality, this could be hundreds of properties. If you want to allow the client to choose a subset of the complete model, this is how you could do it with selective serialization.
You can similar behaviors in graph apis. There, the default for large models is that you get an empty object if you don't specify fields, forcing the client to be very specific about what it asks for, which is great when payload size matters (e.g. mobile applications). And, there's nothing stopping from creating field presets like 'name' which could mean 'firstname, lastname' or 'all' which includes all properties.
I've never been a fan of having hundreds of data objects that all serve some ad hoc requirement for a data set that is used in 20 different contexts where some cases require more data while others require less. IMO if you have to go through the same process to get the data, whether it complete or not, you shouldn't waste your time creating additional objects to frame the data for the sake of the client, and this should help you achieve that.
It's because you're returning a collection of Publication objects so you will get every property that is contained in that class, whether you populate it or not. If you want to return a subset of the properties then create a class that has only the properties you want to return and create an instance of that class in your query.
public IQueryable<WhatIReallyWantToReturn> GetPublications()
{
return db.Publications
.ToList()
.Select(p => new WhatIReallyWantToReturn {
PublicationID = p.PublicationID,
PublicationTitle = p.PublicationTitle,
Frequency = p.Frequency,
NextIssueDate = p.NextIssueDate
})
.AsQueryable();
}
private class WhatIReallyWantToReturn
{
public int PublicationID { get; set; }
public string PublicationTitle { get; set; }
public string Frequency { get; set; }
public DateTime NextIssueDate { get; set; }
}
using Newtonsoft.Json;
public class Publication
{
[Key]
public int PublicationID { get; set; }
public string PublicationTitle { get; set; }
public string Frequency { get; set; }
public DateTime NextIssueDate { get; set; }
public DateTime SpaceDeadline { get; set; }
public DateTime MaterialsDeadline { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore]
public DateTime CreatedDt { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore]
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore]
public DateTime UpdatedDt { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore]
public string UpdatedBy { get; set; }
}
as Craig W. said you can use viewmodel ,also you can use anonymous type
(notice viewmodel is better way because you can use some utilities like automapper for mapping your property automatically)
JsonIgnore annotation has worked for me
[JsonIgnore]
public int Ranking { get; set; }
Here is a great article (Dec 2019) on the subject. It offers a solution for data shaping by making use of ExpandoObject and Type Reflection. The properties that the client requires can then be passed through the request as a query parameter (i.e. separated by a comma). The article also offers solution to the JSON Serialization problem.
Startup.cs file:
services.AddControllers(config =>
{
config.RespectBrowserAcceptHeader = true;
config.ReturnHttpNotAcceptable = true;
})
.AddXmlDataContractSerializerFormatters()
.AddNewtonsoftJson();
+1 for Sinaesthetic's answer.
I just finished reading an article, about GraphQL which solves exactly this problem. You can define exactly which fields do you need in the same request. No need for creating new endpoints every single time, when the caller needs just a specific subset of the properties.
If you can do this in .NET WEB API too without creating new models and endpoints, with just a very little extra effort, why wouldn't you (instead of exchanging Web Api for GraphQL).
Actually his SelectiveSerializer could be upgarded with reflection, so if you want to define which props you need in
C#, you can do this by providing property expressions, so you don't have to worry about misstyping prop names.
I bet there are other solutions for this, but the basic concept is the most important that we can define which fields we need in our json without creating new models.
I am working with Entity Framework Code First and MVC 5. When I created my application with Individual User Accounts Authentication I was given an Account controller and along with it all the required classes and code that is needed to get the Indiv User Accounts authentication to work.
Among the code already in place was this:
public class ApplicationDbContext : IdentityDbContext<ApplicationUser>
{
public ApplicationDbContext() : base("DXContext", throwIfV1Schema: false)
{
}
public static ApplicationDbContext Create()
{
return new ApplicationDbContext();
}
}
But then I went ahead and created my own context using code first, so I now have the following too:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext() : base("DXContext")
{
}
public DbSet<ApplicationUser> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<IdentityRole> Roles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Artist> Artists { get; set; }
public DbSet<Paintings> Paintings { get; set; }
}
Finally I have the following seed method to add some data for me to work with whilst developing:
protected override void Seed(DXContext context)
{
try
{
if (!context.Roles.Any(r => r.Name == "Admin"))
{
var store = new RoleStore<IdentityRole>(context);
var manager = new RoleManager<IdentityRole>(store);
var role = new IdentityRole { Name = "Admin" };
manager.Create(role);
}
context.SaveChanges();
if (!context.Users.Any(u => u.UserName == "James"))
{
var store = new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(context);
var manager = new UserManager<ApplicationUser>(store);
var user = new ApplicationUser { UserName = "James" };
manager.Create(user, "ChangeAsap1#");
manager.AddToRole(user.Id, "Admin");
}
context.SaveChanges();
string userId = "";
userId = context.Users.FirstOrDefault().Id;
var artists = new List<Artist>
{
new Artist { FName = "Salvador", LName = "Dali", ImgURL = "http://i62.tinypic.com/ss8txxn.jpg", UrlFriendly = "salvador-dali", Verified = true, ApplicationUserId = userId },
};
artists.ForEach(a => context.Artists.Add(a));
context.SaveChanges();
var paintings = new List<Painting>
{
new Painting { Title = "The Persistence of Memory", ImgUrl = "http://i62.tinypic.com/xx8tssn.jpg", ArtistId = 1, Verified = true, ApplicationUserId = userId }
};
paintings.ForEach(p => context.Paintings.Add(p));
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (DbEntityValidationException ex)
{
foreach (var validationErrors in ex.EntityValidationErrors)
{
foreach (var validationError in validationErrors.ValidationErrors)
{
Trace.TraceInformation("Property: {0} Error: {1}", validationError.PropertyName, validationError.ErrorMessage);
}
}
}
}
My solution builds fine, but when I try and access a controller that requires access to the database I get the following error:
DX.DOMAIN.Context.IdentityUserLogin: : EntityType 'IdentityUserLogin' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
DX.DOMAIN.Context.IdentityUserRole: : EntityType 'IdentityUserRole' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
What am I doing wrong? Is it because I have two contexts?
UPDATE
After reading Augusto's reply, I went with Option 3. Here is what my DXContext class looks like now:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext() : base("DXContext")
{
// remove default initializer
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null);
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
}
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<Role> Roles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Artist> Artists { get; set; }
public DbSet<Painting> Paintings { get; set; }
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("Users");
modelBuilder.Entity<Role>().ToTable("Roles");
}
public DbQuery<T> Query<T>() where T : class
{
return Set<T>().AsNoTracking();
}
}
I also added a User.cs and a Role.cs class, they look like this:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FName { get; set; }
public string LName { get; set; }
}
public class Role
{
public int Id { set; get; }
public string Name { set; get; }
}
I wasn't sure if I would need a password property on the user, since the default ApplicationUser has that and a bunch of other fields!
Anyways, the above change builds fine, but again I get this error when the application is ran:
Invalid Column name UserId
UserId is an integer property on my Artist.cs
In my case I had inherited from the IdentityDbContext correctly (with my own custom types and key defined) but had inadvertantly removed the call to the base class's OnModelCreating:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder); // I had removed this
/// Rest of on model creating here.
}
Which then fixed up my missing indexes from the identity classes and I could then generate migrations and enable migrations appropriately.
The problem is that your ApplicationUser inherits from IdentityUser, which is defined like this:
IdentityUser : IdentityUser<string, IdentityUserLogin, IdentityUserRole, IdentityUserClaim>, IUser
....
public virtual ICollection<TRole> Roles { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<TClaim> Claims { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<TLogin> Logins { get; private set; }
and their primary keys are mapped in the method OnModelCreating of the class IdentityDbContext:
modelBuilder.Entity<TUserRole>()
.HasKey(r => new {r.UserId, r.RoleId})
.ToTable("AspNetUserRoles");
modelBuilder.Entity<TUserLogin>()
.HasKey(l => new {l.LoginProvider, l.ProviderKey, l.UserId})
.ToTable("AspNetUserLogins");
and as your DXContext doesn't derive from it, those keys don't get defined.
If you dig into the sources of Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework, you will understand everything.
I came across this situation some time ago, and I found three possible solutions (maybe there are more):
Use separate DbContexts against two different databases or the same database but different tables.
Merge your DXContext with ApplicationDbContext and use one database.
Use separate DbContexts against the same table and manage their migrations accordingly.
Option 1:
See update the bottom.
Option 2:
You will end up with a DbContext like this one:
public class DXContext : IdentityDbContext<User, Role,
int, UserLogin, UserRole, UserClaim>//: DbContext
{
public DXContext()
: base("name=DXContext")
{
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null);// Remove default initializer
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
}
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
//Identity and Authorization
public DbSet<UserLogin> UserLogins { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserClaim> UserClaims { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserRole> UserRoles { get; set; }
// ... your custom DbSets
public DbSet<RoleOperation> RoleOperations { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
// Configure Asp Net Identity Tables
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("User");
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.PasswordHash).HasMaxLength(500);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.Stamp).HasMaxLength(500);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.PhoneNumber).HasMaxLength(50);
modelBuilder.Entity<Role>().ToTable("Role");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserRole>().ToTable("UserRole");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserLogin>().ToTable("UserLogin");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().ToTable("UserClaim");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().Property(u => u.ClaimType).HasMaxLength(150);
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().Property(u => u.ClaimValue).HasMaxLength(500);
}
}
Option 3:
You will have one DbContext equal to the option 2. Let's name it IdentityContext. And you will have another DbContext called DXContext:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext()
: base("name=DXContext") // connection string in the application configuration file.
{
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null); // Remove default initializer
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
}
// Domain Model
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
// ... other custom DbSets
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
// IMPORTANT: we are mapping the entity User to the same table as the entity ApplicationUser
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("User");
}
public DbQuery<T> Query<T>() where T : class
{
return Set<T>().AsNoTracking();
}
}
where User is:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, StringLength(100)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required, StringLength(128)]
public string SomeOtherColumn { get; set; }
}
With this solution, I'm mapping the entity User to the same table as the entity ApplicationUser.
Then, using Code First Migrations you'll need to generate the migrations for the IdentityContext and THEN for the DXContext, following this great post from Shailendra Chauhan: Code First Migrations with Multiple Data Contexts
You'll have to modify the migration generated for DXContext. Something like this depending on which properties are shared between ApplicationUser and User:
//CreateTable(
// "dbo.User",
// c => new
// {
// Id = c.Int(nullable: false, identity: true),
// Name = c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 100),
// SomeOtherColumn = c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 128),
// })
// .PrimaryKey(t => t.Id);
AddColumn("dbo.User", "SomeOtherColumn", c => c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 128));
and then running the migrations in order (first the Identity migrations) from the global.asax or any other place of your application using this custom class:
public static class DXDatabaseMigrator
{
public static string ExecuteMigrations()
{
return string.Format("Identity migrations: {0}. DX migrations: {1}.", ExecuteIdentityMigrations(),
ExecuteDXMigrations());
}
private static string ExecuteIdentityMigrations()
{
IdentityMigrationConfiguration configuration = new IdentityMigrationConfiguration();
return RunMigrations(configuration);
}
private static string ExecuteDXMigrations()
{
DXMigrationConfiguration configuration = new DXMigrationConfiguration();
return RunMigrations(configuration);
}
private static string RunMigrations(DbMigrationsConfiguration configuration)
{
List<string> pendingMigrations;
try
{
DbMigrator migrator = new DbMigrator(configuration);
pendingMigrations = migrator.GetPendingMigrations().ToList(); // Just to be able to log which migrations were executed
if (pendingMigrations.Any())
migrator.Update();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
ExceptionManager.LogException(e);
return e.Message;
}
return !pendingMigrations.Any() ? "None" : string.Join(", ", pendingMigrations);
}
}
This way, my n-tier cross-cutting entities don't end up inheriting from AspNetIdentity classes, and therefore I don't have to import this framework in every project where I use them.
Sorry for the extensive post. I hope it could offer some guidance on this. I have already used options 2 and 3 in production environments.
UPDATE: Expand Option 1
For the last two projects I have used the 1st option: having an AspNetUser class that derives from IdentityUser, and a separate custom class called AppUser. In my case, the DbContexts are IdentityContext and DomainContext respectively. And I defined the Id of the AppUser like this:
public class AppUser : TrackableEntity
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
// This Id is equal to the Id in the AspNetUser table and it's manually set.
public override int Id { get; set; }
(TrackableEntity is the custom abstract base class that I use in the overridden SaveChanges method of my DomainContext context)
I first create the AspNetUser and then the AppUser. The drawback with this approach is that you have ensured that your "CreateUser" functionality is transactional (remember that there will be two DbContexts calling SaveChanges separately). Using TransactionScope didn't work for me for some reason, so I ended up doing something ugly but that works for me:
IdentityResult identityResult = UserManager.Create(aspNetUser, model.Password);
if (!identityResult.Succeeded)
throw new TechnicalException("User creation didn't succeed", new LogObjectException(result));
AppUser appUser;
try
{
appUser = RegisterInAppUserTable(model, aspNetUser);
}
catch (Exception)
{
// Roll back
UserManager.Delete(aspNetUser);
throw;
}
(Please, if somebody comes with a better way of doing this part I appreciate commenting or proposing an edit to this answer)
The benefits are that you don't have to modify the migrations and you can use any crazy inheritance hierarchy over the AppUser without messing with the AspNetUser. And actually, I use Automatic Migrations for my IdentityContext (the context that derives from IdentityDbContext):
public sealed class IdentityMigrationConfiguration : DbMigrationsConfiguration<IdentityContext>
{
public IdentityMigrationConfiguration()
{
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = true;
AutomaticMigrationDataLossAllowed = false;
}
protected override void Seed(IdentityContext context)
{
}
}
This approach also has the benefit of avoiding to have your n-tier cross-cutting entities inheriting from AspNetIdentity classes.
By Changing The DbContext As Below;
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<ManyToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
}
Just adding in OnModelCreating method call to base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder); and it becomes fine. I am using EF6.
Special Thanks To #The Senator
For those who use ASP.NET Identity 2.1 and have changed the primary key from the default string to either int or Guid, if you're still getting
EntityType 'xxxxUserLogin' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
EntityType 'xxxxUserRole' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
you probably just forgot to specify the new key type on IdentityDbContext:
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext<
AppUser, AppRole, int, AppUserLogin, AppUserRole, AppUserClaim>
{
public AppIdentityDbContext()
: base("MY_CONNECTION_STRING")
{
}
......
}
If you just have
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext
{
......
}
or even
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext<AppUser>
{
......
}
you will get that 'no key defined' error when you are trying to add migrations or update the database.
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
//foreach (var relationship in modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().SelectMany(e => e.GetForeignKeys()))
// relationship.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("Users");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityRole<string>>().ToTable("Roles");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserToken<string>>().ToTable("UserTokens");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserClaim<string>>().ToTable("UserClaims");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserLogin<string>>().ToTable("UserLogins");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityRoleClaim<string>>().ToTable("RoleClaims");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserRole<string>>().ToTable("UserRoles");
}
}
My issue was similar - I had a new table i was creating that ahd to tie in to the identity users. After reading the above answers, realized it had to do with IsdentityUser and the inherited properites. I already had Identity set up as its own Context, so to avoid inherently tying the two together, rather than using the related user table as a true EF property, I set up a non-mapped property with the query to get the related entities. (DataManager is set up to retrieve the current context in which OtherEntity exists.)
[Table("UserOtherEntity")]
public partial class UserOtherEntity
{
public Guid UserOtherEntityId { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(128)]
public string UserId { get; set; }
[Required]
public Guid OtherEntityId { get; set; }
public virtual OtherEntity OtherEntity { get; set; }
}
public partial class UserOtherEntity : DataManager
{
public static IEnumerable<OtherEntity> GetOtherEntitiesByUserId(string userId)
{
return Connect2Context.UserOtherEntities.Where(ue => ue.UserId == userId).Select(ue => ue.OtherEntity);
}
}
public partial class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
{
public async Task<ClaimsIdentity> GenerateUserIdentityAsync(UserManager<ApplicationUser> manager)
{
// Note the authenticationType must match the one defined in CookieAuthenticationOptions.AuthenticationType
var userIdentity = await manager.CreateIdentityAsync(this, DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie);
// Add custom user claims here
return userIdentity;
}
[NotMapped]
public IEnumerable<OtherEntity> OtherEntities
{
get
{
return UserOtherEntities.GetOtherEntitiesByUserId(this.Id);
}
}
}
I need simple DropDownList in form and I don't want to create something like ViewModel.
I have two models(tables) in relation 1:n:
public class Course
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and
public class Project
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public int CourseId { get; set; }
public int ProjectNo { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime Deadline { get; set; }
}
In the 'Create Project' I want to have DropDownList with Id (as value) and Name(as text) from Course table(model). In the new project will be insert chosen CourseId. How can I do that as simple as possible?
Any particular reason why you don't want to use a ViewModel? They're very helpful for this type of problem.
If you don't want to use a ViewModel, then you can construct a specific class in your controller that is an aggregate of the properties you need from both classes:
public ActionResult Show(int id)
{
Course course = repository.GetCourse(id); // whatever your persistence logic is here
Project project = projectRepository.GetProjectByCourseId(id);
string CourseName = from c in course where
c.ID == project.courseID
select c.Name;
IEnumerable<SelectListItem> selectList =
from c in course
select new SelectListItem
{
Selected = (c.ID == project.CourseId),
Text = c.Name,
Value = project.CourseId.ToString()
};
//add the selectList to your model here.
return View(); //add the model to your view and return it.
}
It would be far easier to have a ViewModel for this, so you could have a strongly typed view. Let me show you:
public class ProjectCourseViewModel
{
public SelectList ProjectCourseList {get; private set; }
public Project Project {get; private set; }
public Course Course {get; private set; }
public ProjectCourseViewModel(Project project, Course course)
{
ProjectCourseList = GetProjectCourseSelectList(project, course)
Project = project;
Course = course;
}
private SelectList GetProjectCourseSelectList(Project project, Course course)
{
IEnumerable<SelectListItem> selectList =
from c in course
select new SelectListItem
{
Selected = (c.ID == project.CourseId),
Text = c.Name,
Value = project.CourseId.ToString()
};
}
}
And then your controller would be really simple:
public ActionResult Show(int id)
{
Course course = repository.GetCourse(id);
Project project = projectRepository.GetProjectByCourseId(id);
ProjectCourseViewModel pcvm = new ProjectCourseViewModel(project, course)
return View(pcvm);
}
And then your view takes in a strongly typed model, and you don't have to rely on ViewData, which is a Good Thing.
Note: I haven't compiled this, just written it. There are probably compilation bugs.
probably you could solve it using the following example:
in your controller include a Viewbag
{
Viewbag.Course = db.course.ToList();
var project = new project.....
}
And in your View use the following pattern:
#Html.DropDownList("CourseId",
new SelectList(ViewBag.Course as System.Collections.IEnumerable,
"CourseId", "Name", Model.ID))
where each field represent:
•The name of the form field (CourseId)
•The list of values for the dropdown, passed as a SelectList
•The Data Value field which should be posted back with the form
•The Data Text field which should be displayed in the dropdown list
•The Selected Value which is used to set the dropdown list value when the form is displayed
more info at: http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-music-store-part-5
brgds.
In the Controler:
var CourseName = from c in course where
c.ID == project.courseID
select c.Name;
SelectList sl = new SelectList(CourseName);
ViewBag.names= sl;
in the view :
#Html.DropDownList("Name", (SelectList)ViewBag.names)