EF 4.1 messing things up. Has FK naming strategy changed? - ef-code-first

I've just installed the new Entity Framework 4.1 NuGet package, thus replacing the EFCodeFirst package as per NuGet intructions and this article of Scott Hanselman.
Now, imagine the following model:
public class User
{
[Key]
public string UserName { get; set; }
// whatever
}
public class UserThing
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
// whatever
}
The last EFCodeFirst release generated a foreign key in the UserThing table called UserUserName.
After installing the new release and running I get the following error:
Invalid column name 'User_UserName'
Which of course means that the new release has a different FK naming strategy. This is consistent among all other tables and columns: whatever FK EFCodeFirst named AnyOldForeignKeyID EF 4.1 wants to call AnyOldForeignKey_ID (note the underscore).
I don't mind naming the FK's with an underscore, but in this case it means having to either unnecessarily throw away the database and recreate it or unnecessarily renaming al FK's.
Does any one know why the FK naming convention has changed and whether it can be configured without using the Fluent API?

Unfortunately, one of the things that didn't make it to this release is the ability to add custom conventions in Code First:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/03/15/ef-4-1-release-candidate-available.aspx
If you don't want to use the fluent API to configure the column name (which I don't blame you), then most straight forward way to do it is probably using sp_rename.

Why don't you do the following?
public class User
{
[Key]
public string UserName { get; set; }
// whatever
}
public class UserThing
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string UserUserName { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UserUserName")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
// whatever
}
Or, if you don't want to add the UserUserName property to UserThing, then use the fluent API, like so:
// class User same as in question
// class UserThing same as in question
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public MyContext()
: base("MyCeDb") { }
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserThing> UserThings { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<UserThing>()
.HasOptional(ut => ut.User) // See if HasRequired fits your model better
.WithMany().Map(u => u.MapKey("UserUserName"));
}
}

Related

ASP.net Core eager loading, let included object be null

I am getting all customers and including their linked operator.
The only catch is a customer can exist without an operator.
The problem I am having is when i try include the operator any customer that doesn't have a linked operator is not retrieved is there a way to still retrieve all my customers and if thy do not have an operator just have the operator object within the customer be null?
-get all customers method
public List<Customer> GetAllWithRelations()
{
return Context.Set<Customer>()
.Include(cp => cp.Operator).ToList();
}
-Cusomer object
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int? OperatorId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("OperatorId")]
public virtual Operator Operator { get; set; }
}
-Operator Object
public class Operator
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Although you did not specify a tag for this, by using the .Include I'm guessing it's a EntityFramework Core linq which is breaking.
I've came across the same case on EF whenever the relationship is not set to allow nulls. So, for instance, your mapping might be explicitly setting it to be required or somehow you're not setting it and EF defaults are stablishing a required map between Customer and Operator.
Just set it to optional wherever you're building your model mappings and you'll get the desired behavior.
See: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/modeling/required-optional

How to specify default property values for owned entity types in Entity Framework Core 2.0?

I have a simple POCO type, say something like
public class OwnedEntity {
public string stringProperty { get; set; }
public decimal decimalProperty { get; set; }
public bool boolProperty { get; set; }
public int intProperty { get; set; }
}
and an actual entity with an OwnedEntity reference
public class SomeEntity {
public string Id { get; set; }
public OwnedEntity OwnedEntity { get; set; }
}
I set up the relationship like described in the documentation using EF Core's Fluent API:
protected override void OnModelCreating (ModelBuilder builder) {
base.OnModelCreating (builder);
builder.Entity<SomeEntity> ().OwnsOne (e => e.OwnedEntity);
}
I can't find anything on how to define default-values for all the properties of OwnedEntity. I tried to initialize the properties like this:
public class OwnedEntity {
public string stringProperty { get; set; } = "initial"
public decimal decimalProperty { get; set; } = -1M;
public bool boolProperty { get; set; } = false;
public int intProperty { get; set; } = -1;
}
but with no effect. Same goes with the [DefaultValueAttribute] (but that was to expect since it's explicitly mentioned).
There's a bit of information on how to handle initial values for regular entities:
modelBuilder.Entity<SomeOtherEntity>()
.Property(e => e.SomeIntProperty)
.HasDefaultValue(3);
But since I'm facing an Owned Entity Type, I can't access the type via Entity<T>.
Is there a way of doing what I'm looking for?
Some things worth mentioning:
I have a solid amount of specific entities where most of them are using the OwnsOne relation
Declaring all OwnedEntity-properties in a base class is not an option since not all the entities have those properties
I`m using EF Core 2.0.3 and ASP.NET Core MVC 2.0.4
Edit:
Originally, I wanted to have newly created SomeEntity instances to come with preset properties for all of the 'embedded' SomeEntity.OwnedEntity properties.
But looking at how my associated controller works, it all makes sense... I have the following methods for the 'Create' operation:
[HttpGet]
public IActionResult Create () {
return View (nameof (Create));
}
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create (SomeEntity model) {
context.Add (model);
await context.SaveChangesAsync ();
// redirect etc.
}
Which means that no object is created for the [HttGet] overload of Create and all the HTML inputs linked to properties (via asp-for) are initially empty. Okay. So I guess the proper way of doing this is to manually create a new instance of SomeEntity and pass it to the Create view like this:
[HttpGet]
public IActionResult Create () {
return View (nameof (Create), new SomeEntity());
}
Is this the right approach then or are there some more things to keep in mind?
Assuming you understand what EF Core Default Values are for, and just looking for equivalent of Entity<T>().Property(...) equivalent.
The owned entities are always configured for each owner type by using the ReferenceOwnershipBuilder<TEntity,TRelatedEntity> class methods. To access this class you either use the result of OwnsOne method, or use the OwnsOne overload taking second argument of type Action<ReferenceOwnershipBuilder<TEntity,TRelatedEntity>>.
For instance, using the second approach:
builder.Entity<SomeEntity>().OwnsOne(e => e.OwnedEntity, ob =>
{
ob.Property(e => e.stringProperty)
.HasDefaultValue("initial");
ob.Property(e => e.decimalProperty)
.HasDefaultValue(-1M);
// etc.
});

ef core migration insert data

I'd like to insert data into table in migration. Is it possible? Migration needs parameterless constructor available and I'd like to use db context defined in Startup.cs file (best I'd like to get it throught dependency injection). How do that?
In the EF Core 2.1, migrations can automatically compute what insert, update or delete
operations must be applied when upgrading the database to a new version of the model.
As an example, we have a User and UserComment entities like these:
public class User
{
public int UserId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<UserComment> UserComments { get; set; }
}
public class UserComment
{
[Key]
public int CommentId { get; set; }
public string CommentTitle { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("User")]
public int FKUserId { get; set; }
public User User { get; set; }
}
In the DBContext, override the OnModelCreating function and seed data to each entity:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().HasData(new User[] {
new User{UserId=1,Name="iman"},
new User{UserId=2,Name="Alex"},
});
}
To seed datas that have a relationship, the foreign key value must be specified:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<UserComment>().HasData(new UserComment[] {
new UserComment{FKUserId=1,CommentId=1,CommentTitle="Comment1"},
});
}
Be careful: you must use migrations to apply changes
Migration is a process of "upgrading" your DB to a new "version". During this, your existing DB tables ("old version") does not required to match your classes (entities) ("new version"), so you can't safely use them.
During migration you should operate only with tables and records using raw SQL commands. You may use migrationBuilder.Sql("UPDATE ..."); for such updates, put them manually into migration Up() code.
If you need perform data modifications using entity classes - you should use "Seed Data" solution (from #itikhomi comment), but remember that it will be run every time your app starts, so you should do some version-check inside it.

Many-to-Many Relationship, junction table not recognized

I would like to set up a many to many relationship in ASP.NET MVC4.
The goal is to extend the default UserProfile class with a list of Timeline objects, which belong to the user.
A Timeline could be shared by multiple users, so the Timeline class should have an list of UserProfile objects aswell.
Timeline class:
namespace MvcApplication1.Models
{
public class Timeline
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Color { get; set; }
public List<UserProfile> Users { get; set; }
}
public class TimelineContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Timeline> Timelines { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserProfile> UserProfiles { get; set; }
// Added the following because I saw it on:
// http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/548945/Generating-Many-to-Many-Relation-in-MVC4-using-Ent
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<Timeline>()
.HasMany(c => c.Users)
.WithMany(s => s.Timelines)
.Map(mc =>
{
mc.ToTable("TimelineOwners");
mc.MapLeftKey("TimelineId");
mc.MapRightKey("UserId");
});
}
}
}
UserProfile class (default class with an added property):
public class UsersContext : DbContext
{
public UsersContext()
: base("DefaultConnection")
{
}
public DbSet<UserProfile> UserProfiles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Timeline> Timelines { get; set; }
// Added the following because I saw it on:
// http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/548945/Generating-Many-to-Many-Relation-in-MVC4-using-Ent
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<UserProfile>()
.HasMany(c => c.Timelines)
.WithMany(s => s.Users)
.Map (mc =>
{
mc.ToTable("TimelineOwners");
mc.MapLeftKey("UserId");
mc.MapRightKey("TimelineId");
});
}
}
[Table("UserProfile")]
public class UserProfile
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int UserId { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public List<Timeline> Timelines { get; set; }
}
I have a connection table with foreign keys:
When creating an instance of Timeline, the Users list is null:
Timeline timeline = db.Timelines.Find(id); // timeline.Users = null
Can somebody please enlighten me, how should I set this up working?
I'm totally new to ASP.NET MVC4.
Edit 1: I understand I should not extend UserProfile but create another class to store users. Once the many-to-many relationship works, I will refactor and go into that direction.
But first I would like to know why is it not working.
Edit 2:
The double context also caused problems, two databases were created for the two contexts and the pure join table was empty in one of them.
I suggest that you work through this article about the options how you can load navigation properties with Entity Framework. This is very basic knowledge which is important for every kind of relationship, not only many-to-many relationships.
Looking at that article you will find then that this line...
Timeline timeline = db.Timelines.Find(id);
...does not load any related entities. So, it's expected that timeline.Users is null, even if the entities are related in the database.
If you want to load the Users you can use eager loading:
Timeline timeline = db.Timelines.Include(t => t.Users)
.SingleOrDefault(t => t.Id == id);
This is a single database query. Or to enable lazy loading you have to mark your navigation properties as virtual:
public virtual List<UserProfile> Users { get; set; }
//...
public virtual List<Timeline> Timelines { get; set; }
You can then use your original code:
Timeline timeline = db.Timelines.Find(id); // first query
var users = timeline.Users; // second query
This will run two separate queries. The second is performed as soon as you access the navigation property for the first time.
BTW: Is there a reason why you have two context classes - TimelineContext and UsersContext? "Normally" you need only one context.
I'm not a fan of messing with the working of the internal userprofile. I would suggest creating your own user class, linking it to the simplemembershipprovider and adding functionality there. At max you'll extend the accountclasses a little to add more fields to register with, but that's about it.
Follow this extremely handy guide to get things working and let me know if you encounter an error.

How can I name my Database using EF Code First?

I've got my EF Code First working exactly as expected aside from one small bit. I'm not sure how to name my Database File.
I'm using SQL CE, but I'm sure this applies to all forms of EF Code First.
Here's my DbContext
namespace MyApp.Domain.EntityFramework
{
public class DataContext : DbContext
{
//...
}
}
And when the database is created it's created as
MyApp.Domain.EntityFramework.DataContext.sdf
I'd prefer to just have it named
MyApp.sdf
Now I'm sure this is simple, but my Googling skills keep turning up examples where the database name is auto generated like mine.
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/SimpleCodeFirstWithEntityFramework4MagicUnicornFeatureCTP4.aspx
You need to specify a connection string (for example by creating a connection string named DataContext (your class name) in your config file, and set the desired name there.
I was looking to do the same. Managed to end up with this:
public class ShopDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
public DbSet<Feature> Features { get; set; }
public DbSet<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public DbSet<Subcategory> Subcategories { get; set; }
public DbSet<Information> OrderInformation { get; set; }
public ShopDbContext() : base("Shop")
{
}
}
It will name your database "Shop" so just replace what is in the base("Shop") with whatever you want to call your database. Hope this helps.

Resources