I've started porting a .NET SQL Server application to LINQ to Entities. I have (among others...) one table called Users, and one called Time. Time is reported on a specific user (UserId), but it is also recorded which user made the report (InsertedByUserId) and possibly who has updated the Time since insert (UpdatedByUserId). This gives me three references to the table Users.
When I generate a .EDMX from this I get three references to the table Users: User, User1 and User2. Without manual edit I have no way of knowing which one refers to the UserId, InsertedByUserId or UpdatedByUserId field.
How do others solve this? Maybe it's not necessary to register ALL references, and stick with InsertedByUserId and UpdatedByUserId as ints?
(The manual edit wouldn't be a problem if the database were never updated, but as we make changes to the database every now and then we occasionally have to regenerate the .EMDX, thus removing all manual changes.)
Thanks in advance!
Jos,
Generally when I make my foreign keys, I name them accordingly. From the Entity designer you can differentiate between the different Navigation Properties (ie User, User1, User2) by looking at the FK association (as long as you named your foreign keys distinctly). For Instance I have a ModifiedById and CreatedById field in each table. Both fields reference my SystemUser table, My foreign keys are named like this: FK_[TableName]_SystemUser_CreatedBy and FK_[TableName]_SystemUser_ModifiedBy.
You should notice that in the Navigation properties you can see the Foreign key. You can also modify the name of the Navigation Property (which is in the Conceptual Side "CSDL portion" of the EDMX), and this change will stay when you update your EDMX from the database.
Related
I have several entities with several relations. They have one "starting" entity. When I want to persist data to my database, I set the data to each entity (implicitly with a method I wrote, because I import that data from an xml), but only persist and flush the main entity. I used cascade:persist in the entities accordingly. And all that works just fine.
But: There are entities (the OneToMany side) that should check in the database, whether or not the record already exists and only set a new record, if not. And if the record exists the ManyToOne side should get that foreign key, that already exists.
Is there an easy way to tell doctrine to do so on my single persist/flush of the main entity?
edit
Maybe I can simplify the question to:
Is it possible to flush an object and doctrine will check if this record already exists in the database (in one query)? Or do I have to do make a query to check for existing records first and then a second query with my data to be set?
edit end
Thanks a lot for your help
David
I have an existing view in my SQL database "view_account" which represents a account entity. This view is read only and has no primary_key field. Actually it has a primary key "id" but the field is not declared as primary key. I can also not change the table design, because its an automatic export from another application generating this tables (the automatic export is every week).
But thats not the problem cause doctrine don't care about "primary key" flag in the database until you don't update the schema.
But whenever i try to "doctrine:schema:update --force" doctrine wants to create this table. How can i ignore this view (or better the entity) from updating by doctrine? Marking the entity read_only with doctrine annotation is not working. Extending a own update-command will also not work, as i found out, it will not work since doctrine 2.4.7 to extend the doctrine-schema-update command (the update command method is ignored in any way).
Whats the best solution?
Edit:
I also tried to configure two entitymanager. One for the "internal" entities and for the "foreign" entities. Since all entities are linked to each other on some point, it is also not possible to have two separated manager don't knowing from each other entities.
App maker has relations to configure Primary and foreign key relation ship. I configure 1 to many relation, it creates parent column name in the child model.
I don't know how it works, it is taking the first column by default to save in the child model. I re ordered the fields but it is not changing the name and I have deleted the relation and re created but it is not reflecting.
Can any one explain how it works, Which field is configured as default primary key in the documentation also it is not mentioned any where.
You can change relation names on both sides of the relation at any time without re-creating it:
Drive Tables
For drive tables App Maker internally maintains _key, that is primary/foreign key SQL analogue. How the relation is handled under the hood is not exposed.
Cloud SQL
For cloud SQL things are little bit more transparent. For new models App Maker will automatically add id field that is primary key for SQL table and when you create a relation App Maker will automatically add foreign key column to the Model from the 'many' side.
Let's say I have a Setting entity with some fields like IntValue, dateValue, stringValue and some linked entities, like countries (ManyToMany to entity Country), languages (ManyToMany to Language) etc.
Settings are created by users and assigned to specific objects (not important here, but I wanted to clarify).
Now I suddenly need to have UserDefaultSetting, which will be the same, but with additional user field (ManyToOne to User entity).
I tried to extend existing Setting entity class with one more field added. The problem is, as I looked at the schema update SQL, it created new table for the new entity, but without all the tables needed to ORM connections (mostly ManyToMany). Just one table with "scalar" fields.
So previously I've had setting table with int_value, date_value etc. but also setting_country and setting_language tables, linking ManyToMany relations. After creating child entity, Doctrine created only user_default_setting table with int_value, date_value etc. and additionally user_id column, but I can't see any relation/link tables.
I know I should've been do it with abstract base entity class, but at the time I started, I didn't know that and now part of the project is on production (don't look at me like that, I blame the client) and I don't want to change that "base" class now. Can I inherit everything from non-abstract entity class in a way it will work?
UPDATE: everything explained. See Cerad's comment. Thanks!
Using the Dynamics CRM I'm trying to create an instance of an entity. I would like to manually set the GUID, but if I had the attribute that is the primary key to the DynamicEntity, I get following error.
Service could not process request
I am building a DynamicEntity, and setting the [entityname]id attribute causes the request to fail. It's moving data between two CRM instances, so if anyone knows of a better way to copy records between CRMs, that'd work too. Otherwise, I'd like the GUID to match across instances... as that's the point of a GUID.
Happily, it IS possible to do this across two CRM instances! A co-worker knew the solution, so credit really belongs to him.
My mistake was creating a Property with type UniqueIdentifierProperty. The primary key attribute on an entity needs to be filled in with a KeyProperty. These two properties are nearly identical -- the Property types are, except that one holds a Key, the other a UniqueIdentifier. The Key/UniqueIdentifier both hold GUIDs. (Another day in the mind of Microsoft!)
Precisely, what I'm doing is creating a DynamicEntity, filling in the entity name, and filling in the majority of the attributes. The PK attribute (which you can determine from the metadata) can be filled in with a KeyProperty. I was filling it in with a UniqueIdentifierProperty, which CRM rejects and responds with a nondescript and unhelpful error message.
I apologize if I am over-simplifying the solution, but why not add a custom field in both instances that would be a mirror of the other instances guid?