Develop Reference

How can I delete orphaned nested entities in the DB after removing them from a List?

I am building a backend for an Angular 8 SPA using .Net Core 2.2.
I am managing Orders - each order has an IList<OrderLine>.
I want to use the visitor pattern to implement a simple OrdersService that only has one update method and does not need to know about any business rules.
I have an abstract OrderUpdateActionclass that holds an Orderobject. The class has an abstract Do() method (each implementation of this method holds business logic). Do() returns the updated Orderobject.
My OrdersService has only one UpdateOrder(OrderUpdateAction orderUpdate)method that calls Do()and then hands the updated Order to a DbContext for storing the changes to the Db.
Entities
public class Order
{
public Guid Id {get; set;}
public IList<OrderLine> OrderLines {get; set;}
[more stuff here]
}
public class OrderLine
{
public Guid Id {get; set;}
public Guid? OrderId { get; set; }
public Order Order { get; set; }
public string Description {get; set;}
[more stuff here]
}
OrderUpdateActions
public abstract class OrderUpdateAction
{
public Order Order { get; set; }
public abstract Order Do();
}
public class DeleteAction : OrderUpdateAction
{
public Guid OrderLineId { get; set; }
public override Order Do()
{
if (Order.OrderLines.FirstOrDefault(ol => ol.Id == OrderLineId) != null)
{
Order.OrderLines.Remove(Order.OrderLines.FirstOrDefault(ol => ol.Id == OrderLineId));
}
return Order;
}
}
OrdersService
public async Task<Order> UpdateOrder(OrderUpdateAction orderUpdate)
{
var order = orderUpdate.Do();
_dbContext.Orders.Update(order);
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
[Caching, logging, etc]
return order;
}
This all works just fine, but when an OrderLine is removed from the IList<OrderLine> of an Order, the OrderLine is not removed from the database - EF seems to just remove the 'link' between those entities by setting the OrderId in the OrderLine null.
I know that can this behaviour can be useful when multiple 'parent' entities reference that OrderLine, but this is not the case here.
Is there a way to tell EF to delete those orphaned OrderLines, or do I have to manually 'clean up' after the update?
Thanks :)

I think you need to look at setting the DeleteBehavior on the Entity Configuration. Check out this post for info on your different options: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/saving/cascade-delete

It turns out all I had to do was make the OrderId Guid not nullable. By default the removed OrderLines are deleted then.
Robert Perry's link was helpful:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/saving/cascade-delete

Make sure you have cascade deleting enabled in your DbContex, you can add something like
modelBuilder.Entity<OrderLine>().HasOne(x =>x.Order).WithMany().OnDelete(DeleteBehavior.Cascade);
to the body of OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
OrdersService that only has one update method and does not need to
know about any business rules
I think you are messing up the duty of service with the duty of repository. The CRUD operations are usually handled by repository and service is the proper place to maintain the business logic of the app. Because you are using the EF Core there is no need to build a repository pattern over it as it is already a repository so you can just add some extension methods to the DbContext for such trivial operations as Create or Update or Delete things. You can have a look at this article to check how powerful options the EF Core gives you.
You can also have a look at this explanation
"In a traditional layered architecture, service is literally synonymous with the business logic layer. It's the layer between UI and Data. Therefore, all business rules go into services. The data layer should only understand basic CRUD operations, and the UI layer should deal only with the mapping of presentation DTOs to and from the business objects."

Entity Framework Code First Relationships; what am I missing?

I'm experimenting with EF5 Code First and I am using the models (show below).
When I look at the database that is created, I am confused because I do not see anything in the Track table that points to the Category table. Category has a FK pointing back to Track but that means that there are going to be duplicates of the categories?
A little background: I am trying to build a model that has tracks and every track can have 1 to N Categories. All of the categories are already defined, that is they are basically a lookup and I plan to create them in the seed method when database is created.
I think I am not understanding something obvious... When I query a track, how will I know what category it contains?
Thx
public class Track : IAuditInfo
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
public String Description { get; set; }
public String Data { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; }
public DateTime ModifiedOn { get; set; }
public ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public Track()
{
Categories = new List<Category>();
}
}
public class Category
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public Boolean IsVisible { get; set; }
public String DisplayName { get; set; }
}

Your current model is a one-to-many relationship between tracks and categories.
This usually implemented, as you have noted that entity framework does, using a foreign key on the many side (category) to the one side (track).
If I understand you correctly, what you want is a many-to-many relationship. Many tracks can be related to the same category, and a single track can belong to many categories.
To let entity framework understand that you want a many-to-many relationship you can simply add a ICollection property to your category class.
So both your classes should have a collection of the other class.
I.e. tracks have many categories and categories have many tracks.
For more information you can also see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/hh134698.a.nospx

Olav is right, your data model at the moment is not telling Entity Framework that there is a many-to-many relationship in there.
The simplest way to resolve this is to add
public virtual ICollection<Track> Tracks { get; set; }
to your Category class.
However... You may not want to pollute your domain model with artefacts that are not relevant to your domain. More importantly, when you do it this way, it is up to Entity Framework to figure out what to call the binding table. Prior to EF6 this naming is non deterministic (see http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1677), which may mean that two different machines compiling the same code will decide on different names for that table and cause some interesting migration problems in your production system.
The answer to both problems is to always explicitly manage many-to-many relationships with Fluent Configuration.
In your Data Context class, override the OnModelCreating, something like this:
public class MyDb : DbContext
{
public IDbSet<Track> Tracks { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Track>()
.HasMany(t => t.Categories)
.WithMany()
.Map(c => c.ToTable("CategoriesForTracks"));
}
}
If you do this, you don't need to add a navigation property to your Category class, though you still can (if you do, you should use the overload for WithMany that allows you to specify a property).
Relationships between entities and how to map that to a relational database is inherently hard. For anything other than the simplest parent-child relationships you will want to use the fluent API to make sure you actually get what you want.
Morteza Manavi has a really good blog series describing relationships in EF Code First in exhaustive detail.
NOTE
You should usually make navigation properties virtual. So, you should change your Category class like this:
public virtual ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
In theory, not making it virtual should just cause eager loading rather than lazy loading to happen. In practice I have always found lots of subtle bugs appearing when my navigation properties are not virtual.

Rich domain model with behaviours and ORM

After watching NDC12 presentation "Crafting Wicked Domain Models" from Jimmy Bogard (http://ndcoslo.oktaset.com/Agenda), I was wandering how to persist that kind of domain model.
This is sample class from presentation:
public class Member
{
List<Offer> _offers;
public Member(string firstName, string lastName)
{
FirstName = firstName;
LastName = lastName;
_offers = new List<Offer>();
}
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Offer> AssignedOffers {
get { return _offers; }
}
public int NumberOfOffers { get; private set; }
public Offer AssignOffer(OfferType offerType, IOfferValueCalc valueCalc)
{
var value = valueCalc.CalculateValue(this, offerType);
var expiration = offerType.CalculateExpiration();
var offer = new Offer(this, offerType, expiration, value);
_offers.Add(offer);
NumberOfOffers++;
return offer;
}
}
so there are some rules contained in this domain model:
- Member must have first and last name
- Number of offers can't be changed outside
- Member is responsible for creating new offer, calculating its value and assignment
If if try to map this to some ORM like Entity Framework or NHibernate, it will not work.
So, what's best approach for mapping this kind of model to database with ORM?
For example, how do I load AssignedOffers from DB if there's no setter?
Only thing that does make sense for me is using command/query architecture: queries are always done with DTO as result, not domain entities, and commands are done on domain models. Also, event sourcing is perfect fit for behaviours on domain model. But this kind of CQS architecture isn't maybe suitable for every project, specially brownfield. Or not?
I'm aware of similar questions here, but couldn't find concrete example and solution.

This is actually a very good question and something I have contemplated. It is potentially difficult to create proper domain objects that are fully encapsulated (i.e. no property setters) and use an ORM to build the domain objects directly.
In my experience there are 3 ways of solving this issue:
As already mention by Luka, NHibernate supports mapping to private fields, rather than property setters.
If using EF (which I don't think supports the above) you could use the memento pattern to restore state to your domain objects. e.g. you use entity framework to populate 'memento' objects which your domain entities accept to set their private fields.
As you have pointed out, using CQRS with event sourcing eliminates this problem. This is my preferred method of crafting perfectly encapsulated domain objects, that also have all the added benefits of event sourcing.

Old thread. But there's a more recent post (late 2014) by Vaughn Vernon that addresses just this scenario, with particular reference to Entity Framework. Given that I somehow struggled to find such information, maybe it can be helpful to post it here as well.
Basically the post advocates for the Product domain (aggregate) object to wrap the ProductState EF POCO data object for what concerns the "data bag" side of things. Of course the domain object would still add all its rich domain behaviour through domain-specific methods/accessors, but it would resort to inner data object when it has to get/set its properties.
Copying snippet straight from post:
public class Product
{
public Product(
TenantId tenantId,
ProductId productId,
ProductOwnerId productOwnerId,
string name,
string description)
{
State = new ProductState();
State.ProductKey = tenantId.Id + ":" + productId.Id;
State.ProductOwnerId = productOwnerId;
State.Name = name;
State.Description = description;
State.BacklogItems = new List<ProductBacklogItem>();
}
internal Product(ProductState state)
{
State = state;
}
//...
private readonly ProductState State;
}
public class ProductState
{
[Key]
public string ProductKey { get; set; }
public ProductOwnerId ProductOwnerId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public List<ProductBacklogItemState> BacklogItems { get; set; }
...
}
Repository would use internal constructor in order to instantiate (load) an entity instance from its DB-persisted version.
The one bit I can add myself, is that probably Product domain object should be dirtied with one more accessor just for the purpose of persistence through EF: in the same was as new Product(productState) allows a domain entity to be loaded from database, the opposite way should be allowed through something like:
public class Product
{
// ...
internal ProductState State
{
get
{
// return this.State as is, if you trust the caller (repository),
// or deep clone it and return it
}
}
}
// inside repository.Add(Product product):
dbContext.Add(product.State);

For AssignedOffers : if you look at the code you'll see that AssignedOffers returns value from a field. NHibernate can populate that field like this: Map(x => x.AssignedOffers).Access.Field().
Agree with using CQS.

When doing DDD first thing, you ignore the persistence concerns. THe ORM is tighlty coupled to a RDBMS so it's a persistence concern.
An ORM models persistence structure NOT the domain. Basically the repository must 'convert' the received Aggregate Root to one or many persistence entities. The Bounded Context matters a lot since the Aggregate Root changes according to what are you trying to accomplish as well.
Let's say you want to save the Member in the context of a new offer assigned. Then you'll have something like this (of course this is only one possible scenario)
public interface IAssignOffer
{
int OwnerId {get;}
Offer AssignOffer(OfferType offerType, IOfferValueCalc valueCalc);
IEnumerable<Offer> NewOffers {get; }
}
public class Member:IAssignOffer
{
/* implementation */
}
public interface IDomainRepository
{
void Save(IAssignOffer member);
}
Next the repo will get only the data required in order to change the NH entities and that's all.
About EVent Sourcing, I think that you have to see if it fits your domain and I don't see any problem with using Event Sourcing only for storing domain Aggregate Roots while the rest (mainly infrastructure) can be stored in the ordinary way (relational tables). I think CQRS gives you great flexibility in this matter.

Updating related entities DDD

I'm confused on how I'm going to updated related entities using DDD. Let say I have a Employee Class and Workschedule Class. How should I updated a specific workschedule of a certain employee? The relationship between Employee and Workschedule is One-To-Many. Below is the code I'm using how to Add/Update a certain workschedule.
public class Employee
{
public int EmployeeId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<WorkSchedule> WorkSchedules { get; set; }
public WorkSchedule AddWorkSchedule(WorkSchedule workSchedule)
{
this.WorkSchedules.Add(workSchedule);
return workSchedule;
}
public WorkSchedule EditWorkSchedule(WorkSchedule workSchedule)
{
var originalWorkSchedule = this.WorkSchedules.FirstOrDefault(w => w.WorkscheduleId == workSchedule.WorkscheduleId);
originalWorkSchedule.ClockIn = workSchedule.ClockIn;
originalWorkSchedule.ClockOut = workSchedule.ClockOut;
return originalWorkSchedule;
}
}
public class WorkSchedule
{
public int WorkScheduleId { get; set; }
public DateTime ClockIn { get; set; }
public DateTime ClockOut { get; set; }
public int EmployeeId { get; set; }
}
Is this correct? Did I follow DDD correctly? Also, my thinking right now Workschedule is a value object but I'm putting and ID for normalization purposes

your Model should be "POCO" class
CRUD methods such.. Add or Edit will be considored as part of "Service" or "Repository"
here is a quick idea that just came to my mind / how should it look like and its usage..
IRepository repository { get; set; } //implement Interface and inject via IoC Container
//..usage
var employee = repository.GetEmployee(123); //get by id
//..new WorkSchedule
employee.WorkSchedules.Add(workSchedule);
var result = repository.Save(employee);

Since everything here is EF related, it isn't much of DDD. IF the code works as desired, then it's ok. But DDD has no relationship to EF or any other ORM. You should design the Domain objects, without caring at all about the database or an ORM. Then, in the repository you map the Domain entities to Persistence entities which will be handled by the ORM.
Also, my thinking right now Workschedule is a value object but I'm putting and ID for normalization purposes
This is the consequence when the layers and models are mixed. You don't need an ID in the domain but you need an id for persistence. Trying to fit both requirements in one model and calling that model Domain leads to nowhere.

EF it is not for DDD, it is too clumsy. EF is for same codemonkeys who likes t map SQL tables to Entities and do it like ActiveRecord antipatter, but after more intelligent developers started to call this as a bad practice, they started to use ORM, entities and continue monkeycoding.
I'm struggling with EF last 3 years to let it work DDD way. It successfully resists and wins. Without hacks it doesn't work.
The on-to-many relations still doesn't work as expected, there is not way to create entities with constructor, not the public properties and so on.

Entity Framework associations with multiple (separate) keys on view

I'm having problems setting up an Entity Framework 4 model.
A Contact object is exposed in the database as an updateable view. Also due to the history of the database, this Contact view has two different keys, one from a legacy system. So some other tables reference a contact with a 'ContactID' while other older tables reference it with a 'LegacyContactID'.
Since this is a view, there are no foreign keys in the database, and I'm trying to manually add associations in the designer. But the fluent associations don't seem to provide a way of specifying which field is referenced.
How do I build this model?
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).???
//is there some way to say which key field this reference is referencing?
}

EDIT 2: "New things have come to light, man" - His Dudeness
After a but more experimentation and news, I found using a base class and child classes with different keys will not work by itself. With code first especially, base entities must define a key if they are not explicitly mapped to tables.
I left the suggested code below because I still recommend using the base class for your C# manageability, but I below the code I have updated my answer and provided other workaround options.
Unfortunately, the truth revealed is that you cannot accomplish what you seek without altering SQL due to limitations on EF 4.1+ code first.
Base Contact Class
public abstract class BaseContact
{
// Include all properties here except for the keys
// public string Name { get; set; }
}
Entity Classes
Set this up via the fluent API if you like, but for easy illustration I've used the data annotations
public class Contact : BaseContact
{
[Key]
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class LegacyContact : BaseContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
[Key]
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
Using the Entities
Classes that reference or manipulate the contact objects should reference the base class much like an interface:
public class SomeCustomObject
{
public BaseContact Contact { get; set; }
}
If later you need to programmatically determine what type you are working with use typeof() and manipulate the entity accordingly.
var co = new SomeCustomObject(); // assume its loaded with data
if(co.Contact == typeof(LegacyContact)
// manipulate accordingly.
New Options & Workarounds
As I suggested in comment before, you won't be able to map them to a single view/table anyway so you have a couple options:
a. map your objects to their underlying tables and alter your "get/read" methods on repositories and service classes pull from the joined view -or-
b. create a second view and map each object to their appropriate view.
c. map one entity to its underlying table and one to the view.
Summary
Try (B) first, creating a separate view because it requires the least amount of change to both code and DB schema (you aren't fiddling with underlying tables, or affecting stored procedures). It also ensures your EF C# POCOs will function equivalently (one to a view and one to table may cause quirks). Miguel's answer below seems to be roughly the same suggestion so I would start here if it's possible.
Option (C) seems worst because your POCO entities may behave have unforseen quirks when mapped to different SQL pieces (tables vs. views) causing coding issues down the road.
Option (A), while it fits EF's intention best (entities mapped to tables), it means to get your joined view you must alter your C# services/repositories to work with the EF entities for Add, Update, Delete operations, but tell the Pull/Read-like methods to grab data from the joint views. This is probably your best choice, but involves more work than (B) and may also affect Schema in the long run. More complexity equals more risk.

Edit I'm not sure this is actually possible, and this is why:
The assumption is that a foreign key references a primary key. What you've got is two fields which are both acting as primary keys of vwContact, but depending on which object you ask it's a different field that's the primary key. You can only have one primary key at once, and although you can have a compound primary key you can't do primary key things with only half of it - you have to have a compound foreign key with which to reference it.
This is why Entity Framework doesn't have a way to specify the mapping column on the target side, because it has to use the primary key.
Now, you can layer some more objects on top of the EF entities to do some manual lookup and simulate the navigation properties, but I don't think you can actually get EF to do what you want because SQL itself won't do what you want - the rule is one primary key per table, and it's not negotiable.
From what you said about your database structure, it may be possible for you to write a migration script which can give the contact entities a consistent primary key and update everything else to refer to them with that single primary key rather than the two systems resulting from the legacy data, as you can of course do joins on any fields you like. I don't think you're going to get a seamlessly functional EF model without changing your database though.
Original Answer That Won't Work
So, vwContact contains a key KeyField which is referenced by many SomeObjects and another key LegacyKeyField which is referenced by many LegacyObjects.
I think this is how you have to approach this:
Give vwContact navigation properties for SomeObject and LegacyObject collections:
public virtual ICollection<SomeObject> SomeObjects { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<LegacyObject> LegacyObjects { get; set; }
Give those navigation properties foreign keys to use:
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.SomeObjects)
.WithRequired(s => s.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.LegacyObjects)
.WithRequired(l => l.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.LegacyKeyField);
The trouble is I would guess you've already tried this and it didn't work, in which case I can't offer you much else as I've not done a huge amount of this kind of thing (our database is much closer to the kinds of thing EF expects so we've had to do relatively minimal mapping overrides, usually with many-to-many relationships).
As for your two calls to HasKey on vwContact, they can't both be the definitive key for the object, so it's either a compound key which features both of them, or pick one, or there's another field you haven't mentioned which is the real primary key. From here it's not really possible to say what the right option there is.

You should be able to do this with two different objects to represent the Contact view.
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class vwLegacyContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwLegacyContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwLegacyContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwLegacyContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
// The rest of your configuration
}

I have tried everything that you can imagine, and found that most solutions won't work in this version of EF... maybe in future versions it supports referencing another entity by using an unique field, but this is not the case now. I also found two solutions that work, but they are more of a workaround than solutions.
I tried all of the following things, that didn't work:
Mapping two entities to the same table: this is not allowed in EF4.
Inheriting from a base that has no key definitions: all root classes must have keys, so that inherited classes share this common key... that is how inheritance works in EF4.
Inheriting from base class that defines all fields, including keys, and then use modelBuilder to tell wich base-properties are keys of the derived types: this doesn't work, because the methos HasKey, Property and others that take members as parameters, must reference members of the class itself... referencing properties of a base class is not allowed. This cannot be done: modelBuilder.HasKey<MyClass>(x => x.BaseKeyField)
The two things that I did that worked:
Without DB changes: Map to the table that is source of the view in question... that is, if vwContact is a view to Contacts table, then you can map a class to Contacts, and use it by setting the key to the KeyField, and another class mapping to the vwContacts view, with the key being LegacyKeyField. In the class Contacts, the LegacyKeyField must exist, and you will have to manage this manually, when using the Contacts class. Also, when using the class vwContacts you will have to manually manage the KeyField, unless it is an autoincrement field in the DB, in this case, you must remove the property from vwContacts class.
Changing DB: Create another view, just like the vwContacts, say vwContactsLegacy, and map it to a class in wich the key is the LegacyKeyField, and map vwContacts to the original view, using KeyField as the key. All limitations from the first case also applies: the vwContacts must have the LegacyKeyField, managed manually. And the vwContactsLegacy, must have the KetField if it is not autoincrement idenitity, otherwise it must not be defined.
There are some limitations:
As I said, these solutions are work-arounds... not real solutions, there are some serious implications, that may even make them undesirable:
EF does not know that you are mapping two classes to the same thing. So when you update one thing, the other one could be changed or not, it depends if the objects is cached or not. Also, you could have two objects at the same time, that represents the same thing on the backing storage, so say you load a vwContact and also a vwContactLegacy, changes both, and then try to save both... you will have to care about this yourself.
You will have to manage one of the keys manually. If you are using vwContacts class, the KeyFieldLegacy is there, and you must fill it. If you want to create a vwContacts, and associate is with a LegacyObject, then you need to create the reference manually, because LegacyObject takes a vwContactsLegacy, not a vwContacts... you will have to create the reference by setting the ContactId field.
I hope that this is more of a help than a disillusion, EF is a powerfull toy, but it is far from perfect... though I think it's going to get much better in the next versions.

I think this may be possible using extension methods, although not directly through EF as #Matthew Walton mentioned in his edit above.
However, with extension methods, you can specify what to do behind the scenes, and have a simple call to it.
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
public class LegacyObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this LegacyObject legacyObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in legacyObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.LegacyKeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
and
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class SomeObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this SomeObject someObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in someObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.KeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
Then to use you can simply do like this:
var legacyContacts = legacyObject.Contacts();
var someContacts = someObject.Contacts();

Sometimes it makes more sense to map it from the other end of the relationship, in your case:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.LegacyKeyField);
however this will require that u.LegacyKeyField is marked as a primary key.
And then I'll give my two cents:
if the Legacy db is using LegacyKeyField, then perhaps the legacy db will be read only. In this case we can create two separate contexts Legacy and Non-legacy and map them accordingly. This can potentially become a bit messy as you'd have to remember which object comes from which context. But then again, nothing stops you from adding the same EF code first object into 2 different contexts
Another solution is to use views with ContactId added for all other legacy tables and map them into one context. This will tax performance for the sake of having cleaner context objects, but this can be counteracted on sql side: indexed views, materialized views, stored procs, etc. So than LEGACY_OBJECT becomes VW_LEGACY OBJECT with CONTACT.ContactId brought over, then:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().ToTable("VW_LEGACY_OBJECT");
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.ContactId);
I personally would go with creating "mapper views" with CustomerId on legacy tables, as it's cleaner from c# layer perspective and you can make those views look like real tables. It is also difficult to suggest a solution without knowing what exactly is the scenario that you have a problem with: querying, loading, saving, etc.