I have created an ASP.NET Core web application using the MVC pattern (by following this tutorial) and connected it to a local database that is now populated with some data. I have two questions, if someone please help me understand and answer them:
1) My default connection string is set to the following:
"ConnectionStrings": {
"DefaultConnection": "Server=(localdb)\\mssqllocaldb;Database=aspnet-MyAppName;Trusted_Connection=True;MultipleActiveResultSets=true"
}
Is it possible, only by changing the name and path in this connection string, to re-create the exact same database elsewhere with the data that is currently stored in it (for example, as backup)?
I have found the local database here:
C:\Users\my-name\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server Local DB\Instances\MSSQLLocalDB
But when I try to copy the .mdf file to back up the database, I get an error that says the file is open and cannot be copied. What is it open in? How can I simply back the db file up?
2) After creating a custom controller, I noticed that all the provided properties of my Personmodel are used in the auto-generated code; e.g. in my case:
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind("Birthday,ID,Username,EmailAddress")] PersonModel personModel)
I thought this would mean that if we change the code in the model class, we need to search for and effect the changes accordingly, but then I realized if I want to keep using auto-generated code, I have to do all the same steps as when I am generating it for the first time, and then when it asks if I want to replace the old code with new code, I choose yes.
Is there a better way of doing this, because this would overwrite my custom code every time and destroy the data stored in my local database. Particularly, when I store data in its local database, and then I decide to change a column name or add something, this would override everything...
How do I go about this situation?
Question 1
The .mdf and other files associated with the database will be in use by the SQL Server service. If you want to take a backup, use SQL Server Management Studio - right-click the database in the object explorer, select Tasks and then Backup. If you want to use the backup database then you need to restore it - again in the object explorer, right-click the "Databases" folder and select Restore Database and then browse to wherever you created the backup file.
Question 2 (updated 7th Sep)
When you change your model classes, you can use the add-migration command in the console to generate a new migration class containing the code to transform the database from its current structure to the new structure which matches the updated models. If the migration can cause data loss, then backup the database and restore the backup under a different name before running update-database, You can then create a script to transform the data from the backup into the new structure of the updated database.
Scaffolded components are a bit different to Entity Framework migrations. Migrations are truly auto-generated classes, and most of the time you wouldn't need to update (or even look at) the generated code. Think of scaffolded components as being more like a kind of template - it's a way of getting started with the classes, methods, markup etc that you're most likely to need, which is quicker than writing it all from scratch. It's not an alternative to writing code though, the intent is that once you've created the scaffolded code, you'll maintain it manually going forward. There is no way (that I know of) to automatically update scaffolded code to match a new model whilst retaining any edits you've made to it. You have two options
Re-scaffold the code and then apply your edits to it
Update the code manually to match the new model
All you can really do is weigh up the two options and decide which one is the least effort.
Related
I am building a MVC solution, but I am not able to modify my model without getting a database error.
My Initializer looks like this:
public class Initializer : DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<DatabaseContext>
{
protected override void Seed(DatabaseContext context)
{
...
}
}
The error says:
An exception of type 'System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException' occurred in EntityFramework.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: Cannot drop the database 'hemabiobank', because it does not exist or you do not have permission.
How can I get permission to drop the database? Is it the server provider that has made me unable to to drop it?
Side question: How do I avoid loosing data when I modify the model?
Permission to drop the database could be from a number of things. One the ones I could thing of is that the permissions you're using to access the database do not allow you to drop a database. Are you able to login to the management studio with those permissions and drop a DB through SQL.
In terms of avoiding losing data when modifying the model, you are correct in thinking about the seed model, but you can also use database migrations:
I wrote the following on another question but it is useful here too:
Migrations provide a way to update tables/columns etc. without losing all of your existing infrastructure.
To be able to modify your code first DB using migrations you first need to enable them. To do this, in the NuGet package console simply type Enable-Migrations and press return. Once you have done this, You can make any sort of change to your classes, Dbsets, context etc. and then update them by typing add-migration (migration name here). When you have done this you'll notice a folder is created in your project called 'Migrations' or something similar. Within this you'll see some .cs files which represent the code that will be applied when you want to update the database. To physically update the database after you've added a migration you need to run the Update-Database command in the console. This will alter the database structure without losing everything you've already achieved.
The reason you give each migration a name is that you're able to swap between migrations, so you could go back to a specific change and undo further changes if you need to. This is why you'll find a separate .cs file for each migration you add in the Migrations folder, so it knows how to apply changes.
You'll also notice a migration history table created in your database, this also represents your changes and it records the state of the database at the point of that migration.
I have tried lots of variations of EF migration v6.0.1 (from no database, to empty databases to existing databases) and I have a particular problem with Azure DB instances not being able to correctly be created on first deploy using Octopus deploy.
There are a number of places where this could be going wrong, so I thought I would check some basics of EF Code First migration with you fine people if I may:
If I create a code-first model, and know that the database does not exist in the intended target database server on Azure. With the default of 'CreateDatabaseIfNotExists' approach and with AutomaticMigrations disabled;
If I then call 'migrate.exe' with the assembly containing my DbContext and migration Configuration will I get a new database created with the current state of the model? or will I get a new database with nothing in it? i.e. do I need to explicitly 'add-migration' for the initial state of the model?
I have read in the documentation that the database instance should be created automatically by the migration process, but no one states clearly (at least to me) that this newly created database will be generated with the current model without a formal 'initial state' migration created.
So the question is this: do I need an explicit migration model generated for migrate.exe to work from?
Through whatever means I try, I get a database but the application launches with the unfriendly message "Model compatibility cannot be checked because the database does not contain model metadata. Model compatibility can only be checked for databases created using Code First or Code First Migrations." Remembering that this is the same application library that just created the database in the first place (from scratch) I fail to understand how this has happened!
I did manually delete the target database a few times via SQL Server management studio, is this bad? Have I removed some vital user account that I need to recover?
Migrations and the Database Initializer CreateDatabaseIfNotExists are not the same.
Migrations uses the Database Initializer MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion, which relies upon a special table in the database _MigrationsHistory.
By contrast, CreateDatabaseIfNotExists is one of the Database Initializers which relies upon the special database table EdmMetadata. It does exactly as it implies: Creates a database with tables matching the current state of the model, i.e. a table for each DbSet<T>, only when the database does not exist.
The specific error you have quoted here, Model compatibility cannot be checked because the database does not contain model metadata., occurs due to the existence of DbSet<T> objects which were added to the code base after the initial database creation, and do not exist in EdmMetadata.
There are 4 basic Database Initializers available, 3 of which are for use when migrations is not being used:
CreateDatabaseIfNotExists
DropCreateDatabaseWhenModelChanges
DropCreateDatabaseAlways
Also note, the 4th Initializer, MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion, will allow you to use Migrations even if AutomaticMigrations is disabled; AutomaticMigrations serves a diffierent purpose, and does not interact with the Database Initializers directly.
If you intend to use Migrations, you should change the Database Initializer to MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion and forget about the other 3. If, instead, you intend to not use Migrations, then the choice of Initializer is situational.
CreateDatabaseIfNotExists will be more appropriate when you are certain that your data model is not undergoing active change, and you only intend to be concerned with database creation on a new deployment. This Initializer will elp ensure that you do not have any issues with accidental deletion of a database or live data.
DropCreateDatabaseWhenModelChanges is most appropriate in development, when you are changing the model fairly often, and want to be able to verify these changes to the model. It would not be appropriate for a production server, as changes to the model could inadvertently cause the database to be recreated.
DropCreateDatabaseAlways is only appropriate in testing, where your database is created from scratch every time you run your tests.
Migrations differs from these 3 Database Initializers, in that it never drops the database, it instead uses Data Motion to execute a series of Create Table and Drop Table SQL calls.
You also can use Update-Database -Script -SourceMigration:0 in the Package Manager Console at any time, no matter which Database Initializer you are using, to generate a full SQL script that can be run against a server to recreate the database.
Firstly, many thanks to Claies who helped me get to the bottom of this problem. I have accepted his answer as correct as ultimately it was a combination of his response and a few additional bits of reading that got me to my solution.
In answer to the actual posts question 'Do I need a migration for EF code first when the database does not exist in SQL Azure?' the answer is yes you do if you have disabled automatic migrations. But there is a little more to be aware of:
The Azure aspects of this particular problem are actually irrelevant in my situation. My problem was two-fold:
The migration being generated was out of sync with respect to the target model. What do I mean? I mean, that I was generating the migration script from my local database which itself was not in sync with the local codebase which created a migration that was incorrect. This can be seen by comparing the first few lines of the Model text in the __MigrationHistory. This awareness was helped by referring to this helpful post which explains how it works.
And more embarrassingly (I'm sure we've all done it) is that my octopus deployment of the web site itself (using Octopack) somehow neglected to include the Web.Config file. From what I can tell, this may have occurred after I installed a transform extension to Visual Studio. Within my nuget package I can see that there is a web.config.transform file but not a web.config. Basically this meant that when the application started up, it had no configuration file to turn to, no connections string at all. But this resulted in the slightly misleading error
Model compatibility cannot be checked because the database does not
contain model metadata.
Whereas what it should have said was, there isn't a connection string you idiot.
Hopefully this helps people understand the process a little better after reading Claies answer and also that blog-post. First though, check you have a web.config file and that it has a connection string in it...
In a class library Ado.net Entity Data Model is has generated POCO classes. These were generated fine for the first time. But database changes are not being reflected. In edmx diagram right clicking and choosing Update Model from Database show newly created table but it do not add table even after selecting it to add.
I tried running .tt (by right click and Run custom tool) but even it did not regenerated the Poco classes as per latest DB changes.
Help please
Not a fix but a workaround: Is it not an option to simply remove and regenerate the EDMX and the generated classes? That's what I do, it is much easier than working with the update feature, and the result seems to be the same. Your POCO extensions still remain the same and functional.
I use database first and I have my SQL upgrade scripts, the generated EDMX and my Generated models in source control and the changes there are very easy to manage. Here is a rough outline of my DB upgrade process for each version:
Create .sql script for the upgrade, statements like CREATE TABLE etc.
Delete generated files: Model.Context.tt, Model.tt, Model.edmx
Remove Entities string from Web.config (if you use it)
Create the EDMX and Context files the same way you did for the first time
If you use source control (I hope you do!) check what has changed
Test
Commit!
In my case i needed to save ModelName.edmx, then classes were generated.
Ensure that connections string in app.config is correct. I was using a DataDictionary and my connection string had the following path:
data source=|DataDirectory|*.sqlite
Thus, it wasn't updating. Because this DataDirectory variable was being resolved at runtime.
My understanding is that a context connects to a database via a connection string specified in web.config. When I create new scaffolds it creates new database .mdf files with a new connection string. I am coming from rails active record with one database and one connection string. So why does asp.net do it differently? Why have multiple database files?
Also I changed the connection string for the user model to my default site database called Toolsite to simplify things and put the users in the same db as everything else -
public ApplicationDbContext()
: base("Toolsite")
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write(Database.Connection.ConnectionString);
}
and this caused a Invalid object name 'dbo.AspNetUsers'. exception even though the table AspNetUsers exists in the database "ToolSite". Is there any other part in the server code that needs to change?
The default MVC project scaffold has always been a pet peeve of mine. When you create a new MVC project with auth, you get a user model and an application context to wire it up. That's great, in one respect, because it lets you immediately run the project with no extra configuration. However, they stupidly decided to put the user model and the application context in the same .cs file, so it confuses developers not familiar with the setup into thinking that the two are intrinsically linked.
In reality, MVC applications are designed to have a single context, and you should actually add your models to the existing context created by the scaffold, rather than create a new, separate context. The only reason to have multiple contexts is if you're literally dealing with multiple databases, and then, only really because you're dealing with existing databases in addition to your application-specific database. In other words, you should only have a single context that is tied to migrations and then you may or may not have additional contexts that operate on a database-first basis. Once you understand that, it becomes far less confusing to work with a scaffolded project.
I started a new project C#, and I used the "enable-migrations" command in the package console window. This naturally added migrations to my project. I then set automatic migrations to true, so that as I call "update-database" it will create my tables for me with all keys and that.
The only problem is that I have multiple websites where want to do this, which all use the ASP.NET membership provider to login. Which through automatic code migrations create a bunch of account tables for me to use. But the tables are all called the same, so if I do this targeting the same database for different sites they will overwrite eachother. So the question I got is this: How can I specify a prefix for my tables created by the entity framework?
I've seen several ideas on how to do this while searching, but they didn't work for me (the necessary properties wasn't there for some reason and so on.)
Thank you
Xenoxsis
I'm not sure how do you plan to do just that - if I'm getting it right you'd want to keep one database (shared) in between number of web sites - yet, have each site has its own membership tables, named differently, with different prefixes, right?
First problem is that for each Db/table name change - you need a 'code to match' - i.e. code first entities and code, the 'migration table' in the Db - and tables are all in sync - so it could all work together as it should. In that sense, just changing script or table names in Db won't work. It has to be done at the level of attributes (as #Steven suggested) or fluent configuration.
Which in your case, it means that somehow you'd need to 'build' separate configurations for each site, deploy them separately (code) to each site - and build one mega Db that contains all the small variants of each merged together.
That's going to be tough to manage - but you could try (what I described above) - I have no idea if it'd work (as this requires lot of 'infrastructure' to try this one) - but maybe along these lines...
put Table attributes (or via fluent config)
Build code - 'vary' the Table names for each - and rebuild (ideally you might need to employ some tool, code-generator to do this automatically in a batch - i.e. you build, copy files externally, change names and repeat)
Build 'migrations' for each case (Table name) also - save migrations
as files - and also do Update-Database -Script to save the actual
scripts for each case (important).
Save each migration - or we can
say a 'script' to represent.
Once done - you'd need to merge the
migrations - scripts - into one big master script - i.e. remove the
identical set of tables (leave just one of course) - and copy all
different sets for membership tables.
Remove the migration table
from the database - as that'd surely be out of sync and won't let you
do anything (or there is also a flag in code I think to just ignore
that, don't have it right now). For details see below in my other
post.
Deploy one master Db - using script you created
Deploy the
specific code - to each of the sites.
Pray it'd all work :)
There must be something smarter - but on the other hand, migrations are not made to work for such scenarios, so it's going to be hard if not impossible to pull this off.
Some general info that might help...
How to synchronize migrations with existing databases - geared toward production scenarios, maintaining Db-s and CF to match. It's not exactly what you need but has a detailed description, possible ways to resolve this which I wrote a while ago...
MVC3 and Code First Migrations - "model backing the 'blah' context has changed since the database was created"
To summarize...
What works for me is to use Update-Database -Script
That creates a script with a 'migration difference', which you can
manually apply as an SQL script on the target server database (and you
should get the right migration table rows inserted etc.).
If that still doesn't work - you can still do two things...(more inside)...
I don't know of anyway to make Entity Framework do this automatically across all entities. But you could force a table name, or schema using attributes or fluent API to get the desired effect. For example:
[Table("[put prefix here]_Users", Schema = "[put schema here]")]
public class User {
// ...
}