The following class was Auto generated from a template using the Entity Framework Model.
namespace Entities
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class Country
{
public Country()
{
this.Regions = new HashSet<Region>();
}
public long CountryId { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Preferred { get; set; }
public System.DateTime LastChanged { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Region> Regions { get; set; }
}
}
I have a Wcf web service that returns POX (Xml) and Json only. I am wanting to return my own serialised object like;
public class MyResponseObject
{
public int RequestId {get;set;}
public List<Country> CountryList {get;set;}
//other properties
}
But I don't want to return the Regions ICollection.
The object can then be returned using something like
Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject()
Am I best returning my own serialised POCO object in this manner ?
In projects like these, your classes can be split into two types:
Database entity objects (what Entity Framework works with)
Data contract objects (what WCF or your web-service works with)
While it is possible to use the same objects for both, it is not recommended because the database entity objects are an internal implementation concern that is separate from the external interface (your webservice). You might add or remove columns to your database table and not want your API contracts to change. But usually you'll want to hide information from service-consumers, like a database table Users ( UserId, Password ), you definitely don't want the Password property going out!
Another reason not to is that you later might want to add attributes to your webservice contract classes (e.g. to control output formatting or input validation), adding these to entity objects is painful, if not impossible in some cases.
I know it sounds like a needless duplication of work as the majority of classes will have identical members, but it makes sense from a long-term perspective.
Fortunately tools like AutoMapper can speed-up the process of copying data from your database entity objects to your data contract objects.
The following code:
oc.CreateTablesAsync(typeof(ODataService.UserInformationListItem), typeof(ODataService.CategoriesItem), typeof(ODataService.PostsItem));
Gives me this exception:
System.NotSupportedException: Don't know about ODataApp.ODataService.UserInformationListItem
At first I was just creating a table for PostsItems, which is the object i need to store, but then I got the above exception but then for ODataApp.ODataService.CategoriesItem.
Since PostItem has the property Category, which is a List<CategoriesItem> I figured I had to add CategoriesItem as a table as well.
After doing so I got an error for the property CreatedBy on PostsItems, which is a UserInformationListItem, now this is when it gets tricky.
I also added UserInformationListItem to the CreateTables function which gave me my current problem.
The object UserInformationListItem also contains a CreatedBy property which is also an UserInformationListItem.
I'm looking for a way around this without having to alter or recreate local versions of these objects.
These objects are defined on Sharepoint which I cannot edit, and are obtained by the OData service reference. If anymore information is needed to supply me with an answer, please let me know
Based on your sample code I presume you're using sqlite-net.
Sqlite-net is not a real ORM - it only has support for basic data types and can't handle your custom types as properties. You can check it your self in SqlType() static method of Orm class (SQLite.cs).
It's not self referencing that's causing problems, it's any references between the classes. Creating tables for the following two classes will fail as well with NotSupportedException:
public class CategoryItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class PostItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
public List<CategoryItem> Categories { get; set; }
}
You'll need to create your own "database" classes which will map to database tables one-to-one. To handle UserInformationListItem you'll just add it's key value as a property to PostItem. If PostItem and CategoryItem have a many to many relationship you'll need to add a cross-reference table as well.
I have entity like below
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class MyConcrete : MyBaseClass
{
public int TemplateName { get; set; }
public int Total { get; set; }
}
public class MyOtherConcrete : MyBaseClass
{
public int TemplateName { get; set; }
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
public string OtherProperty { get; set; }
}
using default initialization, EF will make table with columns like bellow:
Id
TemplateName
TemplateName1 // <-- this is the problem
Total
MyPorperty
MyOtherProperty
now my question how to configure EF so all the TemplateName property on derived class automatically mapped into TemplateName column without making another column. is it possible to configure it on OnModelCreating method?
EDIT
actually above was simplified version of my problem. i have 10 more entities some property might duplicated everywhere and i don't want to add any abstraction layers.
i have tried manually map the column on the OnModelCreating but having "Each property name in a type must be unique. Property name 'TemplateName' was already defined" exception any idea?
EDIT 2
so, i found here, that said it is impossible to do such thing like above in EF, it is weird for me..
Move TemplateName into MyBaseClass to avoid this problem.
If necessary, you can use intermediate base classes to hold properties shared by only a subset of your classes.
After searching through the net, so far that was not possible to do that. since i realize that my inheritance tree is wrong.
so in my case, i should change my code to match the EF requirement, it is sound weird.. because in many case ENTITY is a NO NO to change, we usually create an entity that used in multiple project. event we found our entity wrong we won't update it because updating it will require massive change on the other projects.
so far, i think there is no exact answer for my question. will update it soon after EF support it.
In my app, I've been using a DB that stored its IDs as strings. The DB also stored another property (Etag) for each document/row. Because of that, I've had my domain entities derive from this base class:
public class EntityBase : NotifyPropertyChangedBase
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public Guid ETag { get; set; }
}
Now I'm adding another data layer to my application, and I don't want to remove the old one. It would be nice to be able to switch and use a particular data layer based on a run-time decision. The issue is that I want to store Id as an int in the new DB. And ETag is an unnecessary concept in that new DB.
I'm struggling with how to manage this change. If I change EntityBase.Id to an int, then the old data layer won't compile. I'd like to use a certain EntityBase if using the old data layer, and a different EntityBase if I'm using the new data layer. That's just one thought. Maybe there's a better approach? Any suggestions on how I can make this work?
By the way, I believe that persistence layer issues shouldn't work there way up into domain layer objects (like Id being a string or int). However, it's too late, and this is the situation in which I find myself. I'm hoping someone has some good advice on how to proceed.
I was thinking about adding an Id2 to EntityBase:
public class EntityBase : NotifyPropertyChangedBase
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public int Id2 { get; set; } // New property for new DB only
public Guid ETag { get; set; }
}
Then, in my new DAL mapping, I would map the Id column in the table to Id2 instead of Id. But that's not going to work because my business logic references Id only. Still thinking... I may be stuck...
As a hack, I could leave EntityBase in its original form. Then, in the new DAL, when I perform the ORM, I could just convert the ID of the table to a string.
I suggest to add one more layer then.
For instance, to create a new class like this:
public abstract class CommonEntityBase<T> : NotifyPropertyChangedBase{
public T Id {get;set;}
}
And then, derive your old EntityBase from this class:
public class EntityBase : CommonEntityBase<string>{
//this property is present only in this old implementation
public Guid ETag { get; set; }
}
So now, you can create a new layer and use a base class for that as well:
public class FancyEntityBase : CommonEntityBase<int>{
//No ETag concept here - ad new properties, methods, etc.
}
However, there is a question if you really need to change your primary keys to be integers.
This may result in performance issues when the ORM is used.
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.