I'm having quite the issue right now while trying to learn Entity Framework.
Let's say I have this entity:
public class BuildingGroup {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string NameOfManager { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Building> Buildings { get; set; }
}
And also this entity.
public class Architect {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Building> BuildingsBeingWorkedOn { get; set; }
}
These two entities are completely unrelated. Here's the Building entity:
public class Building {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}
My problem happens when I try to add a building to, say a BuildingGroup. In my domain model, I can modify the equivalent collection of buildings, by adding, modifying or removing buildings. However, when I try to update BuildingGroup through a repository, the buildings will not be updated.
public void Update(BuildingGroup buildingGroup) {
var buildingGroupEntity = _context.BuildingGroups.Single(b => b.ID == buildingGroup.ID);
// This will not map the Building collection
context.Entry(buildingGroupEntity).CurrentValues.SetValues(buildingGroup);
// My attempt at mapping the buildings
buildingGroupEntity.Buildings.Clear();
buildingGroup.Buildings.ToList().ForEach(b => buildingGroupEntity.Buildings.Add(_context.Buildings.Single(x => x.ID == b.ID)));
_context.Entry(buildingGroupEntity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
This fails if the building were not saved in the database prior to the call to Update(), which is normal since buildings can live independently. It must also be done for every child collection of BuildingGroup (if there were more), and for child collections of these children, well...
I have noticed other people use a foreign key constraint in the child object (here, Building), but I can't really do that since many unrelated entities can point to a building: I'd have a lot of navigation properties.
Is there a graceful way to manage referencing objects that can also live independently from those who hold references to them?
If all the entities have to exist independently, yet have relationships with each other, it's better to use many-to-many relationship.
Change your model classes as follows, the Building should contain a couple of collections for architects and groups.
public class BuildingGroup
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string NameOfManager { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Building> Buildings { get; set; }
}
public class Architect
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Building> BuildingsBeingWorkedOn { get; set; }
}
public class Building
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Architect> Architects { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<BuildingGroup> BuildingGroups { get; set; }
}
If you use entity type configuration, you could define the relationship as follows:
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Building>().HasMany(it => it.Architects).WithMany(it => it.BuildingsBeingWorkedOn);
modelBuilder.Entity<Building>().HasMany(it => it.BuildingGroups).WithMany(it => it.Buildings);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
}
Related
I am having an issue with EF returning NULL values within a child list. Here is my model that I am trying to get:
public class CompoundIngredient : Ingredient
{
public List<MeasuredIngredient> MeasuredIngredients { get; set; }
public string UserId { get; set; }
public CompoundIngredient()
{
MeasuredIngredients = new List<MeasuredIngredient>();
IsPublic = true;
}
}
However, when I do this:
return await _dataContext.CompoundIngredients
.Include(a => a.MeasuredIngredients)
.ThenInclude(a => a.MeasurementType)
.Include(a => a.MeasuredIngredients)
.ThenInclude(a => a.Ingredient)
.ThenInclude(a => a.IngredientType)
.FirstOrDefaultAsync(c => c.DisplayValue == name);
I get back a collection of 4 items. 2 items are populated and 2 are NULL.
Here is the data in the DB
As you can see from the picture there are 4 entries in the table, 2 of which belong to CompoundIngredientId 6 which is the ID of the ingredient who matches the Name value.
Why am I getting 4 results back, 2 of which are null?
EDIT:
So here are the models
public class CompoundIngredient : Ingredient
{
public List<MeasuredIngredient> MeasuredIngredients { get; set; }
public string UserId { get; set; }
public CompoundIngredient()
{
MeasuredIngredients = new List<MeasuredIngredient>();
IsPublic = true;
}
}
public class Ingredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string DisplayValue { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public bool IsPublic { get; set; }
public IngredientType IngredientType { get; set; }
public int IngredientTypeId { get; set; }
public int CompanyId { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set; }
public string LastModifiedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime LastModifiedDate { get; set; }
}
public class MeasuredIngredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public decimal Amount { get; set; }
public int MeasurementTypeId { get; set; }
public MeasurementType MeasurementType { get; set; }
public int IngredientId { get; set; }
public Ingredient Ingredient { get; set; }
public int? UseId { get; set; }
public Use Use { get; set; }
}
public class Recipe
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public bool IsPublic { get; set; }
public int RecipeCategoryId { get; set; }
public RecipeCategory RecipeCategory { get; set; }
public int SocialMediaId { get; set; }
public SocialMedia SocialMedia { get; set; }
public virtual List<TimeTemp> TimeTemps { get; set; }
public virtual List<RecipeFuel> RecipeFuels{ get;set; }
public List<MeasuredIngredient> MeasuredIngredients { get; set; }
public List<RecipeStep> RecipeSteps { get; set; }
public string CreatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set; }
public string LastModifiedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime LastModifiedDate { get; set; }
public Recipe()
{
MeasuredIngredients = new List<MeasuredIngredient>();
RecipeSteps = new List<RecipeStep>();
SocialMedia = new SocialMedia();
RecipeFuels = new List<RecipeFuel>();
TimeTemps = new List<TimeTemp>();
IsPublic = true;
}
}
As you can see Measured Ingredient isnt exclusive to CompoundIngredient. Recipe also has a List on it as well.
as far as configurations i dont have much
public class MeasuredIngredientConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<MeasuredIngredient>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<MeasuredIngredient> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.UseId).IsRequired(false);
}
}
public class IngredientConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<Ingredient>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Ingredient> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.IsPublic).HasDefaultValue(true);
}
}
public class RecipeConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<Recipe>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Recipe> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.IsPublic).HasDefaultValue(true);
}
}
here are the tables in the DB with FKs
I highly suspect the issue will stem from CompoundIngredient inheriting from Ingredient using TPH inheritance (One table with a Discriminator) then being referenced by MeasuredIngredient, and this relationship not being set up quite right. Which version of EF Core is this?
Overall the relationship between these entities/tables feels "odd". You have an ingredient, then a "compound" ingredient that is made up of one or more MeasuredIngredient. (which does not extend ingredient) A Measured ingredient contains one Ingredient, and optionally one CompoundIngredient.
Given a compound ingredient represents just a collection of measured ingredients, this just feels a bit off. It sounds like you want a recipe to contain a list of ingredients where each is associated with a measurement (The MeasuredIngredient) but that "ingredient" may be a combination of other ingredients (with associated measurements) where you may want to possibly avoid duplicating data.
I built a simple test with the core relationships in EF Core 5 and I was able to get the expected results. The important detail here was ensuring the relationship between the 3 classes (and possibly other related classes) is configured correctly. For example, cutting down the object model down to the core I came up with:
public class Ingredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class CompoundIngredient : Ingredient
{
public virtual ICollection<MeasuredIngredient> MeasuredIngredients { get; set; } = new List<MeasuredIngredient>();
}
public class MeasuredIngredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
publi int IngredientId { get; set; }
public virtual Ingredient Ingredient { get; set; }
}
Creating test records with the relationships you showed and running EF Core 5 I wasn't able to reproduce the issue, but I honestly did not feel comfortable with leaving EF to sort out the discriminator and relationships.
The bits I didn't like were:
CompoundIngredient extends Ingredient while containing a Many relationship to MeasuredIngredient where there is no corresponding "One" relationship on MeasuredIngredient, but it does have a "One" relationship with Ingredient.
The discriminator here is implied, not configured.
What I am more comfortable with was:
public class Ingredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class CompoundIngredient : Ingredient
{
public virtual ICollection<MeasuredIngredient> MeasuredIngredients { get; set; } = new List<MeasuredIngredient>();
}
public class MeasuredIngredient
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Ingredient Ingredient { get; set; }
public virtual CompoundIngredient CompoundIngredient { get; set; }
}
Then explicitly mapping the relationships to ensure there is no confusion on FKs:
public class MeasuredIngredientConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<MeasuredIngredient>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<MeasuredIngredient> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.UseId).IsRequired(false);
builder.HasOne(p => p.Ingredient)
.WithMany()
.IsRequired()
.HasForeignKey("IngredientId");
builder.HasOne(p => p.CompoundIngredient)
.WithMany(p => p.MeasuredIngredients)
.IsRequired(false)
.HasForeignKey("CompoundIngredientId");
}
}
public class IngredientConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<Ingredient>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Ingredient> builder)
{
builder.Property(p => p.IsPublic).HasDefaultValue(true);
builder.HasDiscriminator<string>("Discriminator")
.HasValue<Ingredient>("I")
.HasValue<CompoundIngredient>("C"); // Whichever discriminator values you want to use.
}
}
I generally do not have FKs exposed in entities for navigation properties, opting for shadow properties. This should work just as well with the FK fields mapped.
Now I had excluded this configuration and this example did work with EF Core 5. I was also trying to force a misconfiguration around possibly the CompoundIngredientId and IngredientId in the measured ingredient, but outside of generating specific configuration errors around missing assumed FKs I wasn't able to reproduce your issue. It could also be behaviour specific to the version of EF Core you are using.
You could try adding the explicit mapping to see if that solves or otherwise changes your results. Getting null entries in your collection smells like EF is trying to parse the CompoundIngredient -> MeasuredIngredient, but it is getting other measured Ingredients with the same Ingredient reference (1-2) but not the matching compound ingredient ID. It's definitely a weird one.
Otherwise I would look to temporarily eliminate all other references such as Recipe, measurement type, etc. down to the simplest possible example and data set that reproduces the problem. This becomes easier to investigate options to identify where/what is getting mixed up.
Hopefully this gives you some ideas on how to get to the bottom of the issue.
Turns out the issue is not with EF… after looking further into it EF is returning the proper counts and relations. The issue is higher up during the deserialization of the json being returned from the API. I created a new question for this
JsonSerializer.DeserializeAsync<> Creating Null Items in Collections
I try to create the following database design with EF Core 3.1 (code-first)
Entity "Recipe" can have a list of type "Resource" and a single type of "NutritionFacts"
Entity "Ingredient" can have a single "NutritionFacts"
Entity "Instruction" can have a list of type "Resource"
But I found no way to implement this without having multiple "NutritionFacts" or "Resource" tables. (RecipeNutritionFacts-/IngredientNutritionFacts)
And I also don't want to blow up my "Recipe" or "Ingredient" tables with the columns from the "NutritionFacts-/Resource" entities. (owned types)
Goal: I would like to reuse the tables "Resource" and "NutritionFacts" in multiple entities.
If I delete a "Resource" from the collection in entity "Recipe" or "Instrucion" then the corresponding "Resource" entity should be also deleted. (recipe.Resource.remove(x))
Same for a "NutritionFacts" from entity "Recipe" or "Ingredient" (recipe.NutritionFacts = null)
I already tried several combinations with owned types, etc... but with no success.
Any ideas for a good implementation to reach this goal?
Example Classes:
public class NutritionFacts
{
public int NutritionFactsId { get; set; }
public decimal Kcal { get; set; }
public decimal Fat { get; set; }
}
public class Resource
{
public int ResourceId { get; set; }
public string Path { get; set; }
}
public class Ingredient
{
public int IngredientId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual NutritionFacts NutritionFacts { get; set; }
}
public class Recipe
{
public int RecipeId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual NutritionFacts NutritionFacts { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Resource> Resources { get; set; }
}
public class Instruction
{
public int InstructionId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Resource> Resources { get; set; }
}
Example Context:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
// variant-1 owned
modelBuilder.Entity<Ingredient>().OwnsOne(x => x.NutritionFacts).HasKey(r => r.UniqueIdentifier);
modelBuilder.Entity<Entities.Recipe>().OwnsOne(x => x.NutritionFacts).HasKey(r => r.UniqueIdentifier);
// variant-2
modelBuilder.Entity<Entities.Recipe>()
.HasOne(p => p.NutritionFacts).WithOne();
modelBuilder.Entity<Ingredient>()
.HasOne(p => p.NutritionFacts).WithOne();
}
I have following RecipeModel, IngredientModel and RecipePartModel classes which represent the DTO classes for the frontend user:
public class RecipeModel
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string ImageUrl { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<RecipePartModel> RecipeParts { get; set; }
}
public class IngredientModel
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class RecipePartModel
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public IngredientModel Ingredient { get; set; }
public string Unit { get; set; }
public decimal Quantity { get; set; }
}
Here are my entity classes:
public class Recipe : BaseEntity
{
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string ImageUrl { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual IEnumerable<RecipePart> RecipeParts { get; set; }
}
public class Ingredient : BaseEntity
{
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Amount { get; set; }
public virtual IEnumerable<RecipePart> RecipeParts { get; set; }
}
public class RecipePart : BaseEntity
{
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public Ingredient Ingredient { get; set; }
public Recipe Recipe { get; set; }
public string Unit { get; set; }
public decimal Quantity { get; set; }
}
My question is - how can I map the Recipe to RecipeModel using AutoMapper? I tried something like this but I assume it is bad, because it just join all the RecipeParts for the whole database, am I correct?
public class DomainProfile : Profile
{
public DomainProfile()
{
CreateMap<Ingredient, IngredientModel>().ReverseMap();
CreateMap<Recipe, RecipeModel>()
.ForMember(x => x.RecipeParts, opt => opt.MapFrom(src => src.RecipeParts));
}
}
To answer your question about how to use AutoMapper to map a type to another type, there are many ways of doing this. Documentation is here: http://docs.automapper.org/en/stable/Getting-started.html.
I wrote a console app and got it working in the quickest way I know possible using your code. When I debug this, and check inside recipeModel, it references a list of RecipePartModels with a single RecipePartModel. Inside that RecipePartModel, it references an IngredientModel.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var profile = new DomainProfile();
Mapper.Initialize(cfg => cfg.AddProfile(profile));
var recipe = new Recipe
{
RecipeParts = new List<RecipePart>
{
new RecipePart()
{
Ingredient = new Ingredient()
}
}
};
var recipeModel = Mapper.Map<Recipe, RecipeModel>(recipe);
Console.ReadKey();
}
To answer your concern about getting all recipes from the database, if you're using Entity Framework, it depends on if you have lazy loading turned on. Lazy loading ensures that, when you get a recipe from the database, the recipe parts will not be loaded. They will only be loaded when you access the recipe part directly later on in the program flow. Lazy loading is turned on by default so this is the default behaviour. If you turn it off, you've enabled eager loading which loads all recipe parts and in turn their ingredient.
This might help: http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/lazyloading-in-entity-framework.aspx.
There is nothing bad about this mapping. In fact you don't even need the ForMember call as this is the default convention. The mapping will simply convert each element in the entity child collection to a corresponding model object.
Of course, whether you load your entities in an efficient manner is another matter. If you load a large amount of Recipe entities, and lazy load the RecipeParts collections for each, you will have a major "SELECT N+1" problem. But this is not the fault of AutoMapper.
Is there a better way to accomplish this end-goal of having easily-queryable (and Include-able) cross-sections of a related many-to-many entity stored in the same table?
I started off without implementing TPH in the join table, but that makes consuming one type or another in queries more involved, afaict.
// table Related: [Id]
public class Related
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public List<RelatedOther> RelatedOthers { get; set; } = new List<RelatedOther>();
public List<RelatedOtherOne> RelatedOtherOnes { get; set; } = new List<RelatedOtherOne>();
public List<RelatedOtherTwo> RelatedOtherTwos { get; set; } = new List<RelatedOtherTwo>();
}
// table RelatedOther: [RelatedId, OtherId, Type]
public abstract class RelatedOther
{
public Guid RelatedId { get; set; }
public Guid OtherId { get; set; }
public Related Related { get; set; }
public Other Other { get; set; }
public abstract RelatedOtherType Type { get; }
}
public class RelatedOtherOne : RelatedOther
{
public override RelatedOtherType Type => RelatedOtherType.One;
// should be unnecessary, 'Other' should be correct type
public OtherOne OtherOne { get; set; }
}
public class RelatedOtherTwo : RelatedOther
{
public override RelatedOtherType Type => RelatedOtherType.Two;
// should be unnecessary, 'Other' should be correct type
public OtherTwo OtherTwo { get; set; }
}
public enum RelatedOtherType : int
{
One = 1,
Two = 2
}
// table Other: [Id, OneProp, TwoProp]
public abstract class Other
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public List<RelatedOther> RelatedOthers { get; set; } = new List<RelatedOther>();
}
public class OtherOne : Other
{
public string OneProp { get; set; }
}
public class OtherTwo : Other
{
public string TwoProp { get; set; }
}
TPH is mapped like this
M2M is mapped like this + discriminator in HasKey()
This gets even more complicated (if not impossible?) when the 'Related' entity evolves into a TPH strategy like the 'Other'.
I have no easy solution but as I stumbled across the same problem I thought I'll share what I have so far.
I found out that I usually need to load all or many types of the relations to the classes of a TPH structure.
So I use the base many-to-many class to load the related objects. Thus this class cannot be abstract:
public class Event2Location
{
[Required]
public Event Event { get; set; }
public int EventId { get; set; }
[Required]
public Location Location { get; set; }
public int LocationId { get; set; }
public byte EntityType { get; set; }
}
The derived class only adds some properties for easier access:
public class Event2Country : Event2Location
{
[NotMapped]
public Country Country
{
get { return base.Location as Country; }
set { base.Location = value; }
}
[NotMapped]
public int CountryId
{
get { return base.LocationId; }
set { base.LocationId = value; }
}
}
In the Event class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Event2Location> Event2Locations { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public virtual ICollection<Event2Country> Event2Countries => Event2Locations?.OfType<Event2Country>().ToList();
// I should probably add some caching here if accessed more often
[NotMapped]
public virtual ICollection<Event2City> Event2Cities => Event2Locations?.OfType<Event2City>().ToList();
So when I load the joined tables I can use
.Include(e => e.Event2Locations).ThenInclude(j => j.Location)
And I can access the relations of a specific type as needed with the NotMapped Collections.
I still use the derived Event2... classes to add a new relationship.
As you see I have added a column EntityType to the many-to-many class which I use as TPH discriminator. With this column I can also declare which types of Relations/entities I want to load if I do not want to load all.
modelBuilder.Entity<Event2Location>()
.HasDiscriminator<byte>("EntityType")
.HasValue<Event2Location>(0)
.HasValue<Event2Country>(1)
This is surely far from perfect but I finally gave up on optimizing that. First EFCore has to become more mature. Second I want to see how I actually use these structures.
PS: Actually my Location TPH structure has parent-child-relationships within it. Here I did not create a TPH structure for the relation class (as you said - not possible or at least not reasonable). I added ParentType and ChildType. Thus I can determine which relations I actually want to load. Then I fetch the related Locations of the types I need manually on the client side from the result.
I have a relatively complex relationship I need to set up between a User object and a lot of lookup tables. The user object is your run of the mill user model:
public class Youth : IAuditInfo
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public Guid YouthGuid { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedDate { get; set; }
public DateTime ModifiedDate { get; set; }
public string ImageName { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("FkYouthId")]
public ICollection<User> Parents { get; set; }
public CubPack Pack { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<RequirementsLog> RequirementsLogs { get; set; }
public Youth()
{
Parents = new List<User>();
}
}
The lookup tables is where it gets complex and I can't figure out the path of least complexity in binding them together. For the lookups it is a series of tables starting with one 'master' table, that rolls down hierarchically to requirements and sub requirements, like this:
Master:
public class BearTrail
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<BearTrailRequiredBadge> BearTrailRequiredBadges { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<BearTrailElectiveBadge> BearTrailElectivedBadges { get; set; }
}
Required Badges:
public class BearTrailRequiredBadge
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<BearTrailRequiredBadgeSubRequirement> BearTrailRequiredBadgeSubRequirements { get; set; }
}
Required Badge sub requirement:
public class BearTrailRequiredBadgeSubRequirement
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Number { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
public bool Required { get; set; }
}
This is one set of the lookups, there are about four nested classes like this, and some one off tables as well. Total lookup tables is about 16, give or take.
I was initially thinking if using my RequirementLog model to bind it:
public class RequirementsLog
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Youth> Youth { get; set; }
public BearTrail BearTrailRequirements { get; set; }
public TigerTrail TigerTrailRequirements { get; set; }
public WolfTrail WolfTrailRequirements { get; set; }
public WebelosTrail WebelosTrailRequirements { get; set; }
public WebelosArrowOfLight WebelosArrowOfLightRequirements { get; set; }
}
So there is a many to many between RequirementsLog and Youth. The table created out of RequirementsLog has one PK column (ID), and FK columns for each property. The many to many table created out of this (RequirementsLogYouths) has two PKs (RequirementsLogId, and YouthId).
Am I going about this the right way? The end goal is to have the 16 or so tables server as just lists of various requirements, and have another table(s) to track a particular youths progress through the requirements. I have a hard time visualizes some of this DBA stuff, so any input would be greatly appreciated.
In most cases, a requirements "log" be in a one (people) to many (the log).
Unless... One logged item is for many kids...
If so, the you need a third table, that maps many people to multiple logged events. That is, if this is truly a many to many. In general, that situation almost always begs for a third, intermediate mapping table. Read up a bit on many to many designs, and you'll quickly see it, and how simple it is.
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
modelBuilder.Entity<Entity1>()
.HasMany(b => b.Entities2)
.WithMany(p => p.Entities1)
.Map(m =>
{
m.ToTable("Entitie1Entity2");
m.MapLeftKey("Entity1Id");
m.MapRightKey("Entity2Id");
});
}