I work on a framework with EF. I want to get all ignored properties of an entity to build some special queries. How can I do it?
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public DateTime BirthDate { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
public class CustomerContext : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Customer>().Ignore(customer => customer.Age);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
}
public static class DbContextExtensions
{
public static List<string> GetIgnoredProperties(this DbContext context, string entityTypeName)
{
// ???
}
}
I know this is not answering your original question, and in my comments I mentioned that you should use reflection, but that was only because I read your question wrong.
Here is an alternative using reflection, for if you do not come right.
If you assign the [NotMapped] attribute to the properties on your class that you would like to ignore, you could possibly retrieve all [NotMapped] properties using reflection. Below is an example of how this could be achieved.
var resultArray = yourClassInstance.GetType().GetProperties()
.Where(prop => Attribute.IsDefined(prop, typeof(NotMappedAttribute)));
Hope this helps you in some way.
You can achieve what you want by calling the DbModelBuilder.Build. It will create a DbModel base on configuration setup by the DbModelBuilder. The DbModel expose a ConceptualModel that hold the types used by the context. The EdmModel hold each type that are declared in the context, and for each type, it hold the properties that has not been ignored by the DbModelBuilder during it's configuration. So, to achieve what you want, you have to intersect the properties of each entity type with those present in the EdmModel. It will give the delta between them, thefore the ignored properties. Here an example :
public class CustomerContext : DbContext
{
private static IReadOnlyDictionary<Type, IReadOnlyCollection<PropertyInfo>> _ignoredProperties;
/// Hold the ignored properties configured from fluent mapping
public static IReadOnlyDictionary<Type, IReadOnlyCollection<PropertyInfo>> IgnoredProperties
{
get
{
return _ignoredProperties;
}
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Customer>().Ignore(customer => customer.Age);
// Build ignored properties only if they are not
if (_ignoredProperties == null)
{
var model = modelBuilder.Build(this.Database.Connection);
var mappedEntityTypes = new Dictionary<Type, IReadOnlyCollection<PropertyInfo>>();
foreach (var entityType in model.ConceptualModel.EntityTypes)
{
var type = Type.GetType(entityType.FullName);
var typeProperties = type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
var mappedProperties = entityType.DeclaredProperties.Select(t => t.Name)
.Union(entityType.NavigationProperties.Select(t => t.Name));
mappedEntityTypes.Add(type, new ReadOnlyCollection<PropertyInfo>(
typeProperties.Where(t => !mappedProperties.Contains(t.Name)).ToList()));
}
_ignoredProperties = new ReadOnlyDictionary<Type, IReadOnlyCollection<PropertyInfo>>(mappedEntityTypes);
}
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
public DbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
}
The IgnoreProperties property is a singleton that will be initialized the first time you will use the context. It will be null before that, so will have to ensure that nothing use it until it's initialized. It's readonly, so you don't have to worrie about accidental clear of the collection. The entity type is used as key, and the value expose a collection that hold ignored properties. Example of use :
var properties = CustomerContext.IgnoredProperties[typeof(Customer)];
Cons :
With this approach is that the DbModel will be built twice, one time to gather the ignored properties, and second time by EntityFramework when the DbCompiledModel will be cached for futur ObjectContext creation. It can have an impact on the cold start of the DbContext, it means that the fist time you will execute a query over your context, it will be a bit slower. It will depend on the size of the DbContext. Warm queries should not suffer. OnModelCreating will be called once anyway.
Pros :
All changes made on de DbModelBuilder configuration will be automatically reflected in the IgnoredProperties property.
Related
This is a tale of optional owned entities and foreign keys.
I'm working with EF 5 (code first) and I do this :
public class Parent {
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public OwnedType1? Owned1 { get; private set; }
public OwnedType2? Owned2 { get; private set; }
public Parent(Guid id, OwnedType1? owned1, OwnedType2? owned2) {
Id = id; Owned1 = owned1; Owned2 = owned2;
}
}
public class OwnedType1 {
public Guid? OptionalExternalId { get; private set; }
public OwnedType1 (Guid? optionalExternalId) {
OptionalExternalId = optionalExternalId;
}
}
public class OwnedType2 {
public Guid? OptionalExternalId { get; private set; }
public OwnedType2 (Guid? optionalExternalId) {
OptionalExternalId = optionalExternalId;
}
}
public class Shared {
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public Shared (Guid id) {
Id = id;
}
}
Now, the configuration :
//-------- for Parent ------------
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Parent> builder) {
builder
.ToTable("Parents")
.HasKey(p => p.Id);
builder
.OwnsOne(p => p.Owned1)
.HasOne<Shared>()
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(x => x.OptionalExternalId);
builder
.OwnsOne(p => p.Owned2)
.HasOne<Shared>()
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(x => x.OptionalExternalId);
}
//-------- for OwnedType1 ------------
// (there's no builder as they're owned and EntityTypeBuilder<Parent> is enough)
//-------- for OwnedType2 ------------
// (there's no builder as they're owned and EntityTypeBuilder<Parent> is enough)
//-------- for Shared ---------------
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<Shared> builder) {
builder
.ToTable("Shareds")
.HasKey(p => p.Id);
}
Side note : If you're wondering why OwnedType1 and OwnedType2 don't each have a property called 'ParentId', it's because it's created implicitly by the "OwnsOne".
My problem is this :
When I create a new Migration, then OwnedType1 works like a charm, but for OwnedType2 (which is quasi-identical), I get his error :
The property 'OptionalExternalId' cannot be added to the type
'MyNameSpace.OwnedType2' because no property type was specified and
there is no corresponding CLR property or field. To add a shadow state
property, the property type must be specified.
I don't understand what it's complaining about. And why it's complaining only for one of them.
I know that you probably can't work it out with this simplified version of my schema, but what I'm asking is what you think it might be (follow your guts of EF guru) :
Some missing constructor?
Incorrect visibility on one of the fields?
Bad navigation definition?
A typo?
Something tricky (like : If you're going to have TWO different entity classes having a one-to-many relation with Shared, then they can't use the same name for external key. Or I need to use a composite key. Or whatnot).
It was a configuration issue that had nothing to do with Owned entities. Another case of "EF error message is obscure but issue is somewhere there in plain sight".
Unfortunately I don't remember how I fixed it. But it was along the lines of "Need an extra constructor with all the paramaters" or "one of the fields had a different name in the constructor parameters" or one of those classic EF mishaps.
I have a question, why my Strategy property is null, when i getting all DbSet from context? How to [NotMapped] property make visible in my backend?
My class looks like this:
public class Machine
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public WorkStrategy Strategy { get; set; }
public double GetManHours() => Strategy.TimeOfWork(HoursPerDay);
}
WorkStrategy is an abstract class:
public abstract class WorkStrategy
{
public abstract double TimeOfWork(double hours);
}
public class FarmStrategy : WorkStrategy
{
public override double TimeOfWork(double hours) => // do things
}
public class CultivationStrategy : WorkStrategy
{
public override double TimeOfWork(double hours) => //do things
}
Part of my Seed method where i seeding machines looks like this:
//Machines
for(int i = 0; i < countOfMachines; i++)
{
Machine machine = new Machine { Id = i + 1 };
machine.Strategy = new FarmStrategy;
modelBuilder.Entity<Machine>().HasData(machine);
}
But when i call Machines from DB:
var machines = _context.Machines;
The Strategy property is null. Could you tell me, how to attach [NotMapped] property while seeding a db
? Is it possbile?
EDIT
When i want to add WorkStrategy as not "notmapped" i get an error from EF while i adding migration:
The entity type 'WorkStrategy' requires a primary key to be defined
But i dont want to make an table for WorkStrategy.
EDIT
My OnModelCreating in context class:
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder builder)
{
builder.Entity<Machine>().Ignore(x => x.Strategy);
builder.Seed();
base.OnModelCreating(builder);
}
Its not work as [NotMapped]
You can use fluent api ignore instead of notmapped
modelBuilder.Entity<Machine>().Ignore(x => x.Strategy );
I think your Problem is not the not mapped Attribute, but the Structure of your Classes.
If you had a Flag, which Type of Strategy is needed and adapt the Strategy-Property depending on that Flag to initialize a Strategy if it’s null, you could keep your Notmapped-Attribute or the Ignore-Method with Fluent-Api.
I am trying to restrict a couple of generic methods to only be allowed Entities that inherit from the IParentOf<TChildEntity> interface, as well as accessing an Entity's Foreign Key (ParentId) Generically.
To demonstrate;
public void AdoptAll<TParentEntity, TChildEntity>(TParentEntity parent,
TParentEntity adoptee)
where TParentEntity : DataEntity, IParentOf<TChildEntity>
where TChildEntity : DataEntity, IChildOf<TParentEntity>
{
foreach (TChildEntity child in (IParentOf<TChildEntity>)parent.Children)
{
(IChildOf<TParentEntity)child.ParentId = adoptee.Id;
}
}
A child entity class model would look like this,
public class Account : DataEntity, IChildOf<AccountType>, IChildOf<AccountData>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Balance { get; set; }
// Foreign Key and Navigation Property for AccountType
int IChildOf<AccountType>.ParentId{ get; set; }
public virtual AccountType AccountType { get; set; }
// Foreign Key and Navigation Property for AccountData
int IChildOf<AccountData>.ParentId{ get; set; }
public virtual AccountData AccountData { get; set; }
}
First of all, is this possible to do? Or will it breakdown in EF?
Secondly, since the Foreign Keys do not follow convention (and there are multiple) how do I set them via Fluent Api? I can see how to do this in Data Annotations.
I hope this is clear, I have been considering it for a while and trying to work round it, so I can follow my argument, but it may not be clearly conveyed, so please ask for clarification if needed. My reason for wanting to do this is to make the code safe as well as automating a lot of the manual changing of classes necessary to add new associations and entities.
Thanks.
Edit
I decided to create some basic classes to implement this idea and test it, my code is as follows.
public abstract class ChildEntity : DataEntity
{
public T GetParent<T>() where T : ParentEntity
{
foreach (var item in GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (item.GetValue(this) is T entity)
return entity;
}
return null;
}
}
public abstract class ParentEntity : DataEntity
{
public ICollection<T> GetChildren<T>() where T : ChildEntity
{
foreach (var item in GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (item.GetValue(this) is ICollection<T> collection)
return collection;
}
return null;
}
}
public interface IParent<TEntity> where TEntity : ChildEntity
{
ICollection<T> GetChildren<T>() where T : ChildEntity;
}
public interface IChild<TEntity> where TEntity : ParentEntity
{
int ForeignKey { get; set; }
T GetParent<T>() where T : ParentEntity;
}
public class ParentOne : ParentEntity, IParent<ChildOne>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public decimal Amount { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ChildOne> ChildOnes { get; set; }
}
public class ParentTwo : ParentEntity, IParent<ChildOne>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public decimal Value { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ChildOne> ChildOnes { get; set; }
}
public class ChildOne : ChildEntity, IChild<ParentOne>, IChild<ParentTwo>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public decimal Balance { get; set; }
int IChild<ParentOne>.ForeignKey { get; set; }
public virtual ParentOne ParentOne { get; set; }
int IChild<ParentTwo>.ForeignKey { get; set; }
public virtual ParentTwo ParentTwo { get; set; }
}
Data Entity simply gives each entity an Id property.
I have standard Generic Repositories set up with a Unit of Work class for mediating. The AdoptAll method looks like this in my program.
public void AdoptAll<TParentEntity, TChildEntity>(TParentEntity parent,
TParentEntity adoptee, UoW uoW)
where TParentEntity : DataEntity, IParent<TChildEntity>
where TChildEntity : DataEntity, IChild<TParentEntity>
{
var currentParent = uoW.GetRepository<TParentEntity>().Get(parent.Id);
foreach (TChildEntity child in currentParent.GetChildren<TChildEntity>())
{
child.ForeignKey = adoptee.Id;
}
}
This seems to work correctly and without faults (minimal testing) are there any major flaws in doing this?
Thanks.
Edit Two
This is the OnModelCreating Method in the DbContext, which sets up the foreign key for each entity. Is this problematic?
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<ChildOne>()
.HasOne(p => p.ParentOne)
.WithMany(c => c.ChildOnes)
.HasForeignKey(fk => ((IChild<ParentOne>)fk).ForeignKey);
modelBuilder.Entity<ChildOne>()
.HasOne(p => p.ParentTwo)
.WithMany(c => c.ChildOnes)
.HasForeignKey(fk => ((IChild<ParentTwo>)fk).ForeignKey);
}
According to the updated example, you want to hide the explicit FK from the entity class public interface, and still let it be visible to EF Core and mapped to the FK column in the database.
The first problem is that the explicitly implemented interface member is not directly discoverable by EF. Also it has no good name, so the default conventions don't apply.
For instance, w/o fluent configuration EF Core will correctly create one to many associations between Parent and Child entities, but since it won't discover the int IChild<Parent>.ForeignKey { get; set; } properties, it would maintain the FK property values through ParentOneId / ParentTwoId shadow properties and not through interface explicit properties. In other words, these properties will not be populated by EF Core and also not considered by the change tracker.
To let EF Core use them you need to map both FK property and database column name using respectively HasForeignKey and HasColumnName fluent API method overloads accepting string property name. Note that the string property name must be fully qualified with the namespace. While Type.FullName provides that string for non-generic types, there is no such property/method for generic types like IChild<ParentOne> (the result has to be "Namespace.IChild<Namespace.ParentOne>"), so let first create some helpers for that:
static string ChildForeignKeyPropertyName<TParent>() where TParent : ParentEntity
=> $"{typeof(IChild<>).Namespace}.IChild<{typeof(TParent).FullName}>.{nameof(IChild<TParent>.ForeignKey)}";
static string ChildForeignKeyColumnName<TParent>() where TParent : ParentEntity
=> $"{typeof(TParent).Name}Id";
The next would be creating a helper method for performing the necessary configuration:
static void ConfigureRelationship<TChild, TParent>(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
where TChild : ChildEntity, IChild<TParent>
where TParent : ParentEntity, IParent<TChild>
{
var childEntity = modelBuilder.Entity<TChild>();
var foreignKeyPropertyName = ChildForeignKeyPropertyName<TParent>();
var foreignKeyColumnName = ChildForeignKeyColumnName<TParent>();
var foreignKey = childEntity.Metadata.GetForeignKeys()
.Single(fk => fk.PrincipalEntityType.ClrType == typeof(TParent));
// Configure FK column name
childEntity
.Property<int>(foreignKeyPropertyName)
.HasColumnName(foreignKeyColumnName);
// Configure FK property
childEntity
.HasOne<TParent>(foreignKey.DependentToPrincipal.Name)
.WithMany(foreignKey.PrincipalToDependent.Name)
.HasForeignKey(foreignKeyPropertyName);
}
As you can see, I'm using EF Core provided metadata services to find the names of the corresponding navigation properties.
But this generic method actually shows the limitation of this design. The generic constrains allow us to use
childEntity.Property(c => c.ForeignKey)
which compiles fine, but doesn't work at runtime. It's not only for fluent API methods, but basically any generic method involving expression trees (like LINQ to Entities query). There is no such problem when the interface property is implemented implicitly with public property.
We'll return to this limitation later. To complete the mapping, add the following to your OnModelCreating override:
ConfigureRelationship<ChildOne, ParentOne>(modelBuilder);
ConfigureRelationship<ChildOne, ParentTwo>(modelBuilder);
And now EF Core will correctly load / take into account your explicitly implemented FK properties.
Now back to limitations. There is no problem to use generic object services like your AdoptAll method or LINQ to Objects. But you can't access these properties generically in expressions used to access EF Core metadata or inside LINQ to Entities queries. In the later case you should access it through navigation property, or in both scenarios you should access in by the name returned from the ChildForeignKeyPropertyName<TParent>() method. Actually queries will work, but will be evaluated locally thus causing performance issues or unexpected behaviors.
E.g.
static IEnumerable<TChild> GetChildrenOf<TChild, TParent>(DbContext db, int parentId)
where TChild : ChildEntity, IChild<TParent>
where TParent : ParentEntity, IParent<TChild>
{
// Works, but causes client side filter evalution
return db.Set<TChild>().Where(c => c.ForeignKey == parentId);
// This correctly translates to SQL, hence server side evaluation
return db.Set<TChild>().Where(c => EF.Property<int>(c, ChildForeignKeyPropertyName<TParent>()) == parentId);
}
To recap shortly, it's possible, but use with care and make sure it's worth for the limited generic service scenarios it allows. Alternative approaches would not use interfaces, but (combination of) EF Core metadata, reflection or Func<...> / Expression<Func<..>> generic method arguments similar to Queryable extension methods.
Edit: Regarding the second question edit, fluent configuration
modelBuilder.Entity<ChildOne>()
.HasOne(p => p.ParentOne)
.WithMany(c => c.ChildOnes)
.HasForeignKey(fk => ((IChild<ParentOne>)fk).ForeignKey);
modelBuilder.Entity<ChildOne>()
.HasOne(p => p.ParentTwo)
.WithMany(c => c.ChildOnes)
.HasForeignKey(fk => ((IChild<ParentTwo>)fk).ForeignKey);
produces the following migration for ChildOne
migrationBuilder.CreateTable(
name: "ChildOne",
columns: table => new
{
Id = table.Column<int>(nullable: false)
.Annotation("SqlServer:ValueGenerationStrategy", SqlServerValueGenerationStrategy.IdentityColumn),
ForeignKey = table.Column<int>(nullable: false),
Name = table.Column<string>(nullable: true),
Balance = table.Column<decimal>(nullable: false)
},
constraints: table =>
{
table.PrimaryKey("PK_ChildOne", x => x.Id);
table.ForeignKey(
name: "FK_ChildOne_ParentOne_ForeignKey",
column: x => x.ForeignKey,
principalTable: "ParentOne",
principalColumn: "Id",
onDelete: ReferentialAction.Cascade);
table.ForeignKey(
name: "FK_ChildOne_ParentTwo_ForeignKey",
column: x => x.ForeignKey,
principalTable: "ParentTwo",
principalColumn: "Id",
onDelete: ReferentialAction.Cascade);
});
Note the single ForeignKey column and the attempt to use it as foreign key to both ParentOne and ParentTwo. It suffers the same problems as using a constrained interface property directly, so I would assume it not working.
I'm currently attempting to use Entity Framework's ChangeTracker for auditing purposes. I'm overriding the SaveChanges() method in my DbContext and creating logs for entities that have been added, modified, or deleted. Here is the code for that FWIW:
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var validStates = new EntityState[] { EntityState.Added, EntityState.Modified, EntityState.Deleted };
var entities = ChangeTracker.Entries().Where(x => x.Entity is BaseEntity && validStates.Contains(x.State));
var entriesToAudit = new Dictionary<object, EntityState>();
foreach (var entity in entities)
{
entriesToAudit.Add(entity.Entity, entity.State);
}
//Save entries first so the IDs of new records will be populated
var result = base.SaveChanges();
createAuditLogs(entriesToAudit, entityRelationshipsToAudit, changeUserId);
return result;
}
This works great for "normal" entities. For simple many-to-many relationships, however, I had to extend this implementation to include "Independent Associations" as described in this fantastic SO answer which accesses changes via the ObjectContext like so:
private static IEnumerable<EntityRelationship> GetRelationships(this DbContext context, EntityState relationshipState, Func<ObjectStateEntry, int, object> getValue)
{
context.ChangeTracker.DetectChanges();
var objectContext = ((IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext;
return objectContext
.ObjectStateManager
.GetObjectStateEntries(relationshipState)
.Where(e => e.IsRelationship)
.Select(
e => new EntityRelationship(
e.EntitySet.Name,
objectContext.GetObjectByKey((EntityKey)getValue(e, 0)),
objectContext.GetObjectByKey((EntityKey)getValue(e, 1))));
}
Once implemented, this also worked great, but only for many-to-many relationships that use a junction table. By this, I'm referring to a situation where the relationship is not represented by a class/entity, but only a database table with two columns - one for each foreign key.
There are certain many-to-many relationships in my data model, however, where the relationship has "behavior" (properties). In this example, ProgramGroup is the many-to-many relationship which has a Pin property:
public class Program
{
public int ProgramId { get; set; }
public List<ProgramGroup> ProgramGroups { get; set; }
}
public class Group
{
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public IList<ProgramGroup> ProgramGroups { get; set; }
}
public class ProgramGroup
{
public int ProgramGroupId { get; set; }
public int ProgramId { get; set; }
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public string Pin { get; set; }
}
In this situation, I'm not seeing a change to a ProgramGroup (eg. if the Pin is changed) in either the "normal" DbContext ChangeTracker, nor the ObjectContext relationship method. As I step through the code, though, I can see that the change is in the ObjectContext's StateEntries, but it's entry has IsRelationship=false which, of course, fails the .Where(e => e.IsRelationship) condition.
My question is why is a many-to-many relationship with behavior not appearing in the normal DbContext ChangeTracker since it's represented by an actual class/entity and why is it not marked as a relationship in the ObjectContext StateEntries? Also, what is the best practice for accessing these type of changes?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
In response to #FrancescCastells's comment that perhaps not explicitly defining a configuration for the ProgramGroup is cause of the problem, I added the following configuration:
public class ProgramGroupConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<ProgramGroup>
{
public ProgramGroupConfiguration()
{
ToTable("ProgramGroups");
HasKey(p => p.ProgramGroupId);
Property(p => p.ProgramGroupId).IsRequired();
Property(p => p.ProgramId).IsRequired();
Property(p => p.GroupId).IsRequired();
Property(p => p.Pin).HasMaxLength(50).IsRequired();
}
And here are my other configurations:
public class ProgramConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Program>
{
public ProgramConfiguration()
{
ToTable("Programs");
HasKey(p => p.ProgramId);
Property(p => p.ProgramId).IsRequired();
HasMany(p => p.ProgramGroups).WithRequired(p => p.Program).HasForeignKey(p => p.ProgramId);
}
}
public class GroupConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Group>
{
public GroupConfiguration()
{
ToTable("Groups");
HasKey(p => p.GroupId);
Property(p => p.GroupId).IsRequired();
HasMany(p => p.ProgramGroups).WithRequired(p => p.Group).HasForeignKey(p => p.GroupId);
}
When these are implemented, EF still does not show the modified ProgramGroup in the ChangeTracker.
While the concept of "relationship with attributes" is mentioned in the theory of entity-relationship modelling, as far as Entity Framework is concerned, your ProgramGroup class is an entity. You're probably unwittingly filtering it out with the x.Entity is BaseEntity check in the first code snippet.
I believe the problem lies in the definition of your Program and Group class and overridden SaveChanges method. With the current definition of the classes the EF is unable to use change tracking proxies, that catch changes as they are being made. Instead of that the EF relies on the snapshot change detection, that is done as part of SaveChanges method. Since you call base.SaveChanges() at the end of the overridden method, the changes are not detected yet when you request them from ChangeTracker.
You have two options - you can either call ChangeTracker.DetectChanges(); at the beginning of the SaveChanges method or change definition of your classes to support change tracking proxies.
public class Program {
public int ProgramId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ProgramGroup> ProgramGroups { get; set; }
}
public class Group {
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ProgramGroup> ProgramGroups { get; set; }
}
The basic requirements for creating change tracking proxies are:
A class must be declared as public
A class must not be sealed
A class must not be abstract
A class must have a public or protected constructor that does not have parameters.
A navigation property that represents the "many" end of a relationship must have public virtual get and set accessors
A navigation property that represents the "many" end of a relationship must be defined as ICollection<T>
Entity Framework represents many-to-many relationships by not having entityset for the joining table in CSDL, instead it manages this through mapping.
Note: Entity framework supports many-to-many relationship only when the joining table does NOT include any columns other than PKs of both the tables
you should have to define navigation property yourself to coupe with this proplem.
this link can be of your help.
I'm trying to implement a TPC inheritance model in EF 4.3 CodeFirst for an existing Oracle database (over which I have no control). I have several sub-types that each map to its own table. Unfortunately, some of the key columns are of datatype number(18,0) instead of integer. EF seems to hate me now.
Here's my base class:
public abstract class Vehicle
{
public virtual int Id { get; set;}
public virtual string Color { get; set; }
//more properties
}
Here are some example sub-types:
public class Car : Vehicle
{
//more properties
}
public class Truck : Vehicle
{
//more properties
}
public class Motorcycle : Vehicle
{
//more properties
}
And here's my DbContet:
public class VehicleDataContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Vehicle> Vehicles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Car> Cars { get; set; }
public DbSet<Truck> Trucks { get; set; }
public DbSet<Motorcycle> Motorcycles { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Vehicle>().HasKey(x => x.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<Car>().Map(m => m.MapInheritedProperties());
modelBuilder.Entity<Car>().Property(x => x.Id).HasColumnType("decimal");
modelBuilder.Entity<Truck>().Map(m => m.MapInheritedProperties());
modelBuilder.Entity<Truck>().Property(x => x.Id).HasColumnType("int");
modelBuilder.Entity<Motorcycle>().Map(m => m.MapInheritedProperties());
modelBuilder.Entity<Motorcycle>().Property(x => x.Id).HasColumnType("decimal");
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
}
So, I already know to MapInheritedProperties so that all the properties of the base and sub-type are mapped to one table. I'm assuming that I have to tell the base that it HasKey so that EF doesn't complain that my DbSet<Vehicle> doesn't have a key mapped. I'd like to be able to assume that I can "tell" each entity how to map its own key's column type like I've done above. But I think that's not quite it.
Here's a test that fails:
[TestFixture]
public class when_retrieving_all_vehicles
{
[Test]
public void it_should_return_a_list_of_vehicles_regardless_of_type()
{
var dc = new VehicleDataContext();
var vehicles = dc.Vehicles.ToList(); //throws exception here
Assert.Greater(vehicles.Count, 0);
}
}
The exception thrown is:
The conceptual side property 'Id' has already been mapped to a storage
property with type 'decimal'. If the conceptual side property is
mapped to multiple properties in the storage model, make sure that all
the properties in the storage model have the same type.
As mentioned above, I have no control over the database and it's types. It's silly that the key types are mixed, but "it is what it is".
How can I get around this?
You cannot achieve it through mapping. This is limitation of EF code first. You can map each property (including the key) in inheritance structure only once. Because of that you can have it either integer or decimal in all entities in the inheritance tree but you cannot mix it.
Btw. what happens if you try to use int or decimal for the whole inheritance tree? Does it fail for loading or persisting entity? If not you can simply use the one (probably decimal if it can use whole its range) for all entities.