I'm pretty new to Entity Framework: I started from a database-first model to maintain an application created using a strange mixture of EF and plain old SQL.
I created my own fresh DB-first model and I'm fine with it. Today my boss asked me to add a new entity. Lack of foreign keys simplifies the scenario.
I have created my new entity in the diagram (it's made of three instances of a Complex Entity I just created) but now I have to make an incremental DB script to create the new table. I'm supposed to do that both for MySQL and SQL Server but let's start with the second.
So now I see that I have a compilation problem "No mapping for entity Entity" and if I use "Update model from database" command I see no option for pushing changes to DB, but that sounds correct given the word "from".
OK, I have tried to click "Table Mapping" from the right-click menu and I found the option to map the entity to the table. I was going to type the new table name in the "Add table or view" field and... WAIT! I can only select existing tables
I understand it's just for a single table so I can simply "Generate database from model" in order to get the full SQL script, find the table I want, run that to DB and "Update model from DB" so EF will see the table, BUT
I would like to understand how to create incremental scripts with Entity Framework. That is my question.
You indicate you have a database-first design but appear to be working from a code-first mindset.
In database-first design the entity model is subordinate the underlying datastore. Changes to the model (or at least changes to the model which also require changes to the underlying datastore) occur FIRST on the database.
So how do you create a new table for the entity? You create the new table in your database (CREATE TABLE ...). Then using the "Update Model From Database" wizard you select the new table from the "Add" tab. EF will create the corresponding EF class automatically. If you already manually created the entity you should delete it otherwise you could end up with some weird entity naming (i.e. Customer1).
Database first does not have the capability to support table creation at the entity layer. Changes to the database are always one way, from the database to the entity model, hence the term "database first".
On the other hand if you are more comfortable creating entities directly and want to build a database from a set of entities you should be looking to create a "Code-First" design. Despite the name "code first" it is possible to get an initial set of entity classes from an existing database. The term "code first" refers to the origination of changes to the db/model structure.
Related
Is possible update database table from edmx model, for example if I create a new field in edmx diagram to a table, I want update corresponding mapped table in database adding this new field ... in visual studio menu I find the voice "update model from database" and "create database from model" , but I not find "update database from model"...
In the EF EDMX "Model-First" workflow you always generate a full database DDL script, and for incremental changes use a schema-compare tool like SSDT to create the change script.
See eg https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/ef6/modeling/designer/workflows/model-first#5-dealing-with-model-changes
It's not a very popular or useful workflow, and the tooling for incremental updates was just never built. The vast majority of EDMX users do a database-first workflow with no customization of the EDMX.
But you should really stop using EDMX. The graphical designer seems simpler to begin with, but using code-based mapping is simpler in the long run.
I don't believe Edmx (database fist) works that way, at least, out of the box. You need to use code first, and enable migrations.
Edmx is nothing more than mapping to your data, that doesn't tie into migrations.
I believe there is a way to auto-generate your code first as well using visual studio...just like the Edmx.
I generated model from existing database in c# via entity framework, but when i change database (for example add column to table) application stop work, because in model miss the new column, but i don´t need the new column. Is there any solution to generate model from database, but do not be independent to change in db?
Thanks.
I am using CodeFirst approach, EF 4.0. I have model of tables that application uses. However I want to use another database as encyclopedia, meaning this database has a lot of data and these data is interconnected by foreign key. I have declared DbSet of my external datebase. However when model is generated, all entities that has to exist within my external DB, are placed as empty tables in my main DB. So here is the question. How can I specify for some entities to use external DB while for other use main DB?
Suppose I have an existing database set up using Entity Framework. Is there a mechanism through which I can safely add or remove entities (or their properties) such that the database is altered automatically?
I know there's an option to "Update Model From Database". Is there an equivalent "Update Database From Model" ? Is there a way to configure Visual Studio to do this automatically?
Entity Framework 4.3 has Code First Migration support.
EF helps you with checking the differences between your code and database and then generates code for you that handles this changes. You can use the NuGet package manager console to enable migrations, add a new migration and run them against your database (or create a sql script).
This blog explains how the Migrations work and this blog shows how you can use it with an existing database
Altering the database schema isn't a straightforward operation (has a column been renamed, or is it new column? Can the old type be converted to the new type?) that you can easily infer from the model.
EF doesn't alter the tables for you - it can Drop-Create the DB for you when you change it. However, if you change the existing database by hand to suit the model, EF doesn't seem to mind. It looks like what they check for is Hash(Model) = Hash(Tables).
I am moving my first steps in the Entity Framework 4.0, and I am currently facing an annoying issue.
The authentication/authorization process of my application is based on the standard ASP.NET membership provider, in other words the database is the well-known ASPNETDB.MDF. In this database there are - amongst others - the tables aspnet_Users and aspnet_Roles, which are linked together by the table aspnet_UsersInRoles.
I generated a new "ADO.NET Entity Data Model", I selected Generate from Database, I provided all the necessary parameters, and the wizard generated for me the relative .EDMX file. I named this "SecurityModel". In the aspnet_User entity I can see there is a navigation property that should retrieve all linked Roles, and viceversa.
At this point I added a new "Domain Service", in my case SecurityDomainService.
When I was asked, I selected the SecurityModel, and all the tables it contains.
Even in this case the wizard generated the SecurityDomainService for me.
Apparently no problems at all. However, I realized that in the entity aspnet_User I have all navigation properties (Membership, Profile, Applications, etc.) but Roles.
I read somewhere that EntityFramework doesnt handle many-to-many relationships. However I can see in my Entity Data Model that an Association exists between aspnet_Roles and aspnet_Users, and it is based on aspnet_UsersInRoles. I can also see in the Data Model designer the "Roles" navigation property in the User entity.
So, my question is why has not this navigation property been generated?
Thanks in advance for all your help.
Cheers,
G.
The problem here is that the aspnet_UsersInRoles table contains only the primary key fields of the tables in the many to many relationship. Entity Framework 'inlines' this table and does not represent it as an entity. Entity Framework handles this fine - it is RIA services that does not support this type of relationship.
Simply adding one extra field to the table will prevent it from being inlined and result in an aspnet_UsersInRoles being generated. This will be supported within RIA Services.
You will need to be careful modifying the aspnet schema to ensure that you do not break any of the stored procedures etc but the addition of a nullable bit column should not cause too much disruption.