I am not sure if fluent n hibernate can do this or not, but I cannot figure out how.
I have a table - cases and some properties
ownerId, brokerId, shipperId
I want to map this to my property:
int[] OrgsWithAccess
Is this possible?
This way when I am checking if an org has access to the case, I can check the property OrgsWithAccess rather than OwnerId == myorg.id or brokerId == myorg.id etc.
If I understand your question correctly, I wouldn't recommend trying to map in the way that you have asked.
cases table looks like it is some form of junction table between other tables. I'll assume that these other tables each contain data that are represented as entities in the application, and that there are three tables, Owner, Broker and Shipper.
OrgsWithAccess should be mapped using the references to the entities that is has in the application i.e. assume the class looks something like
public class OrgsWithAccess
{
public virtual Owner { get; set; }
public virtual Broker { get; set; }
public virtual Shipper { get; set; }
}
Then the mapping will look like
public class OrgsWithAccessMap : ClassMap<OrgsWithAccess>
{
public OrgsWithAccessMap()
{
References(x => x.Owner);
References(x => x.Broker);
References(x => x.Shipper);
}
}
Then when querying, you would simply look at the properties on OrgsWithAccess
session.QueryOver<OrgsWithAccess>().Where(x => x.Owner.Id == id);
Related
I have two classes as follows.
class Donkey
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
}
class Monkey
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public Donkey Donkey { get; set; }
}
Now I want to configure the schema so that the relation is set in the database. Using Fluent API, I'll go something like this.
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder model)
{
base.OnModelCreating(model);
model.HasDefaultSchema("dbo");
...
model.Entity<Monkey>
.HasRequired(_ => _.Donkey)
.WithMany(_ => _.Monkeys)
.Map(_ => _.MapKey("DonkeyId"));
}
The problem is that now I have to declare a list of monkeys in the donkey. And I don't want to do that. I still want the monkey to point to a donkey using foreign key, so only required status won't do, because I need to specify my custom column name to store the FK pointing to the PK in the table of donkeys.
model.Entity<Monkey>.HasRequired(_ => _.Donkey);
So, the above lacks the mapping (and it doesn't compile when I just add it). Is there a way to work around it without actually changing the definition of Donkey class?
modelBuilder.Entity<Monkey>()
.HasRequired(x => x.Donkey)
.WithMany();
I have an employee table that self references to determine organization structure. I'm having some trouble trying to set this up using Code-First (POCO) fluently.
An employee record has both a "Position" field and a "ReportsTo" field and neither of the columns are the primary key (employee.id).
An employee with a "ReportsTo" value of "08294" , is an employee of a direct report of an employee with "Position" value of "08294".
Can anyone offer up some info on how to set this up using EF code first, fluently...is it possible?
I tried the code below and am getting error:
Employee_Employees_Source_Employee_Employees_Target: : The types of
all properties in the Dependent Role of a referential constraint must
be the same as the corresponding property types in the Principal Role.
The type of property 'ReportsTo' on entity 'Employee' does not match
the type of property 'Id' on entity 'Employee' in the referential
constraint 'Employee_Employees'.
Employee.cs
public class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } //pk
public string Position { get; set; } // i.e. 06895
public string ReportsTo{ get; set; } // i.e. 08294
public virtual Employee Supervisor { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
}
DbContext
modelBuilder.Entity<Employee>()
.HasMany(e => e.Employees)
.WithOptional(e => e.Supervisor)
.HasForeignKey(e => e.ReportsTo);
I think more than anything, I would like to keep the POCO free of EF "stuff" and be able to do something like:
employee.IsSupervisor(); // based on child employee count.
The issue is in the relationship configuration. If you want to configure your one to many relation without using a FK, you could do this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employee>()
.HasMany(e => e.Employees)
.WithOptional(e => e.Supervisor);
Now if you want to use a FK property, then add this property to your model class:
public class Employee
{
//...
public int SupervisorId { get; set; }
}
And map your relationship this way:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employee>()
.HasMany(e => e.Employees)
.WithOptional(e => e.Supervisor)
.HasForeignKey(e => e.SupervisorId);
To resolve your issue related with ReportTo and Position properties,I think you should handle that logic in your code. If you want to know if an Employee is a supervisor based on the count of Employees property, you could use a NotMapped property:
public class Employee
{
[NotMapped]
public bool IsSupervisor
{
get
{
return Employess.Count>0
}
}
}
You can do the same using Fluent Api:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employee>().Ignore(e => e.IsSupervisor);
PS: Remember initialize Employees in your class'constructor.
The error you get is because it is trying to map a PK of int type to a FK of string type. User int for all of your key fields.
Then, you need to declare your OnModelBuilding like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Employee>()
.HasOptional(e => e.Supervisor)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(s => s.ReportsTo);
To get something like IsSupervisor() you can take advantage of partial classes. Create another class file which is a public partial class Employee (and modify your original one to be partial), then in your new file you will add a property that does whatever you want, and decorate it with [NotMapped] attribute. Yours will probably look something like public bool IsSupervisor {get { return (Employees == null) ? false : true; } set {} } The new partial class is where you can do whatever you want for the POCO without changing the EF class (make sure you use [NotMapped] though).
Assume I have the following entity classes:
public class Customer {
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
public class Order {
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
How should those be mapped in Entity Framework 6 fluent code-first mapping? I want to be explicit about the mapping and not rely on automatic mapping conventions.
Option 1
Just map the local properties of both classes. That's how I would do it in Fluent NHibernate.
public class CustomerMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Customer> {
public CustomerMap() {
HasMany(x => x.Orders);
}
}
public class OrderMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Order> {
public OrderMap() {
HasRequired(x => x.Customer);
}
}
Option 2
Map both sides of the relationship in both classes.
public class CustomerMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Customer> {
public CustomerMap() {
HasMany(x => x.Orders).WithRequired(x => x.Customer);
}
}
public class OrderMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Order> {
public OrderMap() {
HasRequired(x => x.Customer).WithMany(x => x.Orders);
}
}
Option 3
Map both sides of the relation, but only in one of the classes. The code would be similar to option 2, just one of the two constructors would be empty.
Is there any difference between those options? If yes, please also explain why I should or shouldn't use a specific option.
I would go for option 3.
In option 1 you can forget to map the inverse end of an association. In this simple example it's clear that Order.Customer and Customer.Orders are two ends of the same association. When things get more complex, this isn't always obvious. Also, it is redundant code.
In option 2 you could have conflicting mappings. For instance when you have...
HasOptional(x => x.Customer).WithMany(x => x.Orders);
...in OrderMap, you will get a runtime exception telling you that both mappings don't match. And again, it is redundant code.
So option 3 is DRY and safe. The only issue is that it's a bit arbitrary where to configure the mappings. I tend to adhere to mapping children in their parent's mapping.
One more comment. You may want to add a primitive property CustomerId in Order. The mapping would look like:
public class CustomerMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<Customer>
{
public CustomerMap()
{
HasMany(x => x.Orders).WithRequired(x => x.Customer)
.HasForeignKey(o => o.CustomerId);
}
}
Now you have full control over both ends of the association and the foreign key name to be used. Besides that, there are some advantages of these foreign key associations as opposed to independent associations (without a primitive foreign key property). For instance, the ability to establish an association without having to fetch the parent object from the database. You can just by set an Id value.
I know there are questions about HasManyToMany but this time I want to put couple fields into middle table like 'Description, CreationDate'.
For my situation I don't want to bind two way. I have company, person and address tables.
And every company or person may have more than 1 address.
In this situation what should I do?
How should I write the code of classes and mappings?
Below you can see the tables:
In this case the answer is pretty simple. Do not use many-to-many. Use pairing object. Exactly for the reasons you've mentioned: Extend the pairing object with more properties:
Check here 24. Best Practices, a cite:
Don't use exotic association mappings.
Good usecases for a real many-to-many associations are rare. Most of the time you need additional information stored in the "link table". In this case, it is much better to use two one-to-many associations to an intermediate link class. In fact, we think that most associations are one-to-many and many-to-one, you should be careful when using any other association style and ask yourself if it is really neccessary.
Other words, create the one-to-many relations refering the pairing objects from boht ends, and many-to-one from the pairing object.
Also check these:
Hibernate: many-to-many relationship table as entity
NHibernate Bidirectional Many-to-Many Mapping List / Bag
Nhibernate: How to represent Many-To-Many relationships with One-to-Many relationships?
An example of the Address and Company. First Pairing object
public class AddressCompany
{
// the relation to both sides
public virtual Address Address { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
// many other settings we need
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime CreationDate { get; set; }
...
}
the Address and Company in a nut-shell:
public class Address
{
public virtual IList<AddressCompany> Companies { get; set; }
...
}
public class Company
{
public virtual IList<AddressCompany> Addresses { get; set; }
...
}
The mapping is as expected:
public AddressMap()
{
HasMany(x => x.Companies)
...
}
public CompanyMap()
{
HasMany(x => x.Addresses)
...
}
public AddressCompanyMap()
{
References(x => x.Address)..
References(x => x.Company)..
...
}
So, this is representing the Pairing object
Well, but now we can find some Companies Created after a date:
var subquery = QueryOver.Of<AddressCompany>()
.Where(c => c.CreationDate > new DateTime(2000, 1, 1))
.Select(c => c.Company.ID);
var query = session.QueryOver<Company>()
.WithSubquery
.WhereProperty(c => c.ID)
.In(subquery)
...;
This way we can also filter Company over the Address...
Using Entity Framework (Code First), I'm trying to map a conditional/filtered relationship between the following 2 entities:
Building
BuildingId
BuildingName
Area
AreaId
ParentId
AreaName
IsSubArea
A Building can have many Areas
An Area can have many (Sub)Areas
I would like to create the relationship between Building and Area where the areas marked with 'IsSubArea' are filtered out of the relationship. In this context, ParentId would relate to a Building, otherwise, ParentId would be another Area. This would allow me to create a building with many areas, and each area could have many sub-areas, creating a tree style structure.
The closest to a solution I have found relates to 'soft delete' functionality (source):
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>().Map(m => m.Requires("IsDeleted").HasValue(false));
Converted to fit my example:
modelBuilder.Entity<Area>().Map(m => m.Requires("IsSubArea").HasValue(false));
But as far as I can tell, this has no bearing on the relationship to the Building.
Another solution would be to create a property on the Building which specifies the query definition to use to return related areas (source):
public class Building
{
public int BuildingId {get; set;}
public string BuildingName {get; set;}
public IQueryable<Area> BuildingAreas
{
get
{
return from area in areas
where area.IsSubArea == false
and area.ParentId == BuildingId
select area;
//Assume I have a reference to relevant DbSets
}
}
}
This solution would work but doesn't feel as elegant as a conditional mapping.
Another solution would be to inherit from Area and create the 2 sub-classes:
BuildingArea
AreaId
BuildingId
AreaName
SubArea
AreaId
ParentAreaId
AreaName
Each inherits from Area and sets the 'IsSubArea' field as appropriate.
This solution feels tidier but I do not know how to implement this in Entity Framework.
Is there a way to specify conditional mapping on relationships?
Is there a better way to implement this structure?
Update 1:Found this & this guide on inheritance which seems to match my requirements. However, neither of these tutorials define relationships between derived types. I'll update the question tonight with what I have tried with regards to the Table per Hierarchy (TPH) method.
Update 2:
I'm going to try an describe the Table per Hierarchy (TPH) method I tried to implement based on the tutorial links above. Forgive me if this gets a little complicated (maybe I'm over thinking it).
Models
The building class remains the same as the OP.
I have created an abstract base class defining the Area properties common to each derived type (BuildingArea and SubArea):
public abstract class Area
{
protected Area(bool isSubArea)
{
IsSubArea = isSubArea;
SubAreas = new List<SubArea>();
}
public int AreaId { get; set; }
public int ParentId { get; set; }
public string AreaName { get; set; }
public bool IsSubArea { get; private set; } //note the private set
public virtual ICollection<SubArea> SubAreas { get; set; }
}
I then have 2 derived types which inherit from Area:
public class BuildingArea : Area
{
public BuildingArea () : base(false)
{}
public virtual Building ParentBuilding { get; set; }
}
public class SubArea : Area
{
public SubArea(): base(true)
{}
// This is of type `Area` because parent could be either `BuildingArea` or `SubArea`
public virtual Area Parent { get; set; }
}
I then have the following 2 EntityTypeConfigurations:
public class BuildingAreaMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<BuildingArea>
{
public BuildingAreaMap ()
{
// Primary Key
HasKey(t => t.AreaId);
// Properties
Property(t => t.AreaName)
.IsRequired()
.HasMaxLength(256);
// Table & Column Mappings
ToTable("Areas");
Property(t => t.AreaId).HasColumnName("AreaId");
Property(t => t.ParentId).HasColumnName("ParentId");
Property(t => t.AreaName).HasColumnName("AreaName");
Property(t => t.IsSubArea).HasColumnName("IsSubArea");
// This is the discriminator column
Map(m => m.Requires("IsSubArea").HasValue(false));
HasRequired(a => a.Site).WithMany(s => s.SiteAreas).HasForeignKey(k => k.ParentId);
}
public class SubAreaMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<SubArea>
{
public SubAreaMap()
{
// Primary Key
HasKey(t => t.AreaId);
// Properties
Property(t => t.AreaName)
.IsRequired()
.HasMaxLength(256);
// Table & Column Mappings
ToTable("AssetHealthAreas");
Property(t => t.AreaId).HasColumnName("AreaId");
Property(t => t.ParentId).HasColumnName("ParentId");
Property(t => t.AreaName).HasColumnName("AreaName");
Property(t => t.IsSubArea).HasColumnName("IsSubArea");
// This is the discriminator column
Map(m => m.Requires("IsSubArea").HasValue(true));
HasRequired(a => a.Parent).WithMany(s => s.SubAreas).HasForeignKey(k => k.ParentId);
}
}
This code builds successfully, but I do get the following runtime error:
Map was called more than once for type 'SiteArea' and at least one of the calls didn't specify the target table name.
But I am specifying the target table name (once in each EntityTypeConfiguration class).
So I removed the EntityTypeConfiguration for SubArea but I get the same error.
One of the tutorials pulls the mapping out of the EntityTypeConfiguration class and puts it in the OnModelCreating handler as follows:
modelBuilder.Entity<Area>()
.Map<BuildingArea>(m => m.Requires("IsSubArea").HasValue(false))
.Map<SubArea>(m => m.Requires("IsSubArea").HasValue(true));
This also gives me the same error.
If I remove relationships from the equation, I get a different error regarding the ParentId property:
The foreign key component 'ParentId' is not a declared property on type 'SiteArea'. Verify that it has not been explicitly excluded from the model and that it is a valid primitive property.
Update 3
An image of the model I'm trying to create...
Update 4
I'm going to try and simplify my model to match the following.
If the solution below works, I will need to have a little more business logic to navigate the tree but it should be manageable.
For the errors when creating the TPH classes:
I think this is because you are not supposed to have the discriminator column as a property in your classes.
Remove the property IsSubArea from your base class.
When you create new instance, EF should automatically detect the type and fill the IsSubArea accordingly.