How do you represent a many-to-many relationship in the EF4 Code-First CTP3?
For example if I have the following classes:
class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<Profile> Profiles { get; set; }
}
class Profile
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
In the database there is a UserProfiles table that has the FK for User and FK for Profile. How can I map this?
EDIT: I understand how to to currently map with having a ICollection<User> property on the Profile, but I really don't want to have a an opposite navigation property when it should be "Users have many profiles".
EDIT: CTP4 was released late yesterday (July 14 2010) and there is now support for this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Post>().HasMany(p => p.Tags).WithMany();
I found out finally that this currently isn't possible. Microsoft is looking to add this feature (only one navigation property).
See this link on the MSDN forums for more information: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/adonetefx/thread/6920db2b-88c7-4bea-ac89-4809882cff8f
With many to many relationships you should include navigation properties on both sides and make them virtual (to utilize lazy loading)
class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Profile> Profiles { get; set; }
}
class Profile
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
Then with that setup you can define your many to many relationship (you can also let entity framework do it for you but I don't like the naming conventions it uses.)
modelBuilder.Entity<Profile>().
HasMany(p => p.Users).
WithMany(g => g.Profiles).
Map(t => t.MapLeftKey("ProfileID")
.MapRightKey("UserID")
.ToTable("UserProfiles"));
This will give you a table named UserProfiles with UserID and ProfileID as Keys.
Related
I'm working on a serverside blazor project (.net 6) using Entity Framework with code first. I have two tables, let's say (in order to protect private data), we have the Tables Band and Bandsman. Originally, every band could have exactly one bandsman, a bandsman could be connected to more then one band though. It's an example, so please don't question this assumptive circumstances.
I created two classes:
[Table("Band")]
public partial class Band
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string BandName { get; set; }
public int? BandsmanId { get; set; }
public virtual Bandsman Bandsman { get; set; }
}
[Table("Bandsman")]
public partial class Bandsman
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual List<Band> Band { get; set; }
}
So far everything works fine. Entity Framework set the correct foreign key. But now I have to insert a second bandsman. Let's say, the first bandsman is a keyboarder, now I need a drummer as well. So I altered the existing classes:
[Table("Band")]
public partial class Band
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string BandName { get; set; }
public int? BandsmanId { get; set; }
public int? DrummerId { get; set; }
public virtual Bandsman Bandsman { get; set; }
public virtual Bandsman Drummer { get; set; }
}
[Table("Bandsman")]
public partial class Bandsman
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual List<Band> Band { get; set; }
public virtual List<Band> Drummer { get; set; }
}
I know I have to tell Entity Framework now how to map the tables. So I added mapping instructions to the OnModelCreating-Method in DbContext:
builder.Entity<Band>().HasOne(a => a.Bandsman).WithMany().HasForeignKey(b => b.BandsmanId);
builder.Entity<Band>().HasOne(a => a.Drummer).WithMany().HasForeignKey(b => b.DrummerId);
This doesn't work. When I create the migrations I see that Entity Frameworks tries to create new Columns BandsmanId1 and BandsmanId2 to the Band-Table instead of using the Columns I defined.
So I tried to add the instructions the other way around, too, in addition to the previous ones:
builder.Entity<Bandsman>().HasMany<Band>(a => a.Band).WithOne().HasForeignKey(b => b.BandsmanId);
builder.Entity<Bandsman>().HasMany<Band>(a => a.Drummer).WithOne().HasForeignKey(b => b.DrummerId);
It's still the same, Entity Framework tries to add new columns and map the foreign keys to them.
I also tried to rename Band.BandsmanId to Band.KeyboarderId or rather add and map a new column with the new name (so existing data won't get lost), rename Band.Bandsman to Band.Keyboarder and Bandsman.Band to Bandsman.Keyboarder. With no effect, Entity Framework still seems incapable to use the colums I want it to use. I guess the instructions I added to OnModelCreating in DbContext are incorrect, but I'm not able to find out how to put it right. I found some examples here on stackoverflow and elsewhere, but I can't manage to convert one of this examples to my code.
So I hope someone can help me to put the classes and instructions right.
After posting my question, I found the solution in a post that was shown as possibly related:
Entity Framework Code First - two Foreign Keys from same table
I was close, my only mistake was not to name the virtual List-Property of the Bandsman-Class in the .HasMany()-Part of the instructions. So Entity Framework didn't now these properties were related to the foreign key columns in the band-table and tried to create the assumed-to-be-missing columns on its own. This way it works:
builder.Entity<Band>().HasOne(a => a.Bandsman).WithMany(b => b.Band).HasForeignKey(a => a.BandsmanId);
builder.Entity<Band>().HasOne(a => a.Drummer).WithMany(b => b.Drummer).HasForeignKey(a => a.DrummerId);
I am trying to build an organization hierarchy where each team might contain one or many members and/or one or many sub-teams.
To do so, my model is:
public class Team
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Members { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Team> SubTeams { get; set; }
public Employee Manager { get; set; }
}
When adding a migration and updating database, everything seems logical in the table.
EF has added an extra nullable column "Team_Id" where the Id of the parent Team gets stored.
My question is about getting the Id of the parent Team from my model.
I tried adding:
public int? Team_Id
To my model, but EF considered it as a model change and asked for another migration.
How can I get the value of column Team_Id in my model? getting this info takes too much processing when looping through teams.
I always add foreign key in my model. When it adds to the model, EF won't add Team_Id .
public class Team
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Employee> Members { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Team> SubTeams { get; set; }
public Employee Manager { get; set; }
public int? ParentId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentId")]
public Team ParentTeam { get; set; }
}
I hope this example be helpful.
I have a simple User Class
public class User
{
public int ID { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual ApplicationUser LoginID { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public string JobTitle { get; set; }
[DefaultValue(UserRole.Standard)]
public UserRole Role { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
public string Email { get { return LoginID.Email; } }
public bool HasAccess(UserRole TargetRole)
{
//Non-relevant logic
}
}
And I also have a Company class defined as
public class Company
{
public int ID { get; set; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(length: 70)]
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Employees { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<CompanyEmailDomain> Domains { get; set; }
public ICollection<User> Managers { get { return Employees.Where(x => x.Role == UserRole.Manager).ToList(); } }
}
However, when I run the add-migration command, it tries to add 3 Foreign keys on the User table to the Company table. Can anyone tell me why this would be the case?
AddColumn("dbo.Users", "Company_ID", c => c.Int());
AddColumn("dbo.Users", "Company_ID1", c => c.Int());
AddColumn("dbo.Users", "Company_ID2", c => c.Int());
Entity Framework simply counts the associations between User and Company. It detects three of them:
Company in User.
Employees in Company
Managers in Company
They're all 1-n (Company - User), so, EF concludes, User needs three foreign keys.
You know that Managers is a computed property. In fact, the property shouldn't even be be mapped. You should add the [NotMapped] attribute to it or map it as ignored by the fluent mapping API.
Also, you know that User.Company and Company.Employees are two ends of one association. But because of the two ICollection<User> properties, EF doesn't know which one to choose for the other end (the inverse end) of User.Company.
Now if you unmap Company.Managers, EF will see two properties --User.Company and Company.Employees-- and assume they belong together. So by unmapping one property, only one foreign key will be created.
When using data annotations with EF4.1 RC is there an annotation to cause cascade deletes?
public class Category
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Category Category { get; set; }
}
Using this model the constraint generated is:
ALTER TABLE [Product] ADD CONSTRAINT [Product_Category]
FOREIGN KEY ([Category_Id]) REFERENCES [Categorys]([Id])
ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
If not how is it achieved?
Putting required on the Product table Category relationship field solves this
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required] //<======= Forces Cascade delete
public Category Category { get; set; }
}
I like to turn off cascade delete by default (by removing the OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention)
I was then hoping to add them back in via annotations, but was surprised that EF doesn't include a CascadeDeleteAttribute.
After spending way too long working around EF's ridiculous internal accessor levels, the code in this gist adds a convention that allows attributes to be used: https://gist.github.com/tystol/20b07bd4e0043d43faff
To use, just stick the [CascadeDelete] on either end of the navigation properties for the relationship, and add the convention in your DbContext's OnModeCreating callback. eg:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<ManyToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Add<CascadeDeleteAttributeConvention>();
}
And in your model:
public class BlogPost
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
[CascadeDelete]
public List<BlogPostComment> Comments { get; set; }
}
Not sure on Data Annotations, but you can add it in the database by modifying the actual relationship.
Looks like the answer is no for data annotations:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/adonetefx/thread/394821ae-ab28-4b3f-b554-184a6d1ba72d/
This question appears to show how to do it with the fluent syntax, but not sure if that applies for 4.1 RC
EF 4.1 RC: Weird Cascade Delete
As an additional example to Tyson's answer, I use the [CascadeDelete] attribute like follows in an entity, which successfully adds the "Cascade" delete rule to the Parent-Child relation.
public class Child
{
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
[Key]
[SkipTracking]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
[CascadeDelete]
public virtual Parent Parent { get; set; }
[Required]
[ForeignKey("Parent")]
public Guid ParentId { get; set; }
}
How do I store additional fields in the "link table" that is automagically created for me if I have two entities associated as having a many to many relationship?
I have tried going the "two 1 to many associations"-route, but I'm having a hard time with correctly configuring the cascading deletion.
Unless those extra columns are used by some functions or procedures at the database level, the extra columns in the link table will be useless since they are completely invisible at the Entity Framework level.
It sounds like you need to re-think your object model. If you absolutely need those columns, you can always add them later manually.
You will most likely need to expose the association in your domain model.
As an example, I needed to store an index (display order) against items in an many-to-many relationship (Project <> Images).
Here's the association class:
public class ProjectImage : Entity
{
public Guid ProjectId { get; set; }
public Guid ImageId { get; set; }
public virtual int DisplayIndex { get; set; }
public virtual Project Project { get; set; }
public virtual Image Image { get; set; }
}
Here's the mapping:
public class ProjectImageMap : EntityTypeConfiguration<ProjectImage>
{
public ProjectImageMap()
{
ToTable("ProjectImages");
HasKey(pi => pi.Id);
HasRequired(pi => pi.Project);
HasRequired(pi => pi.Image);
}
}
From Project Map:
HasMany(p => p.ProjectImages).WithRequired(pi => pi.Project);
Maps to the following property on project:
public virtual IList<ProjectImage> ProjectImages { get; set; }
Hope that helps
Ben
Suppose there is a many-to-many association between two types: User and Message, and the association class is defined as UserMessageLink with additional properties.
public class User {
public int Id {get;set;}
}
public class Message {
public int Id {get;set;}
}
//The many-to-many association class with additional properties
public class UserMessageLink {
[Key]
[Column("RecieverId", Order = 0)]
[ForeignKey("Reciever")]
public virtual int RecieverId { get; set; }
[Key]
[Column("MessageId", Order = 1)]
[ForeignKey("Message")]
public virtual int MessageId { get; set; }
public virtual User Reciever { get; set; }
public virtual Message Message { get; set; }
//This is an additional property
public bool IsRead { get; set; }
}