I have a few classes that read from very delicate tables, which is why I want them to be used by NHibernate as "ReadOnly". Establishing .ReadOnly() on each field map is really sloppy, and I'm not sure I trust it. How do I setup a class to be entirely readonly, as I can easily do with traditional XML mappings?
Edit: The answer does work. I expected it to throw an exception if I tried to save over a ReadOnly() object, but it just silently does so.
Thanks.
With Fluent NHibernate, it's as simple as:
class EntityMap : ClassMap<Entity>
{
public EntityMap()
{
ReadOnly();
// Mappings
}
}
The ReadOnly() property actually does NOT work like you would expect.
Using this property makes sure that the objects that you retrieve are read-only, so you cannot UPDATE them. However, it does NOT prevent the creation of new records or even the deletion of existing records in the database!
Related
I'm using entity framework code first to create my tables. Please note - create the tables, not the DB, since I'm working on a hosted environment and I don't have a user that is allowed to create db's.
Committing a DB update works fine, but retrieving data gives the exception:
Exception Details: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Invalid object name 'dbo.EventHosts'.
I've read that it happens because I'm not using EF Code First to create the DB. That's fine, but how do I elegantly solve this?
All the generated tables do not have a prefix like dbo. A solution like this doesn't work, and isn't elegant at all:
[Table("EventHosts", Schema = "")]
Ok, for me issue was that I had a table called dbo.UserState and in C# EF was trying to access dbo.UserStates because of pluralization.
The solution was to put Table attribute above class and specify the exact table name:
[Table("UserState")]
public class UserState
{
[Key]
public int UserId { get; set; }
}
To answer your first question: use the schema created for you by your hosting provider.
To answer your second question: No there is currently no direct way to change the default schema globally because you cannot modify existing conventions or create new conventions. You can try to hack it.
For example you can override OnModelCreating and use reflection to get all DbSet<> properties declared in your context. Than you can just use simple loop on these properties and create ToTable mapping call with name of the property as table name and your custom schema. It will require some playing with reflection to make this work.
Alternatively you can try to do some reusable approach by implementing custom conventions. You can find many different articles about using your own conventions with EF. Some examples:
Custom Conventions in Entity Framework Code First v 4.1
Conventions in Entity Framework 4.1 Final
My high level untested idea is following same principle and create assembly level attribute which will be processed by the convention mechanism and applied on all your entities.
Try to set default schema name to 'dbo' in SQL SERVER.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173423.aspx
On of the reason for this error is the table named "EventHosts" may not Exist or that table is renamed to some other name please check with that..
https://stackoverflow.com/a/12808316/3069271
I had same issue, it was pluralize problem between mapping and db.
Hello I'm trying to do the impossible apparently.
I need a self referenced table with a many to many relationship to itself that also has a specific order in c# entity framework (4.2) database first.
Think of it like Friends having Friends in which they order their friendship > Best Friend to Worst Friend.
Is there anyway to do this without using the "FriendToFriend" relationship entity? I would like to be able to use Friend.Friends (removing the order column creates it), but I would have a default order based on their friendshipOrder. My work around is looking like extending the generated classes to have a new property for Friends in order.
Any one else have any better ideas?
Entity framework does not support ordered collections. This is one of many situations where EF shows its immaturity.
Try nHibernate if it is a viable option. It supports ordered collections.
With EF you will have to map the intermediate table with extra column and manually adjust the ordering according to your logic.
I know I'm late to this, but when designing this as a data model, I would prefer to add a relationship table, and that relationship table should have a property that defines the order (for example, worst friend is 0, best is 100).
Then, in EF, I would explicitly order by that property, if the list I'm retrieving should be of that order.
That means that whatever method you use to query the data, that relationship can be consistently used. So if you were using EF, you could use it (although, yes, it's not as handy as Friend.Friends, but the code would be clearer as to its intention - Friend.FriendRelationships.Select(p => p.Friend).OrderBy(p => p.OrderValue)), and if you were using direct SQL, then you could use it too.
If I came across Friend.Friends in code, I would have no idea what ordering would be applied to it.
If you must have it though, you could always add it as a non-db property -
public class Friend
{
public virtual List<FriendRelationship> UnorderedFriendList { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public IEnumerable<Friend> Friends
{
get
{
return UnorderedFriendList.Select(p => p.Friend).OrderByDescending(p => p.OrderValue);
}
}
}
i have some questions of how to use the Entity Framework in an enterprise application.
First of all, i work with ADO.NET for many years now and i use objects to reflect the data that i get from the database provider.
Every time i want to change something or insert something into the database.
I just call a Save() method and get the job done.
Every object has a DatabaseManager that manage the queries to the DataAccess layer.
For example
public class Article{
public int ID{get;set;}
public string Title{get;set;}
.....
public bool Save(){
if(this.ID == -1){
return new ArticleDatabaseManager().InsertArticle(this);
}else{
return new ArticleDatabaseManager().UpdateArticle(this);
}
}
}
public ArticleDatabaseManager : DatabaseManager
{
...ADO.NET code
}
I don't know if i have to use the same architectur or change all the way i use this objects in my application.
I thought if i create something like the above i can do something like this :
public class Article{
public int ID{get;set;}
public string Title{get;set;}
.....
public bool Save(){
if(this.ID == -1){
return new ArticleDatabaseManager().InsertArticle(this);
}else{
return new ArticleDatabaseManager().UpdateArticle(this);
}
}
}
In the Each DatabaseManager implements some Link To Entities or even EntitySQL to do the same job like the old DatabaseManager does.
Fill the Business models with the values that i from the Entity Objects.
Then i could work with the Business as before and just any time i want to do some changes i communicate via EntityFramework to the Database.
Sould i implement something like the above?
Sould i just inherit the previous business objects to the entity objects?
EX :
public class Article : ArticleEntity
{
//some properties for validation etc
}
Sould i use something completely different?
I Just Don't knwo:/
I have no experience with other ORM. Just mine hand written "ORM" System.
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry for my lack of English and i know that i ask too much in a single question...
But moving from one technology to an other for a dinosaur like me is like i change Country:/
Did you at least try to use some EF tutorial? If not it is time to do that because we cannot explain you everything about EF in single answer (even in multiple - that is not purpose of SO to replace tutorials and learning materials). That should give you pretty clear answer about all your stuff related to your database managers.
In general what you did till know is very close to Active record pattern. If your objects also has static methods used to retrieve object from database it is Active record pattern. When using EF you usually don't use this pattern and you don't need any database manager. EF is build around class which is called context and this context works as your database manager for all entities you are using. It is possible to add saving and retrieval methods to entities but because it breaks separation of concerns and it makes your entities heavily dependent on EF and persistence (trend is to make them completely independent = POCO) it is usually not used.
Don't derive any custom class from entity. EF will not be able to use your derived type. Use entity mapped in EF as your class and add all custom properties and methods directly to this class (you can even create that class from scratch if you don't want to use code generators). In case of generated entities you can add custom code in partial classes. If you don't use EF entity as your object you will have to manually handle conversion from one to other (or use some tool like AutoMapper).
EF is not able to work with XML column - it will handle it as string. Especially if you plan to use these data for some ordering or filtering and if they have fixed structure you should model them as separate tables / entities. If it is really just structured content (with dynamic structure) you can use it as XML string.
Currently our new database design is changing rapidly and I don't always have time to keep up to date with the latest changes being made. Therefore I would like to create some basic integration tests that are basically sanity checks on my mappings against the database.
Here are a few of the things I'd like to accomplish in these tests:
Detect columns I have not defined in my mapping but exist in the database
Detect columns I have mapped but do NOT exist in the database
Detect columns that I have mapped where the data types between the database and my business objects no longer jive with each other
Detect column name changes between database and my mapping
I found the following article by Ayende but I just want to see what other people out there are doing to handle these sort of things. Basically I'm looking for simplified tests that cover a lot of my mappings but do not require me to write seperate queries for every business object in my mappings.
I'm happy with this test, that comes from the Ayende proposed one:
[Test]
public void PerformSanityCheck()
{
foreach (var s in NHHelper.Instance.GetConfig().ClassMappings)
{
Console.WriteLine(" *************** " + s.MappedClass.Name);
NHHelper.Instance.CurrentSession.CreateQuery(string.Format("from {0} e", s.MappedClass.Name))
.SetFirstResult(0).SetMaxResults(50).List();
}
}
I'm using plain old query since this version comes from a very old project and I'm to lazy to update with QueryOver or Linq2NH or something else...
It basically ping all mapped entities configured and grasp some data too in order to see that all is ok. It does not care if some field exists in the table but not on the mapping, that can generate problem in persistence if not nullable.
I'm aware that Fabio Maulo has something eventually more accurate.
As a personal consideration, if you are thinking on improvement, I would try to implement such a strategy: since mapping are browsable by API, look for any explicit / implicit table declaration in the map, and ping it with the database using the standard schema helperclasses you have inside NH ( they eventually uses the ADO.NET schema classes, but they insulate all the configuration stuff we already did in NH itself) By playng a little with naming strategy we can achieve a one by one table field check list. Another improvement can be done by, in case of unmatching field, looking for a candidate by applying Levensthein Distance to all the available names and choosing one if some threshold requisites are satisfied. This of course is useless in class first scenarios when the DB schema are generated by NH itself.
I use this one too:
Verifying NHibernate Entities Contain Only Virtual Members
I'm trying to map two domain entities to the same table. We're doing a smart entity for our domain model, so we have the concept of an Editable Address and a readonly Address. I have both mapped using Classmaps, and everything seems to go fine until we try to export the schema using the SchemaExport class from NHibernate. It errors out saying the table already exists.
I assume it's something simple that I'm just not seeing.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Update
There are a couple of other things I didn't mention which I should have. I appreicate those that answered so far, but they don't work for us.
One is that we have a single address table, not include the columns in whatever entities have an address.
The other is that we can't use a common base class. For editable objects, we have a super class which adds validation behaviors to the subclasses. The readonly objects don't need this behavior though and should not have these behaviors.
I have considered an interface, but then I believe I end up in a situtation where you can cast a readonly object to this interface and then changes its values (since presumably NHibernate would use said interface to hydrate the object).
So if there's another way to acomplish this, or if mapping via an interface won't have the problem I described, please let me know. I'm still learning NHibernate.
Thanks again!
you can Exclude the readonly class from schemaexport:
public class ReadonlyAdressMap : ClassMap<ReadonlyAdress>
{
ReadonlyAdressMap()
{
Schemaaction.None();
[...]
}
}
Create one base abstract class entity which you will later extend to the Editable Address and the ReadOnly Address.