How do you break circular associations between entities?

How do you break circular associations between entities? - c#

my first time on the site so apologies if it's tagged incorrectly or been answered elsewhere...
I keep running into particular situation on my current project and I was wondering how you guys would deal with it. The pattern is: a parent with a collection of children, and the parent has one or more references to particular items in the child collection, normally the 'default' child.
A more concrete example:
public class SystemMenu
{
public IList<MenuItem> Items { get; private set; }
public MenuItem DefaultItem { get; set; }
}
public class MenuItem
{
public SystemMenu Parent { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
To me this seems like a good clean way of modelling the relationship, but causes problems immediately thanks to the circular association, I can't enforce the relationship in the DB because of the circular foreign keys, and LINQ to SQL blows up due to the cyclic association. Even if I could bodge my way round this, it's clearly not a great idea.
My only idea currently is to have an 'IsDefault' flag on MenuItem:
public class SystemMenu
{
public IList<MenuItem> Items { get; private set; }
public MenuItem DefaultItem
{
get
{
return Items.Single(x => x.IsDefault);
}
set
{
DefaultItem.IsDefault = false;
value.DefaultItem = true;
}
}
}
public class MenuItem
{
public SystemMenu Parent { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsDefault { get; set; }
}
Has anyone dealt with something similar and could offer some advice?
Cheers!
Edit: Thanks for the responses so far, perhaps the 'Menu' example wasn't brilliant though, I was trying to think of something representative so I didn't have to go into the specifics of our not-so-self-explanatory domain model! Perhaps a better example would be a Company/Employee relationship:
public class Company
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public IList<Employee> Employees { get; private set; }
public Employee ContactPerson { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public Company EmployedBy { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
The Employee would definitely need a reference to their Company, and each Company could only have one ContactPerson. Hope this makes my original point a bit clearer!

The trick to solving this is to realize that the parent does not need to know about all of the methods of the child, and that the child does not need to know all the methods of the parent. Therefore you can use the Interface Segregation Principle to decouple them.
In short, you create an interface for the parent that has only those methods that the child needs. You also create an interface for the child that has only those methods that the parent needs. Then you have the parent contain a list of the child interfaces, and you have the child point back to the parent interface. I call this the Flip Flob Pattern because the UML diagram has the geometry of an Eckles-Jordan flip-flop (Sue me, I'm an old hardware engineer!)
|ISystemMenu|<-+ +->|IMenuItem|
A 1 \ / * A
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
|SystemMenu| |MenuItem|
Notice that there is not cycle in this diagram. You cannot start at one class and follow the arrows back to your starting point.
Sometimes, in order to get the separation just right, you have to move some methods around. There might be code that you thought should have been in the SystemMenu that you move to the MenuItem, etc. But in general the technique works well.

Your solution seems quite reasonable.
Another thing to think about is that your objects in memory don't have to exactly match the database schema. In the database you can have the simpler schema with the child properties, but in memory you can optimize things and have the parent with references to the child objects.

I don't really see your problem. Clearly you're using C#, which holds objects as references not instances. This means it's perfectly fine to have cross-referencing, or even self-referencing.
in C++ and other languages where objects are more compositied then you can have problems, which are typically solved using references or pointers, but C# should be fine.
More than likely your problem is that you're trying to follow all references somehow, leading to a circular reference. LINQ uses lazy loading to address this issue. For instance, LINQ won't load the Company or the Employee until you reference it. You just need to avoid following such references further than one level.
However, you can't really add two tables as each others foreign key, otherwise you would never be able to delete any record, since deleting an employee would require deleting the company first, but you can't delete the company without deleting the employee. Typically, in this case, you would only use one as a real foreign key, the other would simply be a psuedo-FK (that is, one that is used as an FK but doesn't have constraints enabled). You have to decide which is the more important relationship.
In the company example, you would likely want to delete the employee but not the company, so make the company->employee FK the constraint relationship. This prevents you from deleting the company if there are employees, but you can delete employees without deleting the company.
Also, avoid creating new objects in the constructor in these situations. For instance, if your Employee object creates a new Company object, which includes a new employee ojbect created for the employee, it will eventually exhaust memory. Instead, pass the objects already created to the constructor, or set them after construction, possibly by using an initalization method.
For instance:
Company c = GetCompany("ACME Widgets");
c.AddEmployee(new Employee("Bill"));
then, in AddEmployee, you set the company
public void AddEmployee(Employee e)
{
Employees.Add(e);
e.Company = this;
}

Maybe a self-referential GoF Composite pattern is an order here. A Menu has a collection of leaf MenuItems, and both have a common interface. That way you can compose a Menu out of Menus and/or MenuItems. The schema has a table with a foreign key that points back to its own primary key. Works with walking menus that way, too.

In code, you need to have references both ways to reference things both ways. But in the database, you only need the reference one way to make things work. Because of the way joins work, you only need to have the foreign key in one of your tables. When you think about it, every foreign key in your database could be flipped around, and create and create a circular reference. Best to just pick one record, in this case probably the child with a foreign key to the parent, and just be done.

In a domain driven design sense way, you can choose to avoid bidirectional relations between entities where it's possible. Choose one "aggregate root" to hold the relations, and use the other entity only when navigation from the aggregate root. I try to avoid bidirectional relations where it's possible. Because of YAGNI, and it will make you ask the question "what was first, the chicken or the egg?" Sometimes you will still need bidirectional associations, then choose one of the solutions mentioned earlier.
/// This is the aggregate root
public class Company
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public IList<Employee> Employees { get; private set; }
public Employee ContactPerson { get; set; }
}
/// This isn't
public class Employee
{
public string FullName { get; set; }
}

You can enforce foreign keys in the database where two tables refer to each other. Two ways come to mind:
The default child column in the parent is initially null and is only updated once all the child rows have been inserted.
You defer constraint checking until commit time. This means you can insert first the parent with an initially broken reference to the child, then insert the child. One problem with deferred constraint checking is that you can end up with database exceptions being thrown at commit time which is often inconvenient in many db frameworks. Also, it means you need to know the primary key of the child before you insert it which may be awkward in your setup.
I've assumed here that the parent menu item lives in one table and the child in a different table but the same solution would work if they are both in the same table.
Many DBMS's support deferred constraint checking. Possibly yours does too although you don't mention which DBMS you are using

Thanks to all who answered, some really interesting approaches! In the end I had to get something done in a big hurry so this is what I came up with:
Introduced a third entity called WellKnownContact and corresponding WellKnownContactType enum:
public class Company
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public IList<Employee> Employees { get; private set; }
private IList<WellKnownEmployee> WellKnownEmployees { get; private set; }
public Employee ContactPerson
{
get
{
return WellKnownEmployees.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Type == WellKnownEmployeeType.ContactPerson);
}
set
{
if (ContactPerson != null)
{
// Remove existing WellKnownContact of type ContactPerson
}
// Add new WellKnownContact of type ContactPerson
}
}
}
public class Employee
{
public Company EmployedBy { get; set; }
public string FullName { get; set; }
}
public class WellKnownEmployee
{
public Company Company { get; set; }
public Employee Employee { get; set; }
public WellKnownEmployeeType Type { get; set; }
}
public enum WellKnownEmployeeType
{
Uninitialised,
ContactPerson
}
It feels a little cumbersome but gets around the circular reference issue, and maps cleanly onto the DB which saves trying to get LINQ to SQL to do anything too clever! Also allows for multiple types of 'well known contacts' which is definitely coming in the next sprint (so not really YAGNI!).
Interestingly, once I came up with the contrived Company/Employee example it made it MUCH easier to think about, in contrast to the fairly abstract entities that we're really dealing with.

Related

RESTful Interface - Adding child objects

I have a RESTful interface exposed that allows for adding Category and SubCategory types.
Category
public class Category : EntityBase<Category>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Enabled { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<SubCategory> SubCategories { get; set; }
}
SubCategory
public class SubCategory : EntityBase<SubCategory>
{
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Enabled { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
My question is should I pass the Category object with it's associated children SubCategories and then figure out what children are new:
public void AddSubCategory(Category category)
{
// Figure out what object on the SubCategories collection are new (no PK value?)?
}
or would an approach like so be better?:
public void AddSubCategory(int categoryId, SubCategory subCategory);

Your second approach is cleaner but may take you a bit longer to setup on the front end. You can go right to pushing the subcategory into your db/store [although I recommend doing a check in your stored procedure or entity repository to prevent two subcategories of the same name].
With the first approach you will need to iterate through the entire list of subcategories and possibility do a database call on each one or do something messy like submit the entire list to a stored procedure and churn through it in there.
The second approach will scale much better as well. Consider how much more data is being sent to the server and then being reprocessed as the list of subcategories grows.
Besides transferring redundant data and needing to potentially cause a lot of extra database calls, you are probably concerned with the style choice for those who will implement your API and I think developers would expect separate methods for adding, updating, deleting and would find submitting the entire list confusing.
Cheers

Well, i think there is no obvious answer to this question, and it comes down to a matter of taste.
Personally, if what you wish to only add one object at a time, i would go with the second approach, since it would save you iterating over a list of subcategories, which will benefit the performance of your application. You never know how your application will scale and you might end up with a lot of categories to deal with.
What i would do is take the second approach, but since you already have a CategoryId inside your second method, i would just change the signature to be:
public void AddSubCategory(SubCategory subCategory);
And extract the category id from the subCategory.

Entity Framework Code First Relationships; what am I missing?

I'm experimenting with EF5 Code First and I am using the models (show below).
When I look at the database that is created, I am confused because I do not see anything in the Track table that points to the Category table. Category has a FK pointing back to Track but that means that there are going to be duplicates of the categories?
A little background: I am trying to build a model that has tracks and every track can have 1 to N Categories. All of the categories are already defined, that is they are basically a lookup and I plan to create them in the seed method when database is created.
I think I am not understanding something obvious... When I query a track, how will I know what category it contains?
Thx
public class Track : IAuditInfo
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
public String Description { get; set; }
public String Data { get; set; }
public DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; }
public DateTime ModifiedOn { get; set; }
public ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public Track()
{
Categories = new List<Category>();
}
}
public class Category
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public Boolean IsVisible { get; set; }
public String DisplayName { get; set; }
}

Your current model is a one-to-many relationship between tracks and categories.
This usually implemented, as you have noted that entity framework does, using a foreign key on the many side (category) to the one side (track).
If I understand you correctly, what you want is a many-to-many relationship. Many tracks can be related to the same category, and a single track can belong to many categories.
To let entity framework understand that you want a many-to-many relationship you can simply add a ICollection property to your category class.
So both your classes should have a collection of the other class.
I.e. tracks have many categories and categories have many tracks.
For more information you can also see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/hh134698.a.nospx

Olav is right, your data model at the moment is not telling Entity Framework that there is a many-to-many relationship in there.
The simplest way to resolve this is to add
public virtual ICollection<Track> Tracks { get; set; }
to your Category class.
However... You may not want to pollute your domain model with artefacts that are not relevant to your domain. More importantly, when you do it this way, it is up to Entity Framework to figure out what to call the binding table. Prior to EF6 this naming is non deterministic (see http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/1677), which may mean that two different machines compiling the same code will decide on different names for that table and cause some interesting migration problems in your production system.
The answer to both problems is to always explicitly manage many-to-many relationships with Fluent Configuration.
In your Data Context class, override the OnModelCreating, something like this:
public class MyDb : DbContext
{
public IDbSet<Track> Tracks { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Track>()
.HasMany(t => t.Categories)
.WithMany()
.Map(c => c.ToTable("CategoriesForTracks"));
}
}
If you do this, you don't need to add a navigation property to your Category class, though you still can (if you do, you should use the overload for WithMany that allows you to specify a property).
Relationships between entities and how to map that to a relational database is inherently hard. For anything other than the simplest parent-child relationships you will want to use the fluent API to make sure you actually get what you want.
Morteza Manavi has a really good blog series describing relationships in EF Code First in exhaustive detail.
NOTE
You should usually make navigation properties virtual. So, you should change your Category class like this:
public virtual ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
In theory, not making it virtual should just cause eager loading rather than lazy loading to happen. In practice I have always found lots of subtle bugs appearing when my navigation properties are not virtual.

EF Code First - How to prevent duplicate column on created table on Table-Per-Hierarchy Mapping

I have entity like below
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class MyConcrete : MyBaseClass
{
public int TemplateName { get; set; }
public int Total { get; set; }
}
public class MyOtherConcrete : MyBaseClass
{
public int TemplateName { get; set; }
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
public string OtherProperty { get; set; }
}
using default initialization, EF will make table with columns like bellow:
Id
TemplateName
TemplateName1 // <-- this is the problem
Total
MyPorperty
MyOtherProperty
now my question how to configure EF so all the TemplateName property on derived class automatically mapped into TemplateName column without making another column. is it possible to configure it on OnModelCreating method?
EDIT
actually above was simplified version of my problem. i have 10 more entities some property might duplicated everywhere and i don't want to add any abstraction layers.
i have tried manually map the column on the OnModelCreating but having "Each property name in a type must be unique. Property name 'TemplateName' was already defined" exception any idea?
EDIT 2
so, i found here, that said it is impossible to do such thing like above in EF, it is weird for me..

Move TemplateName into MyBaseClass to avoid this problem.
If necessary, you can use intermediate base classes to hold properties shared by only a subset of your classes.

After searching through the net, so far that was not possible to do that. since i realize that my inheritance tree is wrong.
so in my case, i should change my code to match the EF requirement, it is sound weird.. because in many case ENTITY is a NO NO to change, we usually create an entity that used in multiple project. event we found our entity wrong we won't update it because updating it will require massive change on the other projects.
so far, i think there is no exact answer for my question. will update it soon after EF support it.

Entity Framework associations with multiple (separate) keys on view

I'm having problems setting up an Entity Framework 4 model.
A Contact object is exposed in the database as an updateable view. Also due to the history of the database, this Contact view has two different keys, one from a legacy system. So some other tables reference a contact with a 'ContactID' while other older tables reference it with a 'LegacyContactID'.
Since this is a view, there are no foreign keys in the database, and I'm trying to manually add associations in the designer. But the fluent associations don't seem to provide a way of specifying which field is referenced.
How do I build this model?
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).???
//is there some way to say which key field this reference is referencing?
}

EDIT 2: "New things have come to light, man" - His Dudeness
After a but more experimentation and news, I found using a base class and child classes with different keys will not work by itself. With code first especially, base entities must define a key if they are not explicitly mapped to tables.
I left the suggested code below because I still recommend using the base class for your C# manageability, but I below the code I have updated my answer and provided other workaround options.
Unfortunately, the truth revealed is that you cannot accomplish what you seek without altering SQL due to limitations on EF 4.1+ code first.
Base Contact Class
public abstract class BaseContact
{
// Include all properties here except for the keys
// public string Name { get; set; }
}
Entity Classes
Set this up via the fluent API if you like, but for easy illustration I've used the data annotations
public class Contact : BaseContact
{
[Key]
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class LegacyContact : BaseContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
[Key]
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
Using the Entities
Classes that reference or manipulate the contact objects should reference the base class much like an interface:
public class SomeCustomObject
{
public BaseContact Contact { get; set; }
}
If later you need to programmatically determine what type you are working with use typeof() and manipulate the entity accordingly.
var co = new SomeCustomObject(); // assume its loaded with data
if(co.Contact == typeof(LegacyContact)
// manipulate accordingly.
New Options & Workarounds
As I suggested in comment before, you won't be able to map them to a single view/table anyway so you have a couple options:
a. map your objects to their underlying tables and alter your "get/read" methods on repositories and service classes pull from the joined view -or-
b. create a second view and map each object to their appropriate view.
c. map one entity to its underlying table and one to the view.
Summary
Try (B) first, creating a separate view because it requires the least amount of change to both code and DB schema (you aren't fiddling with underlying tables, or affecting stored procedures). It also ensures your EF C# POCOs will function equivalently (one to a view and one to table may cause quirks). Miguel's answer below seems to be roughly the same suggestion so I would start here if it's possible.
Option (C) seems worst because your POCO entities may behave have unforseen quirks when mapped to different SQL pieces (tables vs. views) causing coding issues down the road.
Option (A), while it fits EF's intention best (entities mapped to tables), it means to get your joined view you must alter your C# services/repositories to work with the EF entities for Add, Update, Delete operations, but tell the Pull/Read-like methods to grab data from the joint views. This is probably your best choice, but involves more work than (B) and may also affect Schema in the long run. More complexity equals more risk.

Edit I'm not sure this is actually possible, and this is why:
The assumption is that a foreign key references a primary key. What you've got is two fields which are both acting as primary keys of vwContact, but depending on which object you ask it's a different field that's the primary key. You can only have one primary key at once, and although you can have a compound primary key you can't do primary key things with only half of it - you have to have a compound foreign key with which to reference it.
This is why Entity Framework doesn't have a way to specify the mapping column on the target side, because it has to use the primary key.
Now, you can layer some more objects on top of the EF entities to do some manual lookup and simulate the navigation properties, but I don't think you can actually get EF to do what you want because SQL itself won't do what you want - the rule is one primary key per table, and it's not negotiable.
From what you said about your database structure, it may be possible for you to write a migration script which can give the contact entities a consistent primary key and update everything else to refer to them with that single primary key rather than the two systems resulting from the legacy data, as you can of course do joins on any fields you like. I don't think you're going to get a seamlessly functional EF model without changing your database though.
Original Answer That Won't Work
So, vwContact contains a key KeyField which is referenced by many SomeObjects and another key LegacyKeyField which is referenced by many LegacyObjects.
I think this is how you have to approach this:
Give vwContact navigation properties for SomeObject and LegacyObject collections:
public virtual ICollection<SomeObject> SomeObjects { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<LegacyObject> LegacyObjects { get; set; }
Give those navigation properties foreign keys to use:
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.SomeObjects)
.WithRequired(s => s.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>()
.HasMany(c => c.LegacyObjects)
.WithRequired(l => l.Contact)
.HasForeignKey(c => c.LegacyKeyField);
The trouble is I would guess you've already tried this and it didn't work, in which case I can't offer you much else as I've not done a huge amount of this kind of thing (our database is much closer to the kinds of thing EF expects so we've had to do relatively minimal mapping overrides, usually with many-to-many relationships).
As for your two calls to HasKey on vwContact, they can't both be the definitive key for the object, so it's either a compound key which features both of them, or pick one, or there's another field you haven't mentioned which is the real primary key. From here it's not really possible to say what the right option there is.

You should be able to do this with two different objects to represent the Contact view.
public class vwContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class vwLegacyContact
{
public int KeyField { get; set; }
public string LegacyKeyField { get; set; }
}
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwLegacyContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwLegacyContact.LegacyKeyField
}
ModelCreatingFunction(modelBuilder)
{
// can't set both of these, right?
modelBuilder.Entity<vwContact>().HasKey(x => x.KeyField);
modelBuilder.Entity<vwLegacyContact>().HasKey(x => x.LegacyKeyField);
// The rest of your configuration
}

I have tried everything that you can imagine, and found that most solutions won't work in this version of EF... maybe in future versions it supports referencing another entity by using an unique field, but this is not the case now. I also found two solutions that work, but they are more of a workaround than solutions.
I tried all of the following things, that didn't work:
Mapping two entities to the same table: this is not allowed in EF4.
Inheriting from a base that has no key definitions: all root classes must have keys, so that inherited classes share this common key... that is how inheritance works in EF4.
Inheriting from base class that defines all fields, including keys, and then use modelBuilder to tell wich base-properties are keys of the derived types: this doesn't work, because the methos HasKey, Property and others that take members as parameters, must reference members of the class itself... referencing properties of a base class is not allowed. This cannot be done: modelBuilder.HasKey<MyClass>(x => x.BaseKeyField)
The two things that I did that worked:
Without DB changes: Map to the table that is source of the view in question... that is, if vwContact is a view to Contacts table, then you can map a class to Contacts, and use it by setting the key to the KeyField, and another class mapping to the vwContacts view, with the key being LegacyKeyField. In the class Contacts, the LegacyKeyField must exist, and you will have to manage this manually, when using the Contacts class. Also, when using the class vwContacts you will have to manually manage the KeyField, unless it is an autoincrement field in the DB, in this case, you must remove the property from vwContacts class.
Changing DB: Create another view, just like the vwContacts, say vwContactsLegacy, and map it to a class in wich the key is the LegacyKeyField, and map vwContacts to the original view, using KeyField as the key. All limitations from the first case also applies: the vwContacts must have the LegacyKeyField, managed manually. And the vwContactsLegacy, must have the KetField if it is not autoincrement idenitity, otherwise it must not be defined.
There are some limitations:
As I said, these solutions are work-arounds... not real solutions, there are some serious implications, that may even make them undesirable:
EF does not know that you are mapping two classes to the same thing. So when you update one thing, the other one could be changed or not, it depends if the objects is cached or not. Also, you could have two objects at the same time, that represents the same thing on the backing storage, so say you load a vwContact and also a vwContactLegacy, changes both, and then try to save both... you will have to care about this yourself.
You will have to manage one of the keys manually. If you are using vwContacts class, the KeyFieldLegacy is there, and you must fill it. If you want to create a vwContacts, and associate is with a LegacyObject, then you need to create the reference manually, because LegacyObject takes a vwContactsLegacy, not a vwContacts... you will have to create the reference by setting the ContactId field.
I hope that this is more of a help than a disillusion, EF is a powerfull toy, but it is far from perfect... though I think it's going to get much better in the next versions.

I think this may be possible using extension methods, although not directly through EF as #Matthew Walton mentioned in his edit above.
However, with extension methods, you can specify what to do behind the scenes, and have a simple call to it.
public class LegacyObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public string ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.LegacyKeyField
}
public class LegacyObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this LegacyObject legacyObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in legacyObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.LegacyKeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
and
public class SomeObject
{
public virtual vwContact Contact { get; set; }
public int ContactId { get; set; } //references vwContact.KeyField
}
public class SomeObjectExtensions
{
public static vwContact Contacts(this SomeObject someObject)
{
var dbContext = new LegacyDbContext();
var contacts = from o in someObject
join c in dbContext.vwContact
on o.ContactId == c.KeyField
select c;
return contacts;
}
}
Then to use you can simply do like this:
var legacyContacts = legacyObject.Contacts();
var someContacts = someObject.Contacts();

Sometimes it makes more sense to map it from the other end of the relationship, in your case:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.LegacyKeyField);
however this will require that u.LegacyKeyField is marked as a primary key.
And then I'll give my two cents:
if the Legacy db is using LegacyKeyField, then perhaps the legacy db will be read only. In this case we can create two separate contexts Legacy and Non-legacy and map them accordingly. This can potentially become a bit messy as you'd have to remember which object comes from which context. But then again, nothing stops you from adding the same EF code first object into 2 different contexts
Another solution is to use views with ContactId added for all other legacy tables and map them into one context. This will tax performance for the sake of having cleaner context objects, but this can be counteracted on sql side: indexed views, materialized views, stored procs, etc. So than LEGACY_OBJECT becomes VW_LEGACY OBJECT with CONTACT.ContactId brought over, then:
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().ToTable("VW_LEGACY_OBJECT");
modelBuilder.Entity<LegacyObject>().HasRequired(x => x.Contact).WithMany().HasForeignKey(u => u.ContactId);
I personally would go with creating "mapper views" with CustomerId on legacy tables, as it's cleaner from c# layer perspective and you can make those views look like real tables. It is also difficult to suggest a solution without knowing what exactly is the scenario that you have a problem with: querying, loading, saving, etc.

Setting what table a DbContext maps to

In an application I'm working on, I have what are essentially a bunch of lookup tables in a database which all contain two things: The ID (int) and a Value (string).
There's only a handful of them, but I want to map all of them to a single Context which depends on the table name. Something like:
class LookupContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Lookup> Lookups { get; set; }
public LookupContext(String table)
{
// Pseudo code:
// Bind Lookups based on what table is
Lookups = MyDatabase.BindTo(table);
}
}
So if I create a new LookupContext("foo"), it binds against the foo table. If I do new LookupContext("bar") it uses the bar table, and so forth.
Is there any way to do this? Or do I have to create a separate context + model for every table I have?
This is more or less my first time doing this, so I'm not really sure if what I'm doing is right.

The answer we should be able to give you is to use enums, but that's not available quite yet - it's in the next version of EF. See here for details: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/06/30/walkthrough-enums-june-ctp.aspx
With earlier versions of EF, you can simply create a class per lookup value (assuming state as an example) and have code that looks something like the following:
public class State
{
public int StateId {get;set;}
public string StateName {get;set;}
}
public class LookupContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<State> States {get;set;}
// ... more lookups as DbSets
}
This will allow you to use one context but will still require one class per table. You can also use the fluent API if you want your table/column names to differ from your class/property names respectively. Hope that helps!

I actually realized I was completely over complicating things beyond reason. There was no reason for storing multiple tables with two columns.
I'm better off storing my data as:
public class LookupValue
{
public string LookupValueId { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
public string LookupType { get; set; }
}
Where the third field was simply the name of the table that I was previously storing in the database.
I'm still interested in the idea of mapping a single Context class to multiple tables, but I believe what I described above is the least convoluted way of accomplishing what I need.

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.