In my request data, if I have a duplication Guid ID, I want to generate a new Guid ID automatically. How to do it?
public class Roster { public Guid Id {get; set;} }
Here Guid Id is the primary key.
When I made an api post request, what would be the value I give for Guid Id?
If you use SQL and EntityFramework Core you could use this inside your model:
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public Guid ActivityId { get; set; }
This will tell EF:
this property is the PRIMARY KEY of the table hence the [KEY]
this property should be automatically generated by the database
FYI you need to set a DEFAULT value for you SQL column like so:
(newsequentiaid()) tells SQL that he's in charge of creating a Globally Unique Id everytime you add a record to that table
Don't know if this is the answer you were looking for (nex time provide more info for us) anyway
hope this helps you Cheers!
UPDATE
I do not know if my solution works with MySQL i use it for SQL. Searching a bit online i found no resources to newsequentialid in MySQL database (but i could be wrong, do your own research if you'd like).
Anyway i just don't set it for example:
var activityDB = await context.Activity.FirstOrDefaultAsync(c => c.ActivityId == activity.ActivityId);
if (activityDB == null)
{
activityDB = new Activity();
context.Activity.Add(activityDB);
}
activityDB.Code = activity.Code;
activityDB.Description = activity.Description;
activityDB.Status = activity.Status;
Here's what the code does
check if my id exists if yes i have to edit if is null i don't
create new activity and edit
automatically EF nows what id to handle therefore no need to se it
If there is it means im editing for that id if not will create it automatically
Related
I originally asked this question when Identity was in beta. The classes and interfaces have changed considerably since then and it appears the RTW version has some modifications again over the RC version. In principle I need to achieve the following.
authenticate the local login against my usertable tblMembers which contains the userid field and password which are the two items I need to authenticate.
have access to my tblMember record/class via the Controller.User property (Prior to MVC5 identity I had achieved this using the membership provider methods.) regardless of if the user logged in via the localuser method or via one of the other OAuth providers (Twitter, Google etc).
Ability to display my own custom username despite the login method. Local users login with a userid 1234567 and a password, ideally I would like to display "John Smith (1234567)" regardless of the authentication method (local/Twitter etc)
Initially I'm unsure as to what my memberclass should be inheriting from It appears from the
aspIdentitySample project that I should be using IdentityUser?
public partial class tblMember
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string membership_id { get; set; }
public string password { get; set; }
....other fields
}
Are there any new or updated examples of integrating your existing database/user tables with the ASP.NET Identity system?
I am also adding the identity tables to my database. If you create a new web project in visual studio 2013 you will see that now in RTM everything works better than RC plus you will see the
following table
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
{
}
So Instead of ApplicationUser you can call your table tblMembers
public class tblMembers : IdentityUser
{
}
your table tblMembers will inherit Id Username Password security stamp and a discriminator column saying this is a tblMemeber
without making custom classes for authentication the easiest thing to do would be just to make the username the combination of your old usernames and userids. Then store the users real name or old username without the user id in a separate column.
have the users register with the built in user login and they can go to manage account and click use another service to log in. This will link the Google account to their regular account, so no matter which one they use it will log them in to the same account. If you have users with connected table information, I suggest you seed your table with all the users with something similar to the register method found in the template.Then just match the new combined username and Id to the old ones and populate data where needed in sql management studio.
Again a lot of issues in RC with extending IdentityUsers have been fixed. Microsoft is already adding more features to the identity user store and this tutorial http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/tutorials/web-site-with-sql-database/ is supposed to be updated soon. I plan on making my own walk through when i'm done changing my database but for now I hope my suggestions even though they are a simpler solution than you might want to implement.
You can do this easily by modifying the IdentityModel.cs as per the below:
Override OnModelCreating in your DbContext then add the following, this will change AspNetUser table to "Users" you can also change the field names the default Id column will become User_Id.
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUser>()
.ToTable("Users", "dbo").Property(p => p.Id).HasColumnName("User_Id");
or simply the below if you want to keep all the standard column names:
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUser>()
.ToTable("Users", "dbo")
Full example below (this should be in your IdentityModel.cs file) i changed my ApplicationUser class to be called User.
public class User : IdentityUser
{
public string PasswordOld { get; set; }
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
public bool Activated { get; set; }
public bool UserRole { get; set; }
}
public class ApplicationDbContext : IdentityDbContext<User>
{
public ApplicationDbContext()
: base("DefaultConnection")
{
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(System.Data.Entity.DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUser>()
.ToTable("Users", "dbo").Property(p => p.Id).HasColumnName("User_Id");
modelBuilder.Entity<User>()
.ToTable("Users", "dbo").Property(p => p.Id).HasColumnName("User_Id");
}
}
Please note i have not managed to get this working if the current table exists.
Also note whatever columns you do not map the default ones will be created.
Hope that helps.
I'm starting to think (partially due to the lack of information in this area), that it may be easier to user the default identity classes, but to provide referential integrity to my own user table from the AspNetUsers table.
If i add a custom linking field into the AspNetUsers table is it possible to access my tables from the Controllers.User property? i.e. Controller.User.tblMember.Orders?
I am using Entity Framework's code-first approach to create tables, and I need to check if there are any entities in the database that I need to delete:
class MyDocument
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
}
class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<MyDocument> Documents { get; set; }
}
using (var data = new MyContext())
{
var present = from d in data.Documents
where d.Id == "some id" || d.Id == "other id"
select d;
// delete above documents
}
on first run, when there is no table yet, the LINQ expression above throws an exception:
Invalid object name 'dbo.Documents'
How do I check if the table is there and if it is not, then set present to the empty set, perhaps? Or maybe there is a way to force database/table creation before I issue the LINQ query?
EF will actually check the entire context against the DB it is attached to.
The DB can have more than the context. But not less.
So actually you check
Context.Database.CreateIfNotExists();
If the DB and context dont match and you are using automatic migrations, then you get specific object errors. But this can be misleading in terms of the how EF is handling the context to DB comparison.
You could of course try and access every DBSet in a context
Not sure how useful that is though.
EF Code first supports Migrations, either Automated or on demand.
See EF Code first migrations
Database.SetInitializer
use SetInitializer command to turn on automatic migrations for example.
The link will provide more info on the Manual/controlled approach to db migration for advanced db handling. The easier Automatic approach, is also described in the link.
I just installed VS 2012 Premium and I've been following along with the PluralSight ASP.Net MVC 4 Tutorial. I'm on chapter 4 and the project creates a database automatically using EF 4 Code First.
The strange thing is that it creates extra database columns rather than matching the properties in my Restaurant.cs model file.
In Restaurant.cs I have:
namespace OdeToFood.Models
{
public class Restaurant
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
}
However, in the OdeToFoodDB dbo.Restaurants table it generates:
ID (PK, int, not null)
Name (nvarchar(max), null)
Address_Street (nvarchar(max), null)
Address_City (nvarchar(max), null)
Address_State (nvarchar(max), null)
Address_Country (nvarchar(max), null)
but there are no Street, City, State, and Country properties in the class. In the video the database only has the ID, Name, and Address columns, but I don't know if that might have to do with the fact that he was using EF while it was in the prerelease state. Are there some big assumptions that the new EF makes?
Does anyone have any ideas what is going on here?
I've already deleted the generated database, files in obj and bin, recreated a Restaurant.cs class, uninstalled EF4, and added EF5, but nothing has changed the end result. I'm still getting those extra columns that have nothing to do with my Restaurant.cs file.
What you see is by design. Address is a Complex Type and this is how Complex Types are represented in a database table.
Look here for an explanation about this very example.
I'm using ActiveRecord with NHibernate on the backend. I've set up a mapping for Users; I can create/retrieve/register users without any issues.
I now want to add an association called Role to my users (many users per role). I've created the appropriate Role class, tables, data, etc. and everything seems to be working on that end as well.
The problem is that when I save a user and associate a Role, that association does not persist to the database.
I've added a RoleId (int16) column to the aspnet_Users table to match the Role table's Id (int16) column. I've tried using Save and SaveAndFlush without success.
Here's some code:
Role superUser = Role.First(r => r.name == "Super User");
User me = User.First(r => r.UserName == myUserName);
me.Role = superUser;
me.Save(); // Or: SaveAndFlush
When debugging, I can see the association on the objects when they're saved (i.e. me.Role is not null and has the right attributes/properties/etc.) However, when I look at the database, the RoleId value for that user is still NULL. (SaveAndFlush doesn't make a difference.)
What am I missing?
I've read somewhere on SO that extending the users table is usually done by adding another table and linking the two by a foreign key; I assume the classes would then use inheritance by composition for the new ExtendedUser class. Assuming I don't want to go that route, why isn't this working? Is it because of the specific ASP.NET MVC stored procedures et. all?
Some relevant mapping:
[ActiveRecord("aspnet_Users", Mutable = false)]
public class User : ActiveRecordLinqBase<User>
{
[PrimaryKey(PrimaryKeyType.Assigned)]
public Guid UserId { get; set; }
// ...
[BelongsTo("RoleId", Cascade = CascadeEnum.SaveUpdate)]
public Role Role { get; set; }
}
[ActiveRecord]
public class Role : ActiveRecordLinqBase<Role>
{
[PrimaryKey]
public int Id { get; set; }
// ...
[HasMany(Inverse = true)]
public IList<User> Users { get; set; }
[Property]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Edit: mutable="false" - this clearly stands that entity is read only, which is the source of your problem.
Immutable classes, mutable="false", may not be updated or deleted by the application. This allows NHibernate to make some minor
performance optimizations.
Also:
I believe that you need to have cascading defined. You are not saving just the entity itself but also reference to other entity. Use attributes, fluent config or hbml to define this the way you need. Here are the cascading options:
Here is what each cascade option means:
none - do not do any cascades, let the users handles them by
themselves.
save-update - when the object is saved/updated, check the assoications and save/update any object that require it (including
save/update the assoications in many-to-many scenario).
delete - when the object is deleted, delete all the objects in the assoication.
delete-orphan - when the object is deleted, delete all the objects in the assoication. In addition to that, when an object is
removed from the assoication and not assoicated with another object
(orphaned), also delete it.
all - when an object is save/update/delete, check the assoications and save/update/delete all the objects found.
all-delete-orphan - when an object is save/update/delete, check the assoications and save/update/delete all the objects found. In additional to that, when an object is removed from the assoication and not assoicated with another object (orphaned), also delete it.
You may want to read this article.
I've been trying to insert row in the table having an identity column RequestID (which is primary key as well)
HelpdeskLog logEntry = new HelpdeskLog { RequestBody = message.Body };
if (attachment != null)
logEntry.Attachments = Helper.StreamToByteArray(attachment.ContentStream);
Database.HelpdeskLogs.InsertOnSubmit(logEntry);
But my code inevitably throws following error
Can't perform Create, Update or Delete operations on Table because it has no primary key.
despite primary key column exists indeed
That's what I tried to do:
To look in debugger the value of identity column being inserted in object model. It is 0
To insert manually (with SQL) fake values into table - works fine, identity values generated as expected
To assure if SQLMetal has generated table map correctly . All OK, primary key attribute is generated properly
Nevertheless, neither of approaches helped. What's the trick, does anybody know?
I've also had this problem come up in my C# code, and realized I'd forgotten the IsPrimaryKey designation:
[Table (Name = "MySessionEntries" )]
public class SessionEntry
{
[Column(IsPrimaryKey=true)] // <---- like this
public Guid SessionId { get; set; }
[Column]
public Guid UserId { get; set; }
[Column]
public DateTime Created { get; set; }
[Column]
public DateTime LastAccess { get; set; }
}
this is needed even if your database table (MySessionEntries, in this case) already has a primary key defined, since Linq doesn't automagically find that fact out unless you've used the linq2sql tools to pull your database definitions into visual studio.
LINQ does not allow to insert data into table without primary key. To achieve the insert data with table without primary key you can either use store procedure or create a query and execute using LINQ. Below link provide good explanation of the same.
Can't perform Create, Update or Delete operations on Table(Employee) because it has no primary key
Delete the table and then reinsert it. You must make sure there is a little small key next to the field before you do this. Recompile your project and all should be fine.
Just because you updated the dabase does not mean the DBML file somehow automatically updated. It does not, sorry.
As the the table has the primary key in SQL Server, re-addthe table in the linq2sql designer.
If that were not the case, you can configure which properties are part of the primary key by hand on the designer.