I have an ASP.NET Core application that uses EF6 for dealing with a third-party application's database.
Everything is working as expected, but I'm unable to insert rows into a joining table.
I have two tables, Users and Groups, and a joining table GroupUser that identifies which users are members of which groups. Users has a PK of UserId, and Groups has a PK of GroupId.
GroupUser has only 3 columns: GroupId, UserId and another column (which is irrelevant for this post). The two foreign keys in this table identify a unique record.
Every time I try to insert into GroupUser, I get the inner exception
The table/view does not have a primary key defined. The entity is read-only
The error is correct. There is no PK, but both of the FKs are marked as keys in the model. Shouldn't VS be able to use those as a PK somehow?
The inserts used to work as some point, but required some manual modification of the .edmx file as XML in order to work. Unfortunately, our version control records containing this modification have been lost (and I wasn't the one originally working on this).
I've looked at and tried about a dozen articles around this, but they generally have to do with views instead of tables, so don't seem applicable to my case. The ones that did seem applicable didn't solve the issue.
The only other clue I have for a solution is this comment I found in the code:
// Important note: If you have updated the edmx file in the [redacted]
// project and suddenly start having problems, the edmx file may need to be
// edited as an xml file so that you can make changes necessary to make
// VS believe that the GroupUser table has a primary key. See revision #[redacted]
I'm able to insert into User and Group tables just fine, and as I've said, I don't have access to the revision log mentioned.
Edit: The database is for a third-party application, and unfortunately, it's not as simple as just modifying the table to add a PK. I wish it was. Problem would be solved. But I've been advised by the vendor not to make this change, as it may have unexpected consequences, and would void our support.
How can I 'trick' EF into thinking the table has a key? I'm also open to other workarounds. Modifying the DB structure is currently out of the question.
Related
I'm using the Dynamics connector in Azure Data Factory.
TLDR
Does this connector support loading child records which need a parent record key passed in? For example if I want to create a contact and attach it to a parent account, I upsert a record with a null contactid, a valid parentcustomerid GUID and set parentcustomeridtype to 1 (or 2) but I get an error.
Long Story
I'm successfully connecting to Dynamics 365 and extracting data (for example, the lead table) into a SQL Server table
To test that I can transfer data the other way, I am simply loading the data back from the lead table into the lead entity in Dynamics.
I'm getting this error:
Failure happened on 'Sink' side. ErrorCode=DynamicsMissingTargetForMultiTargetLookupField,'Type=Microsoft.DataTransfer.Common.Shared.HybridDeliveryException,Message=,Source=,''Type=Microsoft.DataTransfer.Common.Shared.HybridDeliveryException,Message=Cannot find the target column for multi-target lookup field: 'ownerid'.
As a test I removed ownerid from the list of source columns it loads OK.
This is obviously a foreign key value.
It raises two questions for me:
Specifically with regards to the error message: If I knew which lookup it needed to use, how can I specify which lookup table it should validate against? There's no settings in the ADF connector to allow me to do this.
This is obviously a foreign key value. If I only had the name (or business key) for this row, how can I easily lookup the foreign key value?
How is this normally done through other API's, i.e. the web API?
Is there an XRMToolbox addin that would help clarify?
I've also read some posts that imply that you can send pre-connected data in an XML document so perhaps that would help also.
EDIT 1
I realised that the lead.ownertypeid field in my source dataset is NULL (that's what was exported). It's also NULL if I browse it in various Xrmtoolbox tools. I tried hard coding it to systemuser (which is what it actually is in the owner table against the actual owner record) but I still get the same error.
I also notice there's a record with the same PK value in systemuser table
So the same record is in two tables, but how do I tell the dynamics connector which one to use? and why does it even care?
EDIT 2
I was getting a similar message for msauto_testdrive for customerid.
I excluded all records with customerid=null, and got the same error.
EDIT 2
This link appears to indicate that I need to set customeridtype to 1 (Account) or 2 (Contact). I did so, but still got the same error.
Also I believe I have the same issue as this guy.
Maybe the ADF connector suffers from the same problem.
At the time of writing, #Arun Vinoth was 100% correct. However shortly afterwards there was a documentation update (in response to a GitHub I raised) that explained how to do it.
I'll document how I did it here.
To populate a contact with against a parent account, you need the parent accounts GUID. Then you prepare a dataset like this:
SELECT
-- a NULL contactid means this is a new record
CAST(NULL as uniqueidentifier) as contactid,
-- the GUID of the parent account
CAST('A7070AE2-D7A6-EA11-A812-000D3A79983B' as uniqueidentifier) parentcustomerid,
-- customer id is an account
'account' [parentcustomerid#EntityReference],
'Joe' as firstname,
'Bloggs' lastname,
Now you can apply the normal automapping approach in ADF.
Now you can select from this dataset and load into contact. You can apply the usual automapping approach, this is: create datasets without schemas. Perform a copy activity without mapping columns
This is the ADF limitation with respect to CDS polymorphic lookups like Customer and Owner. Upvote this ADF idea
Workaround is to use two temporary source lookup fields (owner team and user in case of owner, account and contact in case of customer) and with parallel branch in a MS Flow to solve this issue. Read more, also you can download the Flow sample to use.
First, create two temporary lookup fields on the entity that you wish to import Customer lookup data into it, to both the Account and Contact entities respectively
Within your ADF pipeline flow, you will then need to map the GUID values for your Account and Contact fields to the respective lookup fields created above. The simplest way of doing this is to have two separate columns within your source dataset – one containing Account GUID’s to map and the other, Contact.
Then, finally, you can put together a Microsoft Flow that then performs the appropriate mapping from the temporary fields to the Customer lookup field. First, define the trigger point for when your affected Entity record is created (in this case, Contact) and add on some parallel branches to check for values in either of these two temporary lookup fields
Then, if either of these conditions is hit, set up an Update record task to perform a single field update, as indicated below if the ADF Account Lookup field has data within it
I'm updating a table that was originally poorly designed. The table currently has a primary key that is the name of the vendor. This serves as a foreign key to many other tables. This has led to issues with the Vendor name initially being entered incorrectly or with typos that need to be fixed. Since it's the foreign key to relationships, this is more complicated than it's worth.
Current Schema:
Vendor_name(pk) Vendor_contact comments
Desired Schema:
id(pk) Vendor_name Vendor_contact comments
I want to update the primary key to be an auto-generated numeric key. The vendor name field needs to persist but no longer be the key. I'll also need to update the value of the foreign key on other tables and on join tables.
Is the best way to do this to create a new numeric id column on my Vendor table, crosswalk the id to vendor names and add a new foreign key with the new id as the foreign key, drop the foreign key of vendor name on those tables (per this post), and then somehow mark the id as the primary key and unmark the vendor name?
Or is there a more streamlined way of doing this that isn't so broken out?
It's important to note that only 5 users can access this table so I can easily shut them out for a period of time while these updates are made - that's not an issue.
I'm working with SQLDeveloper and Python/Django.
The biggest problem you have is all the application code which references VENDOR_NAME in the dependent tables. Not just using it to join to the parent table, but also relying on it to display the name without joining to VENDOR.
So, although having a natural key as a foreign key is a PITN, changing this situation is likely to generate a whole lot of work, with a marginal overall benefit. Be sure to get buy-in from all the stakeholders before starting out.
The way I would approach it is this:
Do a really thorough impact analysis
Ensure you have complete regression tests for all the functions which rely on the Vendor data
Create VENDOR_ID as a unique key on VENDOR
Add VENDOR_ID to all the dependent tables
Create a second foreign on all the dependent tables referencing VENDOR_ID
Ensure that the VENDOR_ID is populated whenever the VENDOR_NAME is.
That last point can be tackled by either fix the insert and update statements on the dependent tables, or with triggers. Which approach you take will determine on your application design and also the number of tables involved. Obviously you want to avoid the performance hit of all those triggers if you can.
At this point you have an infrastructure which will support the new primary key but which still uses the old one. Why would you want to do this? Because you could go into Production like this without changing the application code. It gives you the option to move the application code to use VENDOR_ID across a broader time frame. Obviously, if developers have been keen on coding SELECT * FROM you will have issues that need addressing immediately.
Once you've fixed all the code you can drop VENDOR_NAME from all the dependent tables, and switch VENDOR_NAME to unique key and VENDOR_ID to primary key on the master table.
If you're on 11g you should check out Edition-Based Redefinition. It's designed to make this sort of exercise an awful lot easier. Find out more.
I would do it this way:
create your new sequence
create table temp as select your_sequence.nextval,vendor_name, vendor_contact, comments from vendor.
rename the original table to something like vendor_old
add the primary key and other constraints to the new table
rename the new table to the old name
Testing is essential and you must ensure no one is working on the database except you when this is done.
Simple parent/child scenario like Order and OrderLineItems. I am inserting a new Order, the OrderID is an identity column (sql server). I'm also inserting OrderLineItems in the same SaveChanges transaction. I need to get the new OrderID into the OrderLineItems, but not sure how to do it. I have the appropriate FK relationships setup properly. When I save, I get an error that OrderID is a required field in OrderLineItems.
Will I have to split this out into 2 server calls? First to insert the Order, which will return the OrderID. And then another to insert the OrderLineItems?
The Breeze documentation discusses this topic (key generation) at several points including but not limited to: http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/save-changes, http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/extending-entities and http://www.breezejs.com/documentation/add-new-entity.
The basic idea idea is that providing that your model and metadata are set up properly, breeze can assign a temporary id in place of the identity column for use in linking your order and orderlineitem entities prior to being saved. As part of the save process, Breeze updates these temporary keys to their "real" key values and updates the local cache as well upon successful completion of the save.
Ok, so I have 2 entities: Course and Industry
The industry entity is just a reference table which lists all available Industries that can be tagged to a course, to categorizing them. I put in a many to zero or one relationship (a course can choose to have an industry or not, while an industry can be tagged with many courses).
I know I've played around with the diagrams a bit, adding and removing associations in the past.
Now here is the odd part: The column mappings for Course has 2 similar columns, IndustryId and Industry_Id
I suspect it's from a past association, but thought EF would have taken care of that.
Here is the problem:
In my view that creates the course, the IndustryId is the property which needs to be populated. When I create new courses, I see the IndustryId in the database populated.
However, when I access Industry's properties through Course (Course.Industry.Description) nothing is populated. It can't seem to get the Industry entity.
I see the IndustryId populated in the db, so I tried to populate the Industry_Id column. That fixed it.
Weird enough, the property declared in the model is IndustryId, so that column is populated in the db. But when I try to get Industry entities through Course, it needs the Industry_Id, which I don't quite know where it is from.
Anyone have any ideas?
It sounds like in your updating from the database, you changed the column name on your tables from Industry_Id to IndustryId. The next time you updated from the database, EF5 (which can't determine that this is the same column, as it matches on names) dropped the mapping for Industry_Id, and added a new column called IndustryId.
However, you had already created the foreign-key mapping in your EDMX file based on the Industry_Id column - which is why you get the issue around needing it when loading related records.
In general, when using Database-First, whenever you rename a column in the database, you need to update your EF5 model and update / correct any such discrepancies.
Background: http://jeffkemponoracle.com/2011/03/11/handling-unique-constraint-violations-by-hibernate
Our table is:
BOND_PAYMENTS (BOND_PAYMENT_ID, BOND_NUMBER, PAYMENT_ID)
There is a Primary key constraint on BOND_PAYMENT_ID, and a Unique constraint on (BOND_NUMBER, PAYMENT_ID).
The application uses Hibernate, and allows a user to view all the Payments linked to a particular Bond; and it allows them to create new links, and delete existing links. Once they’ve made all their desired changes on the page, they hit “Save”, and Hibernate does its magic to run the required SQL on the database. Apparently, Hibernate works out which records need to be deleted, which need to be inserted, and leaves the rest untouched. Unfortunately, it does the INSERTs first, then it does the DELETEs.
If the user deletes a link to a payment, then changes their mind and re-inserts a link to the same payment, Hibernate quite happily tries to insert it then delete it. Since these inserts/deletes are running as separate SQL statements, Oracle validates the constraint immediately on the first insert and issues ORA-00001 unique constraint violated.
We know of only two options:
Make the constraint deferrable
Remove the unique constraint
Option 2 is not very palatable, because the constraint provides excellent protection from nasty application bugs that might allow inconsistent data to be saved. We went with option 1.
ALTER TABLE bond_payments ADD
CONSTRAINT bond_payment_uk UNIQUE (bond_number, payment_id)
DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED;
The downside is that the index created to police this constraint is now a non-unique index, so may be somewhat less efficient for queries. We have decided this is not as great a detriment for this particular case. Another downside (advised by Gary) is that it may suffer from a particular Oracle bug - although I believe we will be immune (at least, mostly) due to the way the application works.
Are there any other options we should consider?
From the problem you described, it's not clear if you have an entity BondPayment or if you have a Bond linked directly to a Payment. For now, I suppose you have the link between Payment and Bond through BondPayment. In this case, Hibernate is doing the right thing, and you'll need to add some logic in your app to retrieve the link and remove it (or change it). Something like this:
bond.getBondPayment().setPayment(newPayment);
You are probably doing something like this:
BondPayment bondPayment = new BondPayment();
bondPayment.setPayment(newPayment);
bondPayment.setBond(bond);
bond.setBondPayment(bondPayment);
In the first case, the BondPayment.id is kept, and you are just changing the payment for it. In the second case, it's a brand new BondPayment, and it will conflict with an existing record in the database.
I said that Hibernate is doing the right thing because it threats BondPayment as a "regular" entity, whose lifecycle is defined by your app. It's the same as having a User with a unique constraint on login, and you are trying to insert a second record with a duplicate login. Hibernate will accept (it doesn't knows if the login exists in the database) and your database will refuse.