I have added computed fields(Active and CreditsLeft) directly into my CodeFirst entity class. Is it good idea to add computed field logic inside CF Entity class?
public class User : Entity
{
public User()
{
Id = Helper.GetRandomInt(9);
DateStamp = DateTime.UtcNow;
TimeZone = TimeZoneInfo.Utc.Id;
}
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(50)]
public string Email { get; set; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(50)]
public string Password { get; set; }
[MaxLength(50)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[MaxLength(50)]
public string LastName { get; set; }
[Required]
public DateTime DateStamp { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Statistic> Statistics { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Notification> Notifications { get; set; }
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)]
public bool Active
{
get
{
return Orders.Any(c => c.Active && (c.TransactionType == TransactionType.Order || c.TransactionType == TransactionType.Subscription));
}
}
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)]
public int CreditsLeft
{
get
{
return Orders.Sum(p => p.Credits != null ? p.Credits.Value : 0);
}
}
}
Is it good idea to add computed field logic inside CF Entity class?
Sure, you can do this, but there are a few things you must take care of.
First, the attribute for a property that is computed by business logic is not [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)], because this indicates that the value is computed in the database (as in a computed column). You should mark the property by the [NotMapped] attribute. This tells Entity Framework to ignore the property in database mapping.
Second, since both properties use Orders, you must make sure that the orders are loaded or can be lazy loaded when either property is accessed. So you may want to load Users with an Include statement (Include(user => user.Orders)). Or else you must ensure that the context is still alive when Active or CreditsLeft is accessed.
Third, you can't address the properties directly in an EF LINQ query, as in
db.Users.Select(u => u.Active);
because EF will throw an exception that it doesn't know Active. You can address the properties only on materialized user objects in memory.
Related
Note: These classes are related, but not part of the same Aggregate (like PurchaseOrder and OrderLine) - so I do not have a navigation property from "One" to "Many".
=== Entities ===
public class One
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Many
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Guid One { get; set; }
}
=== Contracts ===
public class OneWithMany
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Many>? ManyRelatedObjects { get; set; }
}
I want to select all One objects and any related Many objects from DbSet/DbSet into OneWithMany.
To ensure I don't miss properties added in future I am using ProjectTo in AutoMapper - but I can't work out how to fit it into the equation.
Unfortunately, it seems Entity Framework does not support GroupJoin.
The solution is to do the projection and as much filtering as possible as two separate queries, and then combine them into a result in memory.
If you find EF related answers on the web related to GroupJoin make sure you check the example code to see if they are actually showing code working on arrays instead of DbSet.
Note: Technoligies in use are ASP.Net MVC 3, Entity, SQL Server Management Studio
Problem?
It seems that when I run, the context as: public class DatabaseInit : DropCreateDatabaseAlways<LocationAppContext>
That it creates the database, but my service assignments table has an extra foreign key called
ServiceAssignment_Service when it shouldn't.
My service assignment model is as such:
namespace LocationApp.Models
{
public class ServiceAssignment
{
public int id { get; set; }
public int locationID { get; set; }
public int ServiceID { get; set; }
public virtual Location Location { get; set; }
public virtual ServiceAssignment Service { get; set;}
}
}
and the service model is as such:
namespace LocationApp.Models
{
public class Service
{
public Service()
{
this.ServiceAssignments = new HashSet<ServiceAssignment>();
}
public int id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public bool active { get; set; }
public string icon { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ServiceAssignment> ServiceAssignments { get; set; }
}
}
with that said, the relation ship is simple:
service assignments have many location id's and service id's.
why is this extra foriegn key being generated? the curent keys, that should e there is:
PK: Main PK for the table
FK 1: Location_ServiceAssignment
FK 2: Service_ServiceAssignment
Those are their, how ever this third one is baffling....
The second part is: If a location of id 2 has a service id of 2,3,6,7 How do I get all service id's returned, such that I can pass the object to a service query to get all information on the service based on the ID?
Update:
Context Class:
namespace LocationApp.DAL
{
public class LocationAppContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Content> Contents { get; set; }
public DbSet<Location> Locations { get; set; }
public DbSet<ServiceAssignment> ServiceAssignments { get; set; }
public DbSet<Service> Services { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
modelBuilder.Entity<Location>().HasMany(sa => sa.ServiceAssignments);
modelBuilder.Entity<Service>().HasMany(sa => sa.ServiceAssignments);
}
}
}
I think you have to tell EF that Service.ServiceAssignments is the inverse navigation property of ServiceAssignment.Service and that Location.ServiceAssignments is the inverse of ServiceAssignment.Location. Right now with your mapping you only specify that Location or Service has many ServiceAssignments. EF will consider the navigation properties in ServiceAssignment as the ends of separate relationships.
Try instead the mapping:
modelBuilder.Entity<Location>()
.HasMany(l => l.ServiceAssignments)
.WithRequired(sa => sa.Location)
.HasForeignKey(sa => sa.LocationID);
modelBuilder.Entity<Service>()
.HasMany(s => s.ServiceAssignments)
.WithRequired(sa => sa.Service)
.HasForeignKey(sa => sa.ServiceID);
You can probably remove this mapping altogether as an alternative because EF should detect the right relationships by convention.
So, use either no mapping (=mapping by convention) or the full mapping (=specifying both ends of the relationships). Just the 50%-mapping you have used is likely the problem.
Setup
Using MVC 3 + Code First
Here are my classes
public class Member
{
[Key]
public Guid ID { get; set; }
[Required]
public String Email { get; set; }
[Required]
public String FirstName { get; set; }
[Required]
public String LastName { get; set; }
public String Sex { get; set; }
public String Password { get; set; }
public String PasswordSalt { get; set; }
public DateTime RegisterDate { get; set; }
public DateTime LastOnline { get; set; }
public String SecurityQuestion { get; set; }
public String SecurityAnswer { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<FamilyMember> Families { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Relationship> Relationships { get; set; }
}
public class Relationship
{
[Key]
public Guid ID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Member1")]
public Guid Member1ID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Member2")]
public Guid Member2ID { get; set; }
public Guid RelationshipTypeID { get; set; }
public virtual RelationshipType RelationshipType { get; set; }
public virtual Member Member1 { get; set; }
public virtual Member Member2 { get; set; }
}
Here is the problem
The database table "Relationship" is being created with the following columns:
ID, Member1ID, Member2ID, RelationshipTypeID, Member_ID
Why is it creating the Member_ID column?
I've seen this post in which the user has the same type of setup, but I am unsure of how to define the InverseProperty correctly. I tried using fluent API calls but from what I can tell they will not work here since I have two foreign keys referring to the same table.
Any help would be appreciated!
Member_ID is the foreign key column which EF created for the navigation property Member.Relationships. It belongs to a third association from Member.Relationships refering to an end endpoint which is not exposed in your Relationship entity. This relationship has nothing to do with the other two relationships from Relationship.Member1 and Relationship.Member2 which also both have an endpoint not exposed in Member.
I guess, this is not what you want. You need always pairs of endpoints in two entities to create an association. One endpoint is always a navigation property. The second endpoint can also be a navigation property but it is not required, you can omit the second navigation property.
Now, what is not possible, is to associate two navigation properties (Member1 and Member2) in one entity with one navigation property (Relationships) in the other entity. That is what you are trying to do apparently.
I assume that your Member.Relationships property is supposed to express that the member is either Member1 or Member2 in the relationship, or that it participates in the relationship, no matter if as Member1 or Member2.
Unfortunately you cannot express this in the model appropriately. You have to introduce something like RelationsshipsAsMember1 and RelationsshipsAsMember2 and for these two collection you can use the InverseProperty attribute as shown in the other question. In addition you can add a helper property which concats the two collections. But this is not a mapped property but readonly:
public class Member
{
// ...
[InverseProperty("Member1")]
public virtual ICollection<Relationship> RelationshipsAsMember1 { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Member2")]
public virtual ICollection<Relationship> RelationshipsAsMember2 { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Relationship> AllRelationships
{
get { return RelationshipsAsMember1.Concat(RelationshipsAsMember2); }
}
}
Accessing AllRelationships will cause two queries and roundtrips to the database (with lazy loading) to load both collections first before they get concatenated in memory.
With this mapping the Member_ID column will disappear and you will only get the two expected foreign key columns Member1ID, Member2ID because now you have only two associations and not three anymore.
You could also think about if you need the Relationships collection in the Member entity at all. As said, navigation properties on both sides are not required. If you rarely need to navigate from a member to its relationships you could fetch the relationships also with queries on the Relationship set, like so:
var relationships = context.Relationships
.Where(r => r.Member1ID == givenMemberID || r.Member2ID == givenMemberID)
.ToList();
...or...
var relationships = context.Relationships
.Where(r => r.Member1ID == givenMemberID)
.Concat(context.Relationships
.Where(r => r.Member2ID == givenMemberID)
.ToList();
This would give you all relationships the member with ID = givenMemberID participates in without the need of a navigation collection on the Member entity.
So I decided to go with the code first/DbContext approach, but already have an existing database file. Nothing complex, so I am thinking I can just create the DbContext derived container class with DbSets for the respective POCO's, create the connection string to my database and I should be set. However I believe I am having difficulties properly declaring the properties in my entity classes since I am getting errors when trying access an object through the navigational properties. Usually telling me Object reference not set to an instance of an object when I try context.Products.Find(1).Category.CATNAME; etc. Also tried declaring the collection properties with virtual keyword to no avail.
Some specifics of the database schema are:
In Categories table the PCATID is a foreign key to the CategoryID in
the same Categories table and can be null.
Both CategoryID and RootCategoryID in Products table can be null and
are both foreign keys to CategoryID in the Categories table.
I am testing things at the moment but will be setting a lot of the fields to non null types eventually.
Here are my entity POCO's and the entity Dbset container class:
public class Category
{
[Key]
public int CategoryID { get; set; }
public string CATNAME { get; set; }
public int PCATID { get; set; }
public ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public ICollection<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public class Product
{
[Key]
public int ProductID { get; set; }
public int CategoryID { get; set; }
public int RootCategoryID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string ShortDescription { get; set; }
public string LongDescription { get; set; }
public string Keywords { get; set; }
public decimal ListPrice { get; set; }
public Category Category { get; set; }
}
public class EFDbContext: DbContext
{
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
public DbSet<Category> Categories { get; set; }
}
You need to make PCATID a nullable property as you have said it can be null. Make all those navigation properties and collection properties virtual. EF will not be able to detect the category hierarchy so you have use either attributes or fluent API to configure that.
public class Category
{
[Key]
public int CategoryID { get; set; }
public string CATNAME { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentCategory")]
public int? PCATID { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Categories")]
public virtual Category ParentCategory { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("ParentCategory")]
public virtual ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
Requirements for Creating POCO Proxies
Everything looks ready for POCO but Lazy Loading isn't sorted out at this point. By default LL is on, but in order to enable lazy loading, the Category property must be Virtual (a proxy is created that catches the reference and loads the data). If you don't want lazy loading then disable it in your EFDbContext constructor.
So your options are:
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
or
public class EFDbContext: DbContext
{
public static EFDbContext()
{
LazyLoadingEnabled = false
}
...
}
You'd probably want to do the first one...
Are you certain you really want to use Code First? Or do you just want to use DbContext and DbSet? You can get the same benefits with Database First, using DbContext and DbSet. Since you already have a database, it's generally a lot simpler.
See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/03/15/ef-4-1-model-amp-database-first-walkthrough.aspx
The only difference between Code First and Database First with DbContext is that Code first uses the fluent mapping model, while Database First uses an .edmx file. Maintaining the .edmx is much easier with an existing database.
If you're bound and determined to use Code First, then I suggest getting the Entity Framework Power Tools CTP1 and reverse engineering your database to Code First.
I agree with #Eranga about class Category (+1 to #Eranga).
public class Category {
[Key]
public int CategoryID { get; set; }
public string CATNAME { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentCategory")]
public int? PCATID { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Categories")]
public virtual Category ParentCategory { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("ParentCategory")]
public virtual ICollection<Category> Categories { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
And you also have problem with your Linq query:
context.Products.Find(1).Category.CATNAME;
EF return data only from tables that you request with Include or you use this tables in functions.
With this code all work:
db.Products
.Include(p => p.Category) // here I demand to load data from Category table
.First(p => p.ProductID == 3)
.Category
.CATNAME;
I have searched hi and low and I am stuck here.
I am using EF 4.1 in an MVC3 app, with the Service/Repository/UnitOfWork pattern and AutoMapper to map my models and entities.
So I have a really basic situation; I have a collection of ChildProducts that have a collection of PriceTiers.
My view models look like this:
AddEditChildProductModel
public class AddEditChildProductModel
{
#region "Fields/Properties"
public ActionType ActionType { get; set; }
public string FormAction { get; set; }
public int ID { get; set; }
public int ProductID { get; set; }
public string Sku { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public decimal Cost { get; set; }
public decimal MSRP { get; set; }
public decimal RetailPrice { get; set; }
public int Servings { get; set; }
public decimal Weight { get; set; }
public bool Display { get; set; }
public int DisplayIndex { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<AddEditPriceTierModel> PriceTiers { get; set; }
#endregion
#region "Constructor(s)"
#endregion
#region "Methods"
#endregion
}
AddEditPriceTierModel
public class AddEditPriceTierModel
{
#region "Fields/Properties"
public int ID { get; set; }
public int ChildProductID { get; set; }
public decimal Price { get; set; }
public int QuantityStart { get; set; }
public int QuantityEnd { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
#endregion
#region "Constructor(s)"
#endregion
#region "Methods"
#endregion
}
In the controller action, I am simply trying to map the changed PriceTier properties:
public ActionResult EditChildProduct(AddEditChildProductModel model)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return PartialView("AddEditChildProduct", model);
ChildProduct childProduct = productService.GetChildProductByID(model.ID);
AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<AddEditChildProductModel, ChildProduct>(model, childProduct);
UnitOfWork.Commit();
return ListChildProducts(model.ProductID);
}
And I am getting this error:
The operation failed: The relationship could not be changed because one or more of the foreign-key properties is non-nullable. When a change is made to a relationship, the related foreign-key property is set to a null value. If the foreign-key does not support null values, a new relationship must be defined, the foreign-key property must be assigned another non-null value, or the unrelated object must be deleted.
When stepping into the action, the models/entities are mapped correctly, I don't get it!!
Eranga is right. I'm guessing your productService does not call AsNoTracking on the ef context before returning the ChildProduct. If not, this means what it returns is still attached to the context. When automapper does its thing, it replaces the whole collection, which can orphan the attached child entities that were not part of the form submission. Since the orphans don't have a non-null foreign key, they must be deleted from the context before calling SaveChanges. If they are not, you get this infamous exception.
On the other hand, if your productService calls AsNoTracking on the context before returning the entity, it will not track changes, and will not try to delete any orphaned items that do not exist in the collection created by automapper.