I have a 1:1 relationship between table 'A' and 'B' in my .DBML. The FK in the database is in place and the .DBML diagram shows an association line between 'A' and 'B'. However, I cannot get the code generator to create a child property in the 'A' entity. All I have is the FK column. In the Association properties, I have ChildProperty set to true. However, the code generator will not create the child property. I have dropped and added the two tables several times.
Anyone have any ideas?
The O/R designer will refuse to create an association property if a primary key is missing on one of the associated tables. Make sure all of your associated tables have a primary key.
Not sure, but I think what you call 1:1 is actually seen by the DBML as 1:* because the list can "have" many of your fk-table, e.g. one empley oyee can have one city, but each city can "have" many employees.
AFAIK a primary key in each table is a prerequisite without which the DBML will not "work". An error is issued when saving it. Your project will compile, but you'll see the errors later. HTH
Related
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.
I have an application with a dataset linked to an sql server database. I have updated some of the names or foreign keys and primary keys in the sql server. How do I make those changes translate to the data set. For example, I had a primary key called fk_temsempl_xxxxx. I changed it to fk_temsempl on the sql database. How do I get that change to show in the dataset designer in visual studio?
I have tried running custom tool by right clicking on the dataset and clicking run custom tool. That didnt work. I tried configuring the table adapter of one of the tables where a change occured, but the name of the relation didnt change.
You actually just right click the relation and choose Edit Relation... or double click on the line (when the mouse cursor changes from arrow to drag symbol) but I honestly wouldn't bother; you'll then have further refactoring to do in the code anywhere the relation is used, and it can be heavily used by visual designers.
You also get the problem that VS may not help you with the refactoring: in data binding scenarios most things that can be a source of data can also be a collection of multiple things that can be a valid DataSource. They then rely on a string DataMember to determine which of the collections of data in the data source should be used for the data.
For example, when a bindingsource is bound to list a DataTable, the bindingsource.DataSource property might be the DataSet object that contains the DataTable, and thebindingsource.DataMemberis a string of "YOUR_TABLE_NAME". the BindingSource might not be bound asmyBindignSource.DataSource = myDataSet.MyDataTable`. Refactoring inside strings involves a find and replace
DataRelations in a DataSet are created from foreign keys as they were discovered when the relevant table(s) were added to the dataset but it is important to note that, like DataTables and everything else, they are NOTHING to do with the database schema objects at all - they aren't permanently associated with them, the dataset entities are just set up looking something like the database objects when they (dataset entities) are first created. DataTables are created from only those columns selected, and whatever .NET datatypes closely resemble the types output by the query. For a table of:
Person
------
Name VARCHAR(50)
SSN INTEGER
Birthdate DATE
If you created the table with SELECT * FROM Person you'd get a datatable with Name (string), SSN (int), Birthdate (datetime) but if you made a new datatable in the dataset based on SELECT LEFT(Name, 1) as Initial, PADLEFT(SSN, 20) as PadSSN, DATEDIFF(day, Birthdate, NOW()) as AgeDays FROM Person then you'd get a datatable of Initial (string), PadSSN (string), AgeDays (int) - i.e. the datatable looks nothing like the db table. This concept of disconnection between dataset and db is pervasive, and really the only things that relate in any way to the database are the properties that specify which DB table/column a particular DataTable/DataColumn relates to for purposes of loading/saving data. Your Person.Name datacolumn can be renamed to Blahblah, but it will still have a .SourceColumn property that is set to "Name" - that's how the mapping between dataset and db works; dataset is predominantly completely independent of the db. Renaming a DB column would require a change to the SourceColumn property only
DataRelations don't even have this notion of linking to the parent relation in the database; there's no SourceRelation or SourceFK proeprty because there is no need to. They're set up with the same rules and a generated name all based on the rules of the FK, but then they function independently and only within the dataset. If you rename or even remove an FK from the db the dataset will carry on working in the same restricted way it always did; adding a datarow to a child table when no aprent row exists for it will throw an exception - none of it anything to do with the FK in the db, and the DataRelation can have different rules to the FK (e.g it can cascade deletes when the FK is NOACTION) or even different columns. You can have more or fewer DataRelations than the DB has FKs
Run Custom Tool is not a "contact the DB and see what changes have occurred there and replicate them into the dataset", it is a "turn the XSD that describes the dataset into a bunch of C# classes that implement strongly typed dataset/table/relation/column etc objects". Any time you change the XSD by making an edit in the visual designer and hit save, the custom tool is run. If you edit the XSD directly in a text editor you may need to run it manually to have your changes reflected in c# classes
Reconfiguring a tableadapter probably won't do anything to the relations either; its solely concerned with changing the datatable and tableadapter. If you really want to refresh the relations, delete the datatable from the set and recreate it. Be prepared for a potentially significant mop up/refactoring of code
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.
I am using Database First EF to generate model from the existing database. When I first generated the models, it ignores only one of the table, the entity was not added to EDMX, no model file is created for the table and no context is created for the entity.
When I tried to explicitly add the table to EDMX (when generating the model, selected the specific table first and then updated the model with all the other tables from the database), it complained with the following error.
Two entities with possibly different keys are mapped to the same row. Ensure these two mapping fragments map both ends of the AssociationSet to the corresponding columns.
This specific table has two columns which are primary keys of some other tables and both the columns are specified as Primary keys for the table.
Am I doing something wrong or should I handle this table differently since it has two columns defined as Primary Keys? Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
You are not doing anything wrong. Your table is junction table for many-to-many relation. You don't need that table in the model because EF (in contrast to database) can handle many-to-many relation directly without any intermediate. The table is actually mapped on behind of the many-to-many relation - you will see that in mapping details window.
Btw. you are not using code first. Code first = no EDMX.
I'm currently in a situation where I need to delete entities without having access to the associated ObjectContext. I read about identifying relationships and they seem to be exactly what I need: I want to delete an object, once it is no longer referenced by its "parent" object.
I am using Visual Studio 2010 Premium to generate my database from an edmx file. As far as I understand, I need to include the foreign key of my "parent" object in the primary key of my "child" object table. However, I cannot find a way to tell Visual Studio to do this.
Can someone please help me out on this? Am I completely on a wrong path or am I just missing a setting somewhere?
I finally figured it out:
Go to your Child entity and create a scalar property ParentId. Set this property as entity key (making it a primary key, together with your Id property of your Child entity). Next go to your ParentChild relationship and add a referential constraint. Principal for the constraint is your Parent and Dependant is your Child. Dependant property must be the property you just created on your Child (i.e. ParentId). Save everything and you're good to go.
Basically this is described as "scenario 2" in this blog post: http://mocella.blogspot.com/2010/01/entity-framework-v4-object-graph.html
No, you are in the right path. What you need to do is in the EDM designer, after creating your 2 entities (Parent and Child), right click on the Parent Entity and select Add => Association... and then specify Multiplicity and Navigation property names, and click Ok. You'll see that VS create an association in between which will result on a relationship between these 2 table later on when you generate a database from your model.
Do not create a property like ParentID on your Child entity as it will be automatically created by the designer once you create the association.
Furthermore, you can right click on the association in the EDM designer and Select Properties and Select "Cascade" on "End2 OnDelete" option so that the child will be deleted when the parent is deleted.