When I add stored procedures to a linq datacontext, by default visual studio prefixes the stored procedure with the sql schema that it is in. Is there any way to stop this? In our environment, the stored procedures may be moved to other schemas over time, and we will default the schema based on the sql user used to connect. Do I have to do this manually or can I somehow turn off the schema prefixes?
There doesn't appear to be any means of removing the schema from LINQ-to-SQL mapped stored procedures using the designer. All procs are mapped including their schema name, which (to be fair) is probably a good thing for most applications. And as with most things LINQ-to-SQL, change your database at your own peril. Too many database changes required LINQ-to-SQL dbml updates & rebuilds.
Digging deeper, the schema name is stored in the backing dbml XML file, and is then included in the generated designer.cs file which contains the functions / methods which are called.
// dbml
<Function Name="dbo.MyProc" Method="MyProc">
// designer.cs
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.FunctionAttribute(Name="dbo.MyProc")]
public int MyProc()
If you manually edit the dbml XML file to remove the schema & save within Visual Studio, the code will be regenerated like this:
// changed dbml - removed the dbo schema
<Function Name="MyProc" Method="MyProc">
// the resultant generated code in designer.cs
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.FunctionAttribute()]
public int MyProc()
Which worked for my account, logging in with dbo as default schema. I'll leave the testing up to you.
This might be a workable solution - the visual designer still works like this, other items can be added etc without breaking the schema-less function, and the function itself doesn't cause the designer to complain. Best of luck!
Related
I'm creating a database project is VS2013. I am manually building up the database as and when the objects are required (it's basically a gradual copy from an existing database). I have done imports to a database project from an actual database and I'm trying to follow the same project structure (i.e. [Schema Name Folder] > [Tables Folder] > [Actual Table Script File]).
The issue I am having is that when I add a new table, regardless of where in the project tree, it will use the default dbo schema and the only way I can change the schema of a given object is to change the T-SQL of the table's script file which is a slow and error-prone solution. This is even worse if you include the 'Include schema name in file name' option in the database properties as you would have to rename each object you create.
I must be missing something here, is there a way to create an object in a specific schema?
I attached an .mdf file in SQL Server 2008 and used that database for my entity framework database first project. Below is the error I got
Exception Details: System.Data.MappingException: Schema specified is not valid.
Error 2062: No mapping specified for instances of the EntitySet and AssociationSet in the EntityContainer"
I tried this link: How do I correctly set an association between two objects in the Entity Framework 4 Entitydesigner?
but it did not work for me. can anyone help me what can be the problem.
thanks,
michaeld
This exception usually occures if you have an entity in your model which doesn't mapped to a table (or an object) into the Database.
If you want that your project just starts debugging, Remove all entities from your model, Right-click in model designer and choose Update model from database
If you have an entity which it supposed to be mapped to a table into database, you should create a relative table in database, and map your entity to that table. You also can ghange your approach from db-first to code-first and enable migrations so that EF updates your db according to your model.
If you have an entity and you want to map it to a stored procedure in your db, see here
In Models context file it was mentioned
If you want Entity Framework to drop and regenerate your database
automatically whenever you change your model schema, add the following
code to the Application_Start method in your Global.asax file. Note:
this will destroy and re-create your database with every model change.
System.Data.Entity.Database.SetInitializer(new System.Data.Entity.DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<HMS.Models.HMSContext>());
so I added this code in the Global.asax file inside protected void Application_Start().
Adding this line drops whole database when I do any changes in model class. Is there any alternate way to avoid this and still I can do Model changes?
i.e After performing changes in model when I rebuild and run my application, it drops my database and regenerate all the empty model tables. So I loose all my entered data and I want to preserve table data.
If you're using EF Code First 4.1, then, no, it will only drop and recreate. EF version 5 apparently supports dynamically changing the underlying database. It's in beta at the moment, but is available for production use if you want to try it out. You can install it through NuGet.
I am using Oracle with Entity Framework. The database ids are generated using triggers and sequences.
I want to set up Table-per-Type inheritance, as described here. I've set the "CourseId" to be StoreGeneratedPattern of "Identity".
Everything seems to be fine, except when I insert a row. The table representing the base class (in the walkthrough linked above, the Course table) gets a generated ID as expected.
However the table representing the inherited class (in the walkthrough linked above, the OnlineCourse table) has a row inserted with the CourseId set to zero. This violates the foreign key constraint.
I assume it's something to do with the sequence of inserts. I imagine it should work like:
Insert the Course row
Retrieve the newly created CourseId value
Insert the OnlineCourse, using the new CourseId
However, this isn't working because it's just using the default value of the CourseId (zero) to insert into OnlineCourse.
Any ideas how to fix this?
Since #Campinho hasn't written up his suggestion as an answer, I will do it.
This article has some background on a bug in StoreGeneratedPattern in VS2010.
One of very important features in ORM tools is an ability to get data auto-generated by a database during the entity persistence back to your application. The Entity framework supports this feature by setting StoreGeneratedPattern in the configuration of persisted property. The StoreGeneratedPattern setting is available in both SSDL (Store schema definition language) and CSDL (Conceptual schema definition language) parts of the EDMX file. CSDL configuration allows you defining the reloading behavior in the Model-first approach but SSDL part is responsible for generating correct SQL commands which will persist the entity and reload auto-generated properties. Unfortunately for a long time this was the source of all problems.
The feature was very hard to use because of the annoying bug in the Entity designer. When we set the property in the designer, the value was saved only in CSDL part but not in SSDL part of the EDMX file and the feature didn't work until we opened the EDMX file as XML and manually modified SSDL part. This solved the problem but only until we updated our model from the database. The update always deleted whole SSDL part including our manual change so we had to do it again. Any incremental development of our models become a big pain. The workaround was using mapped stored procedures for inserting and updating entities and mapping result sets (returning auto-generated data) from these stored procedures back to the entity. Finally this bug is solved in Visual Studio 2010 SP1 and we can use StoreGeneratedPattern without any problems because the value is correctly set in both CSDL and SSDL parts and it is not overwritten during updating from the database.
If you have this problem install KB2561001.
I installed the hotfix and changed the StoreGeneratedPattern to "None" then back to "Identity" for the relevant Ids. I could clearly see the SSDL section had been updated to indicate the new setting.
Then everything just worked! I'm not sure what's going to be in the patch from Oracle that they think will fix the problem.
I filed a service request with Oracle and it turns out this is a bug in their provider.
BUG 13724992 - EF: ENTITY NOT UPDATED AFTER SAVECHANGES USING STOREGENERATEDPATTERN
A fix for this bug will be released in an upcoming patchset. However, which patchset in will be included in and when that patchset will be released is currently unknown. I will let you know as soon as this fix will be released.
As the MSDN says
Do one of the following from the Model Browser:
Open the Stored Procedures folder (in the storage model information) and double-click a stored procedure that does not have a corresponding function import.
- OR -
Right-click the Function Imports folder (in the EntityContainer node of the conceptual model information) and then select Add Function Import.
The Add Function Import dialog box appears.
How can I do function import if my db contains hundreds of sps. Should I go to each sp and do the steps above :( .. It makes no sense.
I have a very large Entity Framework model and I use the Huagati DBML/EDMX tools. It was able to bulk add new tables, views and columns that were in the database but not in the EDMX. It saved a lot of manual work. I haven't used it for stored procedures but it looks like it supports it. Even better, they have a free trial so you can always give it a try to see if it will work for you.
Edit: It also sounds like they have made some improvements to this in the latest version of EF - the June 2011 CTP. This blog post states:
There are several new features for the Entity Framework Designer
within Visual Studio:
[...]
When you import stored procedures using the Entity Model Wizard,
you
can now batch import your stored procedures as function imports.
The
result shape of each stored procedure will automatically become a
new
complex type in your entity model. This makes getting started with
stored procedures very easy.
If you don't want to use a CTP, this blog post says they might have the official version out next month.