I am working with a few legacy tables that have relationships, but those relationships haven't been explicitly set as primary/foreign keys. I created a .dbml file using "Linq To Sql Classes" and established the proper Case.CaseID = CaseInfo.CaseID association. My resulting class is CasesDataContext.
My Tables (One to many):
Case
------------------
CaseID (int not null)
MetaColumn1 (varchar)
MetaColumn2 (varchar)
MetaColumn3 (varchar)
...
CaseInfo
------------------
CaseInfoID (int)
CaseID (int nulls allowed)
CaseInfoMeta (varchar)
...
I'm new to LinqToSQL and am having trouble doing..
CasesDataContext db = new CasesDataContext();
var Cases = from c in db.Cases
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"
select c;
(Edit) My problem being that CaseInfo or CaseInfos
is not available as a member of Cases.
I heard from a colleague that I might try ADO.Net Entity Data Model to create my Data Context class, but haven't tried that yet and wanted to see if I'd be wasting my time or should I go another route. Any tips, links, help would be most appreciated.
Go back to the designer and check the relation is set up correctly. Here is one real life example, with BillStateMasters have "CustomerMasters1" property (customers for the state):
Ps. naming is being cleaned up ...
Update 1: You also need to make sure both tables have a primary defined. If the primary key isn't defined on the database (and can't be defined for whatever reason), make sure to define them in the designer. Open the column's properties, and set it as primary key. That said, entity tracking also won't work if you haven't a primary key for the entity, which for deletes means it silently doesn't updates the entity. So, make sure to review all entities and to have them all with a primary key (as I said, if it can't be on the db, then on the designer).
CasesDataContext db = new CasesDataContext();
var Cases = from c in db.Cases
join ci in db.CaseInfo on
ci.ID equals c.InfoID
where ci.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"
select new {CASE=c, INFO=ci};
my "join" linq is a bit rusty, but the above should get close to what you're after.
Is the association set to One to One or One to Many? If you have the association set to One to Many, then what you have is an EntitySet, not an EntityRef and you'll need to use a where clause on the dependent set to get the correct value. I suspect that you want a One to One relationship, which is not the default. Try changing it to One to One and see if you can construct the query.
Note: I'm just guessing because you haven't actually told us what the "trouble" actually is.
Your query looks correct and should return a query result set of Case objects.
So... what's the problem?
(Edit) My problem being that CaseInfo
is not available under Cases... i.e.
c.CaseInfo doesn't exist where I'm
assuming it would be if there were
explicit primary/foreign key
relationships.
What do you mean by "not available"? If you created the association in the designer as you say you did, then the query should generate SQL something along the lines of
SELECT [columns]
FROM Case INNER JOIN CaseInfo
ON Case.CaseID = CaseInfo.CaseID
WHERE CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta = 'some value'
Have you debugged your linq query to get the SQL generated yet? What does it return?
Couple of things you might want to try:
Check the properties of the association. Make sure that the Parent property was created as Public. It does this by default, but something may have changed.
Since you're not getting CaseInfo on C, try typing it the other direction to see if you get ci.Case with intellisense.
Delete and recreate the association all together.
There's something very basic going wrong if the child members are not showing up. It might be best to delete the dbml and recreate the whole thing.
If all else fails, switch to NHibernate. :)
After a few tests, I'm pretty sure the FK relationships are required in the DB regardless of whatever associations are created in Linq-to-SQL. i.e. if you don't have them explicitly set in the DB, then you will have to do a join manually.
Is this c#? I think you need == instead of = on this line:
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta = "some value"
should read
where c.CaseInfo.CaseInfoMeta == "some value"
Related
In a data model like this (http://alanstorm.com/2009/img/magento-book/eav.png) I want to get the value from an EAV_Attribute using Linq to SQL.
Assuming that an EAV_Attribute only exists in one inherited table (varchar, decimal, int, etc.) how can I get it in a linq query?
I know that I can use the Inheritance for this, but I want to execute it in the SQL Database side...
Is it possible to do a kind of Coalesce in Linq, considering that the elements have different types?
EAV and linq is not a happy marriage. I think your best shot is to create an unmapped property in eav_attribute that resolves the value (as object) from it's typed attribute child. With entity framework, you won't be able to use this property in an expression (i.e. not in a Where or Select), You must convert to IEnumerable first to access it. (Linq-to-sql may allow it because it can switch to linq-to-objects below the hood).
Another option is to create a calculated column of type sql_variant that does the same, but now in t-sql code. But... EF does not suport sql_variant. You've got to use some trickery to read it.
That's the reading part.
For setting/modifying/deleting values I don't see any shortcuts. You just have to handle the objects as any object graph with parents and children. In sql server you can't use cascaded delete because it can only be defined for one foreign key. (This may tackle that, but I never tried).
So, not really good news, I'm afraid. Maybe good to know that in one project I also work with a database that has an inevitable EAV part. We do it with EF too, but it's not without friction.
First of all, I recommend using TPH and not TPT for EAV tables. (One table with multiple nullable value columns (one per type) + discriminator vs. one table per type.)
Either way, if you modelled the value entity as an abstract class (containing the two IDs) with an inheriting entity per value data type that adds the value property, then your LINQ should look like this:
var valueEntity = context.ProductAttributes.Where(pa =>
pa.ProductId == selectedProductId
&& pa.AttributeTypeId == selectedAttributeTypeId)
.SingleOrDefault() as ProductAttributeOfDouble;
if valueEntity != null
return valueEntity.Value;
return null;
Where the entity types are: Product, AttributeType, ProductAttribute, ProductAttributeOfDouble, ... ProductAttributeOfString.
Hi I have a question that is braking my mind for some days.
I have my SQL server Database and my C# application.
In the DB I have differemt tables, let me show you a simple ex
Tables:
Person
Relationship
City
Business Rules:
The person are from a City, so the person has IdCity
A person has a relationship with other person, and about that relationship you need to save the starting date.
In other projects I already did something like that, but in this proyect this is not working for me.
When I retrieved with LinQ the information about the person, the city is not coming, and an error appears when I try "person.city.description", for ex.
I try using Include("City") in the linq query, but it didn't work. Besides that, I don't know how to manage the circular reference to the person to person relationship.
One important thing, that I think that can be the problem, is that I rename all the tables from the DataModel, for example, the table in database is called Prd_City, so I change the Name and the Entity Set Name for City in c# project. So in the included I have to use the real table name, in other case the query fail, but if I use the real name nothing happens.
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
List<Person> oPeople = (from p in context.Person.Include("Prd_City")
select p).ToList();
return oPeople ;
}
Any help will be welcome.
Thanks!
"It didn't work" is never a good description of your problem. But from the rest of your question I can infer that Person has a navigation property named "Prd_City", while you expected it to be "City". The thing is: you renamed the entities, but not the navigation properties in the entities.
My advice (for what it's worth): it seems that your work database-first. If you can, change to code-first and manually map the POCO classes to their table names, and properties to their database columns. It may be a considerable amount of work (depending on the size of your data model), but after that you will never run the risk of EF "un-renaming" your entities. Besides, the DbContext API is easier to use than ObjectContext. Currently, it's the preferred EF API.
I am running a simple LINQ query that connects to a view and returns all of the data with the id that I send in.
My simple query is:
var data = db.ViewDataAlls.Where(x => x.guidRequirementId == guidRequirementId);
if I run this query in the database:
select * from viewDataAll where guidrequiremendid = '{Guid Id Sent In Here}'
I get 2 rows back, however the LINQ query is returning 2 rows, but the rows are a duplicate of the first row, not 2 unique rows.
Any ideas?
EDIT: if I run this LINQ Query:
List<string> nums = db.ViewDataAlls
.Where(x => x.guidRequirementId == guidRequirementId)
.Select(x=>x.strNumber).ToList();
I get the individual row numbers, but if I just try to pull the entire row I get a duplicate of the first row multiple times...
I had the same problem. I was ready to conclude that this was a bug in Linq-to-SQL. Direct SQL queries against the view worked, Linqpad queries worked, etc... but for some reason querying against a view sometimes (and not even very often mind you, but when I'd find a particular value that failed, it appeared to always do so) failed. I verified that the query being passed by Linq to the SQL Server was correct (from the SQLServer logs), so it appeared the results were being mangled when they were received by Linq. Querying directly against the view or accessing the contents of the view via a defined association gave the same bad results.
Realizing that the problem lay on the receiving side of the query (after the results were passed back to Linq), I finally tracked it down to the way I had added the view to the dbml. Originally I had dragged the view onto the dbml designer surface, and added an association to the table I wanted to link it to, a basic one-to-many association (using an basic fkid == id relationship). However I couldn't access the view from the table in code. I discovered that I needed to add a primary key to the child (view), so I set the id property as the PK. This seemed to work until I got an unexpected exception when doing a .SingleOrDefault() against the view through the association. Knowing that it should be impossible for my data to have more that one hit for the property I was filtering with, I ran it through the debugger, and sure enough I was getting the right number of results (2 in my case), but the second result was just a copy of the first. The same thing the OP saw.
The solution it turns out is to set all the fields of the view as part of the primary key (in the dbml; I only had 3). Somehow, having the id field as the lone PK was not sufficient for Linq. Once I did this I had no further problems. (It may not be necessary to designate every field as part of the PK, so you may wish to experiment, but just the one id is insufficient apparently).
Note that I did have the view set as "not unique" in the dbml, which one would think would keep this from happening. Apparently not so.
Is ViewDataAlls a view or a table. If it's a view, maybe the sql statement generating that view produces duplicates.
Thanks JHurdlow, you save my day. Looks like LINQ does not use the groupby or order-by in the views. In my case, the SQL Statement in the view was correct and data was presented very well, but for any reason when use LINQ on my MVC3 is different and duplicates rows. In my case I had a view with 5 tables and I had to put all fields as PK on the view at ___DataModel.edmx. Now works fine.
This solution implies that all fields must be not-null, otherwise has to use CASE NULL-THEN END on the View schema.
I have two projects using legacy databases with no associations between the tables. In one, if I create associations in the DBML file, I can reference the associations in LINQ like this:
From c In context.Cities Where c.city_name = "Portland" _
Select c.State.state_name
(assuming I added the link from City.state_abbr to State.state_abbr in the DBML file.)
In a different project that uses a different database, adding the association manually doesn't seem to give me that functionality, and I'm forced to write the LINQ query like this:
From c In context.Cities Where c.city_name = "Portland" _
Join s In context.States On c.state_abbr = s.state_abbr _
Select s.state_name
Any idea what I could be missing in the second project?
Note: These are completely contrived examples - the real source tables are nothing like each other, and are very cryptic.
Check your Error List page. You might have something like the following in there:
DBML1062: The Type attribute
'[ParentTable]' of the Association
element 'ParentTable_ChildTable' of
the Type element 'ChildTable' does not
have a primary key. No code will be
generated for the association.
In which case all you should need to do is make sure that both tables have a primary key set and re-save the dbml file. This will invoke the custom tool, which will in turn update the designer.cs file and create code for the association.
It looks like my problem was my tables didn't have primary keys in the second project. Like I stated, these are legacy tables, so I had to do the linking and primary key stuff in the Database Context instead of the database itself, and I just forgot to specify the primary keys the second time around. Frustrating when you don't spot it, but it makes sense now.
Sometimes, when everything is configured correctly but still not working, the solution can be as simple as restarting Visual Studio.
I don't know why it happens sometimes, but I thought I should add this answer because having done some searching for a solution myself, it seems nobody has suggested this yet...
Our development policy dictates that all database accesses are made via stored procedures, and this is creating an issue when using LINQ.
The scenario discussed below has been somewhat simplified, in order to make the explanation easier.
Consider a database that has 2 tables.
Orders (OrderID (PK), InvoiceAddressID (FK), DeliveryAddressID (FK) )
Addresses (AddresID (PK), Street, ZipCode)
The resultset returned by the stored procedure has to rename the address related columns, so that the invoice and delivery addresses are distinct from each other.
OrderID InvAddrID DelAddrID InvStreet DelStreet InvZipCode DelZipCode
1 27 46 Main St Back St abc123 xyz789
This, however, means that LINQ has no idea what to do with these columns in the resultset, as they no longer match the property names in the Address entity.
The frustrating thing about this is that there seems to be no way to define which resultset columns map to which Entity properties, even though it is possible (to a certain extent) to map entity properties to stored procedure parameters for the insert/update operations.
Has anybody else had the same issue?
I'd imagine that this would be a relatively common scenarios, from a schema point of view, but the stored procedure seems to be the key factor here.
Have you considered creating a view like the below for the stored procedure to select from? It would add complexity, but allow LINQ to see the Entity the way you wanted.
Create view OrderAddress as
Select o.OrderID
,i.AddressID as InvID
,d.AddressID as DelID
...
from Orders o
left join Addresses i
on o.InvAddressID= i.AddressID
left join Addresses d
on o.DelAddressID = i.AddressID
LINQ is a bit fussy about querying data; it wants the schema to match. I suspect you're going to have to bring that back into an automatically generated type, and do the mapping to you entity type afterwards in LINQ to objects (i.e. after AsEnumerable() or similar) - as it doesn't like you creating instances of the mapped entities manually inside a query.
Actually, I would recommend challenging the requirement in one respect: rather than SPs, consider using UDFs to query data; they work similarly in terms of being owned by the database, but they are composable at the server (paging, sorting, joinable, etc).
(this bit a bit random - take with a pinch of salt)
UDFs can be associated with entity types if the schema matches, so another option (I haven't tried it) would be to have a GetAddress(id) udf, and a "main" udf, and join them:
var qry = from row in ctx.MainUdf(id)
select new {
Order = ctx.GetOrder(row.OrderId),
InvoiceAddress = ctx.GetAddress(row.InvoiceAddressId),
DeliveryAddress = ctx.GetAddress(row.DeliveryAddressId)) };
(where the udf just returns the ids - actually, you might have the join to the other udfs, making it even worse).
or something - might be too messy for serious consideration, though.
If you know exactly what columns your result set will include, you should be able to create a new entity type that has properties for each column in the result set. Rather than trying to pack the data into an Order, for example, you can pack it into an OrderWithAddresses, which has exactly the structure your stored procedure would expect. If you're using LINQ to Entities, you should even be able to indicate in your .edmx file that an OrderWithAddresses is an Order with two additional properties. In LINQ to SQL you will have to specify all of the columns as if it were an entirely unrelated data type.
If your columns get generated dynamically by the stored procedure, you will need to try a different approach: Create a new stored procedure that only pulls data from the Orders table, and one that only pulls data from the addresses table. Set up your LINQ mapping to use these stored procedures instead. (Of course, the only reason you're using stored procs is to comply with your company policy). Then, use LINQ to join these data. It should be only slightly less efficient, but it will more appropriately reflect the actual structure of your data, which I think is better programming practice.
I think I understand what you're after, but I could wildy off...
If you mock up classes in a DBML (right-click -> new -> class) that are the same structure as your source tables, you could simply create new objects based on what is read from the stored procedure. Using LINQ to objects, you could still query your selection. It's more code, but it's not that hard to do. For example, mock up your DBML like this:
Pay attention to the associations http://geeksharp.com/screens/orders-dbml.png
Make sure you pay attention to the associations I added. You can expand "Parent Property" and change the name of those associations to "InvoiceAddress" and "DeliveryAddress." I also changed the child property names to "InvoiceOrders" and "DeliveryOrders" respectively. Notice the stored procedure up top called "usp_GetOrders." Now, with a bit of code, you can map the columns manually. I know it's not ideal, especially if the stored proc doesn't expose every member of each table, but it can get you close:
public List<Order> GetOrders()
{
// our DBML classes
List<Order> dbOrders = new List<Order>();
using (OrderSystemDataContext db = new OrderSystemDataContext())
{
// call stored proc
var spOrders = db.usp_GetOrders();
foreach (var spOrder in spOrders)
{
Order ord = new Order();
Address invAddr = new Address();
Address delAddr = new Address();
// set all the properties
ord.OrderID = spOrder.OrderID;
// add the invoice address
invAddr.AddressID = spOrder.InvAddrID;
invAddr.Street = spOrder.InvStreet;
invAddr.ZipCode = spOrder.InvZipCode;
ord.InvoiceAddress = invAddr;
// add the delivery address
delAddr.AddressID = spOrder.DelAddrID;
delAddr.Street = spOrder.DelStreet;
delAddr.ZipCode = spOrder.DelZipCode;
ord.DeliveryAddress = delAddr;
// add to the collection
dbOrders.Add(ord);
}
}
// at this point I have a List of orders I can query...
return dbOrders;
}
Again, I realize this seems cumbersome, but I think the end result is worth a few extra lines of code.
this it isn't very efficient at all, but if all else fails, you could try making two procedure calls from the application one to get the invoice address and then another one to get the delivery address.