I am creating a relationship between my classes using code first. The integration happens with MySql, however, after migrating it consider the relationship as one-to-many when I check my workbench ERD.
How can I make a relashionship one-to-one using the classes mentioned below?
Here is my code:
public class About
{
[ForeignKey("User")]
public int Userid { get; set; }
public int id { get; set; }
public string about_file { get; set; }
public string about_desc { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
public class User
{
[Key]
public int id { get; set; }
public string login { get; set; }
public string password { get; set; }
public virtual About About { get; set; }
public ICollection<Offers> Offers { get; set; } = new List<Offers>();
public ICollection<Portfolio> Portifolios { get; set; } = new List<Portfolio>();
}
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore Version: {5.0.7}
It is a one-to-one relationship by convention only. Having a navigation property instead of a collection, ensures that only one child entity can be related to one parent from Entity Framework's perspective. But on the database level, there is nothing that prevents the creation of multiple child entities.
If you want to enforce it on the database level, add a UNIQUE constraint to the foreign key on the child entity, or make the primary keys on both entities identical and make that the foreign key instead.
Related
I am having issues trying to map two fields that are foreign keys into the same table. The use case is for a modifier and creator. My class already has the Ids, and then I wanted to add the full User object as virtual.
I am using a base class so that each of my tables have the same audit fields:
public class Entity
{
public long? ModifiedById { get; set; }
public long CreatedById { get; set; } = 1;
[ForeignKey("CreatedById")]
public virtual User CreatedByUser { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ModifiedById")]
public virtual User ModifiedByUser { get; set; }
}
The child class is very simple:
public class CircleUserSubscription : Entity
{
[Required]
public long Id { get; set; }
public long SponsorUserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("SponsorUserId")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
public long TestId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("TestId")]
public virtual User Test { get; set; }
}
This is a standard junction table.
When I try to generate the migration, I am getting errors that I don't understand fully.
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property 'CircleUserSubscription.User' of type 'User'. Either manually configure the relationship, or ignore this property using the '[NotMapped]' attribute or by using 'EntityTypeBuilder.Ignore' in 'OnModelCreating'.
I tried what this answer had, but the code is basically the same: https://entityframeworkcore.com/knowledge-base/54418186/ef-core-2-2---two-foreign-keys-to-same-table
An inverse property doesn't make sense since every table will have a reference to the user table.
For reference, here is the User entity:
public class User : Entity
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
I am hoping you all can help me out, TIA :)
EDIT: One thing to note, all of this worked fine when the entity class was as follows:
public class Entity
{
public long? ModifiedById { get; set; }
public long CreatedById { get; set; } = 1;
}
It was only after I added the entity that things went awry.
As you know that developers mostly mock the relationship between tables instead of using physical relationships between table (yeah, the line drawn from one table to another if you put a foreign key constraint on the column).
But I believe that Entity Framework doesn't work properly if physical relationships aren't there for navigational properties.
So, is there any way around?
My classes:
public class Phones
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Model { get; set; }
public string Manufacturer { get; set; }
public List<Users> Users { get; set; }
}
public class Sims
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
}
This creates a 1-M relationship from User -> Sims.
But what if I drop the foreign key constraint and leave it as it is, how will the navigational properties work then?
At this case better to remove references from both classes and handle relations manually outside of these classes:
public class Sims
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
//public User User { get; set; }
public int UserID { get; set; }
}
I have three classes
public class SPR
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string SubmittedBy { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<SPRItem> AllItems { get; set; }
}
public class SPRItem
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string manufacturer { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("SPRItemDetails")]
public virtual SPRItemDetails ItemDetails { get; set; }
public string requestedMinimumQuantity { get; set; }
public virtual SPR SPR { get; set; }
}
public class SPRItemDetails
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string ItemNumber { get; set; }
public virtual SPRItem SPRItem { get; set; }
}
So the SPR class has a collection of SPRItem and which has the ItemDetails object.
I have a web API method which maps the data to the SPR object and fills in the SPRItem list and ItemDetails object. But whenever I am trying to save it using Entity Framework code first I am getting this error
{"Message":"An error has occurred.","ExceptionMessage":"Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the types 'SharePoint.MultiSPR.Service.Models.SPRItemDetails' and 'SharePoint.MultiSPR.Service.Models.SPRItem'. The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.
This is my Context
public System.Data.Entity.DbSet<SharePoint.MultiSPR.Service.Models.SPR> SPRs { get; set; }
public System.Data.Entity.DbSet<SharePoint.MultiSPR.Service.Models.SPRItem> SPRItem { get; set; }
public System.Data.Entity.DbSet<SharePoint.MultiSPR.Service.Models.SPRItemDetails> SPRItemDetails { get; set; }
Can someone please tell me how to configure the relations correctly.
Thanks
In a 1:1 relation you always have to indicate the principal and the dependent entity. The principal entity is the one that is most independent of the other, in this case SPRItem, presumably.
Next thing to decide is whether the relationship should be optional or required. I think, judging by the entity names, an SPRItemDetails will never exist without an SPRItem, so the relationship is 1:0..1 (not 0..1:0..1). Here's how to configure that:
modelBuilder.Entity<SPRItem>()
.HasOptional(si => si.ItemDetails)
.WithRequired(id => id.SPRItem);
This creates (or requires) an SPRItemDetails table having a primary key that's also a foreign key to SPRItem.
I get the following error when using Entity Framework:
Unable to determine the principal end of an association between the types
'xxx.Domain.Entities.UserSettings' and 'xxx.Domain.Entities.User'. The
principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either
the relationship fluent API or data annotations.
Here are the two Entity classes:
public class User
{
[Key, Column("un")]
public string Username { get; set; }
public int Level { get; set; }
public virtual UserSettings UserSettings { get; set; }
}
public class UserSettings
{
[Key]
public string Username { get; set; }
public int ActiveRefresh { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Username")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
I am not sure how to resolve this error. I am stuck with the database design so I can't update that to fix the issue. Is there a way using Fluent Api to get these associations working?
A User can have a UserSettings object. This is the relationship that is desired.
It looks like you need a one to zero-or-one relationship
// Configure the primary key for the User
modelBuilder.Entity<User>()
.HasKey(t => t.Username);
// Map one-to-zero or one relationship
modelBuilder.Entity<UserSettings>()
.HasRequired(t => t.User)
.WithOptional(t => t.UserSettings);
This is not tested! Remove all the annotations from the entity classes. The link to Fluent API relationships in my comment above has more examples of the different kinds of relationship.
using anotations :
public class User
{
[Key, Column("un")]
public string Username { get; set; }
public int Level { get; set; }
//here is your foreign to UserSettings
public int? UserSettingsID{ get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UserSettingsID")] // not needed if you're using the '%ID' convention
//Navigation property
public virtual UserSettings UserSettings { get; set; }
}
public class UserSettings
{
//UserSettings PK
public int UserSettingsID{ get; set; }
public int ActiveRefresh { get; set; }
}
I assume here that you don't need to retrieve the user from his settings
Writing a model for situation where I have two tables which are customers and users. Each user record might have an optional related customer record and vice versa, but none of them is a must. I figured out that FK Associations are not what I need, but Independent Associations are. But I just can find a way to make it work, I keep getting the 'Unable to determine the principal end...The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.' exception.
My models are very simple:
public class User
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[StringLength(20)]
public string CustomerId { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public bool Locked { get; set; }
//[ForeignKey("CustomerId")]
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
[Key]
[Column("Id", TypeName = "nvarchar")]
[StringLength(20)]
public string Id { get; set; } // nvarchar 20
[Required]
public string GivenName { get; set; } // nvarchar 100
[Required]
public string Surname { get; set; } // nvarchar 100
//[InverseProperty("Customer")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
}
I've tried to add the ForeignKeyAttribute and InversePropertyAttribute, which are currently commented out, but they didn't help either. I would prefer to use data annotations and not fluent API, if it's possible in my case.
In one-to-one relation one end must be principal and second end must be dependent. Principal end is the one which will be inserted first and which can exist without the dependent one. Dependent end is the one which must be inserted after the principal because it has foreign key to the principal. When configuring one-to-one relationships, Entity Framework requires that the primary key of the dependent also be the foreign key.This problem is most easily solved by using a ForeignKey annotation on the dependent class to identify that it contains the foreign key. In your case, Customer could be the dependent and its key, Customer.UserId, should also be the foreign key. But both Keys must be declared using the same type:
public class User
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
[Key, ForeignKey("User")]
public int UserId { get; set; }
public virtual User User{ get; set; }
}
I don't know how to resolve your problem using Data Annotations, but if you want to use Fluent Api, I think the configuration of the relationship would be like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().HasOptional(u => u.Customer).WithOptionalPrincipal(c => c.User);
Update
I understand your escenario, but if you have the same columns that you show in your model, I think you should have a one-to-many relationship mapped in DB instead one-to-one. Try to map your relationship this way:
public class User
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public bool Locked { get; set; }
public string CustomerId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CustomerId")]
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class Customer
{
[Key]
[Column("Id", TypeName = "nvarchar")]
[StringLength(20)]
public string Id { get; set; } // nvarchar 20
[Required]
public string GivenName { get; set; } // nvarchar 100
[Required]
public string Surname { get; set; } // nvarchar 100
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
Remember map your properties with the same column'names that you have in DB.