We Keep Coding

One to many relationship doesn`t retrieve data in entity framework

I`m in process of learning C# & .NET and EF (with aspnetboilerplate) and I came up with idea to create some dummy project so I can practice. But last 4 hour Im stuck with this error and hope someone here can help me.
What I create( well at least I think I create it correctly ) is 2 class called "Ingredient" and "Master"
I want to use it for categorize Ingredient with "Master" class.
For example ingredient like
Chicken breast
chicken drumstick
Both of them belong to Meat ( witch is input in "Master" database ) and here is my code
Ingredient.cs
public class Ingrident : Entity
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Master Master { get; set; }
public int MasterId { get; set; }
}
Master.cs
public class Master : Entity
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Ingrident> Ingridents { get; set; } = new();
}
IngridientAppService.cs
public List<IngridientDto> GetIngWithParent()
{
var result = _ingRepository.GetAllIncluding(x => x.Master);
//Also I try this but doesn`t work
// var result = _ingRepository.GetAll().Where(x => x.MasterId == x.Master.Id);
return ObjectMapper.Map<List<IngridientDto>>(result);
}
IngridientDto.cs
[AutoMap(typeof(IndexIngrident.Entities.Ingrident))]
public class IngridientDto : EntityDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<MasterDto> Master { get; set; }
public int MasterId { get; set; }
}
MasterDto.cs
[AutoMap(typeof(IndexIngrident.Entities.Master))]
public class MasterDto : EntityDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
When I created ( for last practice ) M -> M relationship this approach with .getAllIncluding work but now when I have One -> Many it won`t work.
Hope someone will be able to help me or at least give me some good hint.
Have a nice day !

Straight up the examples you are probably referring to (regarding the repository etc.) are overcomplicated and for most cases, not what you'd want to implement.
The first issue I see is that while your entities are set up for a 1-to-many relationship from Master to Ingredients, your DTOs are set up from Ingredient to Masters which definitely won't map properly.
Start with the simplest thing. Get rid of the Repository and get rid of the DTOs. I'm not sure what the base class "Entity" does, but I'm guessing it exposes a common key property called "Id". For starters I'd probably ditch that as well. When it comes to primary keys there are typically two naming approaches, every table uses a PK called "Id", or each table uses a PK with the TableName suffixed with "Id". I.e. "Id" vs. "IngredientId". Personally I find the second option makes it very clear when pairing FKs and PKs given they'd have the same name.
When it comes to representing relationships through navigation properties one important detail is ensuring navigation properties are linked to their respective FK properties if present, or better, use shadow properties for the FKs.
For example with your Ingredient table, getting rid of the Entity base class:
[Table("Ingredients")]
public class Ingredient : Entity
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int IngredientId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MasterId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("MasterId")]
public virtual Master Master { get; set; }
}
This example uses EF attributes to aid in telling EF how to resolve the entity properties to respective tables and columns, as well as the relationship between Ingredient and Master. EF can work much of this out by convention, but it's good to understand and apply it explicitly because eventually you will come across situations where convention doesn't work as you expect.
Identifying the (Primary)Key and indicating it is an Identity column also tells EF to expect that the database will populate the PK automatically. (Highly recommended)
On the Master side we do something similar:
[Table("Masters")]
public class Master : Entity
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int MasterId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[InverseProperty("Master")]
public virtual ICollection<Ingredient> Ingredients { get; set; } = new List<Ingredient>();
}
Again we denote the Primary Key, and for our Ingredients collection, we tell EF what property on the other side (Ingredient) it should use to associate to this Master's list of Ingredients using the InverseProperty attribute.
Attributes are just one option to set up the relationships etc. The other options are to use configuration classes that implement IEntityConfiguration<TEntity> (EF Core), or to configure them as part of the OnModelCreating event in the DbContext. That last option I would only recommend for very small projects as it can start to become a bit of a God method quickly. You can split it up into calls to various private methods, but you may as well just use IEntityConfiguration classes then.
Now when you go to fetch Ingredients with it's Master, or a Master with its Ingredients:
using (var context = new AppDbContext())
{
var ingredients = context.Ingredients
.Include(x => x.Master)
.Where(x => x.Master.Name.Contains("chicken"))
.ToList();
// or
var masters = context.Master
.Include(x => x.Ingredients)
.Where(x => x.Name.Contains("chicken"))
.ToList();
// ...
}
Repository patterns are a more advanced concept that have a few good reasons to implement, but for the most part they are not necessary and an anti-pattern within EF implementations. I consider Generic repositories to always be an anti-pattern for EF implementations. I.e. Repository<Ingredient> The main reason not to use repositories, especially Generic repositories with EF is that you are automatically increasing the complexity of your implementation and/or crippling the capabilities that EF can bring to your solution. As you see from working with your example, simply getting across an eager load through to the repository means writing in complex Expression<Func<TEntity>> parameters, and that just covers eager loading. Supporting projection, pagination, sorting, etc. adds even more boiler-plate complexity or limits your solution and performance without these capabilities that EF can provide out of the box.
Some good reasons to consider studying up on repository implementations /w EF:
Facilitate unit testing. (Repositories are easier to mock than DbContexts/DbSets)
Centralizing low-level data rules such as tenancy, soft deletes, and authorization.
Some bad (albeit very common) reasons to consider repositories:
Abstracting code from references or knowledge of the dependency on EF.
Abstracting the code so that EF could be substituted out.
Projecting to DTOs or ViewModels is an important aspect to building efficient and secure solutions with EF. It's not clear what "ObjectMapper" is, whether it is an Automapper Mapper instance or something else. I would highly recommend starting to grasp projection by using Linq's Select syntax to fill in a desired DTO from the models. The first key difference when using Projection properly is that when you project an object graph, you do not need to worry about eager loading related entities. Any related entity / property referenced in your projection (Select) will automatically be loaded as necessary. Later, if you want to leverage a tool like Automapper to help remove the clutter of Select statements, you will want to configure your mapping configuration then use Automapper's ProjectTo method rather than Map. ProjectTo works with EF's IQueryable implementation to resolve your mapping down to the SQL just like Select does, where Map would need to return everything eager loaded in order to populate related data. ProjectTo and Select can result in more efficient queries that can better take advantage of indexing than Eager Loading entire object graphs. (Less data over the wire between database and server/app) Map is still very useful such as scenarios where you want to copy values back from a DTO into a loaded entity.

Do it like this
public class Ingrident:Entity
{
public string Name { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(MasterId))]
public Master Master { get; set; }
public int MasterId { get; set; }
}

Entity framework 6 Concept clear regarding Remove, RemoveRange, EntityState.Deleted

I use Entity framework 6 in my projects and I always have doubts regarding some of the concepts which are used to delete objects using EF.
I still don't know which one works in which scenario. I just try all and if one works I leave it until the code is working. But no wi need to understand this concept once and for all. I did my research my unable to understand the concept clearly.
I have a domain class in EF which have multiple referencing entities. For example. I have a domain class called Course and It has multiple referencing objects mentioned below in the code.
public class Course
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public int CompanyId { get; set; }
public virtual Company Company { get; set; }
public virtual PricingSchedule PricingSchedule { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<CustomerCourse> AssignedCustomers { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<License> Licenses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<GroupLicense> GroupLicenses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<GroupCourse> GroupCourses { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Learner> Learners { get; set; }
}
Now I have to delete the course from the DB with all of its referencing entities. For example, If the course is deleting then its properties like AssignedCustomers, Licenses etc all must be deleted.
But I don't understand one thing using Entity framework.
For deleting an entity from DB we have multiple options like.
Remove
RemoveRange
EntityState.Deleted
Sometimes Remove works but sometime RemoveRange Works and sometime Entitystate.Deleted works. Why?
My code is for deleting a Course
var courses = _context.Courses
.Include("AssignedCustomers")
.Include("PricingSchedule")
.Include("Licenses")
.Include("GroupCourses")
.Include("GroupLicenses")
.Where(e => courseIds.Contains(e.Id)).ToList();
if (courses != null && courses.Count > 0)
{
courses.ForEach(currentCourse =>
{
_context.Entry(currentCourse.PricingSchedule).State = EntityState.Deleted;
Sometime remove range works and code run successfully
_context.CustomerCourses.RemoveRange(currentCourse.AssignedCustomers);
Below line of code gives me error but in other scenario it works why?
//currentCourse.AssignedCustomers.ToList().ForEach(ac =>
//{
// //currentCourse.AssignedCustomers.Remove(ac);
// _context.Entry(ac).State = EntityState.Deleted;
//});
_context.Entry(currentCourse).State = EntityState.Deleted;
});
}
_context.SaveChanges();
Can anyone explain to me the difference in which situation I should use what?
The error I receive most of the time is
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.
This error comes up when I use this piece of code
currentCourse.AssignedCustomers.ToList().ForEach(ac =>
{
_context.Entry(ac).State = EntityState.Deleted;
});
OR
currentCourse.AssignedCustomers.ToList().ForEach(ac =>
{
currentCourse.AssignedCustomers.Remove(ac):
});
after that when I hit SaveChanges The error comes up.

You need to set up the cascade rules in your schema and within Entity Framework so that it knows which related entities will be deleted when you go to delete a course. For instance you will want to cascade delete while others like Learner would likely have a null-able key which can be cleared if a course is removed.
Provided it is set up correctly, you should just need to use: context.Courses.Remove(course); and the related entities will be removed or disassociated automatically. Start with a simpler example of your parent-child relationships, one child to cascade delete, another to disassociate with a nullable FK. Your current example looks to also have many-to-many associations (GroupCourses) so depending on the mapping/relationships the approach will vary.

Entity Framework - Multiple 1 to 0..1 relationships using the same Key

I've read as many posts as I can on this topic but none of the solutions I have tried seem to work. I have an existing database and created a new Code First From Existing Database project.
I have a base table called Thing. Every object has a record in this table using Id as the Unique Primary Key. Each other object inherits from this but they use the same Id in the child tables without using a new Identity column in the sub tables. Effectively giving each 'Thing' a unique Id:
public class Thing
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Car
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//other properties
}
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//other properties
}
public class Color
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//other properties
}
Every new record first creates an item in 'Thing' and then using that Id value creates a new record in its respective table, creating multiple 1 to 0..1 relationships where the Id field on the derived tables is also the FK to Thing.
Thing 1 to 0..1 Car
Thing 1 to 0..1 Person
Thing 1 to 0..1 Color
and so on
I have tried many different Data Annotation and Fluent API combinations but it always comes back to the same error:
'Unable to retrieve metadata for Model.Car'. Unable to determine the principal end of association between the types 'Model.Thing' and 'Model.Car'. The principal end of this association must be explicitly configured using either the relationship fluent API or data annotations.'
I did manage to get past this error by using virtual with the inverse annotation and setting the Id field to be Key and ForeignKey, but then the message jumps to Person. If you then set it up the same as Car the message reverts back to Car.
It seems I could go back and create a normal Foreign Key to each child table, but that is a lot of work and I am sure it is possible to get this working somehow. Preferably using fluent API.

If you are going to use Data Annotations, you need to declare the PK of the dependent entity as FK too:
public class Thing
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual Car Car{get;set;}
}
public class Car
{
[Key,ForeignKey("Thing")]
public int ThingId { get; set; }
//other properties
public virtual Thing Thing{get;set;}
}
And if you are going to use Fluent Api (remove the attributes from your model), the configuration would be like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Car>().HasRequired(c=>c.Thing).WithOptional(t=>t.Thing);
Based on the multiplicity that is specified, it only makes sense for Thing to be the principal and Car to be the dependent, since a Thing can exist without a Car but a Car must have a Thing.
As you can see you don't need to specify that ThingId is the FK of this relationship.This is because of Entity Framework’s requirement that the primary key of the dependent be used as the foreign key. Since there is no choice, Code First will just infer this for you.
Update
Reading again your question I think you are trying to create a hierarchy. In that case you could use the Table per Type (TPT) approach.

Cascadable one-to-one, required:required relationship with EF

I have a Video class and a MediaContent class that are linked by a 1-1, required:required relationship: each Video must have exactly 1 associated MediaContent. Deleting a MediaContent object must result in the deletion of the associated Video object.
Using the fluent API, the relationship can be modeled as follows:
modelBuilder.Entity<Video.Video>()
.HasRequired(v => v.MediaContent).WithRequiredPrincipal(mc => mc.Video)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
When adding a migration to reflect this change in the database, this is how the relationship gets transcribed in terms of foreign keys:
AddForeignKey("MediaContents", "MediaContentId", "Videos", "VideoId", cascadeDelete: true);
Updating the database, I get the following error:
Cascading foreign key 'FK_MediaContents_Videos_MediaContentId' cannot be created where the referencing column 'MediaContents.MediaContentId' is an identity column.
Dropping the WillCascadeOnDelete(true) property removes the error, but I'm not sure I understand why. Shouldn't the error appear whether or not cascading is turned on? The way I understand the problem, the error comes from the fact that the generation of VideoId and MediaContentId is handled by auto-increment (or by whatever the id generation strategy is), potentially contradicting the foreign key constraint. But I can't see what this has to do with delete-cascading...
What am I missing? More generally, how would you go about modeling a cascadable one-to-one, required:required relationship with EF?

I avoid the modelBuilder cruft approach and use simple POCOs and attributes generally - which you can use to accomplish your goals like so:
public class Video
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// Adding this doesn't change the db/schema, but it is enforced in code if
// you try to add a Video without a MediaContent.
[Required]
public MediaContent MediaContent { get; set; }
}
public class MediaContent
{
[ForeignKey("Video")]
public int Id { get; set; }
public Video Video { get; set;}
}

Unhandled Exception after Upgrading to Entity Framework 4.3.1

Error:
Unhandled Exception: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: The operation failed because an index or statistics with name 'IX_ID' already exists on table 'PrivateMakeUpLessons'.
Model (Simplified, building in a separate test project for debugging):
public abstract class Lesson
{
public Guid ID { get; set; }
public string Room { get; set; }
public TimeSpan Time { get; set; }
public int Duration { get; set; }
}
public abstract class RecurringLesson : Lesson
{
public int DayOfWeek { get; set; }
public DateTime StartDate { get; set; }
public DateTime EndDate { get; set; }
public string Frequency { get; set; }
}
public class PrivateLesson : RecurringLesson
{
public string Student { get; set; }
public string Teacher { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Cancellation> Cancellations { get; set; }
}
public class Cancellation
{
public Guid ID { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public virtual PrivateLesson Lesson { get; set; }
public virtual MakeUpLesson MakeUpLesson { get; set; }
}
public class MakeUpLesson : Lesson
{
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Teacher { get; set; }
public virtual Cancellation Cancellation { get; set; }
}
Configuration:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Lesson>().ToTable("Lessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<RecurringLesson>().ToTable("RecurringLessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<PrivateLesson>().ToTable("PrivateLessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<MakeUpLesson>().ToTable("PrivateMakeUpLessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<Cancellation>()
.HasOptional(x => x.MakeUpLesson)
.WithRequired(x => x.Cancellation);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
Notes:
This worked fine in EF 4.2. Is there something wrong with my model? The actual model is much more complicated which is why I have all the classes abstracted out. Also, I am working against an existing database so I need to use Table-Per-Type inheritance.
If I change the relationship of Cancellation to PrivateMakeUpLesson from 1 to 0..1 to 0..1 to 0..1 it works. This is undesirable because you can't have a PrivateMakeUpLesson without a Cancellation.
Also, if I make PrivateMakeUpLesson NOT inherit from Lesson then it also works, but it IS a lesson and needs to remain so for existing business logic.
I'd appreciate any guidance. Thank you!
Edit:
Starting a bounty. I can't find any documentation on what changed between EF 4.2 and EF 4.3 with regard to the index generation for code first. It's clear that EF 4.3 is creating more indexes and that the naming scheme has changed but I want to know if there's a bug in EF or if there is something fundamentally wrong with my model or fluent API configuration.

As of EF 4.3, indexes are added for freign key columns during database creation. There is a bug that can cause an index to be created more than once. This will be fixed in a future EF release.
Until then, you can work around the issue by creating your database using Migrations instead of database initializers (or the Database.Create() method).
After generating the initial migration, you will need to delete the redundant call to Index().
CreateTable(
"dbo.PrivateMakeUpLessons",
c => new
{
ID = c.Guid(nullable: false),
...
})
.PrimaryKey(t => t.ID)
.ForeignKey("dbo.Lessons", t => t.ID)
.ForeignKey("dbo.Cancellations", t => t.ID)
.Index(t => t.ID)
.Index(t => t.ID); // <-- Remove this
To continue creating your database at run-time, you can use the MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion initializer.

In my opinion this is clearly a bug.
The problem starts with the observation that EF creates an index IX_ID at all. If you strip down the model to the following...
public abstract class Lesson
{
public Guid ID { get; set; }
}
public class RecurringLesson : Lesson
{
}
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Lesson> Lessons { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<RecurringLesson>().ToTable("RecurringLessons");
}
}
... and let EF create the database schema you get two tables Lessons and RecurringLessons as expected for a TPT inheritance mapping. But I am wondering why it creates two indices for the table RecurringLessons:
Index PK_RecurringLessons (clustered, unique) with Index column ID
Index IX_ID (not clustered, not unique) with Index column ID again
I don't know if there is any benefit for the database to have a second index on the same column. But for my understanding it doesn't make sense 1) to create an index on the same column that is already covered in the PK clustered index, and 2) to create a not unique index on a column which is the primary key and therefore necessarily unique.
Moreover due to the one-to-one relationship EF tries to create an index on the table of the dependent of this association which is PrivateMakeUpLessons. (It's the dependent (and not the principal) because Cancellation is required in entity MakeUpLesson.)
ID is the foreign key in this association (and primary key at the same time because one-to-one relationships are always shared primary key associations in Entity Framework). EF apparently always creates a index on the foreign key of a relationship. But for one-to-many relationships this is not a problem because the FK column is different from the PK column. Not so for one-to-one relatonships: The FK and PK are the same (that is ID), hence EF tries to create an index IX_ID for this one-to-one relationship which already exists due to the TPT inheritance mapping (which leads to a one-to-one relationship as well from database perspective).
The same consideration as above applies here: The table PrivateMakeUpLessons has a clustered PK index on column ID. Why is a second index IX_ID on the same column required at all?
In addition EF doesn't seem to check that it already wants to create an Index with name IX_ID for the TPT inheritance, leading finally to the exception in the database when the DDL is sent to create the database schema.
EF 4.2 (and before) didn't create any indices (except PK indices) at all, this was introduced in EF 4.3, especially indices for FK columns.
I didn't find a workaround. In the worst case you have to create the database schema manually and avoid that EF tries to create it (= disable database initialization). In the best case there is a way to disable automatic FK index creation, but I don't know if it's possible.
You can submit a bug report here: http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio
Or maybe someone from EF development team will see your question here and provide a solution.

I got a very similar error to this one in my code a while back. Try putting the cancellation list inside the Lesson class. That's what solved my problem.

Below I describe 2 scenarios what is probably going wrong. Please read in depth by clicking the links I provided to know more about my explanation.
First
Lesson and RecurringLesson are abstract classes (so you want to have it as the base classes).
You are creating a table of the Lesson and the RecurringLesson entities which will result in a Table per hierarchy structure.
brief description
Creating a class of the base table will result in one big table which contains the columns of all inherited tables. So all properties of PrivateLesson, MakeUpLesson and all others inherited entities will be stored in the Lessons table. EF will add also a Discriminator column. The value of this column defaults to the persistent class name (like "PrivateLesson" or "MakeUpLesson") only the column matching to that particular entity (matching the Discriminator value) will be used in that particular row.
BUT
You are also mapping the inherited classes like PrivateLesson and MakeUpLesson. This will force EF to use the Table per Type structure which results in one table per class. This can cause conflicts you are facing right now.
Second
Your example shows you have an one-to-one relationship (Cancellation -> MakeUpLesson) and a one-to-many relationship (Cancellation -> PrivateLesson) because PrivateLesson and MakeUpLessonare both (indirect) inherited from Lesson in combination with the first described scenario can cause problems because it will result in 2 foreign key relationships in the database per entity. (one using Table per hierarchy structure and one using the Table per Type structure).
Also this post can help you defining a correct one-to-one definition.
Please verify by performing the following steps:
I assume you have your own test environment so you can create new test databases
1.
Delete the relationships to the Cancellation by commenting out all properties to this class:
public class PrivateLesson : RecurringLesson
{
public string Student { get; set; }
public string Teacher { get; set; }
//public virtual ICollection<Cancellation> Cancellations { get; set; }
}
public class Cancellation
{
public Guid ID { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
//public virtual PrivateLesson Lesson { get; set; }
//public virtual MakeUpLesson MakeUpLesson { get; set; }
}
public class MakeUpLesson : Lesson
{
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Teacher { get; set; }
//public virtual Cancellation Cancellation { get; set; }
}
And remove the configuration to it:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Lesson>().ToTable("Lessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<RecurringLesson>().ToTable("RecurringLessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<PrivateLesson>().ToTable("PrivateLessons");
modelBuilder.Entity<MakeUpLesson>().ToTable("PrivateMakeUpLessons");
//modelBuilder.Entity<Cancellation>()
// .HasOptional(x => x.MakeUpLesson)
// .WithRequired(x => x.Cancellation);
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
2.
Create a new empty database
3.
Let EF generate the table structure for you in this empty database.
4.
Verify the first scenario. If that's true this need to be fixed first by using the Table per hierarchy structure OR the Table per Type structure. Probably you want to use the Table per hierarchy structure because (if I understand your question well) there is already an production environment.

When my project was updated from EF 6.0.2 to EF 6.1.1, I had such a problem, then back to 6.0.2, after the return of an older version, the error disappeared