I have 2 simple tables Order and Order Type.
I want to know if there is a way to reverse navigate the entity, where I can select the ordertype entity and show all orders entities.
Yes. I assume an order has one order type.
public class Order
{
public virtual OrderType Type { get; set; }
}
public class OrderType
{
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
I made the navigation properties virtual to enable lazy loading. If you want to, you can also add the foreign key property: (assuming you use a long key)
public class Order
{
[ForeignKey("Type")]
public long TypeId{ get; set; } //Can also be nullable (long?) if you want
public virtual OrderType Type { get; set; }
}
public class OrderType
{
[Key]
public long Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
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.
I am new to .NET Core and using EF Core 2
My domain objects are all derived from a base class with some audit fields on it that get set on SaveChanges as needed:
(Simplified below)
public abstract class AuditableEntity
{
public DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("CreatedBy")]
public Guid? CreatedByWebUserId { get; set; }
public WebUser CreatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime? UpdatedOn { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UpdatedBy")]
public Guid? UpdatedByWebUserId { get; set; }
public WebUser UpdatedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime? DeletedOn { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("DeletedBy")]
public Guid? DeletedByWebUserId { get; set; }
public WebUser DeletedBy { get; set; }
}
On add-migration, I get the error:
Unable to determine the relationship represented by navigation property
'Address.CreatedBy' of type 'WebUser'. Either manually configure the
relationship, or ignore this property using the '[NotMapped]' attribute or by
using 'EntityTypeBuilder.Ignore' in 'OnModelCreating'.
Address is one of the classes derived from AuditableEntity:
(Simplified below)
public class Address : AuditableEntity
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Nickname { get; set; }
public string Address1 { get; set; }
public string Address2 { get; set; }
public string Address3 { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
public string StateProvince { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
public string CountryCode { get; set; }
public decimal Latitude { get; set; }
public decimal Longitude { get; set; }
}
However, I have several objects that use the same "agent and timestamp" pair pattern similar to the above that work just fine such as:
public DateTime? VerifiedOn { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("VerifiedBy")]
public Guid? VerifiedByWebUserId { get; set; }
public WebUser VerifiedBy { get; set; }
The error always comes from Address, and if I remove the base class from Address everything works fine (meaning, these fields get successfully applied to my 15+ other domain objects).
The issue seemingly stems from WebUser having a reference to Address:
(Simplified below)
public class WebUser : AuditableEntity
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public string Phone1 { get; set; }
public string Phone1Type { get; set; }
public string Phone2 { get; set; }
public string Phone2Type { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("AddressId")]
public Address Address { get; set; }
public Guid? AddressId { get; set; }
}
What is the correct way of creating these references prioritizing keeping the FK constraints (over keeping the ability to navigate)?
The problem is unrelated to the usage of a base class (the same will happen if you remove the base class, but copy its properties to Address class), but the multiple cross references between the two classes.
By convention EF Core tries to automatically "pair" navigation properties of the two entities in order to form a single relationship, which succeeds in most of the cases. However in this case the WebUser has Address type navigation property and Address class has WebUser type navigation property (actually 3).
Since all they have associated FK property via ForeignKey data annotation, EF Core should be able to correctly identify them as different one-to-many relationships, but it doesn't. Not only it fails with the exception in question, but also doesn't create FK relationships for the WebUser.
Everything works correctly if the base class contains only 1 WebUser type of navigation property, so I'm assuming thet unfortunately you are hitting some current EF Core bug.
As a workaround until they fixed it, I would suggest explicitly configuring the problematic relationships using fluent API, by overriding the OnModelCreating and adding the following code:
var auditableEntityTypes = modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().Where(t => t.ClrType.IsSubclassOf(typeof(AuditableEntity)));
var webUserNavigations = new[] { nameof(AuditableEntity.CreatedBy), nameof(AuditableEntity.DeletedBy), nameof(AuditableEntity.UpdatedBy) };
foreach (var entityType in auditableEntityTypes)
{
modelBuilder.Entity(entityType.ClrType, builder =>
{
foreach (var webUserNavigation in webUserNavigations)
builder.HasOne(typeof(WebUser), webUserNavigation).WithMany();
});
}
i.e. for each entity class that derives from AuditableEntity we explicitly configure the 3 WebUser reference navigation properties to be mapped to 3 separate one-to-many relationships with no inverse collection navigation properties. Once we do that, EF Core has no problem to correctly map the WebUser.Address FK association.
I have a DbContext which I via the developer command prompt and creating a migrations schema turn in to my database. But if you look at the product object I have a dictionary object named Parts. That property does not get added to the Product table when the database is updated in the command prompt. I don't even know if it is possible what I am trying to do.
I want to add a table in the database named Parts and then add a foreign key to the Product table which connects the Parts dictionary object in the Product table, and the the new Parts table. Is this possible with Entity Framework Core?
public class ShoppingDbContext : IdentityDbContext<User>
{
public ShoppingDbContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options)
{
}
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
{
base.OnConfiguring(optionsBuilder);
}
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
public DbSet<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
public class Product
{
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
public double Price { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
Dictionary<string, Part> Parts { get; set; }
}
EF Core can't currently map a dictionary property directly. If you want to create an association between Products and Parts, then define each of them as an entity. You can then create navigation properties between them--a reference from Part to the Product which it belongs, and a collection of Parts on Product. For example:
public class Product
{
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
public double Price { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public ICollection<Part> Parts { get; set; }
}
public class Part
{
public int PartId { get; set; }
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public Product Product { get; set;}
}
Part also defines a property ProductId that acts as the FK to the Product entity. You don't need to add that property--EF will simulate it for you if you don't want it, but usually it is easier to deal with entities if the FK is mapped to a property.
Relationships are tracked through object references instead of foreign key properties. This type of association is called an independent association.
More Details Here:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj713564.aspx
Sample code:
public partial class Product
{
public Product()
{
this.Parts = new HashSet<Part>();
}
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
public double Price { get; set; }
public int CategoryId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Part> Parts { get; set; }
}
Basically like what Arthur said, EF Core does not support it yet.
However, another way is to create a composite table should you want to or if it's viable for your use.
Here's a simple example:
// -------------- Defining BrandsOfCategories Entity --------------- //
modelBuilder.Entity<BrandCategory>()
.HasKey(input => new { input.BrandId, input.CatId })
.HasName("BrandsOfCategories_CompositeKey");
modelBuilder.Entity<BrandCategory>()
.Property(input => input.DeletedAt)
.IsRequired(false);
// -------------- Defining BrandsOfCategories Entity --------------- //
public class BrandCategory
{
public int CatId { get; set; }
public int BrandId { get; set; }
public DateTime? DeletedAt { get; set; }
public Category Category { get; set; }
public Brands Brand { get; set; }
}
The DeletedAt is optional of course. This handles M-M Relationships.
I had the same issue, I resolved it by removing the keyword virtual on the navigation properties and with in the ApplicatinDbContext
I'm fairly new to Entity Framework and feel more in control using the Code-First pattern rather than DB-First.
I was wondering what is more preferred when it comes to programmatically setting up ForeignKey relations between the entities.
Is it better to declare a FK_ property in the class which relates to the another class or is it better to declare an IEnumerable<> property in the class that gets related to?
public class IRelateToAnotherClass
{
...
public int FK_IGetRelatedToByAnotherClass_ID { get; set; }
}
or
public class IGetRelatedToByAnotherClass
{
...
public IEnumerable<IRelateToAnotherClass> RelatedTo { get; set; }
}
It all depends on what type of relationships you want between your entities (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many); but, yes, you should declare foreign key properties. Check out this site for some examples.
Here's a one-to-many for your two classes:
public class IRelateToAnotherClass
{
public int Id { get; set; } // primary key
public virtual ICollection<IGetRelatedToByAnotherClass> IGetRelatedToByAnotherClasses { get; set; }
}
public class IGetRelatedToByAnotherClass
{
public int Id { get; set; } // primary key
public int IRelateToAnotherClassId { get; set; } // foreign key
public virtual IRelateToAnotherClass IRelateToAnotherClass { get; set; }
}
and with some Fluent API mapping:
modelBuilder.Entity<IGetRelatedToByAnotherClass>.HasRequired<IRelateToAnotherClass>(p => p.IRelateToAnotherClass).WithMany(p => p.IGetRelatedToByAnotherClasses).HasForeignKey(p => p.Id);
If I understand what you're asking correctly, you'd want both. You want an int FK property and an object property to use as the navigation property.
The end result would look something like this:
public class Employee
{
[Key]
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Store")]
public int StoreNumber { get; set; }
// Navigation Properties
public virtual Store Store { get; set; }
}
public class Store
{
[Key]
public int StoreNumber { get; set; }
// Navigation Properties
public virtual List<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
}
If you haven't already, take a look at navigation properties and lazy-loading. Note that EF is clever enough to figure out that an int StoreID property corresponds to an object Store property, but if they are named differently (such as without the ID suffix), you must use the [ForeignKey] annotation.
I am wondering if anyone could advise me on how to accomplish the below using code first in EF6
If I add the Table_3 as a List on to Table_1 & Table_2 in my entities. EF automatically generates a foreign key column for both tables in Table_3 instead of recognizing that they are of the same type.
My model classes are set as follows.
public interface IParent
{
int ID { get; set; }
List<Table_3> Children { get; set; }
}
public class Table_1 : IParent
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual List<Table_3> Children { get; set; }
}
public class Table_2 : IParent
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual List<Table_3> Children { get; set; }
}
public class Table_3
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public int ParentID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentID")]
public virtual IParent Parent { get; set; }
}
EF code first generates the below
Edit
Just to let anyone having the same problems know
I have now resolved this by changing the IParent interface to an abstract class
my classes now look like the following
[Table("ParentBase")]
public abstract class ParentBase
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public List<Table_3> Children { get; set; }
}
[Table("Table_1")]
public class Table_1 : ParentBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
[Table("Table_2")]
public class Table_2 : ParentBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
[Table("Table_3")]
public class Table_3
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public int ParentID { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ParentID")]
public virtual ParentBase Parent { get; set; }
}
with a table arrangement of
this will work although it would have been nicer if the original could have been met.
I had this problem too, and I used abstract class instead of interface from the beginning.
The problem for mine was my table_3 have two navigation properties:
one is public virtual Table_1, another is public virtual Table_2, and then EF just provisioned these extra foreign key columns,
I merged the two navigation properties into one to
public virtual parentbase {get;set;}. And then it worked. Hope this helps.
Side Note,Would suggest to add virtual keyword on public List Children { get; set; } in parentbase class, because in your previous example , it was already like that.
Thanks for posting this, i came across this issue too.
You can also do like the following where you make a 1 to many relationship between Table_1 and Table_2 with Table_3 respectively:
modelBuilder.Entity<Table_3>().HasOptional(/*Nav Prop*/).WithMany(m => m.Table_3s).HasForeignKey(f => f.ParentId).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<Table_3>().HasOptional(/*Nav Prop*/).WithMany(m => m.Table_3s).HasForeignKey(f => f.ParentId).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
Let me know if anymore clarification is required.