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.
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; }
}
My problem looks simple. I need to implement a relationships between items in the database. For example: relationship between entities like computer and software shows users that computer stores a specific software and similarly - a software is installed in the specific computer. I think I should implement an entity with source id and target id or something similar. I wrote some code using code first in EntityFramework 6. Here are two classes:
public class ConfigurationItem
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public String Name { get; set; }
public String DeploymentState { get; set; }
public String IncidentState { get; set; }
[DataType(DataType.MultilineText)]
public String Description { get; set; }
[DataType(DataType.MultilineText)]
public String Note { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Relationship> Relationship { get; set; }
}
public class Relationship
{
[Key]
public int RelationshipId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ConfigurationItem")]
public int SourceId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ConfigurationItem")]
public int TargetId { get; set; }
public String Type { get; set; }
public virtual ConfigurationItem Source { get; set; }
public virtual ConfigurationItem Target { get; set; }
}
This solution doesn't work. I need a tip or something what should I try to make it work properly. EF throws an error about foreign key:
The ForeignKeyAttribute on property 'SourceId' on type 'cms_1.Models.Relationship' is not valid. The navigation property 'ConfigurationItem' was not found on the dependent type 'cms_1.Models.Relationship'. The Name value should be a valid navigation property name.
When I try to resolve it EF throws an error about cascade deleting. I know how to disable it but I just don't want to. I need a proper solution with that feature but I think I don't know how to do a model representing given scenario.
Simply - I need to store two foreign keys from entity "A" in the entity "B". How is it possible?
from a quick review , I can tell that you need 3 tables :
first : Computer
second : Software
third : a table , lets call it ComputerSoftware which tell which software has in what computer ( or you can also see it - which computer use what software ), which has ComputerID column and SoftwareID column.
example (source)
class Country
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<CountryCurrency> CountryCurrencies { get; set; }
}
class Currency
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
class CountryCurrency
{
[Key, Column(Order=0)]
public virtual int CountryId { get; set; }
[Key, Column(Order=1)]
public virtual int CurrencyId { get; set; }
public virtual Country Country { get; set; }
public virtual Currency Currency { get; set; }
}
Your issue could be that in the migration file creating those tables, it will have something like
.ForeignKey("dbo.Relationship", t => t.Id, cascadeDelete: true)
This will be set on both tables, ConfigurationItem and Relationship of their Primary Key fields. When you delete one, that config tells SQL Server to delete the relationships as well and the relationship probably has a cascadeDelete: true to the parent. This will cause the cyclical cascading delete issue you are experiencing.
After the migration has been generated, go in and change one or all to cascadeDelete: false and this will fix that issue. This is what EF generates by default if I recall.
public class Product
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public decimal Price { get; set; }
public bool IsInStock { get; set; }
public string ImageUrl { get; set; }
public List<ProductOption> ProductOptions { get; set; }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
}
public class ProductOption
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string ProductOptionName { get; set; }
public string ProductOptionDescription { get; set; }
}
Now I know when your using Code First EF, so that the tables are created correctly. You need to do something like this.
modelBuilder.Entity<Product>().HasMany(p => p.ProductOptions).WithMany().Map(m =>
{
m.MapLeftKey("ProductId").MapRightKey("ProductOptionId").ToTable("SelectedProductOptionsInOrderedItem");
});
So....
Does this mean that if I do something like Product.ProductOptions I will be able to access all associated productoptions.
Is this the best way to set it up, or is there another way?
To enable lazy load and EF can create derived proxy types for your collection, that property should be declared this way:
public virtual ICollection<ProductOptions> ProductOptions { get; set; }
That should be enought. Other aspect is the mapping approach that you use. You choose fluent api, i prefer mapping by convention, but that is a matter of personal taste anyway.
Ok, Mapping by Conventions:
Is the ability of EF that from the name of entities and their properties along with their types, to map our model with the underlying data without providing any other information.
for example
public class Customer {
public long CustomerID {get; September;}
public string CustomerName {get; September;}
public Employee AssignedTo {get; September;}
}
With the previous model EF will map database with a table named Customer with:
. CustomerID bigint primary key column
. CustomerName nvarchar column
. Customer_EmployeeID foreign key to Employee table, with the datatype Corresponding to EmployeeID in that table.
You can read more Here
I have a one-to-many relationship of order to payment:
public class Order
{
[Key]
public Guid SerialNumber { get; set; }
public string OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
[ForeignKey("OrderNumber")]
public virtual ICollection<Payment> Payments { get; set; }
}
public class Payment
{
[Key]
public string SerialNumber { get; set; }
public string OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
public decimal Amount { get; set; }
}
Despite the records being available, the Payments collection always shows 0 elements. I've looked at the trace and the problem seems to be with the generated SQL query - it's trying to match Order.SerialNumber to Payment.OrderNumber.
How can I resolve this, preferably with data annotations? Thanks in advance!
it's trying to match Order.SerialNumber to Payment.OrderNumber.
Yes because that is exactly what you have modeled. ForeignKey attribute doesn't describe the name of foreign key property in the related table. It describes the name of foreign key property in the same table and it is used to pair navigation property with its key so the correct usage is:
public class Order
{
[Key]
public Guid SerialNumber { get; set; }
public string OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
public virtual ICollection<Payment> Payments { get; set; }
}
public class Payment
{
[Key]
public string SerialNumber { get; set; }
// Foreign key must have the same type as primary key in the principal table
public Guid OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
public decimal Amount { get; set; }
// Reverse navigation property to principal associated with foreign key
[ForeignKey("OrderNumber")]
public virtual Order Order { get; set; }
}
If you don't want navigation property in Payment you have to use fluent API to describe the mapping:
modelBuilder.Entity<Order>()
.HasMany(o => o.Payments)
.WithRequired()
.HasForeignKey(p => p.OrderNumber);
If you have existing database and your relation really targets OrderNumber column in the Order table it means it must be marked with unique constraint - such relation currently cannot be mapped in EF because it doesn't support unique constraints yet.