I was reading this article http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/01/27/using-dbcontext-in-ef-feature-ctp5-part-2-connections-and-models.aspx and was trying to figure out how to create private setters (the section in the article DbContext with read-only set properties is right before the summary). How would you create private setters? I was playing around with different methods but nothing seemed to work. I am doing this because I need to group the original table based on a query I have because the original table is a heap and I need a primary key for the entity. So anytime a client asks for this table it is already grouped. Not even sure if this is the correct way to do that. Thanks.
EDIT: sorry for being vague. I am doing code first. For example there exists a SQL Table with JobNbr, Qty and Date and I need to group by JobNumber, sum on Qty and take the oldest expiration date, and that will be my entity since this table has no primary key. The way I am doing it now gives me the error below from a method I created in the DbContext class. I do have a EntityTypeConfiguration class. Do I do this in that class?
EDIT: : you might be wondering why I am doing this. Basically I need to get data from the heap and save it in another database. My original approach was database.SqlQuery() to get grouped rows from the heap, but sometimes I have too many parameters for execute_sql. So I decided to create an entity for the grouped query without tracking changes (since all I am doing is reading from the table and saving to another DB). See my post here with the issue I am having https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22106030/entity-framework-6-this-database-sqlquery-character-limitation-with-sp-executes. The only way I know to get around it is to create an entity (even though in this case the entity is a query and not a table).
The entity or complex type
' cannot be
constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.
Related
I want to persist a linked list of objects using in my ASP.Net Core application. For simplicity, I'll use blog and comments; although the real context is much more complex.
I scaffolded two tables, and changed ICollection<Comment> to LinkedList<Comment>. However, if I create an initial migration and apply to an empty database, I don't get anything "linked" in the database (no next or previous). Also, if I seed the data, and then do something like this:
var comments = _context.blogs.First().Comments
I get null. If I leave public virtual ICollection<Comment> Comments, I get the IEnumerable just fine.
I tried to use LinkedList<LinkedListNode<Comment>> instead, and it works nice unless I try to create a migration. Getting an error
No suitable constructor found for entity type 'LinkedListNode'. The following constructors had parameters that could not be bound to properties of the entity type: cannot bind 'value' in 'LinkedListNode(Comment value)'; cannot bind 'list', 'value' in 'LinkedListNode(LinkedList list, Comment value)'.
I couldn't find any guidance how to implement LinkedList in C#/.NET Core (obviously, I can do it manually, having next and prev fields - but I would very much prefer to use framework capabilities, if possible!)
I don't know much about MS SQL server, but the whole next and prev parts in mysql won't work because you can't map the keys it would require to track the fields properly because each link has to have an id in a database to link to. only thing I know of would be create the next/prev yourself and use some custom data persistence or data annotations. but the foreign key constraints I'm pretty sure on any relational database will prevent you from auto persisting those types of fields. reason being tracking deletes, inserts etc would be a nightmare because if you remove the middle of the chain, then the database has to try and guess where to link the ends to
I have two tables wherein i want to insert the data to the first one (MASTER) and the other table would copy some of the data from the Master table..
Here is my representation:
I want the Ven_ID to also be reflected in my Workflow table Workflow_ReqID automatically.
I know this is possible but can someone give me the directions ?
You can have a trigger/procedure at database level which will insert data into your second table. It depends if this table is updated anywhere else.
There are two ways to go about it :
Use SQL Server AFTER INSERT Trigger. You can find plenty of resources off the internet on how to create a trigger and how to declare its definition.
Another way to do it is through entity framework (I see you have tagged entityframework)
I will explain how you can use entity framework
Let's say you have the entity representing the WorkFlow table as WorkFlow and the table representing Ven (may be vendor) as Vendor.
Since you are having required foreign key in the WorkFlow table of the Vendor primary key, you must have a backing stub for that i.e. your WorkFlow table must have a virtual navigational property of type Vendor i.e.
public class WorkFlow
{
//other properties
public virtual Vendor Vendor{get;set;}
}
you just have to create WorkFlow object and the Vendor object (either create a new or retreive from db) and just assign it to the workflow object i.e.
WorkFlowObj.Vendor = objVendor
and EntityFramework will take care of rest.
I would prefer this way.
Though using triggers is not bad, but only problem with them is when you have to deploy, you must also deploy them triggers and every time you make changes to them, you must take care of them too.
If you want Ven_ID and Workflow_ReqID to be same get the Vent_ID in the output parameter in store procedure and pass it to the second table insert statement.
Get last inserted id using SCOPE_IDENTITY() after insertion and add it to workflow table. To save db trip you can use sproc for that.
My table Sections (SQL Server) has ID as a primary key (int, identity) and SortIndex column (int) for sorting purposes.
The database has a trigger which sets SortIndex := ID at each INSERT. Obviously I want to change the sorting index later, by swapping the values for two rows.
I access the data using Entity Framework, all with MVC3 web application.
The problem is, Entity Framework doesn't update the value of SortIndex after I insert a new object into the table. It also caches all the data, so the following call to get all objects from this table will also give wrong SortIndex value for this object.
I tried changing StoreGeneratedPattern for this column in EDMX. This seems to be great and elegant but doesn't solve the problem.
If I set to Identity, it causes EF to properly update the value, but it becomes read only (exception thrown when trying to change). Setting it to Computed is similar, but instead of exception being thrown the values are just not written to the DB.
I can recreate the EF object every time if I need to use it after inserting an object, just by doing:
DatabaseEntities db = new DatabaseEntities()
But it seems like ugly workaround for me.
What's a solution to this problem?
Obviously something, what doesn't require me to do some action after every insert (and take a risk that it's forgotten and unnoticed) is preferred.
In short StoreGeneratedPattern means: the value is handled by the store and your application will never modify it. In such case you will get store generated value automatically after you call SaveChanges.
If you don't use StoreGeneratedPattern you will not get value and you will have to force another query execution to refresh your entity. You can for example do:
objectContext.Refresh(RefreshMode.StoreWins, yourSection);
Generally situations where you need to update values in both database through triggers and application don't play very nicely with EF (and probably also other ORM tools).
I found the answer from 'Ladislav Mrnka' being exact and marked it as accepted. Here are other workarounds, which I found while trying to find some solution. However, the solution I was looking for is in general not possible.
One of possibilities is to set StoreGeneratedPattern = Computed to let EF know, this value is calculated. And then, make a Stored Procedure to actually change the value of SortIndex. Typically it would change values in two rows (swap them), to change the sorting order. This procedure along with a trigger at INSERT gives guarantee the data stays consistent in the DB. It's not possible to create new row without proper value set in SortIndex, it's not possible to make two objects have the same value (unless stored procedure has a bug) and it's not possible to manually break the value somehow, because it's not possible to edit through EF. Looks like a great solution.
It's easily possible to have stored procedures mapped to functions in EF.
The problem is, it's now fine to enter a new row and EF properly updates data in its cache, but the cache is not updated after calling the stored procedure. Still some manual updated or refresh function is needed. Otherwise the following call to get objects sorted by SortIndex will give wrong results.
Other than that, it's possible to set MergeOption = MergeOption.OverwriteChanges for several entities, which causes EF to update data from the DB somewhat better. With this being done, it's possible to reread the object after inserting it or calling stored procedure and it will get refreshed. However, reading a collection of objects with db.Section.OrderBy(o => o.SortIndex) will still return cached results with wrong sorting order.
If anyone is interested, it's possible to make MergeOption default to something else by adding EF partial class and then partial method OnContextCreated, like here:
public partial class DatabaseEntities
{
partial void OnContextCreated()
{
Subsection.MergeOption = MergeOption.OverwriteChanges;
Section.MergeOption = MergeOption.OverwriteChanges;
Function.MergeOption = MergeOption.OverwriteChanges;
}
}
Do you know if you'll work with that column again in the same request?
I would use the context per request scenario, which usually gets you out of many problem, because a new EF context is created with every request, so you have a fresh data once per request.
With long lived context, there can grow incosistencies as you described.
Anyways the StoreGeneratedPattern setted to computed should be right. But it updates itself only when you're storing the actual entity. It's not getting updated by inserting or updating any other entity.
from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd296755(v=vs.90).aspx
If you create a new entity or change an existing entity, the values of properties with StoreGeneratedPattern set to Computed are retrieved from the server when you call the SaveChanges method in your application.
If you assign a value to a property with StoreGeneratedPattern set to Computed in your application, the value will be overwritten with the server-generated value when you call the SaveChanges method.
We're using the computed value option for SQL sequenced GUID, and it's working OK.
I had a similar situation with a Sql Server Quote table with a varchar QuoteNumber column that is a non-primary unique key whose value is generated by an after-insert trigger. The trigger is used because the generated value is derived by fetching data from a foreign key table. Sql Server schema identity declarations do not allow you to pull information from other tables.
I'd like EF to treat this varchar column like an identity and do nothing to it on update and reread it after insert. EF will do so if there is a .HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema.DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity) property to a non-identity column in the code it generates to configure the Entity like so (scroll right):
public QuoteConfiguration(string schema)
{
ToTable("Quote", schema);
HasKey(x => x.ID);
Property(x => x.ID).HasColumnName(#"ID").HasColumnType("int").IsRequired().HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema.DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity);
Property(x => x.QuoteNumber).HasColumnName(#"Quote_Number").HasColumnType("varchar").IsOptional().IsUnicode(false).HasMaxLength(64).HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema.DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity);
}
My EF model is code first and generated by Simon Hughes' EntityFramework Reverse POCO Generator. At first, I could not figure out how to make the generator add this property to a column that is not declared as an identity in Sql Server.
Rereading the entire Quote entity after insert did not retrieve the auto-generated QuoteNumber. Then I discovered that re-reading just the QuoteNumber column after insert defeated the entity cache. But, I felt dirty doing it.
Finally, I worked with Simon Hughes to discover how to get his EF Reverse POCO to do it for me. You just extend the UpdateColumn function in your *.tt file like so:
Settings.UpdateColumn = (Column column, Table table) =>
{
if (table.Name.Equals("Quote", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase)
&& column.Name.Equals("Quote_Number", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
column.IsStoreGenerated = true;
}
}
I have these two related tables Client (ClientId, Name) and ClientDescription (ClientDescriptionId, (FK) ClientId, Description). That is to say each Client can have many associated descriptions. Now, when displaying the a list of ClientDescriptions, I also need to know what the Name of it's associated Client is.
Now you'll probably say that I allready have this information, since I can simply follow my navigation property back to the associated Client and use its Name. I can't do that because I'm autogenerating a grid in Ria services, and this just gives me a count for navigation properties, and I haven't found a way to flatten this down in my metadata file. Hence why I want a property.
The whole idea is that I want to be able to add a new field to my database, update my entity classes from the database and regenerate my domain service, and the new field should just pop up in my grid. I shouldn't have to update my xaml just because my database happen to have an extra field.
So, what I would like to do is add a ClientName field to the entity (clr object), but keep my database clean (no such denormalization in the db).
So, I generated my edmx, and added a new property named ClientName. Set it to StoreGeneratedPattern.Computed, and compiled. I then get a nasty little error
Error 3004: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line NN: No mapping specified for properties (etc..)
The solution apparently is to generate my database from my edmx. (Or that's what answers to questions about that error seems to yield.) But this generates an actual DB-field, which I don't want, so that answer doesn't apply to my case.
So my question is: How can I denormalize my clr entity, but keep my db tables normalized?
Edit: I guess this question can be generalized a bit. The issue would be the same if ClientDescription contained a few numeric fields that I wanted to do some calculations on, and I wanted the result available as a field and the algorithm should be in c# rather than in my database.
To answer your more generalized question:
Entities are generated by the Entity Framework with a partial keyword.
This means that the code of an entity can be split in multiple source files in the same namespace and assembly. One will contain the generated code from the Entity Framework, the other will contain custom properties and methods.
If for example, your entity has the database fields Price and Amount you could add a property in the partial class TotalPrice which would return Price * Amount.
Then the algorithm will be C# and your database won't know about the extra property.
Sooo basically I have a table called Comment. On that table I have three fields,
ID
Title
Text
I've created an Entity object for the table already and it maps all three fields, but what I want now is another Entity called CommentHeader that will map only ID and Title. I want to only load the titles of all the comments and not the text for speed reasons. So what's the best way for going about this?
I'm not looking for a Select statement with a var object. I can figure that one out on my own and I really don't like that solution because I'd much rather abstract it behind an Entity object.
I've tried the obvious solution, which was to just copy the original Entity object and delete Text from it. That resulted in an error because only one Entity can map to one table without conditions. It sounds to me like I have no choice but to use a Select statement. I just wanted to make sure before I did something stupid.
(By the way this example only has three fields for simplicity's sake. Assume that the header could have considerably more fields in it. This is the primary reason I don't want to just use a select with a var object, because it's not just one field but could be a whole bunch of fields).
The easiest way probably would be to create a view ("CommentHeaders") in the database that only selects ID and title from the Comment table. Then update your model and add the view, which will create a new entity based on those columns.